I will update this post occasionally with Bush endorsements around the blogosphere. The first is a funny one by Frank J. I was perusing my referrers log and decided to stop in at his site, IMAO. This post is LOL! My five year-old niece would be impressed.
You want my Bush endorsement? Read the whole blog. Seriously, I may write a magnum opus this weekend to cheer on fellow Bush supporters. This has been a very contentious and combative presidential race, but so have many others in our history. I want to assure you that the world will not end if Bush isn’t re-elected. He’ll go on, and we’ll go on.
Some of you are nervous, others confident. To every believer, no matter how you feel about this election, I offer the word of the Lord:
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. (Romans 13: 1-7)
If the people want John Kerry, so be it. If he wins, it is God’s will. If Bush wins, it is God’s will. On election night, I’ll be praying that Bush’s re-election and Kerry’s defeat is God’s will. He may have other plans. I trust him.
——-
Will Osama endorse Kerry? See Power Line. More endorsements to come…
Update: Fascinating subject, man’s free will. A commenter says we are not puppets on a string. Although I have a biblical view on this, I will direct you to JollyBlogger, a Reformed pastor and blogger who I admire.
He blogged about free will a few months ago (and probably many other times). I believe exactly what he writes in this post. The relevant part:
So, the Reformed do believe in free will for the regenerate and the unregenerate. Yes, we believe that even the unregenerate have a fee will.Free will simply means that a person is free from external coercion. They are free to make whatever decisions they want apart from any external coercion. We affirm that even the unregenerate have that freedom.
Where we differ from others is that we also say that man’s will is bound by his nature. A person cannot will against his nature. Since human nature, apart from Christ, is dead in sin, bound to sin, the person is unwilling to believe savingly on Christ. A spiritually dead person cannot will himself to live anymore than a physically dead person can will himself to come back to life. If the dead person (spiritually or physically) is to come back to life he will have to be resurrected by God. In the spiritual realm this means he must be born from above.
Mankind’s bondage to sin and inability to will to believe savingly on Christ does not mean that he is unable to will to do “civic good.” “Civic good” is simply the practice of loving one’s neighbor, being a good neighbor, taking care of one’s family, being a good citizen, etc.. As Edwards has said, if only believers could do civic good, what a terrible world this would be.
Read the whole post. Solid stuff.
Update II: Jason Smith tells us why he’s voting for Bush. Also see Captain’s Quarters and my blogbrother D.C. Thornton, who voted for Bush two weeks ago. 
Mad Mikey reports on an unusual endorsement for Kerry.
David Limbaugh, one of my favorite Christian writers, is blogging.
Please keep Phil Dillon and his family in your prayers.
Check out Hudnell’s Bush endorsement. The war against global terrorism is a recurring theme, it seems.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 52 comments }
amen, LB. We don’t answer to George Bush, and we don’t answer to John Kerry. We answer to our Lord God. He knows what He’s doing – our biggest responsibility is to have FAITH.
Well said! We have an enduring King who has never been defeated. It’s a combination that is a bit of a mystery to me – God’s foreknowledge and sovereign control and our involvement in it. God bless you La Shawn. I hope after all the effort on all sides that you get a good voter turnout on the day.
Amen!!! That’s the bottom line; no matter how the storms may rage, no matter the persecutions, our Lord God is in control. As long as we look to Him, we’ll walk on water.
I was just saying this to some Democrat bullies, I mean, friends, the other day! Amen!
God’s will does not automatically come to pass. As His children we have free will. The presidential elections outcome is no more God’s will than 9/11 was God’s will.
We are not puppets dancing on a string to a preordained script.
Pat
Pat – God’s will is not determined by ours. We can exercise free will while God fulfills his own, although we can’t quite understand this. This subject has perplexed Christians for centuries. No matter what we think we have control over or that we are not puppets on a string, God is sovereign over all things whether we, his creation, think so or not.
Pat, however, God can harden one’s heart in order to fulfill His will. Read up on the plagues that God thru Moses inflicted upon Pharoah.
Bottomline, it is only by God’s grace that good or bad things happen to any and all mankind. From the book of Job, we learn that Satan is not free to do as he pleases, he must first get specific permission from God for every act.
However, there will be a time in the future when Satan will be free to do as he pleases. In that time, woe be unto us all, more so for those heavy with child or young ones.
Amen to that Miss Barber!
Great point Andy about God using Pharoah to bring glory to Himself, Romans 9 speaks to that point quite eloquently. God knowing our future doesn’t preclude the fact that we still do not know it and will still have to make choices to determine it for ourselves. Knowing that God’s will is done ought to bring comfort to believers.
