Sovereignty

[themuzicman]

I've been doing somethinking on this whole "the open view reduces God's sovereignty" thing, and decided to do a little research (specifically, consulting a dictionary):

Sovereignty:

1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.
4. A territory existing as an independent state.


In the open view, God does not release any of His authority over His creation. He does not lose rank authority or power. He does not give up any independence in His authority., nor does He share His governance, and no one has authority superior to His anywhere in creation.

Calvinism seems to want to insert control into sovereignty, and it isn't there.

When a nation has sovereignty, its main emphasis is its ability to stay within it's defining tenants and enforce its own laws.

If anything, the open view reflects a society that embraces real freedom.

Michael

[Chappie]

I've been doing somethinking on this whole "the open view reduces God's sovereignty" thing, and decided to do a little research (specifically, consulting a dictionary):

Sovereignty:

1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.
4. A territory existing as an independent state.


In the open view, God does not release any of His authority over His creation. He does not lose rank authority or power. He does not give up any independence in His authority., nor does He share His governance, and no one has authority superior to His anywhere in creation.

Calvinism seems to want to insert control into sovereignty, and it isn't there.

When a nation has sovereignty, its main emphasis is its ability to stay within it's defining tenants and enforce its own laws.

If anything, the open view reflects a society that embraces real freedom.

Michael

Even a General relinquishes some responsibility to the Colonel, the Captain, the Lutenant, the sargent, all the way down to the private.... So it is with God.. He utilizes the obedience and disobedience of ordinary men to accomplish his pruposes... Saying God is in control, simply means that nothing is ever beyond God's ability to control..

[meta]

muzicman,

1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.

On the open view, what is the scope and mode of God's rule, authority, or power?

3. Complete independence and self-government.
4. A territory existing as an independent state.

God didn't need to create in order to have these powers. Is God sovereign over creation, not just from creation?

[Calvinist4Him]

In the open view, God does not release any of His authority over His creation. He does not lose rank authority or power. He does not give up any independence in His authority., nor does He share His governance, and no one has authority superior to His anywhere in creation.

Calvinism seems to want to insert control into sovereignty, and it isn't there.

With regards to OVT, I think the issue has more to do with God's sovereignty over and in the future, than control. For just a moment, assume that God can know the future exhaustively, next someone comes along and say's that God cannot or does not know the future exhaustively. Now, if God can and does know the future exhastively, and a person denies that, would that not be a reduction of God's sovereignty? Now, assuming the open view is correct, then I think you are quite right. So, I realize that just because a person embraces the open view, that doesn't necessarily mean they hold to a less sovereign view of God in their mind according to their presupposition that the future cannot be known exhaustively because it doesn't exist.

When a nation has sovereignty, its main emphasis is its ability to stay within it's defining tenants and enforce its own laws.

If anything, the open view reflects a society that embraces real freedom.

Freedom from what?

Real freedom is in Christ, which is freedom to not sin.

[themuzicman]

muzicman,
On the open view, what is the scope and mode of God's rule, authority, or power?

God retains the right to judge and execute wrath or mercy upon any individual or group that is living in sin at any time that He chooses. His just nature will execute judgment upon ALL mankind in the escaton, and only those who are justified will be spared wrath.

God obviously has the authority to act as He wishes anywhere in He chooses to. He is limited by His nature, in that He does violate His own word

God didn't need to create in order to have these powers. Is God sovereign over creation, not just from creation?

Well, if there wasn't a creation, God wouldn't be sovereign over it, right? :wink:

Michael

[GoBahnsen]

I've been doing somethinking on this whole "the open view reduces God's sovereignty" thing, and decided to do a little research (specifically, consulting a dictionary):

Sovereignty:

1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.
4. A territory existing as an independent state.


In the open view, God does not release any of His authority over His creation. He does not lose rank authority or power. He does not give up any independence in His authority., nor does He share His governance, and no one has authority superior to His anywhere in creation.

Calvinism seems to want to insert control into sovereignty, and it isn't there.

When a nation has sovereignty, its main emphasis is its ability to stay within it's defining tenants and enforce its own laws.

If anything, the open view reflects a society that embraces real freedom.

MichaelWithout wanting to defend Calvinism proper, control is an implied aspect of sovereignty. God was sovereign over Pharoah, even to the point of not allowing Pharoah to come to his senses. God controlled Pharoah's heart. God made sure Pharoah remained completely unreasonable.

To be sure, Pharoah had corrupted his own ways, but God held the ultimate power/control over Pharoah. Without God controlling Pharoah's heart, it is hard to imagine that any human could be so amazingly hardened and stupid. I would argue that it would be impossible, apart from supernatural control by God.

So we read of God telling Moses in advance about this amazing thing that will take place. Pharoah will not let the people go and it will be BECAUSE OF Jehovah's hardening of a heart that was already hard.

What I find is that some people don't accept the fact that God really can do whatever He wants with the unrighteous. Surely God would not harden or manipulate a righteous creature and cause him or her to be evil. But once a person is worthy of hell itself, God is by no means unrighteous to manipulate the creature before judging him or her with the sentence of hell.

So, my point is Michael, that God is sovereign over all and He does control all things. Humans can't do that without coercion and since coercion is a bad word to our minds, we conclude that God cannot do what we cannot do or shouldn't do.

I really think that so much bad theology derives out of man's attempt to size God up in the light of what humans are capable of or not capable of. Always trying to figure God out from our finite perspective. Just some assertions.

[!Fluffy!]

So, my point is Michael, that God is sovereign over all and He does control all things. Humans can't do that without coercion and since coercion is a bad word to our minds, we conclude that God cannot do what we cannot do or shouldn't do.



I really think that so much bad theology derives out of man's attempt to size God up in the light of what humans are capable of or not capable of. Always trying to figure God out from our finite perspective. Just some assertions.

Thanks Michael for starting this thread with so many interesting points to ponder. I love tweb, I learn something new here every day.

But this statement by GB perfectly articulated and clarified something that's been bothering/confusing me for quite some time, and helped me put the matter into the proper perspective.

Pearls to you GoBahnsen, thanks for posting.

[Chappie]

When a Captain sends out his Sergeants on a search and destroy mission, the Captain is sovereign. He is in control. However, he does not dictate every single thought and action that the Sergeants must take... He depends on the Sergeants training and good common sense to accomplish the mission....

We have God word to train us and instruct us in the paths that God desires us to walk. If God is directing and causing every thought and event, the bible is silly and redundant in purpose...

Sovereignty does imply control. It implies "in control". It does not imply determinism...

God often used finite parables to illuminate infinite eternal realities.

Even the priesthood of Aaron was an earthly shadow of heavenly realities…. Even Aaron’s priestly garments were an earthly shadow of a heavenly reality… The temple in Jerusalem was an earthly shadow of a heavenly reality.

The Captain and his sergeants is a earthly shadow of a heavenly reality…

[Darth Executor]

Without wanting to defend Calvinism proper, control is an implied aspect of sovereignty.

Why?

