What does God's Sovereignty mean?

[MennoSota]

What you've been promoting. See post 156.






Odd.... I've agreed with you in every Scripture you've quoted. What I've disagreed with are the non-existent Scriptures that don't say, "God equally chooses most for hell...... God loves only a minority of people...... Jesus only died for a minority of people..... If some conjecture seems logical to a man, then God must agree with...... if you can ask a question then you are mandated to answer it and God must agree because man is all knowing, smarter than God, and God must submit to a man's logic." You haven't presented those Scriptures because they don't exist, indeed, you must twist 180 degrees a LOT of Scriptures that state the opposite. Exactly as Arminianists must.... and do..... same/same.



.

Josiah, you don't share scripture. You make claims about what I believe that I have never claimed. You cling to your denomination, but not to scripture. Please make your case with scripture. I have quoted the scriptures you posted and added context. I have called on you to expound the text. What have you done? None of what I have asked. Instead, you are a broken record saying double predestination when you are the only one using the word. You say uber-Calvinist when you are the only one using the word.
Josiah, it is clear you have no biblical argument. Your denominationalism is an illegitimate argument. Not even Luther would accept your claims because you have no biblical argument.

 

[Imalive]

Romans 9 is about Israel. Israel was elected and foreknown. Ah whatever, I can better go catch mice than break my brain over this stuff.

 

[MennoSota]

Romans 9 confirms what I have shared. Only a person who willfully ignores scripture will scream double predestination and Uber Calvinist when the truth is that scripture alone is all we need.

Romans 9:6-24
[6]Well then, has God failed to fulfill his promise to Israel? No, for not all who are born into the nation of Israel are truly members of God’s people!
[7]Being descendants of Abraham doesn’t make them truly Abraham’s children. For the Scriptures say, “Isaac is the son through whom your descendants will be counted,” though Abraham had other children, too.
[8]This means that Abraham’s physical descendants are not necessarily children of God. Only the children of the promise are considered to be Abraham’s children.
[9]For God had promised, “I will return about this time next year, and Sarah will have a son.”
[10]This son was our ancestor Isaac. When he married Rebekah, she gave birth to twins.
[11]But before they were born, before they had done anything good or bad, she received a message from God. (This message shows that God chooses people according to his own purposes;
[12]he calls people, but not according to their good or bad works.) She was told, “Your older son will serve your younger son.”
[13]In the words of the Scriptures, “I loved Jacob, but I rejected Esau.”
[14]Are we saying, then, that God was unfair? Of course not!
[15]For God said to Moses, “I will show mercy to anyone I choose, *** and I will show compassion to anyone I choose.”
[16]So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it.
[17]For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh, “I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you and to spread my fame throughout the earth.”
[18]So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen.
[19]Well then, you might say, “Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven’t they simply done what he makes them do?”
[20]No, don’t say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, “Why have you made me like this?”
[21]When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn’t he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into?
[22]In the same way, even though God has the right to show his anger and his power, he is very patient with those on whom his anger falls, who are destined for destruction.
[23]He does this to make the riches of his glory shine even brighter on those to whom he shows mercy, who were prepared in advance for glory.
[24]And we are among those whom he selected, both from the Jews and from the Gentiles.

 

[meluckycharms]

Romans 9 confirms what I have shared. Only a person who willfully ignores scripture will scream double predestination and Uber Calvinist when the truth is that scripture alone is all we need.

Please, with all due respect. I highly recommend that you read a systematic theology textbook. I am not trying to insult you. I hope you believe me when I say this. However, it seems obvious to me that you don't know what you are talking about. I apologize if this may offend. But it is blatantly obvious you have little understanding on basic theological topics.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Imalive]

Election predestination babble from Calvin is nonsense. This is the best thing I've ever read about it:

https://predestinationstation.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/romans-117-10-who-are-the-elect/

 

[Imalive]

He totally ruins it. Praise God. This guy is good.

https://predestinationstation.wordp...icise-gods-judgement-the-potter-and-the-clay/

Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honourable use, some for dishonourable. [21] Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonourable, he will be a vessel for honourable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work. [22] So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.”

https://predestinationstation.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/introducing-the-new-calvinist-bible-ncb/

https://predestinationstation.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/unconditional-election/

Who are we to question God’s sovereign decision to let people have a decision?

