46 Sermon Illustrations on Sovereignty Of God

Our times are in His hand Who saith, "A whole I planned. Youth shows but half; Trust God, See all, nor be afraid!" For age is opportunity, no less Than youth itself, though in another dress, And as the evening twilight fades away The sky is filled with stars, invisible by day.

"As children will thank the tailor, and think they owe their new clothes to him rather than to their parent's bounty, so we look to the next hand, and set up that instead of God." Second causes must never be made to stand before the first cause. Friends and helpers are all very well as servants of our Father, but our Father must have all our praise. There is a like evil in the matter of trouble. We are apt to be angry with the instrument of our affliction, instead of seeing the hand of God over all, and meekly bowing before it. It was a great help to David in bearing with railing Shimei, when he saw that God had appointed this provocation as a chastisement. He would not suffer his hasty captains to take the scoffer's head, but meekly said, "Let him alone and let him curse, for the Lord hath bidden him." A dog when he is struck will bite the stick; if he were wise, he would observe that the stick only moves as the hand directs it. When we discern God in our tribulations we are helped to be quiet and endure with patience. Let us not act like silly children, but trace matters to their fountain-head, and act accordingly. May the Spirit of wisdom make us men in understanding.

The case of the painter, who, unable to express the foam at the mouth of the horse he had painted, threw his sponge in despair at the piece, and by chance did that which he could not do before by design, is an eminent instance of what is called chance. Yet it is obvious all we here mean by chance is, that the painter was not aware of the effect, or that he did not throw the sponge with such a view; not but that he actually did every thing necessary to produce the effect; insomuch that, considering the direction wherein he threw the sponge, together with its form and specific gravity, the colors wherewith it was smeared, and the distance of the hand from the piece, it was impossible, on the present system of things, that the effect should not follow. A. W. Chambers.

When stars, first created, start forth upon their vast circuits, not knowing their way, if they were conscious and sentient, they might feel hopeless of maintaining their revolutions and orbits, and despair in the face of coming ages. But, without hands or arms, the sun holds them. Without cords or hands, the solar king drives them, unharnessed, on their mighty rounds without a single misstep, and will bring them, in the end, to their bound, without a wanderer. Now, if the sun can do this, the sun, which is but a thing itself, driven and held, shall not lie who created the heavens, and gave the sun his power, be able to hold us by the attraction of his heart, the strength of his hands, and the omnipotence of his affectionate will? Beecher.

As Solomon, in Jewish legend, compelled the wicked spirits to assist in the temple which he was building, so does God compel even his enemies, and them when they are striving most fiercely against him, to do his work, though they mean not so, and to contribute their stones to that temple of which he is the Builder and the Maker. Abp. Trench.

A Christian man's life is laid in the loom of time to a pattern which he does not see, but God does; and his heart is a shuttle. On one side of the loom is sorrow, and on the other is joy; and the shuttle, struck alternately by each, flies back and forth, carrying the thread, which is white or black as the pattern needs. And in the end, when God shall lift up the finished garment, and all its changing hues shall glance out, it will then appear that the deep and dark colors were as needful to beauty as the bright and high colors. Bercher.

I went back to the little town where I was born. I saw the friends of my childhood, and later I went out to God’s acre. There stood the little schoolhouse, and the old academy. The great oak-trees swayed above the house where I was born. The little brook still rippled over the stones; once more the fruit was ripe in the orchard and the nuts brown in the forest trees; again the shouts of the old companions were heard on the hillside and the laughter of the skaters filled the air; and yet all was changed. Gone the old minister, who baptized me! Gone the old professors and teachers who taught us. In the little graveyard slept the fathers. The stars shone over the mounds, the graves were silent, but God was over all. And all is well. For our times have been in God’s hands.

— N. D. HILLIS

A great pipe-organ has one or two thousand pipes. Some are twenty feet long, and large enough for a man to stand in, others are no bigger or longer than a common lead-pencil; some are made of wood, some of zinc, some of lead; and every one is set to make its own peculiar note. No pipe ever makes any other note than its own. But the organist is not limited to one tune. He can play any tune he may wish simply by changing the order of the notes which he sounds.

The laws of God’s world are fixt; but on that great organ He is master, and it obeys His will; and rest assured that He it is that is playing the melody of your life.--JAMES M. STIFLER, “The Fighting Saint.”

Disposed somewhat to gloomy thoughts, especially at such times as her husband was maligned or persecuted by his enemies, Luther’s wife was on one occasion given a lesson by the great reformer in this wise: “Indeed, you torment yourself as if God were not Almighty and could not produce new Doctor Martins by the score if the old doctor should happen to drown himself in the Saal.”

Concerning the sovereignty of God, theologian R. C. Sproul said,

"I have never in my life met a Christian who said that he did not believe that God is sovereign.... But as soon as we probe the understanding of sovereignty, it takes about five minutes to realize that the way many Christians define sovereignty could be better described as non-sovereignty... a God who is like the king of England, who reigns but does not rule."

A forum on free-will theism, a new paradigm for understanding God.

What is happening to evangelical theology? According to Clark Pinnock and his co-authors in a controversial new book entitled "The Openness of God" (InterVarsity, 1994), it is going through a paradigm shift that begins with the doctrine of God and will have sweeping effects on every other area of evangelical thought and life.

The heart of the change is this: God is no longer to be understood as an immutable monarch controlling human history and individual lives, but rather is to be seen as a self-limiting, loving, and suffering father who allows himself to be affected by his creatures. But two caveats are essential: this is not just a lively new version of liberal process theology, nor is it merely a lively new version of evangelical Arminian theology. These authors set forth for the first time a sustained, biblically based, rational argument that the God of the Bible is with us in time and does not know the future in absolute detail.

The new paradigm is variously called "the open view of God," "creative-love theism," and "free-will theism." It is radical Arminianism -- and more -- but it stops short of process theology or Boston personalism (belief in a finite God). The authors claim that their model of God is not an accommodation to modern thought or sensibilities but is thoroughly grounded in the synoptic vision of the God who reveals himself in the Bible. It is a Hebrew-Christian model of God stripped of the deleterious effects of Neo-Platonism and other Hellenistic philosophies.

According to free-will theism, "history is the combined result of what God and his creatures decide to do," and its God is "always walking beside us, experiencing what we are experiencing when we are experiencing it, always willing to help to the extent consistent with our status as responsible creations of his."

How does this differ from process theology's "fellow sufferer who understands"? The authors of "The Openness of God" go to great lengths to show that it differs profoundly. Unlike the God of Alfred North Whitehead and other process thinkers, free-will theism's God is omnipotent in the classical sense: able to do anything that is consistent with his own nature and logic. In other words, the God of creative-love theism is the absolute ground and source of all creation (creatio ex nihilo) and could control his creatures if he wished to do so, but he chooses not to control by coercion or force, instead influencing by persuasion.

DE-HELLENIZING GOD

The overall argument of "The Openness of God" is that Christian theology has been falsely polarized. For centuries, the doctrine of God (which the authors consider foundational) has been held captive to classical theism, which overemphasizes God's transcendence and neglects God's Trinitarian personhood. The effect has been a theology of meticulous providence in which God is supposed to control all events -- including the original Fall and its consequent sin and evil. The authors argue that this is simply inconsistent with the overall picture of God given in revelation: a God who repents, grieves, and suffers.

On the other hand, too many theologians have thought that the only alternative to the God of classical theism is a finite God such as process theology promotes. The authors argue that process theology's God is also inconsistent with the overall picture of God given in revelation. That God intervenes powerfully and will bring history to a conclusion in his kingdom -- with or without human help.

Pinnock, professor of theology at McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and his co-authors make a powerful case for their model of God. In the first chapter, "Biblical Support for a New Perspective," Richard Rice, professor of theology at LaSierra University, Riverside, California, demonstrates convincingly that it is not possible simply to dismiss all biblical references to God's "repentance" as anthropomorphisms. Under the rubric of "Historical Considerations," John Sanders, instructor in theology and philosophy at Oak Hills Bible College, Bemidji, Minnesota, argues persuasively that classical theism includes unbiblical and possibly unorthodox concessions to pagan philosophy. The real heart of the book is Pinnock's chapter on systematic theology, which powerfully portrays the personal God of the Bible as self-limiting for our sakes. The chapter entitled "A Philosophical Perspective," by William Hasker, professor of philosophy at Huntington College, Huntington, Indiana, will be the most challenging for many readers; but for those who persevere, it makes a strong case for the rational superiority of the theology of divine openness over competing ways of understanding God and his works. In the concluding chapter, David Basinger, professor of theology at Roberts Wesleyan College, Rochester, New York, shows the practical appeal of free-will theism for ordinary Christian spirituality.

The authors do not hide their philosophical presuppositions. Readers who cannot agree with these foundational assumptions will have trouble accepting free-will theism. Two basic ones are that logical contradictions -- including so-called paradoxes or antinomies -- are illegitimate in theology as elsewhere and that freedom means being able to do otherwise. While the authors are not rationalists in the strict sense of that word, they clearly place high value on coherence. That is, truth claims about God that involve logical contradictions are literally nonsense and should not be accepted in theology any more than in any area of intellectual endeavor. Therefore, one cannot say both that God knows the whole future in absolute detail with absolute certainty and that part of it is still open and undetermined (such as individuals' decisions regarding salvation).

The second presupposition of free-will theism is that true freedom means being able to choose between options without any predetermination. This is called a noncompatibilist idea of freedom. It is not compatible with determinism or predestination. It assumes and requires a certain limited independence of the creature from God. Many evangelicals -- especially Calvinists -- prefer a compatibilist idea of freedom. For them, true freedom is being able to do what God knows and decides is right. Independence from God in any degree is lack of freedom. Of course, proponents of the free-will theism paradigm will object that this is an odd, even unique, use of freedom, quite unlike that word's meaning in ordinary speech, and that it ultimately lands one in incoherence unless one is willing to say God is the author of sin and evil.

A TEST FOR HOW WE DISAGREE

"The Openness of God" is a powerful and persuasive book. It is creative, bold, and Bible-based. In spite of its strengths, however, a few serious problems remain that will hinder even some sympathetic readers from wholeheartedly embracing the model argued for. The authors deal inadequately with two major issues. They assert that part and parcel of the open view of God is belief that God does not know future free decisions and actions of his creatures. They struggle mightily, and with some success, to show that this in no way impairs belief in God's ultimate sovereignty and power over the outcome of human history. But a shadow of doubt lingers.

Can a risk-taking, self-limiting God who rarely, if ever, intervenes in the free choices and actions of human agents know that history will end the way he envisions and predicts without having to rob free creatures of their freedom? It would seem that for history to end in the kingdom of God, as these authors insist it will, God will have to exercise more than loving, influencing, persuasive power. While it is consistent with their theology to believe God will do that in order to establish his kingdom, the question arises, Why believe he never or hardly ever does that on the way to the kingdom?

A closely related question concerns God's beliefs and predictions about the future. The authors do not deal adequately with the question of whether God can hold false beliefs about the future. At the very least, they must hold that God predicts the outcome of historical processes involving free agents. Could God's predictions turn out to be wrong? When Jesus told Peter that he would deny him, is it even theoretically possible that Peter might not have denied him? Either way the authors (and other advocates of limited divine foreknowledge) answer this question presents them with some problems.

I am not arguing that these are insuperable difficulties; the authors may have satisfactory solutions. For many readers warmly attracted to their model of God, however, these doubts will preclude their wholehearted acceptance.

Indeed, the open view of God raises many questions, and these will no doubt be extensively explored and debated in reviews, panel discussions, and even book-length responses. One question it raises that should underlie everything else is this: How do American evangelical Christians handle theological diversity? Have we come of age enough to avoid heresy charges and breast-beating jeremiads in response to a new doctrinal proposal that is so conscientiously based on biblical reflection rather than on rebellious accommodation to modern thought? This may be the test.

********************

Roger Olson is professor of theology at Bethel College, Saint Paul, Minnesota, and editor of The Christian Scholar's Review.

AFRAID OF INFINITUDE

By Douglas F. Kelly

One of the best things about this most provocative book is its subject: it is actually about God, rather than being another evangelical "how to" or self-help manual. Clark Pinnock is certainly right about one thing: "The concept of God is the most important topic in theology." To their credit, the five authors have done something far from universal among theologians and philosophers; they have written in clear, straightforward English prose. It seems to me that they have been honest and aboveboard in plainly expressing what they think. Even those who strongly disagree with their conclusions will have to respect them for their transparent clarity.

Moreover, one must commend their desire to make their theological discourse practical so that it addresses living issues such as the reality of intercessory prayer, and how to interpret evil and fight it in today's world.

Several of these authors properly point out that the classical tradition has not always done full exegetical, theological justice to the matter of God's impassability. I was genuinely disappointed that, because of crucial, exegetical and central theological weaknesses, these brethren were unable to improve this situation. Indeed, what they have to say on this point and many others constitutes one of the saddest intellectual and spiritual retrogressions I have ever seen outside openly heterodox thinking.

The really crucial weakness that devastates the promise of this volume to present a fresh, more biblical view of God is this: The authors feel that God cannot be infinite and personal at the same time. To deal with us personally, rather than harshly and mechanically (which is how they see "sovereignty"), God either must be finite or, at least, refrain from employing such infinitude. Some of the authors hold that God really is not infinite (e.g., God literally does not know what is future); some of them suggest that he must voluntarily refuse to use his infinite abilities as the price of humankind's being guaranteed personal significance.

As a result of a selective biblical exegesis (that looks only at the human limitations implied in a word -- such as repent -- and strangely fails to consider the word in the light of the infinite subject to whom it refers) and a failure actually to read the Fathers of the Christian church, these writers attempt to get rid of God's infinity by ascribing it to classical theology's being the illegitimate offspring of the cohabitation of biblical concepts with pagan Hellenistic philosophy.

In reality, a careful reading of the Fathers (such as Athanasius, for instance) would indicate the profound Christianization of Hellenistic terms and concepts. Though they began as Greek terms conveying pagan content, such concepts as creation, being, logos, providence, and person were thoroughly transformed during the first four or five centuries of the Christian era in the light of Old Testament prophecy and the apostolic testimony to Christ.

Perhaps lack of familiarity with this field of study explains why the authors dismiss so easily the entire classical tradition as being no less Neo-Platonic than Pseudo-Dionysius, who in truly unbiblical fashion describes God as "beyond being." But they fail to point out the very significant fact that when Athanasius (long before the time of Pseudo-Dionysius) quotes this passage from Plato's Republic, he changes it to state that God is "beyond all created being" -- a profoundly biblical concept (Athanasius, Contra Gentes, 2.2;40.2). This leads us to the heart of their problem.

It seems to me that these "openness" writers have failed to think through the profound implications of the difference between created (finite) being and uncreated (infinite) being. This failure to think clearly is manifestly demonstrated in their impoverished grasp of the relationship of language to being (i.e., epistemology). They seem to work on the assumption of the univocal validity of language for both God and man. That is, a word must mean for God the exact same thing it does for a human. For instance, "before and after" impose on God's experience the same limitations they do on that of humankind.

But one wonders how they could have neglected the church's pivotal teaching on the analogical usage of language (i.e., that there are both similarities and differences when the same word is applied to created and uncreated being). A brief reading of a few sections of Saint Thomas Aquinas's "Summa Theologiae" or perhaps chapter five of E. L. Mascall's "Existence and Analogy" might have transformed this book. And long before Aquinas or Mascall, Saint Hilary of Poitiers (fourth century) wisely remarked (in De Trinitate 4:14) that human words are subject to God, rather than God being subject to human words (in the sense of comprehensively defined and thus limited by them). The human mind "must not measure the divine nature by the limitations of [its] own, but must gauge God's assertions concerning himself by the scale of his own glorious self-revelation.... Since we are to discourse of the things of God, let us assume that God has full knowledge of himself, and bow with humble reverence to his words" (1:17).