[GoBahnsen]

Why?I think, because a sovereign is only really a soveriegn over that which he has control of. A human king has meaningful sovereignty only so far as he can control his kingdom. If a group rises up and overpowers the king, then that king is no longer sovereign, he has lost authority, power, control.

Though God appears to let men act as though God dosen't exist, God is in control of all that. These rebels pose zero threat to God's kingdom, because God is in control, thus a meaningful sovereign. Does that explain it better?

IOW, to call God sovereign and say that He is not in control of everything in His universe, is to say that God is not sovereign over the things He has no control over. A human king does not match this control. Yet God is in charge of every hair on our heads, the next breath we draw. Yes...even in control of our rebellion, see Jonah.

[Calvinist4Him]

I think, because a sovereign is only really a soveriegn over that which he has control of. A human king has meaningful sovereignty only so far as he can control his kingdom. If a group rises up and overpowers the king, then that king is no longer sovereign, he has lost authority, power, control.

Though God appears to let men act as though God dosen't exist, God is in control of all that. These rebels pose zero threat to God's kingdom, because God is in control, thus a meaningful sovereign. Does that explain it better?

IOW, to call God sovereign and say that He is not in control of everything in His universe, is to say that God is not sovereign over the things He has no control over. A human king does not match this control. Yet God is in charge of every hair on our heads, the next breath we draw. Yes...even in control of our rebellion, see Jonah.

I love you GB, but I think you might be in Hyper-Calvinism territory. Perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding, and I hope that's the case. The sovereignty of God is not summed up with the word "control". The sovereignty of God is also demonstrated when He is passive, knowing that He could directly intervene at any time at His discretion. I would certainly agree that God uses "evil" to acheive His means, not that He "controls" evil, but He has ordained, even allowing evil knowing His glory will be the end result. IOW, even when evil would try to have a place in the glory, evil never triumphs because God uses it to acheive His greater glory.

Genesis 50:20 "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

[Chappie]

I love you GB, but I think you might be in Hyper-Calvinism territory. Perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding, and I hope that's the case. The sovereignty of God is not summed up with the word "control". The sovereignty of God is also demonstrated when He is passive, knowing that He could directly intervene at any time at His discretion. I would certainly agree that God uses "evil" to acheive His means, not that He "controls" evil, but He has ordained, even allowing evil knowing His glory will be the end result. IOW, even when evil would try to have a place in the glory, evil never triumphs because God uses it to acheive His greater glory.

Genesis 50:20 "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

This passage does not represent God using evil to acheive his means... God meant it for Good, not evil... The brothers motives were evil, God's motives in getting Joseph into Egypt was nothing but Good... It is the motives that deternine the Good and evil of this event....

[Calvinist4Him]

This passage does not represent God using evil to acheive his means... God meant it for Good, not evil... The brothers motives were evil, God's motives in getting Joseph into Egypt was nothing but Good... It is the motives that deternine the Good and evil of this event....

Yes it does, your exegetical skills are dull, allow me to help sharpen them...

Genesis 50:20 "As for you, you (Joseph's brothers) meant evil against me, but God meant it (their evil) for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

What is IT Chappie? What is being referred to in the passage where the word "it" is used?

Also, I didn't claim that God's motives were evil, nor did I imply that His motives were evil, so I have no idea where you picked up that idea.

Furthermore, GOD knows the good or evil motives of an event...even before allowing an event, and the only good in His eyes, is good done in faith. That which is not done in faith is sin.

[Darth Executor]

I think, because a sovereign is only really a soveriegn over that which he has control of. A human king has meaningful sovereignty only so far as he can control his kingdom. If a group rises up and overpowers the king, then that king is no longer sovereign, he has lost authority, power, control.

Though God appears to let men act as though God dosen't exist, God is in control of all that. These rebels pose zero threat to God's kingdom, because God is in control, thus a meaningful sovereign. Does that explain it better?

IOW, to call God sovereign and say that He is not in control of everything in His universe, is to say that God is not sovereign over the things He has no control over. A human king does not match this control. Yet God is in charge of every hair on our heads, the next breath we draw. Yes...even in control of our rebellion, see Jonah.


I think we have a semantics problem. Nobody says God has no control over everything. What we are saying is that God does not personally guide every single thing that happens(which is what I assumed you meant by "control"). This by no means limits God's power in any way since He CAN do as He pleases.

[GoBahnsen]

I think we have a semantics problem. Nobody says God has no control over everything. What we are saying is that God does not personally guide every single thing that happens(which is what I assumed you meant by "control"). This by no means limits God's power in any way since He CAN do as He pleases.Being the fallen, limited, finite creatures we are, I'm sure we have lots of semantical problems. The fact of the matter is, we do not know to what extent God controls or guides everything or anything. God told Ahab, through Micaiah the prophet, that if he went to war...he would die in the battle (1Kings 22).

Later we read in the account, that a certain enemy soldier shot an arrow at a venture (no real aim, just as though it were random). That arrow struck Ahab between the joints of his armor. A very small opening. And the king bled to death.

My point is, God apparently controlled, even the flight of an arrow shot "at a venture". Who can wrap their minds around these things? This doesn't mean men don't act freely, but it means to me, that even when men act freely, they end up doing the will of God. Being an enemy of Israel and shooting an arrow at God's people in battle, isn't exactly being involved in righteousness, but the soldier who shot the arrow, accomplished the word of the prophet, and in so doing, did God's will.

Whether men do evil or good, they never foil God or put Him at a loss. God is the most amazing, absolute sovereign ruler and always will be. That's my Biblical opinion and it's open to debate, I hope I have it right. I feel like a small child playing with atomic weapons.

[GoBahnsen]

I love you GB, but I think you might be in Hyper-Calvinism territory. Perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding, and I hope that's the case. The sovereignty of God is not summed up with the word "control". The sovereignty of God is also demonstrated when He is passive, knowing that He could directly intervene at any time at His discretion. I would certainly agree that God uses "evil" to acheive His means, not that He "controls" evil, but He has ordained, even allowing evil knowing His glory will be the end result. IOW, even when evil would try to have a place in the glory, evil never triumphs because God uses it to acheive His greater glory.

Genesis 50:20 "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."I love you too Calvinist4Him.

[Calvinist4Him]

I love you too Calvinist4Him.

:hug: I felt that, love sweet love. It's nice to be on the receiving end of love sometimes. :thumb:

If I lived anywhere near you, we could do a cookout with nice juicy steaks on a grill... :yummy:

[themuzicman]

Without wanting to defend Calvinism proper, control is an implied aspect of sovereignty. God was sovereign over Pharoah, even to the point of not allowing Pharoah to come to his senses. God controlled Pharoah's heart. God made sure Pharoah remained completely unreasonable.

Let's think about this for a minute. Why does God need meticulous control over ALL of creation to do this? PEOPLE do this to EACH OTHER.

To be sure, Pharoah had corrupted his own ways, but God held the ultimate power/control over Pharoah. Without God controlling Pharoah's heart, it is hard to imagine that any human could be so amazingly hardened and stupid. I would argue that it would be impossible, apart from supernatural control by God.

The problem, here, is that you're reading a WHOLE LOT into this text making a WHOLE LOT of unsupported assumptions that aren't there. You're reading into the 'how' of God's hardening of Pharoah's heart, when it simply isn't there.

So we read of God telling Moses in advance about this amazing thing that will take place. Pharoah will not let the people go and it will be BECAUSE OF Jehovah's hardening of a heart that was already hard.

But we aren't told how Pharoah's heart was hardened!

What I find is that some people don't accept the fact that God really can do whatever He wants with the unrighteous. Surely God would not harden or manipulate a righteous creature and cause him or her to be evil. But once a person is worthy of hell itself, God is by no means unrighteous to manipulate the creature before judging him or her with the sentence of hell.


Don't count me in that group.

So, my point is Michael, that God is sovereign over all and He does control all things. Humans can't do that without coercion and since coercion is a bad word to our minds, we conclude that God cannot do what we cannot do or shouldn't do.

Actually, the problem is consistency. If our actions are determined by someone other than ourselves, then requiring justification isn't just. I serve an eternally just God.

I really think that so much bad theology derives out of man's attempt to size God up in the light of what humans are capable of or not capable of. Always trying to figure God out from our finite perspective. Just some assertions.

And that's about all they are.

Michael

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Mr. Bahnsen,

My point is, God apparently controlled, even the flight of an arrow shot "at a venture". Who can wrap their minds around these things? This doesn't mean men don't act freely, but it means to me, that even when men act freely, they end up doing the will of God.

This is absolutely false. Let me explain:

1 Cor 10:13. No temptation has seized you except that which is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

Bahnsen, did you sin last week? Did God not provide a means for escape??
Are you going to claim that determinism somehow caused you to sin???
No, we all understand that actually God did provide a way out, so you made the decision to sin or not to sin of your own free will. Otherwise, God is not faithful to the scripture stated above.

[Anoetos]

If you meet a person who claims that he can reconcile the Sovereignty of God with the moral responsibility of man, that person is either lying or playing with the truth.

Calvinism certainly makes no such claim, though non-Calvinists often say that it necessarily implies such a claim.

[GoBahnsen]

Mr. Bahnsen,

Mr. GoBahnsen...please... or GB.

This is absolutely false. Let me explain: You got it all figured out?



1 Cor 10:13. No temptation has seized you except that which is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

Bahnsen, did you sin last week?
Define sin. Many people want to lower the bar. Jesus confronted that. The Pharisee was proud (sin) that he did not commit adultry. Yet Jesus informs sinners that lusting is on a par with the action itself.

Did I sin last week? My whole life is a constant falling short of God's glory. I'm sinning right now for not being better prepared to start my day. My men are being paid by the hour to water my lawn so I can type this out. That's a sin too.

Did God not provide a means for escape?? You see, that passage isn't really dealing with my sloth in business this morning. It deals with the big stuff in my opinion. Like lusting after a woman in the heart, which I was tempted to do last week, but God made a way of escape and I took it everytime. Last week I passed the tests in that area, by God's grace. Yet I still sin everyday.


Are you going to claim that determinism somehow caused you to sin???
You've got the water all mucked up here.


No, we all understand that actually God did provide a way out, so you made the decision to sin or not to sin of your own free will. Otherwise, God is not faithful to the scripture stated above.
You have a low view of sin my friend.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Hi Anoetos

If you meet a person who claims that he can reconcile the Sovereignty of God with the moral responsibility of man, that person is either lying or playing with the truth.

Only if the definition of sovereignty is Calvinistic. The confusion of Sovereignty of God with the moral responsibility of man is yours, not mine. Thowing up your hands and claiming "Mystery" does not refute my position. If you would like begin to understand the Biblical viewpoint of Sovereignty, read "What the Bible says about God the Ruler" by Jack Cottrell.

Calvinism certainly makes no such claim, though non-Calvinists often say that it necessarily implies such a claim.

I understand that. The fact of the matter is that we do have free will, as explained in my previous post. I also understand that you cannot address my last post as it is irrefutable. Men have free will.

Regards,
A-man

[themuzicman]

If you meet a person who claims that he can reconcile the Sovereignty of God with the moral responsibility of man, that person is either lying or playing with the truth.

Calvinism certainly makes no such claim, though non-Calvinists often say that it necessarily implies such a claim.

Well at least he is consistend with Calvinist creeds, which pretty much say the same thing:

"We know it's a contradiction. We dont' care."

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Hi GB.

You got it all figured out?

As far as? The exegesis of the 1st Corinthians verse and Mans responsibility/Gods Sovereignty? Yes I do. Can you refute it? I think not.

Define sin.

Missing the mark. Disobeying God. You and I both know the definition of sin.

You see, that passage isn't really dealing with my sloth in business this morning. It deals with the big stuff in my opinion.

And that is nothing but your opinion. The text doesn't mention "big stuff" and small stuff. Who has the low opinion of sin now? You do.

You've got the water all mucked up here.
No, I have shown that your decision to sin lies in your own free will, not Gods will as you so stated: "This doesn't mean men don't act freely, but it means to me, that even when men act freely, they end up doing the will of God."

When you sinned, it was your choice, and not by the will of God. Otherwise God is not faithful, as proven by my earlier post.

You have a low view of sin my friend.
Mere Assertion.
You have a low view of the power of God. And you have free will.

Why not stick to the text and the argument I gave instead of skirting them? Refute it, if you can.

Regards,
A-man

[GoBahnsen]

Well at least he is consistend with Calvinist creeds, which pretty much say the same thing:

"We know it's a contradiction. We dont' care."Michael, don't forget the word "paradox".

A-man:I would love to continue to dialogue about sin and God's will, but I don't want to side-track MM's thread too much.

[Xmansmommy]

Michael, GB, I think God gives Moses (and us) great insight into how He hardened Pharaoh's heart.

But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless compelled by a mighty hand. So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all the wonders that I will do in it; after that he will let you go.

Pharaoh was on a power trip and had been as evidenced by the fact that God heard the cries of his people because of their oppression. Pharaoh's ego was quite evident in his first response to Moses and Aaron.

But Pharaoh said, “Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice and let Israel go? I do not know the Lord, and moreover, I will not let Israel go.”

Pharaoh could have chosen to let the people go at any time. We even see evidence of his struggle to submit to God as he said they could go several times and repented. So, God hardened Pharaoh's already hard, power hungry heart by displaying His power. And in doing so His people were also convinced that He was the God of their fathers, that great I AM.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

A-man:I would love to continue to dialogue about sin and God's will, but I don't want to side-track MM's thread too much.

Concession noted.

Regards,
A-man

[Chappie]

Yes it does, your exegetical skills are dull, allow me to help sharpen them...

Genesis 50:20 "As for you, you (Joseph's brothers) meant evil against me, but God meant it (their evil) for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."


