A friend sent this to me. Question for Hank. If you can read reams of stuff by our anabaptist brethren, then perhaps you should read these two pages and point out the error in this authors thinking. And of course, I can only speculate how resistant you will be going into the material.



07/01/2009

God's Sovereignty and Man's Authority

The dispute surrounding the meaning and extent of God's sovereignty has been debated for thousands of years with no consensus in the end. Usually, this debate centers around the issue of free will vs. the sovereignty of God. In my view, this clouds the real underlying issue and prevents people from actually seeing the real issue.

First of all, the issue is NOT whether or not man has a will. Man does have a will, and he is called upon to make decisions based upon that will. For instance, Joshua 24:15 says, "choose for yourselves today whom you will serve." Furthermore, the very fact that God gave instructions to be obeyed, which men often disregarded, shows that man has a will capable of choosing.

The sovereignty of God has more to do with God's ability to hide certain things from man, so that he is unable to make proper choices by his own will. Hence, God blinds the people (Ex. 4:11), and Moses said that if God does not give people eyes to see and ears to hear, they will not have the will to be obedient (Deut. 29:4). In other words, God's sovereignty means that He has retained the ability and the right to coerce man's will by not enlightening him of all the facts. The human will acts upon what it knows or does not know, and it is also heavily manipulated by long-forgotten influences from earliest childhood. Hence, man's will cannot be said to be "free" in the absolute sense. The only one with absolute free will is God Himself.

Even so, God did create man's authority. Authority is not the same as free will, but it certainly has to do with man's will. In Gen. 1:26 we read, "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have dominion. . ." God created authority, and Paul echoes this in Romans 13:1, saying, "There is no authority except from God."

One cannot deny the existence of authority without doing violence to the Scriptures. I was recently accused of denying the sovereignty of God on the grounds that authority and free will are the same thing. That, of course, is ridiculous. If authority and free will are the same thing, then one would be compelled to believe in free will. Why? Simply because authority exists, as clearly stated in Scripture. If authority exists, and if it is the same as free will, then obviously, free will would have to exist. But this is not the case at all, and this is why "free will" is not a biblical term. The Bible discusses the issue in different terms.

Authority, by its very nature, is authorized by a higher power. Authority is not sovereignty. The only true sovereign is God Himself, because His power is not authorized by any higher power. The fact that God gave man dominion (authority) on earth shows that man's authority is limited by God's sovereignty.

This is well illustrated in the land law of Lev. 25:23, where man has authority to sell his land inheritance, but he lacks the authority to sell it perpetually. His authority is limited by God's sovereignty. He may sell himself ("dust of the earth") for a season, but he lacks the authority to sell forever that which he does not own.

I may give my son authority over his own bedroom, but he lacks the authority to sell it to his friends, because he does not own the house. In a Father-son relationship, relatively speaking, I hold sovereignty over him, even though I have delegated to him a level of authority.

By looking at the question in the light of a Father-son relationship between God and man, we put life and breath into the entire issue. God is the Parent, and He is training us to be like Him through the exercise of man's will. It is only when we treat it like a Handler-robot relationship that it becomes a dead issue. Robots have no breath, and their relationship is entirely impersonal. In my view, such a relationship falls short of a true description of our relationship with God.

If we maintain the Father-son context in our discussions of God's sovereignty and man's authority, we will go farther in coming to a consensus on this whole issue. Questions about God's right and ability to manipulate the will of man are secondary and probably will not be resolved in any discussion. So at that point, I find it more useful to take a practical approach.

I know that my little brain cannot comprehend God. I can and should increase my understanding of God, but I suspect that my understanding will continue to increase indefinitely without ever coming to a full understanding of His nature and being. That means I must retain some humility in my ability to understand His sovereignty and not be afraid to say "I don't know" or "I might be wrong." To think otherwise would be foolish.

