What does God's Sovereignty mean?

[meluckycharms]

What evidence about God's Sovereignty have you provided?

You referenced Job to suggest that God directs evil through Lucifer. I merely provided evidence that supported the possibility that "the satan" described in Job may not be the same as Lucifer. Yet instead of addressing the evidence, you only accuse and insult.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[meluckycharms]

Do you always change subjects? Notice how far off topic you have gone.

It directly addresses your claim that God's sovereignty means that He directs Lucifer for evil. Based on the evidence I provided, you cannot definitively use Job as an example to defend your position of God's sovereignty.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Imalive]

Did God send Lucifer to confront Balam (Numbers 22:22)? So why do you assume that Lucifer is "the satan" described in Job?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Ehm what? Isn't the angel of the Lord Jesus?

 

[MennoSota]

So now I am not "forthright". Btw, I am not a "liberal theologan". Yet another baseless accusation. Are you ever going to address the evidence I provided?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

You ramble. Speak your view I won't keep talking to you if you cannot be forthright.

 

[MennoSota]

It directly addresses your claim that God's sovereignty means that He directs Lucifer for evil. Based on the evidence I provided, you cannot definitively use Job as an example to defend your position of God's sovereignty.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

LOL, I can use God's word to present God's sovereignty whether you approve or not.

 

[meluckycharms]

Ehm what? Isn't the angel of the Lord Jesus?

I believe so. However, the Hebrew word for this "messanger/adversary" is the exact same word used to describe the adversary in Job. Can you explain this?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[meluckycharms]

LOL, I can use God's word to present God's sovereignty whether you approve or not. Thanks for making me laugh at your silly thinking.

Please remind me again who is claiming that God is not sovereign? Isn't it possible that God can sovereignty limit Himself and his influence?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

Please remind me again who is claiming that God is not sovereign? Isn't it possible that God can sovereignty limit Himself and his influence?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

No

God is supremely Sovereign over all creation. You would cease to exist without God willing you to breathe. Every part of all you are is under God's sovereign will.

 

[Imalive]

I believe so. However, the Hebrew word for this "messanger/adversary" is the exact same word used to describe the adversary in Job. Can you explain this?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Oh interesting.
Satan is God's enemy and He is his Enemy.

Exodus 23:22
But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

 

[meluckycharms]

No

God is supremely Sovereign over all creation. You would cease to exist without God willing you to breathe. Every part of all you are is under God's sovereign will.

So would God then be responsible for sin? How do you answer this without reducing His sovereignty? Why would God willingly and knowingly create someone destined for eternity in hell?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

So would God then be responsible for sin? How do you answer this without reducing His sovereignty? Why would God willingly and knowingly create someone destined for eternity in hell?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Humans are responsible for breaking God's command. God sovereignly ordained the human rebellion. God could easily have chosen to stop Adam and Eve as well as the serpent, but God by his Sovereign will chose to let humans fall in sin.
Since God is Sovereign, he is under no obligation or compulsion to tell you or me why he made those choices. Do you wish to complain to God now?
Romans 9:18-24
[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]

Humans are responsible for breaking God's command. God sovereignly ordained the human rebellion. God could easily have chosen to stop Adam and Eve as well as the serpent, but God by his Sovereign will chose to let humans fall in sin.

But wait, was it not you who stated that the sovereignty of God was over everything? That every breath I take is by His will alone? Are you not the one rejecting the idea of free will? If we truly do not have free will, it is not our fault that we sin. Sinners are only acting according to the will of God. After all, some are made as vessels of wrath and others vessels of mercy so we should not judge the potter...right? How are humans responsible for breaking His commands if we have no free will to do other than what He soveregnly commands?

Remember that determinism thing I mentioned earlier? It is a legitimate theological problem only the Reformed "Calvinist" have to answer.

 

[MennoSota]

But wait, was it not you who stated that the sovereignty of God was over everything? That every breath I take is by His will alone? Are you not the one rejecting the idea of free will? If we truly do not have free will, it is not our fault that we sin. Sinners are only acting according to the will of God. After all, some are made as vessels of wrath and others vessels of mercy so we should not judge the potter...right? How are humans responsible for breaking His commands if we have no free will to do other than what He soveregnly commands?

