Question on sovereignty of God

[inchristalone221]

Calling people deluded saps because of a weak argument aint cool, IMO.

I may have been a little out of line, but not by much. It's a weak argument to cite Roman dogma and expect it to carry any weight. To expect it to carry any weight in the mind of a presbyterian or other reformer is just delusional.

 

[Bob Moore]

Myself, I'm a calvinian, which means that I believe both the Arminian position of free choice and the Reformed position of Luther and Calvin to be both true.

A thing can not both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. I'm afraid your position is, as you suspect, illogical.

 

[orthedoxy]

The church has erred, errs, and continues to err.

Ok to be fair then you can’t claim Pelagius to be a heretic just because the Catholic Church declared him a heretic.
I’m not defending pelagius teachings but it just doesn’t make sense when a Calvinist says this is Pelagian, if you are going to say that then remember Calvinist teaching is condemned by the same people that condemned pelagius.

The term "oriso" means "ordain" or "designate" in NT Greek. Scripture has another term: "prooriso". Care to guess what that term means?



One wonders why God would get credit for checking into what others may do. What you've described is very, very similar to the position of a guy by the name of Arminius in the early 1600's.

God decided our salvation beforehand but not before knowing what we would do.
How else would you explain matt 25? If you say he saved us before any choices we made why is God in matt 25 saving people after the choices they made in their lifetime?
This view is not Arminius view. I believe one can’t come on his own(God initiate salvation) and he is the one doing the salvation.

And yes, we understand that view.

You are saying God causes evil action but he is not evil. He causes a person to lie but he is not a liar. This can not be if God cause someone to do something without that person is able to do otherwise then it’s God the cause of the bad not the instrument he uses.

Clearly you don't understand us; not vice versa.



"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him." Col 1:16

Or are you saying sin doesn't exist?

God created man perfect and without sin, man sinned they could have not sinned and sin would not have been created. Therefore man is the cause of sin and not God. God created the ability to sin but did not cause man to sin. Read your bible you’ll see it was Satan not God that caused Adam to sin. God was angry with Adam he punished him that doesn’t make sense if Adam was doing Gods will.
Unless you could show that God caused Adam to sin then you have no argument.

So it's not cruel to just let the blind flail around blindly while you have the power and the ability to save them? Hm. Interesting. Does God delight in flailing?

He assesses direct responsibility.

Btw, your God causes evil, too. He can't escape your logic. By giving people "free will", your God has invited them to do evil in His perfect creation, and given them the capacity to do so again and again. He has the power to prevent it. The Last Judgement shows He has the right to prevent it. He's programmed the Fall just as surely as if He designed it into Creation. Either way your logic is inexorable: God caused evil.

If He hadn't created us, there wouldn't be evil in His creation. So He caused evil. He had the capacity to prevent it, and yet He didn't.

Of course I disagree with your logic of responsibility, so I deny it. But I find your logic quite persuasive given your assumptions. In your view God must have caused evil, must be responsible for it, and thus must be evil thereby.

In my view, God wills rightly what we will wrongly. So without evil motive, I can't find fault with God.

But what's your logic on the matter?

[/quote]
How does God save people? Do you believe God uses people to open other people eyes?
When people are not willing to go and spread the good news then how else would God save the people?
Who gets the blame for not spreading the good news?
God didn’t create people he created them to obey him but not forced to do so, if you say by God giving the ability to sin is causing the evil then you are wrong. We don’t send a criminals father to prison for bringing his son into the world we blame the person that caused the crime. The same way I’m not going to not have kids so I wouldn’t be blamed for their criminal activity.
Do you believe God wanted to be tortured and be crucified that’s why he created man?
Do you really believe God wants infants to be molested, innocent people to be murdered? Does this please God or is this his will that those things happen?
God hates liars, murderers, homosexuals etc.. God punished the people that did such acts. How could he be behind all this?

 

[hlaltimus]

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?

I would perfer to say that God must determine all actions in order to being divinely sovereign. God must be either finite or infinite, there being no other alternatives what-so-ever. If one allows for the belief that God the Creator must truly be infinite in His being and attributes then this statement itself lays the groundwork for the first proposition. He cannot be infinite in His conscious moment and not be the determiner of all things since "...He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." Colossians 1:17 You have no alternative to this position given you accept God's infinitely conscious moment, but just HOW He determines all things is another matter entirely!

