Daniel 4:34-35 and the Sovereignty of God

“But at the end of that period, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever; For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom endures from generation to generation. 

“All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’” (Daniel 4:34–35)

I want to get in the habit of more regularly blogging my thoughts and arguments.  The reason I haven't always done so is because of, a) lack of time or b) nothing super-profound to say.  Of course, my primary focus of this blog is to bring God glory through the proclamation of the truth, assist those who are searching, and to engage in intelligent, respectful dialogue.  In addition, i'd like to hold myself accountable for what I believe.  And sometimes the best way to do this is to be vulnerable to public correction; something that having a blog with open comments can certainly do.  Sometimes your critics can be your best friend in helping one to sharpen, refine, or completely abandon held beliefs.  

With that said, if anyone would like to see something addressed, please don't hesitate to EMAIL ME or leave a question in the comments.  

Daniel 4:34-35 is a text which has always provoked some thought with regards to the sovereignty of God.  Is God in control or is He not?  That is, do some things happen in this world that God possibly allowed but had no involvement with?  Sometimes, we think that when bad things happen, God had nothing to do with it.  Again, He might have permitted it to take place, but certainly didn't decree it.  Perhaps I can put it very plainly: God only decrees good things; but man and the natural world cause bad things.  

"All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing" is the utterance of praise from the pagan king, Nebuchadnezzar.  This doesn't mean that God has no concern for the earth and its inhabitants, for the next part of this verse states, "but He does according to His will in the host of heaven."  That is, all the inhabitants are accounted as nothing in that they cannot thwart God's will.  

This raises some interesting questions for consideration.  Is God's sovereign decree, as stated in Daniel 4:34-35, related only to some things that happen in this world or all things?  If its only related some things, then would this not suggest that God is not in full control of all that happens in this world?  If God merely allows some things to happen, what would be His purpose in doing so?  Why "allow" some things to happen while at the same time "decreeing" other things to happen?

Depending on where you stand, your answers to these questions could profoundly affect how you view the world that you live in as well as the one you worship and declare as Sovereign. 

Making sense of calamity by Calvin

Book I chapter 17.1

We must use modesty, not as it were compelling God to render an account, but so revering his hidden judgements as to account his will the best of all reasons. When the sky is overcast with dense clouds, and a violent tempest arises, the darkness which is presented to our eye, and the thunder which strikes our ears, and stupefies all our senses with terror, make us imagine that every thing is thrown into confusion, though in the firmament itself all continues quiet and serene. In the same way, when the tumultuous aspect of human affairs unfits us for judging, we should still hold, that God, in the pure light of his justice and wisdom, keeps all these commotions in due subordination, and conducts them to their proper end. And certainly in this matter many display monstrous infatuation, presuming to subject the works of God to their calculation, and discuss his secret counsels, as well as to pass a precipitate judgement on things unknown, and that with greater license than on the doings of mortal men. What can be more preposterous than to show modesty toward our equals, and choose rather to suspend our judgement than incur the blame of rashness, while we petulantly insult the hidden judgements of God, judgements which it becomes us to look up to and revere.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans. Henry Beveridge; Accordance electronic ed. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), n.p.

John Calvin on the workings of Satan

1.14.17. With regard to the strife and war which Satan is said to wage with God, it must be understood with this qualification, that Satan cannot possibly do anything against the will and consent of God. For we read in the history of Job, that Satan appears in the presence of God to receive his commands, and dares not proceed to execute any enterprise until he is authorised. In the same way, when Ahab was to be deceived, he undertook to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets; and on being commissioned by the Lord, proceeds to do so. For this reason, also, the spirit which tormented Saul is said to be an evil spirit from the Lord, because he was, as it were, the scourge by which the misdeeds of the wicked king were punished. In another place it is said that the plagues of Egypt were inflicted by God through the instrumentality of wicked angels. In conformity with these particular examples, Paul declares generally that unbelievers are blinded by God, though he had previously described it as the doing of Satan. It is evident, therefore, that Satan is under the power of God, and is so ruled by his authority, that he must yield obedience to it. Moreover, though we say that Satan resists God, and does works at variance with His works, we at the same time maintain that this contrariety and opposition depend on the permission of God. I now speak not of Satan’s will and endeavour, but only of the result. For the disposition of the devil being wicked, he has no inclination whatever to obey the divine will, but, on the contrary, is wholly bent on contumacy and rebellion. This much, therefore, he has of himself, and his own iniquity, that he eagerly, and of set purpose, opposes God, aiming at those things which he deems most contrary to the will of God. But as God holds him bound and fettered by the curb of his power, he executes those things only for which permission has been given him, and thus, however unwilling, obeys his Creator, being forced, whenever he is required, to do Him service.

