IS GOD STILL SOVEREIGN?

[Fastfredy0]

In Acts 16:31, πίστευσον is an aorist, active, imperative from πιστεύω. It is a command to 'believe'.

I'm, for once, of a slightly different opinion than Avigdor. I have no problem with the idea that when God tells us to believe it is a command (something claimed as due or owed)

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I will assume (correct me if I a wrong) that you are saying that "because God commanded us to believe it must be possible". I demonstrated this to be untrue via scripture. Example: obey the Lord thy God with all your soul, mind heart, go and sin no more ...

If anyway, the fact that we cannot obey some of God's commands, even though many stride to do so, demonstrates we do not have "free will".

 

[Fastfredy0]

I will look for it. I may be missing posts

I probably missed posts too. My "free will" is trying, but my 'disorganized nature' is putting up a counter fight.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Fred,

In your Reformed view, does God cause everything, including moral evil?

Oz

Short answer, No. Causing evil would make God the Author of sin.

Preamble: We are getting into theodicies. Neither side of the debate, if candid, has a good explanation of WHY IS THERE EVIL. If I continue to explain what I think REFORMED doctrine is, I will eventually stub my toe on the question of WHY IS THERE EVIL. You would have the same problem from your side.

OK, given that "preamble", I will try to explain answer how God is not the Author of Evil from my reformed perspective.

I think we all agree that reformed doctrine has God Planning and controlling everything. Understandably, your side comes to conclusion that God "causes evil".
Reformed doctrine explicitly says in their creeds that "GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF EVIL". I can find this statement if you like. Then, they go on to try to explain how that can be. I have expressed this several times but your side doesn't even want to try to see it from our viewpoint.
My understanding of Reform doctrine states that the method of control (this is my words) is "active" or "passive". "Active" as for example, God is the direct cause which I know you understand. "Passive" meaning God allows/permits something to happen. Example: I see a brick falling from a 100 story building and it is going to hit an evil person. I can 'actively' push the person away, or I can "passively" let the brick hit/kill the person. It is my plan, I am in control. If I push the person away I would be responsible, if I do nothing I am not responsible. OK, maybe you thought I was responsible in both decisions. I will try with another more personal example.
A child you know is starving. You have the funds to feed that child. You can actively do so or passively let the child die .... or, you know people are being abused, starving or whatever ... you decide to actively find these situations and remedy them or you passively do nothing. I am saying that in each scenario you planned what should happen ... that your passively not doing anything is your plan but not a sin. Your side is saying that your plan to not seek people out to aid them is a sin.
That's the best I can do.

Now, and I can't prove this ... but this is my explanation of how God does things without sinning (anthropomorphic imagery of God sitting back laughing at His foolish child trying to do this) ... here goes ... (more laughing) ... this is not Reform Doctrine, but respectable, knowledgeable people (implies I am not) have done so ...

Sin does not exist (heavenly laughing continues) ... rather, sin is the absence of God (good)
Analogy ... Heat and Cold. Cold does not exist, it is the absence of heat. Absolute zero (-273 C as I recall, 0K) is a cold (least warmth) that it can get. It occurs when all molecules stop moving. So cold doesn't exist, just a lack of heat that we call cold.
Analogy 2: Darkness does not exist. It is just a lack of Light (God?) Aside: God is light, in which there is no darkness (heavenly laughing continues. Job ideas sucked, FF is worse)

So, God plans everything including evil (I can give at least 4 biblical examples of God planning evil which support the Reform doctrine currently in question). His control knobs (obviously anthropomorphism for God method) are to actively cause something to happen, or withdraw his goodness (light, presence for benefit) which passively lets evil occur. R.C.Sproul "Evil is evil and good is good and evil is never good. But it is good that evil exists; otherwise, God would never allow it"

now, the following is not Reform Doctrine, but I have heard some propose the following. (This is where I hide my ignorance and lack of understanding and put another in front of the firing squad (continued laughing)