It is enough to know that God is sovereign and that man has been given authority by which the human will functions. By experience and by numerous biblical examples, we see that God judges men according to the decisions of their human will. They are judged according to their level of authority. If they had no authority, there would be no judgment (correction) at all. Not only would it be unnecessary, but it would also be unjust. We are not judged as robots, but as sons (Heb. 12:7). Robots are to be mechanically fixed, not corrected and taught as are sons.

Since authority is limited, so also is the divine judgment. This is one reason why non-ending judgment is not biblically lawful, whether it be by torture in a fiery pit or simply eternal annihilation. The land laws and the law of Jubilee demand restoration by the higher law of God's sovereignty. Man is indeed held accountable and judged according to his level of authority, but God takes responsibility for His own sovereign acts. Hence, Jesus came to earth and died, not only to pay the sin of the world, but also to take responsibility for His own sovereignty. After all, He is the Creator and Owner of the whole world (Gen. 1:1). Being in that position, He held Himself liable for man's sin, because He could have easiliy prevented it from ever happening.

Men may argue the question of whether God causes man to sin or merely allowed it, but those questions are not legally relevant. The law says that if an ox gores a man, not only might the ox be judged, but certainly its owner is held liable (Ex. 21:35, 36). Hence, liability is incurred on both levels. If the ox could speak in his own defense, he would not be able to say, "My owner made me do it." Even the ox has a will and is held liable accordingly.

If we recognize man's authority along with God's sovereignty, and reconcile/balance these two factors, we will not give man sovereignty that is not his due, nor will we fall into the other extreme view--fatalism, where men think that they are not held accountable on any level.

Seeing this balance leads us to the conclusion that there is indeed divine judgment for sin, according to man's level of authority. At the same time, because God is the Creator and Owner of all mankind, He is responsible not only to administer judgment and correction, but also to use correction until all have come into a right relationship with Him.

>>Seeing this balance leads us to the conclusion that there is indeed divine judgment for sin, according to man's level of authority. At the same time, because God is the Creator and Owner of all mankind, He is responsible not only to administer judgment and correction, but also to use correction until all have come into a right relationship with Him.< <br>

Scott: I have to say that what you posted makes a lot of sense. That last sentence makes a particularly good point.

Scott; I believe we both admit there are subjects in the Bible which have more then one view/understanding of. Your friend is a good writer and he admits that he does not fully understand all of God... as I have said right along. He also says this 1000 year debate seems to not reach a consensus and I doubt that we can put it to rest either.

Orthodox Christianity is important to me and I do not feel called to move off certain long held understandings. There are however, other clear teachings of the Word that I personally need to be more serious about.

I cannot necessarily defend every point of belief I have, except to quote scripture as I understand it. One subject dear to me is "I know in whom I have believed"... and that God never turns any away who come to Him with an honest heart of faith. I will stake my life and my very belief in God on this one. If this is not true, then Christianity is a hoax.

<<< Your friend is a good writer and he admits that he does not fully understand all of God...as I have said right along. >>>

Is this a valid reason for not examining a different and extremely interesting perspective?


<< He also says this 1000 year debate seems to not reach a consensus and I doubt that we can put it to rest either.>>>

That is not what he says. He is basically saying that a consensus has never been reached between unconditional free-will and unconditional election. He is giving the solution that shows the two competing theories to be absurd. I repeat. He IS giving a solution.

<< Orthodox Christianity is important to me and I do not feel called to move off certain long held understandings.>>>

You are entitled to that position...but do you have any idea who it sounds when you say it?


<< There are however, other clear teachings of the Word that I personally need to be more serious about.>>>

Oh, please inform me of a more important topic of whether God will eventually redeem all men, or toss most of them into eternal torment? Hank, honestly, I cannot begin to put my head in your space. I would understand you better if you were from Pluto.