20But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

Joseph's brothers meant for the purpose of evil... God meant it for the purposes of Good.. A good "it", and and evil "it". Not the same "it" is it.. God was working a good thing, "to save much people alive"; the brothers intentions was the result of pride and jealousy... The common "it" is Josephs being taken into Egypt. God's good intentions, were not in common with The Brothers evil intentions...

Is that sharp enough for you?


What is IT Chappie? What is being referred to in the passage where the word "it" is used?

Again, utilizing my sharp exegetical skills, the "it" is not the good intentions of God hooking up with the evil intentions of Josephs brothers... That which is in common, the "it" referred to is Joseph’s trip....

Also, I didn't claim that God's motives were evil, nor did I imply that His motives were evil, so I have no idea where you picked up that idea.

Furthermore, GOD knows the good or evil motives of an event...even before allowing an event, and the only good in His eyes, is good done in faith. That which is not done in faith is sin.

Is it a sin for a non believer to honor his mother and father… Is there no intrinsic good in and of itself… Try and digest what I have already written...
Rightly dividing God's words of truth...

[GoBahnsen]

Michael, GB, I think God gives Moses (and us) great insight into how He hardened Pharaoh's heart.

But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless compelled by a mighty hand. So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all the wonders that I will do in it; after that he will let you go.

Pharaoh was on a power trip and had been as evidenced by the fact that God heard the cries of his people because of their oppression. Pharaoh's ego was quite evident in his first response to Moses and Aaron.

But Pharaoh said, “Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice and let Israel go? I do not know the Lord, and moreover, I will not let Israel go.”

Pharaoh could have chosen to let the people go at any time. We even see evidence of his struggle to submit to God as he said they could go several times and repented. So, God hardened Pharaoh's already hard, power hungry heart by displaying His power. And in doing so His people were also convinced that He was the God of their fathers, that great I AM.Really? Pharaoh could have let Israel go before God finished all ten plagues? Then what is the point of God predicting that Pharaoh would not let the people go until that final plague, when God killed the firstborn?

But this is the OVT outlook. Humans can do what they want and God must alter His plans around it. So if Pharaoh really could have let the people go after the 6th or 9th plague, God would have no passover. Moreover, God would be a false god like those He (God) talked about in Isaiah. The ones who can't tell the people about future events.
Isa 41:22 Let them bring forth, and declare unto us what shall happen: declare ye the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or show us things to come.

Isa 41:23 Declare the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.


A-man:I wasn't conceding. It's just that the subject of sin and how it relates to God's will, goes outside the scope of MM's thread subject.

[Anoetos]

Everyone is absolutely free to do what they want to do, morally speaking, anyhow.

[Chappie]

Being the fallen, limited, finite creatures we are, I'm sure we have lots of semantical problems. The fact of the matter is, we do not know to what extent God controls or guides everything or anything. God told Ahab, through Micaiah the prophet, that if he went to war...he would die in the battle (1Kings 22).

Later we read in the account, that a certain enemy soldier shot an arrow at a venture (no real aim, just as though it were random). That arrow struck Ahab between the joints of his armor. A very small opening. And the king bled to death.

My point is, God apparently controlled, even the flight of an arrow shot "at a venture". Who can wrap their minds around these things? This doesn't mean men don't act freely, but it means to me, that even when men act freely, they end up doing the will of God. Being an enemy of Israel and shooting an arrow at God's people in battle, isn't exactly being involved in righteousness, but the soldier who shot the arrow, accomplished the word of the prophet, and in so doing, did God's will.

Whether men do evil or good, they never foil God or put Him at a loss. God is the most amazing, absolute sovereign ruler and always will be. That's my Biblical opinion and it's open to debate, I hope I have it right. I feel like a small child playing with atomic weapons.

Perhaps God simply advised Ahab of an impending event that he did not control or determine/predestine, but had foreknowledge of. This scenario is more likely than deterninism because it does not make God the perpetrator of every evil that occurs in the world....

[Xmansmommy]

Really? Pharaoh could have let Israel go before God finished all ten plagues?

Do you have any reason to believe there was specifically going to be ten plagues? I'm not aware of any such passages.

Then what is the point of God predicting that Pharaoh would not let the people go until that final plague, when God killed the firstborn?

Verse and chapter please? What we do have is God saying:

Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.” If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.’”

God never said after 10 plagues I will kill your firstborn. He says, "if you refuse, then I will kill your son"

But this is the OVT outlook.

Pardon me? You lost me there. :shrug:

Humans can do what they want and God must alter His plans around it.

Just like God said to Pharaoh, if/then. :wink:

So if Pharaoh really could have let the people go after the 6th or 9th plague, God would have no passover.

Where was it prophesied that God would have a passover? If my memory serves me correctly, Passover was a holiday of remembrance of God passing over the children of Israel in Egypt. But to my recollection it was not something God prophesied about.

Moreover, God would be a false god like those He (God) talked about in Isaiah. The ones who can't tell the people about future events.

How do you figure? God told Pharaoh that if he (Pharaoh) didn't let His people go that He would kill his firstborn son. He could tell Pharaoh this future event because it was contingent upon whether or not Pharaoh let the people go.

Isa 41:22 Let them bring forth, and declare unto us what shall happen: declare ye the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or show us things to come.

Even in the OV God is capable of this. God knows the past and knows what He intends to do in the future as He declares it.

Isa 41:23 Declare the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.

That's exactly what prophecy is all about. God foretelling the things He intends to do. This is what seperates Him from other gods. Other gods are not omniscient nor omnipotent.

[Anoetos]

Michael,

It's not a contradiction just because you say it is.

It's you guys who insist on resolving it.

We don't have to, the two things are not contradictory.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I've been doing somethinking on this whole "the open view reduces God's sovereignty" thing, and decided to do a little research (specifically, consulting a dictionary):

Sovereignty:

1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.
4. A territory existing as an independent state.


In the open view, God does not release any of His authority over His creation. He does not lose rank authority or power. He does not give up any independence in His authority., nor does He share His governance, and no one has authority superior to His anywhere in creation.

I think that confusion arises because OVT contends that the scope of what God's foreknowledge contains is lessened compared with classical theism. And obviously, since the scope of God's foreknowledge is comparatively lessened, so too will the scope of God's sovereign control be "lessened." The whole misunderstanding seems merely a charge based upon comparing theological views concerning the extent of God's knowledge and power.


Calvinism seems to want to insert control into sovereignty, and it isn't there.


I don't know that the question can be resolved with an appeal to whether sovereignty involves control so much. Rather, the issue seems to surround how OVT and classical theism conceive the extent of God's knowledge, his sovereignty, and his power. "Control" is wrapped up within all of these. Again, if God's possible knowledge is lessened, his soverignty (as well as his control) will also be lessened---provided we can assume that God cannot be in proportionate control of (or sovereign over) aspects of reality which he cannot know.



When a nation has sovereignty, its main emphasis is its ability to stay within it's defining tenants and enforce its own laws.

If anything, the open view reflects a society that embraces real freedom.

