Does God Rule OVER or IN Everything?
The worst thing a parent can experience,” runs the saying, “is the death of a child.” In a chapter entitled, “The Wisdom of God,” author Jerry Bridges discusses the problem of human experience with a truly tragic story:
At 9:15 a.m., just after the children had settled into their first lesson on the morning of 21 October 1966, a waste tip from a South Wales [coal mine] slid into the quiet mining community of Aberfan. Of all the heart-rending tragedies of that day, none was worse than the fate of the village Junior School. The black slime slithered down the man-made hillside and oozed its way into the classrooms. Unable to escape, five teachers and 109 children died.
A clergyman being interviewed by a B.B.C. reporter at the time of [the tragedy, in response]…to the inevitable question about God [said], ‘Well…I suppose we have to admit that this is one of those occasions when the Almighty made a mistake.’
True Christians will be appalled at the clergyman’s flippant and blasphemous statement about God. But do we not sometimes wonder, when a calamity of some kind strikes us, if God has not made a mistake in our lives? I think of another statement—not flippant but heartfelt—made by a sincere Christian watching a child struggle with cancer, “I sure hope God knows what He’s doing in this.” Anyone who has dealt deeply with adversity can probably identify with the doubts this person struggled with.
When we stop and think about it, we know in our heart of hearts that God does not make any mistakes in our lives or the villages of South Wales or anywhere else. God does know what He is doing. God is infinite in His wisdom. He always knows what is best for us and what is the best way to bring about that result.xxxiii
Thus, in his entire discussion about South Wales, Jerry Bridges makes no mention about whether it were even possible that Satan could have been involved in this tragedy. Rather, he assumes a priori that God is behind everything. A page or so later, Bridges uses the long-standing interpretation of Romans 8:28 to support his view, saying that everything that happens to the believer is working together for his good. Consequently, the collapse of the man-made hill at Aberfan is in some sense just another example of God’s loving hand. (Why, then, I wonder, does Bridges describe it as a “heart-rending” tragedy?) And so whatever happens on earth happens to the glory of God, including all the circumstances surrounding the deaths of all children. It should be noted that conspicuously missing from Bridges’s list of God’s sovereign activities is any mention of America’s great national sin—abortion—and how it exactly fits into that plan of history which God makes with His loving hand (especially when we consider God’s statement to Jonah about His natural inclination to have mercy upon those who cannot tell their right hand from their left). For though such abortions are done by men, Bridges elsewhere implicitly assures us that all men (presumably abortionists as well) are under the all-sovereign direction of God and His loving hand.
How Bridges’s interpretation of the event in South Wales squares with the book of Job is indeed puzzling. A great wind smote the house and killed Job’s children as they were celebrating the birthday of one of their own.24 The Devil uses the occasion of one of these birthdays to destroy all of them, adding irony in the process by killing them during a celebration meant to commemorate life and its continuance. It is clear from the Bible, as we have already noted, that the deaths of Job’s children were a direct result of Satan inciting God to remove His hedge of protection from around Job. But where do these opening chapters of the book of Job figure into Bridges’s understanding about the children of South Wales dying? In fact, he makes no recognition of it. Please note that I’m not saying here that Satan is responsible for every destructive thing that befalls children and adults in the world. God did indeed tell Adam that if he ate the forbidden fruit he would surely die, and the fallout resulting from Adam’s sin has continued to affect the earth and every person in it. The book of Job does, however, provide an example where the Devil is allowed to exert his free will over wind, lightning (KJV: fire from heaven), and disease for a limited time and application. Incredibly, however, Bridges never discusses these diabolical activities from the book of Job, except to say that Satan had tried to get Job to curse God. Instead, Satan’s activity is apparently dismissed with overarching, breezy statements made elsewhere in Bridges’s book implying God’s sovereignty over every force in the world. At no time are the opening chapters of the book of Job truly taken seriously by Bridges or, for that matter, by any other Calvinist author I have read. In short, the problem for Bridges, as for all Evangelical Calvinists who approach Job, is that a verse like Romans 8:28, which allegedly teaches that all things work together for the good of the believer, ends up informing the book of Job, rather than the book of Job informing Romans 8:28, so that the latter’s translation might be examined for accuracy. The unfortunate reality is that Romans 8:28 remains part of a coterie of playing cards (Romans 9:22, i.e., “fitted for destruction,” etc.), forming a trump suite against all other problematic verses to the Calvinistic view, allowing Calvinism to ante up in its hand in the game of biblical interpretation. The result is an erroneous doctrine that defines God’s sovereignty as total and absolute. When Evangelical authors fail to account for the fact that Satan has had the ability to destroy a man’s house and his children, they can be expected to make statements like the following one by Bridges:
The truth is, all expressions of nature, all occurrences of weather, whether it be a devastating tornado or a gentle rain on a spring day, are acts of God. The Bible teaches that God controls all the forces of nature, both destructive and productive, on a continuous, moment-by-moment basis.
Whether the weather merely disrupts my plans or destroys my home, I need to learn to see God’s sovereign and loving hand controlling itxxxiv
Where is the lesson of Job in all this grand statement? It is not to be found. This is because the Bible doesn’t support Bridges’s conclusions at all. So the question remains: Where is the critical thinking of so many Christians (let alone theologians) on this point, that they should not come rallying to the statements of Job 1—2 to vindicate God in the death of Job’s children?
We have already noted that God’s transference of certain powers to Satan is never attended with how that power shall be used. Prior to removing His hedge of protection from Job, God directs the wind, lightning, and disease so that Job and his family do not fall victim to any of them. God then allows Satan to direct the wind, lightening, and disease as he (the Devil) will. Certainly God knows how the Devil will use these newly acquired powers, for His foreknowledge is perfect. But if we note the actual conversations between God and Satan, it is obvious that God is never making Satan choose how he shall use these powers, i.e., anymore than God is making the events of Job’s history. All along, in fact, God is quite upset with how Satan uses his power.