As it states in the Lord’s prayer, “…thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven…”
La Shawn I think you’ll like this GOTV Mallard Style
La Shawn,
I beg to differ with the JollyBlogger on his interpretation of Chapter IX of the Westminster Confession, and hence on his characterization of the Reformed position. According to Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol I, 2 IV 6) “The force of God’s providence extends to this point: not only that things occur as he foresees to be expedient, but that men’s wills also incline to the same end”. Later he cites Prov 21:1, “In his hand the Lord holds the king’s heart as streams of water, and turns it wherever he will.” The point being that if he does that with a king, so much more for the rest of us. To be fair, I haven’t read Calvin to insist that man at all times is being led directly by God.
Perhaps the term Reformed does not refer specifically to Calvin, so let’s take a look at the Westminster confession, Chapter IX as cited by the JollyBlogger. It says, speaking of man, “by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;[9]” The [9] there refers to Php 2:13 and Ro 6:18,22. Phillipians says “for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.” Romans 6:22 says “But now that you have been set free from sin, and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.” That Westminster refers specifically to Php 2:13 shows they must have been in complete agreement with Calvin on this. The Ro 6:22 verse shows that they understood that our freedom from sin is not complete until Christ’s return and our sanctification. Every one of us knows first hand how we struggle constantly with sin, so it makes no sense to say that we are free from sin right now. All that we have at this point in time is freedom from Gen 6:5 “every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.”
With those verses in mind, we can read Westminster as it was written, and not as we would like it to read based on our own nature to try to lift ourselves up above our proper position relative to God. The Bible and Westminster are written with the sense of time from God’s perspective, which is that everything has already been completed. We are free, but from our limited perspective on the ground we have not seen that freedom yet.
As for Kerry, I agree that God may will us to suffer with that man as President, but that is nothing compared to the suffering that we deserve.
Hi LaShawn..
I wish I had the strength of faith you and others show on this board. Thanks for being here..and thank you Andy for showing me how to do that bold thingy.
I agree about this election. But I believe the democrats will have the harder time accepting defeat. I have not seen this kind of venom in a long time. I can’t wait till Tuesday. I’m pretty sick of all comercials now. Ray..
LaShawn –
Just stumbled across your blog recently. I was going down my list this morning and decided to pop in and see if you’d had anything to say about Usama bin Laden, and found this little gem.
As the election draws closer, I am becoming more concerned about who will be elected. Your post reminded me that God is in control, and His will is perfect. I can rest assured that He’ll work everything out for His glory and our ultimate good.
Thanks. I needed that!
La Shawn
While I understand what you were saying i have to disagree. God CAN and WILL use the election to fulfill his purposes, but not every outcome would be God’s will. I had a lot of friends tell me that it was God’s will when the Challenger exploded in the 80’s. It was too much a way of taking man off the hook and blaming things, particularly bad things, on God.
In my conversations with Muslim friends when I lived in New Jersey I used to hear “if Allah wills” more often than anything else they had to say. That is, whatever happens is God’s will. That is one of the things that allowed Muslim terrorists to believe whatever they did, murder, mayhem, whatever, was God’s will. Existentialists believe that we live in a meaningless universe. I think when we tend to see any outcome as God’s will we drift toward either Islam or existentialism.
The whole matter of God’s will needs to be qualified in the context of human free will and choice. We can and often do choose to drift away from God’s best.
My bible reading is rusty, I’m glad you’re here to remind me of biblical principles and how they apply to every day living. Bush feels that way, also. What I was surprised to find out about Bush is~he believes God called him to be president during these terrible times. If that, indeed, is the case, then he will have another 4 years. Thanks for the biblical references. ~Cao
GODS WILL: for all of mankind to bow down, repent, accept and follow His Son Jesus Christ as Lord. It’s the “only choice” He offers for an eternal life with Him.
He is sovereign, has done and will do anything He wants without having to explain it. Owes us nothing. No more complicated than that.
In reply to Jon:
Calvin wasn’t a “Calvinist” – so the Reformed position will differ from Calvin, and the Westminster creed does too. The Jollyblogger is Calvinist and you’ll find the creed upholds the 5 main principles of Calvinism although speaking for myself I diagree with some of the nitty gritty interpreation. So I disagree with you. Reformed doesn’t = agrees with Calvin, but is based on Calvinism. In particular the High Sovereignty of God and total depravity, which are consistent with the creed and upon which it is formualted. It would take too long to go into it all here, but you’ll find that Calvinism developed and moved on from Calvin.
