Tag Archives: sovereign

God Is Sovereign OR only Sometimes Sovereign?

If God causes all things,
then God caused x to happen.

Some things are so simple that a child can grasp them and apply them in constant success. Many things in the Scripture are this way. Peter did say some things from Paul (Scripture) are hard to understand, but the presupposition behind such a statement would be that most of the Scripture is not so hard to understand.

The reason simple things become difficult, tedious, and annoying is due to man’s unbelief in God to begin with.  The problem is not due to God’s perfect ability to communicate, produced by God’s infinite mastery of His own mind and understanding of man’s mind (which He created); rather, the problem resides in man’s refusal to believe what God has said. Men truly detest and hate God, even many so-called Christians.

I heard one Andrew Wommack try to boil the entire issue of the doctrine of God’s sovereignty to one quick dictionary lookup, regarding the word for “sovereign.” The dictionary, according to him said it has to do with a king or government ruling a nation. His argument is that because an earthly king does not control all the thoughts and actions of his people God does not. This is a very stupid mistake. When was it a good idea to define things by a mere dictionary lookup? Wommack in other doctrines such as, “You already got it,” (which I find edifying) will define the doctrine how the text and passage does it. Why not do it for God’s sovereignty? Why not define God’s sovereign control how Romans 9 defines it? Before the twins made choices of good or bad God already decided to love and hate one of them. Why not define God’s sovereignty how the bible tells us God uses His power and control? The lesson here is that when you see a pastor boil down an entire doctrine to one dictionary lookup and then apply it to God, then you need to mock it and disregard it as trash. If they call themselves pastors, then they need to define terms how the bible and the relevant passages do.

We will get more into logic in the next section, but we will go over some there, since many pastors and theologians seem to think the Laws of Logic (contradiction, identity and excluded middle) somehow do not apply to the doctrine of God’s sovereignty.

“ FIRST. After going over the attributes of God, in both spiritual and metaphysical aspects, it leads to a clear doctrine about God’s sovereignty or control over all things.

At this point, I could say-

“(1) All dogs are warm-blooded.
(2) This bulldog is a dog.
(3) Therefore, it is warm-blooded,”

-and this entire section on God’s sovereignty could be finished in one short paragraph. However due to the vehement resistance to God by bullying the mind with stupidity, this section must deal with stating, the most painfully obvious things. For those who already have a willing mind to believe what God says, I apologize for this. However, this will be a good practice in critical thinking skills and a refresher for what you do know.  

The Bible teaches that God is absolutely and directly sovereign over all things. Or stated as a modus ponens.


M.1. (p) If God causes all things directly and absolutely, (q) then God caused x, h or w to happen, directly and absolutely.
M.2. (p) God does cause all things.
M.3. (q) God caused x, h and w.

In logic, if the “all” or “some” is not stated (directly or indirectly), then the rule is that your category statement assumes an “all” universally-distributed proposition.

I recently heard some moron say something like, “God sovereignly moves things at the universal level, but allows man to move things at the particular level.”

If I were to say this nicely, the person probably does not know what the terms, “universal” and “particular,” means; they are just talking about things as if they know about them, when they do not have a clue, and are just making things up. However, words have meaning, as the Bible says so. Thus, if we are to take what this person is saying, then it is bottom of the barrel stupid.

Logical inference works because particulars are necessary applications of universals. For example. When the Bible says, “all have sinned,” this is only “universally true” if every “particular” instance is also true. If it is not sometimes true in particulars, then it is not universally distributed to all things in a said category. Logic or deductive inference is an application of the universally distributed premise applied in particulars. Thus, if all men have sinned, then if I refer to any human, I am able to affirm that this human as sinned. Therefore, a correctly done deduction from Scripture is what the scripture asserts, because it is only applying the universal(distributed) premise of scripture to the particulars. It is only pointing out information that is already there.

For example. If I were to say,

“it is universally true that all dogs are mammals.
This bulldog is a dog.
Thus, this bulldog is a fish.”

This syllogism is invalid; however, if the concluding premise is indeed true about reality, then it is not universally true, that all dogs are mammals, for in some “particular” instances dogs are fish, and not mammals. Rather than just a contrariety, this is what a true contradiction is when applied on the same premises. A ‘some are not’ premise is a contradiction to an ‘all’ premise.

Thus, if you say “it is universally true that God is sovereign, but then in some particular cases in man, man is sovereign, then you just denied the universal.” You could say God is mostly sovereign, and mostly moves things; but you cannot say God is sovereign as a universal statement without violating the law of contradiction. Or you could say, although it would be odd—it is universally true that God is sometimes sovereign. It would be odd, because an “all” distribution of category in a predicate is presupposed as a “all” if left unsaid. In mathematics this category distribution of all, is in fact called a “universal statement.”

Subjects in universal propositions refer to all in that category (All men have a worldview), while those in particular propositions refer to some (Some men are theists). But what about the predicates? This is where distribution comes in.