>>

< There are however, other clear teachings of the Word that I personally need to be more serious about.>>>

Oh, please inform me of a more important topic of whether God will eventually redeem all men, or toss most of them into eternal torment? Hank, honestly, I cannot begin to put my head in your space. I would understand you better if you were from Pluto.< <br>
Scott: I share your frustration

Scott & Steven; I honestly hope you are correct in your understanding. It might answer a lot of questions for many, I suppose. The premise you are proposing is nothing new. It has been around for 2000+- years and particularly since 17-1800s. Many Bible scholars have written about it and many have refuted it.

I suggest there are more important issues to get frustrated about when ignored. The most important, as I see it, is that eternal life is by the undeserved mercy of God through Christ and that the resulting life style does not contribute to this gift, but is an indication of the gift. Almost a dichotomy.

<<< I suppose. The premise you are proposing is nothing new. It has been around for 2000+- years and particularly since 17-1800s.>>>

Hank, please don't diminish the profundity of this concept that answers EVERY contradiction in Christianity by presenting in such a way as to suggest, "oh, we know about that silly idea, but thats been refuted by the scholars". Oh no, it has not been refuted, not even close!

< Many Bible scholars have written about it and many have refuted it.>>>
Hank, did they refute it like you do, and I quote you:

< Orthodox Christianity is important to me and I do not feel called to move off certain long held understandings.>>>

In other words, my traditions are more precious to me than truth.


<... eternal life is by the undeserved mercy of God through Christ and that the resulting life style does not contribute to this gift, but is an indication of the gift.>>>

So if eternal life is "undeserved" and "resulting life style does not contribute", then what presents you from accepting universal salvation? Sounds like your their except for your traditions Hank.

< Almost a dichotomy.>>>

Speak for yourself. Your view demands the the dichotomy, and yes indeed, it IS an irreconcilable dichotomy ! My view makes perfect sense. Personally, my intellectual honesty does not allow me to appeal to smokescreens such as "dichotomy" and "incomprehensibility" to make sense of my world. If I had to, I would change my views.

Good dialogue;

What would be the attitude and motive of a translator to translate certain passages on this very matter as they have? In light of the unchangableness of God? In the light that there is no vairableness or shadow of turning in Him and that His nature is Love and Redemption, what kind of motive would someone have to mistranslate a thing and alter those things of His unchangable nature? Wrath? Certainly! His wrath [in His holiness] is toward that which separates His creation from Him! His wrath is not toward His creation!

I cannot answer the whole question of why things got transtated as they did on this matter, other than to say that this removes the corrective judgment from God's hands and places this judgment into our own hands, where we now pass judgment by our dogmatisms. By the time contemporary peoples who have been taught to worship each word on the printed page take judgment into their hands in this manner, the fault of this is not really with contemporary men and women other than to say that Love is not ruling.

Do as I do and if you don't, you have a perpetual torment to face. [I came this way dogmatism says, and you must too]. I somewhat understand that emotion of dogmatism. This type of dogmatism is little more than a polished religious ego. This type thing may indeed have energized translators at times.

I will give an example of judgmental energies found in personal dogmatism: If a believer continues to sin, finally this person is to be considered as a heathen-man or a publican. We know exactly what that meant to the Scribes and Pharisees; they shunned these, simple. On the other hand this means something altogether to the Spirit of Jesus! To the Spirit of Jesus this means that more fellowship is needed toward these, not less! Jesus leaves the ninty and nine and goes after the one who has strayed off. Jesus fellowshiped the heathens and the publicans to the great displeasure of the Pharisees and scribes. Jesus is the same, yesterday, today, and forever! Jesus reveals God to us!

When the real Truth of God is known as He really is, no one will find a reason to serve Him from negative fear! Positive fear and respect, yes! Now we can get on with His real goal and that is to restore us!

Those who would come to personally avoid something dark or hot, must find another reason to come now. To come to gain Heaven is not nearly good enough!Could the good reason be becasue of our Love for God once He reveals Himself to us?

Grace is redemptive; corrective measures of all kinds are redemptive! Nothing cleanses like Spiritual fire! Some of us have experienced some of this in this life and that's alright. Beyond the fire is the glory of God! Glory is God-rule! Is this not what each believer desires?