 

[MennoSota]

Election predestination babble from Calvin is nonsense. This is the best thing I've ever read about it:

https://predestinationstation.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/romans-117-10-who-are-the-elect/

Both are taught in scripture. Open the Bible and read it. Why would you ignore what God teaches about election and predestination? The only reason I can think of to ignore God's word is because what God says doesn't fit your own construct.

 

[Imalive]

Both are taught in scripture. Open the Bible and read it. Why would you ignore what God teaches about election and predestination? The only reason I can think of to ignore God's word is because what God says doesn't fit your own construct.

No, actually I was starting to think you were right. I just want to know what's true. Read what he writes. He explains all the verses. Israel was chosen and elected for a task. They can change their election. I now finally understand Romans. I always thought all ethnical Israel would be saved and that gentiles who dont have the law do whats in the law by nature, was talking about atheists.

 

[MennoSota]

Israel was chosen and elected for a task. They can change their election.

Where does the passage say that the Israel of God (the elect) can change their election?

 

[Imalive]

Where does the passage say that the Israel of God (the elect) can change their election?

Not in Romans 9, but in Romans 11 and 2 Timothy. A vessel of dishonorable use can cleanse themselves and become a vessel of honorable use.

https://predestinationstation.wordp...icise-gods-judgement-the-potter-and-the-clay/

 

[Josiah]

"DOUBLE Predestination" is exactly what you've been promoting.


See post 156.


Odd.... I've agreed with you in every Scripture you've quoted. What I've disagreed with are the non-existent Scriptures that don't say, "God equally chooses most for hell...... God loves only a minority of people...... Jesus only died for a minority of people..... If some conjecture seems logical to a man, then God must agree with...... if you can ask a question then you are mandated to answer it and God must agree because man is all knowing, smarter than God, and God must submit to a man's logic." You haven't presented those Scriptures because they don't exist, indeed, you must twist 180 degrees a LOT of Scriptures that state the opposite. Exactly as Arminianists must.... and do..... same/same.



.

Josiah, it is clear you have no biblical argument.

Odd.... I've agreed with you in every Scripture you've quoted. Funny how you find that having "no biblical argument." Then friend, you don't either because I've AGREED with every single Scripture you've quoted.

What I've disagreed with are the non-existent Scriptures you have not quoted, the non-existent ones that don't say, "God equally chooses most for hell...... God loves only a minority of people...... Jesus only died for a minority of people..... If some conjecture seems logical to a man, then God must agree with...... if you can ask a question then you are mandated to answer it and God must agree because man is all knowing, smarter than God, and God must submit to a man's logic." You haven't presented those Scriptures because they don't exist, indeed, you must twist 180 degrees a LOT of Scriptures that state the opposite. Exactly as Arminianists must.... and do..... same/same.


Lamm and I are not disagreeing with predestination to justification (Lutherans were teaching this before Calvinist did) - Single Predestination (the doctrine of election), we're not disagreeing with the idea of the sovereignty of God (although I think Calvinists STUNNINGLY reject and deny it), we're disagreeing with the Double Predestination you keep preaching in nearly every thread and note that you have NOT ONE SCRIPTURE that teaches ANYTHING related to it and that it flatly denies a lot of Scriptures such as "God wills ALL people to be saved...." "For God so loved the WORLD that He gave...." etc., etc., etc. And we're rejected your whole rubric of insisting that God is subject to your sense of what is "logical" and the answers you give to the questions you ask since God just isn't as smart as you are, we're rejecting the enormous egoism of Calvinism and the profound rejection of the soverignty of God uber-Calvinists display in this topic.



- Josiah




.

 

[Imalive]

Odd.... I've agreed with you in every Scripture you've quoted. Funny how you find that having "no biblical argument." Then friend, you don't either because I've AGREED with every single Scripture you've quoted.

