RC Sproul says that if God is not in control of every molecule in the universe then He is not God. I say on the contrary–if God is in control of every molecule then He cannot possibly be God; because in this context there can be NO functional difference between God and that which is not God. God is thus God in an infinite vacuum of Himself, since there is no contextual frame of reference, no actual environment, by which to relevantly or efficaciously define God, since by RC’s definition God IS the environment, because He controls it to the point where its very existence–its very essence–is 100% a direct function of the existence of God, eliminating ANY existential distinction by definition. In other words, there is no place where God ends and the environment He “controls” begins. Thus, the doctrine of God’s sovereign control is fully predicated upon the idea that there is no actual divine control at all because there is no distinct essence of anything He is supposedly in control of. Which of course renders the entire doctrine patently absurd and RC an overrated psuedo-intellectual farceur whose impossible theology (if one can call it without snorting) should be met with outright rejection and derision should he not rationally defend his claims. Instead, however, his book sales soar and his ideas are monumentalized.

Sigh.  This is where we are in American Christianity today.  The appeal to “divine inspiration” and “Biblical Infallibity” is the ecclesiasty’s get-out-of-reason free card. Another nail in the coffin of humanity and with it, its God. Which is exactly how the devil wants it. But I’m sure RC’s willful cognitive dissonance won’t allow him to absorb the sum of the guilt he is due, and on sheets of white satin he certainly sleeps peacefully night after night.

Well, what difference does it make? Even if he’s wrong and his ideas are in fact bullets with butterfly wings, man’s Total Depravity ensures that any fallout humanity suffers is well deserved regardless. And see now how the metaphysical and epistemological implications of TULIP (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints), and all of its individual points, serve as quite the handy little plan B for each other. If God’s Sovereign Control (the metaphysical sum of all five points) fails RC in a certain context, or he finds himself in an argumentative bind, well there’s always Total Depravity to save him the moral culpability. And if Total Depravity fails there’s always Limited Atonement, and so on and so forth.

So, basically…yeah, RC can pretty much say whatever the fuck he wants, damning to a lifetime of hell and nonsense all who follow his teachings and yet can be confident that he NEVER must reap the just punishment of his deception. He has tenure as a respected theological “intellectual” because the doctrine he espouses justifies his every word, no matter what it is, by design. He can never be wrong because being right or wrong is ultimately (and fundamentally) a matter of reason, and reason, according to “sound doctrine” is completely  irrelevant to Truth. There is no evil for RC to fear as a consequence of his teaching because what he teaches precludes the very reality of evil entirely. And this, my lovely and handsome readers, is precisely why the ecclesiastical authority avoid both accountability and debate almost universally. In a world where wholesale agreement with a theological opinion is the only real “proof” of one’s righteousness and calling and thus salvation, both debate and accountability for the leaders of the church are an abject waste of time. If God hasn’t given you the “grace to perceive” (i.e. categorically agree with) what RC believes and teaches, then there is no point in discussing it with you. He will discuss it with you only after you totally accept it…which of course makes any “discussion” entirely beside the point, but never you mind that, you silly plebe. And if RC happens to teach something fundamentally at odds with reality and thus must necessarily result in harmful if not outright disastrous consequences, well…God’s grace will sustain you, of course.  Magically rescuing you from any real harm or suffering (at least, in heaven, where suffering is no longer necessary to “holiness”…and how exactly that can be possible when Reformed Protestant doctrine specifically demands that morality is inseparably tied to suffering and torment, well…they haven’t quite gotten to explaining that one yet). And if it doesn’t sustain you then God doesn’t love you anyway and you aren’t one of those who have been limitedly atoned for, so you are simply getting the just condemnation your willful–and natural (contradiction alert!)—profanity demands.

And as John Immel might say, Alakazaam, poof! Total absolution for those men specifically charged by God to care for and bring comfort and protection to His sheep even when what they teach and how they act does the complete opposite.

*

Like I said, God cannot exist in an infinite vacuum of Himself–which is the situation demanded by the doctrine of God’s absolute control.  Because in such a situation, the most that can be said about God is a rank contradiction in terms, namely , that God is the God of Himself.  Which of course makes being God irrelevant.  For God cannot be the God of Himself.  And if being God then is irrelevant then the very idea of God is impossible nonsense.  God ceases to have any efficacious meaning at all because there can be nothing He is God OF…that is, there is nothing to provide the rational and meaningful contextual reference for “God” because God, by his utter control of all things, becomes all things.  And in this context, ironically, all things becomes nothing.  For infinity (for example, absolute God) is an “everything” which precludes a reference, rendering this “everything” utterly beyond definition.  And that which cannot be defined cannot be said to serve any purpose, which means it cannot be said to be true, which means it cannot be said to exist; because existence itself demands a reference.  And again there is no reference if God is everything.

Behold again the guile of Satan’s persuasion upon the “leadership” of God’s church, that they would not only espouse and teach such rank blasphemy, but would demand that their laity accept it as well, under threat and penalty of blackmail, violence, slander, excommunication and, in the past (though there is no guarantee it will remain there), murder.

