A.H. Strong on God's plan or decree

Information about A.H. Strong (from the internet):

"Around the turn-of-the-century he was without doubt one of the most influential theologians in North America. His massive Systematic Theology: A Compendium (three volumes) was published in 1907 and has been in continuous publication (Judson Press) ever since. At 1056 pages of fine print (not including indexes!) it remains one of the most exhaustive and thorough Christian systems of theology ever published by an American. It was used as the main textbook in systematic theology courses in evangelical and Baptist seminaries for decades. It was for free church evangelicals and Baptists (overlapping categories) what Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology was for Reformed and Presbyterian seminaries."  

Augustus Hopkins Strong writes:

"The man who carries a vase of gold-fish does not prevent the fish from moving unrestrainedly within the vase. The double track of a railway enables a formidable approaching train to slip by without colliding with our own. Our globe takes us with it, as it rushes around the sun, yet we do our ordinary work without interruption. The two movements which at first sight seem inconsistent with each other are really parts of one whole. God's plan and man's effort are equally in harmony. Myers, Human Personality, 2:272, speaks of 'molecular motion amid molar calm.'" (A.H. Strong, Systematic Theology). 

Samuel Fisk commenting on Strong's risible "fishbowl" illustration:

"The man, the superior being in this case, keeps for the moment the goldfish bowl in a state of being moved. He may determine, unhindered, whether he will place the bowl on the table, on the window sill, or on the piano; near the light or in the shade; etc. If he is benevolent we may suppose that he will so act as to insure the best conditions for the goldfish. And his will is overruling. The fish themselves, however, with the well-defined limits of their bowl, have a measure of free choice. They may swim one way or another, or they may cease from all swimming and rest on the bottom of the bowl or float near the top of the water. As food is available, they may partake of little or much or none at all. The superior creature, man, does not force the food down their throats nor determine the exact amount which each individual fish will partake of. If the illustration be shifted to pets of a higher order, the man may urgently appeal to their cooperation for their own good and he may desire a degree of fellowship with them, but still, while superior, does not control their every movement. Yet their apparently free liberty is circumscribed by the very sphere of their existence. In all of this there may be a thought as to how man may have a measure of free choice but not thereby vitiate the sovereignty of God." (Samuel Fisk, Election and Predestination: Keys to a Clearer Understanding, pp. 57-58)

Of course it clearly vitiates the sovereignty of God.