What I've disagreed with are the non-existent Scriptures you have not quoted, the non-existent ones that don't say, "God equally chooses most for hell...... God loves only a minority of people...... Jesus only died for a minority of people..... If some conjecture seems logical to a man, then God must agree with...... if you can ask a question then you are mandated to answer it and God must agree because man is all knowing, smarter than God, and God must submit to a man's logic." You haven't presented those Scriptures because they don't exist, indeed, you must twist 180 degrees a LOT of Scriptures that state the opposite. Exactly as Arminianists must.... and do..... same/same.


Lamm and I are not disagreeing with predestination to justification (Lutherans were teaching this before Calvinist did) - Single Predestination (the doctrine of election), we're not disagreeing with the idea of the sovereignty of God (although I think Calvinists STUNNINGLY reject and deny it), we're disagreeing with the Double Predestination you keep preaching in nearly every thread and note that you have NOT ONE SCRIPTURE that teaches ANYTHING related to it and that it flatly denies a lot of Scriptures such as "God wills ALL people to be saved...." "For God so loved the WORLD that He gave...." etc., etc., etc. And we're rejected your whole rubric of insisting that God is subject to your sense of what is "logical" and the answers you give to the questions you ask since God just isn't as smart as you are, we're rejecting the enormous egoism of Calvinism and the profound rejection of the soverignty of God uber-Calvinists display in this topic.



- Josiah




.

But single predestination makes no sense. What is that? He chooses a bunch He likes. That means He hates the rest.
You cant choose to accept Him but you can reject Him. That makes no sense.

 

[atpollard]

Hebrew word "satan" is used as both a noun and verb.
•The verb means "to be or act as an adversary" (see Ps. 38:20; 71:13; 109:4, 20, 21, 29; Zc 3:1).
•The noun "satan" can mean "adversary" in general (personal or national) (see Nu 22:22, 32; 1 Sam 29:4; 2 Sam 19:22 1 Kgs 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25; Ps 109:6).

CEB Numbers 22:22 Then God became angry because he went. So while he was riding on his donkey accompanied by his two servants, the LORD's messenger stood in the road as his adversary.

CEB Numbers 22:32 The LORD's messenger said to him, "Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? I've come out here as an adversary, because you took the road recklessly in front of me.

NRS 1 Samuel 29:4 But the commanders of the Philistines were angry with him; and the commanders of the Philistines said to him, "Send the man back, so that he may return to the place that you have assigned to him; he shall not go down with us to battle, or else he may become an adversary to us in the battle. For how could this fellow reconcile himself to his lord? Would it not be with the heads of the men here?

NRS 2 Samuel 19:22 But David said, "What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah, that you should today become an adversary to me? Shall anyone be put to death in Israel this day? For do I not know that I am this day king over Israel?"

NRS 1 Kings 5:4 But now the LORD my God has given me rest on every side; there is neither adversary nor misfortune.

NRS 1 Kings 11:14 Then the LORD raised up an adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; he was of the royal house in Edom.

NRS 1 Kings 11:23 God raised up another adversary against Solomon, Rezon son of Eliada, who had fled from his master, King Hadadezer of Zobah.

NRS 1 Kings 11:25 He was an adversary of Israel all the days of Solomon, making trouble as Hadad did; he despised Israel and reigned over Aram.

NRS Psalm 109:6 They say, "Appoint a wicked man against him; let an accuser stand on his right.

•The noun "satan" can also mean a "superhuman adversary," referring to a supernatural being
(see Jb 1:6-9, 12, 2:1-4, 2:6-7; Zech. 3:2; 1 Chron 21:1). In most of these verses the Hebrew text says "the Satan." That is, the definite article ("the") is attached to the noun indicating that the word "Satan" is likely a title, not a proper name. (The use of the word "satan" in 1 Chronicles 21:1 is the only instance where the definite article is not present and there is disagreement whether this verse refers to a title or a proper name.)
"In English, when we refer to someone by means of a proper name, we do not use a
definite article (e.g. "Sarah," not "the Sarah"). In this practice Hebrew behaves identically. Therefore we must conclude that the individual in Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3:1-2 should be identified as "the accuser" (description of function) rather than as "Satan" (proper name)..."1

Source : J. H. Walton, "Satan," in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry and Writings

Note how these two translations have chosen to render the Hebrew word "the-Satan" in Job:

CEB Job 1:6 One day the divine beings came to present themselves before the LORD, and the Adversary also came among them.