In reply to Phil:
If you start with total depravity then you accept that a person is serving one of two masters spiritually. See verses with regard to being “slaves of sin” previously. This is not free will in the sense you use the term. One is enslaved, further one is “dead in their trespasses”. Question for you – how does a dead person choose to be regenerated when they are not alive and thus incapable of doing so? How does a slave become free – when they are bound and unable to set themselves free? The point of origin for your argument is where it doesn’t add up brother.
(Still like you of course!)
Catez,
Are you telling me that Armenians are now taking over the name of the Reformation and of Calvin himself? They made a mockery of Jonathan Edward’s New England School, a travesty of much of the Presbyterian Churchn(PCUSA), and have torn apart the Episcipalian Church.
All that just for the sake of clinging to the illusion that whatever good we do is our own doing and not the grace of God (see: fruit, Adam).
Catez
My point wasn’t about soteriology. My point was about where the rubber meets the road.
For example, would it be God’s will if I passed by someone who was being raped by a predator and I did nothing? Would it be God’s will if I saw someone who had just been beaten by robbers and left for dead and passed him by, say like the religious people that passed by the man on the road?
I’m a firm believer in salvation by faith alone. I believe in the sovereignty of God. But I also believe that our salvation has earthly impact. And I beleive it is done by grace. My wife’s dad used to put his position on works this way, “I don’t GOT to, I GET to.”
I still maintain that we cannot wiggle out of our responsibility by saying that some of the things we see in this world that WE are responsible for, are God’s fault.
And I, as a Christian brother, love you as well.
I meant to say Arminian, not Armenian. Sorry for any offense.
George Bush has my vote , because the safety of the republic is at stake . John Kerry is a tap dancer at the least and does not merit my vote ! He may well werit my contempt in the final analysis .
With all due respect to the interesting dialog;
so much complicated man-made theology, so much confusion for the precious “new Christian convert”.
I re-affirm; God is sovereign, has done and will do anything He wants without explanation. No more complicated than that.
Hi Jon,
Whoa brother! Arminians and Calvinists are two totally different things. Arminians argue for free will before regeneration. Calvinists posit free will as a result of regeneration. Have an extensive read of Calvin and you’ll find he contradicts himself. Particularly his writing on faith – which has more in common with Arminianism than Calvinism. As I understand it no-one is taking over the name of Calvin – he don’t fit anyone too well systematically. Had some good points though.
Phil,
Your comments aren’t really in response to mine. I was looking at total depravity and sovereignty – although I disagree that they are only confined to soteriology. I would say they are relevant to sanctification as well. You wrote:
“I still maintain that we cannot wiggle out of our responsibility by saying that some of the things we see in this world that WE are responsible for, are God’s fault.”
I haven’t seen anyone on this thread say that. The reformed position doesn’t exclude responsibility. Romans 1 – suppression of the truth. As for rape and God’s will – I have difficulty with that myself and, as I said in my first comment on this thread there is a mystery involved in the combination of God’s sovereignty and our involvement. However systematically I think the reformed position holds better than the Arminian. The Arminian position says – taking the converse of your argument – I choose whether or not good happens. I choose whether or not the woman is allowed to be raped. Which is also unsatisfactory – masters (or mistresses) of our own destiny? Do you see where the tension lies between the positions?
Re: God’s will. Our pastor preached on this last Sunday (he’s preaching through Romans, and we were on Romans 12:1-2). There’s a difference between God’s decreed will (what will happen) and God’s commanded will (what He tells us to do). We can disobey the commanded will (e.g., not being thankful in every situation as I Thessalonians 5:18 commands), but His decreed will cannot be disobeyed. So while the Challenger explosion was His will in one way (evidently it was time for those astronauts to meet their Maker), in another it was not (people who did not do their jobs to His glory, e.g., taking shortcuts rather than pursuing excellence).
Just a clarification.
Catez, Jon & Phil, wow you guys are getting deep.
For us simple lay folks, I’ll go back to the example of Pharoah & Job.
With Pharoah, he had multiple opportunities to do the right thing and let God’s people go in peace. I think we should keep in mind that God also had a particular bone to pick with Pharoah in that he had exalted himself to a god and as a result, God’s will was to discredit that notion. If Pharoah had deigned to release the Jews unconditionally of his free will, it would still leave his godness intact.
God’s overiding will could then be said to comprise of two parts; 1) to release the Jews so they could go to the promised land AND 2) re-affirm that there is no other god but I AM.
