14
Sep
2014
God Is In Control
A short one, since two people I was talking to today said they also (like me) had been dealing with such issues recently. Specifically, we get stressed out thinking we’re carrying the world on our shoulders, and then through prayer realize that we are not the ones running the show. Moreover, the Person who *is* in charge is good; there’s a happy ending when all of these plot threads come together.
Romans 8:28: “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”
Hi Bob,
Romans 8:28 is referring to those who love God and are called to His purpose. This passage says God will cause all things to work together for these specific people( after the fact). This passage does not say God controls the world or every person in it. Biblical perspective and wisdom allows us to turn tragedy and evil into a learning lesson.
To say God controls everything is paramount to saying predestined, no free will, no satan.
God is pure love, no evil. Everything bad in this world comes from evil spirits and the people that follow these evil spirits. God can have no part in the bad things of this world.
Satan controls this world. This is why James 4:4 says to love this world is adultery to God.
Here is some scripture that explains who really controls this world for the time being.
” . . . in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. (NASB) Eph. 2:2
I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me . . (NASB) John 14:30
. . . in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (NASB) 2 Cor. 4:4
We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. (NASB) 1 John 5:19
Now in Matthew 4:1-11 Satin tempts Jesus and even promises Jesus all the kingdoms of this world. Many commentators say Satin promised a falsehood, therefor satan could not grant Jesus the kingdoms because satan did not own the kingdoms. Well if Satan had nothing to offer, then the entire event was no temptation what so ever. The smart farts never stop to think about how their position just discredited their own position. Seminary school, ay yi-yi. Matt 4: 8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”
And 1 more.
John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
In conclusion: Satan is here roaming to and fro like a ravenous lion( see Job 1:7). All the bad things on this earth are direct result of worshipping satin and denying God. I understand this paradigm is 180 *common wisdom*. However satan is crafty and his main tactic is to flip everything on its head. So maybe your interpretation had already been flipped on its head by satan and I am just trying to flip it back right side up?
Job 1:7The LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Satan answered the LORD, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”
Gamble,
Yes, the Bible consistently portrays Satan as the “ruler of this world,” but one who can only operate to the extent allowed by God. The book of Job illustrates this “permission” in a very literal sense recounting the dialogue between Satan and God (see Job 1:12 for example). Acts 4 says that the people who killed Christ did so in accordance with what God “predestined to occur.” That doesn’t mean that these people didn’t act according to their desires, but that they could only do what God allowed.
For the Christian, there is great comfort in knowing that all circumstances in our life – even a direct attack from Satan himself – are allowed into our life by the sovereign God, who is our loving Father. Thus, as both James and Paul write – we can have joy in the midst of suffering.
Nah, there are bad people and we are left to pick up the pieces after they wrong us. It is really a shame. The only comfort is knowing we will go to Heaven. This world offers no comfort.
We also make bad decisions ourselves. We are fallen.
That’s fine if you want to believe that, but recognize there’s a great deal of scripture to support the bedrock Christian doctrine of the sovereignty of God, encompassing the specific implications that Bob and I mention.
So it is a mother may I situation? Satan goes to God and ask, God can I have this little girl raped? God can I have this family murdered? God can I take this parking place taken from this person?
Now you are implicating God in every evil action.
Reality is, Christians have failed to spread the good news and we deal with the results.
Predestination does not imply absenceof free will. P ease read WilWilliam Lane Craig on this.
Molina got right on theology and economics.
The Acts passage does imply that everything happens under God’s sovereign power. But that does not excludes human and demonic free action and accountability. That is the point I found Molinism.
And honestly the story of Job does show God allowing evil to happen under his sovereignty. That is just the case. Whether people freely rape or murder does not change that it is happening under God’s sovereignty. That is the message of Job.
We can talk Job, but I will cut to the chase. God mentions Behemoth and Leviathan as being the true cause of Jobs misery. Job is the one that accuses God of being amoral, God corrects Job . Job repents. God also condemns Jobs 3 friends. Job and his 3 friends are examples of what NOT to think. God tells them all they are ignorant, the truth is beyond human comprehension. Behemoth and Leviathan.
