God Ordains Whatsoever Comes to Pass, Including Your Suffering

God Ordains Whatsoever Comes to Pass, Including Your Suffering February 26, 2019

A while back, I wrote a post titled: God’s Will For Your Life Is That You Would Suffer. The heart of the piece dealt with three aspects of the Will of God and built a theology showing that indeed, God does will that we would suffer. These aforementioned aspects included God’s Decretive Will (His decreed or sovereign will), His Preceptive Will (His revealed will in the Scriptures), and God’s Permissive Will (His allowance of evil, and so forth). In the piece itself, I demonstrated that it is the case, but not necessarily how and why. Stemming from this post, a dear friend asked a good question: When God sovereignly ordains something against His moral will via His permissive will, why would I say, in effect, He desires this to happen? Why would He desire our suffering?

In essence, the logic didn’t quite make sense to see that God would actively cause something to come to pass that violates His revealed will. This is a similar question to the Arminian’s, save the large difference in taking it a step further to ask how such a thing is morally good. For our purposes, this touches heavily on His permissive will – so I want to take some time to explain this more clearly and also provide answers as to why God would desire something, like suffering at the hands of persecutors, yet simultaneously ordain the persecutor to rise against His people. I use suffering as an example because it was the topic of the previous post, as well as the context the question came forth from.

I believe one of the ways we tend to get lost in this is by framing things purely in terms of His “allowing” these things to happen. By virtue of the fact that He has a sovereign will that He exercises freely, He actively brings all things that come to pass. The idea behind this is that God, in exercising His right over all things to do with them as He pleases, does so in utter perfection. In that, God is not passive, but active. It is not enough to say God merely permits the evils of this world to happen (consider Job 1:8). We must be consistent in acknowledging that all things come from His hand – He ordains whatsoever comes to pass and in so doing, He desires it to happen (Pro. 16:33; Eph. 1:11).

Naturally, when you raise such a proposition, the problem of evil comes up (i.e. how can God actively ordain all things, such as for sin to come into the world, and yet be without fault?). Most plainly stated: when God handles anything, it is by virtue of His being, not evil or wicked. He is the fountainhead of all goodness, indeed, the very source of our understanding of good. What then flows from His character, being, and deeds, is utterly and wholly good. The inherit problem in this is not that I have said He is good, but that many cannot reconcile how all His deeds can be good, if it is said that such deeds are perceived as evil in the human mind. I believe the misconception of our Arminian friends in this is that God is inadvertently defined in terms of perceived goodness, rather than actual goodness being defined in terms of God.

God is good, therefore, goodness bears qualitative likeness to God’s own being and flows from his essence. The clearest place one sees this is in His creative genius in Genesis 1-2, and it is no small wonder why the very first words of the Bible set up this portrait for the Christian. Straight away, the Scriptures propose the existence of God, demonstrate His complete mastery over all things by virtue of the fact that He speaks them into existence, and then displays all of His works to be good. In each instance of Creation, God brings something into existence, shapes it for His purposes, and then calls it good. When He has completed His work, He steps back, delights in it, and declares it all to be very good.

The ultimate proposition of the Scriptures then is that whatever God does, it is good. This should be an uncontroversial statement for those who claim Christ. What we need to do then is turn the corner, and simply see that God does many things that don’t align with our initial perception. This does not then flip the former notion of God’s goodness on its head, but rather, reveals a deficiency in our own minds in comprehending His goodness in and through such things. Yet what I would propose here is that the deficiency is not only in the inadvertent defining of God in terms of perceived goodness. It is likewise a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of sin.

We tend to define sin in terms of a tangible thing. However, sin is not a substance, but rather a state of being that falls short of the standard of God. Therefore, nothing God does can be intrinsically sinful or short of that standard. Not one act from the hand of the Creator and Sustainer can be said to fall short of His own standard – He’s the very source of the standard! This is precisely why we see God bearing attributes, which in humanity, quickly lead one into all sorts of gross misconduct. The fundamental difference, again, is that God exercises these things in perfect fashion, in accordance with His will or desire.

For example, He can be jealous, angry, and vengeful without exercising those attributes as humanity would because He is not wounded or suffering loss, but instead, extending perfect and righteous judgment. He can take life without being guilty of bloodshed because He is the author of all life, and He has the right to take life. Likewise, the Lord can raise a people, such as the Babylonians, to bring the Israelites under His holy judgment, yet simultaneously judge the Babylonians for rising against people in violence (Hab. 1:5-11; 2:6-20). This is also precisely why we can see Joseph recognize the evil of his brothers, yet the goodness of God in bringing those events to pass (Gen. 45:4-8, 50:20). Behind every evil deed, there is the God who works and intends all things for His good, not in reaction to evil, but long before that evil thought was entertained in the minds of the wicked.

