Here is a quote from Charles Hodge that shows the deep problems which result from denying God’s sovereign control over creation.

“Who would wish to see the reins of universal empire fall from the hands of infinite wisdom and love, to be seized by chance or fate? Who would not rather be governed by a Father than by a tornado? If God cannot effectually control the acts of free agents there can be no prophecy, no prayer, no thanksgiving, no promises, no security of salvation, no certainty whether in the end God or Satan is to be triumphant, whether heaven or hell is to be the consummation. Give us certainty—the secure conviction that a sparrow cannot fall, or a sinner move a finger, but as God permits and ordains. We must have either God or Satan to rule. And if God has a providence He must be able to render the free acts of his creatures certain; and therefore certainty must be consistent with liberty.” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, II:301-302)

Indeed, without a sovereign Father who exerts absolute control over His creation, there can be no prophecy, prayer, thanksgiving, promises, security of salvation or certainty that God will triumph over Satan in the end. These last two points naturally result from the Adventist belief in Ellen White’s Great Controversy theme, where God must be vindicated through man’s efforts to live without sin as Jesus did, in order to silence Satan’s claims that perfect law-keeping is impossible.

When we see the God of Scripture revealed for who He really is—perfectly sovereign, just, wrathful, merciful and loving—there is no “great controversy”. God is righteous, His ways are just, and He needs no vindication.

Greg

A hearty Amen to the above post!

When one submits to the evidence of scripture regarding these truths,then living the Christian life becomes much easier.

Stan

6"Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? Yet not one of them is forgotten before God.
VS
“a sparrow cannot fall, or a sinner move a finger, but as God permits and ordains”
?

One would almost think that Mr Hodge was drawing some rather strained conclustions when going from “not forgotten before God” to “as God permits and ordains”.
If man can do nothing that God does not not only permit but also ordain, what is prayer really about? Me saying words to God which God has first ordained that I would say to Him? God using my mouth to talk with Himself? Or thanksgiving, God ordains that I should praise Him? Though I immediately admit there is no comparision in character, yet it could be compared with Kim Jong-il ordaining that the Korean people should walk outside his palace giving praise to his fathers eternal precidency. In reality, the only person out of the hundred thousand present that we can be sure is acctually giving praise is the one who ordained it. Jong-il himself. And why “no promises”? Is that really the characteristics of the most powerfull, almighty being that exists that He could not give a promise unless He also supremely controlled everything that happened in the universe? If God must have a puppeters controll over you to be able to promise to bless you, that would rather be a sign of weakness. Almighty would be a much stronger concept if it contained a God who can fullfill His promises despite not all circumstances going according to His will.

västergötland - 03 February 2008 11:34 PM

6"Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? Yet not one of them is forgotten before God.
VS
“a sparrow cannot fall, or a sinner move a finger, but as God permits and ordains”
?

One would almost think that Mr Hodge was drawing some rather strained conclustions when going from “not forgotten before God” to “as God permits and ordains”.
If man can do nothing that God does not not only permit but also ordain, what is prayer really about? Me saying words to God which God has first ordained that I would say to Him? God using my mouth to talk with Himself? Or thanksgiving, God ordains that I should praise Him? Though I immediately admit there is no comparision in character, yet it could be compared with Kim Jong-il ordaining that the Korean people should walk outside his palace giving praise to his fathers eternal precidency. In reality, the only person out of the hundred thousand present that we can be sure is acctually giving praise is the one who ordained it. Jong-il himself. And why “no promises”? Is that really the characteristics of the most powerfull, almighty being that exists that He could not give a promise unless He also supremely controlled everything that happened in the universe? If God must have a puppeters controll over you to be able to promise to bless you, that would rather be a sign of weakness. Almighty would be a much stronger concept if it contained a God who can fullfill His promises despite not all circumstances going according to His will.

Rom 8:26-30 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; (27) and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.  (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.  (29) For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; (30) and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Just a quick note here.  The great controversy as I understand it (not talking about what ellen white says here) is mainly that there is a struggle going on between Christ and Satan, and Satan is out attempting to decieve the world.  In no way do I deny the sovereignty of God, he could end the battle right now, but is choosing to allow Satan to continue his deceptions to an extent.  Why, we do not know.  I have seen way too much to not realize that Satan is out there trying to lead humanity astray.  That is all I have ever understood the great controversy to be, not a struggle where God actually has a chance to lose, or God actually needs be proven as the sovereign God of the universe.

Part of the problem is that the great controversy theme would not exist with Ellen White’s endorsement, and it is difficult to retain any semblance of it without her. She and her followers said that Jesus could have fallen because of his human nature. No doubt God is allowing Satan to continue to work, but the point of the Adventist great controversy theme is that God’s redemptive work could have failed at some point, assuming Jesus followed his human nature and committed a sin.

The great contrast between Adventism and biblical Christianity is in acknowledging that God’s character has never been in question and that His sovereign plans cannot fail. Jesus was slain “from the foundation of the world” for our sins (Revelation 13:8). Also recall that when Job questioned God about the calamities in his life, God answered with a question “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?” (Job 38:4), as if to say, “Who are you—a finite man—to question the infinite God?”