Distribution is to terms what quantity is to propositions. A term is said to be distributed when it refers to all the members of its class. Distribution can be designated by a stated or implied all.[1]

For example, if I said, “ravens are birds,” then it is assumed to be that “all” ravens are contained in the predicate of “birds.”

If a particular denies your universal category statement, then the universal is not a “all” category statement but a “some” category statement. That is, if I said, “this particular raven is not a bird,” then it is not a true statement that “ravens are birds.”  Likewise, if it is true that some particular humans are not sinful, then the Bible’s universal statement that “all” have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory is a false statement of reality. It is not a universal “all” statement.

Some at this point, who have never studied logic might say, “I sort-of already know this, and after thinking about it now, it is what the Bible teaches.”  If you understand this then, you are already leagues above the intelligence and faith of many pastors and theologians.  

Some might also say, “well, maybe the people above, meant universal, how a human authority might issue a policy at the top level, but a lower person directly applies it.” First, if so, then so what? How does “horse crap” have any logical necessity to proving if 2+2=4? To confess the above is to confess you deny God is not sovereign over everything, and that there are other causalities that moves things around, separate from God doing it.

Such an admission, does a slight-of-hand fallacy to make it sound like God is sovereign over reality, when they freely admit God is not. Many seem to gloss over this; God is not man. Let us say that again. God is not man. God’s authority is not like human authority. God’s control is not like human control. What moron would even compare the two? God’s metaphysical transcendence is not compatible to man. You cannot relate the two in an intelligent way. Color has nothing to do with the concept of numbers. Why do I need to say this to adults?

The spiritual, ethical and emotional connection behind all this stupidity is a desire for the praise of men. Rather than just saying, “God is not sovereign over all things,” they perform slight-of-hand fallacies by still affirming the opposite of what they believe, but then deny their doctrinal statement in application. If these people truly believed they honored God with right theology, then they need to say, “God is only sometimes sovereign,” as their doctrine and defend it. Yet, they affirm a contradictory doctrine despite saying they love God. Therefore, we conclude, their love and loyalty to God, cannot be as great as they say. Instead of standing their ground on what they believe, they please men by affirming a doctrine they disagree with. Then in order to affirm their own doctrine, they do a 180 and deny God is sovereign over all things in applications/particulars of life. Their true goal then is to be men pleasures. Their doctrine is a doctrine of men, by men, for the pleasure of men. They live in a kingdom of self. They are thoroughly man centered.  Their condemnation is deserved.

Another fool once said to me, “God IS absolutely sovereign over all things, but in order to let man have free-choice, gave up some of His sovereignty.” Again, this is a self-righteous, man-pleasure. It is a slight of hand, to hide what they are affirming. God IS not absolutely sovereign anymore, because by their own words, God gave up some of His sovereignty over all things. Thus, God WAS sovereign, but IS NOT absolutely sovereign over all things anymore.  Since we are dealing with present reality in most applications, their doctrine is, “God is sometimes sovereign, and sometimes not.” Any affirmation other than this, would be a lie for them.

[1] Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990). Come, let us reason: an introduction to logical thinking (p. 30). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

aaron-burden-y02jEX_B0O0-unsplash

GOD IS THE METAPHYSICAL AUTHOR OF ALL THINGS, EVEN SIN.

I got the term “metaphysical author of sin and evil,” from Vincent Cheung. See his Systematic Theology, Commentary on Ephesians and Author of Sin for original source.  I developed my own doctrine of God’s absolute sovereignty (even occasionalism) on my own as a teenager from reading bible. It was the word and Spirit that taught me these things, not Calvin or Luther. Vincent helped me to expand my understanding, make adjustments and make it concise. His materials also helped me with the explanation of accountability mentioned below.

Metaphysical is meant in philosophy or systematic theology for reality and even causality (although ontology means directly causality). In our context we are focusing on causality.  For example: If I pick my pen and cause it to write, “trees are blue,” who is the author of it? Is it the object, which the pen? Or is it me, who is causing it to move? We point reader see the separate categories of “cause” and an “object.”

God directly and immediately causes a demon to tempt a person. The demon is the “object.”  God is the “cause,” but the tempter is the object. This is why God cannot tempt anyone, because if God directly Himself tells you to kill person (X) it is not a temptation but a command. There is no such thing as a “secondary cause,” in relation to God Himself. He directly causes all things.

Someone might respond by saying “by authoring sin, sinners could hurl back to Him saying, “You are the real sinner!”

What does “real” sinner even mean? If it means the object that is sinning, it is impossible for God to be a “real sinner.” I am not sure how such a person defines sin, but God defines sin as a man breaking a command given to man (1 John 3:4). God did not command Himself; rather He commanded man. They do not logically apply to Him. Also, there is no authority over God. Because responsibility is defined by “not having freedom from being under an authority who holds you to a definition,” then God is not responsible for anything. Thus, the terms sinning and God are logically impossible terms. God defines sin as lawlessness. Therefore, to accuse God of being a “real sinner,” would be to accuse God of being a “real law breaker,” and “under a real authority.” Fallacy. Dumb. Blaspheme.

