For me the question is almost insulting, of course I would praise God and give thanks. Would you?Godisincontrol said:
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
God Is In Control - What Meanest Thou?
- Thread starter victoryword
- Start date
- Status
Godisincontrol said:Your point being? I'm not sure where your coming from on this. I have family who are considered wealthy and have no faith in God whatsoever. They work hard and reap the rewards of their hard work!! As believers both you and I have the potential to be blessed richly through God. Why are you questioning God's will for His children?
It depends how you define salvation. For me salvation means many things including good health, peace and prosperity. It's not just about going to heaven when I die.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life. (Psalm 23:6) Godisincontrol, I can honestly say that the God that you and I believe in wants only the best for you and you shouldn't think anything less.
Upvote
0
I hear you!!! However should that stop me from believing God for healing? Should I allow my circumstances to dictate to me my future? Or should I walk in faith and believe God for a long healthy life?Godisincontrol said:
Upvote
0
Oh, don't get me wrong, it would be hard to praise Him after knowing what I have now, but I wouldn't think it was a lack of faith, would you? Please don't be insulted, I am just trying to understand how you think.Duggie said:
Upvote
0
I question whether or not God wants us rich, if some may become wordly rather than keeping their eyes on Him.... because of their love for money. Man should not be concerned with being rich right? In fact, Money is the root of all evil. So, I don't know that I belive His will for every believer is being wealthy.Duggie said:
Upvote
0
- Jun 6, 2002
- 20,688
- 4,429
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
This is just another instance of men trying to define and box up God into a neat little package. Men cannot find a specific passage that spells this out... so they make something up. If He had wanted to convey this idea and have us believe it just this way, He would have.victoryword said:
I think some Christians just use this catch phrase to try and escape having to believe the Word of God. It is just easier to throw out a generalized blanket statement rather than seach out and believe the Word. We are told to fight the good fight of faith and to hold fast to the profession of our faith. Sometimes saying "God is in control" is a just a cop out... and leads some to give up ground to the devil.
Upvote
0
I agree. Don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting that God wants all His children to be wealthy. The reason I say this is because not everyone is good with money and some may get rich and completely forget about God. Godisincontrol, I totally see where your coming from and happen to agree with you. All I'm saying is that God does and will meet our needs because He is faithful. Peace!!!Godisincontrol said:
Upvote
0
Could you please show me in context of scripture how the word salvation could mean good health and prosperity?Duggie said:
1th 5:9For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain SALVATION by our Lord Jesus Christ,2th 2:13But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to SALVATION through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:2ti 2:10Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the SALVATION which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.2ti 3:15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto SALVATION through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Upvote
0
Oh, I agree He loves us sooo much and wants the best for us....But, can the best mean less if He does it for a reason?Duggie said:Godisincontrol, I can honestly say that the God that you and I believe in wants only the best for you and you shouldn't think anything less.
I am sure God wanted the best for Job (in the bible) too, but it may not have looked like it to Job or you and I.... right?
Upvote
0
I agree to trust God in every area of your life!!!Duggie said:
My main concern is for someone who may believe they should have a long and healthy life, but suddenly becomes terminal from cancer.....would they still believe Jesus is their Savior and that He still loves them? It would break my heart to see them doubt our wonderful Father.
Upvote
0
Hmmm. Perhaps this is merely careless phrasing on your part, RevKidd, but this seems to me a quintessential example of the mental dichotomy between the material and the spiritual creation present in the minds of many Christians (including scholars), which has its origins not in biblical theology but in Greek philosophy.RevKidd said:
Forgive me for picking on you to make this point, but I think this type of thinking is quite poisonous, when allowed time to ferment. Taken in large doses, it produces Gnosticism. Its more subtle manifestations, however, are more widespread. Take for example the spiritualisation of such passages as Isaiah 53, which the Hebrew mind would tend to view holistically. You see, RevKid, God's will embraces the whole person, spirit, soul and body (1Th. 5:23), and intends not only for man's spiritual existence, but his physical, material existence to continue forever. God sees man as a "pyscho-somatic [conditional] unity", if I may borrow theological jargon. And "what God has joined together..."
Theophilus7
Upvote
0
Hi victoryword,
I thought I would throw in my "two bits worth".
(1) First, let's stick to the biblical definition of God's sovereignty. As I read it, God's sovereignty does not mean 'everything that happens is God's desire'. It means that God reigns in freedom and supremacy over His creation. He can choose to send calamity or prosperity. He could send an angel to stir up the waters of the Pacific Ocean and heal everybody swimming in it, if He wished.
