Questions on the extent of God’s sovereignty.

[SavedByGrace3]

Can God choose to stop the rock from falling on your head?

Absolutely.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I did.

Thanks for that, I tend to only read posts directed at me.

 

[Hammster]

Absolutely.

That blows your theory then.

 

[Hammster]

Thanks for that, I tend to only read posts directed at me.

Same here, even in my own threads.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Same here, even in my own threads.

Just so you know, I'm not really hung up on any conclusion since human perception is limited on an infinite God. It is entirely possible that the English language was engineered so we'd get it wrong regardless of how we look at it. The reverse is possible also.

God bless.

 

[Hammster]

Just so you know, I'm not really hung up on any conclusion since human perception is limited on an infinite God. It is entirely possible that the English language was engineered so we'd get it wrong regardless of how we look at it. The reverse is possible also.

God bless.

Yeah. If only God would have given us something to go on.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yeah. If only God would have given us something to go on.

Yeah, this shining spotlight from the clouds, with cliche angel singing, and a book suddenly appearing that enigmatically translates itself to the language of anyone who reads it.

But alas.

 

[Hammster]

Yeah, this shining spotlight from the clouds, with cliche angel singing, and a book suddenly appearing that enigmatically translates itself to the language of anyone who reads it.

But alas.

This isn’t the forum for you.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

This isn’t the forum for you.

Wow, you winked, I joked. You responded like this.

Something like that may exist soon anyway with the way AI is being developed.

What I described was an AI bible with some hollywood effects.

Alas, tone is lost over the internet.

 

[Hammster]

Wow, you winked, I joked. You responded like this.

Something like that may exist soon anyway with the way AI is being developed.

What I described was an AI bible with some hollywood effects.

Alas, tone is lost over the internet.

Hard to tell when your first post was in line with open theism.

 

[Bob Crowley]

It depends on what you mean by sovereignty.

Sovereignty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sovereignty can generally be defined as supreme authority.[1] Sovereignty entails hierarchy within the state, as well as external autonomy for states.[2]

Obviously that definition had to do with politics rather than the idea of a sovereign God.

A sovereign state for example has the right to make its own laws, and to set penalties for breaking them. In our state of Queensland, the state parliament via Acts and Regulations has made certain rules about speeding on the roads. In theory all citizens are supposed to obey these rules.

But every single time I go for a drive there will be someone, and usually more than one, who will zoom past me well above the speed limit for that stretch of road. There's one bend not far from here where a loop leading onto a motorway has an alleged speed limit of 60kmh, but I would say well over half the motorists on that stretch of road exceed the speed limit.

They're using their free wills to ignore the rules of the sovereign state of Queensland. Of course some of them get caught occasionally and have to pay the penalty.

And yet somehow despite all these free wills cheerily igoring the road rules of the sovereign state of Queensland the traffic flow is predictable. If I use Google maps to plot my course to a certain destination, I can usually expect to arrive within a few minutes of the calculated time. What you might call the intent of the traffic laws of Queensland leads to a satisfactory if not perfect arrangement most of the time.

In a similar way God's sovereignty allows us to cheerfully ignore His moral rules. But there is one difference - in His case He will call us to account for every single breach on the day we die - every single one (including our speeding offences). We have a good chance of getting away with it in the case of human laws and technology - but not with Him.

 

[Hammster]

It depends on what you mean by sovereignty.

Sovereignty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Obviously that definition had to do with politics rather than the idea of a sovereign God.

A sovereign state for example has the right to make its own laws, and to set penalties for breaking them. In our state of Queensland, the state parliament via Acts and Regulations has made certain rules about speeding on the roads. In theory all citizens are supposed to obey these rules.

But every single time I go for a drive there will be someone, and usually more than one, who will zoom past me well above the speed limit for that stretch of road. There's one bend not far from here where a loop leading onto a motorway has an alleged speed limit of 60kmh, but I would say well over half the motorists on that stretch of road exceed the speed limit.

They're using their free wills to ignore the rules of the sovereign state of Queensland. Of course some of them get caught occasionally and have to pay the penalty.

And yet somehow despite all these free wills cheerily igoring the road rules of the sovereign state of Queensland the traffic flow is predictable. If I use Google maps to plot my course to a certain destination, I can usually expect to arrive within a few minutes of the calculated time. What you might call the intent of the traffic laws of Queensland leads to a satisfactory if not perfect arrangement most of the time.

In a similar way God's sovereignty allows us to cheerfully ignore His moral rules. But there is one difference - in His case He will call us to account for every single breach on the day we die - every single one (including our speeding offences). We have a good chance of getting away with it in the case of human laws and technology - but not with Him.

Care to answer at least one of the questions in the OP?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Just so you know, I'm not really hung up on any conclusion since human perception is limited on an infinite God. It is entirely possible that the English language was engineered so we'd get it wrong regardless of how we look at it. The reverse is possible also.

God bless.

FWIW, it's not because it is English, but because it is human language. Thus, the miracle of Scripture— God's absolute truth in human language.

The problem of its humanity is also compounded by our temporal viewpoint, and our proclivity towards humanocentrism and self-determinism. Daily, almost, I see more and more clearly how we can't seem to help but assume that our concepts and words are substantial, when actually we are about as wise as a puppy in a brain-surgery operating theatre.