In other words, the reason the five authors of "The Openness of God" deny the infinitude of nearly all the attributes of God is their failure to have heard what Hilary (and the whole orthodox Christian tradition) could have said to them. That is, we must not attempt to project our creaturely limitations onto the God who made us (as though we had made him). That would be a violation of the second commandment. Rather, with Saint Paul, let us understand that the analogy (and glorious reality) of God as our Father makes sense because fatherhood is from God (Eph. 3:14-15), as the incarnate Christ and outpoured Spirit have shown us. Hence, as Athanasius says, "God does not make man his pattern, but rather, since God alone is properly and truly Father, we men are called fathers of our own children, for of him every fatherhood in heaven and earth is named" (Contra Arianos 1:23).

Human reason, therefore, must adjust itself to God's being and not the reverse. Repeatedly in this volume, the authors univocally limit the infinite God by what they are able to understand (see, for example, the definition of divine omniscience on p. 136). This short-sighted procedure causes them throughout the book to deny one side of clear biblical teaching (such as God's sovereignty) in order to affirm the other side (such as human responsibility). Sadly, all too little that they write in this volume can be taken seriously either by scholars or by ordinary Christian layfolk until its authors rethink their basic approach. May they be blessed in doing so!

********************

Douglas F. Kelly is John R. Richardson Professor of Systematic Theology, Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, North Carolina.

A TRANSCENDENCE-STARVED DEITY

By Timothy George

For a generation and more, evangelicals have debated, defined, and defended the teaching of the Bible, assuming all along that the doctrine of God, as received in the historic Christian tradition, was an evangelical essential on which all faithful believers could agree. If that were ever true, the present volume indicates that it is no longer so. The revisionist view of God set forth here is neither new nor all that radical compared to other models one can encounter at, say, nearly any session of the American Academy of Religion. What is significant is that this book claims to be a "biblical challenge" to the traditional understanding of God by a team of scholars well known for their contributions to evangelical journals and learned societies.

These essays are really a form of protest literature. The authors claim to have found the classical doctrine of God, which presumably each of them once affirmed, to be apologetically inhibiting, religiously stultifying, and just plain old-fashioned. But their analysis is based on three false dichotomies.

First, they pit the dynamic, interactive God of the Hebrew Scriptures over against the static, transcendent God of the Greek philosophers. This contrast was given definitive form by Adolf von Harnack, who saw the Trinitarian and Christological consensus of the early church as the ultimate corruption by the alien spirit of Hellenism of the primitive truth of the gospel. To this G. L. Prestige responded wisely, "The Christian doctrine of God is a legitimate rational construction founded on the facts of Christian experience." To be sure, the church Fathers did use contemporary thought forms and even new words such as Trinitas and homoousios, but they did so precisely in order to be faithful to the living God of the Bible.

Theologians should indeed beware of the seduction of philosophy. Augustine could not remain a pure Neo-Platonist once he became a Christian. Luther, among others, protested against Aristotle's undue influence. But the so-called open God is himself shaped by philosophical bias, namely, a process view of reality that has far less biblical warrant than the classical metaphysical tradition.

Second, they posit the God of love over against the God of power. Yet the same New Testament book that declares "God is love" also proclaims "God is light" (1 John 4:16; 1:5), a reference both to God's holiness and his eternal effulgence. It is not necessary to trivialize the noetic and ontic effects of sin, nor to minimize the penal and substitutionary sufferings of Christ in order to magnify the gracious, all-loving character of God. Nor should God's immutability be interpreted as his immobility.

The orthodox doctrine of God affirms both his infinite power and his sovereign love. No less a defender of traditional theism than Charles Hodge wrote: "Love of necessity involves feeling, and if there be no feeling in God, there can be no love." The God of the Bible is both personal and all-powerful, a God of covenant relations with his people, and yet utterly fulfilled within his own dynamic, Trinitarian life. How could Luther, Calvin, even Arminius, accept the former but fail to "see the conflict" with the latter? Perhaps it was because they served a greater, richer, more complex and less threatened God than one devised for modern sensibilities.

Third, they deny that God's knowledge of future contingents can be squared with freely chosen acts. But divine foreknowledge need not negate human responsibility; indeed, as Karl Barth noted, divine foreknowledge is the "presupposition of its possibility," denoting as it does the absolute priority and superiority of God himself to every possible existence distinct from his own.

On the view presented here, God cannot really know anything at all that will come to pass in the future; his knowledge is limited to the present and the past. This reduces biblical prophecy to wishful thinking, albeit divine wishful thinking. It also forces the authors to opt for the "oops theory" of salvation history. If Plan A fails, go to Plan B. And it leaves them little to say about eschatology, except for the vague hope that somehow good will triumph over evil. But the "open God" cannot guarantee that it will. He can only struggle with us against the chaos and keep on trying harder. One might feel sorry for such a God, even sympathize with him in his cosmic battle against the power of darkness. But one would hardly be moved to fall down and worship such an attenuated, transcendence-starved deity. The "open God" is a long way from the awesome, holy, unsurprisable (yet ever-surprising) God of the Bible, the God who "is a consuming fire."

The authors of this book are my brothers in Christ. They have presented their views with earnestness and sincerity, even humility, rightly recognizing that God is far greater than our best efforts to describe him. I applaud their desire to submit every doctrine, including the most cherished and time-worn ones, to the searching light of God's written Word. But in their desire to defend "God's reputation," and to construct "plausible models" and "convincing conceptions" that would make it easier "to invite people to find fulfillment," they have devised a user-friendly God who bears an uncanny resemblance to a late-twentieth-century seeker. They need not be so concerned about "God's reputation." They only need to let God be God.

________

Timothy George is dean of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama.

Baptist Press editors note: The following series of articles by theologian Mark Rathel of The Baptist College of Florida in Graceville, Florida, summarizes the tenets of open theism, which denies God's exhaustive knowledge of the future. Although not currently a major issue among Southern Baptists, open theism is gaining ground among evangelicals.

Rathel's theological essays, while irenic and fair, should leave no doubt with Baptist Press readers that open theism is a theology that must be rejected as unbiblical and harmful to believers.

This series originally ran in the Florida Baptist Witness.

_____________________

“Open theism” is an energetic, controversial topic in evangelicalism today that has captured the appeal of a significant segment of the evangelical culture to the point that major evangelical publishers enthusiastically publish books authored by open theists.

This growing movement affirms some aspects of the classical view of God, such as God's independence, the Trinity, creation and relational capability. Open theism, however, rejects some of the classical views of God's attributes, specifically the changelessness of God and the divine foreknowledge of human choices.

The name “open theism” derives from the affirmation that God Himself is open to new experiences, including the experience of learning the progressive events of world history as the events unfold.

Throughout Christian history, orthodox believers expressed a common understanding of the nature of God labeled “classical theism.” The last 15 years witnessed the development of a reformation of the evangelical understanding of the doctrine of God. In calling the movement a reformation, I suggest that the movement represents a major paradigm shift in the understanding of God by some evangelicals.

The leaders of open theism are articulate, well-educated evangelicals affirming the inerrancy of Scripture. The “great triumvirate” of open theism includes Clark Pinnock, Gregory Boyd and John Sanders. Pinnock, recently retired professor of theology at McMaster Divinity College in Ontario, Canada, is a British scholar who began his North American teaching career at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in the 1960s. Gregory Boyd formerly taught at Bethel College, associated with the Baptist General Conference, in St. Paul, Minn. John Sanders teaches at Huntington College in Huntington, Ind., a Brethren in Christ school.

Classical theism affirms that God is unchanging in His being, character, purposes and promises. Open theists delight when misinformed individuals assume that the historic theological debate between Calvinism and Arminianism drives the current debate about God's foreknowledge. Such an assumption neglects the strong emphasis on God's foreknowledge within the Arminian tradition. James Arminius, for example, wrote, “God knows all things from eternity. He knows all things immeasurably. He knows all things immutable, his knowledge not being varied.”

