HOME

Sovereignty and Suffering

I glanced across the large audience under the tent. Usual crowd . . . a mixture of Ecuadorian faces, from toddler to elderly. A few teens hid shyly in the back shadows, fearing the opinions of their peers. Many had heard a rumor that the "gringos" were showing films over at the tent and that was the best show in town.

This typical South American crowd had one thing in common. None had ever heard a clear presentation of the gospel and most of them never would again. Whatever I preached in the next few moments had to be simple and clear. I started with: "GOD IS A GOOD GOD!"

As I proclaimed this, I knew that those saved that night would face trials in the coming months. We would need to help them through the lengthy process of learning who God is and what He intends by the term "good." I also knew there are no shortcuts.

Do I regret using the simplistic slogan, "God is good"? Not a bit. I may start the next campaign with the same approach.

When people begin to mature in Christ, they soon realize that issues are not as simple as previously thought. Eventually the convert suffers a financial setback, an illness in the family, or other difficulty. The suspicion enters that perhaps God has something wholly different in mind than first imagined. The convert learns from the Bible that God is the Almighty. Why then did He not do something about this problem? Friends tell him the Devil caused it. Does this mean that God has no control over the Devil? Little comfort in that!

Soon the local faith-brigade comes along and dutifully informs him that it is his own fault because of a lack of faith. So it all depends on him? But "self" does not seem up to it these days. Guilt feelings come as he wonders if he is starting to blame God.

In short, he eventually encounters the age-old dilemma: The Sovereignty of God and the suffering righteous.

Is it possible to lay the responsibility at God's doorstep while continuing to love and trust him?

The only problem with the slogan, "God is a good God" resides in a mistaken definition of the word "good." Left without explanation, it suggests a standard of goodness outside God that He Himself follows. This is nonsense. He has no rules tacked up on the throne room wall to consult. If any standard existed independently of God then it would be greater than He. The will of God alone is the ultimate standard of goodness.

In Genesis Chapter One, God planted a tree in Eden and called it "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." God forbade man to eat of it, and for excellent reasons. Man's finite nature restricts his ability to define correctly good and evil. God alone has that prerogative. We repeat Adam's sin when we presume otherwise.

Before we address the issue of the highest good, we must decide if God is in absolute control. If He is not, then it hardly matters what He esteems as the highest good because He cannot enforce it anyway.

The options are clear: Either he is sovereign or he is not.

There was a time in church history, not too far back in which anyone who even questioned the Sovereignty of God was considered heretical. Yet just today I read the first chapter of a book by an evangelist who categorically denies that God is in control of this world. He claims that God's hands are tied unless someone prays. Such statements are blasphemous. The Bible says:

Daniel 4:35 " . . . He does according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His Hand or say to Him, "What have You done?"

Psalm 115:3 "But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases."

Psalm 135:6 "Whatever he pleases He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deep places."

Phil. 3:21 " . . . according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself."

Hebrews 1:3 " . . . upholding all things by the word of His power."

Isaiah 46:10 "My counsel shall stand and I will do all My pleasure."

What about the "freewill" of man? Is God also in control of that? I always heard that God respects the limitations of man's will. Questions like these naturally arise at this point. We must address them frankly because this is the crux of the whole issue of the suffering saint. Is not it interesting that people are quick to attribute to man what they deny to God? Does God have a free will? If so, whose free will dominates . . . His or ours? If we say "His," then can we be sure that ours is totally free?

Let's check some Bible examples:

NEBUCHADNEZZAR

This pagan king of Babylon made three serious mistakes. First, he made a god to suit himself. (Daniel 3) How typically human!

Man wants a god he can manipulate. Non-threatening. Easy to live with.

Today people are more enlightened. Instead of using gold they simply invent gods of their own imaginations.

Secondly, he used every means at his command to get others to worship his sham god. (It's a good thing Nebuchadnezzar had no radio or TV at his disposal. He might have succeeded.)

Thirdly, he committed the most serious error. He attributed the works of the Almighty to his god. (Daniel 4:30)

The True God called him a madman.

What did God do about it? He reached inside Nebuchadnezzar, and yanked his mind out of his head. . .reason, freewill, and all. It left him a raving beast for the next seven years.

Did God require Nebuchadnezzar's permission to do that? Did He need anyone's prayers to accomplish it?

After the seven years, when God was ready, He restored Nebuchadnezzar's mind.

What did Nebuchadnezzar understand about his experience when he came to his senses?

". . .and He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth: AND NONE CAN STAY HIS HAND. . ."

THE ANTICHRIST AND THE TEN NATIONS

Who is going to be in control of the thought processes of the Antichrist, the False Prophet, the Great Whore and the Ten Nations during the end times? The Devil?

