God Is Sovereign!

Amen!

It all “comes from God” but He is not the one who does the deed. I’m not a very articulate defender on these points, but many others have wrestled with these things and done a good job of working them out.

In any case, however we explain it, we must not explain away any of what is revealed. So—to take the Joseph case as a prime example—“God meant it” is pretty clear. And “works all things according to…” is pretty clear, too.

What is equally clear is that people—sinners—are responsible for their choices and those choices, while decreed, are unforced (usually… I do think there is such a thing as direct hardening as a form of judgment… but even then, I suspect the hardening is more like an active push in the already chosen direction).

I do know that part of the answer lies in understanding “freedom of the will” in the context of human nature. We are only free to act in a manner consistent with our nature unless grace of some kind mitigates or liberates us from that. Common grace enables many to make noble choices though they are godless. Special grace… well, we need volumes to talk about what that does! But God never has to force a sinner to sin. We always want to unless He turns us—providentially or more directly—in some other direction. This is why “bondage of the will” is preferred terminology to many.

[Jerry Shugart] What about the “free will” of Adam and Eve?

http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html The Canons of Dordt

The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine

Human Corruption, Conversion to God, and the Way It Occurs

[Article 1: The Effect of the Fall on Human Nature] Man was originally created in the image of God and was furnished in his mind with a true and salutary knowledge of his Creator and things spiritual, in his will and heart with righteousness, and in all his emotions with purity; indeed, the whole man was holy. However, rebelling against God at the devil’s instigation and by his own free will, he deprived himself of these outstanding gifts. Rather, in their place he brought upon himself blindness, terrible darkness, futility, and distortion of judgment in his mind; perversity, defiance, and hardness in his heart and will; and finally impurity in all his emotions.

http://www.founders.org/library/bcf/bcf-6.html 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

[Chapter 6 - The Fall of Man: Sin and its Punishment] MAN, as he came from the hand of God, his creator, was upright and perfect. The righteous law which God gave him spoke of life as conditional upon his obedience, and threatened death upon his disobedience. Adam’s obedience was short-lived. Satan used the subtle serpent to draw Eve into sin. Thereupon she seduced Adam who, without any compulsion from without, willfully broke the law under which they had been created, and also God’s command not to eat of the forbidden fruit. To fulfill His own wise and holy purposes God permitted this to happen, for He was directing all to His own glory.

Gen. 2:16,17; Gen. 3:12,13; 2 Cor.11:3.

There’s Adam and Eve’s free will!

[Jerry] That does not change the fact that Dr. Pettegrew places the ultimate responsibility of Adam’s sin and Eve’s sin on God:

Actually he doesn’t, but this is a common charge against those who affirm the sovereignty of God.

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A189] John MacArthur - Is God Responsible for Evil?

[If God is sovereign, is He responsible for evil?] God is certainly sovereign over evil. There’s a sense in which it is proper even to say that evil is part of His eternal decree. He planned for it. It did not take Him by surprise. It is not an interruption of His eternal plan. He declared the end from the beginning, and He is still working all things for His good pleasure (Isaiah 46:9-10).

But God’s role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things-including all the fruits of all the evil of all time-work together for a greater good (Romans 8:28).

Would you prefer a God who is not sovereign over evil?

[Jerry Shugart] What do you not understand about the meaning of the words “He makes all of the events” in the following statement?:

Providence is that continuous action of God by which He makes all of the events of the universe fulfill His original design.

He makes all events, both good events and bad events fulfill His original design, because God is sovereign. Isn’t that exactly what Romans 8:28 states.

Question for you - How does God sovereignly making all events fulfill His design, make Him responsible for every one of those events?

Providence is that continuous action of God by which He makes all of the events of the universe fulfill His original design.

This statement here seems to be constructed in a way that lends itself to misinterpretation. It is left up to the reader, at this point, to wonder too much what is meant by original design thus they could easily miscalculate what is in view or they could rightly suspect what is in view, but either way its definition by the author would help in determining a more precise meaning. I have seen this reference used before but each time with a less than consistent use when compared to each user.

The most immediate question I can imagine someone asking if they are not sure as to what exactly is in view with the use of the term, original design, would be:

What other design does the author have in mind that exists which would require him to use the qualifier, original, in speaking of God’s design and what is its place, if it exists, in consideration of the issue?

Isaiah 53:4

Isaiah 53:10

Rev.13:8

Acts 2:23

RP, saying that God has decreed all that happens and works it together for His glory is not the same as saying He is responsible for everything that happens. That inference is not a necessary one. In any case, saying He has ordained it and works it for His glory is nothing more than what Paul says in Eph.1:11. If Dr. P is saying “God is responsible for Adam’s sin” then so is Paul. The phrase you’ve referred to in the article only paraphrases Eph. 1.11.