Augustine on Sin being the Absence of Good
The absence of good is a doctrine that evil, unlike good, is insubstantial, so that thinking of it as an entity is misleading. Instead, evil is rather the absence or lack ("privation") of good (1 John 1:5b God is Light [He is holy, His message is truthful, He is perfect in righteousness], and in Him there is no darkness at all [no sin, no wickedness, no imperfection]). It is typically attributed to St. Augustine of Hippo, who wrote:

And in the universe, even that which is called evil, when it is regulated and put in its own place, only enhances our admiration of the good; for we enjoy and value the good more when we compare it with the evil. For the Almighty God, who, as even the heathen acknowledge, has supreme power over all things, being Himself supremely good, would never permit the existence of anything evil among His works, if He were not so omnipotent and good that He can bring good even out of evil. For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good? In the bodies of animals, disease and wounds mean nothing but the absence of health; for when a cure is effected, that does not mean that the evils which were present—namely, the diseases and wounds—go away from the body and dwell elsewhere: they altogether cease to exist; for the wound or disease is not a substance, but a defect in the fleshly substance,—the flesh itself being a substance, and therefore something good, of which those evils—that is, privations of the good which we call health—are accidents. Just in the same way, what are called vices in the soul are nothing but privations of natural good. And when they are cured, they are not transferred elsewhere: when they cease to exist in the healthy soul, they cannot exist anywhere else.

Augustine's approach was not just brilliant; it was practical. His insight is intellectually credible and emotionally satisfying in that it gives hope and offers meaning to the Christian trying to make sense out of life in a fallen world. Source: https://www.str.org/articles/augustine-on-evil

That's all I got (heavenly laughing stops. Job says, "Well, at least I did better than that")

Aside: I wonder if God ever laughs, I don't think so save the human nature of Christ.

 

[JLB]

Yes, I do believe that a person won't believe until they have been reborn of God. It is the rebirth, the softening of our hard hearts, the gift of faith, that makes us willing and able to believe. This work of the Holy Spirit on our hearts is salvation.

At what point in a persons life does this rebirth take place?

 

[JLB]

My definition of Sovereign in regards to God:
Ephesians 1:11b Who works out everything in agreement with the counsel and design of His [own] will. Granted, everyone agrees with that, so I will define the terms further.

In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, Ephesians 1:11

The word Sovereign is not found in this verse.

 

[GodsGrace]

This is in regards to John 6:28 Then they asked Him, “What are we to do, so that we may habitually be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered, “This is the work of God: that you believe [adhere to, trust in, rely on, and have faith] in the One whom He has sent.”

I also exegeted the above.
Of course we're going to see it differently.

I exegeted both verses, in context, but what we would need to do is establish what is the "work of God".
John 6:28-29
28Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?”
29Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

THIS is the work of God....that you believe in Him whom He has sent.

So from just the above sentence...what would you say is the work of God?

Work is defined as physical or mental exertion to achieve a purpose. (Merriam-Webster)
Yes, faith is a work (something to be done to achieve a purpose). The guys in verse 28 want to know what work is to done to be saved (v.27). In verse 29 Jesus is saying, you can do nothing; rather, the work is done by God and not you and the work is defined as giving them faith.
Your way, the people have to do something to be saved (believe) which is a work, my way faith in inserted into them (part of regeneration) so they do NOTHING. Your way a person must do something (mental process (believe) to achieve a purpose(salvation)) to be saved and that is why person 'x' is saved a not person 'y'. My way, person 'x' does nothing and is saved.

You're adding to scripture. Nowhere does it say that God gives them faith.
What verse would that be?

In my way,,,which is the way of ALL of Christianity - even the Catholic church believes this - we do NOTHING to be saved except we are to BELIEVE in God. If you think that believing and having faith is a work...then there's a conflict with Ephesians 2:8 which states clearly that faith is a gift from God. A gift anyone has access to, IF they want it.

