The doctrine of the SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD is that He can do whatever He pleases. There are no limits upon Him, and we cannot impose upon Him human conceptions of Right and Wrong. The criteria by which He judges are beyond our understanding and don’t have to conform with any human notion of Justice. If He wishes to sentence the majority of humanity to Eternal Damnation (conceived of by some as a pit of flames, literally speaking!), and save the Chosen Elect, He is quite entitled to do so. Furthermore this Chosen Elect do not require any extraordinary human or moral qualities, but rather may be chosen simply for professing the ‘correct’ doctrine. Because God can judge by whatever standard He wishes, He is quite entitled to judge in this way.
Or is He, in fact? Are there limitations on God’s Sovereignty? Are there things that God cannot do? If so, who or what is not allowing Him to do those things, what is the source of the limitation on His power?
First we must consider what is meant by the notion that God is not limited by human conceptions of Right and Wrong, Good and Bad. The key question about this is, what exactly do we mean by
human conceptions? It is clear that everyone has an intellect, that there are different types of intelligence, that there are different conceptions about reality held by different individuals. All of these conceptions form a great morass of contradictory ideas which are constantly being debated, discussed, fought over with arms and such.
Why is this? We can say that it is because humanity’s psyche is in a subjective and disordered state. This subjectivity is limited vision, is an incapacity to comprehend the reality around us. This subjectivity is a one-sidedness, an inability to perceive what Kant called the “thing-in-itself”. Such disordered mentation produces opinion, which is a kind of judgement about reality founded to a certain extent in fact and to a certain extent in falsity, but which is never actually identical with THE REAL as such. The great Plato says:
“Understand then, that it is the same with the soul, thus: when it settles itself firmly in that region in which truth and real being brightly shine, it understands and knows it and appears to have reason; but when it has nothing to rest on but that which is mingled with darkness—that which becomes and perishes, it opines, it grows dim-sighted, changing opinions up and down, and is like something without reason.”
It is not only the mentally ill who are “out of touch with reality”. Indeed, the delirious conceptions of lunatics often contain a great deal of Truth, albeit in disordered form. All opinion is a form of projection upon the living and breathing existence of the world around us. This living and breathing existence is the Truth, at least in a relative sense. How then can we access this Truth? What is the method by which we can transcend mere subjective ideation? Can it be transcended, or is it, as the philosophers of deconstructionism and postmodernity hold, inescapable?
In order to make progress with this question, it is necessary to recognise the Nature Of Mind. We are constantly engaged in various types of internal processes accompanied by some kind of inner voice or commentary. If we do intellectual work we go through processes of thinking and reasoning about subjects and come up with logically consistent or logically inconsistent conclusions. Now, this is an important point, in fact. There are conclusions which appear to be logically consistent, yet which fold under more scrupulous analysis.
For example, the Atheists conclude that as there is no evidence of God, in the sense of visible signs, that God does not exist. They ignore that the existence of Divinity is proved by the simple fact of human consciousness, the Light which shines in the midst of the darkness of non-being. From whence comes this light, if not from God? Ponder that a little.
In more concrete matters, people continue to believe in the neo-liberal economic system, that the rich getting richer will somehow make the world a happier place, despite the fact that it is clear to see that happiness lies in co-operation rather than competition, in meaningful labour rather than seeking only wealth. It is undeniable that we are lied to every day, that it is desired that we simply consume, and shut up, and don’t question. Yet people will nonetheless obstinately believe that this is not the case, based on faulty logic. They may base their notions on the “laws” of economics, that “perfectly competitive markets” are the answer to our problems. They ignore that consumers are not rational, as economics believes, being made irrational by such factors as advertising and peer pressure, brainwashed effectively. Furthermore, the “social welfare function”, the form and regulations of the economy which would actually contribute the most to human happiness, has admittedly not been discovered, it’s “decision rule is unknown”. With this latter point, the whole “science” collapses, like the allegorical house built upon the sand.
