Tag Archives: control

I Apologize for the Diversion

[This section was part of my Systematic Theology, but I decided it was to much of a rabbit trail to leave in the book; and so, I published it here as extra reading material]

I am not alone in saying this. The famous John Calvin says in his institutes, as I paraphrase, “that God with His infinite power, could have created Adam to resist the temptation in the garden, but willfully chose to create Adam in such a way, that Adam did not have the power to resist the temptation. And it is wicked to question or look for a further reason why Adam sinned.” Martin Luther, not directly dealing with Adam’s sin speaks of Satan. Satan’s sin is relevant, because as Adam is the original sinner for mankind, Satan is for angels. “So that which we call the remnant of nature in the ungodly and in Satan, as being a creature and a work of God, is no less subject to Divine omnipotence and action than all the rest of God’s creatures and works. Since God moves and works all in all, He moves and works of necessity even in Satan and the ungodly.[1] Martin is saying, regarding the only real level causality, God directly works evil, in evil creatures, just as directly as He works good, in good creatures. As direct as God is, as He works faith in an elect, it is the same as He works unbelief in the reprobate.

Some modern Reformed people, such as R.C. Sproul, call this hyper-Calvinism[2]. This is self-damming because the Bible teaches this, and so it is an attack on God. It is also stupid because Calvin teaches this, and so now we have a history manmade mess, where we need to keep talking about what man said what. God and the bible become secondary at best. Calvin says there is NO such thing as “permission will” with God about anything in reality, thus, God is not permissive with the reprobate. Calvin clearly taught that God is as directly involved in reprobation as He is in the elect. God does not, merely leave the reprobate, yet actively works in the elect. Calvin says,  

Finally, he adds the conclusion that “God has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” [Rom. 9:18]. Do you see how Paul attributes both to God’s decision alone? If, then, we cannot determine a reason why he vouchsafes mercy to his own, except it so pleases him, neither shall we have any reason for rejecting others, other than his will. For when it is said that God hardens or shows mercy to whom he wills, men are warned by this to seek no cause outside his will.[3]

So, whether it is the elect or reprobate, Calvin says you cannot go beyond, “God Willed it.” God willed it, and not that man willed; God will, and not that God left it, and a nebulous neutral power, outside of God, willed it. God did it directly, by His will and power. Calvin applies God’s will and direct working power, as equally to the elect as reprobate. Thus, if Martin Luther and Calvin are correct, then the WCF teaches a false doctrine, when it talks about secondary causes. I do not want to linger long on history and people, because Christians, like the Jews in Jesus’ day, use traditions to negate the Scripture. However, it might be worth saying that Martin Luther thanked Erasmus for attacking his teaching on God’s direct sovereign power in man, and with the gospel, and not attacking non-relevant issues. That is, Luther saw this teaching about God’s absolute sovereign power that directly works in the saint as it works in the sinner and Satan, as the central argument. Calvin, it seems, saw the importance as well. The WCF, which came later, contradicted what they taught.

Calvin actually gives a summary of this doctrine saying,

The sum of the whole is this,—since the will of God is said to be the cause of all things, all the counsels and actions of men must be held to be governed by his providence. Therefore, as God exerts his power in the elect, who are guided by the Holy Spirit, He also exerts force in the reprobate to do him service.[4]

…When [Augustine] uses the term permission [He means] that the will of God is the supreme and primary cause of all things, because nothing happens without his order or permission. He certainly does not figure God sitting idly in a watch-tower, when he chooses to permit anything. The will which he represents—if I may so express it—is an active will; for if God’s will is not active, then God’s will could not be regarded as a cause.[5]

…When I say that God bends all the reprobate, and even Satan himself, at his will, some object that only happens by the permission, not by the will of God…

[Those who are against the will of God that causes all things, counter this by saying] this is done only by the permission of God, and not by the will of God. However, God himself, openly declares that he does this, and thus, rebukes their evasion of this doctrine.

I admit, indeed, that God often acts in the reprobate by interposing the agency of Satan; but in such a manner, that Satan himself performs his part, just as he is impelled.

Some say, if God causes the counsels and affections of the reprobate, he is the author of all their sins; and, therefore, men, in doing what God has decreed, are unjustly condemned, because they are obeying his will. Such an objection makes a category mistake made between God’s will (decree) and his command, though it is obvious, from innumerable examples, that there is the greatest difference between them.