-John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans. Henry Beveridge; Accordance electronic ed. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), n.p.

Michael Brown vs. Bart Ehrman: Debate on suffering and the Bible

When we hear the name "Bart Ehrman," those who are familiar with him know that he is a textual critic as well as a historian. I never thought of him as a theologian nor as a philosopher. But Bart Ehrman is certainly notorious for crossing those lines both in print and in debate. And this event was no exception. Recently, Ehrman released a book on suffering. This came to me as a surprise for one who's expertise was in the realm of textual criticism. But once we realize that Ehrman does, in fact, have a theological background (as well as experience in teaching on this very subject), we should not be so quick to dismiss Ehrman in going outside his field of expertise.

At any rate, in this debate, we get to have an inside look at what Bart Ehrman really feels about God. It was Bart Ehrman's position to articulate why he didn't believe the Bible presents an adequate answer to the "problem" of suffering. And to the opposite, it was Michael Brown's job to defend the Bible. With the exception of his recent encounters with James White on the subject of Calvinism, I knew very little about Dr. Brown other than his books on answering Jewish objections to Jesus. And though Michael Brown is more arminian than calvinistic, I thought he did a really good job in defending his position. However, like most who debate Ehrman, Brown was far from "mopping the floor" with him. And i'll explain why.

When we try to explain suffering, we can do so through two categories of "why's." There is the primary category, where we explain the big picture reality, and the secondary category, where we explain the immediate reality. Biblically, the big picture of why we have suffering is based on one simple reason: Adam sinned. And according to Genesis 3 and Romans 8, all of creation is affected by the curse. Though Brown certainly alluded to this here and there, I am baffled as to why this wasn't the central theme of Brown's thesis. Don't get me wrong though. I think Brown did a good job of answering Ehrman's arguments. But I still think that Genesis presents the best big picture response to any "suffering" objection that the skeptic can thrown our way.

For example, Ehrman argued that the Bible presents such contradictory "answers" to suffering, that we can't really know why there is suffering. For instance, in Amos and the other prophets, there is suffering because God is directly punishing people for their sins. But in books like Job, there is suffering because God is "teaching a lesson." Therefore, when we look at tragedies like the earthquake in Haiti, is God punishing them for their sins, or teaching them a lesson? According to Ehrman, we simply cannot know based on the Bible.

I think that Brown did a good job of answering these objections specifically, but didn't spend enough time on the big picture. Wouldn't it have been easier to say, "In the case of Job and the minor prophets, or any other reason the Bible presents for suffering, the bottom line is; anyone and everyone suffers because Adam sinned and brought a curse into this world." Problem solved. Ehrman can bring as many "contradictory" reasons that he wants for suffering in the Bible, but they all stem from the fall in Genesis 3.

Next, I thought Michael Brown could have spent a lot more time addressing Ehrman's epistemology. How does Ehrman know what he knows? Why does Ehrman believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, good and evil? And what is his basis for believing as such? Ehrman offered the usual line of reasoning, "Suffering is wrong because it causes people harm. And we define what is good and evil based on that." Brown should have hammered him hard on this point. The reason being, Ehrman's worldview is easily dismantled when it is shown for what it really is: matter in motion. Ehrman is an agnostic, but more specifically an atheist when he claims to "not believe in God." And if there is no God, then we are nothing more than globs of protoplasm wondering around in a universe that is nothing more than atoms banging around. In this worldview, how in the world can one define "suffering" or "evil?" Ehrman defends his view as if "suffering" is some sort of objective thing. But his worldview gives no basis in which one can objectively define good and evil. That is, some societies feel that is best to love one's neighbor. But others feel that it is best to eat one's neighbor. It is my conviction that Brown could have hit a home run if he would have elaborated more on this point.

Overall, this was a great debate. Both speakers are articulate and passionate. And though Brown is not Reformed, I believe that this topic could have been addressed and defended from either side by sticking to Genesis and moral epistemology. But because Brown didn't, most reformed folk will have disagreed with his approach. And perhaps this could be one complaint that I have with many reformed theologians: they would bring God's sovereignty into the picture when there isn't necessarily a reason for doing so. After all, in Genesis 3, the issue of God's sovereignty isn't even brought up. And this means that though there might be inconsistencies in either position, I feel that one could adequately defend the Bible on the problem of suffering without even going there.

You can listen to the entire debate HERE

(ht: Apologetics 315)

Theodicy...from a different angle

This was truly a telling contrast between God-centered thinking verses man-centered thinking on the question, "If God is good, why is there so much evil in the world?"



*disclaimer* After watching this video, you should no longer ask that question in the same way ever again. Just watch. You'll see.