Divine Sovereignty in Lamentations 3:37-38 (Part 3)

Divine Sovereignty in Lamentations 3:37-38

Lamentations 3:37-38

Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?

In the previous post, we answered the question of how extensive the word “who” is. In this post we will address what it is to “speak” and it “come to pass.”

What is it to “speak,” and it “come to pass?”

An example would be Genesis 1 where we are told that God said, “Let there be…” which is followed immediately by, “and there was.” No one else can do this.

What does this sovereign “Speaking and it comes to pass” entail?

Firstly, it is to be able to foresee all possible events. Secondly, it is to be able to control all related factors. Thirdly, it is to both know and control the future. And lastly, it is to foreordain all events. God foreknows because He foreordained.

The pride James rebukes in 4:13-16 comes from the fact that men, when they see their plans regularly come to fruition, mistakenly believe that there is no higher power than their own plans and wills. It is an arrogant ignoring of God’s sovereign disposal of men and their lives. The universe is built on certain “Laws” which make it behave regularly. But this is because “God said.” It is a grave mistake to arrogate that same power to ourselves.

In short, to “speak” and it “come to pass” is nothing less than absolute sovereignty over all things. This is seen to be so from the next verse.

I. It is to be able to foresee all possible events.

Only God knows the end from the beginning. (Isaiah 46:10) Furthermore, only God lives in an eternal present – all times are present to Him. (Eph 1:4 – God was involved in ‘cause-and-effect’ action before He created time itself.) Moreover, His foreknowledge is dependant upon His decree, i.e., He knows the future because He decreed it all. (Acts 2:23 – predetermined counsel and foreknowledge – in that order.)

II. It is to be able to control all related factors.

Control of all factors is a natural part of creating. But God alone lives with no limitations on His sovereignty. It is a slight to God’s intelligence to insist that He cannot control men’s wills, i.e., reconcile Divine sovereignty and Human freedom. Many people have made shipwreck of the faith trying to reconcile two things which Scripture never portrays as in conflict with each other.

III. It is both to know and control the future.

It should go without saying that God knows all because He created all. God controls everything He created. He is accountable to no one for His disposing of His creatures. (Jeremiah 18:4-6; Daniel 4:35; Romans 9:21) I am a song writer. I have written many lyrics and melodies that I have consigned to the trash heap. Other I have recorded. The choice was mine because the creations were mine. As Creator God has such power in an infinitely higher degree.

IV. God has ordained, or decreed all events.

God’s foreknowledge is based upon His decree. He knows because He ordained. Here is where Arminian concepts of Divine foreknowledge crash upon the rocks. Here is where Open Theism makes shipwreck of the faith. God does not have to calculate the future based on what He foresees each creature will do. Rather, He foresees what each creature will do precisely because He has already ordained these things. Our task is never to try and decipher what may be God’s secret intent behind all the events which take place in the world around us. We merely need to concern ourselves with obeying what He has revealed as His will (Deut. 29:29).

Divine Sovereignty in Lamentations 3:37-38 (Part 2)

Divine Sovereignty in Lamentations 3:37-38

Lamentations 3:37-38

Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?

The question we wish to first ask is, “To whom do the words ‘who is this’ apply?”

We should note that the Hebrew wording is, “Who is this.” It is spoken in a belittling, slightly sarcastic, or even taunting way against mere ‘speakers’.

Who are the possible candidates?

A. Good Angels. Whenever angels speak in Scripture, they utter the words given them by the direct command of God. They do not expostulate or offer opinions; nor do they ever speak a word from their own minds. Hence, their words unfailingly come to pass. Therefore, the passage cannot be referring to them.

B. Evil Angels. Whenever demons (or Satan) speak in Scripture, they utter lies (John 8:44). Thus their words do NOT come to pass. Even Satan’s prediction regarding Job turned out wrong. If you remember the story of Job, you’ll recall that Satan predicted that Job would turn from God if he lost his temporal goods. Satan certainly can’t speak and have it come to pass. Any sensible gambling man would’ve put money on Job turning from God. Satan can neither predict the future nor affect the outcome of events. All things are ordained by God.

C. Men. The only men who have ever spoken with absolute certainty that their words would come to pass were the prophets and Apostles when they spoke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and, like the angels, spoke only the words commanded by God.

This is a warning against presumptuous speech.

What about oaths, promises, vows and covenants?