This is fundamentally at the heart of the “how” in my friend’s question posed in the beginning. The reason I bring these things to the forefront of this piece is to now demonstrate “why” He would do such a thing, and actually desire such things happen to us. To keep with the initial theme, we will ground this in terms of suffering and/or persecution. In this, we do not think that God is helpless, passive, or inattentive, but rather, we recognize He decrees such hardships and they are qualitatively good. Secondly, He desires that they happen to us for our benefit. Yet why would he desire this, of all things?

If one were to look to the first chapter of the epistle of James, they would find he encourages the church to consider their various trials all joy. This mindset of joy is not on the basis that these hardships are joyous in and of themselves, but for the work which is produced from them. In v. 3, James assumes a knowledge of the church; they know the result of these trials, yet he reminds them nonetheless. These trials, these things “testing our faith” develop perseverance, and perseverance presents us as whole in Christ. In essence, he is speaking toward the immediate results of having an assurance of our salvation, yet also, an eye toward that final salvation, to which suffering causes us to endure and receive the crown of life (see James 1:12). Trials produce in us this final assurance and genuine faith that causes us to persevere until the end.

In similar fashion, 1 Peter 1:6-9 speaks of the “proof” of our faith being revealed in the “testing” of it through trials:

“In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.”

This passage likewise ties suffering into our final salvation and glorification, yet with an interesting metaphor. The genuineness of our faith is worth more than gold, yet the testing by fire is like gold in that the fire removes the impurities and dross so that the more pure “metal” of our faith remains. Yet notice the key result: it is found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. This is just another way of saying that Christ has been worshipped in being revealed, or unveiled and seen for who He is, and made more fully known to us.

Equally as important is the notion that this testing of our faith produces an endurance and genuine faith that carries us to future salvation and glorification, in spite of not seeing Christ now face to face. So Peter speaks to this unveiling that happens where we see Christ, but then reminds us that we have not yet seen Him face to face. In spite of that fact, trials somehow mysteriously produce these things within us because Christ is being unveiled at the same moment. Suffering reveals Christ to us, produces a genuineness of faith, and causes us to endure to gain our final inheritance and finally see Him face to face.

The proposition from Scripture is that we will suffer if we are servants of Christ and desire the things befitting conversion (2 Tim. 3:12; John 15:20). Undoubtedly, the genuine Christian will have tribulation (John 16:33). We know that those in Thessalonica were destined to suffer, even being warned previously of its coming (1 Thess. 3:2-4). Likewise, those in Philippi endured persecution (Phil. 1:27-30). Notice Paul does not shy away from indicating where the source of their suffering comes from. However, also notice that he indicated the purpose was to demonstrate the destruction of their oppressors, and the surety of their own salvation (Phil. 1:28). It is the same purpose found in Acts 14:22, where Paul and Barnabas are found saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the Kingdom of God” (emphasis mine).

In reality, these are the reasons we suffer, and why I would say God in fact desires we suffer. Furthermore, God ordains, or appoints genuine believers to suffering, with the explicit purpose of bringing us to final glorification. It tests our faith, removes the impurities thereof, and produces perseverance in us, so that we might behold Him face to face and enter the Kingdom of God. Naturally then, it must be restated that those who do not endure cannot obtain the crown of life. Suffering then not only waves a banner for us to see Christ more clearly and behold Him in faith, it separates the sheep from the goats (Matt. 13:20-21).

It is in this perfect form of weakness that God brings His church through to the end. It is not through might, power, and comfort one enters the Kingdom of Heaven, but weakness. Just as one’s initial salvation is from the Lord, their final salvation and glorification is of the Lord. In this, we must recognize one of the means He has instituted to bring us all the way home is through suffering various trials. It is not in the trial itself we rejoice, as if God advocates a twisted form of schadenfreude, but the result of the trial: namely, we get to see our Creator face to face.

"Oh look. It's the man-hating feminist troll. What are you doing on Christian site?"

Christians, COVID-19, and the Dangerous Idol ..."
"I always say the best "commentary" on the Bible is the Bible. If we look ..."

Steven Furtick is the Most Dangerous ..."
"numerology is occult dont practice it"

Steven Furtick is the Most Dangerous ..."
"It might not be a paraphrase, like the "message" but it isnt "word for word". ..."

