In Calvinism why are the sinners God made responsible for what God has made them?

[Fastfredy0]

Now sound we can capture a facsimile of by recording the sound . But does sound have a material quality ?

I think the "original" question is: What is invisible that is material.
Sound has a material property in that sound is impossible without material to convey the vibrations that make up sound. You can hear sound if you put your ear up to a pipe and someone raps it...or hear sound through the air via the air molecules that transport it to the cilia (ear hairs in cochlea I believe) via your ear drum and bones. With no material to transport sound it cannot exist... as in outer space.
So how do one communicate from space to earth with sound? At its simplest, space communications relies on two things: a transmitter and a receiver. A transmitter encodes a message onto electromagnetic waves through modulation, which changes properties of the wave to represent the data. These waves flow through space toward the receiver. The receiver collects the electromagnetic waves and demodulates them, decoding the sender’s message. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/space-communications-7-things-you-need-to-know

Definition of sound:
a : a particular auditory impression : tone
b : the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing
c : mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (such as air) and is the objective cause of hearing

The wind I would say is not material . Can you send me a jug full of wind ? But there is compressed air .

The wind is the movement of material. It is the movement of molecules through space. Wind does not exist in a jug as the molecules cannot move as typified by the definition of wind. Technically, air is always moving till it reaches a temp of absolute zero.
Definition of wind: natural movement of air of any velocity ....hmm, since air molecules move till absolute zero, this definition would include air in a jug...hmmm, possibly the definition needs clarity to include that it can be sensed by man unaided.... but I am cheated if I change what the dictionary says.

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Jesus used the wind to illustrate how the Spirit regenerates. The wind is an element which man can neither harness nor hinder. The wind neither consults man's pleasure nor can it be regulated by his devices. So it is with the Spirit. The wind blows when it pleases, where it pleases, as it pleases. So it is with the Spirit. The wind is regulated by Divine wisdom, yet, so far as man is concerned, it is absolutely Sovereign in its operations. So it is with the Spirit. Sometimes the wind blows so softly it scarcely rustles a leaf; at other times it blows so loudly that its roar can be heard for miles. So it is in the matter of the new birth; with some the Holy Spirit deals so gently that His work is imperceptible to human onlookers; with others His action is so powerful, radical, revolutionary, that His operations are patent to many. Sometimes the wind is purely local in its reach, at other times widespread in its scope. So it is with the Spirit: today He acts on one or two souls, tomorrow He may, as at Pentecost, "prick in the heart" a whole multitude. But whether He works on few or many He consults not man. He acts as He pleases. The new birth is due to the Sovereign will of the Spirit ... author unknown

 

[Free]

I agree that Angels are spirits (not material) ...maybe because I was told so for decades. But when Dorothy Mae said they are material (I think that's what she said) I have to admit I couldn't find anything to conclusively show her to be incorrect IMO.

There certainly isn't anything to conclusively show her correct either.

Yeah, the Bible says angels are spirits, but I am a spirit also; in this case obviously I have a material body and together that form me. My point is: being a spirit does preclude being material also. You note yourself that we are spirit and material.

We are spirit and body; angels are spirit only that seem to be able to manifest in body, as in Gen 18, where it seems that God did as well.

Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
This verse strongly implies that, at least at times, angels are material as well as immaterial like us.

I think it rather shows that they can appear in body, but it doesn't follow that angels are material, especially since the Bible clearly says they are spirits. That is the clear teaching. And we know what Jesus said about spirits (Luke 24:39).

Ephesians 6:12 says angels are spiritual forces, but this does not preclude a spirit with a body. Christ being another example. I am a spiritual force. Similarly, Heb. 1:4 does not say spirits cannot have a material aspect to them.
Aside: Again, if I had to bet I would say angels are immaterial most of the time. Maybe they have material bodies in their closets to put on 2

Then we would have to make the additional speculation that they aren't of the same material we are made of.

The wind, an atom/molecule, glass, water/ice at times, sound (which is the movement of invisible air), maybe light? and the loche nest monster (added for levity)

I would exclude wind and sound. We see the effects of wind (and sound depending on the medium), we don't actually see it. The other things all consist of something which can be seen in the right conditions or with the right technology.