 

[orthedoxy]

I would perfer to say that God must determine all actions in order to being divinely sovereign. God must be either finite or infinite, there being no other alternatives what-so-ever. If one allows for the belief that God the Creator must truly be infinite in His being and attributes then this statement itself lays the groundwork for the first proposition. He cannot be infinite in His conscious moment and not be the determiner of all things since "...He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." Colossians 1:17 You have no alternative to this position given you accept God's infinitely conscious moment, but just HOW He determines all things is another matter entirely!

Can a government be sovereign? If so how?
I think we have different understanding of the meaning of the word sovereign.
I'm not sure what you are exactly saying about Col 1:17. All thing hold together by God, this doesn't mean without God evil can't exist, are you saying evil can't exist without God? I believe evil is the result of absence of God not because of God.

 

[inchristalone221]

Can a government be sovereign? If so how?
I think we have different understanding of the meaning of the word sovereign.

A government can be sovereign in a limited human sense. The general will of the governing authority may be enforced. However, some men mock the laws, and even more defy them by the attitudes of their hearts. God, on the other hand, is absolutely sovereign, and His specific will is done. It is inherent in His nature, as He is omnipotent.

 

[orthedoxy]

A government can be sovereign in a limited human sense. The general will of the governing authority may be enforced. However, some men mock the laws, and even more defy them by the attitudes of their hearts. God, on the other hand, is absolutely sovereign, and His specific will is done. It is inherent in His nature, as He is omnipotent.

How can a government be sovereign when people break laws?
Why can't you see God being sovereign the same way the government is sovereign? We can break Gods laws yet God could still be in control.
The way you are defining sovereign is not right. We don't have to be puppets in order for God to be sovereign.

 

[inchristalone221]

How can a government be sovereign when people break laws?
Why can't you see God being sovereign the same way the government is sovereign? We can break Gods laws yet God could still be in control.
The way you are defining sovereign is not right. We don't have to be puppets in order for God to be sovereign.

The type of sovereignty possessed by a government is finite and imperfect. God is infinite and omnipotent. God's sovereignty is perfect and complete. "In Him we live and move and have our being." Nothing happens that God does not will. Were this not the case, then God would not be in actual sovereign control. The analogy of God as sovereign in the same way as human government simply does not comport with scriptural teaching on the matter.

 

[orthedoxy]

The type of sovereignty possessed by a government is finite and imperfect. God is infinite and omnipotent. God's sovereignty is perfect and complete. "In Him we live and move and have our being." Nothing happens that God does not will. Were this not the case, then God would not be in actual sovereign control. The analogy of God as sovereign in the same way as human government simply does not comport with scriptural teaching on the matter.

You are not talking about sovereignty you are talking about something else because in sovereignty you can resist the authority and the authority is still sovereign. God punish the sin, sin doesen't have to be his will.

 

[heymikey80]

Ok to be fair then you can’t claim Pelagius to be a heretic just because the Catholic Church declared him a heretic.
I’m not defending pelagius teachings but it just doesn’t make sense when a Calvinist says this is Pelagian, if you are going to say that then remember Calvinist teaching is condemned by the same people that condemned pelagius.

I don't call Pelagius a heretic from Rome's assessment. I call Pelagius and semi-Pelagianism both heretical because of the assessment of Scripture.

And certainly it makes sense. Just because Aristotle thought something was the truth doesn't mean I have to trust Aristotle on anything. I can reach conclusions by =tapping head= reasoning from what God said.

 

[heymikey80]

God decided our salvation beforehand but not before knowing what we would do.

How would you explain the denial of Scripture? Paul's denial?

"So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." Rom 9:16

God's not looking at "what we would do", "the man who runs". He's not even looking at our wills -- our desires. He's looking to His own mercy, and not these other things. It's what Paul says. It's what I believe.

"He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"' Rom 9:18-19

You're attacking St. Paul at this point. Don't assert it's something that Christianity must reject, unless you're willing to reject Paul. And because you're saying something that objects to Paul, I'd say you need a much more serious explanation why your position should be considered orthodox, when it heterodoxes with Paul.