Michael

True, but it may not be fitting to apply your social analogy backwards so that it has any real clout in conceptually delimiting God's authority. God has the authority of authorship, of origination. You may be right, but I don't know how we'd substantiate whether you are or not.

Whether one accepts OVT or not, it has provided a compelling critique against certain aspects of classical theism that have certainly needed re-evaluation. Though not an OVT myself, I continue to appreciate how OVT has effectively raised the calibre of our theological discourse.

[themuzicman]

Whether one accepts OVT or not, it has provided a compelling critique against certain aspects of classical theism that have certainly needed re-evaluation. Though not an OVT myself, I continue to appreciate how OVT has effectively raised the calibre of our theological discourse.

:thumb: Pearls, dude!

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Everyone is absolutely free to do what they want to do, morally speaking, anyhow.

Exactly. That just proves that God is not meticulous in his sovereignty as some calvinists believe. It also proves we have free will in deciding whether we obey God or not.
Thanks for agreeing with my point.

Regards,
A-man

[Anoetos]

Turning to a dictionary will not adequately define the Sovereignty of God as revealed in the Bible.

It may be that the word, as it is defined there to describe human entities does not exactly fit what we mean when we use it of God. Another word which may better fit is "almighty" as an adjective." This at least has the advantage of being more prolifically biblical.

Here then is what we're talking about:

Jeremiah 23:23-24. Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

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

Timothy 6:15. Which in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords.

Revelation 4:11. Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created

Hebrews 4:13. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Psalm 147:5. Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.

Hebrews 1:3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Daniel 4:34-35. And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

Psalm 135:6. Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.

Acts 17:25-28. Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Job 38-41

Proverbs 15:3. The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.

Acts 15:18. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Psalm 94:8-11. Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see? He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity

Psalm 33:10-11. The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect. The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

Romans 1:20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Jeremiah 10:12. He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.

Psalm 104:24. O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.

Psalm 33:5-6 He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Etc.

The sense to be gained from a reading of these passages and others is that God is absolutely sovereign, the adjective "absolutely" being key here. It means a plenipotentiary power, an absolute authority involving creation, providence, sustenance, glory and so on.

"Sovereignty" when applied to the God of Scripture is a meager attempt by men to describe the omnipotence, omniscience, and all the other attributes of God customarily held by Christians as revealed explicitly in Scripture as well as by due and necessary inference therefrom.

Incidentally, Websters gives the sub-definition of sovereignty as being "b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY"

The root of the word, obviously is "Sovereign". A Sovereign is a ruler, usually in an "absolute" sense though in English usage, as reference to the Monarch of Great Britain it has become little more than an encomium.

A quick reference to Roget's for 'sovereign' as an adjective yields the following similes:

absolute, ascendant, autonomous, chief, commanding, directing, effective, effectual, efficacious, excellent, guiding, highest, imperial, independent, kinglike, kingly, loftiest, majestic, master, monarchal, monarchial, overbearing, paramount, predominant, predominate, preponderant, prevalent, principal, queenly, regal, regnant, reigning, royal, ruling, self-governed, supreme, unlimited

Thus it would appear that usage has, as so often is the case in English, outstripped denotation.

[Anoetos]

Exactly. That just proves that God is not meticulous in his sovereignty as some calvinists believe. It also proves we have free will in deciding whether we obey God or not.
Thanks for agreeing with my point.

Regards,
A-man

The belief that people do exactly what they want to do is pure Augustinian/Calvinism. People behave and will and do exactly according to their nature. That nature was created by God and was corrupted after the choice of Adam to do exactly what God had decreed and ordained that he would do.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

The belief that people do exactly what they want to do is pure Augustinian/Calvinism. People behave and will and do exactly according to their nature. That nature was created by God and was corrupted after the choice of Adam to do exactly what God had decreed and ordained that he would do.

Absolutley False! If that were true then explain why Christians sin! We have a new nature, do we not? Why are we cautioned not to grieve the Holy Spirit? Why are we cautioned not to quench the Holy Spirit? Its because we have a free will, and sometimes we act different than our nature. Please reread my original post.

[Anoetos]

Absolutley False! If that were true then explain why Christians sin! We have a new nature, do we not? Why are we cautioned not to grieve the Holy Spirit? Why are we cautioned not to quench the Holy Spirit? Its because we have a free will, and sometimes we act different than our nature. Please reread my original post.

For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. -Romans 7:18-20

Nothing I have said militates against the clear teaching of Scripture that people behave and act according to their natures or that even subsequent to regeneration believers carry the flesh as a principle with them along with it's lusts.

Adam did exactly what he wanted to do. God's decree of it doesn't change the fact.

And we're talking about will here, not action.

I don't do everything I want to do. Rather the opposite, I do things I do not want to do.

The unregenerate person does not want to please God, he does not want to follow Jesus, he does not want to be redeemed. The regenerate person does want to do these things and he wants to do so not out of some nebulous moralistic imperative but because God has changed his heart.

I'm sorry if none of this is as black and white as you would like.

There is a difference between regeneration and sanctification.

And I can't make it go away for you.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Nice try, Anoetos. And I appreciate the condesending tone.

For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. -Romans 7:18-20

We are not talking about the will here, we are talking about action. I have italicized the actions for you.


I believe you must be under the assumption that this passage is about the Christian. If that is indeed the case, then Christians must be poweless, pathetic people. Fortunately you are 100% wrong. You also have never addressed my original post......You have free will, God chooses to allow it.

I'm sorry if none of this is as black and white as you would like.
There is a difference between regeneration and sanctification.
And I can't make it go away for you.

I don't have to use paradox to explain my position. You do, however.

[Anoetos]

Nice try, Anoetos. And I appreciate the condesending tone.



We are not talking about the will here, we are talking about action. I have italicized the actions for you.


I believe you must be under the assumption that this passage is about the Christian. If that is indeed the case, then Christians must be poweless, pathetic people. Fortunately you are 100% wrong. You also have never addressed my original post......You have free will, God chooses to allow it.



I don't have to use paradox to explain my position. You do, however.

Please forgive my condescension, perhaps it was the stridency of your prior rejection which occasioned it. Not that it was your fault. I should know better and should behave accordingly.

The section you italicized also contains two uses of the wrod 'want'. Paul is talking about doing want we want to do.

What changes when God gives us a new heart is not primarily our actions but our will. With Paul we hate the evil we do and would do good.

He clearly shows us that in our flesh we continue to will (and yes, to do) against what 'the inner man' sees to be right.

I do believe Romans 7 refers to regenerate people, but I don't believe it to be a cartoon or a caricature. Paul concludes with the cry, "Who then shall deliver us from this body of death?" the image is of a person with a corpse tied to him. He answers his own question of course.

Sanctification is the process by which we action what our changed hearts desire. It is not instantaneous and is fully realized, I believe, only in Glory.

As for who bears the burden of proof, well, what can I say? my conscience is clear.

[Chappie]

The belief that people do exactly what they want to do is pure Augustinian/Calvinism. People behave and will and do exactly according to their nature. That nature was created by God and was corrupted after the choice of Adam to do exactly what God had decreed and ordained that he would do.