Steven Furtick is the Most Dangerous ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Salvatore Anthony Luiso

    I have no difficulties believing that God ordains suffering, including my suffering. He ordained the suffering of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ–therefore those of us who follow His Son, and are being transformed into the image of His Son, should be able to accept that He ordains our suffering, too. If the Son learned obedience through suffering, why shouldn’t we? “Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered” (Hebrews 5:8 (ESV)).

    With all due respect, I am not convinced by the harmonization of the Decretive Will, the Preceptive Will, and the Permissive Will of God. Did God decree that Adam and Eve obey Him, and also desire that they disobey Him? Did God ordain that Adam and Eve disobey Him? Is it good that they disobeyed Him, and their descendants continue to disobey Him?

    I wholeheartedly agree that when God created the world, it was “very good”. Has the world been “very good” since the Fall? If I understand this article correctly, the author believes that it is, because everything God wills is good, and God willed the Fall and its consequences no less than He did the Creation. Therefore, in God’s eyes, the world is still “very good”–indeed, perfect. This includes human beings who are in the state of Original Sin.

    Yet, if I am not mistaken, the Scriptures do not speak of the world, as it is at present, as being “very good” and perfect. They speak of it as being “in the power of the evil one” (I John 5:19 (ESV)). They speak of the time we live in as “the present evil age” (Galatians 1:4 (ESV)). Are we not taught to pray “Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven” because His will is not done in earth as it is in heaven? Furthermore, the heavens and the earth are perishable (Psalm 102:25-27; Isaiah 51:6).

    • Gilsongraybert

      Hi Salvatore,

      The idea here is not saying the world is perfect as it is or remains apart from the consequences of the fall (you’ve read enough of our material here to know I don’t hold that position). Rather, it is that God’s ultimate, secret will is good and His aim is to accomplish all of this for His good pleasure. In that, the fall of mankind is not qualitatively good in and of itself, but in the scope of redemptive history, something which is worked to God’s ultimate end (praise and glory), which He ordained to happen. His will/desire is good, and we are yet in the midst of the “drama” playing out where all things are made new and all of creation resounds in unadulterated worship of God forever. In essence, we must take the 10,000 foot view here and look at it as a whole, all of it being governed by God in His perfect, and yes, good, will, which He desired to carry out.

      • Then are you saying that you agree with those theologians who state that in the final end the German Holocaust, the 30 Years War, the Black Plague, etc. were all ordained by God for his glory and good pleasure?

        • JamesC

          Yes. That does not imply Divine *approval* of those evils. God ordained the Reformation, the reactions to it, and the sins that led to it. In no way does that mean that God favours sin and evil, or that God is the Author of evil.

          Those theologians are correct. God was in full control of all that the Nazis did, just as God was in full control when Protestants were burnt for heresy, or when Nero crucified Christians on false charges of starting the Fire of Rome in 64. Not a single sin or cruelty is outside God’s Power and purpose. The sinking of the Titanic, the English Civil War and the Sack of Rome in 390 BC and in 1527 AD, and all their causes and consequences, were all fully under God’s control. But God’s total control of all things, does not mean man is not free to repent of the evil he intends. Nero and the Nazis were free not to do the evil they did. Their wrong-doing was their choice; it was not necessitated, as though God or fate “made them do it”. They were responsible for what they did. And we are responsible for what we do. If there is any determinism, it is an instrument of God’s Providence, not a pretender to His Throne.

          One of the lessons of the Book of Revelation, and of the whole NT, is that God is in total control of all things, always. Second Isaiah is full of how God is in charge. This lesson is implied by God’s entering into a covenant, and by the calling of and promise to Abram.

          All parts of all events are within God’s control – not just their ends.
          All events, however untoward or evil, glorify God, for they witness to His all-ruling Providence, Wisdom, and Sovereign Power. Sub-atomic particles exist for God’s Glory no less really than angels do. The whole of creation, known to man and unknown, and regardless of what creatures may intend, is “the theatre of God’s Glory”. Even Hell is a witness to God’s Righteousness as Judge.

          “[W]herever you cast your eyes, there is no spot in the universe wherein you cannot discern at least some sparks of His glory.” (Institutes, 1.5.1)

          Calvin lived in a very cruel, violent, and unpredictable world – one recognisable as that in which we live. If he could see God’s Glory in such a world, why can’t we ?