How else would you explain matt 25? If you say he saved us before any choices we made why is God in matt 25 saving people after the choices they made in their lifetime?
This view is not Arminius view. I believe one can’t come on his own(God initiate salvation) and he is the one doing the salvation.

Matthew 25? Sure. Every human being could be a sheep and a goat. Did the sheep always do good? No 37ff). Did the goats always do evil? No 44ff). Jesus never contradicts either sheep or goats.

He judges them differently. He rewards what they did, but He has two different judgements based on ... what? On His own choice. (25:32)

Jesus lets the hearers lull themselves into a self-satisfied mindset over what they've done. But take a closer look: it's the people who are self-satisfied with their records that are condemned.

Jesus distinguishes between sheep and goats. They're judged differently. The actions of the sheep and the goats are the same: both did some good, both neglected some good. But their judgements are different: the sheep are justified on what little they did good; the goats are condemned on what little they did wrong. Judged as goats, even sheep would be condemned. Judged as sheep, even goats would be saved. Their actions aren't the reasons for their judgement. "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."

Did you do anything wrong? Well, if you're a goat, God help you. If you're a sheep, God has helped you. The difference in judgement is based solely on God's mercy to the sheep.

You are saying God causes evil action but he is not evil. He causes a person to lie but he is not a liar. This can not be if God cause someone to do something without that person is able to do otherwise then it’s God the cause of the bad not the instrument he uses.

God is always free to keep the person from doing evil. Yet He doesn't. Why is God absolved of the accusation of evil in your blaming scheme? I've waited for you to answer this since the last posting.

God created man perfect and without sin, man sinned they could have not sinned and sin would not have been created. Therefore man is the cause of sin and not God. God created the ability to sin but did not cause man to sin. Read your bible you’ll see it was Satan not God that caused Adam to sin. God was angry with Adam he punished him that doesn’t make sense if Adam was doing Gods will.
Unless you could show that God caused Adam to sin then you have no argument.

God created man perfect, eh? How did man sin if he were created perfect? Can the perfectly good, sin? Scary thought, scary thought. God created a perfect man in such a way that he sinned. Ooo, God must be responsible for creating a man so perfect that he could sin.

Yikes.

How does God save people? Do you believe God uses people to open other people eyes?
When people are not willing to go and spread the good news then how else would God save the people?
Who gets the blame for not spreading the good news?
God didn’t create people he created them to obey him but not forced to do so, if you say by God giving the ability to sin is causing the evil then you are wrong. We don’t send a criminals father to prison for bringing his son into the world we blame the person that caused the crime. The same way I’m not going to not have kids so I wouldn’t be blamed for their criminal activity.
Do you believe God wanted to be tortured and be crucified that’s why he created man?
Do you really believe God wants infants to be molested, innocent people to be murdered? Does this please God or is this his will that those things happen?
God hates liars, murderers, homosexuals etc.. God punished the people that did such acts. How could he be behind all this?

You have plenty of questions, but no answers. Does God save people without Himself? Laughable. Can humans spread the Gospel of God without God's Presence? Absurd. Isn't God as responsible for the limits He places Himself under? Of course.

Your position is that God created people that defy Him. But then, God gave them that ability. Is that ability good? No. Well, God's responsible for creating that ability, when it's good. And when it's evil. If it results in evil ... what's the cause of that evil? Clearly God is. You simply deny that God is evil, yet God is the cause of the evil. You're complaining about us -- your own view is getting sliced up by your slashes.

Welcome to the light of your own position. God causes evil. Yet God is not evil, thereby.

To demonstrate (again): God didn't have to create anyone whom He could see would sin. He certainly didn't have to give them the power to do evil. He could've avoided the introduction of sin. Yet He didn't.

 

[Bob Moore]

God created man perfect, eh? How did man sin if he were created perfect? Can the perfectly good, sin? Scary thought, scary thought. God created a perfect man in such a way that he sinned. Ooo, God must be responsible for creating a man so perfect that he could sin.

Yikes.

