Does the Lord Control All Things? And, Does It Really Matter?

God's works of providence are his most holy, wise and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions (WSC 11). To put it simply, the Lord controls all things. The seasons, the seas, and even our circumstances are all under the willful decision of our Maker. This wonderful truth should bring us to feel the effects of his majesty as well as our own finitude.

The wording of the shorter catechism, along with the immediate complexities that arise from the doctrine itself, have a tendency to make us lock this truth tightly inside the box of impracticality. Unlocking the box, we think, demands we fully comprehend things like the relationship between his control and the freedom of his creatures (freedom defined biblically), the problem of suffering, and other perplexing ideas. Most of us don't have the time or capacity for this and so we shelf the subject altogether.

In some respects, our own desire to be God, keeps us from worshipping and trusting God. Unless we are all knowing, we cannot possibly be all trusting. But the Lord has not left us completely in the dark. His word is full of searchable depths for us to explore. I do believe it is important for us to know that even if we have not explored those depths, we can still benefit from the doctrine.

In this post, I'd like to point out two practical ways the doctrine of providence is beneficial for us.

First, the Lord's control over all things encourages us to obey his commandments. It is vital for us to know that he can and will provide for us as we "step out in faith." Contrary to popular belief, being a follower of Christ often takes us into places where we are immediately tempted to distrust his power and provision. I am thinking of the Exodus when Israel was led into the wilderness, and the gospel accounts of when Jesus fed thousands. In each account, people followed the Lord and found themselves lacking simple physical provisions.

Similarly, and perhaps more significantly, a follower of Christ will certainly face relational deprivation as well. He or she will be hated for the sake of the gospel. He or she will be confronted with the willful surrendering of property, time, and energy. To live for Christ is to die to self - to lose one's life.

But living for Christ is not only this. The promises run through deprivation into glory where believers will be heavily rewarded for their labors with the inheritance (1Pet 1:4), treasures in heaven (Matt 6:20), and a crown of glory (1Pet 5:4). We have many reasons to obey. But, doubtful questions always linger and eventually may dissuade us. Questions like, "Will the Lord make good on his promise?" "Is he able to come through?" "If I lose everything now, can he give me everything then?" Our doctrine of providence (along with many others, like his faithfulness) tell us, "Yes he can (and will)!"

Second, the Lord's control over all things humbles us as we live in and through this difficult world. We are not our own, and we are not ultimately in control - not even of our own lives. When we find ourselves in the midst of trials and tribulations, our immediate tendency is to blame the situation. Our boss is mean, our teacher is unfair or unclear, our spouse is unloving or disrespectful, our church is not the right church for us, and the list goes on and on.  The problem, we conclude, is our circumstance.

The doctrine of providence informs us that this is not likely to be the case. The problem of our life is not our circumstance, but our sin. The wilderness was not the problem, but the grumbling desires of the people. The Lord used circumstances to shape and test his people. In his providence he used hunger to bring about humility; and thirst to bring about dependency and trust (Deut 8:1-3).

The doctrine of providence is highly practical, even for those who have not read volumes on the subject. It is a doctrine for the simplest of Christians. It is truth for the Lord's church that brings about repentance, faith, hope, and love.

Practical Blurb on the Doctrine of Omnipotence

John Frame writes this about God's omnipotence: "All the controversy about omnipotence may distract us from the actual purposes of God in revealing his power to his people. God does not reveal his omnipotence merely so that we can engage in philosophical speculation on what he can or cannot do. As with all his revelation, God wants the doctrine of omnipotence to edify his people (2 Tim. 3:16-17)...God's power drives his people to worship. It also warns us against governing our lives by our own expectations of what is possible, leaving God out of the account."

As I work my way through the Old Testament, I am finding multiple imperatives for parents to continuously tell their children about the power of God in delivering them out of Egypt. If the Exodus event does not show us God's omnipotence (among many other things), I don't know what does. To live in light of the Exodus event one is sure to be asked questions.

Because of this attribute, the people of God were/are encouraged to live radically - to live differently than all other human beings. When a person believes in God who is all-powerful, his or her life is lived in such way that it begs questions like, How can you give that sacrificially? How can you live so honestly? Why do you not spend like everyone else? How can you rest in a time like this?

The biblical and experiential answer always follows that our God is powerful enough to part seas, bring and stop plagues, conquer armies, make old people and virgins have babies, create with just a word, save people like me, and raise the dead. It is not uncommon for God's command to lead his people into seemingly impossible situations. And when his people obey, they are continually reminded that he is not only powerful to do what is impossible for man, but he is faithful to bring about his good purposes through those historical situations.