"For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill His will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the Beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." Revelation 17:17

THE ENEMIES OF JESUS

Acts 2:23, "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge. . ." (NIV).

DID THE APOSTLES BELIEVE IN GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY
OVER MAN'S ACTIONS AND WILL?

Acts 4:24,27 & 28 . . ."Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed. They did what Your power and will had decided beforehand should happen." (NIV)

DID GOD CONTROL THE EGYPTIANS?

Exodus 14:17 "And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow thee; and I will get Me honor upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host. . ."


WOULD ANY BE SAVED IF GOD WERE RESTRICTED TO OUR THOUGHTS AND WILLS?

Romans 8:7 "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

John 6:65 ". . .no man can come unto Me, except it were given unto him of My Father."

John 6:37 "All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me."

Multitudes of Christians today worship a false god unwittingly. They praise a parody of the true God. . .the result of modern culture via the vain imaginations of honored and confused teachers. This is the "sham god" of modern Christianity.

WHAT IS THIS "SHAM GOD" LIKE?

His highest ambition is to exalt man's wonderful self-potential.

He waits humbly and patiently for the kind permission of man's free will to do anything.

He depends on man's own self-generated faith.

He is frustrated in His plans by his rebellious creatures, seemingly taken by surprise and helpless to stop them.

His hands are tied unless someone prays.

He is subjugated to a set of spiritual laws superior to Himself.

He rewards men with money in direct proportion to their faith.

He is not really in control of this world.

He is not Sovereign.

However accommodating such a god may be to human reason, He has one fatal flaw: HE DOES NOT EXIST.

WHAT IS THE TRUE GOD LIKE?

The God of the Bible is Sovereign. He is in absolute control of all things. "He does as He wills in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. . ." whether it seems agreeable to human reason or not.

Some say, "This makes man a puppet!" I reply, "Anything else makes God a puppet!"

Others add, "This seems unfair!" Paul's admonition to these is:

"One of you will say to me: Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will? But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" Romans 9:19-20 (NIV)

Does the Bible doctrine of the Sovereignty of God resolve the problem of the suffering saint? Doesn't this lay the blame on God's doorstep, adding to the dilemma?

In the short run, yes. In the end, no.

The tendency to deny God's Sovereignty is a defensive reaction by well-meaning Christians. We want to get God off the hook somehow.

Consider this possibility: Perhaps God does not want to be let off the hook. Perhaps He put Himself there deliberately. If so, we must be careful not to let Him off because He might resent it.

A problem with getting God off the hook, is that the hook does not stay empty. We find ourselves on it instead!

Many Christians consider this solution quite acceptable. They suggest that God has relinquished part of His authority to us, and that the answer to our problems rests with ourselves. His hands are effectively tied unless we act. So, this wraps up the package neatly and we can all go home.

However, a couple of knots on this package are loose, and I'd rather not go home just yet:

If God has relinquished any part of His Sovereignty to man, we must decide exactly which percentage. Then we'll know to what degree we can worship Him. After all, we must not want to give Him all the glory if He does only part of the work. That would be unfair to us, wouldn't it? If He has given 25% of His sovereignty to man, then let us worship God 75% and man 25%. Or we can alter II Corinthians 1:25 to read "for by 75% faith in God ye stand: yea, the other 25% belongeth to thee." Instead of calling Him the Almighty, let's call Him the Almost Mighty. Forgive this sarcasm. But if we must talk about dilemmas, this is a royal one.

The above error occurs by failing to distinguish the difference between sharing authority and relinquishing it. It's like a joint checking account. If you add someone else's name to the account it does not remove your own authority to write checks. Nor are you limited to the approval of the other parties. If you want, you can set it up so that the others need your approval, but you do not need theirs. Perfectly legal and logical.

What a horrendous error to imagine that God has ever relinquished any of His authority just because He allows some of His creatures to share it!

Biblical teaching about our authority in Christ is no grounds for self-dependence. God controls the degree of our personal involvement in each case. If you drop the pen, do not worry. He can still write the check Himself.

WHO HAS THE KEY?

If the degree of responsibility is individual and personal, then it is irrational to judge a brother as faithless for being poor or sick. Example: A car requires gasoline to run. The car is not running. Therefore, it is out of gas. Sounds good so far. But wait! A car can stop for many reasons. Perhaps the engine has failed. Or maybe the owner does not intend to use it right then.

So it is with our problems. Lack of faith could be a factor. On the other hand, maybe one's faith "tank" is full. In such cases, the key is in the hand of our Owner and He will turn it at the time and place of His choosing.

