God Is Sovereign!
Of all of the theological issues that have arisen in the last couple of decades, the matter of what God is like has to be one of the most crucial. As A. W. Tozer has written, “[T]he most portentous fact about any man is…what he in his deep heart conceives God to be like. We tend by a secret law of the soul to move toward our mental image of God” (A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, 7).
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,
God knows a great deal about what will happen….he knows everything that could happen and what he can do in response to each eventuality. And he knows the ultimate outcome to which he is guiding the course of history. All that God does not know is the content of future free decisions, and this is because decisions are not there to know until they occur. (Richard Rice, The Grace of God and the Will of Man, ed. Clark Pinnock, 134)
“The content of future free decisions” is vast, however. Every person in the entire world makes probably thousands of decisions every day. But to Open Theists, God does not know for sure what these decisions will be. This is a tremendous amount of information for God not to know. And if God does not know what will happen, as Open Theists assert, He certainly is not in sovereign control of the universe. As one Open Theist argues, “God, for whatever reasons, designed the cosmos such that he does not necessarily always get his way” (Gregory Boyd, God at War, 20).
At Shepherds Theological Seminary, we believe and teach that God knows everything and is in sovereign control of the universe, down to the details of our own lives. The Bible tells us about God’s sovereignty in a number of ways.
God decreed
First, God decreed all of the aspects and events of the universe. God’s decree is His sovereign plan and purpose whereby on the basis of the counsel of His own will He foreordained whatever happens. This is what Paul writes in Ephesians 1:11: God, “according to His purpose …works all things after the counsel of His will.” God’s decree is a single, all-inclusive plan, freely made, eternal, and certain, made for God’s own glory.
God preserves
Second, God preserves the universe. Preservation is the work of the Triune God, accomplished particularly through the Son, whereby He upholds the entire universe. The writer of the book of Hebrews proclaims that Christ “upholds all things by the word of His power” (Heb. 1:3). The Apostle Paul writes that Christ “is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17). The stability of the universe, the processes of nature, animals’ and mankind’s existence are all preserved through this continuous work of God.
God’s providence
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. God exercises providential control over the universe at large (Ps. 103:19), the realm of nature (Job 37:1-3), animals and birds (Matt. 10:29), the affairs of the nations (Ps. 22:28), the birth and career of men and women (Isa. 45:1-5), the successes and failures of human beings (Ps. 75:6), supplying the needs of the righteous (Phil. 4:19), answers to prayer (Matt. 6:32), the punishment of the wicked (Ps. 11:6), common grace on the good and wicked alike (Matt. 5:44-45), even trivial things (Matt. 10:30; Prov. 16:33).
The events in the book of Esther are a stunning example of God’s providence in operation. The name “God” is not event mentioned in the book, but behind the scenes God is working all things after the counsel of His own will. King Ahasuerus “just happened” to be wakeful (Esther 6), “just happened” to read the book of records, and “just happened” to understand how Mordecai the Jew had saved his life and that Mordecai hadn’t yet been rewarded. Haman, the enemy of the Jews, “just happened” to be in the outer court when the king sought someone to honor Mordecai. God providentially brought His will to pass without anything that we would call a miracle, but the story worked out just right for the benefit of the godly Jews and the glory of God.
And thus God sovereignly controls the universe. Perhaps even more extraordinary for us is the biblical truth that God sovereignly knows and controls the details of each of our lives. “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose” (Rom. 8:28). The sovereignty of God is thus a precious biblical doctrine all Christians should uphold and honor.
Dr. Larry Pettegrew taught at Pillsbury Baptist Bible College for over 10 years, serving as chairman of both the Christian Education and Bible departments. Following his time at Pillsbury, he served on the faculty of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary then taught at Central Baptist Theological Seminary for 14 years. After 12 years on the faculty at The Master’s Seminary, Dr. Pettegrew accepted the executive vice presidency of Shepherds Theological Seminary—a position he presently holds in addition to his role as Academic Dean.
- 2 views
Regardless, I don’t want to hear you quote other authors trying to repudiate them in order to make your beliefs seem correct. If you do not believe what DP said, then tell me why from scripture you believe it to be wrong. (and I am not going to rehash the few verses you have quoted as I believe others have done a good job explaining them) Don’t just keep quoting his one line and say I don’t get it. Don’t tell me about other author’s views that you believe to be wrong and by implication your’s correct. Why is DP wrong? (From scripture)
Is your hangup (not in a bad sense) based in the belief that one must have a free will in order to be responsible for actions committed?
I’ll concede that Jesus’ sufferings for sin may have begun before the cross. (per #23)
But this doesn’t really solve the perceived problem, and I should have recognized that before. God decreed the before-cross suffering just as much as He did the on-cross suffering and providentially ensured they would occur on schedule just as He did the cross.
As for what Dr. P. means by “continuous action of God by which He makes all of the events of the universe fulfill His original design.” I’ve done all I can to explain that I think… as have others.
One last shot I suppose: I’ve read and heard enough of Dr.P to know that he is not of the opinion that God causes people to do things contrary to their own will. He ordains and they choose. Sovereignty and providence speak to the certainty that they will choose and to God’s activity in determining that they will choose, but these principles do not involve compelling people to act against their will. Saying “He makes these things happen” is simply not the same as saying “He forces them to choose what they do not want to choose.”
It may help to say a bit more about providence… I was just reading Fred Morritz’s Contending for the Faith last night and was reminded that providence is generally understood to mean what God brings about by the use of secondary causes as opposed to what He does directly (I believe he quoted recent writers like Millard Erickson and Roland McCune on that point, but it goes way back). That understanding of providence is important background. So you could argue that he should have said “indirectly” before “makes” but when you’re aiming to be brief you have to assume some things.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
If these actions are controlled by God then how could it possibly be said that those who act in this way are “guilty before God”?First, Jerry, God answered this type of question in Romans 3 and Romans 9 two thousand years ago. And he answered contrary to what appears to be your answer.
“Guilt” before God neccessarily denotes having committed an offense or crime before God. But if God controls those actions how could it be said that they were committing an offense against God? That weould make no sense at all.
Second, why don’t you email or call Dr. Pettegrew and ask him. I think that would clear it all up.
It seems to me that all Dr. Pettegrew has done is paraphrase Eph 1:11 where God “works all things [make all things] after the counsel of his own will [fulfill his purposes].” But again, why not just contact him and ask him.
Please be specific.I was. Romans 3 and Romans 9 both answer your question.
I am merely commenting on what he wrote.No, you are commenting on what you think he meant by what he wrote. It sounds to me like he is saying only what orthodoxy theology has said for centuries.
If you think that I am misrepresenting what he said then why don’t you contact him so he can clear this up.Why is it my burden to contact someone that you are questioning what he says? You should contact him in the interest of wanting to properly understand him. I think it is a matter of Christian grace to try to seek out understanding rather than making accusations that amount to someone being unorthodox.
I have already answered that idea (see post # 13 on this thread).Yes, you were incorrect there because you limited the verse beyond its meaning in context. Paul says God works “all things,” not simply predestination for an inheritance.
You stated:
The point is whether or not God, by his continuous actions, caused those who crucified and murdered the Lord Jesus to do that deed.You clearly believe He did not, so my question is this: Are you implying that there was no certainty of the crucifixion? For if God did not control the event (a.k.a. “make” it occur), then surely man could have acted differently. The eternal purpose of the Father for the Son (namely, to glorify Himself through Jesus’ life and work amongst fallen humanity) would have been intuitive guess-work, at best a series of calculated risks, if your position is accurate.
If any force in the universe makes it certain that anyone will act in a certain way then that person’s will is not really free.Second question: Could you please clarify and support your exact understanding of “free will” from Scripture? If I understand your statement here, though I hope I am wrong, you are describing and affirming the doctrine of libertarian free will. This view is at the heart of Open Theism, and I beg you to employ caution if you are indeed affirming it.
By the way…
And anyone with an understanding of English grammar knows…I’m fairly certain it is unnecessary to make this kind of comment on SI.
If any force in the universe makes it certain that anyone will act in a certain way then that person’s will is not really free.Was not Abimelech withheld by God from sinning?
for I [God] also withheld thee [Abimelech] from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her [Sarah]. (Genesis 20:6)If I can borrow your phrase which you so often use, Genesis 20:6 states in no uncertain terms that God made Abimelech do something that he would not have done, or rather the lack of doing something he would have done.
For instance:
[Eph. 1:11] according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his willGod does not consult men, and he does not react to man. He works all things out according to His own purpose.
[Rom. 1:20] So they are without excuseSinful men are completely and totally responsible for their actions. They can blame no one but themselves.
This is what orthodox believers have affirmed for 2,000 years. This is what everybody on this thread seems to affirm over and over. We cannot reconcile these truths in our minds because we are limited, but we believe them because God has said them.
[Jerry Shugart] If any force in the universe makes it certain that anyone will act in a certain way then that person’s will is not really free.That is correct. Nobody’s will is truly free, but is limited according to it’s nature. In a way, even God’s will is not “free,” for that reason. He cannot choose to lie, for example. (Titus 1.2).
Being non-free is not the same as being forced. For example, consider my dog. If I lay a hotdog on the floor in front of her, she will certainly eat it. However, I did not force her to eat it. She did what she wanted to do.
If God does not do this, how do you explain what “works all things according to the counsel of His will” means? He works “some” things?
Now I haven’t seen the argument yet here (maybe I have overlooked… got a bit behind) that if God arranges conditions so that a sinner will certainly sin, He is responsible for the sin. Eventually, if one keeps chasing this he runs into the ages old “problem of evil.” I don’t really have an answer for that or feel that I need one.
What I can—and must—do is accept what Scripture plainly says, that a. He has arranged all that happens and b. He is not responsible for the sins sinners choose to commit. How this can be is not my problem any more than how He made the world in six days is my problem.