          • Calvin was one of the evil doers. If in doubt read the scholarly biographies about all the horrific immoral and unjust actions he commited including burning people:-(

          • JamesC

            I am reasonably well aware of some of the actions you refer to – but those actions do not fundamentally affect the validity of his doctrines. All Christians are evildoers to some extent, but that does not mean that Christians are therefore incapable of studying theology fruitfully. So Calvin’s behaviour to the Libertines, to those accused of witchcraft, and (most famously) to Servetus, does not make his theology valueless by any means. Objections to it must be made to the ideas in it – not (or not mainly) to Calvin’s behaviour. Humanitarianism is a development later than the 16th century – severity to dissenters was normal and accepted, among Calvinists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, and Muslims. Men like Sebastian Castellio stand out precisely because their objecting on principle to coercion in matters of religion was exceptional. If Calvin was no better in this respect than his contemporaries, it is not clear that he was any worse. Given that in Western culture it is entirely normal and accepted, and widely defended, to kill unborn babies, I do not think Christians today are in any position to judge Calvin for his blindspots in such matters as the use of torture and the execution of witches. St John 7.24 seems appropriate.

            Protestants owe Calvin a very great debt; thanks in great part to his powers of analysis, systematisation, and arrangement, Luther’s protest was prevented from going the way of earlier mediaeval heresies, and became an international Gospel instead.

            And I’m not even a Calvinist. If I can appreciate his achievement as a controversialist, systematic theologian, commentator on the Bible, Churchman & man of prayer, Protestants ought to be very well able to appreciate the greatness of their debt to him.

          • Calvin’s ideas are even more evil than his murderous actions. He claims that God foredained humans to eternal damnation and that it was God’s will before creation for Adam and Eve to fall into sin!
            I agree with John Wesley who wrote that it would be better to be an atheist, etc. than to believe in such a “tyrant.”
            And Baptist theologian Roger Olson wrote that such a view of God makes him little different than Satan.

            I’ve read many of the most famous Reformed from John Owen to Jonathan Edwards to John Piper, etc. have dialogued with hundreds of Calvinist….and find their horrid evil view of God even worse than when we first encountered a Calvinist leader at a youth meeting in 1963.

            Good bye.

          • mccmomof3

            I completely agree — right down to encountering a Calvinist leader when I was a young person (except it was about 1991 instead of 1963 😉 ).

          • John T. Mullen

            These are not the remarks of a reflective person. I don’t know you, but I can still tell that these remarks are not born of careful reflection on these topics. It’s really quite evident. Even if Calvinism isn’t correct, it deserves better than this. In fact, if one is willing to combine Theological Determinism (in effect, Calvinism) with Universalism (Christian Universalism, not the Unitarian variety) then most of the usual objectionable consequences are removed. However, there is still the worry that we don’t have adequate ownership of our actions. And some find Christian Universalism objectionable for other reasons. but in any case, you don’t get to help yourself to the last word (i.e., “Good bye”) on this topic. A little reflection would suit this discussion better.

          • I did plenty of reflection on this topic–55 years worth. I read many scholarly biographies of the Reformers including at least 4 on Calvin, ones on Luther, Arminius, Augustine, etc. discussed this issue with famous Calvinists, taught basic Calvinism to students (that was difficult playing the devil’s advocate, but I did it with the selections, The Day of Doom by Michael Wigglesworth, Jonathan Edwards’ Sinners…”)

            Furthermore, I spent those 55 years dialogging for hours with many Calvinist leaders, listening to their claims. I talked with superlapsarians (one the head of our city’s Christian bookstore), infralapsarians, etc. and read way too many tomes by them.

            I wouldn’t go as far as John Wesley went, when he said he would rather be an atheist than believe in the god of Calvinism, a “tyrant,” (his words) but I will say that I spent many thousands of hours wrestling with the many complexities of Reformed thought by many of its most famous leaders.

            Of all evil philosophies, I came to the conclusion it is by far the worst. Furthermore, during many of those years I worked with at-risk teens and tried to deal with Calvinists’ claims that God ordained the abuse, etc. that they suffered and God foreordained most of them to eternal damnation. And in historical studies, I saw what horrific evils Reformed theology caused for hundreds of years and still causes today.

          • John T. Mullen

            I will accept at face value your account of your investigations. It still resulted in a grossly lopsided evaluation. There are indeed real problems with Calvinism, but there is no acknowledgement of the joy of assurance that also accompanies it, often in the writings of people you mentioned, and the God-honoring lives that were also lived by these people. The question is about how God governs the world. One would think it would be easy to make a mistake thinking about such a thing. And it is obviously not the worst of all evil philosophies.

      • Salvatore Anthony Luiso

        I’m still not convinced.