What must be understood is that Adam was created with something that no man (except Jesus) since has come into the world with: A perfectly free will. Adam had a choice, and he made the wrong one. Adam was created perfect else God could not have said after creating him, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. {Genesis 1:31}

The first Adam plunged man into ruin. The last Adam, Christ, reedemed him. So yes, God created man perfect but implicit in that perfection was the ability to choose sin. Jesus likewise, in His human nature, had the same ability. "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. . {Hebrews 4:15}

 

[heymikey80]

What must be understood is that Adam was created with something that no man (except Jesus) since has come into the world with: A perfectly free will. Adam had a choice, and he made the wrong one. Adam was created perfect else God could not have said after creating him, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. {Genesis 1:31}

The first Adam plunged man into ruin. The last Adam, Christ, reedemed him. So yes, God created man perfect but implicit in that perfection was the ability to choose sin. Jesus likewise, in His human nature, had the same ability. "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. . {Hebrews 4:15}

I probably didn't lay the groundwork clearly enough, Bob, thanks. I was illustrating that God is vulnerable to blame for evil in orthedoxy's system no matter what -- simply for creating someone who actually caused evil.

To me that creates a profound contradiction in this system of blame: if "free will or not", God causes evil, then this system can only blame God for evil. It doesn't matter that someone's will is free -- in fact, if God could create someone who would not cause evil, then it's doubly sure God is responsible for evil existing. The problem is with the system of blame that's in use. It proves too much: evil exists, and so God is to be blamed, for God created everything that caused evil.

So for me, this system of blame is faulty. It must be replaced.

I realize my "walking in his shoes" type of debate can be ... jarring.

 

[cubanito]

1-I don't call Pelagius a heretic from Rome's assessment. I call Pelagius and semi-Pelagianism both heretical because of the assessment of Scripture.

2-And certainly it makes sense. Just because Aristotle thought something was the truth doesn't mean I have to trust Aristotle on anything. I can reach conclusions by =tapping head= reasoning from what God said.

1-Nevertheless we ought to be clear. Pelagius was very much a heretic in many ways, and completely rejected by all conservative Christians. Arminius held views today often referred to as semi-pelagian. Even if you think they are heretical, they are held by many you would probably not hesitate to call brothers. There is a difference between Pelagius and Arminius, even if you believe both heretical. The RC hierarchy (Roman "Catholics") clearly rejects Pelagian's ideas. Their stance on semi-pelagian is, as with much else, fuzzy. Of course, what they deem correct should be of little (no) consequence to our discussion.

2- As I'm unwilling to dedicate the time to debate what "makes sense" at this time, you have the last word for now. It is my hope that someday soon, when I have learned more , I may enter into another dialoge with you and Jon.

JR

 

[Bob Moore]

I probably didn't lay the groundwork clearly enough, Bob, thanks. I was illustrating that God is vulnerable to blame for evil in orthedoxy's system no matter what -- simply for creating someone who actually caused evil.

Ah. And with that I agree.

To me that creates a profound contradiction in this system of blame: if "free will or not", God causes evil, then this system can only blame God for evil. It doesn't matter that someone's will is free -- in fact, if God could create someone who would not cause evil, then it's doubly sure God is responsible for evil existing. The problem is with the system of blame that's in use. It proves too much: evil exists, and so God is to be blamed, for God created everything that caused evil.

So for me, this system of blame is faulty. It must be replaced.

Big points here Mikey. It appears that you are fully aware of who is to blame for sin. Man. Not Got.

I realize my "walking in his shoes" type of debate can be ... jarring.

I will try to adapt.

 

[Bob Moore]

1-Nevertheless we ought to be clear. Pelagius was very much a heretic in many ways, and completely rejected by all conservative Christians. Arminius held views today often referred to as semi-pelagian. Even if you think they are heretical, they are held by many you would probably not hesitate to call brothers. There is a difference between Pelagius and Arminius, even if you believe both heretical. The RC hierarchy (Roman "Catholics") clearly rejects Pelagian's ideas. Their stance on semi-pelagian is, as with much else, fuzzy. Of course, what they deem correct should be of little (no) consequence to our discussion.JR

There are three, and only three, possibilities with regard to who does what in salvation.

Has it ocurred to anyone else here that at one time or another Rome has denounced all three of the possible alternatives?

Pellagius = heretic (man is in charge)

Cassian (whose position is called semi-Pellagian) = heretic (God and man co-operate)

Luther = heretic. (God alone is in charge)

So, it ought to be obvious to the casual observer that Rome operates in it's own system, having rejected all three of the possibilities.

I completely expect to be rebuked for this post. Possibly banned. So be it.