Throughout history, many men (such as the poet Robert Frost in The Masque of Reason) have been angry at God for not stopping evil from happening in the world. The only way, however, that God could have prevented evil from happening in the world, were if He had eliminated free will at the beginning of creation (i.e., by creating merely a plant-and-tree, stars-in-the-heavens creation). But God wanted certain created things to have free will, and so he made angels and men; and these have demonstrated that they have always wanted their free will. Indeed, would Frost be content not to have the choice to be angry with God and so write The Masque of Reason? The hypocrisy of man is this: Whenever he raises the accusation—i.e., ‘If God is good, why does He allow evil in the world?’—he has already shown his argument to be false, for he has used his free will to feel angry and accusative toward a fair God, thereby demonstrating that he wishes to retain his free will to a point of sinfulness. And such a result, when added to the sinfulness of all men, has given us the present moral condition of the world. Why then doesn’t a man like Frost also complain against God for allowing his disobedience? Well, in fact, that is just what he is doing, though unwittingly! He is blaming God for how free will has been used, including (by implication) his own. Yet he wants the free will to be able to raise an objection against God. The very act therefore of a man raising an accusatory question about why God would allow evil merely exposes his own hypocrisy.
Again, free will is a part of God’s own nature, and God chose that free will be a part of sentient creation-including angels and men. (However, this does not mean that all things sentient are made in God’s image, nor able to disobey unto eternal liability after the fashion of men and angels.) Free will is that part of us that thinks thoughts and chooses our moral course. Sadly, each man has chosen to use his free will to act foolishly by choosing to sin. Certain angels, including the Devil, have also made the choice to think that God is evil. We forget, however, that just because Satan (for example) does choose to do evil, he must always continue to do so. He is still, even now, a free will person able to choose otherwise. The problem, of course, is that the Devil never chooses to do good because he hates God and thinks God is evil. God, on the other hand, knows Himself to be benign and gracious and that to relinquish any area to Satan will always result in that area’s ruin. Thus God was simply placing the welfare of Job’s possessions at the disposal of another person’s free will. “That seems cruel,” someone might say by way of objection. “If I had a child, I would never subject him to such horrors, especially just to prove a point.” Of course, these thoughts are understandable until we realize that God saved men at greatest expense to Himself, thus proving the Trinity’s selfless nature. “Easy for the Father to say, who wanted the Son to do all the hard work,” someone may think. But many an earthly father who has given his son to die in a worthy cause has wished that he himself could have died in his son’s place. In the midst of Job’s trial, the plan of God remained steadfast—He would one day glorify Job as one of His children, knowing that Job’s suffering in this present world was not worthy to be compared to the glory that would be revealed in His servant. Furthermore, the issue at stake in the book of Job was not only God’s reputation, but Job’s as well.
Whether the Wind
While the opening chapters of Job show that God is not causing the events that befall Job, they also disprove another of Jerry Bridges’s claim that we have touched on but now more fully treat—i.e., that all weather occurrences are of God.
First, we recall from Job that the wind which blew the house down on Job’s children and the fire that burned up all the sheep were directed by Satan as he willed. The reason the Devil is not mentioned specifically by name as the sequence of destructive events unfolds in Job 1 is a literary device meant to bring the reader into experiencing the disaster from Job’s point of view.
Yet, Job is not the only book of the Bible that disproves the notion that God is behind all weather occurrences. Another example is found in 1 Kings 19:9b-12, in which Elijah is told to leave the cave where he had been hiding from Queen Jezebel, and to stand on the mountain of God (Mount Sinai):
..and behold, the word of the Lord came to him, and he said unto him, What doest thou here, Elijah? 10And he said, I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away. 11And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: 12And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.
The fact that God’s presence goes before, and is not in, the devastation, is the comforting thought offered to the believer. God goes before us so that we can be assured of His presence during certain terrifying events which He Himself does not cause. This passage is so blunt about God not being in the events of wind, earthquake, and fire on this particular occasion, that no further comment is really necessary for us to make, except to add that it would have been interesting to see how Bridges would have explained these verses. Although six pages in Trusting God are devoted to the subject of God’s sovereignty in weather, no mention is made of 1 Kings 19, an obviously problematic passage for any Calvinist trying to make statements about God’s sovereignty in nature. Even assuming Bridges’s oversight was unintentional, how do we explain this omission? For it hardly points to a thorough study of the subject.
Nor does Bridges mention Mark 4 where Christ rebukes the wind which was causing the waves to nearly swamp the boat which held Jesus and His disciples. The very fact that Christ rebuked the wind implies that He was not directing it just prior to his rebuke, for why would Christ rebuke the wind if it were already under his absolute sovereign control? In any particular situation Jesus may first command the wind to blow in one direction and later command it to blow in another direction; but to rebuke the wind? A rebuke implies that Jesus stood in contrariness to an existing circumstance fueled by ungodly activity.25 How much plainer must these passages be to tell us that God is not the cause of every weather occurrence? Therefore if weather brings destruction we should not automatically attribute it to God, as the Calvinist asks us to do.26
Perhaps someone will raise an objection here. Why, in Mark 4, would God allow the Enemy to cause a violent wind to blow, if He knew Christ would rebuke it? Wouldn’t that mean that God was acting against Himself? But the Bible does not support this objection because to allow something is not to cause it. God is not ruling the wind at the time Jesus rebukes it. While it is true that God allowed the Enemy to control the wind for a time prior to Christ’s rebuke and foreknew that it would cause trouble for Christ, that circumstance is not the same as if God commanded it (anymore than as if God commanded the wind in Job 1, or the lying spirit in 1 Kings 19). God didn’t send the wind against Christ any more than He sent Satan to tempt Christ in the wilderness. In Mark 4 Christ rebukes the wind after being awakened to circumstances that would have proved terrifying for any other man. His faith in God was firm, however, and He rebuked the wind that had been driving the waves. (Certainly, the storm also tested the disciple’s faith.)