Thomas Oden, professor of theology at Drew University and perhaps the leading Arminian theologian in the Methodist tradition today, strongly disagrees with the openness position. In a Feb. 9, 1998, Christianity Today article, Oden wrote, “The fantasy that God is ignorant of the future is a heresy that must be rejected on scriptural grounds.”

Historically, Baptist confessional statements and theological writings reveal that Arminian and Calvinistic or Particular Baptists consistently affirmed God's foreknowledge of all events, including the choices of human beings. Southern Baptists addressed the challenge of open theism in the 1994 report of the Presidential Theological Study Committee, a 1999 resolution and the 2000 revision of the Baptist Faith and Message. Open theism, however, is making inroads into Southern Baptist life. In its June 24, 2002, issue, the Baptist Standard newspaper in Texas published a series of articles generally favorable to the openness position.

Although advocates of open theism do not agree among themselves on every aspect of their revision of the historic doctrine of God, five key elements characterize the understanding of God in open theism.

First, open theists affirm a qualified divine omniscience (all- knowing). God possesses exhaustive knowledge about proper subjects of knowledge. Since the future does not exist to know, God cannot know the future free choices of His creatures. God possesses present knowledge, that is, perfect knowledge of the past and present. Open theists do not regard this qualification as compromising God's omniscience. To buttress their case, open theists note, for example, God's omnipotence (all-powerful), does not mean that God possesses the power to do anything whatsoever. God cannot do the illogical (make round squares) or the immoral.

Second, open theists reject a monarchial metaphor of God's sovereignty in favor of a parental “at-risk” sovereignty. They argue the metaphor of a sovereign king depicts the tyrannical control of an insecure, weak and sick being. In God's “sovereignty over His sovereignty,” He chose to grant His creatures genuine freedom -- God created mankind in His image, which means that humanity participates with God in creating an open future. This risk-taking God has a goal for His creation, yet His free creatures can thwart and even frustrate the purposes of God. Rather than emphasizing God's omnipotence, open theists affirm God's omnicompetency (all-ability) to adapt to surprises and unexpected situations.

Third, open theists highlight God as a relational being. Love is the preeminent attribute of God. The dynamic God of open theism creatively interacts and responds in a vulnerable, loving fashion. God exercises control through persuasion, not coercion.

Fourth, the central component of the open theist's position is human libertarian freedom. According to Pinnock, humans have the ability to make free-choices without the coercion of “nature, nurture or God.” In line with the “at-risk” model of providence, God does not generally intervene in human affairs. Humanity, therefore, bears the primary responsibility for the developing future.

Fifth, open theists conceive of their viewpoint as a solution to the problem of evil and some forms of human suffering. Human libertarian freedom and an open future entail the possibility of great evil. God knows neither the content nor the consequences of His creatures' future free choices. God, therefore, cannot prevent evil. God is responsible for the potentiality of evil, but He is not responsible for the reality of evil.

_____________________________________________________

Why open theism is not merely an academic debate By Mark Rathel

(BP) -- Why should all Christians of all walks of life be concerned about open theism? Are the arguments for and against open theism an example of “much ado about nothing” -- an issue only relevant to “ivory tower” academicians? What are the implications of open theism for practical discipleship?

Theology may be good or bad, true or false. Yet, theology always influences how we live. Therefore, I encourage laypeople and pastors alike to follow the example of the noble Bereans and search the Scriptures “daily to find out whether these things [are] so” (Acts 17:16 NKJV).

In my opinion, open theism fails at several levels and, thus, undermines biblical Christianity. I cite at least four areas in which open theism fails.

First, open theism fails biblically. Deuteronomy 18:22 establishes the test of a true prophet as complete accuracy. In matters of prophetic future, a true prophet functions as a spokesperson for the God who knows the future. In Isaiah, the living God chides the false gods because they fail to meet the criteria of telling events yet future (Isaiah 41:21-23). While false gods fail to foretell the future, the living God declares the end from the beginning. The eighth century B.C. prophet connects God's detailed knowledge of the future with His role as Savior (Isaiah 43:11; 45:21).

Open theists, in contrast, believe that some prophecies will not happen. God, therefore, does not meet the test of a true prophet. Clark Pinnock flatly states that Jesus wrongly issued prophecies related to the destruction of Jerusalem. The God of open theism, therefore, lacks the biblical credentials of a true prophet.

Second, open theism fails in terms of practical discipleship. Prayer is one of the most vital aspects of the Christian life. Open theists teach that a personal, relational God wants to hear from us, and indeed, God may not act until He hears from us. Yet, because open theists, like the deists of the English Enlightenment, affirm that God rarely intervenes in earthly affairs, the natural question is, “Why pray?” Further, since God refuses to influence people, intercessory prayer is useless.

The issue of God's guidance is another practical discipleship problem for open theists. Gregory Boyd tells the emotive story of a missionary candidate named Susan. Susan sought God's guidance before marriage; felt that God gave her a specific spouse; yet her husband committed adultery. For Boyd, the proper pastoral response necessitates informing Susan that God Himself was shocked to learn of the divorce. Do you really want to seek out the advice of a God who can have mistaken beliefs, who regretted His own past divine actions such as the creation of mankind (a divine Oops!)?

According to Boyd, God can do a better job providing guidance in short- term matters than He can with long-term guidance. How does this guidance from an “open” God differ from the guidance of another human?

Third, open theism fails as a solution for the problem of evil and suffering. The existence of evil in light of a good, all-powerful God must remain a mystery for Christians. The problem of evil and suffering is a personal, practical issue for many of the leading advocates of open theism because of their personal, existential suffering. (Those who disagree with the conclusion of open theists must respond with tender empathy and compassion to their personal suffering.)

Open theists absolve God of any relationship to evil by ascribing evil to human libertarian freedom. A good, powerful God, for example, could not know of the future rise of Hitler. Therefore, God could not prevent the ascendancy of Hitler to control of the Third Reich. Yet, even in the open theist understanding of God, once God learned of the evilness of Hitler, He could act to prevent Hitler's atrocities. God, however, chose not to intervene even after He became educated. Does this bring resolution to the problem of moral evil?

Is the open theism explanation superior to the traditional explanations for the problem of evil? In contrast to open theism's lack of a divine plan, Christians throughout history received comfort from the realization that their suffering served an important purpose for their good.

Fourth, open theism diminishes Christian hope. Some open theists view the church as God's “good luck,” that is, a risk-taking God achieved His purpose for a people despite a lack of knowledge about the outcome ahead of time. If the church is God's “good luck,” then how can the Christian experience certain hope regarding the consummation of history? Could the risk-taking God -- a God mistaken about past events -- gamble the unknown future and lose? Can an “open” God ever be sure of final victory?

Perhaps it's the possibility of eternal insecurity that causes Pinnock and John Sanders to also hold to annihilationism -- the heretical doctrine that those who die without having trusted Christ will be destroyed at death, rather than suffer eternal punishment in hell. The vulnerable God of open theism realizes secure victory only by the absolute destruction of all enemies, angelic and human. In the end, the God of open theism truly changes His character and purposes. In the end, God becomes a sovereign king.

The God described by the Baptist Faith and Message is superior to the God proposed by open theism. “God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures” (BF&M, Article II, God). To this knowledgeable God, we owe the highest love, reverence and obedience.

No, this is not a merely academic debate with little importance to everyday Christian life. The assault on the biblical, historic doctrine of God found in tenets of open theism is one that must be opposed by all believers -- inspired by the model of the Bereans -- who know that our future hope is found only in a God who holds the future.

_____________________________________________________

Is open theism consistent with biblical Christianity? By Mark Rathel

(BP) -- The advocates of open theism are self-professed evangelicals affirming the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. Clark Pinnock and John Sanders hold membership in the Evangelical Theological Society, an important scholarly organization committed to the inerrancy of Scripture. Gregory Boyd is, as far as I know, committed to the inerrancy of Scripture.