Alex, I think I’m safe in asserting here that by “original” Dr.P means basically “in the beginning.” It’s clear from the article as a whole that he does not believe there is any non-original plan. It’s probably roughly equivalent to the biblical “from the foundation of the earth.”

No time to comment, but just throw out this related quote from Calvin’s Institutes:

In speaking of God’s providence, “we make God the ruler and governor of all things, who in accordance with his wisdom has from the farthest limit of eternity decreed what he was going to do, and now by his might carries out what he has decreed. From this we declare that no only heaven and earth and the inanimate creatures, but also the plans and intentions of men, are so governed by his providence that they are borne by it straight to their appointed end.” (vol. 1, 207)

[Isaiah 53:4] Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.

[Isaiah 53:10] Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief;

[Acts 2:23] this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

[Acts 4:27-28] for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place

I don’t know how it could be any clearer– God had more than just a passive role in allowing the crucifixion, it was part of his definite plan.

It is not our job to try to absolve God of the responsibility for something he declares himself responsible for. We can only affirm that in all of His sovereign dealings with man, He works things in such a way that He himself does no evil. And that is part of the mystery of God.

[Aaron Blumer]

Alex, I think I’m safe in asserting… It’s probably roughly equivalent to the biblical “from the foundation of the earth.”

I, too, suspected that, thanks for the affirmation.

A couple more observations I have.

Pettegrew states:

[Larry Pettegrew] Of course, all orthodox Christians agree that God is a Trinity, three persons in one essence. But just how powerful is this God? Does He control all things, even the details of life? Does He even know all things past, present, and future? Some evangelicals seem to be unsure.

Other evangelical theologians are passionately arguing the negative: God is neither in full control of the world, nor does He even know the details of the future. According to these Open Theists…

Never minding the example he gives after this quote, my interest is if, aside from Open Theists, is Pettegrew taking the approach that unless one is affirming the view he states they are automatically arguing the negative, that God is not in control?

I, personally, do not take Pettegrew’s view but do agree with much of what he says while firmly rejecting Open Theism. So my hope is that he believes there are those who do reject Open Theism but do affirm God is in control of all things and knows all things past, present and future yet do not do so with the terms and approach offered in his case. I suspect he does. But among the rest of us I know there has been the habit of using binary code to reduce this to either/or issues without recognition of acceptable and orthodox alternatives (without including Open Theism at all).

But as to this entry by Larry Pettegrew, I believe he escapes the charge of placing upon God the origin of evil. The “continuous action” of God does not necessitate that we view this action to be in the mind of Pettegrew or anyone else (unless stated specifically as such) as direct cause. As was quoted earlier, John MacArthur does a good job in presenting the role of evil under the stewardship of God’s sovereignty (bold and italics mine):

God is certainly sovereign over evil. There’s a sense in which it is proper even to say that evil is part of His eternal decree. He planned for it. It did not take Him by surprise. It is not an interruption of His eternal plan. He declared the end from the beginning, and He is still working all things for His good pleasure

But God’s role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things-including all the fruits of all the evil of all time-work together for a greater good

And it is important to note this because what Jerry S. has been arguing is actually an issue that arises when this doctrine is discussed with certain students and theologians. There is a healthy minority that urges others to assign blame to God for sourcing evil. They are also quite outspoken so I do understand Jerry’s response with respect to this argument. But I am not convinced that, apart from interpreting or at best taking by implication, Pettegrew is in this camp. In fact, as I said I believe he tries to make it clear he isn’t.

But I do also want to add that there are those who will mouth the view that God is not the author of evil yet, when handling things on a case by case basis, often they can be found either implying or explicitly (sometimes on purpose sometimes in ignorance) charging God with authoring evil. They oversimplify the sovereign mechanism.

For example, a loved one is murdered. Suddenly someone who does not take the theological position that God author’s evil will ascribe, either directly or by implication, that God chose for this person to die this way. Well, that is incorrect because it is incomplete and sends the wrong message. It takes the view that this was the decree of God with respect to his sovereign direct will as opposed to his sovereign passive superintending which allows for humans to make choices while God takes those choices and executes a divine determination. Worse, some forward the idea that God actually did intend for this to happen directly making him guilty of desiring sin. So these are elements that do arise but I believe Pettegrew is substantially far away from this posture in this case.

Jerry,

Do you believe that when discussing God’s sovereignty and acknowledging that he permits or allows volitional creatures to act as they will, which in the case of evil the volition of an agent other than God was the source of its introduction to the plan of God, and God beforehand (in his infinite knowledge that is eternally before and after all things) decreed to allow it, is synonymous with blaming or assigning responsibility to God for evil?