        I have no doubt that God can use evil for good, and that He can cause someone to do evil without doing evil Himself, e.g. the pharaoh whose heart He hardened. I do not believe that He caused the Fall.

        I think you may like this quotation of Sir Walter Raleigh, which is printed on page 111 of the anthology Words Old and New: or, Gems from the Christian Authorship of All Ages, by Horatius Bonar:

        There is not the smallest accident, which may seem unto man as falling out by chance, and of no consequence, but that the same is caused by God, to effect something else by; yea, and oftentimes to effect things of the greatest worldly importance, either presently, or in many years after, when the occasions are either not considered or forgotten.

  • Brad Hill

    I would challenge the outright Deterministic Theological viewpoint of the Author on this one…It all sounds so Spiritual and beautifully mystical to maintain a Mosaic Theodicy…but in the end it is scripturally untenable. There are at least 39 places in Scripture where God explicitly changes His Mind based on the choices made by His creation….over 200 where clearly He implicitly changes His mind. There are more places where God Himself states that His will was NOT done….even though it is clear that His ultimate desire was that it would be, than can be enumerated here. God can certainly ordain suffering, use suffering that He did not intend, or a multitude of other contingencies that are possible….but the categorical implications this article makes undermine the nature and character of God in dangerous ways and leads to a form of “Spiritual Stockholm” syndrome that is anything but spiritually or emotional healthy.

    • Excellent response, very well said.

    • Kathy Dunn

      Well said. In total agreement.

  • Jeannie

    As a person who has been lied to and/or had life changing information withheld from me for 19 years, in one location, I disagree because of everything I have read in God’s Word. It’s time the church stops listening to parrotted information from the world’s counselors who don’t know Christ but have studied religion and know how to use it to manipulate believers. I divorced out of verbal and psychological abuse. Abuse was not God’s will. Much suffering is due to God’ people not stepping up and speaking up. Time to stop blaming God for what’s going on in this country.

  • Dave Carter

    The arguments are not logically competant and the scriptures used, lacking context, cannot support the thesis. Check out Gen 18 for a good example (by no means exhaustive) of God’s intention in creation, humankind’s place within that plan nd God’s attitude to evil.

  • Dennis

    God does NOT Ordain Whatsoever Comes to Pass. For an alternative view, read this: https://www.academia.edu/37705818/Does_Everything_Happen_for_a_Reason

  • Richard Treptow

    Is Satan not responsible for anything? Or does God “desire” Satan’s activities?

    • Kathy Dunn

      Satan is responsible for evil, not YHWH. I can no longer believe this blueprint worldview. Here is an article from an alternative point of view if you are interested: https://reknew.org/2014/06/what-is-the-warfare-worldview-2/

      • Richard Treptow

        Thanks, Kathy. Good article, I assume by Greg Boyd. I especially liked seeing the Six Theses.

      • Richard Treptow

        The Warfare Worldview would also do away with foreknowledge, would it not?

        • Kathy Dunn

          To a degree, as I understand Greg Boyd (and to answer the below message in response to this article I posted, yes, it is by Greg) the future is somewhat open to the degree that he gave humans and angels free will, and would be experienced by Him as somewhat unknown (open theism – ReKnew.org – Greg has wonderful articles about this there). But God in his wisdom (Omniscience) knows every possible choice a free agent could make, thus is prepared as He responds and guides all creation toward that day when this age will come to an end and our Eternal life in the new heaven and earth will begin. If you haven’t read any of Greg’s books, God at War and Satan and the Problem of Evil really helped me with this subject. His newest book, Crucifixion of the Warrior God and Cross Vision I have but have not read yet and they also deal with the Warfare Worldview.

  • Kathy Dunn

    I can no longer agree with this view. The problem of evil has a whole lot more to do with Satan than “God ordaining evil and suffering.” Satan is a real foe. For alternative understanding of the problem of evil, see Greg Boyd at ReKnew.org. Here is one article from this blog: https://reknew.org/2014/06/what-is-the-warfare-worldview-2/

  • Micho Lambwe


  • Richard Treptow

    If “the ultimate proposition of the Scriptures is that whatever God does is good, ” then the extermination of 5-6 million jews in WW2, including children, was “good.” We just erroneously perceive it as evil. On the other hand, our erroneous perception is also good. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. “Good” has lost all its meaning. If God is good and we cannot interpret good in human terms, we don’t even know the character of God. Determinists somehow deny that Satan is responsible for anything.

  • Dennis

    If you want another viewpoint that makes more sense than this article, please read this: https://www.academia.edu/37705818/Does_Everything_Happen_for_a_Reason