What we are suggesting is that subjective intellect is never, in reality, logically consistent, why? Because it comes from the Mind, which in human beings of the present time is in a state of disorder and chaos. Indeed it would be better to call us “Intellectual Animals”. We are almost constantly projecting, because we are almost constantly ruled over by the chaos of the Mind, disorder and subjectivity. But then, you may object, if we are constantly in a state of projections how can we have any insight into an Objective Truth? Better to abandon the quest and simply accept subjectivity as the sole standard of verification. Yet there is a kind of fatalism in this idea, and fatalism is destructive, tending towards nihilism.
Evidently, and as our experience attests, there are moments of Clarity experienced by all human beings, moments when the discursive mind stops and we intuitively grasp something of the Great Reality. We have all experienced this, though we may not be fully aware that we have. Following these moments, we tend to take the intuitive insight and slot it into our intellectual system in some way, construct some slightly altered kind of subjective ideas based on the non-subjective Illumination. Yet it is quite possible to overcome to some extent this tendency and develop some lasting and coherent Insight into Objective Reality, Truth. For the method of doing this, we must turn to religion.
Buddhism is a religion where God is irrelevant. Not denied as some believe, simply irrelevant. It is a religion based around a technique of Ascesis and Meditation, with it’s fundamental aim being to develop Insight Into Reality.
The Ascetic element of Buddhism is due to the fact that the more we are consumed by the addiction to sensual enjoyment, the less we are able to separate ourselves from the discursive Mind, the “monkey mind” as it is called in Zen, or perhaps we could say “carnal mind”. This is the mind which is constantly moving all over the place, flitting from one subject to another, “remembering the past and anticipating the future”. Our addictions, our dissoluteness, occupies our thoughts and prevents us from developing detachment, which is the source of clarity. The Meditative element of Buddhism further cultivates this detachment through the repetition of the exercise of concentration and stilling our restless tendency. This helps us to be open and receptive, rather than being caught up in thought processes, projections.
A person who actually sees Reality exactly as it is without subjective projection, would be a Buddha, a “Fully Awakened One”. Of course this is a very exalted and lofty state, which only illustrates to us quite how powerfully we are consumed by subjectivity. In some forms of Buddhism all the subjective mental states based on negative emotions are actually delineated and separately listed, and there are very many of them! Nonetheless it is quite possible for ordinary people to develop “Samadhi” through persistent practise. This “Samadhi” effectively means Insight, the moment when the meditator and the object of meditation become one, which was earlier referred to as Clarity. In fact it is Clarity in a much deeper sense than we might usually associate with that word, a type of Clarity which can extend to a Metaphysical level. It is a wellspring of Direct Insight permeating the Consciousness and uplifting the life of a person.
Now, it is the type of Clarity extending to the metaphysical that we must deal with here, our question being about the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God. The perceptive among you will have noticed that we have just jumped from a teaching without God – Buddhism – to a question about the Deity whose existence Buddhists are unconcerned about. But the example of Buddhism was given simply to point to the whole idea of a non-subjective Reality attainable by spiritual practise. In fact all genuine and serious religions have the exact same foundations as Buddhism - Ascesis and techniques of Meditation, and though these techniques differ in Form they are quite the same in Essence.
What we develop through such techniques, Direct Insight into Spiritual Realities (without excluding worldly realities) is most appropriately known as GNOSIS. The powerful tremble at the word, knowing that it signifies religion without the intermediary of priests and the overthrowing of the dogmas by which humanity is oppressed and controlled. Someone who has experienced Gnosis is a danger to the powerful. They have perceived something of God, and they don’t need their perceptions to conform to the misguided notions popularized by the Pharisaic powers-that-be.
The philosophy of Plato is truly something very transcendental, a philosophy of Gnosis in a very pure form. This is abundantly clear in his famous “Allegory of the Cave”, which is effectively the story of every prophet who has ever arisen in this world. Many religious people are suspicious of philosophers, sometimes going so far as to reject them completely, perhaps based on their reactions to the decadence which masquerades as philosophy in these times. This is surely their misfortune, as without exposure to philosophy they will never understand the beauty of genuine philosophical coherence, and their own views will remain shallow and undeveloped. Even the most materialistic and gross philosophies, sophistries, contain some Intelligence, at the least a kind of Shadow of Wisdom, which can be useful for our personal development. The character of Socrates developed his ideas through disputing with the sophists. The higher philosophies – Kant and Hegel for example – are founded on deep insights into reality, even if they are untenable in some extraneous details.