NIV Job 1:6 One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.

Walton makes these points about profile of "the satan" in Job:2:

1) He has access to the heavenly throne and is likely counted among the members of the divine council (see Ps 89:5-8)

2) He doesn't initiate the discussion about Job

3) His role may be like that of a "parliamentarian" who identifies policies that are out of order

4) There is no emotion or "diabolical chuckle" associated with his comments and nothing intrinsically evil is described about the accuser. "Certainly what he does has negative consequences for Job, a righteous man, but the text makes it clear that God is at least equally responsible for what happens to Job, thus freeing the actions from being implicitly evil ... There is no tempting, corrupting, depraving or possessing."

Walton concludes, "...we are not in a position to claim that the satan in the book of Job should be identified with Satan as we know him in the NT on the premise that they act the same way. In fact, there is little if any overlap between their two profiles. This does not prove that they are not the same individual; it merely reduces (if not eliminates) the basis for claiming that they must be equated. The profile of the Hebrew satan in the book of Job does not answer to the same description as the Christian view of Satan in the NT."

So please stop with the insults.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I agree that Christian forums in general need fewer insults ... we are probably going to have to spend ETERNITY with these people and should plan accordingly.

On the topic of "the accuser" in Job, he does make very emphatic false accusations against Job. That does not seem 'neutral' but 'malevolent', lending some credence to the accuser being "Satan" himself.

Job 1:9-11 NASB Then Satan answered the LORD, “Does Job fear God for nothing? Have You not made a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But put forth Your hand now and touch all that he has; he will surely curse You to Your face.”
Job 2:4-5 NASB Satan answered the LORD and said, “Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life. However, put forth Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh; he will curse You to Your face.”

 

[MennoSota]

Not in Romans 9, but in Romans 11 and 2 Timothy. A vessel of dishonorable use can cleanse themselves and become a vessel of honorable use.

https://predestinationstation.wordp...icise-gods-judgement-the-potter-and-the-clay/

Please share exactly what you are referring to in Romans 11 and 2 Timothy that would contradict or perhaps in your mind, clarify what is already clear in Romans 8 and 9.

As for your link; the author has some glaring problems. First, he forces the passage to be about ethnic Israel even though Paul says in verses 6-8 that Israel is not ethnic Israel at all.
Second, the author says;

We know already that Paul’s explanation of whom God has decided to judge is that God has decided to judge those who reject Christ and refuse to repent (Romans 2:1-5).

That statement contradicts Paul's statement in verse 12, "he calls people, not according to their good or bad works" which means it has nothing to do with refusing to repent as your link states.
My suggestion: Go read the Bible and throw away the commentaries that fit your presuppositions. Let God's word stand on its own merit.

 

[MennoSota]

Odd.... I've agreed with you in every Scripture you've quoted. Funny how you find that having "no biblical argument." Then friend, you don't either because I've AGREED with every single Scripture you've quoted.

What I've disagreed with are the non-existent Scriptures you have not quoted, the non-existent ones that don't say, "God equally chooses most for hell...... God loves only a minority of people...... Jesus only died for a minority of people..... If some conjecture seems logical to a man, then God must agree with...... if you can ask a question then you are mandated to answer it and God must agree because man is all knowing, smarter than God, and God must submit to a man's logic." You haven't presented those Scriptures because they don't exist, indeed, you must twist 180 degrees a LOT of Scriptures that state the opposite. Exactly as Arminianists must.... and do..... same/same.