Notice that Jesus tells His followers the following:
John 6:35
HE WHO COMES TO ME shall not hunger.

Jesus then states that He came from heaven to do the Father's WILL.
verse 38

And in the very next verse, Jesus tells us what is the will of the Father:
ALL HE (the father) HAS GIVEN ME I WILL RAISE UP ON THE LAST DAY.
Verse 39

and THIS is the will of the Father:
EVERYONE WHO BEHOLDS THE SON AND BELIEVES IN HIM MAY HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.
Verse 40

The will of the Father is TO BELIEVE IN THE SON.

Close (IMO). Our works do not save us ... the work of God via the insertion of faith into us saves us.

LOL ... need a lawyer to write this up ... LOL

§Where does it state that God "inserts" faith into us?

No lawyers needed.

 

[JLB]

Well, I would say the GRACE is the attribute of God's essence that motivates Him to enable us to repent.

Grace is the Holy Spirit; the Spirit of grace.

Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
Hebrews 10:29

Without the Holy Spirit, no one would be saved;
Born again.

 

[JLB]

JLB,

RC Sproul demonstrated from Scripture that Prov 16:33 refers to the sovereignty of God: 'The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord' (Prov 16:33 NIV).

The casting of lots was a way to find God's will (sounds like sovereignty to me) - Lev 16:8ff; Judg 1:3; 1 Sam 14:41ff; Isa 34:17; Jonah 1:7; Acts 1:26.

The principle for the Israelites and disciples (Acts) was that people do not control what God does. The term, 'lap', is used to refer to a fold in a garment where opposing lots were carried. It was used for the Urim & Thummim.

Oz

It seems when I reply to you, my post gets reported.

It don’t desire to follow the teachings of man, and I don’t desire drama.

I will follow Jesus Christ and His teachings, as He is my Lord and Savior.

If you want to discuss His word, His doctrine, then I will be glad to do that.

If you want to discuss what RC Sproul or other commentaries, then I won’t bother responding to your posts.


God bless. JLB

 

[Fastfredy0]

Fred,

Please help me understand better your view of the origin of sin. Who caused the great tsunami in the Indian Ocean of 2004?

Oz

We are getting into discussions like Job and his buddies.

Who caused the great tsunami?
God planned for it to happen. Now since you are using the word "CAUSED" I guess I have to expand my answer ...
By reformed definition God caused it to happen either actively (direct cause) or passively (permitted to happen, allowed evil to occur). Beats me to answer with 100% confidence.
God told Israel to (this is best of my recollection) go kill every man woman and child of some group of people ... that seems to be the First Cause (God) ordering the Second Cause (Israel) to do something. Seeing as it is an act of nature I assume God caused it actively ... could be that satan caused it (I don't think so), but if satan did then he had to have God's permission (passive).
Lamentations 3:37 Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, Unless the Lord has commanded it? 38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil [adversity, calamity] come?


View of the origin of sin
Smokes, nothing like an easy questions. I have to fall back of greater minds than mine. This is the best I got:
Calvin was pressed, on the question of whether God predestined the fall of man into sin. Calvin affirmed that God decreed the fall, for he decreed all things, though Calvin trembled before what he called God’s “dreadful” (horrible) decree. Though God decreed the fall for his own good purposes, he created Adam perfectly righteous. Adam fell by the choice of his own will, and by his own fault ruined mankind. Since Adam voluntarily deprived himself and his descendants of righteousness, freedom, and happiness, he is fully to blame, although God had foreknown and foreordained the event.