Interesting point. One must define invisible then.
If the definition be that some technology exists that can detect it .... then in the 1800s atoms were invisible and yet now they are visible. This presents a difficulty as a thing cannot be invisible and visible. If the definition be that something is visible if it can be detected then all things are visible to God.
One can create their own definition to favor their side of the argument (i.e. use of words racism, equity, inclusion)
I suggest the standard is the dictionary which in this case states invisible as:

1. Impossible to see; not visible.
2. Not accessible to view; hidden.
3. Not easily noticed or detected; inconspicuous.

Using a dictionary, an atom or the air we breathe is invisible. If one wishes to redefine a word other than found in a dictionary then one should supply their meaning and thus be understood by those that read further regarding things applicable to their term. Example: Free will has several meanings so it would be best to supply a meaning before discussing it further. Similarly, love has differently meanings to people so one should give their definition to avoid confusion.
Love Fred (ah, not romantic love)

I simply take invisible to mean not visible by any technological means. God is spirit and we cannot see God. We cannot see atoms or molecules, but we have technology to see them. That previous centuries were unable to see such things does not mean that they were invisible and now are visible. Those things never changed; we simply lacked the technology to see them.

 

[Free]

Why doesn't it mean that God simply created all things that we can see and that we cannot see.
Just because we can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'm not sure I understand your question. I have agreed that God created all things that have come into existence, that we can and cannot see.

Re Angels. Don't have anything to add.
Just that material things can't be in heaven, at least not how we know them to be. Even Jesus got His glorified body.

Jesus's glorified body is material (Luke 24:36-43) and he is in heaven.

 

[Fastfredy0]

There certainly isn't anything to conclusively show her correct either.

RE: Angel being material or not.
I agree with you. Hey, I went into the question assuming I could prove angels are not material save for occasional, temporary visit to someone. I still think that but I couldn't think of a way to prove it conclusively.

We are spirit and body; angels are spirit only that seem to be able to manifest in body, as in Gen 18, where it seems that God did as well.

I think so to. I just more proof that "angels are not spirit and material. It hasn't been presented IMO.
Like, taking the other side you have Isaiah (I think it was him) seeing God and surrounded by angel who had 6 wings and feet. That sounds like a material body to me as I don't believe we can see something just is just spirit. Hey, I am just trying to see both sides.
Maybe the word you should be using is "detect" rather than "see".

I think it rather shows that they can appear in body, but it doesn't follow that angels are material, especially since the Bible clearly says they are spirits. That is the clear teaching. And we know what Jesus said about spirits (Luke 24:39).

Well, follows that at times angels seem to be material. Oh, Luke 24:39 ... now that is a very good one to show angels are not material. LOL... you've swung me further to your side of the argument with that one. (aside: I was on your side from the beginning)

Then we would have to make the additional speculation that they aren't of the same material we are made of.

Agreed. The angels being material seems speculative. Interesting to think over.

I would exclude wind and sound. We see the effects of wind (and sound depending on the medium), we don't actually see it. The other things all consist of something which can be seen in the right conditions or with the right technology.

Sort of agree. Again, the definition of "visible" found in the dictionary does not include usually using technology.

1. Possible to see; perceptible to the eye.
2. Obvious to the eye.
3. Being often in the public view; conspicuous.

Now, if you had first defined "visible" to include 'technology', I would agree. But the default to understand the meaning of words is to use a dictionary unless otherwise defined for a discussion.

I simply take invisible to mean not visible by any technological means.

Well, as I said above, unless you define a word one must assume you are going by the dictionary.

We cannot see atoms or molecules, but we have technology to see them.

Well ... I don't believe you can see electrons or 'dark matter' then, though dark matter is only theoretical so I may be 'cheating' we that one.

That previous centuries were unable to see such things does not mean that they were invisible and now are visible. Those things never changed; we simply lacked the technology to see them.

Well, again depends on how you define visible. I guess if you extrapolate you can assume anything and everything will be visible one day... you potentially made invisible an imaginary term. Wait, we will never be able to see God (the Trinity). Getting deep in the weeds. My lawyer will contact your lawyer.

 

[Free]

RE: Angel being material or not.
I agree with you. Hey, I went into the question assuming I could prove angels are not material save for occasional, temporary visit to someone. I still think that but I couldn't think of a way to prove it conclusively.