How many people can figure out that Adam's sin was disobedience. Ok, now a few fortunate ones will be able to figure out that if one does what God has ordained that they do, you cannot call that disobedience....

Christ was ordained to die on the cross, how many can figure out that he did not disobey? How many can think past this convolution and contradiction... If Adam did what God ordained that he do, think hard.... This is not disobedience... But if Adam acted contrary to what God commanded... (Hang with me now) Then that is disobedience....

If you have children, and you tell then not to eat the peanut butter crunch in the brown Jar, and they do not eat it... C'mon, be reasonable with me... If they do not eat it, then they did not disobey... If you come home on a power binge, and take the crunch and force the children to eat it, they are not culpable. You big bully, you forced the candy down the children’s throats. Now you want to punish the children for eating the crunch... Dude that is child abuse. This is abusive behavior; the fact that you have a sovereign right to do what you did does not change the fact that under the guidelines for child abuse, you are a sovereign child abuser...


And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
Ephesians 6:3-5 (in Context) Ephesians 6 (Whole Chapter)

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:
James 1:12-14 (in Context) James 1 (Whole Chapter)

God does not tempt men to sin. To ordain that a man sin is a more abominable and egregious offence than tempting men to sin.... If God ordains sin, every man at the GWTJ when accused should stand up and say, God you predestined it.... I was just following orders.... And now you want to blame me for what you ordered.... With all the angels of God and all the redeemed on hand, I would love to hear them singing Holy, Holy, Holy. 99% of those present will be going: :noid: :shrug: :nsm: Can anyone else hear the giggling that is going on....

Is this what holy, holy, holy means???

[GoBahnsen]

Nice exchange between Anoetos and A-man. I would suggest that a new thread be started (or pull up an old one), where sin, freewill, God's will, etc., are discussed. Looks like A-man still wants to hash that subject out, even after I pulled away.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

The section you italicized also contains two uses of the wrod 'want'. Paul is talking about doing want we want to do.

Paul also used the word "do" five times and "doing" once.

What changes when God gives us a new heart is not primarily our actions but our will.

Really? And what good is will without action? It is of no good. Only action validates faith.

I do believe Romans 7 refers to regenerate people, but I don't believe it to be a cartoon or a caricature.

Regenerate people don't ask "Who then shall deliver us from this body of death?" because they have already been delivered. People that are unregenerate, yet convicted by the Holy Spirit do ask that question. Remember that Paul earlier (Chapter 2) said that the gentiles have, in some way, the Law of God written on their hearts. If, in the future you would like some assistance in understanding Romans 7, please let me know.

As you have continued to avoid my earliest post in this thread, I'll have to say our conversation is over for now. My conscience is also quite clear in this matter. I have enjoyed our brief discussions and look forward to future interaction.

[Anoetos]

If I want to know the Arminian perspective on any passage of Scripture, I will keep you in mind.

Peace and Grace to you, brother.

[themuzicman]

Michael,

It's not a contradiction just because you say it is.

It's you guys who insist on resolving it.

We don't have to, the two things are not contradictory.

Give me a break. Theodicy has been an issue for theologians for centuries.

[Anoetos]

Give me a break. Theodicy has been an issue for theologians for centuries.

Sho'nuff...

But again, all you've done here is assert a contradiction...

[BenK]

If you meet a person who claims that he can reconcile the Sovereignty of God with the moral responsibility of man, that person is either lying or playing with the truth.



Well at least he is consistend with Calvinist creeds, which pretty much say the same thing:

"We know it's a contradiction. We don't care."

Michael,
It's not a contradiction just because you say it is.

It's you guys who insist on resolving it.

We don't have to, the two things are not contradictory.

Anoetos, it's not clear what you mean here. In post #20, you seem to be saying that reconcilliation between the Calvinist conception of God's sovereignty (ie, that everything happens first and foremost because God wills is to happen) and human responsibility is impossible, at least for human thinkers. In post #33 you seem to be arguing that there is not even an apparent contradiction between the two.

What do you mean?

[Anoetos]

What I mean is that it is not possible for human beings to understand how they are reconciled.

Inability to reconcile does not imply irreconcilability or contradiction.

[Calvinist4Him]

What I mean is that it is not possible for human beings to understand how they are reconciled.

Inability to reconcile does not imply irreconcilability or contradiction.

Isn't it funny how not being able to FULLY reconcile (with our mind) the Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of human beings is an issue when we appeal to paradox, but if we start talking about the Trinity appeals to paradox are ok? :lol:

[BenK]

What I mean is that it is not possible for human beings to understand how they are reconciled.

Inability to reconcile does not imply irreconcilability or contradiction.

Curious. You fully aknowledge the apparent irreconcilability between the Calvinist conception of God's meticulous control and human responsibility, and then offer 'things aren't contradictory just because you say they are' as a refutation to the objection to Calvinism on the grounds that it is contradictory.

The Emperor is fully clothed, but the simple (shall we say the unspiritual) will believe he is naked, hmm?

For myself, I don't believe the Calvinist conceptions of divine control and human responsibility are actually contradictory. There is nothing formally contradictory about the propositions

1. God causes sin.

2. God will punish man for sin by way of eternal torment.

What is required, however, is either the abandoment of a belief that God is good, or an abandonment of any content the word 'good' possesses. If creating conscious beings consigned to a life of sin and thence to an eternity of torment is an act so good as to be an act worthy of the form of all perfection himself then we must frankly confess that 'good' is a concept utterly foreign to all human thought. We might as well say of God that he is 'svolvmatic' as say that he is 'good', as neither the sounds 'svolvmatic' or 'good' attatch themselves to any meaningful concept.

[BenK]

Isn't it funny how not being able to FULLY reconcile (with our mind) the Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of human beings is an issue when we appeal to paradox, but if we start talking about the Trinity appeals to paradox are ok?

I don't believe the doctrine of the trinity is paradoxical.

[Calvinist4Him]

I don't believe the doctrine of the trinity is paradoxical.

Ok, let's not use the word "paradox", instead let's use the phrase "not fully comprehendable" (though men like Johnathan Edwards have been entrusted with more than others). Do you believe the Trinity is fully comprehendable?

[GoBahnsen]

What is it about the Calvinists and the non Calvinists that keeps on ticking? IOW, I'm still trying to distill it down into it's most basic difference. There is a hostility of some kind and maybe it just depends on whose talking.

Hey Anoetos...congrats to you for a nice humble approach today.

[GoBahnsen]

Isn't it funny how not being able to FULLY reconcile (with our mind) the Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of human beings is an issue when we appeal to paradox, but if we start talking about the Trinity appeals to paradox are ok? :lol:Good point

[Anoetos]

Ben,

My point was specifically to Michael that all he's done here was assert that the "Calvinist conception of God's meticulous control" and human responsibility are contradictory.

As for the simple, frankly, they have never had a problem with this. Simple folk pray like God does everything and act like their deeds make a difference.

They're right, by the way.

