Thanks for this post, Greetings,
Just as the citizens of Illinois in 1858 had attention spans that allowed them to sit through the Lincoln-Douglas debates, it is likely, among those who were literate, that they could also wade through the language, the long sentences, and the minimal paragraphing to read Spurgeon’s message. For the modern mind it is a difficult read, even for those who are predisposed. And that may be a clue to why the issue continues to confound us. We are hard pressed to concentrate long enough to hold one thought in mind, much less two, seemingly opposing, ideas.
You are right, tjd, Spurgeon recognizes that both truths are taught in Scripture, but rather than making God out to be a Hegelian, he recognizes that there is a reconciliation “somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God.” I would locate that reconciliation in the person of Jesus, through whom all things are reconciled. Just as Jesus, in himself, is the locus of the reconciliation between justice and mercy, I expect it is reasonable to assume that he is also the point of reconciliation between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.
Spurgeon does affirm both. Ironically perhaps, as you say “even though they defy rational categorization,” that position is not irrational. Instead it is of a higher order, somehow capturing the intent of John 1:1, where true “reason” is indistinguishable from the Word.
The tension between man’s free will and God’s sovereignty— you can’t resolved one way or the other—and still have Christianity. Why not? Because that that tension is embodied in the person of Jesus Christ who is both fully man and fully God.
I have argued in recent years that the basis for the dynamism of western civilization is the tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will as embodied in the person of Jesus Christ. (However, I say that without being able to map God’s sovereignty and man’s freewill over on to competing institutions in the USA for example.)
Anyhow, do you guys buy that argument?