Another reason to assign this storm to demonic activity is to realize where Jesus was heading. Mark 5 reveals that after Jesus calmed the storm he arrived at the country of the Gaderenes. There He confronted an unclean spirit named Legion who was possessing and tormenting a man. (Scripture refers to this entity as Legion, i.e., with both singular and plural pronouns. Probably they were a group of demons under the leadership of one demon, or perhaps a group that acted as though it was of one mind. At the least, it was a corporate entity.) The name, “Legion” indicates a great number of demons, since a legion of Roman soldiers was approximately 4,000 to 5,000 persons. (Perhaps their name also suggests a warrior-like temperament.) The devils were upset at having to leave the man because of Jesus’ command, and they asked Him for permission to enter a nearby herd of swine. Jesus granted them permission, the devils entered the animals, and the herd of 2,000 swine ran violently down a steep hill into the sea. Prior to the confrontation, Legion was no doubt aware that Christ was heading toward him in a boat and suspected he would be exorcised. It is reasonable to assume (indeed, necessary, if we are to maintain a theology in which God is not divided against Himself) that Legion or some other demonic force (the Devil perhaps) had asked God the Father (not his Father, of course) permission to direct the winds in this region, and so brought about the storm. The demonic control over this intense wind would explain why Jesus’ disciples, many of whom were experienced fishermen on this very Galilean lake, failed to anticipate this sudden, violent wind. Again, all this evidence points to weather occurrences that were powered by demons, not by God. Their power, however, was but for a time and perhaps for an amount of time unknown even to the Enemy himself. (Presumably, God is not, or always not, under obligation to say for how long He will grant the Enemy rule over a given area.)
And so one must ask why an Evangelical book trying to prove God’s sovereignty would fail to discuss the weather phenomena of Job 1—2 or mention whatsoever Mark 4—5 or 1 Kings 19? These passages naturally suggest themselves as contrary proofs against the Calvinistic view of God’s total sovereignty in weather occurrences, yet all these Scriptures are completely ignored. How do we account for this? Of course, we may eliminate any purposeful deception on the part of the author, but then what is left? Neglect perhaps, but if so, such neglect is not fair to a Christian readership struggling to understand the problem of evil. My concern is that such books which advocate God’s total and absolute sovereignty (e.g., as authored by Bridges, Sproul, Boettner, etc.), when augmented by many other similarly-minded seminary classes, books, sermons, and commentaries, wrongly influence the majority of Christians. Evangelicalism has embraced Calvinism for some time now and therefore slipped into a theology that promises the Christian a benign unity to everything he experiences. Christians have largely forgotten that their faith is not about finding unity in the experience of man’s history, but about finding unity with Christ. Doubtless, those who believe that everything happens by divine design can relax more readily in life, even as persons do who use transcendental meditation to melt away their anxieties by embracing the One of what is. In fact, arguably, one who meditates agreeably upon Calvinistic principles is merely practicing a certain form of yoga meditation. And because Calvinism’s dominance is so strong in today’s Church culture, one suspects that the doctrine of God’s absolute sovereignty will be the great ‘Christian’ lullaby for the foreseeable future.27 Moreover, as the world gets scarier, the retreat into Calvinism will become more attractive. The question, then, is whether the ’sweetness’ of this lullaby has settled over the Church to where a correcting message to the Body is an unwelcome interruption that will not be heard. Indeed, if my own experience is any gauge, I would say that the answer is yes. (In my case, for example, with one church’s leaders there appeared to be a certain reluctance to address the problem of Calvinism as I tried to raise the issue with some of them.) Meanwhile, many Evangelicals simply seem to submit themselves uncritically to Calvinistic doctrine, a doctrine which promises to make God and the gospel irrational in definition and explanation.
The Church: Equal Justice For All?
We have only explored in part why so many Evangelical books and magazine articles continue to endorse the idea of God’s absolute sovereignty. Another reason seems to be that the Church has not been paying attention to Christians who have been warning them against false doctrine. In the Old Testament the job of warning God’s people (Israel) against false doctrine fell to the prophets, and today it would appear that a similar prophetic gift may operate in the New Testament church (if we can presume that the gift of prophecy exists today in a somewhat different form). By ‘prophet’ I mean ‘proclaimer,’ not foreteller—though it is true that proclaimers generally have a greater sense of what future consequences lay ahead for the Church if it ignores certain truths.28 Christians with the gift of proclamation may frequently also have some measure of the gift of knowledge into mysteries (i.e., included here would presumably be things that at first glance appear contradictory and therefore difficult of perception), so that their warnings have a greater sense of urgency. Thus the prophet prophesies according to the measure of his faith. Like the tone of Old Testament prophets, the tone of today’s warnings can sound abrupt and severe. This is because the proclaimer senses an immediacy about some divine warning to the church and understands that God is warning the Body against some disastrous course or doctrinal disease. When we consider the messenger’s severe tone to the lukewarm church at Laodicea in Revelation 3 (”and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked “), we can imagine how that kind of message would be received by a 21st century American Evangelical church. Yet God is the same, His attitude about sin is the same, and the degree and prevalence of sin in the world is the same, if not worse, than it was in the first century. Why then, does the Church expect that the prophetic gift should sound any different? Today the Church seems to expect warnings to be winsome, as though they came from diplomats, not prophets. And while winsomeness might be found in the gifts of hospitality, evangelism, helps, pastoring, teaching, etc., this characteristic is relatively absent in the case of prophecy. Where, for example, is winsomeness found in the many calls for repentance in the Old Testament prophetic books? It does not occur often. While we would grant that an unbeliever must be approached with care, concern, and with speech that is tempered, why does the Church act as though God has not reserved for Himself certain persons to be His voice of exasperation with His own people? Has He reserved for Himself pastors, teachers, helpers, evangelists, etc., but not proclaimers with knowledge to warn the Church in proper and applicable circumstances?
