Question on sovereignty of God

[orthedoxy]

Does God have to control all actions good and bad irresistibly in order for him to be sovereign?
If bad actions are made by your own free will can God still be sovereign?

 

[Jon_]

Does God have to control all actions good and bad irresistibly in order for him to be sovereign?

Yes.

If bad actions are made by your own free will can God still be sovereign?

"Free will" is very ambiguous; you'll need to define that. I can answer in this sense—all actions come under the domain of sovereignty. No action can come to pass if not confirmed by God's sovereign decree.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[orthedoxy]

Is a person ordained to commit murder or could he have done otherwise?

 

[Jon_]

Is a person ordained to commit murder

If he does, then yes, he was ordained to do so.

or could he have done otherwise?

No.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[inchristalone221]

I am in agreement with Jon. God's sovereignty is absolute. All things from the beginning are a part of the decrees of God. This is why most if not all Calvinists are philosophically compatibalists, because we believe that despite moral will and responsibility there is a deterministic nature to causality brought on by God's sovereignty.

 

[Jon_]

I am in agreement with Jon. God's sovereignty is absolute. All things from the beginning are a part of the decrees of God. This is why most if not all Calvinists are philosophically compatibalists, because we believe that despite moral will and responsibility there is a deterministic nature to causality brought on by God's sovereignty.

For the record, I'm not one of those Calvinistic compatibilists.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Salesian]

Does God have to control all actions good and bad irresistibly in order for him to be sovereign?
If bad actions are made by your own free will can God still be sovereign?

Hi!

I realize I'm missing much of the conversation up to date, however....

Coming from a Calvinist background, may I comment that God is not the author of sin. Sin is a result, often, if not always, of temptation (James 1:13-15).

There must be a distinction between the part we play and the part of God's sovereignty in every sin. The WMCOF refers to this as "the liberty or contingency of 2nd causes" (Ch. 3:1).

God does not take part in the temptation. God may bring circumstances into our life, that result in our being tempted, but the temptation has origin in our sinful nature, (ie. concupiscience), and does not originate with God. We, with our will, should resist the temptation, and endure. God does not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able to endure.

-Rob

 

[orthedoxy]

If he does, then yes, he was ordained to do so.


No.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Why do you give the glory to man when he commit murder?
Why say Man has commited sin?

 

[Jon_]

Why do you give the glory to man when he commit murder?

Loaded question. Please reprhase.

Why say Man has commited sin?

Because he has willingly transgressed the law of God.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Bob Moore]

If the will of man is able to thwart the will of God, then it is man who is soverign, not God. Below is a very good outline of what the idea of divine soverignty carries with it.

Hebrews 4:13a - Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight:...

"Christ is the Lord God omniscient; there is no creature, in general, rational, or irrational, animate or inanimate, but what are known to him, and seen by him; for all creatures are made, and upheld by him, and he is omnipresent; and in particular, there is no man but is manifest to him; so בריה, "creature", is often used by the Rabbins for "man"; all men, openly profane men, who are enemies to Christ, and his people, are under his eye and notice; he knows their persons, he sees their actions, even those that are most secretly devised and performed against him, and his saints; and he takes such notice of them, as to bring them into judgment for them; he knows formal professors of religion, and upon what foot they have taken up their profession, and how they keep their lusts with their profession; he can distinguish between profession and grace; and he knows and observes the springs and progress of their apostasy: and as for true believers, he knows their persons, and knows them to be his; he sees their sins and their weaknesses; he takes notice of their graces, and observes their wants; and there is nothing in them, or belongs to them, but what is before him, even the secret desires of their souls. So Philo the Jew says (q) the divine Word reaches to, and comprehends all things, nothing escapes him: and this phrase is very commonly used of the divine Being by the Jews, הכל גלוי לפניו, "all things are manifest before him" (r); and this being used of Christ, is no inconsiderable proof of his proper deity: "

