God's Decree and Sovereignty

The Problem of Rejecting God's Freedom

It has always amazed me that people who profess to believe in the Bible likewise at the same time express such incredible detestation for the God of the Bible. There are so many people who, for various reasons, wish to edit God.

They wish to have only a God that, well, in essence, they're comfortable with. And those elements of God's nature, God's dealings with mankind that they don't like, they just simply reject. I've certainly noticed over the period of time that I've been posting videos here on YouTube about a year and a half now, that there are many who really detest the message of God's freedom, His kingly freedom to do with His creation as He sees fit.

And many of them call themselves Christians. I was directed to a video today of someone who took a short clip from the debate that took place in December of 2003, as I recall, on the Bible Answer Man broadcast, where I debated George Bryson and Hank Hanegraaff on the subject of the sovereignty of God in salvation.

And they played just a small portion of it. They didn't, of course, play enough of it to give you a real good sense of where I was going, what I was attempting to say. But it does illustrate something.

The London Baptist and Westminster Confessions on God's Decree

The London Baptist Confession of Faith, which Reform Baptists use, and that of the Westminster Confession that Presbyterians use, says the same thing in regards to God's sovereignty over matters temporal, those things which take place in time.

Chapter 3 of the 1689 in the Modern Language says, From all eternity God decreed all that should happen in time, and this He did freely and unalterably, consulting only His own wise and holy will. Yet in so doing He does not become in any sense the author of sin, nor does He share responsibility for sin with sinners.

Neither by reason of His decree is the will of any creature whom He has made violated, nor is the free working of second causes put aside, rather it is established. In all these matters the divine wisdom appears, as also does God's power and faithfulness in effecting that which He has purposed.

The second paragraph says, God's decree is not based upon His foreknowledge that under certain conditions, certain happenings will take place, but is independent of all such foreknowledge, that being a direct denial of the Jesuit theology of philosophy, not theology of Louis de Molina.

That of course then moves into the discussion of how this is related to human salvation. Now in that particular debate, at this point I went directly into Genesis chapter 50, Isaiah chapter 10, Acts chapter 4, and no meaningful response was forthcoming from my opponents in this debate as to how to understand these texts in such a way that they do not teach the clear sovereignty of God over all events in human history.

I want to look at just one of those before I play this clip and then respond briefly to it, because it's probably the least well-known of the three main texts that I've referred to. Most people know about the story of Joseph.

Most people know that the early church in Acts chapter 4 talked about the fact that the crucifixion and the roles of Pilate and Herod, the Romans, the Jews, all of that was a part of God's predestination, that he decreed that these things should take place.

But a lot of people are not familiar with Isaiah chapter 10 and its relevance. And since this particular clip brings up the idea of child rape, I guess George Bryson brought this up to try to create as much emotion as possible in the conversation, which is very common, it's a very common tactic.

Very effective for most people, since most people today think emotionally, they do not think with any type of logical or rational order. And they certainly don't think biblically, that's for certain. But this text in Isaiah 10 would seem to be the most relevant, especially because it would address tremendous acts of violence in war and bring punishment upon a people, similar to, for example, God's command to wipe out the Amorites, the Canaanites, and things like that.

Things that cause a lot of people a lot of problems. But let's look at what the text says. I would invite you to look at it in your own translation. Isaiah chapter 10 beginning at verse 5, woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger and the staff in whose hands is my indignation.

I send it against a godless nation and commission it against the people of my fury to capture booty and to seize plunder and to trample them down like mud in the streets. This is a prophetic warning that God is bringing the Assyrians to punish his people for their sins, as he had promised he would do back in Deuteronomy 28 and 29, many, many, many generations earlier.

But notice this nation, which historically was a bloodthirsty, horrific nation. Assyria was pagan, it was brutal, they destroyed their enemies in the most hate-filled way. They were just a bloodthirsty people.

But God says that they are the rod of his anger. The staff in whose hands is my indignation. So he's bringing Assyria against his people as punishment. But then look at verse 7, yet it does not so intend, Assyria does not intend to function in this way.

That is not what Assyria intends to be doing in this situation. They are, they're coming to destroy and to cut off many nations. Yet it does not so intend, nor does it plan so in its heart, but rather it is its purpose to destroy and to cut off many nations.

So here you have one event in time, which is still future at this point. And God says, this is my purpose, this is my intention, I am bringing Assyria against my people to punish them. But I know that's not Assyria's intent.

They are coming to destroy and to cut off many nations. So one action, two different purposes. God's action is holy. God is always holy in bringing judgment against sin. And he had, for a long time, given patience and mercy to these people, and yet they continued to demonstrate that they loved their sin.

And so now the time of punishment is coming. Perfectly holy action on God's part, but not on Assyria's part. Their intention is not the same. Notice what it says. For it says, verse 8, Are not my princes all kings?

Is not Colonel like Carchemish, or Harmarth like Arpad, or Samaria like Damascus? As my hand has reached the kingdoms of the idols whose graven images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria, shall I not do to Jerusalem and her images just as I have done to Samaria and her idols?