While spiritual gifts make most people feel they are helping to build community, the proclaimer who relays a blunt-sounding message from God can feel considerably marginalized within the Church. I have been involved in local churches most of my life, and have yet to personally experience the church which has taken seriously the gifts of prophecy or the utterance of knowledge, or made a proper venue for them. The practical effect is that some members are saying to other members within the Body, “We have no need of you.” Perhaps that’s because most people, Christians included, don’t like to be told that their thinking ought to change. If you’re a Christian with the gifts of proclamation and/or knowledge, you may often feel estranged after attempting to use your gift(s) to help the Body. Probably you are reduced to making some brief comment in Sunday school. Yet Paul’s implication that men can ask questions at an appropriate time during the formal worship service is habitually ignored.29
Instead, often the pastor determines the parameters of discourse, and, intentionally or not, monopolizes the information presented. And any man wishing to ask a dissenting question about something the pastor says is almost certainly resigned to the non-public venue of the pastor’s office at the pastor’s convenience. My above description of this ‘presenter-to-audience’ format, which conveys the one-way pipeline of information from pastor to congregation, is the near universal experience for most Evangelicals in American churches. As a result, parishioners are mere receivers of information. As such, they are not expected to question the ‘authority’ of the pastor [i.e., the term ‘authority’ here seems to represent to the congregation whatever ideas the pastor happens to present (regardless of accuracy)]. Indeed, many parishioners seem to be suspicious of any man wishing to critically question something the pastor has said.
Nevertheless, your job (if you are a proclaimer) is to be the scout on the other side of the hill, for few others see what you see—this is simply your job in the church.30 Yet many of today’s proclaimers, or those gifted with the utterance of knowledge, either find no venue in church for their gift or the effort of using their gift too discouraging. Other people with different gifts, such as encouragement, hospitality, or helps, seem relatively welcome in the church and feel less conflicted (at least ideologically) while ministering. This is because everyone appreciates the guy who mows the front lawn of the church or the amateur electrician who knows how to wire a three-way switch between the basement and the sanctuary. Such persons, while they might come into relational conflict with others—the kind of conflict which pastors seem naturally adept at handling—rarely come into doctrinal conflict with church leadership for natural reasons. If you are a proclaimer, however, you are almost certain to feel that you are on the outside looking in. Most Christians become guarded whenever you go into a mode of proclaiming, and I don’t mean into a mode of public address per se, but even when the warning is simply offered in private conversation. For example, Proclaimer A says something to Person B that invites a response, but often Proclaimer A receives only a short and polite, non-committal reply. No outward disagreement is expressed by Person B (he might even appear pleasant), but the response seems clear—’Don’t talk to me about it,’ or ‘This makes me feel a little uncomfortable.’ The proclaimer’s persistent attempt at dialogue often earns him the reputation for being somewhat unpredictable—a ‘loose cannon on the deck,’ a ‘difficult’ person who is rarely satisfied with the ideological direction of the Church in one way or another. Hence, the proclaimer remains a puzzle to those congregants who do not recognize the need to acknowledge his message. And the same general reaction is directed toward the knower (person gifted with the utterance of knowledge).
And so enters Evangelical Calvinist thinkers who operate in the vacuum of the prophetic gift.31 If we may presume such men to be saved, I believe these have gained influence for their ideas chiefly from 1) having the gift of especial faith (a gift that is different than the prophetic gift which is used according to the prophet’s faith), and 2) having the sheer ability to teach and communicate their ideas in a positive-sounding way. Many of these authors do, in fact, have extraordinary abilities to teach, to pastor, and to encourage others. Because most of them have fine intellects and are caring, positive-minded people, they are uncritically listened to in the Church. Most pastors seem to have a special faith like Job, who was prepared to trust God even when it looked like God was punishing him. This is what the gift of faith often looks like among Christians. The gift of especial faith is given to certain believers upon conversion, and it makes it easier for them to exercise daily, practical faith and to encourage greater faith in the church.32In many respects, the gift of faith commends these believers to God and, of course, to many Christians. For people are naturally drawn to faith-filled individuals. When we pause to think of faith-filled people, we realize that a common denominator in them is a deep-seated confidence in God that bears up under public scrutiny. Once they are saved they find it natural to believe, and many Christians admire this ability and wish it for themselves. The gift of daily, practical faith is a winsome gift, and it attracts people, and again, this gift is absolutely vital to the Church because it encourages others to believe God regardless of the circumstances.
On the other hand, Christians who do not have this especial gift of practical faith find it natural to be somewhat skeptical. You would never want to settle on the naturally skeptical person as the rightful example of what it means to take God at His word on a moment-by moment basis. Consequently, Christians (like myself) with a natural turn for skepticism are more able to ‘identify’ with those who believe any one of a hundred false religions or ideologies, because we see in ourselves the human tendency to disbelieve God through a non-biblical idea that can prove just as verbally and argumentatively consistent. Though we are believers, this empathy nevertheless means we entertain more objections against our faith than most other Christians. But as Christian proclaimers with a strong turn for knowledge (or visa versa, knowers with a secondary gift of proclamation) we feel keen concern for whether the Church will maintain the absolute authority of Scripture. This concern often causes us to delve into why the Christian (biblical) faith is the correct one, and why other religions and philosophies are not. People with the gift of practical faith—and I’m speaking very frankly here—usually do not make the best apologists, because they don’t particularly identify with how easy it is for some people to disbelieve, and this often leads them to a lesser interest in examining the Scriptures to combat false ideas (because the concern simply isn’t there). (By the same token most prophets would be lousy pastors because their often blunt and serious approach can leave people feeling they are impatient and unsympathetic.) So, there is often no necessity driving the person of faith to seek answers to certain difficult issues. If people with the gift of faith come to a conundrum in the Bible they find it easy to say to themselves, “Well, I can’t figure that one out, but obviously God and His Word are true anyway.” I know someone who is like this, and he once told me that regardless of whether evolution were true it didn’t really impact his Christian faith. Conversely, a person like myself sees the same conundrum and understands why the skeptic might disbelieve the Bible and adopt the despairing position that he is nothing more than highly evolved sea goo. Another way of expressing this difference in giftedness is to understand that a Christian gifted with evangelism, especially if he is also gifted with practical faith, will more likely be used by God to open a dialog and “close the deal” in evangelizing a person, whereas a Christian with the gifts of proclamation and knowledge may occasionally be used by God to argue down the initial philosophical objections of the unbeliever, far in advance of the arrival of the evangelist. Thus the evangelist may reap the seed that another has sown (and of course, as Paul says, God gives the increase).