Remember that determinism thing I mentioned earlier? It is a legitimate theological problem only the Reformed "Calvinist" have to answer.

LOL, you never read Romans 9. Paul answered your silly rhetoric.
Why do you hate God?

 

[meluckycharms]

LOL, you never read Romans 9. Paul answered your silly rhetoric.
Why do you hate God?

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

 

[MennoSota]

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

Man is incapable of choosing God. So reprobate is the human condition that man always hides when God presents himself.
Free-will teaching is an open and blatant attempt to place humans in authority over God. It is a open rejection of God's sovereignty and an unmitigated declaration of man's greatness.
Where you struggle most is in your inability to grasp God's complete Sovereignty without it being an unthinking determinism. You are just simply too short sighted to grasp God's Sovereign authority over your life. Keep hating on God, but he has you exactly where he wants you.

 

[meluckycharms]

Man is incapable of choosing God. So reprobate is the human condition that man always hides when God presents himself.
Free-will teaching is an open and blatant attempt to place humans in authority over God. It is a open rejection of God's sovereignty and an unmitigated declaration of man's greatness.
Where you struggle most is in your inability to grasp God's complete Sovereignty without it being an unthinking determinism. You are just simply too short sighted to grasp God's Sovereign authority over your life. Keep hating on God, but he has you exactly where he wants you.

I am sorry but I have to ask. What are your credentials in regards to Christian Theology? Do you have an formal education from an accredited seminary? Do you work in ministry? You don't have to be specific because I understand if you don't want to disclose any personal information. I just want to understand what level I need to communicate with. I feel as though too much is going over your head. I don't mean that as an insult. Rather, I believe that there is a miscommunication going on. You too frequently make assumptions that are way out in left field. I also feel as though my perceived "laughable responses" are a result of me assuming that you could fill in the blanks with rather basic theological fundamentals. Not an insult, just an observation.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

Remember that determinism thing I mentioned.

NONE of the Reformers believed in the philosophical school of Determinism. I honestly can't tell if our uber-Calvinist friend believes that or not, but Calvin did not. Determinism is a PHILOSOPHICAL school (invented by the ancient Greeks) that believes that everything is predetermined and we just "play out our part." Augustine, Calvin, Luther..... NONE of them believed or taught that. I know of no Christian theologian who teaches that (although Muslim theologians teach a watered-down version of it).


What Calvinists call "Predestination" and what Lutherans and Anglicans call "Election" only and exclusively and singularly is about ONE issue: justification (narrow), our changed relationship to God, our COMING to life. It has nothing to do with anything else. It is SIMPLY and ONLY the teaching that God gives life - spiritual and physical; dead self doesn't create life in self for self. And that God's love and will in this regard predates this COMING to life (since the receiver didn't create the life of self but merely received it). Lutherans and Anglicans see this as PURE GOSPEL and apply it ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY to the saved... much as your parents might assure you that they loved you and were giving to you even before you were born (their love being unconditional). It is a horrible, twisted, perversion to argue that God HATED most and thus gave to them hell.... but that is, essentially, the position of many uber-Calvinists today in what is commonly known as "DOUBLE Predestination" so that the biblical teaching of Election is twisted inside out to make it a matter of Law, Hate, Condemnation - how much God HATES you. The teaching in the Bible is always directed to believers and always to comfort and assure them (again, as parents might tell you of their love for you) never to tell believers how much God HATES unbelievers and His heart desires to its core to see most FRY in hell forever and ever..... That's NOT the heart of the God revealed in the Bible, IMO - but then that's the debate.