I think so to. I just more proof that "angels are not spirit and material. It hasn't been presented IMO.
Like, taking the other side you have Isaiah (I think it was him) seeing God and surrounded by angel who had 6 wings and feet. That sounds like a material body to me as I don't believe we can see something just is just spirit. Hey, I am just trying to see both sides.
Maybe the word you should be using is "detect" rather than "see".


Well, follows that at times angels seem to be material. Oh, Luke 24:39 ... now that is a very good one to show angels are not material. LOL... you've swung me further to your side of the argument with that one. (aside: I was on your side from the beginning)



Agreed. The angels being material seems speculative. Interesting to think over.



Sort of agree. Again, the definition of "visible" found in the dictionary does not include usually using technology.

1. Possible to see; perceptible to the eye.
2. Obvious to the eye.
3. Being often in the public view; conspicuous.

Now, if you had first defined "visible" to include 'technology', I would agree. But the default to understand the meaning of words is to use a dictionary unless otherwise defined for a discussion.



Well, as I said above, unless you define a word one must assume you are going by the dictionary.


Well ... I don't believe you can see electrons or 'dark matter' then, though dark matter is only theoretical so I may be 'cheating' we that one.



Well, again depends on how you define visible. I guess if you extrapolate you can assume anything I name will be visible one day. Getting deep in the weeds. My lawyer will contact your lawyer.

Definitions, who needs them. :wink Having said all I did, I don't want to push too strongly, as the Bible doesn't define "spirit" as being some "spiritual material" or something entirely immaterial, although I do lean to the latter, as you picked up on, since it clearly distinguishes "spirit" from "body." So, I'm taking "spirit" to mean that we don't, and never will (outside of heaven), have the ability to see spirits (apart from them manifesting for the purpose of being seen). For all intents and purposes, spirits are to us, immaterial. But, it is entirely possible that atoms will one day be seen using technology.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Spirit could be a material we do not understand because it is here with us in our material world .

Spirit is a different material. Jesus, as resurrected, walked through walls, but then ate a fish. Fish is definitely material. How does the immaterial eat the material? Answer: he’s not immaterial but if a different material.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

RE: Angel being material or not.
I agree with you. Hey, I went into the question assuming I could prove angels are not material save for occasional, temporary visit to someone. I still think that but I couldn't think of a way to prove it conclusively.



I think so to. I just more proof that "angels are not spirit and material. It hasn't been presented IMO.
Like, taking the other side you have Isaiah (I think it was him) seeing God and surrounded by angel who had 6 wings and feet. That sounds like a material body to me as I don't believe we can see something just is just spirit. Hey, I am just trying to see both sides.
Maybe the word you should be using is "detect" rather than "see".


Well, follows that at times angels seem to be material. Oh, Luke 24:39 ... now that is a very good one to show angels are not material. LOL... you've swung me further to your side of the argument with that one. (aside: I was on your side from the beginning)



Agreed. The angels being material seems speculative. Interesting to think over.



Sort of agree. Again, the definition of "visible" found in the dictionary does not include usually using technology.

1. Possible to see; perceptible to the eye.
2. Obvious to the eye.
3. Being often in the public view; conspicuous.

Now, if you had first defined "visible" to include 'technology', I would agree. But the default to understand the meaning of words is to use a dictionary unless otherwise defined for a discussion.



Well, as I said above, unless you define a word one must assume you are going by the dictionary.


Well ... I don't believe you can see electrons or 'dark matter' then, though dark matter is only theoretical so I may be 'cheating' we that one.



Well, again depends on how you define visible. I guess if you extrapolate you can assume anything and everything will be visible one day... you potentially made invisible an imaginary term. Wait, we will never be able to see God (the Trinity). Getting deep in the weeds. My lawyer will contact your lawyer.

Why do you think Luke 29 supports angels have no material bodies at all? It says they have no bones and no skin, that it. Doesn’t say what they have as bodies but what they don’t have. Logically one cannot deduce they therefore have no material substance at all. Bacteria have no bones and no skin but are not therefore immaterial. Countless creatures have no bones. They are of a different material.

Remember the story of Elijah and the armies of God? He could see them but his servant could not. Did what he saw have no material bodies?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Why is the struggle with what angels and spirits are comprised of and not admit human eyes (and ears for that matter) just don’t perceive the whole range of stimuli? Why not accept the scientifically established fact that some light we cannot see and some sounds we cannot hear? Isn’t that easier?