 

[bling]

I think we can all agree that God is sovereign. This thread is meant to try to explore the extent of His sovereignty. So to start, I pose these questions.

Does God know every action man might freely choose?

Yes, from the beginning of time God would have thought out all possible actions of man.

If so, can He let man do that action if it suits His purpose?

Yes

Also, can He intervene to prevent man from performing that action?

Yes, God can prevent man from doing any “action”, but God has allowed mature adults to have some limited autonomy (free will) to decide to do stuff God might or might not permit them to “act” on. Even if they do not act out their desires, they can still be held guilty by their thoughts (God judges the hearts of people).

 

[bling]

To me, it's simple logic. If God is not first cause, he is not God, and is not omnipotent.

Since he is first cause, EVERYTHING THAT IS not God, descends via causation from him.

Sovereignty has (at least) two uses. One can be seen in the statement that one state is sovereign within its own lands, but not over another sovereign state. The other use means Absolute Sovereign, God, where no other 'sovereign' can rule this Sovereign, but this Sovereign rules ALL other things.

“First Cause” does not mean there was just one singular “first cause” like one big bang, that everything now is the result of, but God is constantly causing.

There is no cosmic law out there keeping God from providing mature adult humans with very limited ability (limited autonomous free will ability) to be the first cause of a thought they have in their mind, even if God prevents them from acting on that thought.

God is certainly power enough, knowledgeable enough and Loving enough, to provide mature adult humans with this ability, so they can become Loving like God out their own free will choice.

 

[Halbhh]

open theism.

Like many ideas, might have some similarity to what is real. But, the problem with all theories/doctrines as I see it, in general, is that they all oversimplify.

So, even if it turns out that in some limited way open theism is partly right (the best case for it) as it seems scripture would support, then it's still likely (due to its attempt to distill what is complex into something simple) to also be partly wrong -- partly right and partly wrong -- just like it's opposite (full total ridgid determinism where all future events are already set in stone, and nothing can ever change them) would also be likely partly right and partly wrong. (e.g. God certainly has chosen to predetermine at least a significant amount of key things; and then the question is what is left to be simply natural (which God also designed....)). In my view that's the likelihood for many doctrinal theories that are not simply a direct paraphrase of scripture only (but add additional ideas) -- they end up at best partly right and partly wrong.

It's the nature of human thinking about things likely to be far more complex than many would like to imagine, in my view. So, that does indeed mean that very many (not all) doctrines I see as slightly harmful oversimplifications, in that people often don't realize the doctrine isn't as rich as the scripture it was derived from, and can mistakenly think that since they have some set of doctrines, they can't gain all that much (large amount of additional things) from scripture, while the opposite is true.

In reality, if a person had 20 or 25 of the best, most sound and useful doctrines, they would still be very impoverished in what they could gain instead by simply reading through the bible, which would offer them multiples more things of value and use.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, from the beginning of time God would have thought out all possible actions of man.

Yes

Yes, God can prevent man from doing any “action”, but God has allowed mature adults to have some limited autonomy (free will) to decide to do stuff God might or might not permit them to “act” on. Even if they do not act out their desires, they can still be held guilty by their thoughts (God judges the hearts of people).

So He’s still in complete control then.

 

[Hammster]

Like many ideas, might have some similarity to what is real. But, the problem with all theories/doctrines as I see it, in general, is that they all oversimplify.

So, even if it turns out that in some limited way open theism is partly right (the best case for it) as it seems scripture would support, then it's still likely (due to its attempt to distill what is complex into something simple) to also be partly wrong -- partly right and partly wrong -- just like it's opposite (full total ridgid determinism where all future events are already set in stone, and nothing can ever change them) would also be likely partly right and partly wrong. (e.g. God certainly has chosen to predetermine at least a significant amount of key things; and then the question is what is left to be simply natural (which God also designed....)). In my view that's the likelihood for many doctrinal theories that are not simply a direct paraphrase of scripture only (but add additional ideas) -- they end up at best partly right and partly wrong.

It's the nature of human thinking about things likely to be far more complex than many would like to imagine, in my view. So, that does indeed mean that very many (not all) doctrines I see as slightly harmful oversimplifications, in that people often don't realize the doctrine isn't as rich as the scripture it was derived from, and can mistakenly think that since they have some set of doctrines, they can't gain all that much (large amount of additional things) from scripture, while the opposite is true.

In reality, if a person had 20 or 25 of the best, most sound and useful doctrines, they would still be very impoverished in what they could gain instead by simply reading through the bible, which would offer them multiples more things of value and use.

I’m not exactly sure how this affects this discussion.

 

[bling]

So He’s still in complete control then.

That is not what I said,
God is allowing mature adults to have their own autonomous free will thoughts, which they will be held accountable for having,, but God may not allow them to act out their personal desires.

 

[Halbhh]

I’m not exactly sure how this affects this discussion.

Well, I suggest one think all doctrinal ideas on this topic are likely incomplete and also usually partly right and partly wrong. That will radically change how one discusses those doctrines/ideas, in that then I don't see someone as being entirely wrong or entirely right when they state a doctrinal idea (but they can be entirely wrong about thinking their doctrine is exhaustively descriptive of all the aspects of the topic).