What we formerly quoted from the Psalms, to the effect that he does whatever pleases him, certainly extends to all the actions of men.[6]

Calvin is defining “providence” as this category proposition, “All things that are caused are things caused by the will of God.” This is not how I hear some Reformed people say it; they use it in a softer, vaguer, and more fatalistic way. I do not know if Calvin is truly representing Augustine about his use of “permission,” however it is not relevant, for the only point I wish to make is that Calvin is saying this because he agrees with the doctrine. Calvin is defining “God’s Will,” as only meaning a “active willing.” This of course lines up with Calvin saying that God does nothing by permitting it. This is important for there are people who use the word for “active” predestination for the elect and “passive” for the reprobate, such as R.C Sproul.  Calving contradicts this in both his negative and positive definition in what “God’s will” means. (1) It never means permission, and it always means active. In addition to this Calvin defends God’s active will, by saying if God’s will is not active, then it cannot logically be defined as a real “cause” of something. That is, if God only permits Pharaoh’s heart to be hard, and Pharaoh only permits, his heart to be hard, then there is no cause for it, which is nonsense. Calvin, like Luther, says that as God uses His power and force to make the saints believe and do, God uses the same power and force to make the reprobates and Satan to not believe and do.  Thus, when Calvin says God willed something he means God causes it, and not something or someone. When Calvin says that God will is the cause of all things, he means that it is the real, primary and active cause of it.

Even if you disagree with my points and copyediting, Calvin says God’s will does not mean permission, and that God’s will always means the same thing applied to all reality. This means you cannot say Calvin taught predestination one way for the Christian and then something less for the reprobate.

Martin Luther says that God is the one who put the evil in man originally. Additionally, as active as God is in causing “faith” in the Christian he is as active in causing “unbelief” in the reprobate. The way Luther talks about God’s causality with faith and unbelief, being the same, we conclude there is no room to say active will this and permissive will that. God makes the reprobate as a defective hammer from scratch, and not that the hammer made itself. God then picks up this defective hammer and uses it (causes them to will and do in life). The hammer makes defective hits, and God judges them for it.

Seriously, if all you do is a word search for “permission” in Calvin’s institutes, you will see Calvin over and over, in many different ways and with many passages say, God’ will does not involve permission for anything, relative to Him. Then modern Reformed people, like Sproul come around and say, God actively wills election, but only is passive or permits the reprobates. To deny passive or permissive will of God for the Reprobate, is for them is hyper-Calvinism. If you read Calvin and Luther a few times, and then read modern reformed fanboys, then you will become as appalled as I have in how much they speak in a continual and habitual slander and false witness against them. Why don’t they just say Calvin and Luther are heretics and just own up to it?

Calvin gives a category proposition for Christian metaphysics. He defines what it means and what it does not mean. All things are things caused by God’s active will. How simple and to the point that is. Modern reformed guys trying to complete this by coming up with phrases like, “active and passive,” “double predestination,” “soft this hard that,” “equal ultimacy” (etc.). They do this to make themselves look smart and academic, and to hide their unbelief under long, complicated loaded phrases.

Here is a pro-tip. If you truly want to communicate clearly, just use basic category statements. All, Some or None. The Scripture, along with Calvin and Luther, define Christian metaphysics as “All things are things directly caused by God.” The only two options for disagreement are “Some things are things directly cause by God, and some are not,” or “No things, are things directly cause by God.” Rather than saying “soft this and hard that,” just say “God determines all things by His will,” or “He does not,” or “He sometime does, and sometimes does not.” See, how simple and clear that is?

Calvin says, “the will of God is the cause of all things.” This will is defined as active by “God’s” “force” and “power,” and “never by permission.” Therefore, Calvin denies “secondary causes.” He does affirmed “secondary objects,” like Satan, that are themselves moved by God’s active force and power, but denies secondary cause as it is relative to God. Calvin also says, along with Luther, that the category of God’s decree and command, removes any human complaining about injustice done to them, when God punishes them for things that He causes them to do. Thus, both Calvin and Luther are in direct contradiction to the WCF, when it affirms secondary causes.

The WCF says,

“God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”

This is outright blasphemy. It denies the absolute and direct sovereignty of God over all things. They are trying to avoid calling God the author of sin, but since God directly controls all things, then He is precisely the metaphysical author of sin and evil. There is no logical maneuver to avoid this. If they affirm God decreed and caused all things directly by his sovereignty, then of course God is the author of sin. One fool tried to tell me that the WCF, in this place, is affirming God and sin are not categorically plausible, the way Gordon Clark would teach on this topic.[7] Yet, this is not the context. The “context” is about metaphysics or ultimate causality, “God ordaining all things by His choice.”

If the WCF by saying “ordaining,” does not mean that God is the only absolute direct cause for all things, then it up-fronts admits that it is affirming Arminianism, and that there is dualism in Christian ontology. I will be kind here, and assume it is affirming God’s absolute and direct sovereignty over all things.