So Assyria has destroyed the northern kingdom. And now there's going to be dealings with the southern kingdom. But notice the haughty attitude of the Assyrians. They think this is all them. They do not recognize the sovereignty of God, even in the fact that they have destroyed these other nations, that they have taken these other capitals.

So notice what it says. So it will be that when the Lord has completed all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, he will say, I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness.

And so the purpose of the heart of the king of Assyria and the Assyrians is the issue. It's not the action itself. It's why they're doing the action. God brings this action about to punish his people, holy, just, and righteous intentions.

They have unrighteous intentions. And so God says, I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness. For he has said, by the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this.

For I have understanding and I removed the boundaries of the peoples and plundered their treasures and like a mighty man I brought down their inhabitants. And my hand reached the riches of the peoples like a nest and as one gathers abandoned eggs, I gathered all the earth and there was not one that flapped its wing or opened its beak or chirped, me, me, me, me, me, man's freedom, man's autonomy.

This is the greatest idol of man's religion and there are many Christians who continue to worship at the idol, the altar of the idol of man's autonomous freedom. It is the central aspect of so many sub-biblical theological systems.

And the Assyrians say, we did all this, we refuse to acknowledge God. And so what's God's response? Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it? Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it?

That would be like a club wielding those who lift it or like a rod lifting him who is not wood. Now think about this. When a tree is chopped down, you can say that you used the axe to do it. I chopped down the tree with the axe.

But the axe is the means, you're the one that wields the axe. And so in this same way, God's likeness to how he uses secondary means. He uses means to accomplish his purposes. His purposes are always holy and just and good.

But when he uses people as his means, they can still be judged even when they are used by him in that fashion. And that's what's taking place here. God will judge the Assyrians because of the attitude of their heart.

Now in the process of punishing the people of Israel, were there not many children who lost their parents, lost their lives? Some of these cities were besieged, starvation took place even to the point of cannibalism.

A terrible thing. That is the result of sinning against God, cutting yourself off from the only source of life. God warned that this would happen and the people just plugged their ears and went off to the Asheroth groves and worshipped the sun and the moon and the stars and the various bales.

But many, what we would say inappropriately in many ways, innocent children. There's no such thing as an innocent child and it really makes me wonder how many Christians actually take seriously that biblical teaching.

But be it as it may, how many innocent children lost their lives, were maimed, experienced disease, horrible deaths, or even if they survived, scarred for life? How many? These are issues that are right there on the surface of the pages of scripture.

And those who pretend to believe in the scriptures, who ignore these things, are false teachers. They're not dealing with what is there in the text. So keep this issue in mind in regards to Isaiah chapter 10 as we look at this video clip and then I'll respond to it after we've had an opportunity to review it.

The Child Rape Objection and Meaningless Evil

When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?

If He didn't, then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose. What I'm trying to point out by going to scripture... So what is your answer there?

Because I want to understand the answer to that question.

I'm trying to go to scripture to answer the question.

Yes, but what is the answer to the question that he just asked so that we can understand what the answer is?

I mentioned to him, yes, because if not, then it's meaningless and purposeless. And though God knew it was going to happen, He created it without a purpose. That means God brought the evil into existence knowing it was going to exist, but for no purpose, no redemption, nothing positive, nothing good.

So He did decree it, and if He decreed it, then there's meaning to it?

It has meaning, it has purpose, suffering, all suffering has purpose, everything in this world has purpose, there is no basis for despair. But if we believe that God created knowing all this was going to happen, but with no decree, He just created, and all this evil is out there, and there's no purpose, then every rape, every situation like that is nothing but purposeless evil, and God is responsible for the creation of despair.

That is not... For years I've been trying to figure out why it is that in order for rape to exist, or unless God caused it to happen, there can't be any purpose in it. God can use evil, and He does, but to blame God, which is what a decree does, to blame God for the rape of a child is a horrible attack on the very character and love of God.

Now this video, and by the way, don't ask me where you get that music as a background for this discussion. I would love to be able to take it out, but it was all together, so not much I can do about that.

Anyway, I guess it's in the public domain that makes it fair game, I suppose. Anyway, what we, like I said, went on from that point was to go to the Bible and address these issues biblically. It's interesting, the person who posted this material, the term prophecy is in his channel name.

So I'm going to have to assume that this individual is not an open theist. That is, he's not a person who thinks that God does not know what the future contains. And if that's the case, if he believes that there is prophecy in the Bible based upon God's certain knowledge of future events, then the reality is that this individual needs to answer the very same question that George Bryson never would answer and never can answer because he doesn't seem to understand the realities of this particular situation.

And that is, when God created, if He has perfect knowledge of all future events, then you'll only have a few options as to what the relationship is between God's will and purpose and what takes place in time.

You could assert, I suppose, that God chose to simply create without knowing what was going to happen and then once the creation comes into existence, then it's all present before Him and He looks and, look, He actually wins at the end!