(2) Second, let's decide whether or not God created beings with free wills. I suppose this all boils down to the Arminian versus the Calvinistic interpretation of God's sovereignty.
a) Free will implies the ability to go our own way, to make independent choices. When God said "I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live", I happen to believe He was offering us a real choice between the two. There is also the clear implication that our free choices affect other people too in ways that may be contrary to God's stated will. In other words, I feel I must reject the idea that God is secretly and irresistibly compelling some to be sinners and others to be saints (Calvinism). How else could Isaiah the prophet exclaim, "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way", if we could not, in fact, turn away from God's will and pursue a distinct will (our "own way") that was not merely some sort of quasi-pantheistic extension of God?
b) Opting for a more Arminian conception of God's sovereignty, I must conclude that if God did give men and angels free wills, then God has chosen to allow a certain degree of non-conformity to the divine intent. It seems to me that the real difficulty is in determining the extent of this independence. If, when we say "God is in control", we mean that 'everything that happens is God's will (desire)', I would reject that as a reflection of the Hindu doctrine of karma. Clearly, God does not desire men to sin, but they do. And sin has a disruptive effect on everything around us. On the other hand, the Bible clearly portrays God's active involvement in punishing sin. He sets the boundaries. Sodom and Gomorrah persist in resisting His will, and they are crushed. "God is in control". So we see genuine freedom within an enclosure. Moreover, it is an enclosure that is moving in a predetermined direction. Let me use the analogy of a cruiser taking a trip to Europe. The people onboard can freely move about within the confines of the vessel (and give each other grief, I suppose), but the vessel is going where the Captain directs it. Another analogy: God is a master chessplayer. His opponent is bound to lose, though he is free to make certain moves along the way. He will probably win some pieces too. Nevertheless, the outcome is certain. God will win every game. He even made the board, the pieces and created all the rules! These aren't perfect analogies, but perhaps they may be helpful to some?
I admit, I have a problem with the idea of God willing the sexual miscreant, Mr. A, to rape poor Miss B. My knowledge of God as a loving, heavenly Father is difficult to reconcile with the idea of a God who plans such vile assaults upon humanity. Surely He can use Miss B's experience in a positive manner, but did He purpose for it to happen....? I feel I must reply with an emphatic "no". On the other hand, I have no difficulty in believing that God may intend various kinds of hardships as part of His redemptive plan for our lives. God appoints Mr. C to bear the injustice of his female boss, Mrs D, with patience and forgiveness. He must learn to be meek. God will raise Him up, after He has suffered a little while. In other words, there are some kinds of suffering that are a part of God's will, intended to refine and perfect us, and others that must be considered outside of His plan, which are harmful and destructive, though He can turn them into something positive and good. Surely there is a difficult and vital question of discernment at stake here. And how to approach it objectively! Yes, I must give this some more thought...
So I think you are right, victoryword, to ask us to use our terms carefully. There is the biblical concept of people resisting God's will and doing things that God doesn't want them to do (unless we choose to gloss over these examples with a Calvinistic brush bristling with presuppositions). God isn't desirous that Miss B should be raped by Mr. A, or that Miss C should catch Dr. D's influenza. She will miss Church again. God's immediate will, in some respects, can be thwarted, though He often masterfully brings about His will in spite of or even through these events that are happening independently of divine determination. This upsets the Calvinist, because He does not conceive of a God who is Sovereign over Himself who has chosen to limit Himself. But it is in this act of self-limitation that God's sovereignty consequently undergirds man's free will in that a) God sovereignly chooses to give men a moral choice ("choose life or death") and b) God sovereignly chooses to reward evil with death and good with life ("blessing or cursing"). Man, by exercising his right to choose between the two and receiving the due consequences, is actually fulfilling God's sovereign will, not overruling it. If God wills for man to choose freely, and determines what will happen to Him when he makes the right or the wrong choice, then God is, overall, in control. What we really find difficult is explaining the effect of other people's sins upon other people (like rape), though through it all we must remind ourselves that such things are happening because mankind, as a whole, have turned their back on God, that this is a "fallen" world that does not reflect God's perfect will, and that it is a world populated by beings, both human and supernatural, continuing to resist God's rule.
I shall conclude with an explanation of God's sovereignty which I find quite helpful in summing up all the events that transpire in the heavens and on the earth:
God bless,
Theophilus7
I thought I would throw in my "two bits worth".
Very true.victoryword said:
This is a sensible question. A few things might help us to bring a little clarity to this difficult issue:
(1) First, let's stick to the biblical definition of God's sovereignty. As I read it, God's sovereignty does not mean 'everything that happens is God's desire'. It means that God reigns in freedom and supremacy over His creation. He can choose to send calamity or prosperity. He could send an angel to stir up the waters of the Pacific Ocean and heal everybody swimming in it, if He wished.