But again, NO Christian theologian known to me - past or current - affirmed or believed or taught the philosophy of determinism (that's clearly unbiblical and absurd). What some teach is that God is the Giver of Life - physical and spiritual; that God GIVES us our life - our first birth and our being born again; it's not a matter of our giving SELF all this (even though we were dead and unable to give anything to anyone) but of God's love, heart, will, desire. If you live, you have the Giver of Life to thank and praise. Yes, Calvin took that to what he felt was it's LOGICAL (but obviously unbiblical) extreme: Those who fry in hell are there because God is Hate, God desires most to fry, God "gets off" on seeing people fry, it gives God glory. THAT is what Lutherans and Anglican disagree with. Now, Arminius did EXACTLY the same thing..... with an equally UNBIBLICAL result... of insisting God is NOT the giver of life (physical and spiritual) but the dead give life to self so that self gets the credit for their being born again (although God is happy about what they did for themselves) and thus God doesn't get credit OR blame since God has nothing to do with life or death, nothing to do with heaven or hell, God just sits up there and sees how the DEAD work this out. Lutherans and Anglicans reject that.

Yes, God is sovereign.... but that doesn't make Him hateful, desiring most to fry forever in hell, the giver of death because He "gets off" on it and it "gives Him glory." I don't think that's sovereignty at all. And of course, part of God's sovereignty is love - unconditional love, boundless mercy, amazing grace (Christianity insists).... what some uber-Calvinists convey is a very radical form of Islam, a view of Allah (yet even Islam does not teach that God actually desires condemnation, not even that Allah is desirious of some NOT being saved). Christians agree with the Bible that says "God IS love." This is not cancelled out by the teaching that God is sovereign.


I HOPE that helps a bit....


- Josiah

 

[meluckycharms]

NONE of the Reformers believed in the philosophical school of Determinism. I honestly can't tell if our uber-Calvinist friend believes that or not, but Calvin did not. Determinism is a PHILOSOPHICAL school (invented by the ancient Greeks) that believes that everything is predetermined and we just "play out our part." Augustine, Calvin, Luther..... NONE of them believed or taught that. I know of no Christian theologian who teaches that (although Muslim theologians teach a watered-down version of it).


What Calvinists call "Predestination" and what Lutherans and Anglicans call "Election" only and exclusively and singularly is about ONE issue: justification (narrow), our changed relationship to God, our COMING to life. It has nothing to do with anything else. It is SIMPLY and ONLY the teaching that God gives life - spiritual and physical; dead self doesn't create life in self for self. And that God's love and will in this regard predates this COMING to life (since the receiver didn't create the life of self but merely received it). Lutherans and Anglicans see this as PURE GOSPEL and apply it ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY to the saved... much as your parents might assure you that they loved you and were giving to you even before you were born (their love being unconditional). It is a horrible, twisted, perversion to argue that God HATED most and thus gave to them hell.... but that is, essentially, the position of many uber-Calvinists today in what is commonly known as "DOUBLE Predestination" so that the biblical teaching of Election is twisted inside out to make it a matter of Law, Hate, Condemnation - how much God HATES you. The teaching in the Bible is always directed to believers and always to comfort and assure them (again, as parents might tell you of their love for you) never to tell believers how much God HATES unbelievers and His heart desires to its core to see most FRY in hell forever and ever..... That's NOT the heart of the God revealed in the Bible, IMO - but then that's the debate.


But again, NO Christian theologian known to me - past or current - affirmed or believed or taught the philosophy of determinism (that's clearly unbiblical and absurd). What some teach is that God is the Giver of Life - physical and spiritual; that God GIVES us our life - our first birth and our being born again; it's not a matter of our giving SELF all this (even though we were dead and unable to give anything to anyone) but of God's love, heart, will, desire. If you live, you have the Giver of Life to thank and praise. Yes, Calvin took that to what he felt was it's LOGICAL (but obviously unbiblical) extreme: Those who fry in hell are there because God is Hate, God desires most to fry, God "gets off" on seeing people fry, it gives God glory. THAT is what Lutherans and Anglican disagree with. Now, Arminius did EXACTLY the same thing..... with an equally UNBIBLICAL result... of insisting God is NOT the giver of life (physical and spiritual) but the dead give life to self so that self gets the credit for their being born again (although God is happy about what they did for themselves) and thus God doesn't get credit OR blame since God has nothing to do with life or death, nothing to do with heaven or hell, God just sits up there and sees how the DEAD work this out. Lutherans and Anglicans reject that.