In that sense, Pharoah only had two options. Either acknowledge that Jehovah is the one true God and that he was a mere mortal and as such must submit to God’s will by letting the Jews go and de-exaltifying himself. Or duel it out with God to determine who was supreme. But God was not about to let Pharoah have his cake and eat it by letting them go and yet retain his false diety, therefore God found it necessary to harden Pharoah’s heart. Of course we know who lost that battle of will.
It should also be noted that Pharoahs did not always esteem themselves so highly, to wit when one tried to take Sarah to wife. Or when another was afflicted by disturbing dreams that only Joseph was able to interpret.
With Job, the issue was a spiritual battle between God and Satan. Satan contended that Job did not have the free will to love God, rather, he loved God only because he was blessed by God. Satan’s wager was that he could turn Job against God by taking away everything from Job. As we see, even Job’s wife and friends were convinced that God was punishing Job for some secret sin. They failed to realize that instead Job was being severely tested because of his faith. In the end, God rewarded Job for his faithfulness many times over.
The lesson I take from here is that whether we are being punished or tested, our faith and our sense of relationship to God is always at stake. No matter what happens, we are ultimately responsible for our actions. I would agree that not necessarily every little thing we do is God’s will per se, rather it is the larger scheme of things. In that sense, we can’t sin and then say well it must have been God’s will otherwise I wouldn’t have been put in that situation.
Take Joseph for instance, how would God’s will come to pass if instead of fleeing his master’s wife, he had succumbed to her seduction? Or what if Judah had not gone into the harlot and ultimately borne a son from which David and Jesus descended?
One resisted sin and another succumbed to sin, yet God’s will ultimately prevailed that Jesus hung on the cross for us all who would only believe.
With regards to muslims, I am familar with their fatalistic approach to allah’s will. Everything is his will, therefore why bother. But their logic is rather circular and commonly used to excuse actions that should otherwise be dealt with. For instance, while many moderates may “condemn” 9/11, they won’t lift a finger to rout out the rot from within because 9/11 was allah’s will, never mind the perversity of it.
I am almost sorry I got this ball rolling but never the less…….as far as the winner of the election being God’s will I will say this.
I understand why people think this way, I just profoundly disagree. Much is at stake in this election. Here is but one example. If John Kerry is elected the Supreme Court will tilt far to the left. Abortion will remain legal for years to come. Hundreds of thousands of unborn will go on being aborted. I don’t believe abortion is God’s will or that He is working out some mysterious plan through John Kerry that we as simple mortals cannot discern.
To follow this line of logic I would have to believe that the president that originally appointed the judges that declared abortion legal was elected because of God’s will. My reason, my understanding of God, my study of the Bible all reject this line of thinking.
I am thankful that our forefathers understood that leaders aren’t necessarily raised up by God but by men.
I set before you this day life and death, blessing and cursing therefore choose life. We have a choice, we have free will.
I wish you well and will continue to stop by and read your blog but I think in the future I will withhold my comments.
Blessings,
Pat
Do as you please, Pat, and thanks for visiting.
Pat,
How can you say that abortion is not God’s will ?
“Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father.” (Matthew 10:29). We know that God especially loves children even above other people.
My own belief is that those children are known by God to so love him that they are being spared existence in this Earth, and yet at that same time for us to take their lives is a grievous act of sin.
Calvin’s explanation for why the early church fathers fell away from the Bible and started teaching free will is that the concept of predestination is very diffcult and led to many problems, such as at Corinth and later the hyper-Calvinists. I haven’t studied Augustine, but from what I understand he started out believing in free will but then moved away from it. That transition might be true for all of us who believe in predestination; I know it was for me.
Hi Andy,
You thought I was getting deep…
I liked your comment except (there’s always an exception) for your take on Job. As I read Job there isn’t a free will resolution at all. Job is given an overwhelming display of God’s sovereignty. God spoke out of the whirlwind, and here’s an interesting verse from Job 37:13 on the purpose of that whirlwind:
“He causes it to come, whether for correction, or for his land, or for mercy”. Job sees himself as he is because God reveals who He is. God first – Job’s change of heart second. I don’t find anything in Job to suggest that he was sustained through his trial by his own will. His own will was what he struggled with – as we often do. He tried to do it by his own willpower but ended up saying God was not just. See Job 40:2 for God’s response. Also – I could be wrong (has happened) but I don’t see anywhere in Job that says the Lord rewarded his faithfulness. Simply says God blessed him at the end. Again a totally Sovereign act in the context of this book. Looking at Job 40:1 again – those aren’t the words of some-one rewarding faithfulness. So I think it can just as easily be maintained that Job wasn’t faithful – which Elihu points out. Problem with the other three guys was they were looking for sin as the cause of the trial – and also had a wonky view of God dealings. Liked your other comments. I have to bow out – the beach is beckoning.