Calvinism does not teach that God causes sin.

There is a difference between causation and decree. I understand the convenience of dismissing the distinction but this business of theology is a messy one, full of such fine distinctions. The Westminster Standards refer to God's ordination of all things without doing violence to 'secondary causes'.

To conclude that the contingency of a choice implies causation by the non-contingent ordaining agent is an unwarranted leap. I completely understand why it is made, but this doesn't make it any less necessary.

Here is a quote by Warfield which says it better than I can:

That anything -good or evil- occurs in God’s universe finds its account…in His positive ordering and active concurrence; while the moral quality of the deed, considered in itself, is rooted in the moral character of the subordinate agent, acting under the circumstances and under the motives operative in each instance….Thus all things find their unity in His eternal plan; and not their unity merely, but their justification as well; even the evil, though retaining it’s quality as evil and hateful to the Holy God, and certain to be dealt with as hateful, yet does not occur apart from His provision or against His will, but appears in the world which He has made only as the instrument by which He works the higher good.

Mike

[Anoetos]

GoB,

I think it's exactly this thorny issue of the shadow cast by human moral responsibility against the backdrop of God's meticulous providence.

Simple dismissals are easy and rife among Calvinists as well as Arminians. It is easy to caricature your opponent and attribute unjustified and improper intent as well as false conclusions.

Both sides have a long history of doing it. From the Calvinist charge that Arminians are Pelagian and that their system mocks the cross, to the Arminian insistence that Calvinists are determinists worshiping a false god and that their system makes men into robots, the poison runs deep.

We both love God and want desperately to be honest with what He has revealed to us. We both see that people behave in ways contrary to that revelation, including rejection of it's claims upon us and, being made in the image and likeness of God, we seek to understand why...

Unfortunately we are fallen, and we fail, all too often, to honor that likeness in eachother.

Now, we'll sing one round of Kumbaya and then we'll reenter the Octagon...

[BenK]

Ben,

My point was specifically to Michael that all he's done here was assert that the "Calvinist conception of God's meticulous control" and human responsibility are contradictory.

And this after you had claimed that the apparent contradiction between the two was so irreconcilable that anyone who claimed to be able to reconcile them was 'either lying or playing with the truth.' It's a bit rich to in one post admit an apparent contradiction so extreeme and then in another post contend that any claim of actual contradiction is groundless assertion. The very fact of an apparent contradiction is grounds for a claim of actual contradiction.

[Anoetos]

And this after you had claimed that the apparent contradiction between the two was so irreconcilable that anyone who claimed to be able to reconcile them was 'either lying or playing with the truth. It's a bit rich to in one post admit an apparent contradiction so extreeme and then in another post contend that any claim of actual contradiction is groundless assertion. The very fact of an apparent contradiction is grounds for a claim of actual contradiction.

1. The word "contradiction' is one that I would never use in this regard and would humbly request that you stop attributing it to me. I will accept your earlier characterization of my position as accepting 'apparent irreconcilibility' but to say that I admit that they are 'apparently contradictory' goes beyond anything I believe I have said and represents, I think, an attempt on your part to poison the well.

2. The conclusion that "The very fact of an apparent contradiction is grounds for a claim of actual contradiction." is only reasonable if human reason is the measure of truth, or if one is comfortable making assumptions about accidents without due regard for substance (to use aristotelian terms).

Illustration: If you overhear me giving instructions to my son, and all you hear is me telling him to go into the front yard and into the back yard, but you did not hear me tell him to do one before doing the other, is there a real contradiction, or only an apparent one?

[Anoetos]

Par. 6 of post #57 should end "but this doesn't make it any MORE necessary." And it's not a freudian slip because the sentence makes no sense at all with the error in place.

:P

[Xmansmommy]

Hey GB, was wondering if you were going to respond to my questions to you? I thought they were valid. Perhaps a bit off Michael's original topic but we can always start a new thread if that's the case.

[GoBahnsen]

Do you have any reason to believe there was specifically going to be ten plagues? I'm not aware of any such passages.


I was just going off memory. As I recall, God did let Moses know that there was going to be a serious refusal on Pharaoh's part and that God would be directly involved in making sure that would be the case. As to God telling Moses "10" would be the number, I'd have to re-read the account. God knew it would be ten is my assertion. Saving the most significant one for last. The Passover teaches us directly about redemption through the blood of the LAMB.


Verse and chapter please? What we do have is God saying:

Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.” If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.’”

God never said after 10 plagues I will kill your firstborn. He says, "if you refuse, then I will kill your son"
The difference between you and I is...I will claim that God knew Pharaoh would remain hardened in order that God might show forth all that He had planned to show through this earthly ruler. Later God saying that He raised up Pharaoh for this very purpose.



Pardon me? You lost me there. :shrug:



Just like God said to Pharaoh, if/then. :wink:



Where was it prophesied that God would have a passover? If my memory serves me correctly, Passover was a holiday of remembrance of God passing over the children of Israel in Egypt. But to my recollection it was not something God prophesied about.
God only predicted that He would harden Pharaoh's heart in order that God might show forth His power. Look at the wonderful design in it. So...you're saying that if Pharaoh surprised God and relented early on...we may never have seen the type of a passover? Pharaoh had the power to act positively and the world may never have known about the passover?



How do you figure? God told Pharaoh that if he (Pharaoh) didn't let His people go that He would kill his firstborn son. He could tell Pharaoh this future event because it was contingent upon whether or not Pharaoh let the people go.



Even in the OV God is capable of this. God knows the past and knows what He intends to do in the future as He declares it.



That's exactly what prophecy is all about. God foretelling the things He intends to do. This is what seperates Him from other gods. Other gods are not omniscient nor omnipotent.
I'm out of time. Good questions though. I'll try later.

[BenK]

I will accept your earlier characterization of my position as accepting 'apparent irreconcilibility' but to say that I admit that they are 'apparently contradictory' goes beyond anything I believe I have said and represents, I think, an attempt on your part to poison the well.

As far as I would use the terms, the statement 'proposition a and proposition b are irreconcilable' and the statement 'proposition a and proposition b are contradictory' are synonymous. What do you mean by the distinction?

2. The conclusion that "The very fact of an apparent contradiction is grounds for a claim of actual contradiction." is only reasonable if human reason is the measure of truth,

It's true that apparent contradiction does not prove actual contradiction; induction is not proof. Nevertheless, to claim actual contradiction on the basis of apparent contradiction is not groundless assertion, it is assertion on the basis of the avaliable evidence.

[BenK]

to the Arminian insistence that Calvinists are determinists

I'm curious, in what sense are Calvinists not determinists? What happens that is not predetermined?

Calvinism does not teach that God causes sin.

There is a difference between causation and decree. I understand the convenience of dismissing the distinction but this business of theology is a messy one, full of such fine distinctions. The Westminster Standards refer to God's ordination of all things without doing violence to 'secondary causes'.


Firstly, the only 'convenience' about dismissing such a distinction is that it sounds like a blustering sophistry. People don't object to the evasive mental gymnasics of reformed theology for fun.

