God’s Sovereignty and Glory - by Derek Thomas

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------------

We have been on the lookout lately for someone who can coherently explain God's sovereignty as it relates to election. A previous post examined a failed attempt to explain. Here's another. 

The author we are examining today basically assembles a word salad. He blows the opportunity to explain anything. Truly, there is no elucidation here, just a series of assertions with a random tangent or two thrown in. He completely sidesteps the issue.

The thing that Calvinists and reformists seem to have difficulty with is the division point between what is pre-ordained and what isn't. By that we mean, a Calvinist will always assert that God did not create or cause sin, that the unsaved are choosing to sin by their own free will, and that the devil chose to rebel, etc; but on the other hand will deny the other side of the coin, that people have free will in the salvation process.  

This means that Calvinists accede to free will, at least on the sin side, because they simply can't let God be the author of evil. But they are unable to cite the verses that speak of this delineation.

The Calvinist wants to interpret the nature of God through his own definitions and finds tension with the violations of his definitions. So the Calvinist needs workarounds and complicated explanations. He creates a system of rules, precepts, and terminology that sound high minded and sophisticated:

• evil as a privation of the good, 
• Evil is a matter of ontology (being).
• contingency of second causes 
• God is the “first cause” of all things, but evil is a product of “second causes.” 
• the proximate cause is one thing, and the remote cause another.

This is the process of systematic theology, which at times is barely distinguishable from nonsense. 

Our position is that God is completely sovereign, and knows every detail of everything that has happened and will happen, everywhere. But sovereignty is not control. He is God, therefore He decides His sovereignty on His terms. Sovereignty does not come to bear on free choice, simply because it is God who decides what His sovereignty is and how it operates. 

God certainly can know everything and there still be free choice in man. He has this ability. These are not the binary equations Calvinists suppose they are.

----------------

God is sovereign in creation, providence, redemption, and judgment. That is a central assertion of Christian belief and especially in Reformed theology. God is King and Lord of all. To put this another way: nothing happens without God’s willing it to happen, willing it to happen before it happens, and willing it to happen in the way that it happens. (Except, we will discover, evil.)

Put this way, it seems to say something that is expressly Reformed in doctrine. But at its heart, it is saying nothing different from the assertion of the Nicene Creed: “I believe in God, the Father Almighty.” To say that God is sovereign is to express His almightiness in every area.

God is sovereign in creation. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). Apart from God, there was nothing. And then there was something: matter, space, time, energy. And these came into being ex nihilo—out of nothing. The will to create was entirely God’s. The execution was entirely His. There was no metaphysical “necessity” to create; it was a free action of God.

God is sovereign in providence. (Undocumented statement. No Scripture provided...)

Traditional theism insists that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent—all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present. Each assertion is a variant of divine sovereignty. His power, knowledge, and presence ensure that His goals are met, that His designs are fulfilled, and that His superintendence of all events is (to God, at least) essentially “risk free.”

God’s power is not absolute in the sense that God can do anything (potestas absoluta); rather, God’s power ensures that He can do all that is logically possible for Him to will to do. “He cannot deny himself,” for example (2 Tim. 2:13). (God's power is not related to what is logically possible, it is related to His character and nature. If God is who He says He is, then quite simply He is not something He is not.)

Some people object to the idea that God knows all events in advance of their happening. Such a view, some insist, deprives mankind of its essential freedom. Open theists or free-will theists, for example, insist that the future (at least in its specific details) is in some fashion “open.” Even God does not know all that is to come. He may make predictions like some cosmic poker player, but He cannot know absolutely. This explains, open theists suggest, why God appears to change His mind: God is adjusting His plan based on the new information of unforeseeable events (see Gen. 6:6–7; 1 Sam. 15:11). (The author mentions open theism as if it is the only alternative to his view. But open theism is not a requirement in order to believe in free will.)

Reformed theology, on the other hand, insists that no event happens that is a surprise to God. To us it is luck or chance, but to God it is part of His decree. “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (Prov. 16:33). (This Scripture citation does not demonstrate the author's assertion. And again the author presents us only two options as if others do not exist.

And, he does not explain "His decree." What does God decree? Does everything happen because God has decreed it [um, except evil]? This is what frustrates us, the author simply doesn't bother to explain anything.)

Language of God changing His mind in Scripture is an accommodation to us and our way of speaking, not a description of a true change in God’s mind. (Undocumented statement. No Scripture provided...)

God is sovereign in redemption, a fact that explains why we thank God for our salvation and pray to Him for the salvation of our spiritually lost friends. (We thank God for our salvation because He is sovereign? What does this mean? Who does this?)

If the power to save lies in man’s free will, (Notice how the author frames this. However, no Christian believes that the power to save is in man's free will.)

if it truly lies in their unaided ability to save themselves, (The author pushes the boundary farther, to ludicrous levels...)

why would we implore God to “quicken,” “save,” or “regenerate” them? (By offering this false choice, the author attempts to create a situation that seems ridiculous.)

