What does God's Sovereignty mean?

[meluckycharms]

I confess to being quite puzzled by MennoSota's position.... but I simply wanted to note that TYPICALLY (well, always in classical theology) this discussion is severely limited to only justification (in the narrow sense). Thus, the posts about PHILOSOPHICAL "determinism" are inappropriate and irrelevant. Calvin did not teach determinism (the philosophy) and the followers of Calvin (who often took his views to extremes) did not either. The sole issue is justification - the COMING to spiritual life, the change from being DEAD (and unable to think, say or do anything for self or anyone in this regard) to LIFE, the change in relationship with God. Thus, philosphical determinism and theological predestination/election are VERY different things.

I can't speak for MennoSota, but no Christian has ever argued to my knowledge that people lack free will in ALL things. I chose to eat two pieces of toast and a hard boiled egg this morning, that was fully MY free choice. BUT, what was for 1500 years in a general sense accepted (Council of Orange, for example) and what Luther affirmed and generally what Anglicanism affirmed is that LIFE from come God and not from the dead; that God is the Life-Giver (both physical and spiritual), that the dead do not "choose" to create life within their dead selves and then give such life to self: We've affirmed that GOD is the GIVER of life - and thus of being born again, regenerated, justified.

Where Calvin (or at least his radical followers) went wrong, IMO, is to twist what is always GOSPEL in the Scripture, directed to the LIVING and believing in Scripture, to comfort and assure..... twisted that upside down and inside out, twisted it into Law, into God's heart "getting off" on seeing people fry, on being glorified by hating people and appointing them to hell, that GOD is specifically the one to take all the blame for the majority going to hell. THAT is what has been generally condemned (even by most Calvinists these days, it seems to me - nearly all of them, in fact).

Sure, based exclusively on what God has chosen to tell us (and we have no reason to believe that's everything).... there's a certain HUMAN 'logic' in the two conjectures of Arminius and Calvin (both are equally 'logical') ..... but what our fallen, human, sinful "logic" creates clearly and undeniably is contradicted by what Scripture says, so that these radical Calvinists must deny what God has so clearly said, turning "all" into "a minority" etc., etc. Most Christians would argue the problem is not with God and not with Scripture.... the problem is with Calvin's "logic" and Calvin's insistence that self gets to appoint self as the Corrector of God, the Answer Man for God.... and that Calvin simply twists Gospel into Law.... what is meant to convey His heart into conveying some horrible monster....

As my Greek Orthodox friend often laments, "Christians lost their ability to shut up." Or as Lutherans often state, "we are called to be stewards of the MYSTERIES of God" and as my Lutheran teacher put it in my doctrine class, "God gets the last word.... and if he chooses to not answer all our questions, that's His Call." Somehow, I see that as accepting the Sovereignty of God MORE than Calvinists..... Now we see in a mirror dimly.... The mind of God is too big for our brains to wrap around..... And that's okay. Our 'job' is to trust and obey - not correct. Our 'job' is faith - not mandating that God agree with our puny conjectures in order for God to be as smart as self regards self. "Humility is the foundation of all sound theology" - Martin Luther.

Protestantism began as a repudiation of all the medieval dogmatizing of man's attempts to correct God, to force God into OUR concepts of philosophy and reality, to get back to what God actually DECLARED. But as many note, much of Protestantism quickly went full circle and did what they themselves had rejected - often worse than the Medieval church. IMO, Calvin and Arminius BOTH are examples of that in this particular matter.




Thank you for the thoughtful discussion.....



- Josiah

I agree. Thank you for your clarification. It just seems as though MenneSota is confused about what the Reformed doctrines actually are.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[NewCreation435]

Free will is not a contradiction to sovereignty. This is not an either/or. Its a both/and. Sovereignty and Free Will Some see contradiction between divine sovereignty and human free will, an often misunderstood term. Man’s will is free in that he makes willing choices that have actual consequences. Yet man’s will is not morally neutral; rather, it is in bondage to sin, and without divine grace he chooses freely and consistently to reject God (Rom. 3:10–11; Eph. 2:1–3; 2 Tim. 2:25–26). Scripture affirms both divine sovereignty and man’s willing activity. Pharaoh’s rise to power was entirely in accordance with his own will; it was also entirely by the hand of God (Exod. 9:16). The crucifixion of Christ was fully the free act of sinful men, and at the same time fully the purpose of God (Acts 2:23; 4:27–28). Conversions are reported in Acts in a manner consistent with both concepts (Acts 13:48; 16:14).