It might appear that Calvin involved himself in a contradiction by asserting both that God decreed sin and that man freely chose it. To clarify his teaching, Calvin employed a well-known distinction between the proximate cause of an event and its remote cause. Calvin denied that God is the proximate cause of man’s sin, for the Holy Spirit prompts no one to turn away from God. Sin comes only from demonic influence and human choice. God’s decree that sin will take place is only its remote cause. Thus, human sin is the proximate cause of human damnation. Calvin admitted that he could not explain how God decreed sin in eternity without becoming its source in time, but he believed that we cannot comprehend how the Creator exercises sovereignty over his creatures while sustaining them as real secondary causes. This was not an attempt to evade hard questions, but a faithful response to the biblical doctrine of reprobation, by which “we are taught a striking lesson of humility.” Joel Beeke Reformed Systematic Theology



“Was Adam aware of God’s prohibition and warning respecting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the moment he ate its fruit? Reformed theology says yes. Did Adam have the capacity and power to do God’s preceptive will respecting the fruit? Reformed theology says yes. Did Adam, for reasons sufficient to him, come to the place cognitively where he wanted to eat the fruit? Reformed theology says yes again. (Reformed theology would also insist at this point, over against Arminianism, precisely because Adam had his reasons, that he was not exercising an “indifferent” will.) Was Adam forced to eat the fruit against his will? Reformed theology would say no. Therefore, because Adam acted knowingly, willingly, spontaneously, for reasons sufficient for him, with no violence being done to his will, Reformed theology insists that he was a free agent in his transgression. But if someone should ask: Was Adam totally free from God’s eternal decree, Reformed theology would say, of course not. Could Adam have done differently? Again, from the viewpoint of the divine decree, the answer is no. To answer these questions any other way is simply to nullify the Scripture’s teaching to the effect that God, who works everything in conformity with his eternal purpose (Ephesians 1:11), purposed before the foundation of the world to save a multitude of sinners who would fall in Adam.” Robert Reymond A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith

 

[Avigdor]

Avigdor,,,I think what the other member is saying is what I also say at times.
I'll say something that is calvin's teaching and then you reply to me telling me I don't understand Calvinism.

I accept that you are not 100% reformed/calvinist in beliefs because it's apparent....but this is the exact reason why you should maybe accept how I explain calvinism at times?

W
My problem with this statement is that I can see that you do not understand what Calvinisim/Reformed teaches, that you are defining certain things i.e God chooses for no reason at all and that it teaches that God created evil, from your view of what the words used are saying. In effect, trying to put yourself inside someone elses head. Sorry, that didn't sound very nice but I meant no harm.
And in the last couple of days Piper is being quoted as your proof and Oz's, (and he indeed make that statement), as though he is the end all of Reformed teaching. For one, I disagree with that statement, and for another there are different denominations that have appropriated elements of Reformed Theology and added and subtracted. I understand Piper was Baptist. My beliefs are more in line with the Presbyterian, as outlined in the Westminster confession, which is not a final authority I know and I don't treat it like one. Don't think I have ever quoted from it. But it does give a precision overview of the Reformed interpretation of the Bible.
In my opinion, someone who is not a Calvinist, and especially someone who deeply dislikes it, is not qualified to explain it to me. And certainly not to determine whether I am one or not, and that any disagreement I have with their understanding of it means I am not. And that they need to tell me that. Set me straight. What does it matter?

P.S. I must not be getting all my alerts as I found this post that I know I have never seen, by accident, on my way to post 265. I will now continue in that direction.

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

I'd be interested in knowing how you view people being 'made in the image of God'. What does that look like for a person.

While God is logical in many things he does (He gave us the logic of sentences in Scripture), but He is more than that. He exercises the full range of his attributes all the time.

Oz

Oz,,,
I've taught this but without getting out my notes, I'll just say this:

The creator attempts to make the creation in His image.
Genesis 1:26

So God made us....
With free will
With a desire for social interaction
The need for love
The desire for perfection
The desire for justice
The need for a family
A conscience


All of the above has been infected with the sin nature...
but that's another story.