Angels are confined to one geographic space at a time and must actually travel from A to B. An angel was dispatched to Daniel but had to fight his way to get there. Immaterial creation is not confined physically by its own limits. A gaseous substance fills up the whole space it’s contained in, for example. It’s not in one corner. A man or spirit IS in one corner at a time and must move from its own power. They have bodies of different MATERIAL than ours.

Jesus’ resurrected body can walk through walls. He has flesh and bones but walks through material. How do we explain that? It’s of a body with DIFFERENT material not subject to our laws of physics.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I don't think so. While we can't see a single cell with our eyes, we can use specialized technology to see a cell, and we can see the results of many cells put together. With angels and other immaterial things, no technology can help us see them.

We still cannot see them. When Elijah asked God to enable his servant’s eyes to see the angels, it’s the same as a microscope. They were there with material
bodies unaided humans eyes cannot see.

The difference between us is we admit the human ocular capacity is limited. You insist the angels lack material, that is the problem is because of their bodies, not our eyes. Our eyes are limited is our position. Their bodies are limited is yours.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Interesting question. All things (everything) that occurs manifests God's will.

God's will differentiated.
This will initially sound contradictory ... theologian contend that God has 2 wills... before you jump to a conclusion, hear me out ... *giggle*

God’s will is seen as the final authority and the ultimate reason for everything that happens. God’s “permitting” or “preventing” [Compatibilism opinion as opposed by hard determinism] in Providence is the determining factor. But is everything that happens God’s will? This can be a very puzzling question unless you make a distinction which is clearly seen in Scripture. The distinction is between God’s Sovereign will and God’s Moral will. Many times in Scripture we see that God’s desire for our moral conduct is violated by the free choices of mankind, yet God does not prevent but rather permits [Compatibilism theory] this to occur as He has ordained. So then it is not His “moral will” that evil should take place, but in His “Sovereign will” He has permitted it to happen even though it may not have His moral approval. We find out God’s “moral will” by simply reading His “precepts” and “commanded will” about what we should do or how we should behave. For example, God takes no delight in the death of the wicked, yet He most surely wills or decrees the death of the wicked. We find out God’s “Sovereign will” when events actually happen and the “secret” counsel of God is “revealed”, the things He has planned and “decreed” from all eternity. So when we ask questions like, “Is it God’s will for me to do this or that,” we simply look to God’s revelation in Scripture about what He desires for us to do; where God’s will is not found in Scripture then His will is secret. But when events actually occur, we see what the secret counsel of God’s Sovereign will, what he has ordained and approved (what He has permitted or prevented to occur) as it is revealed in time and space. An analogy, albeit crude, would be a parent punishing a child. While it brings them no pleasure or delight to do so, they still do it because the "just" character of the parent demands it.
Author unknown


Stephen Charnock on “moral will“ versus “sovereign (secret) will“ (Compatibilism opinion as opposed by hard determinism)
God doth not will [sin] directly, and by an efficacious will. He doth not directly will it, because he hath prohibited it by his law, which is a discovery of his will; so that if he should directly will sin, and directly prohibit it, he would will good and evil in the same manner, and there would be contradictions in God’s will: to will sin absolutely, is to work it (Psalm 115:3 “God hath done whatsoever he pleased.” God cannot absolutely will it, because he cannot work it. God wills good by a positive decree, because he hath decreed to effect it. He wills evil by a private decree, because he hath decreed not to give that grace [does not restrain] which would certainly prevent it. God doth not will sin simply, for that were to approve it, but he wills it, in order to that good his wisdom will bring forth from it. He wills not sin for itself, but for the event.

Note: God’s will as revealed to us is what people should and should not do and not what God should and should not do. For example, God kills people.

Got to go... sorry for long winded answer. I may have misunderstood your question and it implication.

The test of Charnock’s thesis is standing before the living God and noting His response. I will ponder your post and answer later.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Interesting question. All things (everything) that occurs manifests God's will.