In fact, open theists claim Scripture leads them to a denial of the historic understanding of God's knowledge of future events. Open theists, such as Pinnock, Boyd and Sanders, isolate five types of Scripture passages that lead them to reformulate their understanding of God.

First, open theists point to passages that speak of the future in terms of contingency, that is, what “may” happen (Exodus 4:1-9; 13:17; Matthew 26:39). For example, in Exodus 4:1-9 Moses questioned his duty if the Jewish leaders failed to believe in him. God detailed several miracles which at the hand of Moses “may” lead the people to believe in Moses as God's messenger. This passage, however, does not mean that God did not know how the Jewish leaders would respond to Moses. God told Moses in advance the response of the Jewish leaders (Exodus 3:18).

Again, some open theists interpret Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane in which He requested the removal of the cup of death as meaning the events of Calvary lacked certainty. According to Sanders, Jesus could avoid the cross, in spite of the fact of the scriptural claims that foreknew the sacrifice of Christ (Acts 2:23; Revelation 13:8.).

Second, open theists highlight as most important passages that suggest God tested people to discover people's responses. In response to Abraham's willingness to offer his son Isaac, God responded, “Now I know that you fear God” (Genesis 22:12 NKJV). However, if their interpretation is correct, then God lacked present knowledge of Abraham's heart as well as his future decisions. God previously reckoned Abraham righteous because of his faith and established an unconditional covenant (Genesis 15; Romans 4). Hebrew scholars note that the term translated in Genesis 22:12 as “know” denotes a confirmation of knowledge.

Third, open theists accentuate passages which describe God as asking non-rhetorical questions about the future (Numbers 14:11; 1 Kings 22:20; Hosea 8:5). Yet, to call these questions non-rhetorical is a matter of interpretation. Scripture frequently records God asking rhetorical questions. For example, Genesis 3:9-13 describes God asking Adam and Eve the following questions: “Where are you?” “Who told you that you were naked?,” “Have you eaten from the tree?,” “What is this you have done?” A non-rhetorical interpretation of these passages in Genesis suggests that God lacks knowledge of the past, as well as, the present and future. In like manner, in Numbers and Hosea God rhetorically asked “how long” His people would despise Him. God frequently asked rhetorical questions in connection with the commissioning of a servant (1 Kings 22:20; Isaiah 6:8) without implying a lack of knowledge.

Fourth, open theists emphasize passages in which God expresses regret, indeed repentance, for his decisions (Genesis 6:6; 1 Samuel 15:11,35). Genesis 6:6 says, “The Lord repented that He made man on earth, and He was grieved on earth” (KJV). 1 Samuel 15:11 states, “I repent that I made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me” (KJV). Neither of these passages directly affirms that God does not know the future; rather, open theists infer that God would have decided on another course of action if He foreknew the results. To understand Genesis 6:6 as an expression of divine ignorance insinuates that God did not foresee the fall of humanity into moral corruption. If the corruption of sin took God by surprise, how could God establish a redemptive plan prior to creation?

The same chapter in Samuel affirms, “I repent that I made Saul king” (1 Samuel 15:11, 35) and “the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent, for He is not a man, that He should repent” (1 Sam. 15:29). The Hebrew verb translated “repent” (naham) means “relent” or “grieve” rather than repent. Saul could not establish a dynasty according to the Word of God; Jacob's prophecy stated the royal king would arise from the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:8-10). God's rejection of Saul because of the king's disobedience did not violate God's plan. Because God is not man, He would neither relent nor lie regarding His decision to give the kingship to David. Yet, God “grieved” in the sense that He expressed the appropriate moral response to the failure of a leader.

Finally, open theists stress passages in which God expressed surprise or disappointment (Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 32:35). The passages in Jeremiah appear to support open theism. God said three times that the idolatrous abomination of child sacrifices never “entered my mind.” Yet, the passage does not claim that God never thought about this specific behavior. Three times God specifically warned Israel of this particular sin centuries before the sixth-century prophet Jeremiah (Leviticus 18:21; Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10). Rather, the phrase “enter my mind” commonly described intention. The act of child sacrifice unashamedly opposed God's intention or will.

Bruce Ware, a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has written a book for laymen addressing the faulty biblical rationale of open theists: “God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism.”

_____________________________________________________

Mullins, Hobbs, others affirmed God's complete knowledge of future, by Staff writers

Following are excerpts from various creeds, confessions, catechisms and books from the past four centuries that affirm God's exhaustive knowledge of the future:

• “God hath before all time foreseen and foreknown all things, both good and evil, whether past, present, or to come.”

-- John Smyth, “A Short Confession of Faith” (1610).

• “Every particle of being in heaven and earth leads us to the infinite being of beings, namely God, who is simplicity; who is the only eternal being, everlasting without time, whose immense presence is always everywhere present, having immutability without any alteration in being or will; in a word, God is infinite, of universal, unlimited, and incomprehensible perfection....”

-- “The Orthodox Creed” (1679).

• “His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent or uncertain....”

-- “Philadelphia Confession of Faith” (1742).

• “Question: What does God know? Answer: God knows all things; even the secrets of our hearts; God is omniscient.”

-- John Broadus, “A Catechism of Bible Teaching” (1892).

• “God knows not only actually existing things, but also all future events.... We urge that God does know in advance the choices of His free creatures.... We cannot think of the infinite and perfect Spirit as devoid of knowledge of His creation in any respect. A God without a knowledge of all the choices of His free creatures would be without power to guide or control the universe.”

-- E. Y. Mullins, “The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression” (1917).

• “God's knowledge is not limited by time.... There are no surprises that come to God out of the future.... God's knowledge is not the result of inference on His part.... He knows directly.... God foreknows also directly the free acts of men.”

-- W. T. Conner, “Christian Doctrine” (1937).

• “God has all knowledge. He knows all things simultaneously. His knowledge is immediate, without the processes of thought, reason, or inference. His foreknowledge of events does not necessarily mean that He predetermined them. He knows the workings of His natural, physical, moral, and spiritual laws which work towards definite ends. Individuals are free to choose in the light of them, but are responsible for their choices. God knows these choices beforehand, but does not predetermine them.”

-- Hershel Hobbs, “Baptist Faith and Message, Revised Edition” (1996 commentary on 1963 edition of Baptist Faith and Message).

• “Baptists affirm that God is limitless in power, knowledge, wisdom, love, and holiness. He suffers no limitations upon His power or His personality. He is not constrained by external force or internal contradiction. We reject any effort to redefine God as a limited deity.”

-- “Report of the Southern Baptist Convention Presidential Theological Study Committee” (1994).

• “God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures.”

-- “Baptist Faith and Message” (2000).

_____________

Compiled by Mark Rathel. Florida Baptist Witness, available online at www.floridabaptistwitness.com.

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #19527]

Two children were standing on the deck of an ocean liner looking out upon the great ocean. "What makes this ship go?" asked the boy of his sister.

"Why, the captain, he makes this ship go," answered the little girl, as she looked up to the bridge on which the captain, bedecked in his gold braid, walked back and forth.

"Oh, no he doesn't," said the boy. "What do girls know about ships anyway? You come with me and I'll show you what makes this big ship go."

So the boy took his sister by the hand and led her down to the engine room where he showed her those gigantic engines, and said to his sister, "See, that's what makes this ship go - not the captain but the engines make it go."

A little later as the boy and his sister were walking the deck again there was a cry. "MAN OVERBOARD!" They looked out to the sea and there, struggling in the water, they saw a drowning man. Then all eyes turned toward the captain on the bridge.

The captain called down one of the tubes, "Stop engines!" And the engines stopped. "Reverse engines!" And the engines reversed. "Forward engines!" And the steamer turned in the direction of the drowning man.

"Throw out the lifeline!" The line was thrown to the drowning man. He grasped it and soon was lifted up to the deck in safety.

The little girl turned to her brother and said, "Didn't I tell you that it was the captain that ran this ship?"