 

[GodsGrace]

This is a false equivalency. The R.C. believes in the authority of scripture, the infallibility of the church and tradition. Reformed theology teach Sola Scriptura. Reform theology places the WCF or London Confession, Nicene Creed, yahda, yahda as mere fallible tools. The thoughts of many men in their best attempt to understand scripture (Proverbs 11:14, Proverbs 15:22). The scripture says God gives the gift of teaching to some. This implies that the thoughts of others are valuable; many coordinated others more valuable.
You yourself, are reliant upon the works of many, many others. Others have brought the books of the bible together, others have translated the Greek and Hebrew for you, others have defined many of uour best ideas/doctrines like the TRINITY for you. I don't 1 in 1000 could figure out the trinity of hypostatic union of Christ by reading the bible by themselves. (Even with their help I am somewhat confused)
To study the scriptures on your own without help is a daunting task (Acts 8:31). How could the weak of mind figure it out? How much time needed to accummulate so much knowledge and organize it? How does a single person contemplate so many items? I can't.
Most denominations statements of belief are minimal; their teachings scattered to and fro.
Granted, you should search scripture for yourself (2 Timothy 3:16). Granted, many are misguided by others. Yet, I find something like the WCF as a guide to scripture far superior to the single mindedness. To the extent that the WCF is wrong, it by definition is a bad thing. I question some stuff (Eschatology/church gov't) myself. On the other hand, your beliefs may be as incorrect also; possibly more so.
What seems wiser, the work of many, many theologians who believe in sola scriptura and come to decisions as to the meanings of the bible or ... individuals of limited skills (intelligence in some cases) determining the meaning? They both will 'screw it up' (am I allowed to say that in here?), but the wisdom of many is better than the few.


Agreed, men brainwash us. A few brainwash us with the truth (or as close as man can get to it).
I like to think of myself as a Baraens, assume you are too. Yet, the Baraens did not decide to double check scriptures until Paul spoke to them and establish new ideas. Similarly, it might be wise to double check the scriptures according to what the WCF tell you. I checked out some Arminian writtings.

Aside: I always thought that there was some merit to the Roman Catholic's idea that the dissemination of scripture should be controlled by the clergy so the commoners don't get it all wrong. I am glad they can't do this because the R.C. clergy got it wrong and I understand you see the WCF being of a similar elk.
Hey, maybe you understand this more accurately than I ... and maybe, with the counsel of many I got it more accurate than you. Hopefully, from the vantage point of the one of us that is not as close to truth as the other ... we will be rewarded for effort to understand and not the content of our understanding. The good news is we got enough of it right; in your case by your efforts to believe and in my case by the effort God made by giving my belief.

Aside: I like you guys, glad you tolerate me :yes

The W.C. is like the CCC
You depend on the bible and the W.C.
Catholics depend on the bible and the CCC

I find it very sad that the CC veered away from the teachings of when it was the early church.
In the beginning all was good...but within a couple of hundred years things began to g awry.

At least we got the Trinity and the Creed before that.

 

[Avigdor]

You see...now you sound like a regular Christian again.

Want some adivce?
Keep repeating that you are not calvinist but that "THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE."

That might be a good idea....
you're kind of right in the middle of the two belief systems.

Well I am a Christian. Not sure why what you believe is determined to be regular, and Reformed is what? irregular. There was actually a time when the free will issue you believe was classified as heresy. Just joking.
I will suggest that you think I am between two beliefs systems because the extent of your knowledge of Calvinisim involves only the free will issue, which in turn, the creation of evil etc., the things we have been discussing. Those issues are a very small part of the theology and the other things, those things that involve salvation, are the same.

 

[Avigdor]

Also, if we're to believe that God is a deterministic God that PREDESTINED every little thing in the universe, then it stands to reason that God also created evil, and did not just allow it - as EVERY CHRISTIAN believes.

Well of course He allows it, that is obvious, but that does not mean He created it in spite of what Piper said. Just because Piper said it does not mean it is what Calvinisim teaches. But I covered that in another post.

