EricH Posted April 3, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 366 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,933 Content Per Day: 1.57 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 3, 2008 EricH wrote: Where does the text say that god gave up complete sovereignty? Erik, think about it. If God had complete sovereignty, would there be anyone who was NOT doing his absolute sovereign will? No one would ever sin or disobey him or lie or cheat, steal, kill, hurt or destroy in all his holy kingdom. It would be heaven. Since that is NOT what we have, his will is not being done. However, since it is God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricH Posted April 3, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 366 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,933 Content Per Day: 1.57 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 3, 2008 In looking at God's sovereignty, I don't see sovereignty as meaning that God controls every event and/or the outcome of every event. The problem I have with Calvinistic sovereignty is that it basically has God burning the candle at both ends. What I mean is that God on the one hand God calls all men but the Calvinistic view claims that there is a general call and a special "irresistable" call. God calls all men but that those who God predetermined to save, but keeps those whom He does not predestine to be saved to from accepting the call. They hear the gospel but are purposelfully kept from obeying it. God calls all men to repent, but then punishes the sinner for being the very unrepentant sinner God predestined Him to be. There is nothing in that sort of teaching that "glorifies" God or demonstrates any semblance of justness. This is how Calvinsim seems to explain the irretrievably wicked. What is worse is how the concept of "vessels of wrath" is taken to mean that God creates some to be vessels of wrath in order that God can be glorified. God creates them so he can destroy them in order to be glorified. This is said to be "just." God, the minute Adam sinned would have been fully justified to destroy him and Eve. That much is true. That would have been completely just. However, for God demand obedience, but prevent such obedience and then to punish or destroy the disobedient for the very disobedience God allegedly "predestined" for them to commit with no hope to be otherwiese, is not justice at all, and there is no level upon which it can be claimed to be so. In human terms, we would call that "abuse." God has both a permissive will and a perfect will. Both are soevereign. God's perfect will is that no one commit murder, but his permissive will allows men to murder. God's perfect will would be that no one lust, lie, steal, commit adultery, curse, get drunk, fornicate, etc. Yet, God allows all of those things to occur in this world despite being "in control." IN the same way, God's perfect will is that all men would be saved, but his permissive will allows man to reject the offer of salvation He gives. God's perfect will is rarely carried out in this world, at least it is carried out far less often than it should be. Free will is not a matter of God abdicating His sovereignty, and that is part of the problem I have with Calvinism. It seems to teach that either God controls the movements and actions of every person, or else, we can't say God is "sovereign" and that is simply not true. It is not at all contradictory to say that is it is God's sovereignty that gives man the choice to accept or reject the offer of salvation. There are actually 2 positions being articulated here. Yours, and the one that says God does not know certain events (i.e. the future). Both Calvinists and Armenians agree that God has stated He desires certain outcomes (i.e. all be saved). They also agree that certain of those outcomes do not come to pass, which means God values something more than the stated desire which did not come to pass. Where Calvinism and Armenianism disagree is what it is that God values more (the reason the stated desire did not come to pass). Unred typo has stated that God does not know the future (in all cases) and that He exercises sovereignty in certain cases. This is because He values free will above the stated desire (that people not murder or that all be saved). You have stated a different position (involving a permissive and prescriptive will - which by the way Calvin agreed with). How do you respond to the idea that God does not know everything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricH Posted April 3, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 366 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,933 Content Per Day: 1.57 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 3, 2008 EricH: There are actually 2 positions being articulated here. Yours, and the one that says God does not know certain events (i.e. the future). Both Calvinists and Armenians agree that God has stated He desires certain outcomes (i.e. all be saved). They also agree that certain of those outcomes do not come to pass, which means God values something more than the stated desire which did not come to pass. Where Calvinism and Armenianism disagree is what it is that God values more (the reason the stated desire did not come to pass). Unred typo has stated that God does not know the future (in all cases) and that He exercises sovereignty in certain cases. This is because He values free will above the stated desire (that people not murder or that all be saved). You have stated a different position (involving a permissive and prescriptive will - which by the way Calvin agreed with). How do you respond to the idea that God does not know everything? Please state my view correctly. I believe that God knows everything (every single minute detail, including the thoughts and intentions of every single microbe) that possibly can be known in the present, and what has already happened in that present (the events of the past, every single minute detail and how it effected every single other minute detail) but the future is what has not actually happened yet so there is nothing to know or to be unaware of. The only thing certain in the future are God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 How do you respond to the idea that God does not know everything?It is a view that i have more than once categorically rejected. The idea that God only knows what he intends to do, but cannot know our future choices is a heresy known as "Open Theism." What did Calvin teach about the premissive and prescriptive will of God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 It is easier to categorically reject something as heresy than it is to destroy it with biblically sound logic. It is not like this hasn't alreadly been dealt with in another thread. You have proven that you are going to hold on to Open Theism no matter what anyone says, so discussing it with you further is not a profitable use of my time. I am not going to rehash the same issue all over again. The heresy of Open Theism, which you espouse has been refuted and rejected by mainline Christian theologians for years. If you still want to hold on to it, there is nothing else anyone here can say that will change that. You can believe what you want. As for myself, I will just stick to the Bible and the authentic Christian faith. Besides, that is not the topic of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricH Posted April 4, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 366 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,933 Content Per Day: 1.57 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 4, 2008 How do you respond to the idea that God does not know everything?It is a view that i have more than once categorically rejected. The idea that God only knows what he intends to do, but cannot know our future choices is a heresy known as "Open Theism." What did Calvin teach about the premissive and prescriptive will of God? Will respond shortly, lack of time right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DInsights Posted April 4, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 38 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/12/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted April 4, 2008 Psalm 5:5 is very plain and easy to understand. It is consistent with the character of God testified about in various other scriptures. Yes, God hates workers of iniquities. 4 For thou [art] not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. 5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. 6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man. 7 But as for me, I will come [into] thy house in the multitude of thy mercy: [and] in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temple. 8 Lead me, O LORD, in thy righteousness because of mine enemies; make thy way straight before my face. So, what does He do with those workers of iniquity that He hates? He warns that their reward is death.His goodness gives them enough time and spiritual material to repent.His grace prepares them unto the knowledge and salvation of God.Then the saved launches in His glorious Spirit unto eternal life. John 3:16 does not suggest or imply that God does not hate sinners (workers of iniquity). In deed, it supports #2-4 above, providing spiritual materials necessary for the sinner (worker of iniquity that God hates) to repent and thereby become loved. It is common to find many believers interpret John 3:16 in isolation of related scriptures, especially John 3:14, 15 and 17 that declare: 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. The way (manner) that God loved the world (full of sinners He hates) was by sending His begotten Son to the world. God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 OK, I can respect that. A categorical denial is not the same as a biblical refute, though. Mainline christian theologians are not infallible. No they are not infalliable. However, they are correct in their rejection and refutation of your denial of God's omnisicence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Hick Posted April 6, 2008 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 96 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/12/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted April 6, 2008 No they are not infalliable. However, they are correct in their rejection and refutation of your denial of God's omnisicence. I have never denied God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 I have never denied God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts