Sovereignty of God???

Analogies fail pretty easily here since we're not God and cannot create things from nothing, foresee every possibility and account for every possibility. But suppose just for a moment that we could do exactly those things.

Here's my purpose: I want to create a rat, and have the rat disobey me and eat cheese.

So I create an intelligent rat to love cheese. I tell the rat not to eat cheese. Then I hand cheese to another creation of mine, knowing perfectly that this creation will put the cheese in front of the rat in order to tempt it.

I know full well that the kind of rat I created will want to eat the cheese more than he wants to obey me. So -- no surprise to me -- he disobeys me and eats the cheese.

Everything happened EXACTLY as I planned, right down to the tiniest detail. It couldn't happen any other way because I knew the end from the beginning before I even created the rat, and I knew exactly what environmental factors I'd have to manipulate in order for my will to be done, and I was the orchestrator of every minute detail. I was in TOTAL control over EVERYTHING. So in one sense, NOTHING happened apart from my will.

Now -- did the rat really want to eat the cheese? Yes. Did he choose to eat the cheese of his own will? Yes. Yet these things do not alter the fact that I was in total control of the situation from start to finish.

 

Should the rat feel guilty?

Should the rat be destroyed for his action?

Sometimes, actions are not so "personal" but affect others. Suppose, instead of creating a rat, and creating him to like cheese, you create a woman, and another man to marry the woman. You orchestrate things, and they become pregnant. You arrage it so the woman's family is very excited. You weave more creativity, and set it up so the man and the pregnant woman are preparing to leave on a missions trip, spreading the gospel and helping dying children in Africa. You previously created a church for the woman to grow up in, and you arrange it so the woman's church raises funds for months and pledges to support her mission work overseas. But then, you create another man. You know what desires you put in this man, and you arrange it so that the night before the woman goes on the mission trip, she is walking to her car in a dark parkade where the man is hiding. She is carrying all the church's donated money for her ministry and for the medication for the dying children. You know exactly what environmental factors you'd have to manipulate in order for all this, you know the man will inevitably attack and rape the woman, then murder her and her unborn baby. You arrange it so the man takes the money and later spends it on drugs and prostitutes. You arrange it so the police never catch the man. You arrange it so the widower enters a severe depression, curses you for letting this happen, and kills himself. You were the orchestrator of every minute detail. You were in TOTAL control over EVERYTHING. NOTHING happened apart from your will.

Who really is the "rat"?

I don't know how to end this post.

 

Again, you are asking the same question that appears in Romans -- why does God blame us, for who resists His will? That's an issue of justice and sovereignty, not control and sovereignty, and it is handled very well lin scripture.

The issue I was addressing was one of control, and the illustration demonstrates how God can be in total control of EVERYTHING without the rat being a puppet or robot.

 

Of course, both sides think they believe what the Bible says.

I think that God is in control of everything because I see that as what it means when it says that God "works all things according to the counsel of His will." He has a plan that includes "all things" and He is constantly working in creation to bring that plan to fruition. Nothing happens "if the Lord has not decreed it." Every single day of my life (and the life of every person who will ever live) was formed (or ordained) by God and written in His book before I was formed. Not even a sparrow will die unless God wills it.

Evil acts of men can be said to be working God's will. Joseph's brothers wickedly intended to harm him, but they were fulfilling God's good intent with their evil act. God is so closely involved in certain acts of evil, that He can be said to be "sending" the ones who carry them out, and yet He can justly punish them for doing what He has "sent" them to do (See Isaiah 10). Peter tells the men of Israel they need to repent for their part in carrying out "God's predetermined plan" for Christ to be crucified. God is so much in control of even the acts of Satan that scripture can tell us that both Satan and God caused David to take a census,

How does God do this? I don't know. But I do think I can be pretty sure of these things: </font>

• He does it without ever tempting anyone to sin.</font>
• The Holy Spirit never moves anyone to commit a sinful act.</font>
• He does it in such a way that men can be held justly accountable for their acts.</font>

I realise there is a whole lot of tension here, but it's tension that I am willing to live with.

I do think there is a little bit of a clue as to how these things work in the statement Joseph made: "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." God's motives in all these things are good (as they always are), for He is working His perfect plan through these sinful acts. The motives of those who commit these sinful acts are always evil. They are intending to be working against God and against what God wants, but are inadvertantly playing into His hands and furthering His purposes.

 

I agree. I would add for emphasis that the text says Joseph's brothers thought evil against him, but God meant it for good. In other words, they were fulfilling God's plan. Or to put it more bluntly, the text does not say, "You thought evil against me, but God passively allowed it for good".

Extremely well put.

 

So does God control the temptation? If so, what does it mean to say "God does not tempt man with sin"? And if not, here we have something that isn't controlled by God!

 

Let's say I am a man of great power. I have a subordinate hire a hit man to kill someone (i.e. tempting him with money to do so, half now and half afterwards), and give him a walkie-talkie so I can control the situation the whole time. He has the victim lined up in his sights, but first checks in to make sure I still want it to happen (i.e. I still have the control to stop it or allow it to happen). I tell him go ahead. Boom.