What is often misunderstood in the Evangelical church is that the gift of pastoring does not automatically come with the gifts of (especial ) proclamation and (especial ) utterance of knowledge, which help the church to better understand the conundrums that affect one’s view of God. This is not to say that a pastor/teacher may not have more than one gift; indeed, he may have. But the especial gift of knowledge to understand difficult, analytical and critical arguments should be expected infrequently among pastors, because the relational temperament generally needed for a pastor to nurture, encourage, and practically instruct others is somewhat different than the temperament generally needed for proclaiming intense, urgent warnings stemming from critical analysis. By “gift” here, I mean that God not only gives a special ability for a Christian to minister to the Body but also—and this is important—a propensity toward having certain concerns about the Body. The person with the gift of faith is concerned that other Christians have more faith. By the same token, the one gifted with knowledge about biblical conundrums is concerned that Christians have more understanding about the nature of God, or of eschatology, etc. The one gifted as a pastor is concerned that others be more caring of one another in love and truth, and so forth. I believe one of the problems in today’s Evangelical Church (i.e. regarding the issue of defining the exact nature of God’s sovereignty, properly expressed) is that many books have been published by many faith-filled, caring pastors and teachers who, in fact, have not had an especial gift for knowledge.
I have to be blunt here. What else besides this confusion of gifts would explain why such persons often nibble at problematic passages without really digesting them? They simply believe God is sovereign regardless of what certain Scriptures say. This is why Calvinist apologists are always appealing to ‘mystery’ in order to explain such a diversity of things—from the problem of evil to the moral character of God. Any person prone to running up the flagpole of conundrum the banner of explanation that reads “God’s inscrutable decrees” either 1) does not have the gift of knowledge, or 2) potentially has the gift of knowledge but is not walking in the Spirit and so cannot give a proper explanation.33 Please understand, some of these are men (particularly in the former instance) with a caring nature who don’t want to see the faith of Christians overthrown by life’s circumstances. Hence, they write long treatises trying to convince Evangelicals to maintain their faith in a God whom they claim guides and governs all the decisions of all the governments, kings, and mad tyrants that have ever lived, some of whom have even blasphemed the name of Christ. Well-meaning men (at least let us hope they are well-meaning) make these Calvinistic statements, but when such statements are taught at our seminaries and preached by nationally recognized pastors, they set the pace for a false apologetic in the Church that is not Christian at all. The most recent example I heard of this was from a well-known Evangelical radio pastor who gave the standard Calvinistic explanation about the tension between the election of sinners by God and the free will of man. After a brief ‘explanation’ he added the caveat that the conundrum between divine election and human freedom shouldn’t bother us overly, “For if God were that small, He wouldn’t be big enough to worship.” This interpretation about election puts the issue of election under the banner, God is sovereign in everything, including persons’ predestined ends, and it may sound impressive—but what does this radio pastor mean, except that God cannot be understood in a rational way? Are we not being told, in effect and by extended application, that God is big enough for us to trust today and also big enough to trust that He knew what He was doing in history when He foreordained 1930s German politics and the Holocaust which flowed out from it? Personally, this leaves me feeling that God could afford to be a little smaller, so that I could thank Him for my salvation without having to glorify Him for His foreordination of the Nazi party. Perhaps this particular preacher would nay-say this alleged implication. Certainly one presumes he is unaware of what he is doing. But as Evangelicals we seem to have forgotten that when the Bible says that God’s thoughts and ways are as high above our own even as the heavens are to the earth, this means in degree, not in fundamental nature,so that a proper logic would no longer be applicable. We are, after all, made in God’s image, and so much so that even sucklings and children are able to praise Him. So while it is true that God cannot be understood in His full comprehensiveness, the Bible does teach that God can be known fundamentally.
Incredible damage to Evangelicalism has resulted from seminary professors, pastors, and teachers who for generations have failed to understand when and when not to appeal to “mystery” as a theological explanation. Because these Christians are like the rest of us Christians who still sin, these men are prone to believe in God’s goodness even when their interpretations of disastrous events would be legitimate reasons not to trust a God who is alleged to control everything. The problem, again, is that many of these men have usurped the office of especial knowledge and/or especial proclamation, and consequently (though perhaps unintentionally) marginalized those who truly do have these gifts. For example, in the Church we have missionary conferences (emphasizing evangelism), marriage seminars (emphasizing nurturing, helps, encouraging, etc.), and even pastor conferences (emphasizing pastoring), but whenever did you hear of a local church seminar concerned with understanding knowledge about conundrums (eschatology excepted)? The proclamation of especial knowledge is simply assumed to be exercised from the pulpit. In the case of Calvinism spawned, the result has been theological error rigorously applied. Take the doctrine of God’s absolute sovereignty, for example. Spiritually speaking, it is as though such pastors, teachers, and professors copy out a math problem from a textbook but fail to copy a positive or negative sign, which consequently affects the entire equation. In many respects the deductions of Calvinists per se are flawless and in-depth, but because a false, opening premise about the sovereignty of God affects all the deductions that follow, their entire equation, process, and conclusion are wrong. That type of error is not a matter of general intelligence but of specific knowledge (or of a willingness to be open to that knowledge). The situation is like trying to balance a checkbook and transcribing the wrong penny amount from the very first check, and then subsequently carrying that error throughout all the subsequent calculations and balances. Furthermore, all this theological error happens amidst an already bewildering atmosphere of worldly, moral decline affecting the Church—a Church already trying to keep apologetic pace with a score of bizarre, philosophical slants that demands its attention. Naturally, if the Church does not regard prophetic warnings in this climate, it will unwittingly grow accustomed to doubtful ideas. This is what is happening today, and it has been happening for a long time. The result is a Christianity that is watered-down in understanding, so that the Living Water is not presented as refreshing as it (rather, He) once was. Of course the principles of consequence that govern the neglect of explaining certain conundrums also govern the neglect of all other spiritual gifts. If the evangelist is undervalued in the Church, the Church will lack missionaries and new converts. If the pastor or teacher is undervalued, the church’s nurturing, spiritual education, and guidance will suffer. If helpers are undervalued the church facility will be untidy and work poorly. So, too, if the gift of understanding conundrums (including those about God’s character) is undervalued, the church’s early warning system against false doctrine is compromised. Indeed, would not today’s lack of appreciation for the gifts of prophecy and knowledge go far in explaining why so many false theologies are gaining footholds in the Church?