Secondly, what is the difference between causation and decree? Specifically, why did Adam sin? Clearly Calvin holds that God decreed Adam's sin, and that in light of God's decree Adam's sin was inevitable. In what sense is God not the cause of Adam's sin? If we say that Adam sinned because of his own character and his circumstances, is not God thereby the cause of Adam's sin in that he is the cause of Adam's character and Adam's circumstances?

[Xmansmommy]

I was just going off memory.

No problem, I've done it myself.

As I recall, God did let Moses know that there was going to be a serious refusal on Pharaoh's part and that God would be directly involved in making sure that would be the case.

Sure God did let Moses know that He was going to do some wonderous things and afterwards Pharaoh would let the people go.

As to God telling Moses "10" would be the number, I'd have to re-read the account.

Fair enough. I've read it recently several times. With my family and by myself and I don't believe you'll find any specific number.

God knew it would be ten is my assertion.

Certainly we'd disagree there considering Exodus 4:8-9. :wink:

Saving the most significant one for last.

That He did! It's kinda hard to fight against a God whose power you can't match or hide from. Hard lesson Pharaoh learned indeed!

The Passover teaches us directly about redemption through the blood of the LAMB.

Yes, that it does.

The difference between you and I is...I will claim that God knew Pharaoh would remain hardened in order that God might show forth all that He had planned to show through this earthly ruler.

I don't believe God was ignorant to Pharaoh's heart condition, GB. I think He knew Pharaoh wasn't going to relent until he realized he couldn't compete with God's power. That in no way suggests that Pharaoh didn't have freedom to choose to do otherwise.

Later God saying that He raised up Pharaoh for this very purpose.

He worked even Pharaoh's hardness for good...to show forth His power.

God only predicted that He would harden Pharaoh's heart in order that God might show forth His power. Look at the wonderful design in it. So...you're saying that if Pharaoh surprised God and relented early on...we may never have seen the type of a passover? Pharaoh had the power to act positively and the world may never have known about the passover?

God predicted correctly based on the knowledge He had of Pharaoh's heart. What I'm saying is that Pharaoh had opportunity after opportunity to relent and at any time he could have. But his heart was so hardened and the plagues continued to anger him and harden his heart so that he did not. Pharaoh had the chance to act positively but refused. The passover was God's display of power over Pharaoh. Had Pharaoh repented and let the people go the Passover would not have been necessary.

I personally believe that the first event that hardened Pharaoh's heart was Moses and Aaron coming and asking for him to let the people go and worship the God of their fathers. He responded by asking why they wanted to take the people from their service to him. He hardened his heart and make their work harder.

Then in Ex 6 God told Moses that now he would see what God would do. It became a power struggle for Pharaoh. And God knew that Pharaoh loved power. God knew Pharaoh wasn't going to let them go easily so He used plagues to display His power over Pharaoh.

I'm out of time. Good questions though. I'll try later.

:cool:

[GoBahnsen]

No problem, I've done it myself.



Sure God did let Moses know that He was going to do some wonderous things and afterwards Pharaoh would let the people go.



Fair enough. I've read it recently several times. With my family and by myself and I don't believe you'll find any specific number.



Certainly we'd disagree there considering Exodus 4:8-9. :wink:



That He did! It's kinda hard to fight against a God whose power you can't match or hide from. Hard lesson Pharaoh learned indeed!



Yes, that it does.



I don't believe God was ignorant to Pharaoh's heart condition, GB. I think He knew Pharaoh wasn't going to relent until he realized he couldn't compete with God's power. That in no way suggests that Pharaoh didn't have freedom to choose to do otherwise.



He worked even Pharaoh's hardness for good...to show forth His power.



God predicted correctly based on the knowledge He had of Pharaoh's heart. What I'm saying is that Pharaoh had opportunity after opportunity to relent and at any time he could have. But his heart was so hardened and the plagues continued to anger him and harden his heart so that he did not. Pharaoh had the chance to act positively but refused. The passover was God's display of power over Pharaoh. Had Pharaoh repented and let the people go the Passover would not have been necessary.

I personally believe that the first event that hardened Pharaoh's heart was Moses and Aaron coming and asking for him to let the people go and worship the God of their fathers. He responded by asking why they wanted to take the people from their service to him. He hardened his heart and make their work harder.

Then in Ex 6 God told Moses that now he would see what God would do. It became a power struggle for Pharaoh. And God knew that Pharaoh loved power. God knew Pharaoh wasn't going to let them go easily so He used plagues to display His power over Pharaoh.



:cool:As a monergistic believer I can use the same language you're using. "Pharaoh had opportunity to repent, but did not." Ok...fine. I guess the difference is in how we view repentance. Is it a gift of God granted to those whom He chooses. Or is it something within man's autonomous power to perform?

The Bible uses language to suggest it's a gift given at God's discretion. Esau sought it with tears but it eluded him. Oh that Bible in which we both believe, it is a tough book at times. It keeps us digging.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

As a monergistic believer I can use the same language you're using. "Pharaoh had opportunity to repent, but did not." Ok...fine. I guess the difference is in how we view repentance. Is it a gift of God granted to those whom He chooses. Or is it something within man's autonomous power to perform?

The Bible uses language to suggest it's a gift given at God's discretion. Esau sought it with tears but it eluded him. Oh that Bible in which we both believe, it is a tough book at times. It keeps us digging.

What was it exactly that Esau sought "with tears?"


(Hey GB)

[Anoetos]

I made the reference to determinism in a thread offering a couple of examples of how Arminians and Calvinists have purposely misunderstood eachother, mischaracterized and calumnied eachother.

I'm not much interested in discussing it here for two reasons:

1. It is not germaine to the current thread topic.

2. It's been done to death on this board; Calvinists and Arminians both, in those discussions betraying exactly the lack of charity I was talking about in the one where I mentioned 'determinism', and I'm not much interested in educating someone who, clearly, prefers his theology cut in small, easily digestible chunks entirely free of fine distinction and nuance.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I made the reference to determinism in a thread offering a couple of examples of how Arminians and Calvinists have purposely misunderstood eachother, mischaracterized and calumnied eachother.

I'm not much interested in discussing it here for two reasons:

1. It is not germaine to the current thread topic.

2. It's been done to death on this board; Calvinists and Arminians both, in those discussions betraying exactly the lack of charity I was talking about in the one where I mentioned 'determinism', and I'm not much interested in educating someone who, clearly, prefers his theology cut in small, easily digestible chunks entirely free of fine distinction and nuance.

I think it would be beneficial to everyone if you would start a new thread for the express sake of elucidating your distinction between causality and decree. Your quote from Warfield contains an assertion that morality can somehow be excluded from everything else in the universe which finds its "active account" in God's "positive ordering." If you can indeed "educate" any of us by supplying the missing nuances we might have missed, you ought to do so out of pure charity.

As to overblown polemics, well, they are difficult to get around---but a more in-depth and substantive discussion of these matter will no doubt be welcomed by many people here....