(2) Second, let's decide whether or not God created beings with free wills. I suppose this all boils down to the Arminian versus the Calvinistic interpretation of God's sovereignty.
a) Free will implies the ability to go our own way, to make independent choices. When God said "I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live", I happen to believe He was offering us a real choice between the two. There is also the clear implication that our free choices affect other people too in ways that may be contrary to God's stated will. In other words, I feel I must reject the idea that God is secretly and irresistibly compelling some to be sinners and others to be saints (Calvinism). How else could Isaiah the prophet exclaim, "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way", if we could not, in fact, turn away from God's will and pursue a distinct will (our "own way") that was not merely some sort of quasi-pantheistic extension of God?
b) Opting for a more Arminian conception of God's sovereignty, I must conclude that if God did give men and angels free wills, then God has chosen to allow a certain degree of non-conformity to the divine intent. It seems to me that the real difficulty is in determining the extent of this independence. If, when we say "God is in control", we mean that 'everything that happens is God's will (desire)', I would reject that as a reflection of the Hindu doctrine of karma. Clearly, God does not desire men to sin, but they do. And sin has a disruptive effect on everything around us. On the other hand, the Bible clearly portrays God's active involvement in punishing sin. He sets the boundaries. Sodom and Gomorrah persist in resisting His will, and they are crushed. "God is in control". So we see genuine freedom within an enclosure. Moreover, it is an enclosure that is moving in a predetermined direction. Let me use the analogy of a cruiser taking a trip to Europe. The people onboard can freely move about within the confines of the vessel (and give each other grief, I suppose), but the vessel is going where the Captain directs it. Another analogy: God is a master chessplayer. His opponent is bound to lose, though he is free to make certain moves along the way. He will probably win some pieces too. Nevertheless, the outcome is certain. God will win every game. He even made the board, the pieces and created all the rules! These aren't perfect analogies, but perhaps they may be helpful to some?
I admit, I have a problem with the idea of God willing the sexual miscreant, Mr. A, to rape poor Miss B. My knowledge of God as a loving, heavenly Father is difficult to reconcile with the idea of a God who plans such vile assaults upon humanity. Surely He can use Miss B's experience in a positive manner, but did He purpose for it to happen....? I feel I must reply with an emphatic "no". On the other hand, I have no difficulty in believing that God may intend various kinds of hardships as part of His redemptive plan for our lives. God appoints Mr. C to bear the injustice of his female boss, Mrs D, with patience and forgiveness. He must learn to be meek. God will raise Him up, after He has suffered a little while. In other words, there are some kinds of suffering that are a part of God's will, intended to refine and perfect us, and others that must be considered outside of His plan, which are harmful and destructive, though He can turn them into something positive and good. Surely there is a difficult and vital question of discernment at stake here. And how to approach it objectively! Yes, I must give this some more thought...
So I think you are right, victoryword, to ask us to use our terms carefully. There is the biblical concept of people resisting God's will and doing things that God doesn't want them to do (unless we choose to gloss over these examples with a Calvinistic brush bristling with presuppositions). God isn't desirous that Miss B should be raped by Mr. A, or that Miss C should catch Dr. D's influenza. She will miss Church again. God's immediate will, in some respects, can be thwarted, though He often masterfully brings about His will in spite of or even through these events that are happening independently of divine determination. This upsets the Calvinist, because He does not conceive of a God who is Sovereign over Himself who has chosen to limit Himself. But it is in this act of self-limitation that God's sovereignty consequently undergirds man's free will in that a) God sovereignly chooses to give men a moral choice ("choose life or death") and b) God sovereignly chooses to reward evil with death and good with life ("blessing or cursing"). Man, by exercising his right to choose between the two and receiving the due consequences, is actually fulfilling God's sovereign will, not overruling it. If God wills for man to choose freely, and determines what will happen to Him when he makes the right or the wrong choice, then God is, overall, in control. What we really find difficult is explaining the effect of other people's sins upon other people (like rape), though through it all we must remind ourselves that such things are happening because mankind, as a whole, have turned their back on God, that this is a "fallen" world that does not reflect God's perfect will, and that it is a world populated by beings, both human and supernatural, continuing to resist God's rule.