Is God All-Sovereign in Creation?
If one wanted evidence why someone not utilizing the gift(s) of prophecy and/or knowledge should stay away from taking a leading role in apologetics, there are numerous examples. Again, not the least of these (as already demonstrated, but to which we now add a further example) is found in Boettner’s book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. My study of Boettner was an interesting and disturbing one, for I found a great many assertions in his book urging the reader to concede that God was absolutely sovereign. For example, Boettner speaks of the absolute sovereignty of God over all creation, including the animal kingdom. He begins with examples no one would likely question. Thus we are told that God’s eye is on the sparrow, that He provides food for the birds that neither sow nor reap, gives food to the young lions, takes cattle away from the devious Laban in order to give them to Jacob, and shuts the mouths of lions that otherwise would have hurt Daniel>xxxv But obviously one finds these examples lop-sided; for Boettne34 makes no mention of the baby sparrow that the cat kills, the crushed animal at the side of the road, or Caesar’s lions (or dogs) which masticated upon the faces of early Christians. But why this censoring if indeed God is absolutely sovereign? And what about the human realm? Why not cheer the daily body-count of victims reported on the local evening news as much as the biblical miracles of old? Are not all these the acts of an all-sovereign God? Evidently, the reason for these omissions is because Boettner, though a Calvinist, is one in whom the Spirit of God is still trying to convince of his theological errors. Thus, Boettner has a latent feeling within him that wants to perceive God in terms of kindness. Boettner is not really prone toward seeing God as equally involved in all of man’s history and experience, despite his professed willingness to do so.
As I widened my research I came to Sproul’s book, Chosen By God, which I have previously mentioned. Sproul likewise selects examples that are geared toward gaining our sympathy with God’s sovereignty, using evidence one would be unlikely to question. Here is one such example:
If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of God’s sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled. Perhaps that one maverick molecule will lay waste all the grand and glorious plans that God has made and promised to us. If a grain of sand in the kidney of Oliver Cromwell changed the course of English history, so our maverick molecule could change the course of all redemptive history. Maybe that one molecule will be the thing that prevents Christ from returning.xxxvi
Notice here how Sproul appeals to English history and the Protestant reformer Oliver Cromwell as examples of God’s sovereignty over ‘maverick molecules.’ Sproul has thus picked a non-controversial, much-admired figure to pull on the heartstrings of Evangelical Protestants. But imagine the dubiousness of Sproul’s argument if his example were that of Adolf Hitler and Nazi policy. On such a footing one might wish that maverick molecules had escaped God’s foreordained plans in order to run around loose in Der Fuhrer’s kidney’s and change all of German history. Why is it, then, that Sproul is not as prone to use the example of Hitler as he is of the Protestant, Cromwell? Are not both the acts of an all-sovereign God? The reason, apparently, is that Sproul has a desire to perceive God in terms of kindness. Sproul does not really see God as equally involved in all of the affairs of man’s cruel history and experience. Thus he feels the pressure to give a sympathetic example, despite his eventual appeal to dialectical mystery. Evidently, it has been easier for Sproul to persuade Evangelicals to believe in the absolute sovereignty of God by talking about Reformers who reportedly never entered battle except with a prayer on their lips, rather than by talking about the foreordination of gas ovens and the SS.
The truly astonishing thing about the above statements by these Reformed authors is that neither Boettner nor Sproul express any sense of dilemma in these passages. We wonder what has happened to the kind of concern Sproul mentioned early in his book about the problem of evil not really being appreciated by Christians for its difficulty. Yet where is his appreciation of this difficulty at the end of his own book, when stating that he has taken a “great comfort” in the idea of an all-sovereign God? And yet we find a further question-Why would either of these men even suppose that their examples of God’s sovereignty fairly represented all of man’s history and experience? Indeed, why would they think that such biased examples as they use had any apologetic value at all? For us to surmise the reason or reasons for this is admittedly speculative. Yet let us eliminate purposeful deception; and we also ought to correct any notion that these men lack diligence per se, for witness the earnest efforts at writing books that attempt answers. But again, the question is begged-what then is left? The only answer I can give is that they do not have the gift of the utterance of knowledge aimed at understanding the particular conundrum we are discussing (despite their giftedness as communicators). Remember what ’sovereignty’ means to the Calvinist. For him it is not that God is sovereign despite history but that God is sovereign in history. Unfortunately, Calvinism’s grave, mistaken assumption passes largely unnoticed by the Church. Thus Evangelicals continue to embrace Calvin’s philosophical model but are without a biblical apologetic. ‘Without,’ I say, because the only apologetic that Boettner, Sproul, etc., can offer is history itself, and history as it stands is hardly a compelling argument for a caring God. Indeed, men like Charles Darwin and his followers have always known that such an ‘answer’ was not a compelling argument. Yet many Christians still don’t know this, and it’s now 150 years after the appearance of On the Origin of Species. The ideological and evangelizing ground that Christians have lost is simply staggering.
I’ll admit that prophetic warnings given to the Church are hard to hear. After all, are there any nice, winsome ways to tell a professor, an author, or a pastor that he is wrong? The error will need to be pointed out, and the person will have to realize their mistake. In the case of certain persons it will be incredibly awkward for them. The person in error might have already published in support of divine absolute sovereignty and enjoyed the favor of a national audience. Probably he will have come to his conclusions after studying the Bible and the subject of sovereignty for long hours as a young seminarian or self-educated Bible student. And now we ask him to repent of his thinking?! Realistically speaking, what is the likelihood of that? Nevertheless, if the Church is to move forward at all possible speed, then repentance from wrong thinking will need to take place. Even for the Church to move forward at any speed toward a correct apologetic about the nature of God will mean recognition by some Christians—more Christians—that Calvin’s view on the sovereignty of God is not biblical, and that it falls woefully short of giving any kind of satisfactory answer to the problem of evil.