They try to affirm God’s decree and control over all things, but then say God is not the controller of sin—this is said in CONTEXT to God decreeing and controlling all things. They contradict themselves, to affirm a human superstition, which says God cannot be the author of sin and unbelief in the same direct causality, since He is the author of faith and holiness. Some who see the insanity of this try to affirm a mystery or paradox. LOL! You cannot say God ordains or causes “all things,” and then say, God does not ordain or control sin. You cannot say, “All things are things directly controlled by God,” and “This thing is a thing God does not directly control.” Or, “God does control all things, but at the same time God does not control some things.”  Let us try this with something else. “All persons who are saved are saved by Jesus. This saved person is a person not saved by Jesus. This statement is not contradictive or blaspheme, it is a “mystery and a paradox.”” Wow, I am on my way to be a great theologian!

Again, in CONTEXT to the category of God directly causing all things, it is said, “the freedom and possibility of secondary causes are not taken away.” Therefore, we will stay in this same category, so as not to commit a category fallacy.

If God is the direct causality of all things, then all secondary causes do not exist, and there is no freedom or possibility of any created object to do or cause anything; God takes away all secondary causes, because He along directly causes all things.

Some have mentioned to me that the phrase “secondary causes” was used in two different ways a few hundred years ago. One means what the noun phrase naturally says (relative to God there are secondary ontologies), the other meaning is similar to pointing out the category fallacy issue that Gordon Clark often points out. There is no historical evidence this second meaning was widely used and popular, other than a few insistences (as far as I have been able to research it, and even then, I am not totally convinced it wasn’t just a typo or accidently used that way). This is an interesting point, but ultimately a non-relative point for interpretating the WCF’s statement, because the authors all knew how Calvin in his Institutes answered it, and his answer did not use this phrase, or the category of ontology.

John Calvin later in his life wrote a book about predestination, and he does seem to distance God as the author of sin from His predestination, or at least, making contradictive statements about it. It was less popular and less read as compared to his Institutes. However, because it was Calvin’s Institutes that all pastors and theologians were required to read, and that greatly influenced Europe, we will refer to his teaching in this book, as “Calvinism.” History shows the Institutes as hugely popular and influential.  As pointed out in the quote above, Calvin, when addressing the question of author of sin, does not use “secondary causes” (ontology) language, but said, “Such an objection makes a category mistake made between God’s will (decree) and his command, though it is obvious, from innumerable examples, that there is the greatest difference between them.” Calvin does not refer to causes to refute the accusation of God being the author of sin, but merely says it is a category fallacy to combine these. The WCF, was written by pastors who had to read Calvin’s Institutes in school. Yet, they chose to use “secondary causes” (ontology) rather than the concise and easy explanation from Calvin’s Institutes, which they all read and studied.

Seeing these pastors and theologians all studied logic and philosophy, the phrase “secondary causes” would still have ontology as its most direct meaning, even if some used is differently. The WCF chose to use a noun phrase, when its main meaning is about ontology, (and phrase naturally means ontology), in context about ontology. When the Institute’s dealt with ontology and the author of sin, Calvin answered with a category fallacy; yet, when the WCF answered this, it did so with another point about secondary ontology. These are two very different ways to answer the question. The conclusion is that even as early as the WCF the doctrine of God’s sovereignty was already defective and compromised.

It seems beyond reasonable to me that highly schooled pastors, who read the Institutes, Logic and Philosophy, when writing about ontology, would immediately answer with a phrase “secondary causality” or “secondary ontology” and not mean the category of ontology. Maybe an amateur, who is not good at communicating, but a room full of very educated pastors, I do not see that mistake happening.

To avoid this biblical outcome of the author of sin, the WCF commits the blasphemy of affirming secondary causes, at the ultimate level with God. They are pagans who affirm metaphysical dualism with God. Martin Luther is famous for pointing out the category fallacy that Erasmus made with ontology and ethics. It seems the WCF, with their category fallacies and paradoxes (and how modern Reformed people try to excuse this section) has more in common with the Catholic, than Martin Luther.

Again, think about a chess game.

This WCF passage is talking about the real level causality, which would be “Johnny moves white bishop to b4.” This passage is not talking about the relative level, which would be, “white bishop moves to b4.” In order to save the WCF many do the same category error that Arminians do to many passages of Scripture, by changing real level causality to relative level. The Armenians are morons for doing this, and so are the Reformed teachers who try to salvage this WCF passage, when it cannot be saved.

Vincent on this WCF passage says,

…I believe that if a person is a Christian and somewhat intelligent, then if we were to repeat, “If God is not the direct metaphysical cause of something, then something else is,” to his face over and over again, eventually he would realize what this really means and would become just as alarmed and repulsed at the notion as we are. But perhaps both faith and intelligence are rare, and the combination even less likely.

As for secondary causation, I have addressed this a number of times. If all else fails, I can say that I did not write the books, but my computer did. The fact that I was typing on it when the books appeared does not nullify the authorship of the computer or its moral responsibility, but only establishes it. If the reply is that the computer is not an intelligent mind but a dead object, I would insist that Dual Core is superior to a lump of clay (Romans 9). In any case, if God’s authorship is only so distant (I did not make the computer, the software, nor did I make or control the electricity), he might not be so clearly the author of sin….