- Hymen Appelman, {Pointed Sermon Outlines and Illustrations}

The sovereignty of God as presented in the Book of Revelation should remind Christians that God is in control of all the events of history, including warfare, Scottish minister Eric Alexander noted in a two-sermon series at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Alexander, a Presbyterian minister, said Revelation 4-5 paint three pictures that should give believers assurance during uncertain times. The chapters unpack God's kingship, His guidance over the history of creation and the central act of history -- God's redemption of sinners in Jesus Christ, Alexander said.

“We are conscious that these are critical hours in which we live,” he said. “We are aware of the question, 'Where is the hand controlling the events we are passing through?'

“The relevance of the Bible at such a time as this and the relevance of Revelation is that it takes us to this throne of God. It [Revelation] is not there to satisfy our curiosity, but to give us a perspective on the world in which we live and the whole of history, so that we are able to see it [history] from a different vantage point from the rest of the world.”

The apostle John presents the throne as the central feature of his vision in Revelation 4, Alexander said. This is highly significant because the eternal kingship of God is evident by John's pointing out that the throne is constantly occupied.

John penned Revelation while suffering in exile on the island of Patmos, which Alexander described as “a kind of Alcatraz in the ancient world.” Paul's audience -- the seven churches in Asia -- also were undergoing intense persecution. John shared his vision to encourage the churches and to remind them that God was still on the throne despite their suffering, he said.

Alexander recalled where he was when terrorists attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001 -- in the clubhouse at St. Andrews golf course in Scotland.

Alexander remembered how a fellow golfer reacted to the news after learning Alexander was a minister. The man's words echo the very thought that sometimes enters a believer's mind during seasons of suffering, he said.

“He said to me, 'I guess your God has gone for a holiday,'“ Alexander said. “And that is the deep fear that lies even in the hearts of some trembling, faithful souls: 'Is God really on the throne?’ And John clearly gives us the answer in the outset of his vision.”

In Revelation 5, John's vision includes an angel holding a scroll. This scroll is the record of human destiny and divine purpose for the world, Alexander said. The scroll is both complete -- it contains no blank spaces -- and is sealed.

This points to the fact that, while every event in history is in God's hands, it is sealed from the sphere of human speculation or knowledge, Alexander said. It also shows that there is God-ordained purpose for every event in life and that all God's purposes in the world are a closed book to human beings.

“John weeps. It has made him deeply sad and the mystery of life is beginning to engulf him,” he said.

Believers should note that John points to the climax of history in Revelation 5:6. The “Lamb standing, as if slain,” is Christ, who is the key to history,” Alexander said.

During times of war and suffering, Christians must look to the Lamb and take comfort in the fact that His purposes - even though mysterious from a human perspective - will not be thwarted, he said. This should lead Christians to worship God in awe and wonder, he added.

“That Lamb is the crucified, risen, exalted and now reigning Lord Jesus Christ,” Alexander said. “He is the key to history, the key to life. Christ is the key to every mystery that life brings to us because He was slain and with His blood purchased a people for God.

“That is the central thing about the whole of history. It is the building of the church, which is the central element in history. When that work is done and when the church of Jesus Christ is complete, that is when God will bring down the curtain on the affairs of this sad world. May God help us that we may have that special view of the world which comes from dwelling near the throne.”

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #16395]

A young, new preacher was walking with an older, more seasoned preacher in the garden one day and feeling a bit insecure about what God had for him to do, he was inquiring of the older preacher.

The older preacher walked up to a rosebush and handed the young preacher a rosebud and told him to open it without tearing off any petals.

The young preacher looked in disbelief at the older preacher and was trying to figure out what a rosebud could possibly have to do with his wanting to know the WILL OF GOD for his life and for his ministry. But because of his high respect for the older preacher, he proceeded to TRY to unfold the rose, while keeping every petal intact. It wasn't long before he realized how impossible it was to do so.

Noticing the younger preacher's inability to unfold the rosebud while keeping it intact, the older preacher began to recite the following poem...

UNFOLDING THE ROSEBUD

It is only a tiny rosebud,

A flower of GOD's design;

But I cannot unfold the petals

With these clumsy hands of mine.

The secret of unfolding flowers

Is not known to such as I.

GOD opens this flower so sweetly,

When in my hands they fade and die.

If I cannot unfold a rosebud,

This flower of GOD's design,

Then how can I think I have wisdom

To unfold this life of mine?

So I'll trust in Him for His leading

Each moment of every day.

I will look to him for His guidance

Each step of the pilgrim way.

The pathway that lies before me,

Only my Heavenly Father knows.

I'll trust Him to unfold the moments,

Just as He unfolds the rose.

The current Baptist "fuss" over Calvinism is just that -- "a fuss, not [yet] a full blown controversy," says historian Walter Shurden, but it is likely to be around for a while.

"Some fundamentalists are Calvinists, but not all Calvinists are fundamentalists," Shurden, professor of Christianity and executive director of the Center for Baptist Studies at Mercer University, said May 17 in an address to the Virginia Baptist Historical Society.

"People read the Bible through different lenses," Shurden said in analyzing a recent resurgence among Southern Baptists of a theology that developed during the Reformation and also goes by names of "Reformed" theology and "the doctrines of grace."

Shurden said the Calvinism fuss has practical concerns, such as what kind of pastors will fill Baptist pulpits and what kind of influences will prevail on campuses of universities and seminaries. "Many Baptist young people raised on John 3:16," which says salvation through Christ is available to everyone, "are turning to strict Calvinism," he said, which emphasizes that only the "elect" can be saved.

Shurden said implications for biblical interpretation include balancing Calvinistic-cited passages (such as Romans 8:28-30; Romans 9; 1 Peter 1:1-2; and Ephesians 1:3-12) and non-Calvinistic passages (such as John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9.)

Considered in theological terms, "The core issue is the exercise of divine sovereignty," Shurden said. Did God use divine sovereignty to "elect" some to salvation, while passing others by? Or did God use divine sovereignty to give all people freedom to respond to the gospel?

Historically, Shurden said, a non-Calvinist approach to faith appeared first in Baptist life. Over time, Calvinism became a prominent part of the Baptist tradition, he said, but strict Calvinism has never owned the Baptist field to itself or constituted the major tradition of Baptist life.

"The vast majority of Baptists today are not strict Calvinists," Shurden said. Streams of the history of Baptists in America -- such as the Regular or Particular Baptists, the General Baptists, and the Separate Baptists -- have deposited mixed elements in Baptist theology. That mixture has tempered the extremes of Calvinism, but a stricter Calvinism that proponents tend to equate with "the gospel" is beginning to resurface in Baptist life, he said.

Calvinism finds its roots in John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion and the Reformation. It underlies the doctrine in Presbyterian and Reformed churches. Calvin also influenced the early Puritans. Shurden described John Calvin as a "great man," but said many of his followers have taken his teaching to extremes.

The tenets of strict, five-point Calvinism are often remembered by the acronym TULIP -- Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints.

In some extremes in Baptist history, Shurden said, Calvinism has generated an anti-missions and anti-evangelism spirit on the grounds that God has already chosen or "elected" those who will have salvation. Citing Baptist historian Leon McBeth's assessment of Calvinism, Shurden said that a stricter Calvinism has resurfaced in recent years for several reasons. Some Baptist Calvinists see themselves rediscovering the main tradition in Baptist history, while rejecting a shallow and pragmatic evangelism. He also noted that the uncertainty of society and the consequent drive for certainty and security play into the hands of a rather dogmatic Calvinism. "There is a heresy of 'exactness' in our society," Shurden said. "It can cause divisions among us."

Articles on a Founders Ministries Web site (www.founders.org) criticize "seeker-sensitive" worship services and a doctrinal weakness in Southern Baptist churches and argue for the "sufficiency" of Scripture. "Since the early 1970s, our denomination has seen an undeniable resurgence of interest in the theological system known as Calvinism and its attendant principles that we call the 'doctrines of grace,'" says an excerpt from a book by Ernest Reisinger and Matthew Allen included on the Web site.