God's will differentiated.
This will initially sound contradictory ... theologian contend that God has 2 wills... before you jump to a conclusion, hear me out ... *giggle*

God’s will is seen as the final authority and the ultimate reason for everything that happens. God’s “permitting” or “preventing” [Compatibilism opinion as opposed by hard determinism] in Providence is the determining factor. But is everything that happens God’s will? This can be a very puzzling question unless you make a distinction which is clearly seen in Scripture. The distinction is between God’s Sovereign will and God’s Moral will. Many times in Scripture we see that God’s desire for our moral conduct is violated by the free choices of mankind, yet God does not prevent but rather permits [Compatibilism theory] this to occur as He has ordained. So then it is not His “moral will” that evil should take place, but in His “Sovereign will” He has permitted it to happen even though it may not have His moral approval. We find out God’s “moral will” by simply reading His “precepts” and “commanded will” about what we should do or how we should behave. For example, God takes no delight in the death of the wicked, yet He most surely wills or decrees the death of the wicked. We find out God’s “Sovereign will” when events actually happen and the “secret” counsel of God is “revealed”, the things He has planned and “decreed” from all eternity. So when we ask questions like, “Is it God’s will for me to do this or that,” we simply look to God’s revelation in Scripture about what He desires for us to do; where God’s will is not found in Scripture then His will is secret. But when events actually occur, we see what the secret counsel of God’s Sovereign will, what he has ordained and approved (what He has permitted or prevented to occur) as it is revealed in time and space. An analogy, albeit crude, would be a parent punishing a child. While it brings them no pleasure or delight to do so, they still do it because the "just" character of the parent demands it.
Author unknown


Stephen Charnock on “moral will“ versus “sovereign (secret) will“ (Compatibilism opinion as opposed by hard determinism)
God doth not will [sin] directly, and by an efficacious will. He doth not directly will it, because he hath prohibited it by his law, which is a discovery of his will; so that if he should directly will sin, and directly prohibit it, he would will good and evil in the same manner, and there would be contradictions in God’s will: to will sin absolutely, is to work it (Psalm 115:3 “God hath done whatsoever he pleased.” God cannot absolutely will it, because he cannot work it. God wills good by a positive decree, because he hath decreed to effect it. He wills evil by a private decree, because he hath decreed not to give that grace [does not restrain] which would certainly prevent it. God doth not will sin simply, for that were to approve it, but he wills it, in order to that good his wisdom will bring forth from it. He wills not sin for itself, but for the event.

Note: God’s will as revealed to us is what people should and should not do and not what God should and should not do. For example, God kills people.

Got to go... sorry for long winded answer. I may have misunderstood your question and it implication.

The test of Charnock’s thesis is standing before the living God and noting His response.

We are spirits...
In a material world.
Sting

We have different bodies than angels.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm not sure I understand your question. I have agreed that God created all things that have come into existence, that we can and cannot see.


Jesus's glorified body is material (Luke 24:36-43) and he is in heaven.

What does the NT mean when it states we will receive our glorified bodies?
What's the difference if it's what we have now?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Just because they appear to have bodies doesn't mean those bodies are material, especially since they can appear in human form (Gen 18) and it seems that they cannot die (Luke 20:36). They are supernatural, spiritual beings, or spirits. It is worth noting that fallen angels are also called unclean or evil spirits.

Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. (ESV)

Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? (ESV)

Then, there are also the souls/spirits of humans.


What is invisible that is material?


To accuse someone of something is to say they have committed an offense, so why would anyone accuse God of moral good? Evil is only being discussed because anti-Calvinists keep bringing it up, but that certainly doesn't mean Calvinists don't believe that God brings about moral good.

Keep in mind that whatever system of theology one holds to, in the very least, God created angels and man with the ability to choose between good and evil. He not only made evil a possibility, he knew that evil would come about, because it was necessary.

Angels don’t merely “appear” to have bodies (implying they really don’t.) All accounts of them in scripture support that they too have bodies. There are no accounts that even hint at non-corporeal entities filling whatever space they happen to be in. They sing, for example. That requires facility to sing which absolutely requires a body.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Interesting question. All things (everything) that occurs manifests God's will.