Am I guilty? Why or why not? I only orchestrated the situation, controlled it, allowed it to happen. I did not directly pull the trigger, nor directly tempt the hitman. Surely the jury should not only let me off scott-free, but also praise me for my superior wisdom?

Edit: the analogy gets more interesting if I throw in the concept that I am so influencial that I get to be the judge in the case, and can even control how the jury, press and public thinks...

[ June 14, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

We can stop there. You're only a man of great power. You're not God. You didn't create the people you affected with your orchestration, therefore they are not yours to do with as you please. You do not do what you do with only perfectly good intentions, knowing the end from the beginning as to how it will all turn out. Therefore the rest of your story is irrelevant.

 

I was simply expressing some counter-thoughts to recent posts in this thread. Pastor Larry's and your point seems to be that God is not culpable for sin that he entirely controls and orchestrates, because he doesn't directly pull the trigger but instead just arranges it so someone else has no option but to. It just reminded me of a 'hitman', and I realized the person orchestrating the hitman is just as guilty as the hitman himself. I don't see much difference, at least on a practical level.

 

Brian

You can draw all the analogies you want. In the bottom line, the Bible says what it does and if we cannot comprehend that, then we have the problem, not God. I gave 4 or 5 illustrations of the very point that you are questioning. STudy those accounts in Scripture and come to your own conclusion. I have come to mine. The reason I rejected your position was because these passages were too clear. I could no longer reconcile them with my old way of thinking. If others can, then so be it.

 

No, actually I can't. I can only draw the ones God predestined me to.

But the problem is there because God put it there, predestining that we not comprehend it. Why should I feel guilty about something I have no choice about?

Again, you argue for a doctrine that argues NOTHING is out of God's control and we ultimately can only do what we are predesitined to do, but then you wrap it up with a statement that sound's like *you* had the control to accept the doctrine, and exhort me to exercise *my* control to do the same. Even if I *wanted* to accept it, I could only accept it because the *want* was predesitined as well! I get the general concepts you're trying to present, but they keep coming across as contradiction.

 

I'd like to know how you explain some of the scripture given here, Brian. Isaiah 10, for instance, where it says God will send the king of Assyria up against Israel in judgment of the Israelites; where it says the king of Assyria will think he is acting on his own, but he will really just be a rod or an ax in God's hand; where it says that once God is done using the king of Assyria to accomplish His purposes He is going to turn against him and punish him.

How do you explain this? Is God in control of what the king of Assyria will be doing or not? Is God just in punishing the king? Does the king of Assyria really choose to go up against Israel?

 

Yes, God was in control of the king, at least in part. Maybe God did this because the king's choices and sins made him a perfect candidate for God to use in this way, and his punishment would have been the same either way. I really have no idea, I don't have the details. If anything, this story and the story of God hardening Pharoah's heart in Exodus seem to me to be scripture telling us where God introduces exceptions to the rule of direct control, rather than just documented instances of what *always* happens to *everyone*, *all the time*. Do you see what I mean? If this was the norm, there's no real reason for scripture to mention it explicitly, but there is if it's *not* the norm.

 

Even an exception destroys the opposing argument. One of the biggest problems some are having with God being in total control over a sinful act -- even indirectly -- is that they assume that this makes God guilty of sin, which is impossible. So if you can find one case in the Bible where God ordains that a spirit will lie, or that a king will sin, etc., then according to that reasoning, God is already guilty of being the mob boss who ordered the hit man to make the hit.

There are multiple examples of such things in the Bible. So there is more than one "exception". (I don't believe these are exceptions, which is why I put it in quotes.)

Therefore the whole argument that "God being in control of all things is wrong because that puts God in control of sin, which makes God sinful" goes down the tubes. If you admit that these "exceptions" exist, then you have a choice: Either the Bible clearly teaches that God is sinful, or you have to give up your argument that indirect control over sins makes God sinful.

If you choose the latter (which is really your only choice) then you can no longer use that argument against total control.

 

Not necessarily. Police do "sting" operations all the time, where they know someone is guilty. They orchestrate a scenario to let the criminal commit a crime (but this time under controlled circumstances), so he can be caught and proven guilty to all involved and given the punishment *they already deserve*. The police control the situtation, but the choice to commit the crime or walk away is *entirely* in the criminal's control, the police just make sure the criminal reaps what he has sown. Maybe something similar is going on here. Again, we don't have the details and the reasons for God's action, we only have the *description* of God's action.

I already agree there is more than one exception: I mentioned the hardening of Pharoah's heart as another. Sending a delusion so the followers of the antichrist believe a lie and are damned is another. God moving David to take a census is another. Maybe Judas was another, I don't know. The point is, why would scripture explicitly mention God controlling or manipulating someone to get the results he wants in these instances, if that's the *only* way things *always* happen in the first place? It mentions God's direct involvement in these cases to emphasize to us that in these cases people did *not* act simply of their own will.

Again, not necessarily, because we don't have all the information. We have the account of the story, we don't have all the background information and motivations of all involved. There is very likely an explanation, due to what we don't know, that allows these exceptions without God being culpable in them.