Oddly, sometimes I get people who say God is “Ex-lex” (above the law), but in the next breath say God would be sinning if He authored/directly caused me to sin. Often I feel like I am talking to brick walls, when talking to people of tradition. “God is above the law, but if He causes me to sin, then God is under a law, because God would be guilty of sinning, which presupposes a law over God.” Brilliant, mystery, insane.

God did not command Himself, “thou shall not murder, or thou shall not commit adultery.” These are commanded to man, not God: not trees, not monkeys, but man. Therefore, it is a categorial fallacy to say God sinned, for it is impossible for God to break a law that is not applied to Him. Do trees commit sin when they do not confess Jesus the Son of God? Or is it irrational to apply these two things together? It is like saying “can God lift an infinitely heavy rock that He created?” God is not physical thus, the category of heavy cannot logically be applied to Him. The question is nonsense. It is the same with God and sin.  Laws do not apply to Him.

God is not what he authors. If God creates a river. God is not a river. To call God a river because he created it, is again to commit a logcal category fallacy. It also presupposes pantheism. There is no way to show in formal validly that what you create you yourself are. Creating something else and your own being are two different categories. If I create a clay pot, I am not a clay pot. Why do I need to say this to adults?

Likewise, God is not what he causes. That is, if God causes a “lion” to “go” south into valley, then God Himself is not a south bound loin. If “author” is defined as what someone “cause to happen” in a story they are writing, then it is again a category mistake to say they are what they author. If Johnny writes in a novel that a lion walked south into valley, Johnny is not a loin moving south. The same is with God. If God authors/causes a river to flow north, God is not Himself a north moving river. This is logic at the most basic level, of the Law of identity.

Therefore, No one can accuse God of being a sinner even though God causes them to sin or authored them to sin; it would be a logical fallacy—like saying, “wet dryness,” or a “square circle.”

The fact that a person thinks God is accusable because He is the author of all things, exposes how little they think of God it; shows how small God is to them. It exposes that they are insane by mixing up categories, as if reality is their personal playdough. It exposes that they presuppose pantheism in their worldview thinking. They play lip service that God is totally sovereign, but they love God’s sovereignty no more than demons love God’s power.  

Some people have even told me that “if what you say is true, then Ultimately, there will be no human accountability; and thus, no judgment.”

This is like saying, because God directly controls all things it means God does not control the weather. It’s insane. Brick walls are not known for their intelligence.

It is because God is sovereign over man and man is not free from God sovereignly holding man accountable that man is accountable. Man, not having freedom relative to God and God having absolute and direct sovereign control over man is the very thing that make man accountable. Romans chapter 9 deals directly with this issue of God’s sovereign control and man’s accountability. Not indirectly but directly deals with this question. God controls man so much that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and then God punished Pharaoh for this. Paul gives a hypothetical, typical response, “how is man accountable to God, if God is the one controlling man?” Paul answers this question by saying “God is the Potter and man is the clay, and God molds the man How He wants. God takes from the same neutral lump (not already sinful or good, but neutral lump) and then molds one for righteousness and mercy and the other for sin and destruction.”[1] Paul’s answer for why man is accountable considering God’s sovereign control over man, is that God is sovereign, and man is not free from God controlling man. The one thing not part of answer is “freedom.” This is the bible’s answer, and your theology needs to include it.

Human accountability is based upon God’s holding something accountable. The fact that a human is not free from God holding them accountable is the very thing that makes them accountable. Freedom is not the presupposition of accountability, but the lack of freedom from being under a sovereign God is. Men are not free relative to God’s control over them, and this is what makes them accountable. Accountability presuppose a sovereign over you and not freedom.

Tradition teaches us that “the author is accountable,” but the scriptures says the opposite. The Potter molds the clay from the same neutral lump, and molds them how He wants. It is this sovereign freedom of the Potter and lack of freedom of the clay that makes the clay accountable.

Such comments expose a person’s view of God. This is not a word game. People imply they have the right to hold God accountable because He is the author of all things. Defining terms is the least of their problems. Their view of God is so man-cantered and pathetic and distorted that “they” would hold God accountable “because He is the author of your sin.” They are so stupid, that in the context of “God is so sovereign that He causes me to sin,” they think they can “hold God accountable for commuting sin.” But if God is so sovereign already, then you obviously have no justification to hold God accountable to anything. Not only is there the category errors pointed out earlier, but the opponent does not have enough intelligence to apply a critique to the statement; that is, their critique answers their own question.

Where does the Bible say that God being an author makes Him accountable? Accountable to whom? A man? To be accountable only works if there is a sovereign over you. Thus, the only way God “as author” could be “accountable” is if they are an author over God! The blasphemy they uttered is so bad I feel polluted just repeating it. It is very telling that to critique my doctrine they had to put God under their feet and author Him accountable. This is what God will do to all those who rebel against Him.

[1] The last two quotes from Romans 9 was paraphrased by me.