What we find particularly interesting in Plato, in relation to our topic, is his THEORY OF FORMS. The Forms are IDEAS in their purest form and in complete abstraction. That is to say that they are devoid of any Temporal element, they are Eternal and Self-Existing. This is another way of saying they are LOGOS, perfect Logic, devoid of any subjective element, flawless. The Forms will serve as the basis for our analysis of the Sovereignty of God.
But the philosophy of Plato is still in the realm of “human” conceptions, some will immediately object. We respectfully disagree, it is not the same as the disordered conceptions of the “Intellectual Animal”. Plato’s philosophy is not founded in the ultimately incoherent logic of subjectivity, because as we have mentioned it is one-hundred percent Gnostic. It is not the product of untamed intellect and speculative theorising, but of a wholly sincere and self-denying process of questioning. It’s difference from subjective sophistry is like the difference between a musician who knows the notes, scales and harmonies, and someone who just picks up an instrument and starts making a sound with it. That is not to say that it is “Absolute Truth” because such a level of Truth cannot be systematized, but it is founded on Direct Insight into Reality of the same kind as is brought about by any form of the aforementioned processes of Ascesis and Meditation. Plato was perhaps among the sages like Buddha, Christ, Krishna, who reached such a high level of development as to be free from subjective bias, or was at the very least a mouthpiece of such perennial wisdom, being an Initiate of the Elusinian Mysteries. His teachings are true Philos Sophia, Dharma.
Returning to the Theory of the Forms, for Plato the highest Form was the form of GOODNESS. He says:
"As goodness stands in the intelligible realm to intelligence and the things we know, so in the visible realm the sun stands to sight and the things we see."
This is actually wholly compatible with the notion found in the Gospel Of John that Christ is the Logos. What greater Goodness can be imagined than to sacrifice oneself fully for the uplifting of humanity? Furthermore this fits neatly with Plato’s analogy comparing Goodness to the Sun. Every culture contains some variant of the Solar Myth, the Dying God who is then Resurrected such as Dionysus (like Christ, associated with wine) and festivals associated with the Solstices. Christ’s interpreters in organized religion hate this idea, they want to be the only ones in possession of the Truth, and the notion that the Christ is a Universal Archetype is offensive to them. Well, let the Pharisees be Pharisees if that’s what they want -
"If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains”, the Messiah tells us.
Incidentally, many of the Neo-Platonists spoke not of Goodness but of “The One” as the highest Form. Here we will concern ourselves with Goodness, as “The One” is more an Ontological than Existential concept, and deals with a level of abstraction which is the Absolute (the Kabbalistic Ain, Ain Soph, Ain Soph Aur) rather than the Logos (the Kabbalistic Kether, Chokmah, Binah). It is not necessary to make any kind of metaphysical distinction about the correct or incorrect Highest Form here, it is not relevant to our subject. We are dealing with the realm of individual beings, our separated existence which is life on Earth, from which the Absolute is very far detached, hence it is Plato’s concept which is important, which it is possible to draw conclusions from. The Absolute is separated from the life of humanity by an impassible gulf beyond which there is no individual existence. We can know God the Logos through Reason, but in regard to the Absolute reasoning is effectively futile.
What does this mean, to say Goodness is the Highest Form? It is to say that the Nature of God is Goodness. Of course here we only see a reflection of Goodness, like everything else in this realm of shadows. Nonetheless it is quite possible for us to draw some conclusions about the Ultimate Goodness from the Goodness we see in the physical plane. Our already mentioned individual capacity to discern Truth, what is known as “Buddha Nature” or perhaps “The Spirit” or something of this sort, gives us enough insight to make valid analogies.