If I am right, then they must be wrong. The question is, how can they be right without self-contradiction — that God controls all things, but he really doesn’t, that God causes all things, but he really doesn’t? The Reformed is fond of appealing to “mystery,” “paradox,” and “antinomy,” which are nothing but more dignified and deceptive terms for saying, “Clearly, I contradict myself, but I don’t care.” Instead, it seems to me that divine sovereignty is an altogether clear and coherent doctrine. It is so easy to understand. I have also answered the almost universal abuse of James 1:13. Temptation and causation are two different things, and the topic is causation, not temptation.

We must submit to the direct teachings of Scripture and its necessary implications, and not the traditions and good intentions of men.[8]

I apologize for the diversion. Although I do not call myself a Calvinist, I do not like false witnesses and un-needed complexities and un-needed phrases. We can see from this the importance to leave history and fanboys with their slanders, loaded phrases and complexities to themselves. We will focus on making doctrinal statements (all, some or none) and making easy deductive application for ourselves, so that we can walk by the commands of God in joy.

[1] Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will; translated by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston; Fleming H. Revell ,1957. 204

Also see my website for an article called, “Martin Luther- The Bondage of the Will – Commentary,” for more about the Bondage of the Will.

[2] R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God; Tyndale House Publishers, 1986; p. 142.
 “The Reformed view teaches that God positively or actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to insure their salvation. The rest of mankind God leaves to themselves. He does not create unbelief in their hearts…”  
Sproul also in page 142 says active reprobation is “hyper” and “sub” Calvinism.

[3] Calvin, Institutes. p. 947.

[4] Calvin’s Institutes. CCEL ebook edition. publish domain. (www.ccel.org). Book 1, Chapter 18.
I have done a medium copyedit on the English (to modernize it), on this material. See original for comparison.

[5] Ibid. Book ,1 Chapter 16.

[6] Ibid. Book 1, Chapter 18

[7] Gordon Clark, in order to make the WCF affirm the correct level of sovereignty he taught, had to bear false witness against the WCF to make it say what it does not. His slander is the opposite of most Reformed teachers, who slander Calvin and Luther, by falsely saying they teach the same thing as the WCF. The WCF is their creed; it is their gate keeper, but Calvin and Luther are also their divine fathers. Yet, they contradict one another. And so, this back-and-forth slander is how it ends up being for fan boys, and traditionist.

Leave them and their tradition, they have their reward.

[8] Vincent Cheung. “WCF, secondary causes, etc.”

From the ebook, Sermonettes, Vol. 1. 2010. Page. 82-83.

The Will OF GOD is Irrelevant

The bible teaches that God has absolute and direct control over all things. He is the only real cause for all things, and there is no such thing as secondary causes. God is the metaphysical author of sin and evil. God has predestined all things by His own goals and choices, and decrees all reality in a logical order in relation to His goals (supralapsarianism).  There is no such thing as free-will. Man is responsible because he is not free but under God’s sovereign control and command.  Because God absolutely and directly causes all things, He absolutely and directly causes the predestination of the elect and reprobate. Logic and deduction are so easy. As Romans 9 says, God takes from the neutral lump (before good or evil) and by the same power and choice makes some to be evil reprobates and some to be righteous elect.  God has not given up some of His control to man, because free-will does not exist, because the bible never says He made this choice, and because the nature of God insures that there is no difference in how direct and absolute He causes one thing or another in creation. God’s thoughts, power and choice are one and the same. Because He thinks about it and decides on it, it is reality. Therefore, in the ultimate sense, God Will is the only relevant issue.

I say all of this to state a broad and correct doctrine of God’s sovereignty, so that I am not misunderstood in my following comments.

When we pray for healing, miracles or forgiveness the “will of God,” (referring to His causality, not commands), is irrelevant. As Vincent Cheung points out in “Healing: The Will of Man,” to talk about the “will of God” in this context is already a partial defeat, because the bible talks about man’s will, not God’s will.

The bible’s positive doctrine is that healing is about the will of man, not the will of God. This is how the scripture presents the subject. Jesus never asked the Father if it was God’s will to heal a particular person; rather, He always asked if it was the man or woman’s will to be healed.  Jesus then said to his disciples and followers, “you heal the sick.” The will of God (referring to His decrees/causality) was never brought up; only “man’s will,” was brought up. The will of God was simply irrelevant. Jesus, who is more God-centered than you or your favorite pastor, taught us the “will of God,” was irrelevant, and that “man’s will” was the relevant issue.

Some are more accustomed to think about the atonement and forgiveness and so we will start here. The big idea, is that healing (Isaiah 53, Matth 8, James 5, Gal. 3) is as much the gospel and substitutionary atonement as forgiveness is, if not more so.