Hebrews 4:13b - but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

"The words are an allusion to wrestlers, who exercised naked, and took each other by their necks and collars; and when one was thrown upon his back, as the word rendered "opened" is by some translated, he was publicly exposed and known: or to the putting of a creature in such a posture when sacrificed; or rather to the cutting of it up, and laying open its entrails: and especially to the manner of doing it among the Jews, with which these persons, the apostle writes to, were acquainted: and it was this; when the lamb for the daily sacrifice was slain, the priest hung it up by the foot, and skinned it; and when he came to the breast, he cut off the head; and having finished the skinning of it, he divided the heart, and took out the blood; then he cut off the shoulders; and when he came to the right leg, he cut it off, and then cut it down through the chine bone, and כולו גלוי לפניו, "all of it was manifest before him" (s). The very phrase before used. The word here used seems to answer to ערף, which, with the Arabians, signifies, "to know", or make known; and מעריף, with the Rabbins; is used for a companion, a familiar one that is well known; the theme in the Hebrew, is, עורף, the "neck". The last clause, "with whom we have to do", manifestly points at the person here spoken of, Jesus Christ: saints have a concern with him now, as their way to the Father, as their Saviour and Redeemer; they have to do with his blood for pardon and cleansing, and with his righteousness for justification, and with his fulness for every supply of grace; and with him as their King to rule over them, protect and defend them, and as their prophet to teach them, and their high priest to intercede for them. Moreover, the words may be rendered, "to whom we must give an account"; and so the Syriac version renders them, "to whom they give an account"; as all men must at the great day: and all this that is said of the Word of God should engage to care, watchfulness, and circumspection in the course of a profession of religion."

(q) De Sacrif. Abel, p. 140. (r) Tzeror Hammor, fol. 122. 2. Vid. Seder Tephillot, fol. 281. 1. Ed. Basil. (s) Misna Tamid, c. 4. sect. 2.

{quoted from John Gill}

Now consider Acts 17:28a: For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; ....

In other words, everything to do with us is "in Him", i.e. we can not do anything at all apart from Him. That is true both of the believer and of the unbeliever.

 

[orthedoxy]

Loaded question. Please reprhase.

Do you credit your good works to yourself or to God?
When you preach and someone believes in Christ, do you say you saved that
person? The same way why credit yourself for the evil?
You just did Gods will.

Because he has willingly transgressed the law of God.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Pleraase rephrase.
Weren't you doing Gods will by commiting the murder?
How can we commit the murder willingly when we couldn't have done otherwise?
Tell me how is that different then a programed robot that was programed to kill? Wouldn't the programer be credited for the kill?

 

[Jon_]

Do you credit your good works to yourself or to God?

To God (Php. 2:13).

When you preach and someone believes in Christ, do you say you saved that person?

No.

The same way why credit yourself for the evil?

Simple. I can choose to effect sin in my own life. I cannot choose to effect the salvation of another person. I am accountable for my own sin, but I am not accountable for the salvation of another.

Sin is imputed to me because of my willful transgression of the law. Righteousness is not imputed to me by virtue of my good works, for it is the Spirit of God who works through me to will and to do of his good pleasure. It is only by the imputed righteousness of Christ that I am justified.

You just did Gods will.

Yes. And?

Weren't you doing Gods will by commiting the murder?

Yes.

How can we commit the murder willingly when we couldn't have done otherwise?

This is another loaded question. It assumes that we cannot do something willingly if God also wills it. The burden of proof is on you to prove that. Until then, I will not answer your question.

Tell me how is that different then a programed robot that was programed to kill?

Because a robot has no will of its own.

Wouldn't the programer be credited for the kill?

Yes. But God isn't a programmer and we're not robots.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[orthedoxy]

To God (Php. 2:13).


No.


Simple. I can choose to effect sin in my own life. I cannot choose to effect the salvation of another person. I am accountable for my own sin, but I am not accountable for the salvation of another.

Sin is imputed to me because of my willful transgression of the law. Righteousness is not imputed to me by virtue of my good works, for it is the Spirit of God who works through me to will and to do of his good pleasure. It is only by the imputed righteousness of Christ that I am justified.

You are made to do Good works so why are you not credit for them insted of God?
You are made to do Bad works why are you credit for the bad works?

Yes. And?


Yes.


This is another loaded question. It assumes that we cannot do something willingly if God also wills it. The burden of proof is on you to prove that. Until then, I will not answer your question.

Not if God wills it but if he has determine it.
If you were made to kill how can you say that you willingly killed?

Because a robot has no will of its own.


Yes. But God isn't a programmer and we're not robots.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Why do you say a robot doesn't have a will? If you built a robot with a gun in it's hand doesn't the robot have a will to pull the triger or not? If not please explain.

 

[Jon_]

You are made to do Good works so why are you not credit for them insted of God? You are made to do Bad works why are you credit for the bad works?

This line of questioning has become ambiguous. Define "credit."

Not if God wills it but if he has determine it.

That's the same thing.

If you were made to kill how can you say that you willingly killed?