24 Job 1:4 says that Job’s sons “feasted in their houses, every one his day [i.e., birthday)] and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them.” This verse explains why all of Job’s children were in the same place at the time of their deaths. Note that Satan waited to bring disaster until it was the eldest son’s birthday, a day symbolic of divine blessing and the beginning of Job’s patriarchal strength. Following the tragedy, doubtless Job imagined that these birthdays now promised to be but grim reminders of that terrible day. No wonder when Job finally spoke out of his depression and sense of survivor-guilt, he first cursed his own day and wished it off the calendar.
25The same Greek word in Mark 4:39 translated rebuked is used when Jesus rebukes a demon in Mark 1:25 and 9:25. No word translated command or rebuke appears in Mark 5, as the emphasis instead is on Jesus’ permission for the devils to enter the swine. Mark uses other words which have been translated command. Thus, Jesus’ rebuke of the wind is an act of contrariness to the existing circumstance.
I once asked a Reformed thinker about the implication of Jesus rebuking the wind. He replied by gesturing with his hands in one direction, then the other, saying we might understand it as Jesus commanding the wind this way one moment, then directing it that way the next moment. Such a response is a clear example of what Thomas Edgar, in his article on foreknowledge, shows to be the reading of one’s theology into the meaning of words when God is [grammatically] the subject of the passage. This Reformed thinker, instead of allowing the historical-grammatical lexical evidence to lead him to a proper understanding of the distinct meanings of ‘rebuked’ and ‘commanded,’ chose simply to read his theology into the passage. Thus, since Christ [God] was the subject of the passage, and because this Reformed thinker needed to uphold his doctrine of divine absolute sovereignty, the words ‘rebuked’ and ‘commanded’ were forced to be synonyms.
Along these lines I am compelled to say something additionally here. I originally wrote this book in response to Jerry Bridges’s book, Trusting God Even When It Hurts. This came about (as already noted) because one of my pastors at the church I was attending suggested I give Bridges’s book to a close friend of mine who no longer believed in biblical inerrancy. As I read Bridges’s book, however, I saw that it was hyper-Calvinistic, and so I never passed it on. Now, in retrospect, I wonder if my friend wasn’t being more honest than this pastor (unwittingly) proved to be, for my friend was forthright in his denial of biblical inerrancy, whereas this pastor stood by an author who takes biblical terms and makes them errant. Pray tell, what is the difference, then, between these two acquaintances of mine regarding biblical inerrancy in a certain regard? For if this pastor takes key terms and concepts in the Bible only upon the condition of the terms he accepts, and those terms are in error, then it seems to me his apologetic understanding is, at the best, that of a doubleminded Christian, or, at the worst, even Buddhist in nature (since all Reformed terms are flatlined down to meaninglessness). I certainly grant the former, not the latter, but it gives me small comfort to think of the continued influence such Christians wield when expressing their apologetic.
26 Obviously my statement is not meant to include future divine judgments of God involving weather as foretold in Scripture.
27As Arthur Pink says in The Attributes of God (p. 27): “Rightly did the late Mr. Spurgeon say in his sermon on Matt. 20:15, “There is no attribute more comforting to His children than that of God’s sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe trials, they believe that Sovereignty has ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all. There is nothing for which the children ought more earnestly to contend than the doctrine of their Master over all creation….” ” Hence according to Pink (who follows Spurgeon), God “ordains” that which He “overrules.”
28 Two spiritual gifts that supplement the effort in exposing false doctrine are the gift of prophecy and the gift of knowledge (see spec. 1 Cor. 13:2, but also chpts. 12-14 for a general discussion of spiritual gifts). Paul appears to link these two gifts with explaining mysteries. Peter is an example of someone who probably did not have the gift of (especial ) knowledge, since his own epistles are fairly straight-forward, and because he speaks of Paul’s writings as containing some things hard to understand (difficult of perception). (Arguably, he had the gift of prophecy, however.) Some might argue that these two gifts are related only to canonicity and no longer exist. This argument seeks support from 1 Corinthians 13, in which Paul states that when the complete (KJV perfect) thing is come, the partial shall be done away. But Paul is making a general point about completeness, and he offers the example of putting away childish things once he became a man. More to the point, Paul states that when that which is complete arrives he shall know even as he is known. Being in the presence of Christ, not the completion of the Scriptural canon, would seem to be the more likely event referred to here. Granting this, the gifts of prophecy (evidenced today as proclamation) and knowledge are still in operation today.
29A fact deduced from a woman (or perhaps, wife) not being allowed in the formal worship service to ask questions (at least, as the text may be stating, in relation to prophetic evaluation and apart from her husband’s authority). Thus any habitual failure on the part of church elders to recognize a man’s right, in due order, to question something said in the formal worship service during the worship service, is also a failure by such elders to embrace sexual distinction as intended by God regarding this particular area.
