A primary purpose of The Little Book of Providence is to demonstrate the thoroughly intelligible nature of God’s justice and His generous providence towards humanity as a whole. I wish such a task could be undertaken in an ambience of sweetness and light but regrettably controversy is unavoidable. For to show God for what He truly is (comprehensively and comprehensibly adorable), many traditional biblical interpretations and doctrines must be revisited.

That especially applies to those of Augustine and therefore also the Protestant Reformers who believed that the 4th/5th century Bishop of Hippo was Paul’s most faithful interpreter. Given that God is indeed sovereign it is also necessary in this context to explain the existence of evil and suffering. I show in my book, which I have made freely available as a PDF to everyone on internet, how even those satanically induced maladies serve a purpose within God’s Plan of Loving Goodness. It is a Plan to raise the sons of earth beyond Adamic innocence to the sublimity of the divine.


Polemic will have been evident in earlier posts touching upon St. Augustine’s theology of sovereign grace. Vatican II (1960s) had surreptitiously rescinded the Catholic “Doctor of Grace’s” more draconian doctrines regarding the dire prospects for anyone outside the Catholic Church and the souls of unbaptized infants. The vastly broader benign providence of “Lumen Gentium” was a substantial doctrinal development. The 19th century Evangelical turned Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman in particular had influenced the Church’s thinking, and humanly speaking he was the greatest influence in my own spiritual journey.

Whilst other (albeit non-fatal) errors remain within Roman Catholic theology, it is not possible for them to underpin such broader providence from Scripture and so their solution is unlikely to gain much traction with Evangelicals. The latter tradition are also entitled to adapt and refine their founders’ earlier doctrines. Nevertheless, another purpose of this post is to challenge Evangelicals to review Luther’s 28 theses upon which that tradition has been founded. And as you will see below, Augustine and his theology of sovereign grace were at the heart of the matter.


The Heidelberg Theses are not the articles of the Reformed faith or Protestant Church. They are however, as Luther affirmed in his introduction, what he believed Augustine’s theology of sovereign grace to be intimating. And in view of his legitimate “distrust of human wisdom” they reflect what Luther believed the Holy Spirit had imparted to him concerning how the apostle Paul should be interpreted. But his interpretations need to be capable of integration with the rest of the New Testament. Otherwise, Paul effectively becomes the inventor of Christianity. He assuredly is not – that notion results from a misinterpretation of his epistles, especially Romans.


However, following the 13th apostle’s late conversion and to what the resurrected ascended Jesus and the Holy Spirit imparted to him, he did have some new revelation which on a couple of occasions led him to speak of “my gospel”. But that was not to overturn the moral and juridical teaching of Jesus and the twelve. It pertained to the constitution of the people of God – the MYSTERY which had been hidden from the past ages and generations, but NOW has been revealed to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what the wealth of the glory of this MYSTERY among the Gentiles, that is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col1:26-27).

That passage along with Ephesians 3 vv3-11 and Romans 11 (vv11,12,15,30) were the catalyst for what I have been disclosing. The providential implications are wondrous indeed yet have been quite eluded. In the case of the Western Church (Catholic and Protestant) that was through a misinterpretation of other aspects of Paul’s teaching. The theology of the Eastern Church has always been less systematized and dogmatic, more accepting of mystery, of which there is plenty in the bible as that earlier statement of Paul indicated.

However, Luther’s pronouncements are dogmatic and so they do need to be assessed in themselves and reconciled with the rest of the New Testament, if that were possible. It isn’t: the teaching of James, the writer to the Hebrews and Jesus Himself are the most troublesome flies in his ointment. Not least, the Judge of the Earth’s own teaching on final judgement (Mt25:31-46). But for this post  I am focusing on Paul’s teaching and what Luther made of it.


This is bound to be irksome for many, so I restate my motives another way. It is to demonstrate God’s goodness, love and justice in terms of how human beings understand such qualities. That involves a role for natural law, especially the faculty of conscience and the exercise of human reason. Also, by observing how Scripture defines such qualities as love, goodness and justice. Most especially in the case of love, being the essence of God and the outworking of faith.


Given that humans were made in the image of an invisible God, that image must pertain to His nature. And in the case of the One whom Luther aptly described as “the Proper Man”, was also without sin. Although His glory was veiled, Jesus’s instincts and inclinations were a perfect reflection of His Father’s. What is more, that applied even during His earthly ministry (Jn14:9). Philip had wanted to know what God was really like; “Show us the Father, that will suffice us”. “But how long have I been with you, Philip? If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father”.

Jesus’ reply challenges fundamental assumptions about both divine and human nature, in particular how the Former regards the latter. The fact that the Lord’s glory was veiled does not affect His nature or His attitude to people. He just appeared far less scary than He will at Final Judgement. Truly, the historical Jesus was not the compassionate face of God, He was His express image.