This point might be difficult for some, and indeed it is risky idea if we take it too far. Some might say that to be Good would mean, for example, not to condemn someone for being a libertine or debauchee and that those who do condemn such a person are not Good. Evidently we must view The Good with the understanding that transient pleasures are just that, different from the true pleasure brought about by the cultivation of detachment, that is to say the attitude that the material world is a place of temptation and trial, something to be overcome. Plato himself, as well as Buddha and many others, arrived at this conclusion by the process of genuine philosophy, sincere Love of Wisdom, a search for truth which does not fall into the trap of seeking justifications for ego, rationalizations.
Let’s take one simple example of applying such analogies - if someone were well disposed only to their own family, or race, or culture, or religion, while being wrathful, cruel and angry with others, we would probably not regard that person to be manifesting Goodness. Nor then, should we regard a deity manifesting the same tendencies as Good, and if the deity is not so then the deity cannot be God as God’s primary attribute is Goodness.
We are reaching the crux of the issue. God is Goodness, and therefore God must be Good. This seems to rule out certain elements of that nightmarish caricature of a Divinity found in many Abrahamic conceptions thereof, which are distortions only seeming to hold water while we have an incorrect and imbalanced notion about the Sovereignty of God.
God is indeed the Highest, there is nobody and no-one limiting Him. But at the same time, He is what He is (“I AM THAT I AM”, He tells us). If what God is, is Goodness, He must act in accordance with the nature of Goodness. He is not externally constrained, but He is constrained by His own Nature. Love is certainly an element of Goodness, indeed if we do not Love our fellow humans we would not be Good to them. God, then, is also Love, and all of the other things which we can conceive of as being elements of The Good. Other things we could include might be Power, for when it is used in the service of The Good, Power may be a great virtue. Wisdom, too, for to do Good requires it. One could continue to delineate many other virtues of the Divinity in this way, and surely some have done so, and gained Gnosis thereby.
Well, what does all this mean for theology, philosophy? Well, how could a God who is Good condemn souls to suffer for an Eternity? If we were to encounter someone so severe that they would continue forever in hate for a mistake made in a moment (which is all our life is), would we consider them Good? Rather, we would surely consider them to be a tyrant, a person whose forgiveness would not even be worth seeking. It may be that heinous acts (“sins”) merit suffering, but if such suffering should not have the aim of eventually proving redemptive, being punishment without rehabilitation, this would not be Goodness but the height of cruelty.
Furthermore we could exclude the conception of a God who delights in war and in the physical destruction of enemies, for surely to be bellicose is incompatible with Goodness. We could also exclude a God who permits all kinds of sensualism, for we can see that sensualism renders a person weak and susceptible to tyranny, and Goodness must surely be ever the enemy of tyranny. Also the conception of a God who has revealed Himself to one particular people but not to others must be rejected, as a person who is Good is kindly disposed towards all people, loves all people, manifesting that love in whatever way is appropriate, and so it must be with God, who is the friend to all humanity.
Another example of action not in accordance with the nature of Goodness, would be if God were to award salvation to a person simply due to a deathbed repentance (perhaps made out of fear). Such an act may improve the person’s spiritual situation in some way, but would certainly not win them a place among the righteous. If that were the case then it would render all struggle for righteousness meaningless, if the same can be attained without effort. No God who is Just would permit such a thing, and Justice is another essential element of Goodness. The analogous human situation would be if a person were to have equal respect for somebody trying to manipulate their way into their good graces and a true friend who had been loyal to them for a long time.
Of course this will be difficult for some people to hear, as it is a commonly held opinion that God awards salvation based only on belief. We can say that such an idea is analogous to a person who forces others to think as they do with the threat of violence. History is full of the terrible results of such attitudes, and the notion that Divinity is simply some kind of inquisitor is perverse and distorted. We touched on this at the start of this essay, and by now one can hopefully understand that the so-called “Elect” of such an absurd so-called deity are far from being genuinely any kind of Elect, unless by chance they happen to manifest good moral qualities.
We can go on like this, but the point is already made. God is indeed Sovereign, He can do just as He pleases. However there are nonetheless things He cannot do, for He is Goodness, and He acts in accordance with His Nature.
We will leave you to consider the further implications of all this, with the suggestion that this means of conceiving (or one hopes, perceiving) the Divinity, demonstrates that a number of the commonly held dogmas of the Abrahamic religions are untenable.