Though God is sovereign, man is still accountable to God for his actions (Rom. 2:5–11; 3:19). The relationship between these two concepts is mysterious but not contradictory. Paul raises the issue but, rather than resolving the tension, simply affirms both (Rom. 9:19–29).

Source: Holman bible dictionary. This most accurately explains my position.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The Bible affirms both free will and God's Sovereignty. Volumes and volumes of theological text have been written to try and explain that, but it is beyond me. I just know that God's word affirms both so I do also.

 

[Josiah]

The Bible affirms both free will and God's Sovereignty. Volumes and volumes of theological text have been written to try and explain that, but it is beyond me. I just know that God's word affirms both so I do also.

I actually don't know how the two are related, much less that they are some "contradiction."

I reject that self is responsible for self being saved.... not only do I think that is flatly unbiblical but then self is the Savior and not Jesus; if self is the primary reason self is saved (self supplying the actual aspect that results in salvation) then it is impossible to regard Jesus as the Savior; He may be a Possibility-Maker or a Divine Helper but He can't be the Savior. I think Scripture clearly states that God saves us, not that self saves self; I think the Bible clearly says that God gives life to the dead not the dead to the dead.

But certainly God is sovereign (and also loving).... And part of accepting that is to let God have the last word, let God's Word stand without self designating self as The Corrector or God, The Answer Man to which God must submit if God is to be as smart as self. Accepting God's sovereignty means bowing before God's wisdom, accepting God is smarter than we are (especially about the things of God), so if SELF "sees" some problem, some illogic in God - well..... the problem is not with God. But I think a lot actually believe in the sovereignty of self and that God must submit to the brain of self - even if the pov of self clearly and obviously contradicts a lot of what God clearly stated. Accepting the soverignty of God is likely to mean accepting Mystery. There's a good reason why theology was called "The Holy Mysteries" before the 16th Century, why we are called to be "Stewards of the Mysteries of God" rather than "Correctors of God mandated to come up with a mess of conjectures to try to correct God and make God smart and logical."



- Josiah

 

[meluckycharms]

The Sovereignty of God is the biblical teaching that all things are under God's rule and control, and that nothing happens without His direction or permission. God works not just some things but all things according to the counsel of His own will (see Eph. 1:11). His purposes are all-inclusive and never thwarted (see Isa. 46:11); nothing takes Him by surprise. The sovereignty of God is not merely that God has the power and right to govern all things, but that He does so, always and without exception. In other words, God is not merely sovereign de jure (in principle), but sovereign de facto (in practice).

"What do we mean by [the sovereignty of God]? We mean the supremacy of God, the kingship of God, the god-hood of God. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that God is God. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the Most High, doing according to His will in the army of Heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, so that none can stay His hand or say unto Him what doest Thou? (Dan. 4:35). To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the Almighty, the Possessor of all power in Heaven and earth, so that none can defeat His counsels, thwart His purpose, or resist His will (Psa. 115:3). To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is "The Governor among the nations" (Psa. 22:28), setting up kingdoms, overthrowing empires, and determining the course of dynasties as pleaseth Him best. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the "Only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords" (1 Tim. 6:15). Such is the God of the Bible." A. W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God, chapter 1.

God's sovereignty in salvation means that He saves whom He will, and those whom He saves owe nothing to anything in or of themselves. They are saved because God graciously chose them in eternity and regenerated and called them in history. They cannot even take credit for their faith because it is the gift that He Himself sovereignly bestows.
https://www.theopedia.com/sovereignty-of-god

Ok. Let's say I baked some cookies and put them on the table. I then tell my son not to eat them. He has a long history of disobedience, especially when it comes to cookies. So I knew that the moment I turned the corner he would attempt to sneak cookies like so many times before.