So here is the question: is the “will of God,” relevant for salvation or conversion? It is not relevant, if I am the one answering it. I am not asking a broad doctrinal question. I am asking it as Jesus would ask a person, “do you want to be healed”? Do you want to be forgiven? I am asking it the way Moses says, “I have presented to you life and death,” now make a choice. I am asking it the way the bible personally addresses me with its promises and commands, telling me that I must respond to it.

The “will of God” is irrelevant for my salvation, because what God decrees and causes is irrelevant in my response to obey the command of God to repent. Paul in Acts 17 commands us to repent of our sins. It is not a choice or suggestion. When I evaluate how I should behave I only use the commands of God to do this, not God’s secret decrees or causality. For example, in Romans 5 Paul says God caused me to be born a sinner, with a sinful heart, because of what Adam did. If I were to use the “will of God,” as a relevant factor in my decision to repent of my sins or not, then I would recognize it was the will of God to decree and cause me to be born a sinner, thus I will choose to stay a sinner until God decrees and causes me to repent.

I will assume most will see the error of this.  It is obvious that God’s Will is irrelevant in my consideration if I should repent of my sins. The relevant issue is God’s command for me to repent.  If a person uses the “will of God” as a relevant issue to exempt them from having to repent of their sins, we would see this as an excuse to be rebellious and unbelieving.

The same is for healing and other various miracles and supernatural experiences.  Healing is provided by the same atonement that provided forgiveness. Both are already accomplished and both are received on the demand of faith. God is sovereign over our faith, but on the demand of faith God always does what He promises. Faith always receives, and God is sovereign over faith. However, even though God is sovereign over faith (God’s Will), we are never told to consider it as relevant knowledge when we choose to believe a promise or not.  When we are in the context of a “should” or “ought” the category is always about God’s command.

In John 15 Jesus uses God’s predestination as an encouragement to ask whatever we want and get it.  Peter does the same thing in Acts 2 about the baptism of the Spirit for power. And so the Will of God is relevant in the topic of valuing God’s encouragement and explanation. Even though God’s Will is used by scripture to encourage our confidence for miracles and answered prayer, yet, when dealing with the topic of the scripture commanding me to repent and commanding me to receive healing and the gospel (James 5:15, John 14,15, Gal.3, Acts 2) the only relevant category is God’s command, not God’s Will.

Thus, when we pray for healing, God’s Will is irrelevant. The Will of God, is a non-issue. To have the Will of God, pop up into your head when praying for healing, is like having the decree of God that made you a sinner(Rom 5), pop into your head as a relevant issue if you should repent or not, and question if God would forgive if you had faith in Jesus.  It is insane and delusional.

The Will of God is irrelevant when considering if God will save you if you repent in faith; it is a non-issue. The Will of God is irrelevant when considering if God will heal you if you command sickness to leave with faith; it is a non-issue.

“Oh, God, please forgive me. I am powerless. You have done nothing yet, but you could do something, Oh powerful and eternal God. You made me a sinner because of Adam’s sin, and so, I don’t know if You have decreed me to be saved or not, and so, If it is your Will, please forgive my sins.”

This insane prayer is how many pray about healing. They are stupid and sinful. The bible never tells us to pray like this. Such a person should not expect to be forgiven of their sin. And if they pray for healing like this, they should not expect to be healed. To pray, while using the Will of God as a relevant issue, will divorce you from being forgiven and healed; It is a prayer of death.

When Peter said, “What I have, I give, in Jesus Name, walk,” the Will of God never came up, because the Will of God is irrelevant. Jesus commanded His followers to heal the sick. This command is the relevant issue, not the Will of God. The Will of God is a non-issue in the context of my healing, or your healing. When you bring in the Will of God as a relevant issue for healing or forgiveness the end results in God’s command being negated. The category of God’s decree and command are different and so should never be used to void each other out, or mixed together.

“Oh God, by Your Will I was made sick, and so I don’t know if I should be healed or not, but please, heal me if it is Your Will.”

 This is a prayer of death. It is a prayer of insanity and disobedience. This prayer uses God’s decree as an excuse to avoid obeying God’s command to be healed.  To use God’s decree to excuse yourself from obeying any of God’s commands such as receiving forgiveness or receiving healing, is stupid and wicked.

Although, there is nothing wrong for a salvation prayer to “ask God into your heart,” yet there are more precise ways to describe it.  Peter in his Pentecost sermon gives direction for a salvation prayer. He instructs the audience to ““Repent and be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ.” Notice Peter did not instruct them to “ask” God to forgive them; rather, he tells them to repent in Jesus’ Name to be saved. Why? Because Jesus already died and was resurrected. The forgiveness already happened. We are not asking God to crucify His Son again to forgive us, because it already happened.  We are not asking God to do anything in the present tense to forgive us, because Jesus already accomplished it. Because it has been accomplished all we do is repent.  In this context we do not ask or beg. It is when a person has confidence in Jesus’ finished atonement, they repent of their sins in Jesus’ Name. Salvation in this sense is a confession, and not asking and begging. We confess our sins and that is all it takes. Faith is about God letting you know He has already forgiven you, and by repenting you are agreeing with God.  It is foundationally about agreeing and confessing and not asking.