God's will differentiated.
This will initially sound contradictory ... theologian contend that God has 2 wills... before you jump to a conclusion, hear me out ... *giggle*

God’s will is seen as the final authority and the ultimate reason for everything that happens. God’s “permitting” or “preventing” [Compatibilism opinion as opposed by hard determinism] in Providence is the determining factor. But is everything that happens God’s will? This can be a very puzzling question unless you make a distinction which is clearly seen in Scripture. The distinction is between God’s Sovereign will and God’s Moral will. Many times in Scripture we see that God’s desire for our moral conduct is violated by the free choices of mankind, yet God does not prevent but rather permits [Compatibilism theory] this to occur as He has ordained. So then it is not His “moral will” that evil should take place, but in His “Sovereign will” He has permitted it to happen even though it may not have His moral approval. We find out God’s “moral will” by simply reading His “precepts” and “commanded will” about what we should do or how we should behave. For example, God takes no delight in the death of the wicked, yet He most surely wills or decrees the death of the wicked. We find out God’s “Sovereign will” when events actually happen and the “secret” counsel of God is “revealed”, the things He has planned and “decreed” from all eternity. So when we ask questions like, “Is it God’s will for me to do this or that,” we simply look to God’s revelation in Scripture about what He desires for us to do; where God’s will is not found in Scripture then His will is secret. But when events actually occur, we see what the secret counsel of God’s Sovereign will, what he has ordained and approved (what He has permitted or prevented to occur) as it is revealed in time and space. An analogy, albeit crude, would be a parent punishing a child. While it brings them no pleasure or delight to do so, they still do it because the "just" character of the parent demands it.
Author unknown


Stephen Charnock on “moral will“ versus “sovereign (secret) will“ (Compatibilism opinion as opposed by hard determinism)
God doth not will [sin] directly, and by an efficacious will. He doth not directly will it, because he hath prohibited it by his law, which is a discovery of his will; so that if he should directly will sin, and directly prohibit it, he would will good and evil in the same manner, and there would be contradictions in God’s will: to will sin absolutely, is to work it (Psalm 115:3 “God hath done whatsoever he pleased.” God cannot absolutely will it, because he cannot work it. God wills good by a positive decree, because he hath decreed to effect it. He wills evil by a private decree, because he hath decreed not to give that grace [does not restrain] which would certainly prevent it. God doth not will sin simply, for that were to approve it, but he wills it, in order to that good his wisdom will bring forth from it. He wills not sin for itself, but for the event.

Note: God’s will as revealed to us is what people should and should not do and not what God should and should not do. For example, God kills people.

Got to go... sorry for long winded answer. I may have misunderstood your question and it implication.

I think I am probably the wrong person for this pursuit. I think you would be more satisfied with a theoretical theology thinker. I will answer you so you can decide if someone else would be a better match.

I have heard of this kind of “in God’s permissible will” or in this case, “God’s sovereign will” before. On one hand it sounds theoretically plausible. The difficulty comes with transferring this to the real practical world as this leads to your opening statement which, if said before the Throne, becomes obviously an accusation of wrong doing. It’s also indirect violation of countless scriptures as well as real life, that tells us quite plainly his will is not done. You laid a foundation for separating the moral from the sovereign but applied the sovereign to the moral and claimed “all things manifest God’s will” without the adjectives. This is the danger. It is an accusation of the wrong man does as being within His will.

Now I’m the wrong person for this because I’m a scientist by training and I apply theory to practice to test the truth of the theory. I look at my own heart and KNOW I do not do the will of God at times and neither do many around me.

Ah, but we all do the “sovereign will” of God, you say. Problem is, I do not see that God agrees. And I see God as a person and not a subject of study. Analyzing Him and describing him in non-living subject terms is like describing my husband to me as merely a sperm donor. It reduces someone I love to a function or a biological subject of research. All the loving relationship aspects are sterilized. And those aspects are the main point.

So me thinks someone else would be better suited for your intellectual pursuit.

 

[GodsGrace]

I think I am probably the wrong person for this pursuit. I think you would be more satisfied with a theoretical theology thinker. I will answer you so you can decide if someone else would be a better match.

I have heard of this kind of “in God’s permissible will” or in this case, “God’s sovereign will” before. On one hand it sounds theoretically plausible. The difficulty comes with transferring this to the real practical world as this leads to your opening statement which, if said before the Throne, becomes obviously an accusation of wrong doing. It’s also indirect violation of countless scriptures as well as real life, that tells us quite plainly his will is not done. You laid a foundation for separating the moral from the sovereign but applied the sovereign to the moral and claimed “all things manifest God’s will” without the adjectives. This is the danger. It is an accusation of the wrong man does as being within His will.