 

[GodsGrace]

I believe I did respond. I said I agreed with Piper. I said you misunderstood him. You said that Piper said God controls speck of dust (something like that) and then you said that means Piper believes God created evil. Piper did not say that. We have explained did many, many times.

Re Piper...I skipped the dust particles stuff. Silliness. I did NOT discuss dust at all.
Piper said God created everything...including evil.
You have explained many times how the W.C. states that God predestined EVERYTHING but somehow it also states that He is not responsible for the evil that happens every day.

I've asked you to explain to me how this makes any logic sense.
Either God DID everything, EVERYTHING....
Or He did NOT.

No need to explain it again.....
Just tell me how it makes any sense.

Jesus revealed God as being all good and in Him there is no darkness, as John said, and John was with Jesus for over 3 years.

This is a more concise, practical document to refer to. I am fairly sure Piper agrees to most of it. You have an advantage over me as you have not statement of beliefs to analyze and attack.

If we use the bible,,,we'll be on even ground.
Anyway, why would you want to attack me??

I'm a regular, normal Christian.
I believe we are to obey Jesus or we can become lost again.
I believe God reveals Himself to mankind and then we must choose whether to serve Him or satan.
I believe when we die we go to be where we belong...immediately.
I do not believe in the rapture and am not very well verse in eschatology because I have absolutely no interest in it.
I believe Jesus died a an atonement and there are different atonements and I believe a little from each one.
I like the Covenants and believe it's important to know at least the most important...about 6 or 7.



You say I don't use the bible and then mention the many verses I quoted. This is a contradiction.
Yes, you did answer many of my verses. Thank you
I think you skipped the TOTAL DEPRAVITY verses and the verses show Faith come from God and not ourselves; but there are so many posts that that is understandable.

I still curious as to whether you believe a person that dies today without having heard the gospel has a chance to be saved???? A post gave me the impressive that you did.


I didn't ... or if I did Im accidentally miscommunication.

Aside: Glad this software has spell check (my spelling 'sucks'... can I say "sucks" in here)
[/QUOTE]

 

[Avigdor]

As to the covenants...I asked your first!!
I didn't get a reply.

I did reply. I said I didn't know. I thought you were asking from the view point of "Why on earth would God make a covenant with people He knew would fail?"
I do know what the purpose of the covenants is. The Bible clearly tells us, ultimately to glorify Him, and as a means of revealing Himself and interacting on a personal level with mankind. You outlined it beautifully. I only disagree with the point that it was because God wanted us to participate in our salvation. It seemed to me that that wasan opinion interjected into it.

 

[Fastfredy0]

But he also says that God DID create everything,,,including evil.

Thanks for the link. Could you tell me at what time in the video that Piper said "GOD CREATED EVIL". It seems unlikely that it happened. I listened to the video and did not catch it.

You say you don't agree with all of Calvinism so I have to respect that...

I actually Laughed Out Loud ... thx
You have to be careful. Perhaps Avigdor doesn't agree with Calvinism stating Jesus rose again.
Hey, but seriously, I don't agree with all the is in the Westminster Confession which is basically Calvinism.

THIS is what calvinism teaches. Perhaps @Fastfredy0 would like to comment on this.
I'm told I'm not representing calvinism at times....however, this is what calvinists state.

Has God predetermined every tiny detail in the universe, such as dust particles in the air and all of our besetting sins?

Yes. [John Piper]

Agreed. Perhaps I will take a different tactic and Avigdor alluded to this in her UP and DOWN analogy. Perhaps EVIL DOES NOT EXIST. Yeah, I know you spit out your coffee on the computer screen as you read this ... but hear me out. I responded today to OZ on this with a long quote from Augustine and an explanation. Keep an open mind. I can't prove EVIL DOES NOT EXIST ... but with an open mind, hopefully after reading Augustine ... maybe you can say, "Well, I don't think so ... but I can't prove it is wrong". Others of note have given credence to this idea...agreed, doesn't make it right.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Challenge
I am still waiting for someone to take up my challenge and empirically prove the existence of "free will". Specifically, for one week stop sinning where I will limit the definition of sinning to "Love God with all your soul, might and heart" and "no evil thoughts".
Any takers?