Other gospel benefits such as a healing, and the authority to cast out demons and cast down mountains is the same. They have been accomplished by Jesus’ finished atonement. We do not ask and beg for them, because they have been accomplished by Jesus and given to us. It is irrational to beg for something that already belongs to you.  It was the stripes on Jesus’ back that healed us. And so, it is irrational to ask God to heal us, as if He needs to break out the whip again and start slashing Jesus in the throne room. God accomplished our healing in Jesus’ atonement. Thus, we don’t beg for it, because it is already ours.  As with salvation, we repent as a confession of confidence in Jesus finished atonement, rather than beg and ask forgiveness. The same with healing. It is the Will of Man to command sickness to leave. We confess and agree with God, rather than beg and ask. This is why Jesus tells us to “heal the sick, and cast out demons.” When we command healing and command demons to leave, we are giving a confident confession in the finished atonement of Jesus, which has given us the healing and authority to do such things.

Applying God’s Sovereignty

“8 But the officer said, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come into my home. Just say the word from where you are, and my servant will be healed. 9 I know this because I am under the authority of my superior officers, and I have authority over my soldiers. I only need to say, ‘Go,’ and they go, or ‘Come,’ and they come. And if I say to my slaves, ‘Do this,’ they do it.”

10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed. Turning to those who were following him, he said, “I tell you the truth, I haven’t seen faith like this in all Israel,” (Matthew 8:8-10 NLT).

If a person claims to be an expert in mathematics, but only succeeds in applying math 2% of the time, would you accept their claim? It would be irrelevant to me if a person went to school and has the approval of other men saying he is an expert in math, if he cannot apply it correctly.

In our passage above the centurion is talking about the sovereignty of God by speaking of Jesus’ power and authority over reality. To cure someone of sickness we are dealing with reality. The centurion says the same way officers and servants obey him, is the same way reality obeys Jesus. The same way an officer goes and comes at his word, is the same way physical tissue and sickness reacts to Jesus’ words. The same way he has authority over people, he implies Jesus has the same authority over reality itself. Jesus reacts to this with astonishment. He praises the centurion for his great faith.

The issue is not if the centurion had a perfect understanding of who Jesus was. He concluded Jesus had authority over reality itself. He understood that reality obeyed Jesus. This is fantastic theology. It is a good understanding of God’s sovereignty. I am not saying it is complete. But as it is, it is a correct theology about God’s sovereignty.

How did the centurion apply this correct doctrine of God’s sovereignty? He applied it with faith to get a miracle. In fact, he was already getting a miracle. He applied God’s sovereignty to upgrade a miracle that was coming in the future to make the miracle happen immediately. Or in modern terms, Jesus promised him an iPhone, and after he applied an argument of faith based on God’s sovereignty, Jesus upgraded it to an iPhone max pro. Also, his argument of faith, based on God’s sovereignty, made time obey the centurion, the way his servants obey him.

Jesus approved the centurion’s understanding of God’s sovereignty and his application of it with faith to receive an upgraded miracle.

Thanks be to God we have examples for how to apply God’s sovereignty in faith for miracles. Therefore, those who claim to understand God’s sovereignty but do not apply it to receive miracles and healing, are liars and frauds. They have no idea what God’s sovereignty is. They have no idea what they are doing or talking about.

Peter

Peter’s application of election is the baptism of the Spirit.

Peter also believed and understood the doctrine of God’s absolute sovereignty. He spoke about predestination in the first apostolic sermon in Acts 2.

“Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. THEN you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all those who are far away, as many as the Lord our God calls to himself,”
(Acts 2:38-39. 38-NLT, 39-LEB).

The crowed said, “what do we do,” in response to seeing the baptism of the Spirit and Peter’s sermon describing why the Spirit is being poured out.  Peter’s response is about the predestination (and reprobation by implication) of God by saying, “as many as the Lord our God calls to Himself.” The interesting thing about his statement of predestination is that it is directly about the baptism of the Spirit and not directly about forgiveness of sins. Peter uses the forgiveness of sins as a stepping stone to get the promised baptism of the Spirit, purchased by Jesus and promised by the Father. Peter says to repent and be forgiven so that “then” you can receive the Holy Spirit of power. It is specifically about receiving this baptism of power that Peter says, “as many as God calls to Himself.” This includes forgiveness because Peter says you need to be forgiven and then you will be received this baptism of power.