Given this truth, we should always be reluctant to resist obedience because of our logical conclusions of what the future may hold for us if we do - conclusions like, "If I tell the truth, she will reject me." or, "If I obey God's call, my wife and children will be harmed." Given this truth, on the other hand, we should always be encouraged to worship, trust and, obey, no matter what the command. His grace is always sufficient and his power is always enough to bring about the redemption of his own.

Would God Send a Good Person to Hell?

When asked why they do not embrace Christianity, some people respond by saying that they do not believe in a god who would send a good person to hell. The proper response to this type of objection is not to begin dialoging about how God would or does send good people to hell. The reason for this is simple - it's just not true. The God of Christianity would never send a good person to hell. He is good, fair, and just.

Too often we are so set on disagreeing that we fail to recognize where we can and do agree. The case in point is an instance where we see the image of God in every person at work. We all desire a good and just God. This is precisely where the Christian faith shines. If some reject the Christian faith because its God is not good or just, they have not learned him accurately or well. They have rejected in error.

As far as I can see, the error is at least two fold:

First, some may approach the Scriptures with their own presupposed concepts of goodness and/or justice. When the God of the Bible is presented to them accurately, the biblical definitions of goodness and justice do not coincide with their own. Instead of changing their conceptions, they reject the biblical ones. I have encountered this not a few times.

The problem is tragic but simple: the Word of God brings change. If people encounter it without a willingness to change, they will reject the Word of God rather than change.

As a side-note, I have also found it interesting that when asked what their conceptions of goodness and justice are, or where their conceptions were obtained, the answers have been far from consistent, justifiable or objective. It usually boils down to the fact that their personal conception of good does not fit with the Bible's.

The second error is just that - error. It is typically grounded in a biased and unjustified disbelieve in the God of the Bible. They do not believe that the God of the Bible is just and good because they do not want to believe that the God of the Bible is just and good.

Either way, the Christian argument must be presented with grace and truth. We do not believe in a God who sends good people to hell. We just don't believe there is anyone who is good. The truth is that our God is even greater than this - not only is he good and just, but he is gracious and merciful. While we don't believe he sends good people to hell, we do believe he provides a way for bad people to enter into heaven.

This is problematic because he is just. But the problem is solved when we understand the Biblical truths of grace, substitution and sacrifice. Our God sends his Son to die to make bad people good. Then he allows them entrance into eternal life. Those who do not place their faith in the Son are left to their badness. And we do believe that he will send those to hell.

Everyone Limits the Atonement

It is not uncommon for someone to ask me if I believe in the doctrine commonly called Limited Atonement.  I agree that the name itself stirs up more negative reactions than positive.  I, too, was once appalled by the suggestion that Christ's death was, in any way, limited.

While Christians may disagree, we may not remain indifferent saying that it doesn't really matter.  The implications of this doctrine run deep - yes, even experientially deep.  While some may cringe, I have personally seen some weep with humble gratitude.  It changed them.

Why can't we remain indifferent?  Because everyone limits the atonement; and it matters much where we place the limitation.  Consider the maxim from Owen's Death of Death:  God imposed His wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either:

1.  All of the sins of all men (the universalist's view).
2.  Some of the sins of all men.
3.  All of the sin of some men.

The first option will not be considered in this post considering it is not accepted within the boundaries of historical orthodoxy.

The second option limits the atonement by saying Christ died for some of the sins of all men.  Now, many people (who disagree with option 3) balk at the statement that their view is "limited."  But a simple question brings the balk into check - "Why do some for whom Christ died perish in hell?"  The common answer is, "They perish because of their unbelief."

This statement, however, raises a vital question, "Is unbelief sin or not?"  If it is not, then why are they punished for it?  If it is, then Christ underwent punishment of hell for it on the Cross.  And if Christ was punished for it, then God would be unjust to punish the same sin again, in hell.  In summary, if a person undergoes punishment for a sin in hell, we cannot say that Christ underwent punishment for the same sin on the Cross.

The third option limits the atonement by saying Christ died for all of the sins of some men.  If Christ underwent the pains of hell for all of the sins of a particular group of individuals - namely, the elect, then not one of them will ever undergo the pains of hell for any of their sins.

Allow a few thoughts for those who may disagree with Option 3.

1. This position is totally supported (and never contradicted) by Scripture.
2. Because of the nature of grace and mercy, both being totally free, Christ was under no obligation whatsoever to die for all.
3. Because of the sinful, fallen nature of mankind, it should shock us that He decided to die for any.
4. That this doctrine is an occasion for great comfort - Hell is not an option for those who are in Christ.
5. That, at the Cross, Christ did not "try" to save; but actually saved his people from their sins (Matt 1:21).