30While this does not make the proclaimer more special than anyone else in the Body, neither does it make him less special. As Paul says, all the gifts of the Spirit in the Body are necessary for the proper working of the whole.Yet in 1 Corinthians 12 Paul does say that the gift of prophecy is greater (weightier) than all others except for the apostleship that was then extant in the early New Testament church. Unlike other lists of spiritual gifts in Paul’s other epistles, in which gifts are arranged in no particular order, Paul’s assignment of a specific order to the spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians is given to combat a problem peculiar to the Corinthian church, i.e., that church’s tendency to exaggerate the importance of the lesser spiritual gifts. Furthermore, the gift of prophecy is akin to the gift of knowledge which understands mysteries (1 Cor. 13:2) and things difficult of perception (2 Pet. 3:16). Further, unlike Old Testament prophecy, New Testament prophecy was to be evaluated. Thus prophets like Agabus were transitional figures between the old and new dispensations, living in the new, but having the kind of ability to foretell events seemingly absent from that activity (of prophecy) in which Paul urged every believer in the Corinthian church to participate, and in which certain ones were especially gifted. Note, then, that the Corinthian text can hardly mean that Paul was urging every believer in the Corinthian church to foretell events. Nor should it be assumed that the “prophecy” which the Corinthian prophets spoke was of an Old Testament variety and therefore fundamentally different than that “prophecy” to which all other Corinthian saints were encouraged to use according to their own gifts, since such an assumption would rely on the false hermeneutic that even in the same non-idiomatic context a word (in this case “prophecy”) may change meaning depending on the subject. For these reasons proclamation ought to still be considered operational in Christ’s church today, though we realize it is somewhat different in form than that found in the Old Testament.
Incidentally, when prophecy or the utterance of knowledge is spurned by the Church, such as explaining how God and His goodness are removed from the problem of evil, it would seem that the Christian’s reward stemming from the using of his gift(s), if he does so with deliberate spurning of such gifts in the Body as prophecy and knowledge, will be in vain relative to the extent which his understanding has become false. In other words, if 40% of one’s motive in preaching the gospel is based on one’s desire that people know God according to the principles of Calvinism, then 40% of one’s work is vain in terms of it personally profiting him. That is, God cannot reward him for that part. In addition, his effort in that regard may cause much harm to others.
Also, and incidentally, 1 Corinthians 13:2 is not teaching that a person with the gift of knowledge will have knowledge into all mysteries. That is, one ought not to fault a knower for not knowing everything. Indeed, Paul said that we know in part. Simply defined, the Christian knower is the one demonstrating a greater propensity for understanding knowledge than most Christians. Paul is thus stating hypothetical cases in 1 Corinthians 13 to make a general point about love. Thus when Paul says that if he spoke with the tongues of men and of angels, it is doubtful he is implying that it would be possible for him to speak with angelic tongues, for if Paul spoke such languages as a man, angelic languages would cease to be so exalted, since they would no longer be of special angelic domain but accessible also to man (who was made lower than the angels). Rather, Paul is simply making a point in 1 Corinthians 13 by using hyperbole to prove that even the greatest hypothetical accomplishments, if attached to wrong motive, would be without any godly merit.
31…as well as in the vacuum of the gift of knowledge.
32A question may be raised here as to how faith of any kind may be said to be given by God, since it must be the believer himself who exercises his faith, not God exercising the faith ‘on behalf of ‘ the believer. The answer lies upon this fact: the faith described in 1 Corinthians as “the gift of faith” is not irresistibly given but is given in the sense of being offered. In the case of the person God wishes to gift with faith, the believer, if willing, is specifically strengthened by God toward that end via a greater thought presentation, i.e., according to that which God says is true. This divine mode of Spirit-giving is really true in relation to all the gifts. In other words, spiritual gifts are not irresistible. The Christian who is gifted with mercy is the one walking in the light of Christ and exercising mercy, but clearly that Christian can quench the Spirit in that regard if he wishes to. Even so, the person gifted with faith is not gifted irresistibly against his will. In fact, probably we all tend to waffle to one degree or another about allowing or resisting the Spirit regarding our gift(s).
As a sidebar point here, let us remember that God in His foreknowledge understands when a person’s faith in the work of Christ is of such degree that it shall persevere to the end. And because God has this knowledge, He can declare that such a person is eternally saved upon the instant that person truly trusts Christ. (Incidentally, this fact refutes the notion that we would disbelieve and lose our salvation in the future. God knows whose faith among men is of a persevering kind ( i.e., belief ) and consequently gives His Spirit only unto those who truly (irretractably) believe. Thus God’s bestowal of the Spirit is a seal of their salvation.) Note also Christ’s statement to his disciples, when He said that the Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. He did not say that the flesh was utterly incapable of choosing to do the correct thing in a given situation, but that it was weak to do it (see chapter 18 for a true definition of man’s fallen nature). Therefore the flesh is not helpless, but weak, i.e., weak in the sense that it will not (I do not say can not) diligently act unless it is encouraged by God to do so. The point here is that God (in the case of the one being offered the spiritual gift of faith) opposes the believer’s weakness in the flesh by presenting to his mind and spirit His divine thoughts, so that the flesh (Gr. sarx), which presents to the believer a regular stream of thought (knowledge) telling him of the pleasures of good and evil, is interrupted by the divine presentation that seeks to have us live after the Spirit only. God has decided that His interruption of the presentation of the believer’s old nature (Gr. sarx) via divine thought-presentation shall be more pronounced in some believers than in others, i.e., of faith to one, of knowledge to another, of how to pastor to yet another, etc. Incidentally, the wise Christian will see that this divine activity in his life eliminates any boasting in the using of his gift.
33Ironically, those who do not have the gift of knowledge but purport that they do, make frequent appeals to the absence of knowledge as the basis of explanation. We ought to remember that such persons in their theology will promote a seducing spirit of doctrine that may feel good to the Body but is, in fact, deadly. If it is true that we are living in the last days, then one ought to look for a popular doctrine that sounds like it is Christian, but is not (i.e., Calvinism); for presumably Satan is clever enough to know that believers will not discard biblical doctrine for another gospel unless it appears biblical.
34I first came across Boettner’s work after it was recommended to me some 20 years ago in the basement bookstore of a large, well-known, Presbyterian church whose membership I nearly joined. I had come within a week of completing my membership classes, when I came to realize I no longer felt comfortable enough with the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God to join the church. Nevertheless, I wanted to study a book about Calvinism that was authored by a Calvinist in order to better understand the Calvinist’s argument. When I asked the elderly clerk of the church bookstore (who seemed long on experience) if there was a standard work on the subject of predestination, he recommended (with little hesitation) Boettner’s work, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.
xxxiii Bridges, pp. 117-118.
xxxiv Bridges, p. 96.
xxxvBoettner, p. 39.
xxxviSproul, pp. 26-27.