God's Sovereignty is no excuse for a poverty doctrine nor passive acceptance of illness. Few today believe the archaic notion that suffering is intrinsically good for the soul, or that we must submit passively to every affliction.The opposite extreme, that health and wealth are inherently good, is also wrong. Both views are opposing sides of the same false coin. Many Christians imagine themselves full of fuel because they are whizzing down the highway. Some are merely coasting downhill toward a crash.

"GOOD". . .BY WHOSE DEFINITION?

At the beginning of this article, I suggested that our perception of "good" might be distorted. Most people assume that man's welfare is God's highest priority. They go on to define "welfare" as creature-comforts like health, wealth and security.

This is a deceptive assumption.

Consider: God created man knowing he would fall. Acts 15:18 "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." He foreknew that the vast majority of humans would perish forever. Yet He created man anyway. Why?

Romans 9:21 suggests: "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" (NIV)

God's highest priority is to reveal His nature. The entire redemption story, both in salvation and condemnation, provides the background on which God displays His attributes. Man's welfare is subordinate to this.

"Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God": Romans 11:22 (NIV)

"His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to His eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord." Ephesians 3:10,11 (NIV)

C.S. Lewis brought out the striking thought that Shakespeare was wrong when he said, "All the world's a stage and we the actors." As we look closer at the theater we discover that the play is not about us, but about God. He is the One on stage, and we are merely the backdrops."

Grace could not exist without a sinner. Like a flower growing out of compost, the repulsive element produces the beauty.

WHAT ABOUT THE WELFARE OF HIS CHILDREN?

Does not God have their concern in top priority? Yes. He loves and cares for us and has planned our highest good from before the foundation of the world. He is committed to seeing us attain His best for us, whether we like it or not.

Recently I was struck by the following comment in a book: "The ultimate goal of sanctification is nothing." After scratching my head, I had to agree. Sanctification is the goal, and God loves us too much to back down from it. Holiness has no further purpose than itself.

It follows, then, that God defines the term "good" in consequence of whatever will produce holiness in us. All other scriptural principles are subservient to this.

Considering this, it becomes less surprising that Christians experience trials and sufferings. If anything cause for doubt, it should be that believers do not suffer more than they do.

What then are the options when we confront a serious trial? We have three, and only one is right.

OPTION ONE

Accuse God of injustice for leaving us in a helpless state.

During testing times, we may have the feeling of being abandoned by God. If this feeling were absent, it would cease to be a valid test. This is a feeling only, not a reality.

Knowing that trials are inevitable is a potent element for going through them successfully.
I Peter 4:1. He warned,

"Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you. . ." I Peter 4:1.

Blaming God gives only a temporary and artificial feeling of relief . . . like trying to put out a fire by throwing sticks at it.

OPTION TWO

Submit passively to the affliction as God's will since He is Sovereign and could have prevented it.

This reaction is almost as dangerous as the previous one. Exploiting religions use such reasoning to keep the oppressed in subjection.

In Judges 3:2 we read that God left enemies in the land knowing that they would attack Israel. Why did He do such an apparently mean thing? Because He wanted them to learn how to fight.

Suppose the Jews had assumed that God was teaching them humility. They might have just laid down in the streets and submissively let the chariots run them over. They would have learned humility all right, but that was not the lesson intended. Sometimes God allows the Devil to attack the believer so he can learn to fight.

I recall the story of a young Bible school student who suffered severe trials for several weeks. Nothing was going right. Everybody was hassling him. Constant depression. Then one night while alone, he suddenly lost his temper and shouted, "Satan! In the Name of Jesus, get off my back!" Peace enveloped him. The feeling of pressure was gone. The message seemed clear to his mind, as though God were saying, "Well, son, I see you finally decided to stand up and fight!"

Passivity toward every trial and affliction is both unscriptural and dangerous.

OPTION THREE

Submit to God but resist the affliction, although you know that God, in His Sovereignty, allowed it.

Never in the history of humanity has a thorn existed as sharp as Paul's thorn in the side of some charismatics. Some have devised elaborate explanations to prove that his affliction was not a physical illness . . . as though that were the issue.

Such scriptural gymnastics rob us of the main points of the passage. If God felt it mattered, He would have made it indisputably clear. Instead, here are Paul's instructive reactions to this thorn:

First, he never questioned the source of the affliction. He simply fought the problem.

Second, how did he fight? By humbly asking God to remove it. He did not command God, nor try to manipulate Him. Nor did he try to manipulate it out of existence with some special knowledge of spiritual principles, or authoritative 'confessions'. He simply prayed.

We should never try to manipulate God. Every time I attempt it, I get my hands slapped.

Notice that Paul prayed more than once about his problem. Some teach that it is unbelief to pray twice for the same thing. Paul evidently did not think so.