I decide to make this a lesson in obedience , so I intentionally leave the room and peak around the corner. Seconds later, I see my son grabbing a cookie and bringing it towards his mouth.

With my limited knowledge I still knew my son would disobey. With my limited parental sovereignty, I set the conditions to test my son. Did my son not have a choice, did he not have free will? Is he not culpable for his decision?

I agree with your post. God is completely sovereign, omnipotent, and omniscient. However, it never once states that free will is incompatible with God. His sovereignty gives Him the authority to put is in a situation where we have to choose. His omnipotence gives Him the power to do so. Though His omniscience, God even knows what decision we are going to make. Yet despite all of this, we still make a choice that we are culpable for.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

Ok. Let's say I baked some cookies and put them on the table. I then tell my son not to eat them. He has a long history of disobedience, especially when it comes to cookies. So I knew that the moment I turned the corner he would attempt to sneak cookies like so many times before.

I decide to make this a lesson in obedience , so I intentionally leave the room and peak around the corner. Seconds later, I see my son grabbing a cookie and bringing it towards his mouth.

With my limited knowledge I still knew my son would disobey. With my limited parental sovereignty, I set the conditions to test my son. Did my son not have a choice, did he not have free will? Is he not culpable for his decision?

The "problem" with your illustration is that you assume your son is alive. Those who are dead aren't alive; those who are spiritually dead aren't spiritually alive. To make your illustration work, your son would need to be dead when you set the cookies on the table. The Bible says, "you were DEAD." I've seen dead people.... and they don't will much of anything, in fact, they don't do much of anything at all.

Remember: the issue here is not philosphical determinism nor free will among the living (those who already ARE born again, justified, given spiritual life). The issue is justification: COMING to life, TRANSFORMING from death to life, born again. Christianity affirmed (until Arminius) that God is the giver of life (in fact, we've especially credited coming to spiritual life with the Holy Spirit; it even got into the Nicene Creed), not that the dead may choose to create faith and give that faith and life to self (dead are generally incapable of anything).

His sovereignty gives Him the authority to put is in a situation where we have to choose.

How do the dead choose anything? Before one has life, how can they choose to give it to self?


Ephesians 1:4; Ephesians 2:1-9


Thank you.


- Josiah



.

 

[meluckycharms]

The "problem" with your illustration is that you assume your son is alive. Those who are dead aren't alive; those who are spiritually dead aren't spiritually alive. To make your illustration work, your son would need to be dead when you set the cookies on the table. The Bible says, "you were DEAD." I've seen dead people.... and they don't will much of anything, in fact, they don't do much of anything at all.

Remember: the issue here is not philosphical determinism nor free will among the living (those who already ARE born again, justified, given spiritual life). The issue is justification: COMING to life, TRANSFORMING from death to life, born again. Christianity affirmed (until Arminius) that God is the giver of life (in fact, we've especially credited coming to spiritual life with the Holy Spirit; it even got into the Nicene Creed), not that the dead may choose to create faith and give that faith and life to self (dead are generally incapable of anything).




How do the dead choose anything? Before one has life, how can they choose to give it to self?


Ephesians 1:4; Ephesians 2:1-9


Thank you.


- Josiah



.

How can a dead person sin? Furthermore, how can a dead person he held accountable for sin if they cannot choose. Because they're dead...right?

Furthermore, what if someone was "alive" as in "saved". Would that change the scenario?

One more thought, did Adam have free will or was he dead too? What led him to sin? Was it God? How would that fit with James 1:13?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[meluckycharms]

How can a dead person sin? Furthermore, how can a dead person he held accountable for sin if they cannot choose. Because they're dead...right?

Furthermore, what if someone was "alive" as in "saved". Would that change the scenario?

One more thought, did Adam have free will or was he dead too? What led him to sin? Was it God? How would that fit with James 1:13?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Imalive]

Only the demoniac from the Garadenes had no free will whatsoever and wasn't told to repent and get baptized.

 

[Josiah]

How can a dead person sin?

Sin is what dead people do.... is the fruit of being spiritually dead. Folks who are physically alive but spiritually dead (kind of like "the walking dead" LOL)

Furthermore, how can a dead person he held accountable for sin if they cannot choose. Because they're dead...right?