The fact that we consistently thank God for the salvation of individuals means (whether we admit it or not) that belief in absolute free will is inconsistent. (The author then plops his conclusion on the table as if he has made some sort of definitive argument. And again, who believes in "absolute free will," and what does that mean? Will the author explain anything?)

God is sovereign in judgment. Few passages of Scripture reflect the sovereignty of God in election and reprobation with greater force than Romans 9:21: “Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” (There is nothing in this text that refers to judgment.

But worse, the author tries to use the details of Paul's illustration to describe what God is like. That is, God makes some people who to do good things, and He purposely makes other people to do evil because potters make beautiful, elegant pots and also make pots that feed pigs. But the author rejects the idea that God makes people sin. So he quotes this verse without bothering to explain it.

And from this we are supposed to conclude election.

However, we mustn't try to extend an example like Paul's into a full-blown commentary regarding God's nature. These illustrations, examples, stories, and parables are not intended to be explanations of every facet of an issue, and we should not assume they are detailed treatises.

Here's an example, Lk. 18:1-7:

Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 2 He said: “In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared about men. 3 And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, `Grant me justice against my adversary.’ 4 “For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, `Even though I don’t fear God or care about men, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually wear me out with her coming!’“ 6 And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7 And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off?

Should we conclude from this that God doesn't care about men and is an evil judge? Of course not, the story is intended to illustrate a point. Every parable, metaphor, or illustration has a point. We should always discern the salient elements and not assume every detail is applicable.)

On the face of it, this might appear unfair and arbitrary—as though God were playing some vindictive child’s game with the petals of a flower: “He loves me; He loves me not. He loves me; He loves me not.” In response, some people have insisted that God has the right to do whatever He pleases and it is none of our business to find fault with Him—a point that Paul himself anticipates (Rom. 9:20). Others have taken the view that if God were to grant us what we deserve, we would all be damned. (Two perspectives cited as if these were the only ones.)

Election is therefore a gracious (and not just a sovereign) act. (Waaait. He jumps to a conclusion as if this is definitive. But he hasn't even addressed the issue yet!)

Both are true. (Why? Please, explain something! Anything will do at this point.)

But in any case, our salvation displays God’s glory: “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36) (Sigh. When the author finally gets around to citing an actual Scripture it has nothing to do with the point just offered.)

Human Responsibility

The assertion of divine sovereignty is not without further questions that should be addressed. (Good, He's going to address something. We wait with bated breath.)

First, there is the question of evangelism. If God is sovereign in all matters of providence, what is the point of exerting human effort in evangelism and missions? God’s will is sure to be fulfilled whether we evangelize or not. But we dare not reason this way. Apart from the fact that God commands us to evange-lize—“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19)—such reasoning ignores the fact that God fulfills His sovereign plan through human means and instrumentality. (Indeed, the sovereign God has chosen to work through human means. But that begs the question. Regardless of the commands of Scripture regarding our duty, and regardless of God's sovereign choice as to how He implements His plan, the author still needs to explain why anything anyone has done or will do comes to bear on God's salvation through election. 

A Christian might decide to evangelize out of obedience, but the elect will still be saved, making evangelism a meaningless hoop to jump through, changing no outcomes, making no difference at all.)  

Nowhere in the Bible are we encouraged to be passive and inert. (Well of course not. Who believes such a thing?)

Paul commands his Philippian readers to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12–13).

Second, there is the question of ethics. We are held responsible for our actions and behavior. We are culpable in transgression and praiseworthy in obedience. (No Scriptures cited. And the second reason is pretty much the same as the first.)

Third, in relation to civic power and authority, there is the question of God’s sovereignty in the determination of rulers and government. God has raised up civil governments to be systems of equity and good and peace, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of them who do well (Rom. 13:3; 1 Peter 2:14). But this is also true of evil powers and corrupt regimes that violate the very principles of government itself; these are also under the sovereign government of Almighty God. (True, but irrelevant.)

Fourth, in the question of both the origin and continued existence of evil, the sovereignty of God meets its most acute problem. ("Acute problem?" Hardly.)

That God does not prevent evil from existing seems to call into question His omnipotence or His benevolence. (Only in the minds of superficial skeptics and atheists.)

Some non-Christian religions try to solve this problem by positing that evil is imaginary (Christian Science) or an illusion (Hinduism). (Hinduism does not treat evil as an illusion.)

Augustine and many medieval thinkers believed part of the mystery could be solved by identifying evil as a privation of the good, suggesting that evil is something without existence in and of itself. Evil is a matter of ontology (being). Reformed thought on this issue is summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith:

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain what-soever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the crea-tures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (3:1)

God is the “first cause” of all things, but evil is a product of “second causes.” (Where does the Bible say this?)

In the words of John Calvin, “First, it must be observed that the will of God is the cause of all things that happen in the world: and yet God is not the author of evil,” adding, “for the proximate cause is one thing, and the remote cause another.” In other words, God Himself cannot do evil and cannot be blamed for evil even though it is part of His sovereign decree. (Oh, so the author can cite John Calvin but not the Bible?)

God is sovereign, and in His sovereignty He displays His majestic glory. With out it, we would have no being, no salvation, and no hope. Soli Deo gloria.