Catez, erm I don’t want to get too semantic on this any more than I really want to get into predisposition vs free will. Can we agree that the fact that Jn 3:16 is true in either case?
If I meant to imply that Job sustained himself merely on his own will, that was wrong. Rather his faith was unshaken even as his trials and tribulations caused him to doubt it — does that make sense? Remember the objective of this exercise was to get Job to curse God.
Even as Job begins to question his circumstances, Elihu in Chp 37 serves to remind Job that God is inscrutable and His ways majestic. How could a lowly sin-tainted man even begin to question His logic.
For the rest I would also concur except to add that in Job 42, Job gives a satisfactory anwer to God, in turn, God demanded of Eliphaz and his two friends to give up a blood sacrifice to Him thru Job, and for Job to intercede on their behalf that God’s wrath may be turned away.
I’d like to draw your atention to Gill’s Commentary on this particular excerpt
============================================
Job 42:7 – And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz4 the Temanite; who with his two friends were still present and heard the speeches of the Lord to Job, and the acknowledgment he had made of sin; though some think that, when the dispute ended between Job and them, they returned to their own country, where Eliphaz is now supposed to be, and was bid with his two friends to go to Job again, which they did, as is concluded from the following verses: but no doubt they stayed and heard what Elihu had to say; and the voice of the Lord out of the whirlwind would command their attention and stay; and very desirous they must be to know how the cause would go, for or against Job; the latter of which they might expect from the appearance of things. Now the Lord directs his speech to Eliphaz, he being perhaps the principal man, on account of his age, wisdom and wealth, and being the man that led the dispute, began it, and formed the plan to go upon, and was the most severe on Job of any of them; wherefore the Lord said to him,
my wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends; who were Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite; who gave into the same sentiments with Eliphaz, and went upon the same plan, speaking wrong things of God, charging Job falsely, and condemning him; which provoked the Lord, and caused his wrath to be kindled like fire against them, of which there were some appearances and breakings forth in his words and conduct towards them;
for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath; they had said many right things of God, and Job had said many wrong ones of him, and yet upon the whole Job had said more corrcet things of God than they; their notion, and which they had expressed, was, that God deals with men in this life according to their outward behaviour; that God did not afflict good men, at least not sorely, nor long; and that wicked men were always punished now: from whence they drew this inference, that Job, being so long and so greatly afflicted, must be a bad man, or God would never have dealt with him after this manner. Job, on the other hand, affirmed, that wicked men enjoyed great prosperity, which good men did not; and therefore the love and hatred of God were not known by these things; and men’s characters were not to be judged of by these outward things; in which he was doubtless right: some render the words “have not spoken unto me”, before him, in his presence; for they were all before God, and to him they all appealed, and he heard and observed all that was said, and now passed judgment. No notice is taken of Elihu, nor blame laid on him; he acting as a moderator, taking neither the part of Job, nor of his friends, but blaming both: nor did he pretend to charge Job with any sins of his former life as the cause of his calamities; only takes up some indecent, unguarded, and extravagant expressions of his in the heat of this controversy, and rebukes him for them; and throughout the whole vindicates the justice of God in his dealings with him.
============================================
As for rewarding Job’s faithfulness, in Job 42:10, God gave Job twice as much as he had before. The rest of the chapter goes on to describe the blessings to include all of Job’s relatives and accquaintances coming by to pay tribute to Job. He also had 7 new sons and 3 new daugthers that were the fairest in the land. Oddly, the sons aren’t named, but the daughters are Jemima (Jemimah?), Kezia & Keren-happuch. All in all, he lived to be 140 years old full of his days to include seeing 4 generations.
Hope you had a good time at the beach.
Best regards.
La Shawn,
Shameless plug, but here is another endorsement that slipped by the MSM….
Sorry, Mike, but your link was spilling off the page. I’ll link to it in the post.
Oops – sorry about that!
I love this whole discussion of God’s will vs. man’s, and freedom of choice that he gives us. It’s a topic I struggle with as well, and I would add one other element that has not been addressed.
Is it still God’s will if Kerry wins, since that win will be based on countless acts of lies and misrepresentations, and possibly acts of fraud. I refer to Michael Moore, the liberal press, the less than honest DNC, the late mailing of absentee ballots to our servicepeople overseas from Democrat-controlled states (PA & Wisconsin & others), and double-voting in Florida and New York by snowbirds? It seems to me that if Kerry wins by these means, it is man’s free choice that has circumvented God’s will with the assistance of Satan.