Seminary and *common wisdom* have Job all wrong/upside down. Reread Job with what I said in mind, you will see. Ephesians 6:12 we are victims of unseen powers and principality’s.Ephesians 6:12New International Version (NIV)
12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Gene Callahan has a little quiz over at his blog:
http://gene-callahan.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/property-ownership-is-based-on-violence.html
Whoever gets the answer right wins ten points.
Little slow this morning, coffee has not yet kicked in.
Please explain relevance of your comment.
FTR, here is the full quote, Gene gave a short version..
“All ownership derives from occupation and violence. When we consider the natural components of goods, apart from the labour components they contain, and when we follow the legal title back, we must necessarily arrive at a point where this title originated in the appropriation of goods accessible to all. Before that we may encounter a forcible expropriation from a predecessor whose ownership we can in its turn trace to earlier appropriation or robbery. That all rights derive from violence, all ownership from appropriation or robbery, we may freely admit to those who oppose ownership on considerations of natural law. But this offers not the slightest proof that the abolition of ownership is necessary, advisable, or morally justified. ” ~LVM
ten points.
I think LVM is saying, the resources were here, free to take, then somebody used force to gain ownership.
He is also saying, this past behavior is not necessarily a bad thing and does not justify abolishment of ownership.
Rothbard and homestead principle may say the resources were just sitting there unused and idle, free to take. Then somebody laid claim without using any violence what so ever. Now the next person to come along would say, “Hey I want some even though you already worked the land”, this second comer would be the person using the violence.
Still I don’t grasp relevance.
you don’t grasp the relevance to what?
The relevance to this blog post.
Gamble and Joe can read my mind.
oh.
not relevant to the blog post.
right.
Yes to this particular blog post. Are you on topic, if so, please explain.
there is no reason why my comment had to be on the topic of this particular post. I was informing you of a post at Callahan’s blog, and this was the latest post on this blog.
I wait till potpourri to spam off topic.
You know Phillippe, in a weird kinda of way, your comment may be on topic. We are talking about who has custody, ownership and property right to this world. God, Satan or some combination therefore.
I was just looking at things a little sideways and trying to tie in the Mises quote to this topic.
Any takers?
Not to hijack, but a question for the faithful.
There’s been foment over Richman’s latest column taking on Rothbard for MNR’s defense of copyright as a legitimate form of ownership. Here’s Rothbard defining his understanding of the legitimacy of copyright vs. the illegitimacy of patents: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aueccyYY0Ls
Rothbard seems to argue that copyrights are fundamentally contractual, namely that in the sale of your work, you reserve the exclusive right to replicate and resell as a matter of contract, whereas patents are the creation of state fiat. The problem with that interpretation, particularly in the digital age where works are so easily copied and disseminated, is that it interferes with the physical right of the tablet or computer owner to his own property.
It’s irrelevant to me as a PC user whether you’ve copyrighted a particular photo, as if I’ve found a copyrighted photo online, even it’s been leaked in violation of a previous contract, I never contractually agreed to be bound by your edict that you possess the sole right to replicate and use the photo. And thus your copyright claim becomes an unethical imposition on me and my legitimately owned property despite the fact that I never agreed to your “contractual rights” as to how I use my own property. Same with books reproduced in violation to copyright contracts in pre-web days; the originator of the illicit material may have violated his contract with the publisher or author, but no one else did and can’t be held to the initial contract.
Am I understanding Rothbard correctly, and am I actually going to side with Richman over MNR?
I, meanwhile, don’t think there’s anyone good running the show, and I don’t see why the ending will be happy.
In the big picture God is running the show but I don’t think He is micro managing.
He’s only macro-managing, just like Yellen.
But only 2%:)
I think that is a good way to see it Gamble.
Molinism would agree with you. Calvinism does go beyond the macro and that is why I reject it. Although I admire the system in some aspects.
I am more of an open-theist but then again, trying to have all the answers, complete knowledge, is the downfall.
Calvin was mean as are his followers.
I want to leave this thread peacefully by saying I don’t have all the answers. Much of God to me is a mystery and I am fine with this. I think we are suppose to approach God as little children.
I get concerned when my fellow brethren say God is in control of everything because in my mind, this somehow takes the individual off the hook. We no longer are responsible for our actions.
Keep reading your Bible and praying. Listen for the small quite voice, The Holy Spirit.