And so Peter’s understanding of predestination and election is about the baptism of the Spirit with forgiveness being presupposed. If God has predestined you, then you will be baptized in the Spirit for power. Baptism of the Spirit is proof of your election and disproves you are a reprobate. This is how Peter applies God’s sovereignty. Peter says, “to those whom God has called TO HIMSELF.” If God has called you “to Himself,” then you will be baptized it the Spirit. How can you be called “to God” and you not be with God at the same time?

When God calls someone to Himself, He predestines them to be baptized in the Spirit. This is Peter’s doctrine of election in application.

It is a good thing the bible shows us how to apply the doctrine of God’s sovereignty. It shows us that election and predestination is applied for baptism of the Spirit and this confirms that God has sovereignly called us to be “with Him.”

Therefore, those who claim to understand predestination and do not apply it with the power of the Spirit are lairs and frauds. They say they understand God’s sovereignty, but they cannot apply it at the most basic level.

Jesus

We have seen a gentile and an apostle, but what about Jesus. How did Jesus apply the doctrine of God’s sovereignty?

“You did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you to go and bear fruit — fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name” (John 15:16 NIV).

I will quote Vincent Cheung at large on this verse, because he says it so well and by this helped me understand the doctrine of predestination is for those who live by the Spirit and faith for miracles. It is from his essay, “Predestination and Miracles.”

“Jesus said to his disciples, “You did not choose me, but I chose you” (John 15:16). The Bible teaches a doctrine of election, or predestination. Before we became Christians, we were sinners, wicked to the core, so that in ourselves it was impossible for us to turn toward righteousness. It was impossible for us to choose any spiritual good. If we were to turn from evil to good, some other force outside of ourselves would have had to change us. When we accepted the gospel and decided to follow Christ, it was because God had first chosen us before the creation of the world. If you think that you indeed made a choice to follow Christ, you are correct, but your choice was an effect of God’s prior choice….

This is not the end of it. Predestination is for more than bare salvation, or to say it more correctly, salvation involves more than the mere forgiveness of sins and the promise of heaven. Salvation in Christ is a whole package of blessings and responsibilities. I do not mean that you need to achieve these blessings and responsibilities in order to attain salvation. No, I mean that when you receive salvation, these blessings and responsibilities also come with it. Thus it is not that you need to reach heaven in order to be saved, but that because you are saved by faith in Christ, you will reach heaven.

God has chosen us, and predestined us. Predestined for what? There was more to what Jesus said: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit — fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.” God predestined us to bear fruit. What is this fruit?

Even in the same verse, we can see that Jesus had in mind not only works of preaching and charity, because he said his followers would produce fruit and that “the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.” Gospel life and ministry is characterized by answers to prayers. What kinds of prayers? Wait, this is weaker than the way Jesus said it. The doctrine of prayer in historic unbelief is that “God will answer your prayers if it is his will (regardless of what he promised). Or, you can say that he always answers your prayers — sometimes he says yes, sometimes no, sometimes maybe, sometimes later. Or, when you ask for egg, he will give you a scorpion, so that when you ask for spiritual growth, he will give you cancer to teach you a lesson.” Among us, we have never accepted this view of prayer. We recognize it as satanic deception. But Jesus did not even say, “God will answer your prayers” or “God will always answer your prayers.” He said, “God will give you whatever you ask.” This is how God wants us to think about our relationship with him. This is how he wants us to think about discipleship. This is how he wants us to think about faith and prayer. God will give me whatever I ask when I approach him in the name of Jesus. No hiding behind a thousand qualifications. No excuses for me or for him.

God will give me whatever I ask. I will have whatever I ask. What I ask, I get. And I am predestined for this. So I am chosen to get whatever I ask. I am predestined to get whatever I ask. It is my foreordained destiny to receive whatever I ask God in the name of Jesus. If you have never heard this, then you have never heard the Bible’s doctrine of predestination, you have never heard the Bible’s doctrine of prayer, you have never heard the Bible’s doctrine of the name of Jesus, and you have never heard the Bible’s doctrine of discipleship. Just several verses earlier, Jesus said, “If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples” (15:7-8). Getting whatever we ask from God is intertwined throughout his discourse with the notions of bearing fruit, being his disciples, and loving one another. Thus getting whatever we ask from God is as pervasive as the gospel itself. It cannot be taken out and thrown away without tearing apart the entire gospel, and thus also our salvation. Here bearing fruit is almost the same thing as getting whatever we ask from God, and by getting what we ask from God, we show ourselves to be true disciples of Christ.”

James

James has something to say about God’s sovereignty and prayer.

“Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.”  Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.  Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.”  As it is, you boast in your arrogant schemes. All such boasting is evil.  If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them,” (James 4:13-17 NIV)

James affirms God’s absolute sovereignty over all things. Considering his affirmation of God’s sovereignty what are his commands for us, when we are faced with circumstances like sickness? When tomorrow looks like sickness for us, when seen from our observations, what does James command us to do? Does he say, “you don’t know what will happen, so do not boast about being healed tomorrow, even if you asked God to heal you?” He obviously does not say this, and yet this is how many would abuse James’ teaching on God’s sovereignty.