Hey LaShawn – thanks for linking and quoting me here. As to the discussion that ensued from my comments that were quoted by LaShawn I think you need to go back and re-read them and you will see that they are straight down the line, out of the book with no addendum statements of what reformed folks from Calvin through Westminster to today have always believed. I think someone suggested that I misread the confession when I said that man has a free will in that it is free from coercion. That’s just a paraphrase of WCF IX.1 – God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.
Everyone has a free will, but this freedom is governed by one’s nature. Maybe understanding the fourfold state of man will be helpful. In the state of innocence (pre-fall) it was possible for man to sin, and possible not to sin. In the state of fallenness it was not possible for man not to sin. In the state of regeneration, man is then returned to a state where it is possible to sin and possible not to sin. In our state of glorification it is not possible to sin. As to the commenter who implies that I am putting my own spin on the Westminster’s teaching on this, he suggests that I am neglecting those passages which teach that God governs all of the movements of one’s heart. I didn’t deny that, and what I said was perfectly in keeping with the confession, and I think with the Scripture. One of the problems I find with those who are “reformed” is that they are so afraid of sounding like an arminian (oh the horror!) that they don’t do justice to the whole of Scripture nor do they understand the carefully nuanced presentation of the reformed views as expressed by folks like Calvin and the Westminster divines. Check out the carefully nuanced description in WCF V.4:
The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.
This may sound self-contradictory in that it says that God is sovereign over all, but is not the author or approver of sin, but in fact what you find here is that the writers were trying their best to make sense of the whole of the biblical data. This is what I try to tell my fellow reformed folks – our goal is not to be consistent with our own system, but consistent with the bible. If that leaves us with a tension in some areas then so be it.
That is also what LaShawn was getting at when she said that if Kerry wins it will be God’s will. If the apostle Paul can affirm that Nero was ordained by God to be a ruler then we can affirm that it could be God’s will for John Kerry to be our president. I hope it isn’t God’s will that Kerry be president and will vote against him and will urge others who have that conviction to do so. But if he wins, then I will assume that, in his sovereign will, this is what God chose.
Thanks for making an appearance, David!
These things have been debated for centuries. There is a disconnect between what some want to believe about God and what the Bible reveals about him. He is not the author of sin, as you say, but people find it hard to believe why he’d “allow” evil.
This is what happens when people are unfamiliar with the biblical account of man’s relationship with God and the promise of redemption. We sin because we are fallen. Evil exists because the whole of creation is fallen. If God rids the world of evil, he will have to control our actions, which means he’s acted as a puppeteer, the very thing people object to when insisting that God gave us free will!
I’ll stop writing now. Goodnight, everybody.
Hi Andy,
Yes – of course Jn 3:16 is true for both. This is a good discussion on a reformed persepective and God’s sovereignty I think. I’ve enjoyed it a great deal – thanks La Shawn for the opportunity. Ok – I won’t go Commentary for Commentary with you but one point Gill made needs attention:
“yet upon the whole Job had said more correct things of God than they; ”
Gill is reading something into the text that is not attributed to God here. Job spoke rightly of God when faced with the Sovereignty of God – when he repented and acknowledged God as supreme. I believe this is what God is referring to when saying Job spoke rightly. I don’t agree with Gill’s take on this – he views it as a debate between men which Job won overall, and downplays Elihu’s central role in bringing God’s perspective. Job is not about winning a debate on points – it is Elihu who points that both sides are incorrect and have missed it. Elihu is not a “moderator” as Gill puts it, between man and man. Elihu is an usher for God himself. Does Job curse God? It’s debatable. He says God is unjust and puts his own self-righteousness above God’s will (the verses are in there but I don’t have time to find them). In the context of the discussion we’re having here, Job is a great example of some-one not wanting to believe that God is just and that adversity and circumstances are his will. It’s Ok Andy – I can live with the tensions between free-willism and predestination. A proviso worth noting is not to confuse the reformed position with hypercalvinism. Hypercalvinism proposes the same type of fatalism we see in Islam. The reformed position allows for the mystery of God (we see through a glass darkly!) but upholds that God is Sovereign and has decreed His will. I think only God will ever have the missing piece of the puzzle – perhaps we all need a whirlwind! (Just kidding).