Paul's approach to the problem shows that the ultimate outcome depends on his Sovereign Lord. Doubtless, if God had told Paul that the answer to his thorn problem was to stand on his head and whistle "All hail the king," he would have done it. He was open to whatever the Lord told him to do, even if it was to do nothing.

Yet "nothing" is exactly what the Lord said to do. "My grace is sufficient for thee." Yet even then, Paul did not lose his holy aggression. He reached out and took hold of the affliction and wrung out every drop of grace he could. Then he picked up that grace and slapped the tar out of the Devil with it. Most likely when Paul was through, the Devil was thinking it would have been better to have left that preacher alone!

Someone asked me how to tell the difference between a satanic attack and a divine test. Does it matter? Since God is Sovereign, it is always both anyway. God allows Satan to attack us because He wants us to defeat him by grace. Were it not for the Devil, the Church would be lazy, and Christians would learn little.

It might distress us that God and Satan can agree on anything, but it is so. For two parties to test a third, they must agree on the conditions of the test. The Book of Job illustrates this:

God declared Job's sincerity, while Satan denied it. This resulted in a test of Job's integrity, with Satan being the immediate and active cause and God the ultimate and passive cause.

The notion that Job caused the problem by his fear is refuted by Job 2:3

" . . . although thou movedst Me (God) against him, to destroy him without cause." (No cause existed from Job's side of the fence). The only thing that Job ever feared was God. (Job 1:1,8)

God affirmed two things: that Job did not cause the problem, and that God Himself takes full responsibility for it.

We see then that both Satan and God used the same events but with opposite intent. The difference then between a Satanic attack and a Divine testing is not in the means but in the opposing purposes. Satan wants to prove the worst about us, and God is out to prove the best about His grace in us. So it's a waste of time trying to figure out which is which. Just submit to God and fight the affliction. "In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly." Job 1:22

The love that both Paul and Job had for God was of a rare and beautiful kind. It was different from mere "natural affection," which is to love those who do good things for us. As long as the relationship is profitable, we want to maintain it. This is natural affection. When it ceases to be useful, we drop it. Job's wife had this kind of love for God. Under pressure, it failed. She wanted Job to curse God and die.

Natural affection is normal. The difference between Agape love and natural affection shows up the minute the relationship ceases to be beneficial. The opposing reactions of Job versus his wife's, glaringly exposes this difference.

Sometimes a trial reveals the quality of our love. We love the Lord because He does good things for us. In His Kingdom, this alone won't pass. He wants us to love Him for Himself.

This sheds light on ordinary trials. What about genuine tragedies? The loss of a loved one? A crippling accident? These can hardly come under the category of "trials".

A tragic accident occurred during our missions conference in Ecuador, in 1981. A pickup truck carrying about a dozen young people overturned due to an error in judgment by the driver. She was going about 60 miles an hour at the time. It was a miracle that no one was killed. But an eight year old boy was permanently crippled in his right leg. The driver, a missionary lady, was in anguish, filled with guilt and confusion. A few days after the accident, she asked me the inevitable question, "Why did God allow it? If God is in control of all things, why did not He let me be the one injured instead of the child?"

I knew the question was coming and wanted to be prepared. So, partly out of my own frustration, I responded with another question, "Even if God were to give an answer, would it relieve this child's pain, or yours? No answer could ever erase the tragedy. Either God is God or He is not. Sometimes that is the only question that He allows us to face." To my amazement, this brought tremendous comfort to the young lady.

Christians with a firm grasp on God's Sovereignty go through their trials and tragedies much easier than those who doubt it. This truth has been the bulwark of saints throughout the ages, and as we enter the end-times, we must cling to it tenaciously.

I am no expert in suffering. I admire sweet folks who accept difficulties with quiet repose. Are they that way by grace, or is it the result of a natural disposition? Frankly, my personalality leans toward temper tantrums.

To my chagrin, I discovered early that God remains unmoved by my protests. He just continues the operation anyway, as though it were none of my business. Apparently, we can add Tenacity to the list of His attributes. He seems determined to bless us with qualities we didn't know were part of the bargain when we accepted Christ.

I could have done better in the past. I hope to do better in the future. It would be simple if we could find a way to remove from suffering this one minor detail: IT HURTS! Apart from that, suffering would be quite tolerable.

Acknowledging God's Sovereignty in our trials neither relieves the pain nor answers all the questions. Our problems become endurable when we understand that they have meaning and purpose.

I'm painfully aware, (excuse the pun), that the views I've shared hardly cover the ground any more than the slogan, "God is a good God." I would be a fool to claim they did.

God's promise to mature us is more important than our comfort. So the same "hook" on which God appears to be in a dilemma, turns out to be our anchor.

Many who read this article also liked our book, Unlocking Grace.

End of Document