Yes, God is sovereign.... but that doesn't make Him hateful, desiring most to fry forever in hell, the giver of death because He "gets off" on it and it "gives Him glory." I don't think that's sovereignty at all. And of course, part of God's sovereignty is love - unconditional love, boundless mercy, amazing grace (Christianity insists).... what some uber-Calvinists convey is a very radical form of Islam, a view of Allah (yet even Islam does not teach that God actually desires condemnation, not even that Allah is desirious of some NOT being saved). Christians agree with the Bible that says "God IS love." This is not cancelled out by the teaching that God is sovereign.


I HOPE that helps a bit....


- Josiah

I would first note that it was MenneSota to rather fiercely claimed that humans do not have free will. He also referenced Job to claim that God's sovereignty is over Satan and his evil actions. I would like to emphasize once again that I am in so way suggesting that MenneSota's view is invalid. In fact, it is a completely valid position to have. I only wish to demonstrate that there are other positions that are just as valid.

Here is a copy/paste from my systematic theology textbook from Erickson. I have taken the liberty of bolding the pertenant information. I apologize for the long post.

Among general providence proponents, traditional Arminians hold that humans have free will, by which they mean libertarian or noncompatibilist freedom. They emphasize that God could have created a world in which all the details were determined, but instead chose to limit himself, one major illustration of which is found in the incarnation.They see numerous biblical passages that teach human freedom and responsibility as evidences that humans determine many of the details of what happens. Some hold that God is indeed sovereign over everything, and that humans have libertarian free will, but regard the relationship between these two factors as ultimately paradoxical..."

"Those who hold to specific sovereignty, or, as it is sometimes called, “meticulous providence,”contend that the Scriptures teach God’s sovereignty over all that occurs. Some are hard determinists, who feel that human freedom would be libertarian freedom, but believe God’s sovereignty precludes this. They are willing to make God responsible even for evil in the world. Others also hold to hard determinism, denying human freedom, but believe that humans are still responsible in some paradoxical fashion, since Scripture teaches this responsibility. Finally, there are soft determinists, who hold that while God is sovereign over all things, this is not inconsistent with human freedom, which is understood as compatibilistic freedom..."[/b]

" General sovereignty theologians make much of biblical texts that depict people making choices or being faced with choices. The situation of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden is one of these, and the calls to sinners to accept Jesus Christ are another major group of them. These theologians also note the occasions on which God’s intention seems to be frustrated by human actions. The specific sovereignty theologians appeal less to these narrative passages and more to didactic passages that seem to teach that God brings about all things. In my judgment, the specific sovereignty argument is overall the stronger..."


"There are impressive texts that speak of God’s complete sovereignty. One of the most powerful is Ephesians 1: 11: “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.”There are texts that indicate that even seemingly minute matters are subject to his will: “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows”(Matt. 10: 29–31). The psalmist wrote, “All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be”(Ps. 139: 16).

" The specific sovereignty model seems to be able to deal with a wider scope of biblical teaching with less distortion than the other. Since the view of compatibilistic freedom is a viable option, the specific sovereignty model is tenable and preferable. It is also helpful to bear in mind the distinction made earlier between God’s wish and his will. "

"Jack Cottrell represents a more traditional Arminian position. He acknowledges that it is not in itself objectionable to say that God’s eternal plan includes “whatsoever comes to pass.” Rather, it is the Calvinists’ addition of two qualifiers, “efficacious”and “unconditional,”that he finds unacceptable. His own view is that the basic issue is the type of creation that God has made. It is one in which there is genuine freedom, which means that God has chosen to limit himself to working with such a creation and, specifically, human beings possessing genuine free will. God’s governing of the world is not based on controlling and determining everything that happens, but on foreknowing all future events, even those involving free human activities. On this basis, he is able to plan his responses to these human actions, acting in such a way as to influence what humans do. This influence, however, does not infallibly produce the results he intends, and, unlike the view of some Calvinists, the special intervention and influence are the exception, rather than the rule. He rejects the Calvinistic view as being deterministic. Those Calvinistic views that employ the idea of compatibilism he regards as inconsistent and denying genuine human freedom."




Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[meluckycharms]

I personally dind myself leaning towards a "soft-determinism" likened to that of Jack Cottrell.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

I would first note that it was MenneSota to rather fiercely claimed that humans do not have free will.

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