I shall conclude with an explanation of God's sovereignty which I find quite helpful in summing up all the events that transpire in the heavens and on the earth:
- Gods permission: there are things God allows to happen but does not necessarily desire. (Ex. 21:13; Act 14:16; 1Cor. 16:17. see also Job 1:6-12; Acts 18:21; 1Cor. 5:1-15; 16:7; Heb. 6:3)
- Gods desire: there are things that God wants, but allows us to decide. (Deut. 30:19; Josh 24:15; 2Sam. 24:11-15; Prov. 8:10-11; Is. 56:4-5; Hos. 6:6; Mat. 9:13; Acts 6:3; Rom. 1:24; 1Tim. 2:3-4; James 1:19)
- Gods purpose: there are the things that God wants, and the things He does, which no one can resist. (Prov. 19:21; 33:10-11; Is. 14:24-27; 48:5; Job. 36:5; Jer. 51:12; Acts 2:23; Rom. 8:28; 9:11; Eph. 1:9-11; 3:11; Php. 2:13; 2Tim. 1:8; Rev. 17:17)
God bless,
Theophilus7
Upvote
0
Theophilus7
I enjoyed reading your post (I have enjoyed many of the posts, even the ones I do not agree with). I guess I must lean closer to the ARMINIAN side, though I am most reluctant to label myself one.
Anyway, you have given me much to ponder on.
I enjoyed reading your post (I have enjoyed many of the posts, even the ones I do not agree with). I guess I must lean closer to the ARMINIAN side, though I am most reluctant to label myself one.
Anyway, you have given me much to ponder on.
Upvote
0
Thanks victoryword.victoryword said:
I'm not entirely satisfied with Arminian theology, and I'm certainly not keen on Calvinism. This is an area I'm still working out.
Given your violent attacks on Calvinism in some of the other debate threads, I'm surprised you're reluctant to classify yourself as Arminian
.Cheers,
Theophilus7
Upvote
0
Theophilus7
There are a lot of people out there who do not want to be identified with either one. However, I probably would not be bothered if someone referred to me as an Arminian, however, my study of some Arminian literature does not cause me to want to identify with it too much. There seems to be varying degrees of Arminianism.
Some Arminians are to strong in their teaching of conditional security. While I have some problems with the OSAS teaching, I am not sympathetic to any teaching that implies that one loses their salvation every time they sin. Some extreme Arminians teach this.
I also believe that we can attain victory over sin in this life. However, I have problems with the extreme Arminian version of "sinless perfection". It often leads to legalism rather than a reliance upon God's power to keep us sin-free. This due more to their OVER-EMPHASIS on the freedom of the will. I believe strongly in free-will as extreme Arminians do, but I do not believe that we can live victoriously over sin apart from a reliance upon God's supernatural power.
Notice I use the phrase "extreme Arminianism" to keep from misrepresenting Arminianism as a whole. However, due to some of the extreme positions I have read in Arminian literature, I have problems completely identifying with this camp.
There are a lot of people out there who do not want to be identified with either one. However, I probably would not be bothered if someone referred to me as an Arminian, however, my study of some Arminian literature does not cause me to want to identify with it too much. There seems to be varying degrees of Arminianism.
Some Arminians are to strong in their teaching of conditional security. While I have some problems with the OSAS teaching, I am not sympathetic to any teaching that implies that one loses their salvation every time they sin. Some extreme Arminians teach this.
I also believe that we can attain victory over sin in this life. However, I have problems with the extreme Arminian version of "sinless perfection". It often leads to legalism rather than a reliance upon God's power to keep us sin-free. This due more to their OVER-EMPHASIS on the freedom of the will. I believe strongly in free-will as extreme Arminians do, but I do not believe that we can live victoriously over sin apart from a reliance upon God's supernatural power.
Notice I use the phrase "extreme Arminianism" to keep from misrepresenting Arminianism as a whole. However, due to some of the extreme positions I have read in Arminian literature, I have problems completely identifying with this camp.
Upvote
0
It seems we are largely in agreement on this theological issue, victoryword. I think, however, it is fairly common to speak in general terms of the 'Arminian' or the 'Calvinist' view without necessarily going into all those other derivative issues you mention. People are usually either Arminian (in a general sense) or Calvinist (in a general sense), just as people either live in the North or the South.
Certainly, I would distance myself from any view that leaves men saved one minute and condemned the next. I also reject John Wesley's teaching on Christian perfection. It is probably fair to say that pure Arminianism is too human-centred.
Cheers,
Theophilus7
Certainly, I would distance myself from any view that leaves men saved one minute and condemned the next. I also reject John Wesley's teaching on Christian perfection. It is probably fair to say that pure Arminianism is too human-centred.
Cheers,
Theophilus7
Upvote
0
Here's an interesting article titled God is In Control:
http://pages.zdnet.com/rwfortune/theclarioncall/id57.html
Even Theophilus might like this one as it advocates the Arminian's definition of foreknowledge
http://pages.zdnet.com/rwfortune/theclarioncall/id57.html
Even Theophilus might like this one as it advocates the Arminian's definition of foreknowledge
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