"Calvinism is a much-maligned system by those who are ignorant of its teachings," they write. "In reality, Calvinism is nothing more than biblical Christianity. It lies in a profound apprehension that God is imminently majestic, holy, beautiful, and glorious, and that God's creation is profoundly sinful and needful of redemption. Hence, it promotes an attitude of dependence on God through all the activities of life. It teaches that salvation comes only when the sinful person rests in humble, self-emptying trust in the most wonderful, amazing grace of God. These are the fundamental principles of Calvinism."

You know, sometimes people just overwhelm me with their love and their kindness. Some dear people from the church I grew up in learned about some needs we've had in our home for a long time. And well, with the schedule I have, there really hasn't been much time to make some of the desperately needed improvements or repairs - not to mention the fact that I am, um, constructionally challenged, shall we say. And with our limited budget, we haven't been able to pay anyone else to do it either. Well, in this amazing expression of God's love, a work crew from my childhood church came to our house for three intensive days of house transformation. And now we can see all over the house the wonderful results of their labors.

But while they were in the middle of that work, life got very interesting around our house! We couldn't park in the driveway. Walking through the house was like walking through a minefield of cans and tools and workers. Our clothes were out of closets and laying all over tables. Furniture that had to be moved out of the worker's way made it very exciting just to walk through the house. It was a total MESS! And even though I didn't enjoy the mess, I could handle the mess - for one simple reason: they were making our house a mess in order to make it better than it's ever been before.

Well, I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A WORD WITH YOU today about "That Beautiful Mess."

Now in the pages of the Bible, there is probably no man whose life became more of a mess than Job. His name is synonymous with suffering. He loved God, but he lost his health, his fortune, his children - in his body and in his heart, he experienced excruciating, relentless pain.

Here's Job's perspective on a life that had turned into a disaster. Our word for today from the Word of God, Job 42:1. "Then Job replied to the Lord, 'I know that You can do all things; no plan of Yours can be thwarted.'" Job says, "Through it all, Lord, I've learned You've got everything under control." And then in verse 5, Job describes how this painful time has affected his relationship with his God. He says, "My ears had heard of You, but now my eyes have seen You." The God he knew ABOUT when the house of his life was neat and tidy, he now KNOWS intimately because of the mess his life became.

And all along God was planning to make the house of his life better than it had ever been before. Job 42:10 - "After Job had prayed for his friends, the Lord made him prosperous again ... the Lord blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first. He had 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. And he also had seven sons and three daughters." But the post-mess Job had a relationship with God, a deep understanding of God, that the pre-mess Job had never imagined. It took the mess to accomplish the makeover in Job's life - and maybe in yours.

It could be that you're looking around your life right now and you see clutter and mess and dislocation everywhere. Like me, with our topsy-turvy, under-construction house, you're not enjoying this season at all. Trying to make sense of it has only led to greater frustration. You're not sure how you're going to make it through this painful mess.

Now, the good Christian answer is, "Trust God." But because of what I experienced when my house looked like Tornado Junction, I think I understand a little better what that really means. I could tolerate the mess because I knew this was a process to make things better than they had ever been before - even though it didn't look like it in the middle of the process.

For you to trust God right now means believing and declaring - even when it doesn't look like it - that this mess is God's process for making things His way, this mess is not the final outcome. It's just the road to a better life to live in than you've ever experienced before.

*

Many of us have been mystified at the level of debate among conservative Baptists over the "doctrines of grace" -- also referred to as Calvinism.

The reformers were responding to the errors of the Roman church as they tried to explain the nature of man, God and salvation. Although Baptists and the other free churches did not originate in the Reformation, some preachers are embroiled in one of its central debates. The current arguments center on whether God's sovereignty depends on his predetermining the destination of human souls or whether man's responsibility and accountability depend on his ability to exercise choice in the matter of salvation.

During recent mission trips to India and Romania, I observed how the eastern religions shroud the sacred in secrecy. Both rituals and places of worship are parts of a religion in which the knowledge of God is hidden from the people who worship.

It occurred to me that the error of the West is the opposite -- the attempt at mastering the mysteries with the mind. Our natural intellectual tendency is to try to systematize all truth, even if the truth is part of the mysteries of God. By systematizing truth, we believe we can master it.

Perhaps we should realize that like many of the mysteries of godliness, this is one area we will never fully explain. In fact there are many aspects of biblical truth that we are not called to explain, only to proclaim. Can we fully explain the doctrine of the Trinity, or tri-unity, of God being three yet only one God? No, we just proclaim its truth. Can anyone fully explain how Jesus can be 100 percent God and 100 percent man at the same time? No, we just joyfully proclaim him as the Son of God and the Son of Man.

Can we adequately explain how God expresses his sovereignty and at the same time how man is absolutely responsible and accountable? Can God only express sovereignty by predetermining the destination of each soul? Such an assertion does not magnify God's sovereignty, but limits it. Frankly, within the mystery of God we cannot fully define how he demonstrates his sovereignty. We are not called to explain God's sovereignty, but to proclaim it.

Does God place mankind in a position of responding to his Spirit's conviction? Is man responsible only if he has full exercise of free will or can he be held responsible for a choice that God made for him? Again, we are not called to explain man's responsibility, only to proclaim that he is accountable before God.

Does man have to be regenerated to be saved? Absolutely. Does man have to choose to repent to be saved? Absolutely. Are these two ideas incompatible? Does the idea of the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man remain at odds? Absolutely not. We do not have to explain either, only to proclaim both. The church is commissioned by Christ to "go and make disciples."

Every person is called on by God to repent and believe. The clear essence of the gospel is "whosoever believeth in Him shall never perish but have everlasting life." These are not truths that demand explanation, only proclamation.

__________________

Phillips is associate professor of practical theology and director of the practical missions office and denominational relations office at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, Memphis, Tenn., and former executive director/minister of the West Virginia Convention of Southern Baptists.

*

In his famed “I have a Dream” speech, Martin Luther King proclaimed, “We refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt.” With his triumphant words, this great leader painted for our nation a powerful image of hope, forever rooting the civil rights movement in images of justice and the image of God.

The images presented in the book of Daniel are similarly potent. In fact, the sixth chapter of Daniel was a favorite Scripture passage among civil rights preachers in the early 1960's. The story told in Daniel 6 presents a king who loses sight of his purpose as king and the purpose of the law, creating a system void of justice and a law that only hinders and traps its makers. But against the images of lawlessness and corruption, the story portrays a silent but active Daniel clinging to a higher law, bowing before the King of Kings, in the midst of persecution, in the hands of his oppressors, in the shadows of the lions' den. Living within the hopelessness of exile, sweltering under the heat of injustice, Daniel unflinchingly declares the sovereignty of God, and with faithfulness and perseverance refuses to believe otherwise.

In a kingdom in which he is a mere foreigner, Daniel was appointed to a position of great authority because the king had found him to be distinguished among men. Yet we quickly find that in the peaceful dominion of King Darius, all is not peaceful. The leaders serving under Daniel seek to get rid of him. The story does not provide a thorough explanation for their hatred of Daniel and yet, perhaps in this silence much is said. In the absence of explanation, we see the nature of any prejudice. Without reason, without logic, we discriminate and are discriminated against. There is no explanation because to explain our reasons behind prejudice is to become our own judge. In fact, the men announce their illogic when they conclude, “We will never find any basis for charges against this man Daniel unless it has something to do with the law of his God” (6:5).

Whatever their motivation, the men proceed with their plan. Approaching the king with flattery that he does not refuse, they convince him to establish an ordinance that holds the kingdom accountable to praying only to him. The king, who is pleased with his high and lofty position and his authority to rule, agrees to test the loyalty of his citizens, and to make the law irrevocable.

It is significant to note that Daniel does not speak until the end of the story, yet he is anything but complacent. Knowing the document had been signed, Daniel goes to his house, opens his windows, faces Jerusalem, and prays as he had done before. Just as planned, he is immediately caught and the men are quick to point out his guilt before the king. Daniel stands accused, the king stands guilt-ridden, and all hands are tied. Bound by his own law, the king must release his faithful servant into the hands of injustice. Daniel is thrown into the lions' den, which is then sealed at the remorseful hand of the king.