James chapter 5 says, if you are sick ask for the elders to pray for you, and the prayer of faith will make that person get well. Verse 15 says, “And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven (NKJV).” The command from James is not commanding us to only pray, but is commanding the result of healing. This is like a commanding officer saying to his subordinate, “Call a restaurant and order us some sandwiches for lunch.” The commander is not merely asking you to call, but to get the result of sandwiches for lunch.  Why do I need to explain this to adults?

James’ application of God’s absolute sovereign control over each day, is to apply it to get results in our prayers; to get absolute certain results in prayer.  And yet, I have seen those who quote James to teach about God’s sovereignty only to deny healing when we pray or say it is at best a maybe. But this same James who understands God’s sovereignty and is writing by the Holy Spirit does not apply God’s sovereignty that way. His application of God’s sovereignty is that if we ask for healing in faith, we will certainly get healed as certain as we are forgiven if we ask for forgiveness by faith.  According to James, God’s sovereignty ensures the certainty of both forgiveness and healing by faith. To say, when we ask for healing in faith that it does not result in guarantee healing, would be to undermine God’s sovereignty that ensures forgiveness if we ask for it by faith. The same sovereignty ensures both promises are guaranteed.

James also says if you lack wisdom then ask in faith, without doubting, and God will give you wisdom. If you doubt, then don’t expect more wisdom. If you have no doubts, then expect to get it. Not a maybe, but God will give you wisdom. Thus, if I ask to wake up tomorrow with more wisdom, in faith, I will certainly wake up tomorrow with more wisdom. This means I know certain things will happen tomorrow. I know them by the power of faith. This is how James applies God’s sovereignty.

Those who quote James’ teaching on God’s sovereignty over tomorrow, might be inclined to remind us the example of God’s hidden sovereign providence in the story of Nehemiah. And yet, James being led by the Holy Spirit, does not remind us of Nehemiah, but of Elijah. He says “The earnest prayer of a righteous person has great power and produces wonderful results. Elijah was as human as we are, and yet when he prayed earnestly that no rain would fall, none fell for three and a half years,” (ver.16-17).

If we don’t know about tomorrow because of God’s sovereignty, then would not the hidden providence of God in Nehemiah be more appropriate? Apparently not. This is so, because such an understanding is a presupposed basic understanding for Christians. We know God is sovereign and as His children is always working behind the scenes to help, guide and bless us. This gives us joy and strength to always face the future in confidence.

James, who teaches that we do not know what will happen tomorrow, because of God’s sovereignty, skips Nehemiah and commands us to have faith like Elijah. He instructs us to make certain things happen tomorrow, like healing and turning the rain off or on like a faucet. By faith we know certain things will happen today and tomorrow. He is not saying we control every aspect of reality like God, and so there are many things about tomorrow we do not know; however, he also teaches us that with faith we make reality obey us today and tomorrow, and then by this know some things will certainly happen.  Even if we have perfect faith to ask for everything we want tomorrow, we would still be limited by time and everyday life when asking, and by this not be able to ask for an infinite number of things.

Paul is correct in saying that even time itself has been given to us (1 Corin. 3:22). Just as man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man, so to, time was made and given to man. With faith we make today and tomorrow yield to our prayers.

This is how the bible applies its own doctrine of God’s absolute control over reality and tomorrow. It instructs us to make the uncertain tomorrow be certainly known by faith. James shows us to make sickness, troubles, and lack of wisdom to bow to healing, wisdom and miracles by a prayer of faith. He does not remind us to remember Nehemiah, but to remember Elijah when we face troubles. Elijah was a mere human like us. He turned the rain off and on like a faucet. He turned reality off and on, the way I twist my shower nob. James tells us to be like Elijah when we pray.  

James says you don’t know what will happen because of God’s sovereignty, but then applies this by telling us to use faith to make reality obey us today and tomorrow. When we do this, we will know certain things will happen tomorrow.

Let us be like Jesus, Peter, James, and gentiles who apply God’s sovereignty to get results in prayer, healings, miracles and the power of the Spirit.

Anyone who affirms God’s absolute and direct sovereignty over all things, but does not apply it the way Jesus and the apostles do are frauds and liars. They would not know God’s sovereignty if it smacked them in the face. They are blind leading the blind. Never let such people be your teachers. Excommunication is the least they deserve.

We saw if you affirm God’s predestination, His election, His power to command reality is like a man ordering his servant and that His control is so complete we don’t know what will happen tomorrow, that its conclusion is more miracles, more healing, more baptism of the Spirit and more wisdom.

Let God’s sovereignty be a foundation for more and more healings and miracles.