"Does the sovereignty of God extend to creating (or allowing) an existence specifically for the "trial" of his children?"

Question/Comment: 

----- Original Message -----

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 5:37 PM

Subject: Hello

Hello sir,

I stumbled into your website this morning after deciding to see if there was anything interesting posted with Murray and the Shepherds Chapel.  I started long ago with Murray and another guy named Terry Parker (shortwave).  I am forty-nine years old and have been a student of "conspiratorial history" since the mid 80's.  I appreciate the time and energy you have put into maintaining your board and presenting your scriptural positions for the benefit of other seekers.

I appreciate Murray for helping me build a foundation for Biblical understanding.  I never thought (however) that he was showing his hand completely.  I took what I could handle from SC and  continued the study with the late William Cooper (shortwave-The Hour of the Time--Mystery Babylon).  Cooper claimed to be Christian but had what I thought was a limited understanding of Scripture.  Cooper did (evidently) have a pretty good handle on exposing the inner workings of the "brotherhood" (Masonic occult orders--it probably got him murdered).   It always bothered me that Murray would not address any of the issues brought to light by Cooper.  The Bible teachings by SC are very good and provide a platform for people to learn (no doubt).  I always have felt however that there was more to the story and I would have to pursue further research on my own.  I did.

I really enjoyed stumbling into "The Exclusiveness of Israel" by the late Arnold Kennedy (New Zealand).  He was a Christian with some hard questions about mainstream teachings.  His work details the hard questions and analysis.  The bottom line is a simple one.  Is the plan in the Bible actually a specifically directed plan at the "seed of Israel" only(?)  Paul's analysis in Romans 9-11 gives the argument some standing.   The other statements in Romans indicating that many are possibly stage props is also very interesting.  I do not have the answers but would appreciate your thoughts/insights on this direction of interpretation.  Does the sovereignty of God extend to creating (or allowing) an existence specifically for the "trial" of his children(?)  Is everyone subject to the Holy Spirit?  Where did the covenant specifically get transferred to everyone else on the earth(?)  I spend most of my time these days attempting to get the context of scripture nailed down.  I enjoy well written white papers and analysis.  I will spend the rest of my life attempting to correctly perceive and understand the recorded Biblical detail that many have died for.  I am not fooled by the roman circus existence that modern technology provides as a convenient distraction.   

Thank you in advance for your reply. 

Name Withheld
Location Withheld
Number Withheld

My Response:

----- Original Message -----

From: Paul Stringini

To: Name Withheld

Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 6:24 PM

Subject: Re: Hello

Hello,

 

Thanks for writing such a thoughtful letter.

 

First of all, for the record, I'm an enemy of Arnold Murray, that is the plainest way I can put it. But since your question really has nothing to do with Murray I'll be satisfied in merely stating my perspective.  I don't think he is a good teacher.

 

Does the sovereignty of God extend to creating (or allowing) an existence specifically for the "trial" of his children(?) 

 

Absolutely, yes.  God is either sovereign or not.  The real question is if God can still be considered "good" if he is also sovereign over a world in which he has planted evil.  When I start talking about this subject a common response is, "you make God sound like a monster."  So I think people instinctively reject the idea of the sovereignty of God because they place a high value on fair play and human freedom. I place a high value on having a God in whose power and will I can trust.

 

The passage I find most enlightening is the parable of the workers of the field in Matthew 20, where the lesson is very plain, that from the perspective of man, God is not fair, but from the perspective of God, He is more than fair, he is generous and good to creatures that do not deserve it. The workers that worked an hour did not deserve to get paid the same as those that worked all day, God is generous and good, but the others were jealous because they were not similarly blessed.  Mt20:15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

To God's enemies, God will always seem to be evil, not good, and not fair.  When God merely gives us what we deserve, humans are resentful.  Why?  Because we look at other people who are doing better and we say, "Why is he so good to them?"  And we become bitter and resentful.  We do not compare ourselves instead with those who were never created, potential conscious beings whom God has not given the gift of life.  The lesson Jesus taught is that if God seems to be less than good it is because we have evil eyes.  Also the statement "Is it now lawful"  is a plain declaration of sovereignty, we only need to really look at this parable and understand that it is a real key to understanding God.

 

So lets extend the thought to matters of existence,  and of eternal life and death.  God is not only good to those whom are his chosen, destined for eternal life.  He is also Good to the wicked whom he has created to be destroyed, but they do not see it as such.  He could have made a world in which no evil existed, and none of us would be here to complain about it, least of all those destined for destruction. God did not have to create evil men, they are tolerated temporarily for a greater purpose, and to them this is a great blessing, because a living dog is still better than a dead lion, and it is better to live and die than to never have existed at all. But once men live they are neither thankful nor in awe of their existence, but they grumble and complain, because they themselves are not treated like sovereign gods.

 

Proverbs 16:4 "The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."

 

God hates wickedness, yet he created evil, not merely "calamity" as some claim, God created the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, and the word evil there is the same as later used in Genesis to describe the men of Sodom as being very wicked.  The fact that God created a tree which when eaten imparts the knowledge of wicked things means that God is ultimately responsible for evil's existence.  And I find that exceedingly comforting, because the thought that evil was an intrusion or proceeded from some outside source would make it difficult for me to believe in God.

 

I would also reference the potter analogy.  Shall the work say of him that made it, "he made me not!"  They do say this, and it is ridiculous.  The question "why has thou made me thus"  also speaks to the matter above.  God made me, this was voluntary on his part, God did not have to make me at all, and I am what I am.  If a vessel of wrath, then to wrath I must go.  Toilets are for waste, not for eating from.  It is fitting and just for a vessel created for wrath to be destroyed.  Flower pots are made from clay, and also clay pigeons to shoot at with a shotgun.  One vessel made for honor, one for wrath.  It only seems unjust because we try to justify God from a human perspective.  But God does not have a human perspective.  He is justified in destroying that which was created for destruction because that was the purpose for which he created it.

 

It sounded like you already knew the pertinent scriptures so I don't know how much of this I ought to explain, I'm just rambling off my thoughts, so I'll just let you respond so I can get a cue as to where you would like me to comment.

 

Is everyone subject to the Holy Spirit? 

 

I need clarification on that.  I want to say yes and I want to say no.  What do you mean by subject?  Please clarify, this is not a doctrine I am familiar with.

 

Where did the covenant specifically get transferred to everyone else on the earth(?) 

 

I do not believe it ever was.  The common mistake people make is that when they read statements like the following:

 

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

 

We have been conditioned in our culture to read the term "all men"  as being universally applied to every single living human being.  But the Apostles used this term in a generic sense, all men, to them, meant all kinds of men, not every single human that exists.  This alternate interpretation (the modern interpretation)  never entered into their minds that the Apostles.  So they never even though of clarifying the point, but when all the passages are examined it is clear that foremost on the minds of the apostles was the notion that the covenant was extended to people from every nation, this was a major development, hence they often emphasized that "all men"  or "the world"  was the object of God's grace. The elect of the gentiles, as you surely know, are grafted in with Israel, so under the new covenant they become one with Israel.   The elect were not only going to be from Israel, but from every nation under heaven, but the grace of God is still only applied to the elect, howbeit from all nations and stations.   Contextually this is apparent in 1 Timothy 2 when Paul makes reference to praying for kings, why pray for kings?  Because God will have all men to be saved, even kings. 

 

Even passages such as John 3:16 are exclusive, because the love of God towards the world is only effectual in those that believe on his son.

 

Well, I hope that goes some way towards explaining my opinion, please feel free to ask follow up questions.

 

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

Emailer's First Reply: (I never received a reply to this email)