Lamm and I are not disagreeing with predestination to justification (Lutherans were teaching this before Calvinist did) - Single Predestination (the doctrine of election), we're not disagreeing with the idea of the sovereignty of God (although I think Calvinists STUNNINGLY reject and deny it), we're disagreeing with the Double Predestination you keep preaching in nearly every thread and note that you have NOT ONE SCRIPTURE that teaches ANYTHING related to it and that it flatly denies a lot of Scriptures such as "God wills ALL people to be saved...." "For God so loved the WORLD that He gave...." etc., etc., etc. And we're rejected your whole rubric of insisting that God is subject to your sense of what is "logical" and the answers you give to the questions you ask since God just isn't as smart as you are, we're rejecting the enormous egoism of Calvinism and the profound rejection of the soverignty of God uber-Calvinists display in this topic.



- Josiah




.

Josiah, will you ever let go of your made-up concept of double predestination that no one is preaching? Will you ever acknowledge that all humans are bound in sin and destined to spend eternity in hell, but by the grace of God?
Josiah, what are the wages of sin?

 

[atpollard]

I would jump in and offer some information on Double Predestination (I know a little of what places like the WCF teach, and do not say, on the subject) but this is a topic on the Sovereignty of God, so debating what Lutherans and Reformed Theology teach on predestination seems a bit out of place. Why not start an actual topic with quotes from the Bible and the WCF and the Book of Concord and actually talk about this frightening and difficult and rich and often misunderstood subject.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." — Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride :wink:

 

[Albion]

But single predestination makes no sense. What is that? He chooses a bunch He likes. That means He hates the rest.

Does it? I think that would mean that he's chosen his elect for whatever reason and that the others are going to be judged in the absence of such a preference. They will, therefore, be eternally lost, but not because God dictated their fate (as would be the case with double predestination) but, rather, on their own record.

 

[meluckycharms]

I agree that Christian forums in general need fewer insults ... we are probably going to have to spend ETERNITY with these people and should plan accordingly.

On the topic of "the accuser" in Job, he does make very emphatic false accusations against Job. That does not seem 'neutral' but 'malevolent', lending some credence to the accuser being "Satan" himself.

Job 1:9-11 NASB Then Satan answered the LORD, “Does Job fear God for nothing? Have You not made a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But put forth Your hand now and touch all that he has; he will surely curse You to Your face.”
Job 2:4-5 NASB Satan answered the LORD and said, “Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life. However, put forth Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh; he will curse You to Your face.”

Agreed. Which is why we need to seriously take a look at the genre. Is it historical narrative, poetic allegory, ect...? We also have to ask ourselves who is witnessing the conversation between God and the satan to have recorded it? Why was the dialogue in poetic form? Also, why is the book of Job almost identical to the Babylonian Theodicy (see link)?

http://www.etana.org/node/582

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[meluckycharms]

Does it? I think that would mean that he's chosen his elect for whatever reason and that the others are going to be judged in the absence of such a preference. They will, therefore, be eternally lost, but not because God dictated their fate (as would be the case with double predestination) but, rather, on their own record.

I admit that I am in agreement with imalive. It seems more logical that if God predestined some to be saved that those he did not predestined would be destined to be damned by default. It is like a basketball captain picking his team on a playground basketball court. Except in this case, He is the only captain. There are ten people but He can only pick 4. Naturally, the captain would know that whoever He did not pick will not be on His team.

I do not deny that some are predestined. I do not deny that there are "elect". I believe that there are some who were created for a specific purpose. However, that doesn't necessarily require limited atonement (I am not suggesting you fall in this category). However, in all seriousness, is it possible that God elected some to be saved and still give everyone else an opportunity? Just a thought.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Imalive]

Please share exactly what you are referring to in Romans 11 and 2 Timothy that would contradict or perhaps in your mind, clarify what is already clear in Romans 8 and 9.

As for your link; the author has some glaring problems. First, he forces the passage to be about ethnic Israel even though Paul says in verses 6-8 that Israel is not ethnic Israel at all.
Second, the author says;

That statement contradicts Paul's statement in verse 12, "he calls people, not according to their good or bad works" which means it has nothing to do with refusing to repent as your link states.
My suggestion: Go read the Bible and throw away the commentaries that fit your presuppositions. Let God's word stand on its own merit.

But if choosing is just for a task it does. The Bible says 2 opposites if you take Romans 9 as predestination. You have to ignore one set or the other or make em fit.