 

I find it amusing that you're ready to forgive God of his actions in specific cases based on the fact that you don't know all the details. Yet in reaction to the notion that God is in TOTAL control, you don't hesitate to judge God as guilty if that's how He does things -- and you do that without any more knowledge about the details than you had before.

The answer is simple, and I've pointed to it repeatedly: Why then are we judged, for who resists His will? Notice that the verse does NOT say, Why then are we judged, for who (and by "who" I only mean those exceptions where Scripture specifically states God manipulated the circumstances -- not who, as in everyone) resists His will?

In other words, the question clearly assumes NOBODY resists His will.

And what is the answer to that objection -- basically the same objection you raise? The answer is NOT, "Well, God is just because He would never do such a thing!" The answer is NOT "Well, God is just because when He does this it is the exception to the rule." The answer is "Who are you, oh man, to talk back to God?"

[edited to include the exceptions argument in one of the false answers]

[ June 16, 2003, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

I'm curious as to why you added "at least in part." Using the word send for what God did with the King of A, and describing him as an axe that God is wielding, a club in God's hands seems to work against the idea that the control is partial, doesn't it?

Actually, this is supported in the text. It seems that God wanted to punish the king of Assyria for his arrogance, for thinking his greatness was due to his own strength, for his boasting against God. God used that arrogant attitude to accomplish what He wanted done. But that still doesn't change the fact that God justly punished the K of A for the doing specific act that the text says God sent him to do.

Which brings us to an important point, I think: In working these things, God never makes someone worse than he already was. He skillfully directs the evil intents that are already there. Haughty hearts become a whip in His hands.

Well, I believe it is the norm, and I would base that on scriptures like the one in Lamentations that says that nothing comes to pass unless the Lord commands (or decrees) it, like the one in Ephesians 1 that says He works "all things according to the counsel of His will." I think those statements make these examples the rule rather than the exceptions.

And let's assume for a second that this is the way God works, why would we expect Him to always be giving a peek behind the scenes? Aren't the all-inclusive statements like the ones above taken together with all the specific examples of God's control over sinful acts like those listed (and many others, too) enough? Why would we expect more?

[ June 16, 2003, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

"The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it withersoever he will." (Proverbs 21:1)

Verse 1. The king's heart [is] in the hand of the Lord, [as] the rivers of water,.... The heart of every king, and all that is in it, his thoughts, counsels, purposes, and designs; the hearts of bad kings, as Pharaoh, whom the Lord hardened and softened at pleasure; the antichristian kings, into whose hearts he put it to give their kingdoms to the beast, Revelation 17:17; the hearts of good kings, as David, Solomon, Cyrus, and others: and if the hearts of kings are in the hands of the Lord, which are full of things of the greatest importance with respect to the government of the world; and which are generally more untractable and unmanageable; and who are more resolute and positive, and will have their own wills and ways, especially arbitrary princes; then much more the hearts of other persons. And which are as "rivers of water"; for so the words may be rendered, as rivers of water is "the heart of a king," which is "in the hand of the Lord"; unstable, fluid, and fluctuating; and yet the Lord can stay and settle, and fix them, and keep them steady and within bounds: or which, like a torrent of water, comes with force and impetus; and so the Septuagint render it, "the force of waters"; and bears all before it, as do the wills of despotic kings; and yet these the Lord can stop and bound, and rule and overrule: or like rivers of water, reviving and refreshing, so is the heart of a good king, full of wisdom and prudence, of integrity and faithfulness, of clemency and goodness; the streams of whose bounty and kindness flow among his subjects, to their great pleasure and profit; so Christ, the King of kings, is said to be as "rivers of water," Isaiah 32:2. The allusion is to gardeners, that make channels for the water to run in, to water their gardens; or to husbandmen, that cut aqueducts from rivers, to water their fields; or to the turning of the course of rivers, as Euphrates was by Cyrus, when he took Babylon. The heart of a king is as much at the dispose of the Lord, and can be turned by him as easily as such canals may be made, or the course of a river turned; for it follows:

he turneth it whithersoever he will; contrary to their first designs, and to answer another purpose; oftentimes towards his people, and for the good of his cause and interest, which they never designed; and to bring about such things as were out of their view. And so, in conversion, the Lord can turn the hearts of men as he pleases; their understanding, will, and affections, are in his hands: he can make the understanding light which was darkness, and so turn it from darkness to light; he can take off the stiffness of the will, and turn it from its bias and bent, and make it willing to that which is good in the day of his power: he can turn the channel and course of the affections from sinful lusts and pleasures, to himself, his son, his truths, word, worship, ordinances, and people; he can take out of the heart what he pleases, its ignorance, hardness, enmity, unbelief, pride, and vanity; and he can put in what he pleases, his fear, his laws, his Spirit, and the gifts and graces of if; he can change and turn it just as he will; he that made the heart can operate upon it, and do with it as seems good in his sight. The Heathens very wrongly call one of their deities Verticordia {o}, from the power of turning the heart they ascribe to it; however, this shows their sense, that to turn the heart is the property of deity.

{o} Valer. Maximus, l. 8. c. 15. s. 12. Vid. Ovid. Fasti, l. 4. v. 158.