Anyway – David has summed it up better than I can overall, although I disagree with Calvin being consistent with some areas of reformed theology – but do agree that Calvin’s theology was a base for the reformed position to develop from. God bless you. I didn’t go to the beach yet, change of plan. But its just 5 mins away so I’ll go later. There’s a huge volcano out in the bay and it always reminds me of – you guessed it – God’s Sovereignty.
Here’s Mine:
James – I put a link to your blog in the post. Your link was spilling over the sidebar. – Admin
Oh… sorry! It’s kinda fun though – will I beat the moderation time? I think the overnight moderation is an excellent idea.
Tweaking/fine-tuning(or not): “then it is God’s will that Kerry wins”. I agree that it would be an event that didn’t overpower or surprise Him, however, I wouldn’t agree (without persuasion) that we couldn’t have had better outcomes with more prayer/fasting/and loving of the lost. This opinion is based on Romans 12:2 and the idea of God’s permissive will being presented as “good, better, and perfect”. With a Kerry win, I will turn to Romans 8:28 to understand the outcome, but see it as a negative result. I will see the suffering of Christian supporters of Bush at the hands of the gloating haters as something good only because God will make good come out of it for His children. For example, it will truly help me partake in the unjust suffering of Christ and his character. (Yes, his suffering was completely unjust, I’m not saying my lack of love for my neighbors doesn’t bear a price, it does, but still, for Kerry people to gloat about a victory that took a sold out media, stolen yard signs, and a zeitgiest of hate is something that believers will suffer unjustly through.) ANother thing, I need to change my life drastically, I (personally) spend time with TV and sports that is a distraction to the important matters in life. Why else does the media and universities have so much power, except that people like myself give it to them? Why else is partial birth abortion still being fought over when that should be a slam dunk if any issue would be, except that my neighbors have not been lovingly confronted with the issues because I was too busy watching or talking about football/baseball instead?
Yes, God may be permitting it, but I want to do everything in my power to make sure it is never like this again. In my ideal world, the MSM should have a viewership of less than a million after this, and there would be many more Hillsdale colleges than University of Michigan’s/Harvard’s (in their current form).
Kurt
Catez – Sometimes comments get caught in the spam filter. About moderation, I sleep better knowing the blog is “closed”, so to speak. Before I went on hiatus, it wasn’t so bad. Now, I don’t know what I’ll wake up to find! Some of my readers like to comment late into the night. I expect things to change soon.
Five minutes away from the beach? Must be very nice.
Catez, I presume Mahalo is appropriate
I don’t read IMAO. His poking fun and making up “bible” verses turned me totally off and I told him so.
AMEN!! God is in control and whoever wins the election is by God’s choosing. I am just praying that God will give Bush 4 more years but am prepared for whatever God has planned for the U.S.A.
I’m pretty sure that we will not “know” who won the election until Christmas or New Year’s … UNLESS Kerry wins decisively. I think any Kerry loss will have his running mate’s brethern on the case–especially if battleground states are “too” close.
And, the Bible is pretty clear, that while Man cannot stop God’s soveriegn will, Man has free will…free will to cast or not cast a ballot; free will to choose for whom to cast the ballot.
As Christians, I believe our peace is supposed to come from the knowledge that our future is in God’s hands–not man’s. No matter who is president when–I’m going to be with Jesus upon my death.
So while I believe that my immediate physical safety would be better protected by another Bush term, as well as my economic prosperity or even stability; my source is the Lord as well as my protection. I will fear no evil…not even whiney, head-in-the-sand crybabies dressed as Democrats!
David,
I am very happy to see that you have joined our discussion!
Please forgive my impolite rhetoric, I am easily excited about these things. Perhaps I am over-reacting to some things you are saying that I assume incorrectly are the same as some opinions of others that sound the same on an initial reading.
There are two points I would like to respond to in your above comment. Since you have studied the Bible in a Reformed setting, I expect that my own errors will be exposed. But that is the best way to learn after all.
First, you quote WCF IX.1 and then the next sentence you say “Everyone has a free will…”. Perhaps I am mistaken, but that gives this reader the impression that you intend to say that one leads to the other. However context provided by WCF IX.2 and 3 make it clear that IX.1 referred to Man before the fall, and so does not directly describe us at this time. The citations given for IX.1 are also informative (especially Dt 30:19), because they show us that the focus of IX.1 is that the responsibility is ours for the consequences we see in the world, and that is because they result from our own choices. In addition, the word liberty does not mean the same thing as free as in free will. Dictionary.com gives one definition of liberty as “The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one’s own choosing.” I haven’t heard any Reformed claim that we don’t make own choices, it’s just that our choices are made through our will in accordance with God’s plan.