They can be dead (no one chooses that) and sin is what dead people do. Yes, they are accountable because it's wrong. If I'm driving 90 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, does the cop care if I CHOSE to speed or even if I was aware that I was speeding? Nope. I'm just getting a ticket cuz I was speeding.

Furthermore, what if someone was "alive" as in "saved". Would that change the scenario?

Being spiritually alive IS saved. Justification IS the coming to spiritual life, born again, regeneration, becoming a child of God (an opposite relationship to God). Jesus said, "I have come that you may have life."

Your illustration of a boy and the cookies would work IF your son was alive; or to apply the illustration here, IF a person was a Child of God, a Christian, born again, regenerated... but then your illustration would apply to sanctification - the LIFE of a CHRISTIAN (a whole other enchildada).

One more thought, did Adam have free will or was he dead too?

He did prior to his sinning. He had none (in terms of justification) afterword. One who is physically alive my choose to commit suicide but once they are dead, their physical life has no "free will." Similar with spiritual life. Of course, Adam and Eve were the only ones to begin alive... the rest of us gain physicial life (a pure gift from God and NOT the result of our the pre-conception baby's free will) but not spiritual life (otherwise, we'd all be born Christians and not need to be born again, "NOT from the will of man but by the will of God" the Bible says).

What led him to sin?

No one knows. God did not reveal the answer to that question (and a whole lot of other questions, lol). Why would the PERFECT chose inperfection, the LIVING chose death? That question applies to Satan and to Adam and Eve. But while it's a good question, no one knows the answer for one very simple, clear reason: God chose not to tell us (perhaps because it doesn't matter to us?)

Was it God?

I'm not a Calvinist, and so I'd say "no." God is not the Author and Giver of death but the Author and Giver of life. WHATEVER the reason, the "blame" for Satan, Adam and Eve's "fall" was not God. We have a mystery here. There's a TON of them.

How would that fit with James 1:13?

Well. IMO.



Thank you.


- Josiah



.

 

[meluckycharms]

Sin is what dead people do.... is the fruit of being spiritually dead.




They can be dead (no one chooses that) and sin is what dead people do. Yes, they are accountable because it's wrong. If I'm driving 90 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, does the cop care if I CHOSE to speed or even if I was aware that I was speeding? Nope. I'm just getting a ticket cuz I was speeding.




Being spiritually alive IS saved. Justification IS the coming to spiritual life, born again, regeneration, becoming a child of God (an opposite relationship to God).




He did prior to his sinning. He had none (in terms of justification) afterword. One who is physically alive my choose to commit suicide but once they are dead, their physical life has no "free will." Similar with spiritual life. Of course, Adam and Eve were the only ones to begin alive... the rest of us gain physicial life (a pure gift from God and NOT the result of our the pre-conception baby's free will) but not spiritual life (otherwise, we'd all be born Christians and not need to be born again, "NOT from the will of man but by the will of God" the Bible says).




No one knows. God did not reveal the answer to that question (and a whole lot of other questions, lol). Why would the PERFECT chose inperfection, the LIVING chose death? That question applies to Satan and to Adam and Eve. But while it's a good question, no one knows the answer for one very simple, clear reason: God chose not to tell us (perhaps because it doesn't matter to us?)





I'm not a Calvinist, and so I'd say "no." God is not the Author and Giver of death but the Author and Giver of life. WHATEVER the reason, the "blame" for Satan, Adam and Eve's "fall" was not God. We have a mystery here. There's a TON of them.




Well. IMO.



Thank you.


- Josiah

I posted a research paper of mine on the thread titled "why does evil exist?". I would like for you to read it and tell me your thoughts. I would appreciate the feedback from a different perspective.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

God's sovereignty in salvation means that He saves whom He will, and those whom He saves owe nothing to anything in or of themselves. They are saved because God graciously chose them in eternity and regenerated and called them in history. They cannot even take credit for their faith because it is the gift that He Himself sovereignly bestows.

I agree, but it in no way suggests that God's will and heart is that most fry eternally in hell and that God is "glorified" by such and delights in such.