Oaths are expressly forbidden by Christ. (Mat. 5: 34, 36; 23:16, 18, 20-22). They involve a certainty, indeed, a sovereignty, over the future that no creature can possess. James 4:13-16 even forbids self-confident speaking regarding the future.

Promises are different in principle from oaths. They contain allowance (though unspoken, perhaps) for unforeseeable events thwarting the fulfillment.

Vows are a special, religious kind of self-imposed promise. They bind the individual into a fulfillment of certain acts within a time period specified by the maker of the vow. Once the vow is fulfilled, the individual is released. Numbers 6:2-21

Covenants are like vows, with the exception that they are two-way and not one-way. A covenant binds two parties into an agreement which is valid so long as both parties live. Breaking the covenant does not release one from its power. It is only terminated at the death of one party (Rom. 7:1-3).

Divine Sovereignty in Lamentations 3:37-38 (Part 1)

Divine Sovereignty in Lamentations 3:37-38

Lamentations 3:37-38

Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?

This passage says so much is such few words that it boggles the mind. Over the next several posts, I hope to treat several aspects of it. The plan of explanation that I intend is as follows:

1: To whom do the words ‘who is this’ apply?

2: What is it to “speak,” and it “come to pass?”

3: How does God’s primary agency affect the good deeds of men?

4: How does God’s primary agency affect the evil deeds of men?

5: Contentment with Divine Providence

Part 1 will seek to demonstrate that the “who” of this passage is none other than God Almighty. By way of application, we are warned against presumption regarding the future and our plans for it.

Part 2 deals with what the passage means when it says “speaks” and it “comes to pass.” The meaning of these words can be none other than absolute Divine sovereignty.

Part 3 seeks to address the thorny issue of how God’s sovereignty over all things affects men’s good deeds, for this is no less thorny than the question of how God’s absolute sovereignty relates to men’s evil deeds. Scripture teaches both that God is the Prime Mover behind all our good and that our good deeds are genuinely rewardable.

Part 4 attempt to tackle the ever thornier question of how God’s sovereignty over all relates to the evil deeds men do. As with the previous post, Scripture teaches both that God is the Prime Mover behind all our deeds, but that we are morally responsible agents whose evil deeds are genuinely punishable. Several passages of Scripture are brought to bear on this difficult issue.

Part 5 brings the four previous posts to a close with a practical application. God is sovereign over all things and He has ordered all things with a view to His own glory. We should seek our ultimate satisfaction by submission to whatever role He has created for us to play in His order.

Part 6 will revisit the passage and treat contentment with God's sovereignty over all things.

I do not assume that this treatment will be comprehensive, but I am attempting to be Scriptural.

Holy Heresy (Part 3)

Unverifiable claims.

I have already mentioned some of the claims made by some of the leaders of the modern Charismatic Movement.  The burning question in regard to their claims is: “How can I verify them?”  I mean, how can any of us really know that these people are telling the truth?  It is not as if I could place a video camera on Mrs. Walters and tape her angelic visitors.  We all know that this is impossible.  These experiences are either lies, self-induced delusions or undisciplined imaginations run amuck, but whatever they are, they cannot be allowed to be sources of doctrine.  The Bible explicitly forbids it. (1) The Holy Spirit plainly forbids us to give heed even to angels if what they say runs counter to Scripture.  We don’t stone false prophets anymore, but their sin is no less serious.  These men (and women) have the gall to label doctrine “opinion” yet they pass off their unverifiable extra-biblical revelations as beyond questioning.  The second you question the biblicality of barking like a dog or laughing insanely they label you a “Pharisee” who cares more for tradition than for God.

Charismatics are notorious for saying things that are intended to sound fresh or insightful, while being completely ignorant of the downright heretical ramifications of what they say.  After the recording of their big hit worship album, Hillsong music directress, Darlene Zschech, did an interview with Josh Bonnett in which she said, “God has been moving on the hearts of His people, right around the world, and He’s causing just incredible things to happen, in the Spirit and in people’s lives.” (2) The phrase, “in the Spirit,” is blatantly heretical.  It reveals a belief that the Spirit is an influence rather than a Person.  The preposition “in” is used in regard to places; the Holy Spirit is not a place or a realm of experience.