Granted, you may state the test is invalid for some reason. The test is only for one week, so it doesn't prove "free will" exists perpetually, but I consider it strong evidence for the affirmative.
Another reason to not take the test is that your 'free will' choice is to disobey God. Seeing that is a possibility, I grant that my challenge would not work for the test is only valid for persons that wish to obey God without exceptions.

Any takers?

I took the challenge and sinned. I would like to obey God perpetually, but I can't. Seeing as I am on the side that discredits "free will" I will assume my bias and disqualify this test result.

Yes.
Sometimes we decide to disobey God.
This is known as sin...everyone sins.
There is not one person, saved, that does not sin.
If t hey believe they don't sin....they are sinning by thinking this.
1 John

 

[Avigdor]

I realize that the reformed must have problems with the Covenants.
Maybe that's why special books have to be written like the one you read.

Why did that author say Bi-Lateral Covenants are necessary?
Why make ANY covenant at all if God has determined/predestined EVERYTHING???

Now this is a statement that shows some weak spots in your "knowledge" of Reformed. Covenant Theology is another name for Reformed Theology. Why? Because their entire theology is based on interpreting the Bible through the framework og the covenants. It is not a doctine it is a framework a lens a solid foundation through which to begin and end interpreting the Bible. It is best to have such a thing as a foundation and a system to do this exhaustive, intensive indeavor. Sproul and others often refer to it as Covenant Theology.
The book was written as a study of the covenants and how that framework is valid, and what it produces.
Did you read the book?
The Bible itself tells us the purpose of bi-lateral covenants, but not why God chose to do it that way, which again seems to be what you are,asking in those last two questions. And challenging me to answer. If you are, again, I don't know, neither do you, neither does anyone.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I absolutely do not believe we save ourselves!!

Question: Why are you saved and not the person next to you (who doesn't believe) saved? Is it not because of something you did; specifically, you 'free will' decision to believe in the death and resurrection .... ?

You, by definition, believe in synergism (the position of those who hold that salvation involves some form of cooperation between divine grace and human freedom).

Synergism (your belief system) comes from a combination of the Greek terms for “cooperating” and “energy.” Put together, they mean “a combined force.” When applied to salvation, the term synergism implies that salvation is accomplished through the combined act of God and man. This contrasts with the term monergism (reformed), which comes from Greek terms for “one” and “energy” and means “a single force.” Monergism suggests God is entirely, completely, and solely responsible for any person’s salvation.

The results of your philosophy, as I understand it is .... Jesus dies for everyone without exception; but this death in and of itself saved no one. It is only by your co-operation (faith) with Christ's efforts that you are saved. Consequently, Jesus died in vain for those that don't believe... even those unbelievers that had already died. Jesus, the high priest, is in heaven and offer his blood for everyone without exception and, as part of His priestly duties, intercedes for everyone without exception. This sacrifice and intercession is in vain, according to synergistic doctrine, for those who do not co-operate via demonstrating faith in God.

These are some of the consequences of synergism. Imagine, the Son of God offering a sacrifice and interceding to the Father on everyone behalf of everyone and the Father in affect saying, "Sorry, my hands are tied, I ceded my sovereignty in this area to depraved mortals ... each person must believe in me of his own free will before I will accept your sacrifice for them. (Christ and the Father are of the same essence so I don't know why Christ would sacrifice/intercede and the Father would not respond according to Christ's intercession)

I have to eat lunch ... apologies for any posts I missed responding to .... getting messy in here ... fun though ....
.... wonders if there is a verse saying God is Reformed ... j/k