Comments on: iMonk 101: God’s Sovereignty and God’s Providence

By: C.W. Treadwell

C.W. Treadwell — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:05:22 +0000

God directly and purposefully planning tragedies involving His children, like the Minnesota bridge collapse, is an idea some of you exclaim to be insulting to both God’s character and those who are facing catastrophe. To these I would like to share my heart on this regard:

I know it seems easier to say that God did not give your friend’s mother cancer or have anything to do with her “untimely” death. Such a statement seems like it would minister, but I wonder where such a line of thought ends up in people’s heads? If not God, then who or what? Bad luck? Satan? I am not sure which is worse—God’s inability or His unwillingness. Some say that to think God unwilling to heal is worse, because this makes Him cruel. Others say inability, because this makes Him weak.

All I know is what I have lived. I remember when I was told that God only does what I think is good and convenient and has nothing to do with those events which are not. From this I inferred that God wanted to protect my friends (who were killed in a plane crash) but was unable to. It made me feel as though this world is hopeless and out of control. Thinking this way made me throw Christianity away altogether. If God is unable to help even the very best of people, then what is the point? That was the last thought I had about God before leaving Him—or trying to leave Him at any rate.

I think I would rather be told that God sits as King over this world and all that happens in it, and that He has a master plan. I would rather hate His plan and have an emotional blowout with Him, beating my fists against His chest but ultimately, at the end of the day, coming to do the only thing I can…cry on His shoulder and trust. This is better than beliefs that lead to thinking does not care enough to be involved or that He is not powerful enough. I don’t know about you, but I found it impossible to find motivation for serving a God like that in the face of calamity.

To those who have an emotional problem with this idea concerning God doing or allowing tragedy for some greater purpose, I pose this question: How do you, then, reconcile your beliefs with the death of Jesus? For even God’s only begotten Son had to take a backseat to God’s genius plan. In other words, The Almighty had a higher priority than causing Jesus to live a long and comfortable life on this earth. Yes, the crucifixion was a tragedy that was directly provided for and controlled by God the Father. Maybe the cross has never struck you this way since you’re the one benefiting from the tragedy?

So my question is what would such a God want of me? What Kingdom priorities are bigger than my personal convenience? I am used to be afraid of that answer and sometimes I still am, but when I loose myself in the magnificence of God…

Suddenly my problem with pain is not so much of a problem anymore.

~Chris

By: eclexia

eclexia — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 02:34:13 +0000

jmanning,
I’m not sure I understand what you were getting at. Here’s how I think about what you said, in my own life: It’s not so much that I feel more secure with blind randomness than I do with a Sovereign God.
I totally believe God is sovereign. Walking through suffering has only increased my conviction of that. What has decreased is my certainty at any given time about what exactly God is doing. Most of the time I stand in mystery as to the “what” and “why”, even while remaining confident that God is completely sovereign.
I have a hard time with people confidently stating that X or Y is the purpose that God had for such and such an event (whether good or bad). At times, in hindsight, we can see some of the purposes. But probably never all. And our interpretation of those purposes is highly affected by our own presuppositions. This doesn’t limit God’s sovereignty. For me, it just meants that His purposes are bigger than what I can explain or understand (not surprising, as He is God, and I am not).

By: bookdragon

bookdragon — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:51:40 +0000

I don’t have problem with a sermon on the assurances in the bible that God can take whatever happens and turn it to good for those who love Him.

I do however have problem with sermons that *interpret* those biblical promises to mean that God being sovereign means He causes/plans things like deadly auto accidents.

By: jeremy bouma

jeremy bouma — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:25:39 +0000

jmanning: it isn’t about embracing a “shit happens” attitude, but rather renegotiating the character of God as revealed through His holy Communication, His participation in time and reality, and His relationship to the lives of humans. Many of us also find the traditional answers to some of these questions are at best illogical and at worst downright wretched and miserable (and more worse unbiblical, though I wouldn’t go there with Piper’s particular comment). Peter Smythe captured that a little ways up in a comment and I tried to capture that in my own post responding to Piper’s comments.

And it is precisely the “what” that Piper makes out of the bridge collapse that many of us find both illogical and wretched…

-jeremy

By: Michael Spencer

Michael Spencer — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:19:44 +0000

Glenn Lucke has a note for this thread that won’t publish. (Using secondary editors can cause a code problem in WP.)

I published it at BHT and you can read it there and comment here:

http://www.boarsheadtavern.com/archives/2007/08/10/1353862.html

By: jmanning

jmanning — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:39:56 +0000

I think it’s interesting that many people in the church today feel more secure with blind randomness meeting them everyday at their doorstep than a Sovereign God.

At least John Piper’s view makes something good out of the bridge (a wake up call for repentance).

By: Nicholas Anton

Nicholas Anton — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:52:05 +0000

I may not have struggled with the Sovereignty of God and the free will of humankind as many others, but, in that it is very difficult both to define, to understand, and to reconcile to a human centered society, I have in the past few years attempted to define and verbalize the concept as to explain how I understand it.

Here is my attempt;

“The Sovereignty (not will) of God and the free will of humankind as exercised in their beliefs, actions and choices are always in total agreement.”

By this statement, I reject the open Theist view that the free choices of humankind are outside of God’s infinite knowledge and control.
By this view I also reject the hyper Calvinist view that human choices are outside of humankinds free will (In other words, I reject the exclusivity of the determinist view).

I believe that it is possible for a Sovereign God to create free beings, that, though free, never transgress God’s Infinite Sovereign knowledge and will.

Insofar as the question of sin always seems to enter this equation, it also demands definition. I will however refrain from doing so at this time.

By: jeremy bouma

jeremy bouma — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:57:02 +0000

I’m not sure where my original reply went…maybe it’s still in moderation limbo

Just wanted to e say thanks to everyone for providing some clarity and helping me to think through this more.

Michael, you response was wise, as always.

John Roop, I really liked your analogy and that’s sorta where I am at.

mason and Peter…your thoughts on treating Evil as an entity rather than an idea is very good and I wonder what that does to more deterministic notions of God and reality and time.

Anyway, thanks again for the conversation!
-jeremy

By: Michael Spencer

Michael Spencer — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:54:03 +0000

When someone comes into the public worship of Christians, they are going to hear affirmations of confidence in God’s sovereignty. They won’t be personalized statements of detailed cause and effect, but in the worship of the church, the songs, scripture and preaching proclaim the God of the Bible.

When you come into worship, you should not expect to hear your personal crisis be the focus of what is said. The church is always filled with suffering people on Easter, and they hear that God reigns and Christ is risen to reign.

If someone left church offended that the church proclaimed the God of Romans 8:28, I’d hardly feel particularly bad. I’d think they were expecting the church to compromise its proclamation for their feelings and that shouldn’t happen.

There is a place to celebrate and exult in the sovereignty of God and the worship of the church is it.

By: bookdragon

bookdragon — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:29:11 +0000

“In worship, I would cash all the checks God wrote on Rom 8:28, Genesis 50, Psalm 90-100, etc. But not “in the face” of a suffering person. They can come and hear that or ask to hear it when they want to hear it.”

Could you clarify what you mean by ‘in worship’? Because if mean in the sermon, then I have to ask how you know you’re not doing it in the face of suffering people? One of the worst church experiences I ever had was getting bad news while I was out of town, going to a church there, and after hearing the sermon, walking out wondering if God was really a monster.