The late John Wimber used to say, “God is bigger than His Word.”  This seems to be saying something true at first blush.  But a moment’s reflection is enough to show its true colors.  This statement was used by Wimber as a defense against those who questioned the heterodox teaching within the Vineyard.  The Vineyard teachers supposedly got fresh revelations from God, who is bigger than His word.  In other words, Scripture cannot be used as a standard by which to test any teaching.  Yet the Psalmist tells us that God has exalted His Word above His name. (3) 

Intimidation of those with opposing views

This is perhaps the greatest weapon of the Charismatic heresy.  They revel in mocking any and every opposing view.  And they do it with such panache - such vehemence and acerbity.  Benny Hinn has repeatedly claimed that God has shown him, by divine revelation that He is going to kill those who oppose Hinn’s ministry.  What are we supposed to say to such asininities?  Hinn is not the only one to resort to such ludicrous tactics.  Countless of these self-proclaimed “prophets” torture 1 Chronicles 16:22 (Touch not my anointed…) into an umbrella to shield themselves from all scrutiny.  Despite the fact that 1 Chronicles 16:22 has no possible application to their cause, they do not extend the same leeway to their opponents.  They speak in the most brutal terms against any who do not subscribe to their “manifestations.”  Perhaps not many have gone as far as Hinn in claiming that God is going to kill his critics, but every single one of his ilk is guilty by association.

Another tactic is to discount the right of those outside their circles to judge their orthodoxy.  One of the arch-heretics of the Third Wave, Roberts Liardon says, “Spectators do not have the qualifications to comment on participators.” (4) This line of reasoning is patently false.  It is begging the question to say that I cannot judge the orthodoxy of their doctrine or practice because I haven’t experienced these things.  Do I have to commit murder or adultery in order to know that they are wrong?  Should I have to experience Buddha worship to analyze its falsity?  If I asked Benny Hinn if he believed that homosexuality is sin, I would like to believe that he would answer in the affirmative.  What would he think if I asserted that he had no right to judge the validity of the gay lifestyle because he had never tried it?  This is pure question begging, but he would use the same line of reasoning against me if I called into question his bizarre practices.

I would affirm that meaningful dialogue with heretics is impossible and that all dialogue in hopes of recovering them to the truth is almost pointless.  Matthew Henry wrote, “Real heretics have seldom been recovered to the true faith: not so much defect of judgment, as perverseness of the will, being in the case, through pride, or ambition, or self-willedness, or covetousness, or such like corruption, which therefore must be taken heed of: ‘Be humble, love the truth and practise it, and damning heresy will be escaped.’" (5) The marginal notes to the famous Puritan Geneva Bible of 1557 remark, “The ministers of the word must at once cast off heretics, that is, those who stubbornly and seditiously disquiet the Church, and will pay no attention to ecclesiastical admonitions.” (6)

Surely this must be the reason for the harshness of the Church’s polemic against heresies.  Irenaeus calls the heretical teaching such things as “imposture,” and “buffoonery.”  The followers of the false teaching he calls, “cracked-brained,” and “senseless.” (7) Tertullian says the heretic, Marcion, has a melon for a heart! (8) Terms such as, “abominable blindness and heresy,” (9) are commonplace in Luther’s works.  John the Baptist spoke with vehement fury against the hypocritical Pharisees who came to see him preach. (10)  And no one can hold a candle to Jesus’ diatribe in Matthew 23!  It is not that we do not care for men’s souls, but rather, “contending for the faith,” (11) outweighs all other considerations, including the feeling of those who cross the line theologically.

In conclusion, we ask, “What should we do?”  This is an incredibly difficult question.  If all the denominations and/or congregations that are not reeling in Rodney Howard-Browne’s drunken stupor and all those who have not been “slain” through Benny Hinn’s mesmerism called an assembly similar to the ancient Councils and excommunicated the entire Charismatic Movement, this would probably be of no effect.  Charismatics recognize no authority outside their own circles because they see themselves as superior to the Body of Christ.  Such a move would probably serve to strengthen them.  They would see themselves as martyrs being persecuted by the spiritually blind.  Perhaps persistent expository preaching and persistent polemic is the only tool we have left.  We can preach the word in truth and expose error when the opportunity presents itself.  May God help us!