You point to WCF V.4, which is also very interesting because it draws the distinction between what God has created and the sin that exists in within that creation. The fact is that the same act, an abortion for example, can be both sinful and non-sinful. It is sinful to take an innocent human life, and yet God uses that act for some purpose, perhaps as a basis for the mother to come to God because of her suffering that resulted from that loss. God is the author of the latter, and not of the former, but they are the same act. That is what I think 1 John 2:16 means by saying sin comes from the world and not from the Father. Another example might be the upcoming election as described above by Jeannie. The election itself will come about through many sins (on both sides, regrettably), but the outcome will serve God’s holy purpose.
Now as you suggested, David, I went and re-read your post. One problem I have is you contrast free will with coercion. I find that phrasing unusual, because I don’t see God as coercing us. We are simply his creation. Perhaps you are drawing a distinction that is not the classical Arminian one. You then said “Where we differ from others is that we also say that man’s will is bound by his nature.” But you just cited WCF IX.9 which includes “neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature.” I hestitate to quibble, since I too make mistakes and change my mind, but I thought it worth pointing out.
I would be happy to move this discussion over to your blog, but the entry La Shawn cited is from June.
La Shawn, I hope you slept well while the blogosphere typed Godly discussion onto your website. Have a Happy Lord’s Day!
I also endorsed President Bush.
It’s fun!
La Shawn I like your view.. I will vote for GW but if he is not the winner in this election, I will still respect and uphold our president whoever he is. thanks
Just saw Kerry give another political speech at the large Shiloh Baptist Church in Dayton Ohio. Noticeable missing was Jesse or associates this time, at least on camera. Not sure what to make of this change?
Isn’t it interesting to see John remove his religion from his rear and stick it on his sleeve during elections. All other times he behaves as a closet anti-religion, secularist, atheist. The President has always worn his faith on his sleeve, like he actually believes it. Like all other issues, Bush takes a stand and you know what it is, like it or not.
Please help defeat this shameless phony Kerry by going to the polls and convince two others to go with you. The experts say “It is all going to be about turnout”. Be sure to leave time for long lines. Many states allow you to vote early by absentee ballot on site, even if you have missed the deadline for absentee ballot return. For this option, call your County’s Registrar of Voters shown on information you received by mail, or do a google of your ‘town’ and ’state’ and ‘Registrar of Voters’ to get the tel number.
“Catez, I presume Mahalo is appropriate”
In a way Andy – but its out by several thousand miles. Try Rangitoto. And I did go last night and it was beautiful. It’s been there from before I was born and will be there after I die – and some presidents will come and go during that time too. There’s a word-picture analogy for the discussion!
Looks nice. I always wanted to tour downunder, looks like I’ll have to wait till the kids are done from my nest
this “endorsement” is from an Iraqi blog:
The Terrorists Would View A Bush Loss As Their Biggest Victory Since 9/11
This excerpt from the Iraqi Blog, “The Mesopotamian” is going to rankle Democrats even though everything in it is not just true, but painfully obvious to anyone who’s paying attention…
“In case President Bush loses the election there would be a massive upsurge of violence, in the belief, rightly or wrongly, by the enemy, that the new leadership is more likely to “cut and run” to use the phrase frequently used by some of my readers. And they would try to inflict as heavy casualties as possible on the American forces to bring about a retreat and withdrawal. It is crucial for them to remove this insurmountable obstacle which stands in their way. They fully realize that with continued American and allies’ commitment, they have no hope of achieving anything.
On the other hand if President Bush is reelected, this will prove to them that the American people are not intimidated despite all their brutality, and that their cause is quite futile. Yes there is little doubt that an election victory by President Bush would be a severe blow and a great disappointment for all the terrorists in the World and all the enemies of America. I believe that such an outcome would result in despair and demoralization of the “insurgent elements” here in Iraq, and would lead to the pro-democracy forces gaining the upper hand eventually. Note that we are not saying that President Bush is perfect, nor even that he is better than the Senator, just that the present situation is such that a change of leadership at this crucial point is going to send an entirely wrong message to all the enemies.”
George Bush is to terrorism what Ronald Reagan was to Communism: its greatest foe. And if he loses, make no mistake about it, the terrorists will view it as their greatest victory since 9/11. Maybe its impolitic to point that out, but it’s true….
John Hawkins
http://www.rightwingnews.com
Sometimes the common sense and obvious need stating PurplemMD. These times is one of those times. Thank you.
Comments on this entry are closed.