But then think of how Jesus dealt with His disciples and their sinful frailties. There are only two references to the matter – Peter was more concerned about his own deficiencies than the Lord was (Lk5:8) whilst Jesus described joker Nathanael as a man without guile (Jn1:47). Such has nothing to do with the imputed or imparted righteousness of Christ or indeed the defilement of Adam’s guilt. It is the Son of Man’s tolerance of human weakness resulting from Adam’s misdemeanour that Jesus responds to. So, was it always “Gentle Jesus, meek and mild?” By no means. At times He vents His righteous fury when confronted with genuine evil, hypocrisy and lies, warning of punishment in Hell.

In other words, the One who is to judge the Earth acts like man at his best. He is loving, compassionate and tolerant of human weakness. But One who shall come crashing down on hateful, hurtful compassionless liars. Failure to do so would not be an act of love but injustice and indifference to the suffering of others. Our Creator’s intention is that all of Adam’s seed that are genuinely human (1Jn3:12) shall come to adore Him and serve Him. That is not merely “to thank God for His great glory”, it is to LOVE HIM for His intelligible goodness and the wonders of His providence.


Returning to the theology of sovereign grace – to Luther and how he regarded the Creator. For the former monk it was more a case of “we are here, God is there; we are this, God is that”. Love and justice mean something different to God than they do to man. Such might be the case if Luther’s teaching could be reconciled with God’s own assessment of Himself (Exodus34:6-7). It cannot, hence the paradoxical implication that what the bible might mean by love, kindness and goodness and the like, mean something different when applied to God.

The eschatological outworking of Augustine’s two-pot sovereign grace theology reinforced by the Protestant Reformers is a cosmic catastrophe. It is on a scale no fictional horror writer could even contemplate. The Arminian Evangelicalism more prevalent today fares little better. An inexplicably harsh Cosmic Chess Master re-emerges as an incompetent, uncaring Overseer. It is also based on a false premise, the seemingly reasonable assumption that a loving God would wish as many people as possible to come to Christ as Saviour and that He had given us the innate capacity to do so. The bible refutes that well meaning aspiration on both counts (Rom8:29 & Jn6:44 inter alia). Arminianism unavoidably infers that God had overseen cultural, religious and ecclesiastical developments that He knew would result in vast swathes of humanity having no opportunity to hear a faithful account of the gospel to which they could respond to avoid perdition.


Resolution occurs once one understands the true nature and purpose of salvation. Firstly, that the source of man’s problem is not his God-given eternal soul. It is the temporary vessel (or tent) it inhabits whilst in mortal flesh (Rom7:24-25). Secondly, “the saved” are not the totality of souls who “go to heaven when they die”. They are those being sanctified in the present so that they may serve the living God whilst in human flesh. As for their future – “Rejoice, for the Wife has made herself ready” for marriage to the Lamb (Rev19:7). Far from detracting from God’s adorable grace, such a perspective enhances it. For clearly no one apart from Jesus Himself could innately merit such honour.

As for the bulk of the humanity, remaining sinful in nature they could never attain to God’s eternal Kingdom. Nor could they have innately merited the joy of re-uniting with those they had loved and lost. Yet such shall be the case, at least for all who in the language of second century Christian writers “attend to moral discipline, paying heed to the natural precepts of the law by which man can be justified” [“Irenaeus against heresies” Book IV chap 13 para 1]. The Creator being “a God who accepts those who imitate His own qualities of temperance, fairness and philanthropy and who exercise their free will in choosing what is pleasing to Him” [first apology of Justin chaps. 43 & 46]. Such was the language of those who had received the faith from the Apostles or their near successors.


The witness of Church historian Eusebius affirm that the very early Church understood a role for such natural precepts within the gospel presentation. (See my earlier post on the unity of doctrine within the 2nd century Church. Such is how the forensic (pardoning) dimension to Christ’s Passion avails for the many. The participatory (sanctifying) benefits are the preserve of those who worthily partake of His body and blood.

Only when such a pre-Augustinian perspective on free will is reinstated, and the Christ-related dimension of natural law understood (for it is Christ’s internal enlightenment and has reference to His Passion) shall God’s caring providence towards humanity as a whole be vindicated and the scope and efficacy of Christ’s saving work appreciated.

Many will perceive this to be what Luther & Co disparagingly described as a “theology of glory”. But it is one predicated on a theology of the Cross: a divine Saviour’s suffering to deal with human sin. Suffering in which those who shall one day be His Escort and come to share His throne will worthily have participated (Rev3:21; Rom8:17; Heb2:10).

And then we have the 28 paradoxical statements of Luther which I comment on briefly in another post. You can peruse them HERE

Free PDF download of The Little Book of Providence  HERE

Author’s FACEBOOK page HERE

Related posts: The righteous sin when doing good    &   Works of righteousness mortal sins   &   Good works more sinful than homicide   &   God's works appear evil   &   Works of man mortal sins?   &   grace for grace   &   False apostles