It appears to me that so far no one has denied that under the superintendence of God’s sovereign control he allows creatures with volitional capacity to act as they will. Now someone, after my saying this, might try to qualify what I just said in their agreement and if so I agree there might be an issue. But if my summary of the views expressed here is the case, so far the worst I have seen are references to theologians that in other parts of their work have directed students toward the erring view of an unintended overreach of divine sovereignty.

I do agree in some places some students and theologians err in their use of rationalism and philosophy (often strongly lead by Calvin’s example but this is not meant to bring Calvin himself into the argument) and reason something like…(crudely put here) “Since God is sovereign and sovereignty means complete control, that is nothing escapes God’s sovereignty, then ultimately God is responsible for both evil and good”….but I haven’t seen this declared here and really not even implied.

[Alex Guggenheim]…under the superintendence of God’s sovereign control he allows creatures with volitional capacity to act as they will.

And since God is sovereign, their action ultimately redounds to the glory of God!

[Jerry S.]

[Pettegrew] God is also providentially in control of the universe. Providence is that continuous action of God by which He makes all of the events of the universe fulfill His original design….

By the “context” we can understand that he is saying that the word “make” means “to cause, induce, or compel.”

Jerry, what you’re overlooking there is the object of God’s causing, inducing and compelling. What does God compel? He compels all things to fulfill. That is, He takes what people do and causes them to work together for His design. He works all things according to the counsel of His will. It really is that simple.

It’s like saying “I cause, induce or compel the weeds in my garden to become compost.” I am not saying I made them grow in the first place, but that I make them become what I want them to become. The analogy is imperfect because God is more actively involved in men’s sins than I am in the weeds in my garden. He has decreed that all these things will certainly come to pass. But He does not usurp agency.

As for Is.53 and the crucifixion, it most certainly does describe the crucifixion. He was not

“wounded for our transgressions” and “bruised for our iniquities” in the garden, but on the cross!

(Isaiah 53.5).

Why is it so abhorrent to you that God planned to crucify His son before the foundation of the world, then saw to it that it would come to pass at the appointed time? This does not make Him the one who did the crucifying or mean that He forced the Jews and Romans involved to commit this act. Rather it means that He caused what these men chose to do to serve His purposes… just like Joseph’s brothers again (“You meant it for evil but God meant it for good”). This does not make God the author of evil. It makes Him the victor over evil because He turns even evil to His glory. In the act of pouring His wrath out on sin, His holiness is magnified.

[Romans 9] 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory…

[JohnBrian]

[Alex Guggenheim]…under the superintendence of God’s sovereign control he allows creatures with volitional capacity to act as they will.

And since God is sovereign, their action ultimately redounds to the glory of God!

I would be careful to avoid the temptation to oversimplify the matter and prescribe this potentially injurious formula here. That is to say if all one has in view is (1) God being sovereign and (2) within his sovereignty he allows volitional acts thus the product of the two, God’s sovereignty and volitional action is always to God’s glory, then it is vitally missing other variables for a proper formula. I would have to disqualify this statement if it were meant to stand without amplification and clarification.

A good reference here to use in recognizing the necessity that the two being added together are not meant to be a formula for claiming something has been done to the glory of God (divine sovereignty + human volition) is found in 1 Corinthians 10. I will post with selected verses and the culminating reference to doing “all to the glory of God” (bold and italics mine):

7Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

8Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

9Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

10Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer…

…17For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

18Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

19What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

20But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

21Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.

22Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

23All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

24Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.

25Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

26For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof.

27If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

28But if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof:

29Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?

30For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?

31Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

If Paul held to the formula as you have expressed he certainly did not employ it here. Because here Paul fills the passage before the final charge, “whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” with a long list of things that clearly do not redound to the glory of God even though, if anyone did them, both God’s sovereignty and volition would be active which was the formula offered earlier.

So, as I said, while not disagreeing with the general theme of what was said it needs to be qualified with amplification and clarity.

First, I do not see the difference between what some are saying here about God’s sovereignty and what Dr. Pettegrew said. I think the problem here is a misunderstanding of what he actually said. Notice that in saying,

Providence is that continuous action of God by which He makes all of the events of the universe fulfill His original design.

he does not say God “makes” or caused/causes the events to take place. He says that God makes these events (which could either be caused by God or by others) “fulfill his original design.”

Second, Isa 57:15 says God is, “the High and Lofty One Who inhabits eternity.” Any theology that makes God subject to time - which He created - will end up with these contradictions and problems. God does not “look back” to the past or “look forward” to the future as we do. He lives outside of time, which he created and thus is able to see our past, present and future from the same viewpoint - a viewpoint which is outside of time. Our inability to properly describe God’s relationship to time comes directly from the fact that we are creatures of time and cannot think any other way.