(Though guys like R. C. Sproule have come up some pretty good answers to all sorts of questions like these. I just don’t remember the answer or feel much of a need for it)
As for Jesus in Gethsemane and the nonrepentance of Jerusalem. Two things, briefly. One, quite a few students of that passage over the years (including many that would not claim to be Calvinists) have understood this moment to be an expression of Jesus’ human nature. He is grieving, and, “despising the shame.” He “knows” what the Father’s will is. This is clear when He says “nevertheless not as I will but as You will.” So He is never in doubt about what must be done.
As for Jerusalem, Paul is clear in Rom.11 that the nation had been hardened. In a way I can’t really explain, God does not “want” everything He has decreed. Rom.9 has a fascinating statement where Paul says God “endured with much longsuffering” the vessels of wrath He Himself prepared.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Obviously there have been conflicting views of human freedom for millennia, going back even farther than Augustine and Pelagius. However, the open theist idea of will is undoubtedly modern. There are many ways to illustrate this point, but a consideration of astrology will do. In ancient times and even through the Middle Ages, many people believed in astrology. This was not simply because they were stupid or silly, but because they believed in an integrated creation. The Greek concepts of physis and kosmos included not just what we would call the material universe, but also aesthetic and ethical laws as well. It was assumed that there was an underlying harmony that connected all these things, and that man stood within this harmony and therefore affected by it. I’m not sure how many made astrology an absolutely deterministic system (Marsilio Ficino claimed that knowledge of astrology allowed one to exert influence on the cosmos rather than vice versa), but those who believed in it nevertheless acknowledged that man is limited and influenced by external, even cosmic, factors.
The major objection to astrology during the Renaissance was not rational or scientific, but ethical and sentimental. Pico della Mirandola rejected astrology because it placed a limit on man’s self-determination; it reduced his freedom. For Pico, man is master of matter, not the other way around. The idea of the determining self so captured the imagination of people that astrology became not irrational, but degrading. Astrology is just one illustration of what is one of the most significant features of modern thought - the conception of “person” as a self-determining will. The modern man, to think himself free, not only requires that he not be obviously coerced, but he must not even be “pressured” or “influenced.” Nothing gets in the way of his own sovereign determination. The concept of the modern self as a free individual is reinforced by Kant and finds its full flowering in Nietzsche, who defines life as simply “the will to power.” Life is nothing more than the assertion of the individual to control all that is external to him, and he is great to the extent that he achieves.
The very existence of God as a personal, real, and knowable absolute creator and sustainer is an affront to the modern mind. As Pico realized, if something (in this case Someone) is directing what happens here on earth, humans can’t claim to be absolutely self-determining. In fact, there is only one person who meets the definition of a self-determining will, and that is God. (Even that is something of a caricature, though, because God’s will should never be considered separate from his intellect.) Everyone else who pretends to this is simply making himself into a little god, and a caricature at that. Open theists, following the modern impulse to value individual self-determination as the highest good, limit God; it is the only way they can stop him from limiting man.
Postscript: Ideas in this post were inspired by Louis Dupre, The Passage to Modernity; and Colin Gunton, The One, the Three, and the Many.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[Jerry Shugart] Notice that here Paul says that God hath “from the beginning” chosen the Christian to salvation through belief in the truth. How can this be since before the foundation of the world there was no one believing the gospel?This doesn’t even make sense. If “before the foundation of the world” is the same thing as “right now”, then “before the foundation of the world” has zero meaning.
Actually, the answer is quite simple. In the eternal state the same “moment” when the sinner believes the gospel can be said to be the same “moment” that existed before the world began. After all, since God lives in the ever present “now” then the moment when a sinner believes belongs to the same “now” as does a moment that existed before the world began. Obviously the above quoted verses in regard to when the Christian is saved can only be understood in a figurative sense. It is a mistake to take verses that place God in time and use those verses to make doctrine.
Yes, God lives outside of time, but time does exist, He created it, and men are bound by it. In His dealings with men, God has broken into time. Paul is writing as a man to men from a human point of view. It is non-sensical to interpret this phrase in any way other than its plain meaning.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
[Jerry Shugart]This says nothing about the eternal state.
No, Paul is speaking about salvation in terms of the eternal state:
“But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess.2:13-14).
The phrase “from the beginning” has absolutely no meaning if it’s identical to “now”. Why would Paul tell them God had chosen them to salvation from the beginning, if he really meant that they were saved now? Seems like he could have been a lot clearer if that’s what he was trying to say.
[Jerry Shugart] From the beginning God chose the sinner to salvation through belief in the truth. In the eternal state it can be said that “the beginning” is the same exact moment as when the sinner believes the gospel. Since “time” is the law of our being it is very difficult to understand a state where there is no time and that God lives in the ever present “now. But in the eternal state “before the foundation of the world” is the same moment when the sinner belioeves.And I reject that interpretation based on the plain meaning of language
Discussion