There is simply no controversy about God’s providence and His ability to redeem fallen people, and it is a shame that such aberrant teachings are still tolerated and promoted in Adventism.

ChiaPet, maybe I am misunderstanding your point...please help me understand where you are coming from. What is the current great controversy?

Greg

What if I could point you to a book explaining the controversy theme written entierly separately of Ellens version?

Are you referring to Milton’s “Paradise Lost”? Both Walter Rea and D.M. Canright believe that Ellen White incorporated Milton’s themes into her own work.

Greg

No, I am thinking about a rather recent book. Neither White, Milton nor Paradise Lost can be found in the Author/Subject index or the bibliography. Would such a book matter to your oppinion that the controvercy/conflict theme lives or dies with Ellen’s endorsement?

Part of the problem is that the great controversy theme would not exist with Ellen White’s endorsement, and it is difficult to retain any semblance of it without her. She and her followers said that Jesus could have fallen because of his human nature. No doubt God is allowing Satan to continue to work, but the point of the Adventist great controversy theme is that God’s redemptive work could have failed at some point, assuming Jesus followed his human nature and committed a sin.

The great contrast between Adventism and biblical Christianity is in acknowledging that God’s character has never been in question and that His sovereign plans cannot fail. Jesus was slain “from the foundation of the world” for our sins (Revelation 13:8). Also recall that when Job questioned God about the calamities in his life, God answered with a question “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?” (Job 38:4), as if to say, “Who are you—a finite man—to question the infinite God?”

Even growing up in an ultra conservative Adventist church like I did, I never once questioned, or even had a sense that the sovereignty of God was at risk, or even entertained the though, rather I actually had a profound sense of it.  This should be especially telling in light of all the other misunderstandings I had growing up.  I really do not think Adventism as a whole rejects the sovereignty of God.  Where I am coming from is that Satan is fighting for the souls of humanity, I do not think that can be argued, we get imagery like that in the bible.  I really do not know what else we would call people being led astray to false worship, idolatry, witchcraft, and demon worship if not Satan fighting for the souls of humanity.  Unfortunately for him (or should I say fortunately for us) it is like he is trying to destroy a mountain with a toothpick, because of God’s sovereignty.  He just doesnt realize it.  I would say that having an awareness that satan is attempting to get as many people on earth to denounce God and follow him should make us rely even more, and be extremely aware and thankful for God’s absolute sovereignty over all his creation.

ChiaPet,

I think the issue here again is one of reformed view vs arminian free will view, such as we have in the adventist church. I suspect there is no room for the devil having any influence in the reformed definition of Gods sovereignity. After all, how could satan fight for the souls of humanity if it is God who decides who to call and who not to call anyhow?

I honestly think that one of things were getting at here, at least in relation to my view of this subject (not necessarily ellen whites view) is just another fundamental difference between Calvinism and Arminianism.  Does God, after acting first to overcome humanity’s total depravity, allow choice? (even though he could very easily overcome satan’s hold due to his absolute sovereignty.)

I think we were at least thinking partially the same things there at the same time! Im not really sure as to where I stand in regards to Arminian and reformed theology at this point, I have been influenced by elements of both.  But I also do not think that it should be required for one to hold to a certain one as a test of Christian fellowship, just as long as they hold to one of them. (I figure we will find out in heaven)

Soon you will start to see the difference being made on this forum between the gospel (ie the reformed theology) and, well, I suppose not the gospel (which is basically all other views on theology)…

västergötland, I would be interested to look at the book about the great controversy that you are recommending.

Also, the gospel is not limited to Reformed theology, but it is my conviction that the Protestant Reformers recaptured a much purer theology than their Roman predecessors. Ironically, much of what was recovered at the Reformation has subsequently been forgotten.

västergötland, I realize you don’t like some of the positions we’ve taken, particularly with respect to election, free will, God’s sovereignty in salvation, etc., but I hope you see that we are patient and not condemning of others who hold different views. I was once an Arminian too, just as I was once an Adventist. I still have many Adventist and Arminian friends who I believe are Christians, even though we don’t see eye to eye on everything.

Greg

ChiaPet,

Basically the Great Controversy theme runs against God’s sovereignty because it puts God under OBLIGATION to clear up his name, by setting up a game in which God must answer the accusation that he cannot be loving and just at the same time, that he cannot forgive the sinner and remain just, or he cannot punish the sinner and be loving. Either way, God looses his case, and the only way out is the cross, by which God proves that he is loving and just at the same time.

The real problem raised by this view is that it makes God’s grace something which is required, and is no longer a free gift. God remains just and loving even if he would save nobody. Grace is no longer grace if it is required, if God SHOULD clear his name in order to win the battle with Satan.

This is very troubling: cross is primarily the means of God’s justification before the universe, and it is no longer God’s free act, it’s a self-justifying act which wins the battle. In my interactions with my adventist friends I have notice the lack of deep appreciation for Jesus’ death for the cross. Even if it is not explicitly stated, the cross is taken for granted, due to the Great Controversy theme. The contrast between being a rebel and enemy of God who deserves nothing than eternal death and the great mercy of God is greatly reduced if God’s mercy is seen as God’s only way of resolving his conflict with Satan.

Gabriel