Well praise be to me! As if God just tossed the cosmic dice and came up snake eyes and He somehow wins at the end. He somehow got those free creatures to do what He wanted to do. I suppose there would be some people who would take that view.

There are people who have developed open theism, too. But the fact remains that when God created, if He knew what the results of His action were going to be, I mean, if you want to take the idea that God just irresponsibly decided to create not knowing what the ends were going to be, and then once He creates, knows what the ends are, hey, great, you know, maybe He created 10 ,000 universes before He got it right and He just threw them away.

I mean, you know, if you want to get into that kind of wild-eyed speculation, you know, we can go there, I suppose, but all I can say is that doesn't sound anything like the God of the Bible, but anyway.

The problem is if you're standard Arminian, you believe that God knew exactly what was going to take place when He created. And so I would ask this individual, if you want to use the example of child rape so as to maximize the situation, let's say it took place during the Assyrian attack upon Jerusalem.

Maybe it took place during the Assyrian attack upon Samaria, since that was past tense at this point. In Isaiah chapter 10, I mean, of course. All right. So when God created, did He know it was going to happen?

And if He did know it was going to happen infallibly as a result of His creation, then why did He create? I've actually had some people say, well, so that men could have free will. Okay. So that's your ultimate ordering priority is man's free will, the autonomous will of the creature, despite all the Bible says about man's slavery to sin and not being able to do good and all that rest of that stuff.

We just forget about all that. And man's free will, our great idol, we throw it out there. And that's why God would create a universe in which He infallibly knows about child rape and it's going to happen, but He needs to do that so that man can have free will.

Is that really what you're saying? If God knows what's going to happen when He creates, then there's really only two possibilities at this point. And that is all those events in time have a purpose known to God.

Now, even listening to the program, this man did not understand what I was saying. As you can see from the text, he was totally confused as to what I was saying. I was not saying that everything has a redemptive purpose.

What I'm saying is that God has a purpose for everything. Some things are redemptive in regards to His people. Other things are for the demonstration of His own glory. Look at Romans chapter 9. Look at the Exodus, the destruction of Egypt.

Some of that was redemptive. Much of the redemptive story is placed within that context. But for the firstborn of Egypt, it wasn't redemptive, was it? It was punishment. It was wrath. So even at that, the gentleman did not understand what I was saying.

But the point is, either there is going to be a purpose in every one of those evil acts or they're all just simply going to be meaningless, random acts that evidently God had to do to try to make His system work.

Is that what this man believes? I don't know. I keep asking these questions. That was what I kept asking the Bible Answer Man broadcast. I never got any answers. That's because I don't think there really are any answers.

George Bryson certainly never offered any. And so you either have God has, as a part of His decree, a purpose for everything that takes place in time. Now, He doesn't have to tell us what those purposes are in this life.

And I suppose in the next, we will see so that He is glorified in that. But He's under no obligation to reveal those things to us. But we are told that He works all things after the counsel of His will.

Whatever the Lord pleases, He accomplishes in heaven and earth. Even the pagan king Nebuchadnezzar understood that in Daniel chapter 4. Thankfully, he wasn't kept from seeing that by volumes of Arminian blather.

But I don't hear answers from the other side as well. Then what's His purpose? William Lane Craig might tell us that, well, it's only in a world that is suffused with evil, that the maximum number of people come to know Christ.

How he knows that, I don't have any idea. It must be a philosophical conclusion. It's certainly not a biblical one. And so, once again, this gentleman just is extremely offended that I would believe what the Westminster Confession of Faith says, what the London Baptist Confession of Faith says, that God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass in time.

That's not exactly a shocking thing. But he doesn't then go on to understand what we say in the very same paragraph that talks about the use of means as we saw with Assyria, as we see with Joseph's brothers, as we see with Herod and Pilate.

He doesn't seem to understand what we believe about men being sinful and therefore their sin, being judged by God and judged righteously, just wants to focus on this one emotional thing. And I just still wonder, why is it that people who call themselves Christians, why do they insist that they cannot have a sovereign God, that man must be sovereign?

Oh, I'll glorify God for doing 99 of it, but without me, he couldn't have done it. That's a scary attitude, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see, there's certainly no biblical foundation for it, and I just wonder at the psychology that causes someone to be so wedded to a human theory that the plain teaching of Scripture is simply dismissed.

Loving God's Sovereign Kingship

So, hopefully these few thoughts will be of some assistance to you as you see this constant expression of hatred toward the kingship of God, his freedom over his own creation. And I will just close with this.

I still can't find it. Maybe somebody will direct me to it. I remember reading it, but I've not been able to track it down in the years since then, but it's in Jonathan Edwards. Edwards made the comment once that one of the surest signs of true regeneration is when we love those attributes of God that are the most reprehensible to the natural man.

In other words, when we love God for who he really is, how he's revealed himself, not as we'd like to edit him. I think it's an important thing to keep in mind, especially when we're handling something as important as God's kingship over his own universe and how he brings glory to himself.

Thanks for watching.