I. The idea of “Providence.”
A. The word itself:
1. Means: to see beforehand.
2. According to the article: “He rules and governs all creatures according to His holy will, so that nothing happens in this world without His appointment. “
B. The elements in Providence:
1. Preservation:
a. That God not only created but continues to uphold all things.
1) This applies to the vastness of the universe.
2) But equally to the atom and sub-atomic particles of matter.
b. Proof: Acts 17:28 “In Him we live and move and have our being.”
2. Government:
a. “Government” suggests design or purpose in Providence.
b. So God also directs all things:
1) Not simply upholding all things by the Word of His power.
2) But directing all things that these may serve His sovereign purpose.
3. Co-operation.
a. The word means: to work together.
b. The idea in this connection is that the moral acts of men and angels and devils are determined by God.
1) Negatively:
a) This does not make God the “Author” of sin.
b) Nor does it deny the responsibility of the moral, rational creature.
2) Positively:
a) We can not fully fathom the wonder of this work of God.
b) But we do confess that God so rules over all that:
1/ The creature is responsible before God for his every act.
2/ But God directs it that His own purpose may be served.
c) Proof: Prov. 16:1; 21:1; Acts 2:23.
II. The comfort in this doctrine:
A. Nothing befalls by chance or accident.
1. Neither a hair can fall from the head, nor a sparrow fall, without His will.
2. These statements emphasize the comprehensiveness of Providence.
a. If these apparently insignificant details are under His control,
b. Then we must maintain that all things are.
B. This truth affords unspeakable comfort for us with regard to our salvation.
1. Nothing can take us from the Father’s hand.
2. But: All things work together for good to them that love God.
III. Errors respecting this doctrine:
A. The error of Deism:
1. Deists emphasize (though in a wrong way) the “transcendence” of God.
a. They teach that God has nothing to do with creation; He is far above it.
b. That He created it, and “wound it up” to run down of itself.
2. Such a view must necessarily deny revelation as well as redemption.
B. The error of Pantheism.
1. This takes the opposite tack: emphasizing (though wrongly) the “immanence” of God.
a. Creation is itself God–and man is the revelation of God’s intelligence and will.
b. One can not identify God apart from or outside of creation.
2. This denies the Personality as well as the Divinity of God.
C. The error of the Epicureans:
1. These were Greek philosophers who emphasized that idea: eat, drink, be merry…
2. They regarded God as One who had nothing to do with his creation.
Worksheet
A. Supplementary reading:
1. Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 10.
2. Westminster Catechism, questions 18, 19, 20.
B. Proof-text (for providence respecting moral creatures) Acts 2:23 “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”
C. Questions for study and consideration:
1. Can you find any place in Scripture where the word providence is used?
2. What are “apparent contradictions?” What must one say of this view?
3. How are common grace and providence often identified? (So that the statement is made that what we believe concerning “providence”, the C.R. church teaches under “common grace.”)
4. Can we properly speak of “laws of nature?”
5. How are miracles to be explained?
6. Can we use the words: “luck”, “chance”, “accident”?
7. What must we say of “games of chance”, of “raffles”, etc.?
8. Can we speak of “Kind Providence”?
9. What is the comfort of the doctrine of providence to the Christian according to the Heidelberg Catechism?
10. How does the Westminster Catechism identify the three parts of providence?
11. What term does the W.C. use regarding the fall of angels? What do you think of this?
12. Any comment on answer 20 of the W.C.?