How can you say I wasn't? You're still asking loaded questions, assuming that God's will and man's will can never both desire an end.

Why do you say a robot doesn't have a will? If you built a robot with a gun in it's hand doesn't the robot have a will to pull the triger or not? If not please explain.

You are very silly.

Robots are non-rational. They are incapable of rationally choosing choice a over choice b. Instead, all they do is process the input they receive with the commands the programmer has entered into them. They have no spirits. They are not held accountable by God. Indeed, they cannot be held accountable by God because they are incapable of making rational choices.

You seem to be fatally misunderstanding the main issue of theodicy (the theory of evil). We are accountable to God for our sins because God chooses to hold us accountable. We can be held accountable because (1) we are rational, and (2) because we have a will and are capable of choice.

Sin is the willful transgression of the law. The law is the decree of God to man concerning those things that God requires him to do and to not do. As God is the Lawgiver and man is the law-receiver (if you will), man is capable of transgressing the law, whereas God is not. Even if we do not consider God's holiness, which makes him incapable of sin, he would still not be sinful, for who would hold him accountable? There is no one who can speak against God. There are none that might reply unto him.

The problem of evil is a non-problem. I find it funny that Arminians and other nominal Christians find this to be the most convincing argument against Calvinists. Atheists and pagans also find this the most convincing argument against Christianity. Clearly, those who reject the biblical view of theodicy and the non-problem of evil still struggle with a carnal mind that rejects God's sovereign lordship over their lives. It is a great pity.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[orthedoxy]

This line of questioning has become ambiguous. Define "credit."


That's the same thing.

Can you say the Good work is your doing and not Gods? if not why would you say we are evil and not God?

How can you say I wasn't? You're still asking loaded questions, assuming that God's will and man's will can never both desire an end.


You are very silly.

Robots are non-rational. They are incapable of rationally choosing choice a over choice b. Instead, all they do is process the input they receive with the commands the programmer has entered into them. They have no spirits. They are not held accountable by God. Indeed, they cannot be held accountable by God because they are incapable of making rational choices.

You seem to be fatally misunderstanding the main issue of theodicy (the theory of evil). We are accountable to God for our sins because God chooses to hold us accountable. We can be held accountable because (1) we are rational, and (2) because we have a will and are capable of choice.

Sin is the willful transgression of the law. The law is the decree of God to man concerning those things that God requires him to do and to not do. As God is the Lawgiver and man is the law-receiver (if you will), man is capable of transgressing the law, whereas God is not. Even if we do not consider God's holiness, which makes him incapable of sin, he would still not be sinful, for who would hold him accountable? There is no one who can speak against God. There are none that might reply unto him.

The problem of evil is a non-problem. I find it funny that Arminians and other nominal Christians find this to be the most convincing argument against Calvinists. Atheists and pagans also find this the most convincing argument against Christianity. Clearly, those who reject the biblical view of theodicy and the non-problem of evil still struggle with a carnal mind that rejects God's sovereign lordship over their lives. It is a great pity.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Non Calvinst think the Calvinst view is pretty silly
A robot has a choice to pick A over B It's just their choices are controlled or irresistibly chosen for them.
God is holy and therefore your theology doesn't make sense. If molesting kids is a sin and God will is to molest kids then God is committing sin.
Since we know God can't sin then we know it's not his will and he has not ordained such event. You are saying in a sense God is a child molester and we can't say he sins. How can such God be holy?
I'm not making an argument against God Just your view of God doesn't make sense also I believe God is sovereign I just don't think you understand the meaning of sovereignty Unless you can prove it otherwise.

 

[Jon_]

Can you say the Good work is your doing and not Gods?

It is both.

if not why would you say we are evil and not God?

We are evil by virtue of the fact that we have inherented original sin from Adam. He became sinful when God imputed unrighteousness to him for his transgression of the commandment to not eat of the tree.

Causing evil and being evil are two different things. It is written,

(Isaiah 45:7 KJV) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
​

And also:

(James 1:13 KJV) Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

​

Non Calvinst think the Calvinst view is pretty silly

No doubt. But there is no rational basis for rejecting the Calvinist view. They make think we're silly, but that just makes them silly and irrational.

A robot has a choice to pick A over B It's just their choices are controlled or irresistibly chosen for them. God is holy and therefore your theology doesn't make sense.

Good job. You have completely ignored the point I made about man being a rational creature with a will and a robot lacking both of these two key characteristics. The rest of your post is nothing more than ridiculous straw man gobbledegook, so I won't bother with it.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[orthedoxy]

It is both.