As we await the outcome, wanting to cry out at the injustice of the situation, the voices we most want to hear from remain discouragingly silent. We hear nothing from the lips of Daniel. And we hear nothing from the mouth of God.

In the face of injustice silence can be oppressive, filled at once with despairing questions. Where is God? What of the silent victims? Over the deafening sounds of injustice, over the word games and manipulative arguments, when hands are tied, options are exhausted, and fates seem irreversible, who will speak?

In the aftermath of an eventful week on the wearying battlegrounds of abortion, alongside the turbulent fight for the life of Terri Schiavo, the silence of God and of Daniel is especially moving. For Daniel eventually speaks, but only after his irreversible sentence was overruled by the hand of God. In Daniel we are powerfully reminded, even as we have been reminded this week, that in silence God is still acting, in the weariness of injustice, in the shadows of those who seek to devour, He is sovereign.

Says the Lord, “Because of the oppression of the weak and the groaning of the needy, I will now arise,” (Psalm 12:5).

__________

Copyright © 2003 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

During the famine Elijah predicted, when there was neither dew nor rain, God sent him to a brook where he found food to eat and water to drink. But some time later the brook dried up.

Life is full of jagged parts and rough edges. It was this thought C.S. Lewis had in mind when he noted that the only kind of furniture on which you never stub your toes or bang your knees is the furniture in your dreams. Life is marked by pointed needs and palpable fears, waters that dry up and days marked by the scarcity of hope.

In the story told in 1 Kings 17, God sends Elijah from the brook and tells him to go at once to Zarephath of Sidon, and find the widow who has been instructed to care for him. The brook had dried up; the famine was still spread throughout the land, and Elijah had nothing to live on. The story begins by making us aware of Elijah's need for the widow. And yet halfway into the story we are wondering what the widow would have done without Elijah.

As Elijah approached the gates of Zarephath, a town far from his own, he found a widow gathering sticks. Calling to her Elijah asked, “Would you bring me a little water in a jar so I may have a drink?” And as she was going to get it, he added, “And bring me, please, a piece of bread” (17:10-11).

Whatever instruction God had given the widow to care for the prophet, it didn't seem to be received as a message of hope. Her response to Elijah was as despondent as the stream Elijah left. “As surely as the LORD your God lives,” she replied, “I don't have any bread — only a handful of flour in a jar and a little oil in a jug. I am gathering a few sticks to take home and make a meal for myself and my son, that we may eat it — and die” (12). With his words, Elijah hit the center of a wound inflicted by the jagged details of this woman's life. She was a widow at the end of all hope and the end of her ability to provide daily bread. She was alone and struggling to make ends meet, forgotten by society in the midst of a famine. She had herself and her son to feed, and now Elijah was asking too.

Whatever else this story reminds us — Jesus referenced Elijah and the widow as he told the crowds that no prophet is accepted in his hometown — it reminds us that God is in the jagged details of our lives. In the parts of life on which we stub our toes and bump our knees, tragedies and experiences that hit us with their massiveness and block all else, He is yet sovereign. God accomplishes his purposes at every dry brook and despairing valley despite the fragile, broken pots that He works with. He sent Elijah to the widow for the sake of daily bread in more ways than one.

It is significant that Zarephath, the place God prepared Elijah to find the widow and the widow to find Elijah, is a word that means “refining”. In the rough edges of three lives God's presence was found and promises known. By his hands and at his words, they were refined. Following Elijah's instruction, the widow went to the handful flour and little bit of oil she had remaining and made three small cakes. And until the day when the Lord brought rain once again to the land, her jar of flour was not used up and her jug of oil did not run dry.

________

Copyright © 2004 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

I have always found it immeasurably comforting that Jesus gave Simon the name “Cephas,” or Peter, before Cephas had done much of anything. Before Peter had even determined to follow Jesus, let alone serve him and love him as the Christ, before Peter had muttered his denials of knowing Jesus or had one of his moments of blurted insight, before Jesus had reason to call Peter “Satan,” Jesus called him the “rock” (John 1:42).

What does this say? First, I believe it shouts of God's sovereignty. God knows who we are before we know ourselves. He can use us in spite of ourselves. He is sovereign over our failures and our successes. But secondly, it reminds us that we are more than the sum of our blunders and failings, as well as our victories and our bright spots. As the apostle Paul wrote to the Romans, “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) Before we had a chance to prove ourselves, before we had a chance to fall on our faces or say something smart, God knew He'd need to die for us, and did.

Peter is the disciple that makes many of us feel OKAY. He is a loud statement to the hopeless, to the skeptic, and to the guilt-ridden that God can take our doubt, our regret, the hopelessness of our past or our present, and create in us something solid by giving us Himself. In Peter we also find that pains of regret and faithlessness may leave scars, but that scars can be powerful reminders of the living hope we profess: the Word that will not wither. (See 1 Peter 1:24-25). Through Peter, God encourages the weary. Through our scars, He heartens us to see a God very much in control.

Even so, when we look at our own moments of faithlessness or foolishness, our scars of humiliation, or the bitter sting of missed and lost opportunities, it is hard to see much beyond regret and remorse, even if we know Christ has forgiven us. Can there be more to see in the weight of our past, the pains of childhood and the wounds of life, the glimpses of guilty motives and poor behavior? The testimony of Scripture is that yes, very definitely, there is.

For arguably, Peter's passion for Christ was largely shaped by that which the pain and humiliation of denying Jesus rightly reminded him: If we are faithless, God remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself. Our scars are similar. Some of my own scars simply remind me that I am alive, living within a fallen world, participating in this fragile thing called life. Some remind me that I am not an island, that I need people, that I desperately need a savior, that I need God in all that I face. Still others remind me that I am healed and being healed. But all of my scars can remind me, as they did Peter, of the sovereignty of God and the weight and responsibility of the hope which I profess. “Do you love me?” asks Jesus. “Yes, Lord,” responds Peter. “Then feed my sheep.”

When Jesus appeared to the gathered, frightened disciples after his resurrection, he said to them, “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see” (Luke 24:39, ESV). The frightened disciples had gathered together to discuss the rumors some had heard that Christ was alive and out of the grave, risen from the cruel death they witnessed days ago. They were disoriented and afraid, and Jesus said to them, “Look at my hands and my feet.” And to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side” (John 20:27, ESV). To his closest friends, Jesus said, “Look at my scars, see that it is me. Recognize me by my scars; they will point you to God.”

Christ was recognized by the scars that marked his body, and shouted of his love. The powerful lyrics of musician Michael Card exclaim,

The marks of death that God chose never to erase

The wounds of love's eternal war

When the kingdom comes with its perfected sons

He will be known by the scars.

Like our own, but far beyond this, the scars of Christ point us to a sovereign God who goes great lengths to touch our disfigured world and scarred souls with his holy hands. As the prophet Isaiah proclaimed long ago, “He was crushed for our iniquities. By his stripes we are healed.” No doubt, it was this piercing reality of Christ bearing the scars of our sin, carrying our pain, and taking our shame, that Peter bore in mind as he dynamically instructed, “Throw all your anxieties upon Him, because He cares about you” (1 Peter 5:7). For Peter, of all people, knew.

________

Copyright © 2005 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

“And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?”

Benjamin Franklin made the remark at the 1787 Constitutional Convention to argue that because something as small as a sparrow's death comes to God's attention, clearly God has a voice in the affairs of men. Therefore, Franklin argued, a prayer should open the daily sessions held to write the founding document of the United States. (Franklin lost the argument, but his passage won a place in history.)

“And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?”

Benjamin Franklin made the remark at the 1787 Constitutional Convention to argue that because something as small as a sparrow's death comes to God's attention, clearly God has a voice in the affairs of men. Therefore, Franklin argued, a prayer should open the daily sessions held to write the founding document of the United States. (Franklin lost the argument, but his passage won a place in history.)