Now I’m the wrong person for this because I’m a scientist by training and I apply theory to practice to test the truth of the theory. I look at my own heart and KNOW I do not do the will of God at times and neither do many around me.

Ah, but we all do the “sovereign will” of God, you say. Problem is, I do not see that God agrees. And I see God as a person and not a subject of study. Analyzing Him and describing him in non-living subject terms is like describing my husband to me as merely a sperm donor. It reduces someone I love to a function or a biological subject of research. All the loving relationship aspects are sterilized. And those aspects are the main point.

So me thinks someone else would be better suited for your intellectual pursuit.

The reformed believe God has two will to explain away a lot of teachings.
God has ONE will.
He is not split in two.
I agree with your post.
God has one will, but we humans like to use our own free will
and it doesn't always match with God's.

The reformed don't believe in free will, thus to keep God's sovereignty in tact
the two wills come into play.

Want to learn more of this unorganized idea?

Are There Two Wills of God?

We have discussed the question of the two wills of God in other blog posts and podcasts, but in this post I want to share with you a book review by my mentoring professor from New Orleans Baptist T…

soteriology101.com

and you've gotta love this one: It's John Piper explaining how God brings about things God prohibits.

 

[Free]

What does the NT mean when it states we will receive our glorified bodies?
What's the difference if it's what we have now?

They're still physical but they've been "spiritualized" and made immortal. Our bodies will be just like Jesus's--still recognized as who he was, he ate and walked around, yet he seemed to be able to either walk through doors or appear out of thin air. The Bible doesn't give us much more than that.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Why do you think Luke 29 supports angels have no material bodies at all? It says they have no bones and no skin, that it. Doesn’t say what they have as bodies but what they don’t have. Logically one cannot deduce they therefore have no material substance at all. Bacteria have no bones and no skin but are not therefore immaterial. Countless creatures have no bones. They are of a different material.

Well, I suppose possible ... but seems unlikely to me.

Remember the story of Elijah and the armies of God? He could see them but his servant could not. Did what he saw have no material bodies?

Gee, good point. Playing devil's advocate ... it is possible that the armies were physical and God interfered with their vision of those that were with Elijah or vice versa... the armies were spiritual and only Elijah was able to perceive them.
Stop confusing me .. lol ... all things are possible with God, so how do I know unless He explains the physics, said physical properties He can turn on and off and change as He pleases.
We make the assumption that the physical properties we perceive never change and draw conclusions from that ... but when "miracles" occur our assumptions are shipwrecked. (not that I know what I am talking about ... conjecture)

 

[GodsGrace]

They're still physical but they've been "spiritualized" and made immortal. Our bodies will be just like Jesus's--still recognized as who he was, he ate and walked around, yet he seemed to be able to either walk through doors or appear out of thin air. The Bible doesn't give us much more than that.

This is pretty much as I understand it.
I don't think about this too much....
It's interesting though.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Jesus’ resurrected body can walk through walls. He has flesh and bones but walks through material. How do we explain that? It’s of a body with DIFFERENT material not subject to our laws of physics.

God controls the Laws of Physics ... up can be down, in can be out (figuratively speaking) ... God maintains these physical laws I suppose for our convenience to accommodate the finiteness. Job 34:14 If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath; 15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.
The mistake man makes IMO is the of deism (a universe that runs on its own power).

Aside: I really don't know what I am talking about .... got to think others don't either for the most part.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Well, I suppose possible ... but seems unlikely to me.

How can they exist and travel and sing and fight and be inhibited and have no material bodies at all? Why isn’t it easier to accept they aren’t like ours?

Gee, good point. Playing devil's advocate ... it is possible that the armies were physical and God interfered with their vision of those that were with Elijah or vice versa... the armies were spiritual and only Elijah was able to perceive them.
Stop confusing me .. lol ... all things are possible with God, so how do I know unless He explains the physics, said physical properties He can turn on and off and change as He pleases.

No they weren’t physical as in bones and skin. Btw, God works the same way. That is, He has particular ways. He isn’t operating in arbitrary chaos.

We make the assumption that the physical properties we perceive never change and draw conclusions from that ... but when "miracles" occur our assumptions are shipwrecked. (not that I know what I am talking about ... conjecture)

The physical properties never change. That’s how we can go science. Otherwise we couldn’t.