For 1500+ years, Christians embraced the soverignty of God but did NOT believe in "double predestination". The Nicene Creed affirms that spiritual life comes not from self (via some "free will" or "decision" or "choice") but from God. "...And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life...." Notice, it doesn't say "The Offerer of Life" but the Giver of Life. Since the beginning of Christianity.... until one man named Arminius came around in the 16th Century.... it was universally held that God GIVES life (physical and spiritual), that it's the gift of God that we are born again. We give 100% of the credit for our justification - spiritual life - born again to God, who is the Author and Giver of Life. Important enough to get into the Nicene Creed. But equally, the Creed does NOT say, "... and the Giver of Eternal Death." That was not a Christian belief until one man came along in the 16th Century, John Calvin. For 1500 years, Christians had no problem accepting the sovereignty of God AND the mystery of why some end up in hell. Jesus said, "I have come that you may have LIFE." Not, "I have come that most may have DEATH and HELL." God is the giver of life, not death. God desires that we have life, not death.... heaven, not hell. And again, until Calvin, no one had a problem embracing that AND the sovereignty of God.



- Josiah



.

 

[Albion]

I agree, but it in no way suggests that God's will and heart is that most fry eternally in hell and that God is "glorified" by such and delights in such.

If we force ourselves to stand apart from all the individuals, groups, and church bodies that we associate with one or another of these views we've been discussing, it is interesting (IMHO) to think that what we're saying is either that: 1) God is OK with having the great majority of humans be lost forever OR ELSE that 2) we go through life--right up until the moment of death--not knowing whether we've done what is necessary in order to be saved. Neither of those is a very cheery thought.

 

[Josiah]

If we force ourselves to stand apart from all the individuals, groups, and church bodies that we associate with one or another of these views we've been discussing, it is interesting (IMHO) to think that what we're saying is either that: 1) God is OK with having the great majority of humans be lost forever OR ELSE that 2) we go through life--right up until the moment of death--not knowing whether we've done what is necessary in order to be saved. Neither of those is a very cheery thought.

Or 3) Jesus IS the Savior (so what we do as Dead to cause ourselves to come to life is irrelevant) and God GIVES life (physical and spiritual) so that if we have life, we have God alone to thank, but some don't have life and we simply aren't told why but it's not God's action: God is the cause/giver or life but not death.

I realize, especially since the Middle Ages, SOME have had the obsession to wrap their puny, sinful, fallen, human brain around the entirety of God and to make the Divine "jibe" with THEIR human sense of reality, possibility, philosophy, science and "logic." It REALLY bothers them if God seems incomplete or illogical or just didn't tell us what we desire to know in ways our tiny fallen brain can fully grasp. But IMHO, the problem there is with man, not God. I personally don't have a huge problem saying "God knows, I don't." Luther said, "Humility is the foundation of all sound theology." IMHO, it's good to accept what God had said... and if we can't connect the dots or make it all "logical' to our fallen puny human brains, that's okay. God is the sovereign one, not self.... it is our job to bow to God, not the other way around.... it's not God's job to agree with our brains, our philosophies, our logic, our science, our job is to trust and obey (because God is the sovereign one, not self; we are to submit to God not God to self). Again, until the 16th Century, Christians spoke of "The Holy Mysteries" not of "doctrine."

Protestantism was born out of REJECTING the subjection of God's Word to our human philosophies, conjectures and prescience theories insisting we must just affirm what Scripture states; ironically, much of Protestantism went full circle and soon did EXACTLY what they protested in Catholicism (perhaps worse). As Lutherans are apt to say, "God gets the last word." And as my Lutheran pastor says, "Ask God when you get to heaven, but don't be surprised if He says "It's way past your pay grade." He tells of a dog his family had when he was a boy; the dog LOVED to watch TV with the family and was okay with this until a dog or cat came on! Then he'd go to the back of the TV and snarl. Everyone laughed because the humans knew there wasn't actually a dog or cat in there (but in truth, the humans had no clue how the TV worked, either). IMO, Arminius and Calvin are a lot like that dog in this regard, lol. But I doubt God laughs when His Word is clearly violated in the process.... Maybe we should accept God's sovereignty and our humility - and rejoice in the reality (even if we can't totally wrap our brains around how it all works)? Perhaps if we NEEDED to understand this.... and if we COULD understand this.... perhaps God would have explained it, but it seems one or both of those conditions isn't the case because God didn't. Perhaps God was wise to leave it as He did?


