IS GOD STILL SOVEREIGN?

[OzSpen]

Another question for the 'free will' people.

When I am glorified (get to heaven), will I:
1) Use my 'free will' to stop me from ever sinning again and if this be so, what changed me as I was not about to stop sinning on earth....

Fred,

I think you are on another steam ship to ask that question.

Will there be any sin in heaven?

'But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life' (Rev 21:27 ESV).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

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".

In Acts 16:31, the meaning of the command 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ' is '(you) believe on the Lord Jesus Christ'.

There is no point in an imperative verb without the ability to do what the verb states.

 

[OzSpen]

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

I beg your pardon!

 

[OzSpen]

Even if you want to call it a command, and I don't quible about that, and that means it is possible for them to respond, to that I say ofcourse they are able to respond. They also might have responded by not believing. It does not tell us, nor in any way discuss why they responded with belief instead of unbelief. Their response of belief was because they truly believed not because they decided to believe. It does not tell us why they believed.
Other places in the Bible make the why clear. "My sheep (the ones God has given to Jesus) hear My voice and follow me." That is only one of many.

So, were the Philippian jailer and his household forced to believe in Jesus?

 

[Avigdor]

In Acts 16:31, the meaning of the command 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ' is '(you) believe on the Lord Jesus Christ'.

There is no point in an imperative verb without the ability to do what the verb states.

How about the ten commandments? That is very imperative in its you shalls and you shall nots. He didn't mean some of them all the time or all of them some of the time, which is all we are able to do. If you know Oz enlighten me. There may be a difference but I don't see it.

 

[Avigdor]

So, were the Philippian jailer and his household forced to believe in Jesus?

There was nothing about being forced in what I said. From my point of view they believed because their ears had been opened to hear, as Jesus often phrased it, their heart softened, (heart of flesh in place of a heart of stone, which God says He will give) an act of regeneration by the Holy Spirit. So that when they heard the good news they believed it. One thing they were not doing is deciding to obey a command by a mere man
and therefore believed. There may very well have been a command to believe, but the command would have been from God via a man, in which case they could and would obey because God made them able. I cannot grasp the idea that diciding, choosing to believe is the same as actual believing. Where did the actual believing come from all of a sudden?

 

[OzSpen]

How about the ten commandments? That is very imperative in its you shalls and you shall nots. He didn't mean some of them all the time or all of them some of the time, which is all we are able to do. If you know Oz enlighten me. There may be a difference but I don't see it.

Avigdor,

Surely you know the difference between the OT commands for the Israelites and the NT commands for those under the New Covenant. Take a view of what I've prepared to parallel 10 commandments with the content in NT:

Compare the Ten Commandments with New Testament teaching

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

There was nothing about being forced in what I said. From my point of view they believed because their ears had been opened to hear, as Jesus often phrased it, their heart softened, (heart of flesh in place of a heart of stone, which God says He will give) an act of regeneration by the Holy Spirit. So that when they heard the good news they believed it. One thing they were not doing is deciding to obey a command by a mere man
and therefore believed. There may very well have been a command to believe, but the command would have been from God via a man, in which case they could and would obey because God made them able. I cannot grasp the idea that diciding, choosing to believe is the same as actual believing. Where did the actual believing come from all of a sudden?

Avig,

I think you are trying to squirm out of this. The fact is that the ULI of TULIP forces people to be saved because they are:

• unconditionally elected to salvation;
• Jesus died only for them to provide salvation and the rest of the world is damned by God; and
• God's irresistible grace will make it impossible for them to say, 'No', to salvation.

Oz

 

[Avigdor]

Avigdor,

Surely you know the difference between the OT commands for the Israelites and the NT commands for those under the New Covenant. Take a view of what I've prepared to parallel 10 commandments with the content in NT:

Compare the Ten Commandments with New Testament teaching

Oz

I will look at the link when I have more time. In the meantime I absolutely know the difference between the OT and NT commands but that was not the subject. You made a statement that there was no point of an imperitive in a command if it couldn't be obeyed. Paraphrasing so hope I'm not too far off. If that is true it wouldn't matter what Testament they were in.

In any case the ten commandments, my example, are for everyone for all time.

I went ahead and clicked on the link. It is very informative but I don't know what it had to do with what we were talking about. It would make a good thread topic though. (wink, wink).

 

[Avigdor]

Avig,

I think you are trying to squirm out of this. The fact is that the ULI of TULIP forces people to be saved because they are:

• unconditionally elected to salvation;
• Jesus died only for them to provide salvation and the rest of the world is damned by God; and
• God's irresistible grace will make it impossible for them to say, 'No', to salvation.

Oz

Nah. I don't try to squirm out of much and certainly not this.

Those who disagree with the TULIP's explanation of the process of salvation always say God is forcing people to be saved. (Even if He was I don't know anyone who wouldn't be grateful once it happened.) But those opposed to election for some reason can only see it as force, as forced against our precious free will, as though there was no other way possible to interpret it. Those God regenerates (from my perspective of what that is) can say no to salvation, they have the same abilityto say no as they did "yesterday". They won't say no. Why? Because now they believe and they want to say yes. I know you are a person who is capable of, and does, look deeply into things. And I do not expect you to change what you believe about election. and there is no need. If you could just see how it is possible that it is not force, I would be so happy!

 

[JLB]

Whenever God determines.

Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, 1 Peter 1:22-23





JLB

 

[Avigdor]

I will look at the link when I have more time. In the meantime I absolutely know the difference between the OT and NT commands but that was not the subject. You made a statement that there was no point of an imperitive in a command if it couldn't be obeyed. Paraphrasing so hope I'm not too far off. If that is true it wouldn't matter what Testament they were in.

In any case the ten commandments, my example, are for everyone for all time.

I went ahead and clicked on the link. It is very informative but I don't know what it had to do with what we were talking about. It would make a good thread topic though. (wink, wink).

OzSpen
Another way of putting it: God is not forcing anyone, He is giving a gift, and that gift is faith. I think that is beautiful (not what I said, what He does.) And of course that is just my point of view.

 

[jasonc]

Nah. I don't try to squirm out of much and certainly not this.

Those who disagree with the TULIP's explanation of the process of salvation always say God is forcing people to be saved. (Even if He was I don't know anyone who wouldn't be grateful once it happened.) But those opposed to election for some reason can only see it as force, as forced against our precious free will, as though there was no other way possible to interpret it. Those God regenerates (from my perspective of what that is) can say no to salvation, they have the same abilityto say no as they did "yesterday". They won't say no. Why? Because now they believe and they want to say yes. I know you are a person who is capable of, and does, look deeply into things. And I do not expect you to change what you believe about election. and there is no need. If you could just see how it is possible that it is not force, I would be so happy!

im not a Calvinist, and I understand that. God already knows who will and seeing the future whomever made the choice is going to in His view outside of time and those he foreknew he predestined, we being finite make the choice when He reveals himself. irc, no Calvinist says God wont try to reach all, by their choose to reject they simply send themselves to hell and he already knows that simply hardens their heart,

cue in the pharaoh example in exodus. that's the typical one.

 

[JLB]

Granted, the word "sovereign is not in the verse. I don't think this is a precondition for my defining sovereign.
Anyways, a phrase analogous to sovereign is in the verse.
Sovereign = "purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will" = total control of others

It is like a dictionary. When they define a word they do not use the word, but something analogous.

I agree we need to define words by the scripture, and allow the scripture to define itself whenever possible.


Example:
[Sovereign is not found in the King James or New King James.]


which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
1 Timothy 6:15 NKJV


Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
1 Timothy 6:15 KJV


which He will bring about at the proper time—He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 1 Timothy 6:15 NASB


Sovereign, Potentate - Strongs 1413 - dynastes

1. a prince, a potentate
2. a courtier, high officer, royal minister of great authority

Sovereign = Ruler.

God is the Sovereign, and is the King of kings and Lord of lords.




JLB

 

[JLB]

I beg your pardon!

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

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


God bless. JLB

 

[OzSpen]

I will look at the link when I have more time. In the meantime I absolutely know the difference between the OT and NT commands but that was not the subject. You made a statement that there was no point of an imperitive in a command if it couldn't be obeyed. Paraphrasing so hope I'm not too far off. If that is true it wouldn't matter what Testament they were in.

In any case the ten commandments, my example, are for everyone for all time.

I went ahead and clicked on the link. It is very informative but I don't know what it had to do with what we were talking about. It would make a good thread topic though. (wink, wink).

The commands in the OT were for the Israelites and not Gentiles, in my understanding.

 

[OzSpen]

Nah. I don't try to squirm out of much and certainly not this.

Those who disagree with the TULIP's explanation of the process of salvation always say God is forcing people to be saved. (Even if He was I don't know anyone who wouldn't be grateful once it happened.) But those opposed to election for some reason can only see it as force, as forced against our precious free will, as though there was no other way possible to interpret it. Those God regenerates (from my perspective of what that is) can say no to salvation, they have the same abilityto say no as they did "yesterday". They won't say no. Why? Because now they believe and they want to say yes. I know you are a person who is capable of, and does, look deeply into things. And I do not expect you to change what you believe about election. and there is no need. If you could just see how it is possible that it is not force, I would be so happy!

Can irresistible grace be resisted by people?

 

[OzSpen]

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

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


God bless. JLB

Does that also mean you won't discuss what these church leaders wrote? Calvin, Arminius, Luther, Wesley, C H Spurgeon, etc.

 

[OzSpen]

JLB,

This is how the will of God was determined for the Israelites:

Also put the Urim and the Thummim in the breastpiece, so they may be over Aaron’s heart whenever he enters the presence of the Lord. Thus Aaron will always bear the means of making decisions for the Israelites over his heart before the Lord (Ex 28:30 NIV).

It was the way given to the people of God for obtaining his sovereign will in certain circumstances, e.g. going to battle or not.

We don't know exactly what the urim and thummim were, but they were carried in the priest's breastplate. Maybe they were 2 sticks or stone that could give a yes/no answer to specific questions for the Israelites.

When the prophets entered the ministry to Israel in revealing God's word, there was no more use for the urim and thummim. They faded from use, but were still around during the time of Ezra: 'The governor ordered them not to eat any of the most sacred food until there was a priest ministering with the Urim and Thummim' (Ezra 2:63 NIV).

The use of the urim and thummim is parallel with the casting of lots to determine God's sovereign will in Proverbs 16:33 (NIV): 'The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord'.

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

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.

Piper is a top Calvinist teacher.
If HE doesn't understand Calvinism,,,as you've stated, then I don't know who does.

But the bible matter to me.
We have to use scripture from now on.
Could you find some verses that say God created evil?

All the verse I find say God is ALL-GOOD.

Exodus 34:6
Ezra 3:11
Psalm 145:9
Mark 10:8
James 1:17

and so many more.....