*

To further elaborate upon the points rendered in the previous sections of this article:

You cannot claim that God controls all things without making the explicit distinction between “God” and “things”.  Which means God’s control cannot extend beyond the boundaries of the things’ own distinct and fully autonomous existence.  Which means that God does NOT in fact control all things, because of the necessary limitation of God’s control implicit in the claim itself, which makes the abject distinction between “God” and “things” contradictorily moot and yet apparent by its very claim: namely that GOD controls all THINGS–the distinction is abject even in the very words of the doctrine which contradictorily denies this distinction in its metaphysics and application.  And this means that the declaration that “God controls all things” is on its face a rank logical fallacy, rendering it impossible, and totally incompatible with truth and reality.  Thus, God’s control must be not categorical, but specific–that is, what precisely is God controlling since it cannot possibly be ALL things?  The answer to this is, well, nothing.  God is controlling–in the deterministic sense, which is the intended sense of the doctrine (trust me; I was a Phari…I mean, Calvinist for 15 years)–nothing, because God, since He is the God OF things, neither needs to control them (because God’s being God is in no way dependent upon the actions of things in Creation–God is God no matter HOW creation acts; His own identity has NOTHING to do with what Creation does or does not do, or what man thinks of Him, which is the complete opposite of what RC Sproul teaches when he falsely and irrationally claims that if God is not in control of every molecule in the Universe then He is not God…this is a lie) nor is He able to control them and still claim that He is the God of them…for to control them is to render their very self-existence moot, which means that He cannot be the God of them because He cannot be God of that which does not really exist in the first place. God is defined as God precisely because man is able to define Him thus, due to man’s ability to rightly discern the distinction of God’s unique place and function in his environment, as juxtaposed to himself.  That means that in order for God to thus be God in any rational or efficacious sense, man must be able to freely relate not only to God but to ALL things distinct from himself in his (man’s) environment.  Which necessarily precludes God’s direct and deterministic control of those things.

You see, the ironic corollary to “God controls all things” is ” God controls nothing“, since the “things” in the claim that “God controls all things” when we understand the abject determinism implicit in the claim, can have no autonomous existence of their own.  But since “nothing” cannot exist, by definition, the claim that “God controls nothing” is equally false, because God cannot, again by definition, control that which does not exist in the first place.  That is, since these two claims are corollaries, the logical fallacy of one is the logical fallacy of the other. Both claims are equally meaningless.

You might then just say, “God controls Himself, which is all things”.  But…this is pantheism, first, and second, it is an obviously silly and impossible contradiction.  Because if all there is is God’s Self, then there can be no other things for that Self to be.  Further, God does not control Himself, he is Himself, which is significantly different.  You see, God’s existence is not a function of control, but of identity.  For existence is not conceptually the same thing as control, and it is irrational and intellectually dishonest to conflate the two.  Control of oneself = being oneself is a false equation because control needs an environmental context (a context outside of the reference…which is the Self of the consciously aware agent) in order to be rationally qualified as control.  In other words, that which is doing the controlling must be observably distinct from that which is controlled in order for either concept, “control” or “existence” (existence in this context = the nature of the thing controlling), to have any meaning.  To say that God controls Himself who in turn is doing the controlling is a contradiction.  And thus is an impossible conclusion.

When we talk of one “controlling” something it is always in juxtaposition to an environment–a constant, if you will–that he is not controlling.  But of course the possibility of such an environment is ruled out by the implicit metaphysic demanded by idea that “God controls all things”.  So, no matter how one chooses to examine it, the doctrine of God’s absolute sovereign control is patently false–a subordination of reason to madness–and should not and cannot be accepted and assumed by anyone claiming possession of or interest in the truth.

*

Finally, one further argument for you to consider: Why would an ALL powerful God need to control ALL things.  For the actions of things in Creation could by no means thwart the Will or Identity of an omnipotent God, no?  It would seem, would it not, contradictory to say that God is both ALL powerful and ALL sovereign, as if the two are one and the same–as if absolute control is a manifestation of his omnipotence.  But this does not rationally compute because in order to manifest omnipotence it must be over something; but in the context of absolute control there can be no distinctly-existing something for God exercise His omnipotence upon.  The things He would subject to His omnipotence are merely extensions of Himself, which naturally renders omnipotence a meaningless and irrelevant attribute.

Anyway…that’s a question which, if you held your breath waiting for an answer from the institutional church in America, I suspect you’d significantly hasten your funeral. The essential point to remember in this argument is that God is neither ALL powerful nor ALL controlling because “power” and “control” are relative terms.  Which  means they need a reference–a context, in order to be given meaning.  Thus, “power” and “control” are only true according to a reference by which they can be known as efficacious TO the reference, and that reference then is outside, existentially/metaphysically, both the power and control of God.  Which means that God’s “power” and “control” cannot be absolute.  Again, they are relative.  And the relativity of such concepts must be conceded if we are to maintain the idea that God actually possesses  His own Identity.  But those of you still struggling with the idea of denying God a supreme power that man’s mind is incapable of grasping, because that’s what you’ve been taught all your life by adults who still believe in the Boogey Man and invoke his name to compel and control their children and their laity, rest assure my friends, declaring that God does not in fact have absolute control or absolute power is the exact opposite of apostasy.  Rather it affirms the idea that God has an identity of His own apart from man, and thus can be known by man as God–actually, rationally, relevantly, efficaciously, morally, and truthfully.