Blessings on your New Year


- Josiah



.

 

[Albion]

Or 3) Jesus IS the Savior (so what we do as Dead to cause ourselves to come to life is irrelevant) and God GIVES life (physical and spiritual) so that if we have life, we have God alone to thank, but some don't have life and we simply aren't told why but it's not God's action: God is the cause/giver or life but not death..

My post dealt with the end result, however, not encouraging explanations about why we're probably all lost. At least, that's what the two competing theories say...if we look closely at them.

Most freewill people talk as though it's a 50-50 proposition and you either take the necessary steps or you do not. But most of the world hasn't a clue and, for sure, most of the people who've ever lived did not. And even among us living in the Christian world, the theological geniuses explain the chances of us making all the right choices up to the end of life as being very slim. For instance, no one knows exactly what 'Good Works' are or how many are needed...although they stipulate that you have to do them in order to be saved. On the other side, God supposedly chooses his elect, but inherent in that theory is this "kicker"-- we know that he doesn't choose very many.

 

[meluckycharms]

Sin is what dead people do.... is the fruit of being spiritually dead. Folks who are physically alive but spiritually dead (kind of like "the walking dead" LOL)





They can be dead (no one chooses that) and sin is what dead people do. Yes, they are accountable because it's wrong. If I'm driving 90 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, does the cop care if I CHOSE to speed or even if I was aware that I was speeding? Nope. I'm just getting a ticket cuz I was speeding.





Being spiritually alive IS saved. Justification IS the coming to spiritual life, born again, regeneration, becoming a child of God (an opposite relationship to God). Jesus said, "I have come that you may have life."

Your illustration of a boy and the cookies would work IF your son was alive; or to apply the illustration here, IF a person was a Child of God, a Christian, born again, regenerated... but then your illustration would apply to sanctification - the LIFE of a CHRISTIAN (a whole other enchildada).





He did prior to his sinning. He had none (in terms of justification) afterword. One who is physically alive my choose to commit suicide but once they are dead, their physical life has no "free will." Similar with spiritual life. Of course, Adam and Eve were the only ones to begin alive... the rest of us gain physicial life (a pure gift from God and NOT the result of our the pre-conception baby's free will) but not spiritual life (otherwise, we'd all be born Christians and not need to be born again, "NOT from the will of man but by the will of God" the Bible says).




No one knows. God did not reveal the answer to that question (and a whole lot of other questions, lol). Why would the PERFECT chose inperfection, the LIVING chose death? That question applies to Satan and to Adam and Eve. But while it's a good question, no one knows the answer for one very simple, clear reason: God chose not to tell us (perhaps because it doesn't matter to us?)





I'm not a Calvinist, and so I'd say "no." God is not the Author and Giver of death but the Author and Giver of life. WHATEVER the reason, the "blame" for Satan, Adam and Eve's "fall" was not God. We have a mystery here. There's a TON of them.




Well. IMO.



Thank you.


- Josiah



.

The dead cannot steal cookies either.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

The dead cannot steal cookies either.

EXACTLY, lol. Which is why your illustration doesn't work in the context of justification.

Yes, those who are physically alive but spiritually dead (not born again, not regenerated, not justified) can move and act and speak (kind of like "The Walking Dead" lol) but they can't give themselves spiritual life (anymore than the pre-conceived child could give himself physical life). Yes, spiritual zombies can do things that fall short of God's perfect love and holiness (and thus sin) - and suffer the consquences of their own actions ("The Walking Dead" can do bad things.... it's just what they do) but that won't make them born again, regenerated, justified (if they could, then Jesus was an unnecessary joke - as Scripture itself notes). As Scripture declares (and as we proclaim every time we say the Nicene Creed) GOD is the GIVER of life. If we have life, there's one and only one reason: God GAVE it. Physical and spiritual life. Don't understand how God gives physical and/or spiritual life? Well, Jesus said the wind blows, you do not know how; we can see the RESULT but we don't know the how.


Thank you!



- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

Albion, God is righteous and just with sending all humanity to hell for eternity. It has nothing to do with God being "OK" with it. God's righteous and perfect law demands that all who spend eternity in heaven be perfect, just as Jesus is perfect. Since no human is perfect and righteous by his/her own actions, God is absolutely just in sending all humanity to eternal damnation. Since this is true, your second thought is answered. No one will go to heaven based upon what they have done. You can never do enough or what is necessary to be saved. You will be damned to hell by that attempt.
You and I are completely and totally dependent upon God extending unmerited favor to us simply because by His own decision, he chose to pardon.
God is under zero compulsion to pardon. God is under no obligation to pardon law breakers. Just as a human judge is under no compulsion to pardon a criminal, so God is not compelled by any outside force other than His own, secretive will. God chooses an unmerited pardon for some and chooses just punishment for others because...Only God knows.

 

[Albion]

Albion, God is righteous and just with sending all humanity to hell for eternity. It has nothing to do with God being "OK" with it.

Yes, it does...and that was the point of my comments.

But the way, I wasn't staking out any theological claim there but just calling attention to an aspect of the Calvinist vs Arminian (or Freewill) argument that is often lost in the discussion.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes, it does...and that was the point of my comments.

But the way, I wasn't staking out any theological claim there but just calling attention to an aspect of the Calvinist vs Arminian (or Freewill) argument that is often lost in the discussion.

No...it doesn't.
God is not "OK" with sin. He will never receive sin into heaven and he is entirely right and just in casting all humanity into hell because of humanities rebellion to God.
You seem to indicate that God should feel sorry for rebels. Do you think we should feel sorry for ISIS rebels who commit crimes against humanity? If not, then why should God feel sorry for rebels who commit crimes against God?
The Bible says "There is none righteous, not even one."
Are you struggling to grasp the depravity of the human condition? We may not be as bad as we could be, but we are corrupt nonetheless.
To even attempt to make God into some evil deity for not pardoning sinners is an abhorrent thing. It is precisely the problem that Paul is addressing in Romans 9 when he rebukes the thinking of some Christians in Rome who attempted to blame God for sinners being damned to hell.

 

[Josiah]

God chooses an unmerited pardon for some and chooses just punishment for others...

I disagree. I think Scripture does, too. I even think Calvin disagrees; I think you've taken the "double predestination" invention to an extreme greater than found in Reformed Theology (or in Christian or even Islamic theology - you've taken all this "sovereignty stuff even further than Islam).

Your conjecture is - on a certain level - just as biblical and "logical" as that of Jacob Arminius (just the opposite) but it runs head-on into just as many clear Scriptures as the conjecture of Arminius so that like him, you must circumvent and twist 180 degrees a LOT of clear Scriptures. Both flow from the same fundamental error: That God is amiss, what God has said often needs radical correction, that God's sovereignty is subject to ours, God's brain is subject to ours, God MUST agree with self or else God isn't smart like self claims self is.

Until Arminius and Calvin came along in the 16th Century, Christians were humble enough (and willing to accept the soverignty of God enough) to accept that if we have life, if we have faith, if we are justified - this is solely because of God's free gift, as it says it the Nicene Creed ".... and we believe in the Holy Spirit - the Author and GIVER of Life." The Ecumenical Council of Orange affirmed that JESUS is 100% the Savior. But until Calvin, Christians were not willing to regard God as wrong so very often, that GOD is the to blame for hell, for death, for why some are 't saved (which is why the Creed does NOT say, "..... we believe that God is the Author and Giver of Death and Condemnation.") Until Calvin and Arminius, Christians accepted the soverignty of God and thus their subjection to Him. These two men were part of a movement hinging on the claim that man is smarter than God, that self is divinely appointed to be the Corrector of God, the Answer Man for God, to correct those MANY things were God seems inconsistent and where God chose to leave things unanswered. I find it amazing that Calvinists shout SO much about the sovereignty of God when it seems THEY are the ones actively denying it by insisting God is subject to MAN'S brain, logic, reason, philosophy. It seems more in keeping with being subject to God to confess, "God is right.... God knows..... and if I don't, that's okay because God is God and not me."