Take comfort, therefore, in the Gospel of Jesus Christ - He is the Savior of the world!

Everyone is Religious

What is this thing we call Religion?  I spoke with a guy the other day that constantly referred to himself as "not a religious person."  Many would even place religion and reason at opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum.  Because of this culturally ambiguous treatment many theologians have labored to clarify its true nature.  In his Summary of Christian Doctrine, Louis Berkhof begins by laying out three important aspects about religion.

The Nature of Religion.  "The Bible informs us that man was created in the image of God.  When he fell in sin, he did not entirely cease to be the image bearer of the Most High.  The seed of religion is still present in all men, though their sinful nature constantly reacts against it...In light of Scripture we learn to understand that religion is a relation in which man stands to God, a relation in which man is conscious of the absolute majesty and infinite power of God and of his own insignificance and absolute helplessness."

Berkhof is saying here that, because man is created by God and in the image of God, he is not able, because of his nature, to be irreligious.  This fact flies in the face of the modern notion of neutrality - that a person decides, on a neutral ground, whether he is religious or not.  In reality this ground does not exist.  As a child does not decide his intrinsic relationship to his parents, neither does a person decide his intrinsic relationship to God.  Every person acknowledges God and is therefore religious.  The further matter is whether we kiss Him as Father or kick Him as Foe.

The Seat of Religion.  "Some think of religion primarily as a sort of knowledge, and locate it in the intellect.  Others regard it as a kind of immediate feeling of God...And still others hold that it consists most of all in moral activity, and refer it to the will...However, all these views are one-sided and contrary to Scripture...Religion involves the whole man, his intellectual, his emotional, and his moral life."

Because religious is what we are, it pervades all that we do.  All of our thoughts, motives and actions rightfully fall under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  We do all things unto the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31).  Any action, therefore, that is called irreligious, the Scriptures would define as sinful.

The Origin of Religion.  Over the years, "repeated attempts were made to give a natural explanation of [the origin of religion], but without success."  Some spoke of it as an invention; some as the worship of lifeless objects, spirits, or ancestors.  In all of this the question still remains, "How did people ever hit upon the idea of worshipping lifeless or living objects?"  All of these theories start out with a man who is already religious.

In other words, all of the theories can indicate a religiosity in man, but they cannot explain where it came from.  Berkhof continues, "The Bible gives the only reliable account of the origin of religion.  It informs us of the existence of God, the only object worthy of religious worship.  Moreover, it comes to us with the assurance that God, whom man could never discover with his natural powers, revealed Himself in nature and, more especially, in His divine Word, demands the worship and service of man, and also determines the worship and service that is well-pleasing to Him."

The Pain of Predestination

I remember when I hated the doctrine of predestination.  I would go around saying, "Predestination?  I don't believe in that."  I could not bring myself to accept the fact that God decided, before the world and its inhabitants existed, the final destiny of individual sinners (definition loosely taken from Packer's Concise Theology)?  My intense hatred for this doctrine caused me to ignore its obvious usage throughout the New Testament as well as its clear meaning in those contexts.

I won't lie, predestination still doesn't sit well with me sometimes.   I read passages like Romans 9:22-23, "What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory..." and I can't help but have mixed emotions - emotions of great sorrow mingled with those of sober joy.

Therefore, when people come and ask me about predestination, I have learned to approach the topic with great care and understanding.  I am approached often, and more times than not, the questions are negative in nature.  Like me, many have a hard time realizing that this doctrine is in their Bible.  They come asking how they are supposed to understand it and deal with it.  My answer is a simple one.  It takes all of about three minutes.

First, I explain to them what the doctrine actually means.  Then I ask them what their chief problem is with it.  Without fail, it is that God predestines people to hell - that He decided beforehand that wrath should be poured out on particular people.

I take this opportunity to read Acts 4:27-28, "...for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."  These verses, along with others like Acts 2:23, tell us that God predestined the death of His Son by the hands of lawless men.  In short, at the Cross, God predestined the innocent Son to die for the sins of others.

At this time, I ask, as I have asked my self over a hundred times, "Have you ever struggled with the fact that God the Father predestined God the Son to take the wrath of hell for sinners?"  "Do you struggle more with the fact that guilty sinners were predestined to hell than you do with the truth that the innocent Son was predestined to take your hell?"

Finally, I propose that our primary struggle should be with the fact that God predestined the Cross.  And until we feel the weight of that truth, then we can hardly proceed to struggle rightly with the fact that God predestines the destinies of individual sinners.