We are evil by virtue of the fact that we have inherented original sin from Adam. He became sinful when God imputed unrighteousness to him for his transgression of the commandment to not eat of the tree.


Causing evil and being evil are two different things. It is written,

(Isaiah 45:7 KJV) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
​

And also:

(James 1:13 KJV) Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
​

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
Not evil but disaster
​

No doubt. But there is no rational basis for rejecting the Calvinist view. They make think we're silly, but that just makes them silly and irrational.


Good job. You have completely ignored the point I made about man being a rational creature with a will and a robot lacking both of these two key characteristics. The rest of your post is nothing more than ridiculous straw man gobbledegook, so I won't bother with it.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

You have completely ignored the point I made. From Calvinist view you can't be rational you are as rational as a robot that is programmed to do certain things also your will is no different then that of a robot because it's not free.
You can't claim to have done the act if you were ordained (programmed) to do the act. You still haven't answered the question why do you credit the good acts to God and not the bad ones?

 

[Jon_]

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
Not evil but disaster

Do a word study on the Hebrew ra'ah. In the meantime, here is another:

(Lamentations 3:38 KJV) Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

​

IYou have completely ignored the point I made.

You mean your straw man argument? Of course I ignored it. It is irrelevant.

From Calvinist view you can't be rational you are as rational as a robot that is programmed to do certain things also your will is no different then that of a robot because it's not free.

If you're going to continue using this invalid robot analogy, then we're done. That you fail to see there is no univocal element between robots and human beings, you will utterly fail in your representation of Calvinism. In truth, I believe that you fully understand the implications of Calvinism, but are simlpy too carnally minded to understand that you don't have anything approaching the notion of "free will" and you are offended by that. The idea of a sovereign God that exercises complete and total control over your life offends you, and that is why you despise Calvinism.

And yet, sovereign is the Lord God, as it is written:

(Job 23:13 KJV) But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.

(Psalm 115:3 KJV) But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

(Romans 9:18 KJV) Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
​

Are you then ashamed of your Lord? Are you ashamed of Christ's words?

(John 6:44 KJV) No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
​

Are you ashamed that God is Lord over your life and that your very breath and very being hinges on his will? You could not breath, but that the Lord God ordained your very breath? Does this offend you?

I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, but you indeed seem to be. It is written,

(Mark 8:38 KJV) Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
​

Therefore, repent! For you truly have a perverse and wicked understanding of the Lord my God. Your carnal mind truly leads you to error in your understanding of God. It is written again,

(Romans 8:7 KJV) Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
​

Confess your sins and you shall be forgiven. Repent of your evil thoughts of God and he will be faithful in imputing Christ's righteousness to you.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[inchristalone221]

Jon is doing a wonderful job of explaining the calvinist view on these questions, but allow me to interject a thought which may help or brother understand what Jon is saying.

If molesting kids is a sin and God will is to molest kids then God is committing sin.

I believe you misunderstand the Biblical concept of God being without sin. God is sinless, perfect, just, and righteous not because He meets those standards, but because He IS the standard by which we measure those things. God cannot sin in that if He does something it is not sin for Him to do it. God is not simply a being that meets an established standard, He is the being by whom the standard is deduced.

Consider the thoughts of Paul in Romans 9. (Is there then injustice with God? By no means! On the contrary, who are you, oh man, that you would question God?) When God acts, he is just in His action. He is just not because His actions meet some standard that makes them just, they are just because they are His actions.

 

[seekingpurity047]

Jon is doing a wonderful job of explaining the calvinist view on these questions, but allow me to interject a thought which may help or brother understand what Jon is saying.



I believe you misunderstand the Biblical concept of God being without sin. God is sinless, perfect, just, and righteous not because He meets those standards, but because He IS the standard by which we measure those things. God cannot sin in that if He does something it is not sin for Him to do it. God is not simply a being that meets an established standard, He is the being by whom the standard is deduced.

Consider the thoughts of Paul in Romans 9. (Is there then injustice with God? By no means! On the contrary, who are you, oh man, that you would question God?) When God acts, he is just in His action. He is just not because His actions meet some standard that makes them just, they are just because they are His actions.

Allow me to add my two cents.

God said "Thou shalt not kill"...

Interestingly enough, he preordained Jesus to be killed on a cross for our sins. Was God sinning in doing this? Surely, my brother, He was not.

To the glory of God,

Randy