1 Galatians 1:8, 9

2 Hillsong Magazine, cited in Praise Music’s Power Pack

3 Psalm 138:2

4 Cited in Walters’ Spirit of False Judgment

5 Matthew Henry on Titus 3:10

6 Geneva Bible Notes on Titus 3:10

7 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.13.1

8 Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.40

9 Martin Luther, Table Talk CLXXVIII

10 Matthew 3:7

11 Jude 3

Holy Heresy (Part 2)

Mystical Interpretations of Scripture

Charismatics are infamous for bizarre and far-fetched interpretations of Scripture.  They love to downplay theological education in favor of their being “led by the Spirit.”  Nonetheless, they make weird displays of knowledge for the purpose of making their audiences feel that they are not ignorant. 

I heard a message by Rich Wilkerson, brother of the famous (and equally weird) David Wilkerson.  His sermon on Acts 9:31-34 was entitled, “What To Do When You Lose Your Nerve.”  In his message he explained that after the church was in a time of peace, Peter went to Lydda, which Wilkerson said in the Greek meant “place of conflict.”  By this he meant to say that when there was peace, Peter went looking for a fight.   He then went on to say the Aeneas means noble and Aeneas’ disease, palsy, in the Greek meant “loss of nerves.” 

The only reason why he was able to get away with such stupidity is that Charismatics are naïve.  First of all, Lydda does not mean place of conflict.  Strong’s Concordance tells us that the word is of Hebrew origin and its exact meaning is uncertain.  In other words Lydda does not mean anything in the Greek, because it is Hebrew.  But not only does it not mean anything in Greek; it doesn’t mean anything, period!  Secondly, saying that Peter went to the Lydda looking for a fight because the name means place of conflict is like saying that to find angels we need to go to Los Angeles!  This is not interpretation; it is an undisciplined imagination run amuck!  No doubt, there are people in the world named Philip who do not like horses, despite the fact that Philip in the Greek means lover of horses.  Likewise, just because Aeneas means noble, this does not imply anything about his character.  And on top of it all, whether or not palsy means loss of nerves in the Greek this is not a reliable medical explanation.  I doubt very seriously that Mr. Wilkerson would be satisfied if his doctor still practiced medicine at the level of Hippocrates or Galen.  And never mind ancient medicine.  Neither would he like it if his doctor practiced blood-letting like the physicians of 200 years ago.  Besides, “losing one’s nerve” is an English idiom and everyone knows that idioms do not mean what the individual words mean literally.

Disregard for Scripture

With all their lip service to Scripture, they are no different that the Hegelian relativists outside the Church who deny the existence of objective truth.  Nearly 100 years ago, G.K. Chesterton wrote, “At any innocent tea-table we may easily hear a man say, ‘Life is not worth living.’  We regard it as we regard the statement that it is a fine day; nobody thinks that it can possibly have any serious effect on the man or on the world.  And yet if that utterance were really believed, the world would stand on its head.  Murderers would be given medals for saving men from life; firemen would be denounced for keeping men from death; poisons would be used as medicines; doctors would be called in when people were well; the Royal Humane Society would be rooted out like a horde of assassins.  Yet we never speculate as to whether the conversational pessimist will strengthen or disorganize society; for we are convinced that theories do not matter.” (1)  How are we supposed to reason with these people meaningfully regarding the truth of Scripture, when “the truth” is interpreted on the basis of their latest vision or visitation?

On that worldwide source for “Charismatic chaos,” TBN, I heard a young preacher interpret Habakkuk 2:2 (2) as saying that when God gives us a “vision,” (which word was left completely unexplained) we have to write it down so we can go back to it and read it and study it.  What is this but creating one’s own Scriptures?  Yet as he spoke, he was greeted with a continual stream of “Amen’s.”  This shows the level of ignorance that is prevalent through the entire Charismatic movement: A man can get on TV and blaspheme the Holy Scriptures and have the complete assent of the audience.

The famous Charismatic preacher, T.L. Osborne, came to the Philippines with his wife in the early 1990’s to conduct a seminar.  What he really did was promote his and his wife’s literature by the outrageous claim that using their material would “win the world.”  One got the impression that what he really wanted to say was that it was better if everyone used his material rather than their own – or even the Bible.  In the course of his lecture he commented on St. Paul’s prohibition against women preachers (3) by calling Paul a “male chauvinist.”  His exact words were, to the best of my memory, “How dare he tell me what my wife can or cannot do!”  John MacArthur was correct when he said that although the Liberal theologians and the neo-orthodox were unable to sell their theology to the Pentecostals, they succeeded in selling them their exegesis. (4)

1 G.K. Chesterton, Heretics, Introduction

2 And the Lord answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.

3 1 Timothy 2:12

4 John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos