Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
IS GOD STILL SOVEREIGN?
- Thread starter GodsGrace
- Start date
Please let's get back to topic....
IS GOD STILL SOVEREIGN....even though He allows free will.
If we stick to biblical verses, we could all join in since we all know the bible.
wondering,
My understanding from Scripture is that God's sovereignty means He created all visible and invisible things/persons in the universe. Since He is the owner of everything, He has an absolute right to rule over everything.
This is the teaching of Matt 20:12-15 (NIV) and Rom 9:20-21 (NIV). Eph 1:11 (NIV) confirms that God exercises his authority in the universe.
Oz
wondering,
The definition of impute in Scripture is not accurately determined by the Merriam-Webster or any other dictionary.
This verse is critical in understanding imputation: Rom 5:18 (NIV), 'Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people'. The sin of Adam was imputed, charged or reckoned to every member of the human race. It is because of his sin that every member of the human race comes into the world with a depraved nature and under God's condemnation (See Rom 5:12; Eph 2:3).
Here, the Bible teaches we are justified in Christ just as we were condemned in Adam. The fundamental truth is: If the principle is wrong concerning Adam, it must be wrong also concerning Christ.
Oz
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Oz,
I'm having a problem with your beliefs.
I'm pretty shocked to tell you the truth.
Needless to say, you're one of the persons I most
respect and agree with on these threads.
I'm 99% sure you agree with me and cannot understand why
language is getting in the way.
Because God is sovereign and has the absolute right and authority
in EVERYTHING,,,does NOT mean He exercises that authority.
God created us with free will.
Do you agree with this?
If yes, the discussion is ended.
God, IN HIS SOVEREIGNTY, decided to give us free will.
If you believe we do NOT have free will, then you'll have to tell
me WHEN it was taken away.
Did God choose to give us free will or not?
God remains sovereign EVEN THOUGH He has given us free will. Libertarian free will.
This is the point of this thread.
My contention is that God is MORE SOVEREIGN because He is NOT AFRAID to give us libertarian free will.,
To the reformed God is made LESS SOVEREIGN because of His fear to give us true free will.
Please reply to the above and I'll get to your next post.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
This is why JLB likes to stick to scripture.....
so we could use the same language.
For this discussion, we'll forget what IMPUTE means.
And, BTW, it means the same for Merrian Webster as it does for theologians....
IMPUTE has a specific meaning and it refers to blame and responsibility...
impute means to impute.
Are WE,,,each one of us individually, RESPONSIBLE for Adam's sin?
Are WE... each one of us individually TO BLAME for Adam's sin?
This is what this conversation is about.
But let's go to the verse YOU posted above:
Romans 5:18 and we'll us the NIV which you picked:
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
Where, in the above verse, does it state that we are all TO BLAME and ARE RESPONSIBLE for Adam's sin??
OR
Is it speaking about THE RESULT of Adam's siin?
wondering,
Which of my beliefs are you having problems with. Most of what you've said here I agree with.
Oz
wondering,
Based on Rom 5:18, all people are condemned in Adam, i.e. they receive a sin nature/original sin from him.
If that is not possible, the parallel act is not possible, i.e. one act of righteousness (the cross) by Jesus Christ.
"one trespass [by Adam] resulted in condemnation for all people" The doctrine of original sin or sin nature is taught in this verse. It is serious if we want to make this statement only to mean 'the RESULT of Adam's sin' because then 'one act of righteousness' by Jesus did not mean that salvation is available to all but only the RESULT of what Jesus' did.
Biblically, the imputation of sin to all people is parallel to the imputation of Christ's righteousness to all who believe.
The language of imputation is critical to understand because to impute means to think of something as belonging to someone and so it belongs to that person. God 'thinks of'/imputes Adam's sin as belonging to the entire human race.
However, because of justification, God thinks of Christ's righteousness as belonging to those who believe. Because of that, God declares Christ's righteousness belongs to the believer.
It's not unusual to meet evangelical Christians who protest over the teaching that they are counted guilty before God because of Adam's sin. Some consider this is unfair. How should I respond?
- For those who protest, they know they have committed many actual sins. They are guilty because God because of these. See Rom 2:6 (NIV); Col 3:25.
- If it is unfair for people to be represented by Adam, it also is unfair to be represented by Christ and to have his righteousness imputed to them. That's exactly Paul's argument in Rom 5:12-21 (NIV). The reasoning is simple: Adam was our first representative and he sinned, thus making all people guilty. However, Christ is the representative for all who believe in him.
Oz
Last edited:
wondering,
Where is your biblical evidence that God is MORE sovereign because He gave us free will?
Also, please provide a couple examples from Reformed theologians or exegetes who claim "God is made LESS SOVEREIGN because of His fear to give us true free will".
In your statements about God being MORE or LESS sovereign, both you and the Reformed are making interpretations. I'm not reading any reasoning from the Scriptures.
Oz
This is a contradiction... that the more God doesn't control things, the more powerful his rule.
If God's knowledge of his creatures were derived from the creatures by the impression of anything upon him, as there is upon us, he could not know from eternity, because from eternity there was no actual existence of anything but himself.
God’s freedom is that attribute of God whereby he does whatever he pleases. This definition implies that nothing in all creation can hinder God from doing his will. Suppose God’s love were regulated by anything else than His will: in such a case He would love by rule, and loving by rule He would be under a law of love, and then so far from being free, God would Himself be ruled by law. Job 23:13 But He is unchangeable, and who can turn Him? And what He wants to do, that He does.
Again, the freedom of Divine goodness, which is the glory of it, is evident hereby; had he been alike good to all, it would have looked like a necessary, not a free act; but by the inequality, it is manifest that he doth not do it by a natural necessity as the sun shines, but by a voluntary liberty, as being the entire Lord, and free disposer of his own goods.
Can God be pleased/glorified with anything which does not have its origin in Himself? If “free will” be an actuality, then God is not glorified by the salvation of individuals that He foreknew for He had no purpose for that individual’s decision. Ephesians 1:11, Isaiah 42:8b My glory I will not give to another.
The events of the universe, if not determined by the divine decrees, must be determined either by chance or by the will of creatures. It is contrary to any proper conception of the divine benevolence to suppose that God permits the course of nature and of history, and the ends to which both these are moving, to be determined for myriads of sentient beings by any other force or will than his own.
To speak of deserving mercy, as the Semi-Pelagians do, is a contradiction of terms. God bestows His mercies on whom He pleases and withholds them as seems good unto Himself. (Romans 9:15; Exodus 33:19)
Goodness - Luke 18:19 Jesus asked him. “No one is good except God alone. -goodness" in other things can only be derived; thus faith which is a goodness must come from God; because a creature being made of nothing, cannot be good, or essentially good, but by participation from another.
God cannot will any other thing but himself as his end, because there is nothing superior to himself in goodness.
Arminianism denies that salvation is by grace alone with its synergistic teaching concerning the sovereignty of the human will; that God’s will is not free in this matter.
Grace is sovereign, because God exercises it toward and bestows it upon whom He pleases: “Even so might grace reign“ (Romans 5:21). If grace “reigns” then it is on the throne, and the occupant of the throne is sovereign. Hence “the throne of grace” (Hebrews 4:16).
According to Arminian thought, God wills many things which he neither would nor justly could will and purpose, did not some action of the creature precede. This would deny God’s ability to have eternal decrees and eternal knowledge. In regards to God’s knowledge not arising from His decrees at all, but rather from his knowledge of the nature of the man and that he knows that he will act in a particular way … if it be so, then God has left the world entirely to itself, without influence from him. Many things have come to pass, not because of his will and action, but because he has left the general laws, under which he has placed the world, to work out their results without action or influence on His part; this idea makes a God that lacks purpose (Deism) and a power that God did not create (Dualism).
Were it in anywise possible for something to occur apart from either the direct agency (or permission?) of God, then that something would be independent of Him, and He would at once cease to be Supreme in all things.
Since knowledge is a perfection, if God's knowledge of the creatures depended upon the creatures, he would derive an excellency from them, they would derive no excellency from any idea in the Divine mind; he would not be infinitely perfect in himself; if his perfection in knowledge were gained from anything without himself and below himself, he would not be sufficient of himself, but be under an indigence, which wanted a supply from the things he had made, and could not be eternally perfect till he had created and seen the effects of his own power, goodness, and wisdom, to render him more wise and knowing in time than he was from eternity. "Who can fancy such a God as this without destroying the Deity he pretends to adore? for if his understanding be perfected by something without him, why may not his essence be perfected by something without him; that, as he was made knowing by something without him, he might be made God by something without him? How could his understanding be infinite if it depended upon a finite object, as upon a cause? Is the majesty of God to be debased to a mendicant condition, to seek for a supply from things inferior to himself?
The knowledge of God cannot arise from the things themselves, for then the knowledge of God would have a cause without him; and knowledge, which is an eminent perfection, would be conferred upon him by his creatures. “for known unto God are all his works, from the beginning of the world" (Acts 15:18).
Immutability – God cannot be eternally what he was; that is, he cannot have a true eternity, if he had a new knowledge, a new purpose, a new essence; if he were sometimes this and sometimes that, sometimes know ‘this and sometimes know that, sometimes purpose this and afterwards hath a new purpose. Thus God cannot look into the future to acquire knowledge such as to determine whether a person should decide to believe in Christ.
What God does, he always purposed to do. Since with him there is no increase of knowledge or power, such as characterizes finite beings, it follows that what under any given circumstances he permits or does, he must have eternally decreed to permit or do. To suppose that God has a multitude of plans, and that he changes his plan with the exigencies of the situation, is to make him infinitely dependent upon the varying wills of his creatures, and to deny to him one necessary element of perfection, namely, immutability. Reason teaches us that no change is possible in God, since a change is either for better or for worse. But in God, as the absolute Perfection, improvement and deterioration are both equally impossible.
Foreknowledge implies immutability, and immutability implies decree (a plan). From eternity God foresaw all the events of the universe as fixed and certain. This fixity and certainty could not have had its ground either in blind fate or in the variable wills of men, since neither of these had an existence. It could have had its ground in nothing outside the divine mind, for in eternity nothing existed besides the divine mind. But for this fixity there must have been a cause; if anything in the future was fixed, something must have fixed it. This fixity could have had it ground only in the plan and purpose of God. In fine, if God foresaw the future as certain, it must have been because there was something in himself which made it certain; or, in other words, because he had decreed it.
Arminians affirm no decree of Almighty God concerning men is so unalterable but that all those who are now in rest or misery might have had contrary lots; -- that those which are damned, as Pharaoh, Judas, etc., might have been saved; and those which are saved as Peter, John, might have been damned: which must needs reflect with a strong charge of no immutability on Almighty God, who knoweth who are his. "Known unto God, are all his works from the beginning," Acts 15:18
Arminians claim the men must be free to determine whether or not they love God in order for the love to have meaning to God. Yet, the Divine nature cannot be increased; for whatsoever receives anything than what it had in itself before, must necessarily receive it from another, because nothing can give to itself that which it hath not. But God cannot receive from another what he hath not already, because whatsoever other things possess is derived from him, and, therefore, contained in him, as the fountain contains the virtue in itself which it conveys to the streams; so that God cannot gain anything. That which is from itself cannot be changed, because it hath nothing before it, nothing more excellent than itself; but that which is from another as its first cause and chief good, may be changed by that which was its efficient cause and last end.
If his knowledge did depend upon the things, then the existence of things did precede God's knowledge of them: to say that they are the cause of God's knowledge, is to say that God was not the cause of their being; and if he did create them, it was effected by a blind and ignorant power; he created he knew not what, till he had produced it.
If man can choose one thing or another then God must change his purpose to correspond with that act or volition. To this it may be replied that we know that such cannot be the case, for this would take away the independence of God. It would make his volitions dependent upon those of man. Romans 11:34-35 “For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counselor? Or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?” The force of this is, it is impossible to bring the Almighty under obligations to the creature; God gains nothing from us. Job 22:2 “Can a vigorous man be of use to God, Or a wise man be useful to himself? 3 “Is it any pleasure or joy to the Almighty that you are righteous? Or is it of benefit to Him that you make your ways perfect?
One of the greatest misconceptions about biblical truth is the idea that God is somehow obligated to be equally merciful to everyone. If He were obligated to be merciful, then it would be justice, not mercy; it would be what He must do if He is righteous. The whole point of mercy is that it is free and voluntary. God is so loving that He gives mercy far beyond anything we could ever hope or imagine.
Arminianism denies the absolute power and effectualness of Christ's death on the cross by teaching that “Christ died for all” it teaches that His death, in and of itself, actually saves no one; that His death was in vain for many.
1 Chronicles 29:14 "Who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee". Omnipotence means that God can do all things consistent with His nature and purpose. “Free will” implies God limited himself to unpredictable free acts of man. Thus, either God is not omnipotent or He has no purpose in matter pertaining to the salvation of individuals. To argue that man is a free moral agent and the determiner of his own destiny, and that therefore he has the power to checkmate his Maker, is to strip God of the attribute of Omnipotence.
How can God know the future if it is determined by the “will” of man? Does an all knowing God learn by looking into the future as has been suggested by Arminians who support the idea of events being determined by “will” of man? In other words, the concept of man’s “free will” is also opposed to his perfection, for that perfection forbids the idea of increase or addition from without; yet, according to the “free will” view, his knowledge increased by the decisions of his creatures.
“Beauty (perfection)“ means that God has everything desirable. It is not possible to have that which would be most desired if it is not determined by God. Example: How could it be most desired if the people that make up the “bride of Christ” is derived by the “free will” of men.
God’s liberty of action (sovereignty) would be limited by the assumed powers and prerogatives of man’s “free will”.
Does it not seem to represent the blessed God, as a Being of vast understanding, as well as power, and efficiency, but still to leave him without a Will to choose among all the objects within his view? In short, it seems to make the blessed God a sort of Almighty Minister of Fate, under its universal and supreme influence; as it was the professed sentiment of some of the ancients, that Fate was above the gods.
Election applies to God’s sovereign purpose for individuals and nations. The alternative—that human volition is equal to or is, in some meaningful sense, greater than the divine will … that when God created human beings with volitional freedom He accordingly divested Himself of absolute sovereignty.
Arminianism denies the sovereignty of God in salvation. If God's will is steadily and surely determined in everything by supreme wisdom, then it is in everything necessarily determined to that which is most wise. And, certainly, it would be a disadvantage and indignity, to be otherwise. For if the Divine Will was not necessarily determined to what in every case is wisest and best, it must be subject to some degree of undesigning contingence; and so in the same degree liable to evil. To suppose the Divine Will liable to be carried hither and thither at random, by the uncertain wind of blind contingence, which is guided by no wisdom, no motive, no intelligent dictate whatsoever, (if any such thing were possible,) would certainly argue a great degree of imperfection and meanness, infinitely unworthy of the Deity.
God’s love must he traced back to His sovereignty or, otherwise, He would love by rule; and if He loved by rule, then is He under a law of love, and if He is under a law of love then is He not supreme, but is Himself ruled by law.
The time of every man's death is decided by a sovereign providence. But by determining this sovereignly, God very often practically decides the man's eternal destiny. Much more obvious is this in the case of infants. According to Arminians, all that die in infancy are saved. So, then, God's purpose to end their mortal life in infancy is His purpose to save them (not libertarian free will). But this purpose cannot be formed from any foresight of their faith or repentance, because they have none to foresee, being saved without them.
That any purposes of God should depend on the acts of a creature having an indeterminate, contingent will, such as the Arminian describes, is incompatible with God’s immutability and eternity. But all His decrees are such. In a word, this doctrine places the sovereignty in the creature, instead of God, and makes Him wait on His own servant. It is disparaging to God.
Providence sovereignly determines the allotments and limits of each and every individual's privileges, of one's existence, life and windows of opportunity. It determines whether one shall be born and live in a Pagan, or a Christian country, how long he shall enjoy means of grace, and of what efficacy, and when and where he shall die (Job 14:5 The days of humans are determined; you have decreed the number of their months and have set limits they cannot exceed). Now in deciding these things sovereignly, the salvation or loss of the man's soul is practically decided, for without time, means, and opportunity, he will not be saved. This is peculiarly strong as to two classes, Pagans and infants. Arminians admit a sovereign election of nations in the aggregate to religious privileges, or rejection therefrom. But it is indisputable that in fixing their outward condition, the religious fate is virtually fixed forever. What chance has that man practically, for reaching Heaven, whom God caused to be born, to live, to die, in Tahiti in the sixteenth century? Did not the casting of his lot there virtually fix his lot for eternity? In short, the sovereign election of aggregate nations to privileges necessarily implies, with such a mind as God's, the intelligent and intentional decision of the fate of individuals, practically fixed thereby.
If God be not sovereign in regards to salvation then believers would have no sufficient warrant to pray to God for salvation.
If God be not sovereign then we should degrade God's almighty work of grace, into an equal contention between Him and His doomed rebel slave, Satan, in which the latter succeeds at least as often as God!
It is part of wisdom to proceed in every undertaking according to a plan. The greater the undertaking, the more needful a plan. Wisdom, moreover, shows itself in a careful provision for all possible circumstances and emergencies that can arise in the execution of its plan. It belongs to infinite wisdom, therefore, not only to have a plan, but to embrace all, even the minutest details, in the plan of the universe. Given that God has a plan (Acts 15:18; Psalm 33:11), which is all-inclusive (Ephesians 1:11) and because of God’s nature the plan must be the “best plan” … how is it possible to have the “best plan” when it is dependent upon the will of men who by nature are sinful. Why would an all knowing, perfect, rational God leave any part of His plan to evil, irrational beings?
Omnisapience (God is all wise) … how can the supposed “free will” of man with all it ancillary consequences be of superior wisdom to the decisions of God?
1 Corinthians 4:7 "Who maketh thee to differ from another? And what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?". God had given them everything they had; everything includes faith for those elect
If man can choose one thing or another then God must change his purpose to correspond with that act or volition. To this it may be replied that we know that such cannot be the case, for this would take away the independence of God. It would make his volitions dependent upon those of man. Romans 11:34-35 “For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counselor? Or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?” The force of this is, it is impossible to bring the Almighty under obligations to the creature; God gains nothing from us. Job 22:2 “Can a vigorous man be of use to God, Or a wise man be useful to himself? 3 “Is it any pleasure or joy to the Almighty that you are righteous? Or is it of benefit to Him that you make your ways perfect?
One of the greatest misconceptions about biblical truth is the idea that God is somehow obligated to be equally merciful to everyone. If He were obligated to be merciful, then it would be justice, not mercy; it would be what He must do if He is righteous. The whole point of mercy is that it is free and voluntary. God is so loving that He gives mercy far beyond anything we could ever hope or imagine.
Arminianism denies the absolute power and effectualness of Christ's death on the cross by teaching that “Christ died for all” it teaches that His death, in and of itself, actually saves no one; that His death was in vain for many.
1 Chronicles 29:14 "Who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee". Omnipotence means that God can do all things consistent with His nature and purpose. “Free will” implies God limited himself to unpredictable free acts of man. Thus, either God is not omnipotent or He has no purpose in matter pertaining to the salvation of individuals. To argue that man is a free moral agent and the determiner of his own destiny, and that therefore he has the power to checkmate his Maker, is to strip God of the attribute of Omnipotence.
How can God know the future if it is determined by the “will” of man? Does an all knowing God learn by looking into the future as has been suggested by Arminians who support the idea of events being determined by “will” of man? In other words, the concept of man’s “free will” is also opposed to his perfection, for that perfection forbids the idea of increase or addition from without; yet, according to the “free will” view, his knowledge increased by the decisions of his creatures.
“Beauty (perfection)“ means that God has everything desirable. It is not possible to have that which would be most desired if it is not determined by God. Example: How could it be most desired if the people that make up the “bride of Christ” is derived by the “free will” of men.
God’s liberty of action (sovereignty) would be limited by the assumed powers and prerogatives of man’s “free will”.
Does it not seem to represent the blessed God, as a Being of vast understanding, as well as power, and efficiency, but still to leave him without a Will to choose among all the objects within his view? In short, it seems to make the blessed God a sort of Almighty Minister of Fate, under its universal and supreme influence; as it was the professed sentiment of some of the ancients, that Fate was above the gods.
Election applies to God’s sovereign purpose for individuals and nations. The alternative—that human volition is equal to or is, in some meaningful sense, greater than the divine will … that when God created human beings with volitional freedom He accordingly divested Himself of absolute sovereignty.
Arminianism denies the sovereignty of God in salvation. If God's will is steadily and surely determined in everything by supreme wisdom, then it is in everything necessarily determined to that which is most wise. And, certainly, it would be a disadvantage and indignity, to be otherwise. For if the Divine Will was not necessarily determined to what in every case is wisest and best, it must be subject to some degree of undesigning contingence; and so in the same degree liable to evil. To suppose the Divine Will liable to be carried hither and thither at random, by the uncertain wind of blind contingence, which is guided by no wisdom, no motive, no intelligent dictate whatsoever, (if any such thing were possible,) would certainly argue a great degree of imperfection and meanness, infinitely unworthy of the Deity.
God’s love must he traced back to His sovereignty or, otherwise, He would love by rule; and if He loved by rule, then is He under a law of love, and if He is under a law of love then is He not supreme, but is Himself ruled by law.
The time of every man's death is decided by a sovereign providence. But by determining this sovereignly, God very often practically decides the man's eternal destiny. Much more obvious is this in the case of infants. According to Arminians, all that die in infancy are saved. So, then, God's purpose to end their mortal life in infancy is His purpose to save them (not libertarian free will). But this purpose cannot be formed from any foresight of their faith or repentance, because they have none to foresee, being saved without them.
That any purposes of God should depend on the acts of a creature having an indeterminate, contingent will, such as the Arminian describes, is incompatible with God’s immutability and eternity. But all His decrees are such. In a word, this doctrine places the sovereignty in the creature, instead of God, and makes Him wait on His own servant. It is disparaging to God.
Providence sovereignly determines the allotments and limits of each and every individual's privileges, of one's existence, life and windows of opportunity. It determines whether one shall be born and live in a Pagan, or a Christian country, how long he shall enjoy means of grace, and of what efficacy, and when and where he shall die (Job 14:5 The days of humans are determined; you have decreed the number of their months and have set limits they cannot exceed). Now in deciding these things sovereignly, the salvation or loss of the man's soul is practically decided, for without time, means, and opportunity, he will not be saved. This is peculiarly strong as to two classes, Pagans and infants. Arminians admit a sovereign election of nations in the aggregate to religious privileges, or rejection therefrom. But it is indisputable that in fixing their outward condition, the religious fate is virtually fixed forever. What chance has that man practically, for reaching Heaven, whom God caused to be born, to live, to die, in Tahiti in the sixteenth century? Did not the casting of his lot there virtually fix his lot for eternity? In short, the sovereign election of aggregate nations to privileges necessarily implies, with such a mind as God's, the intelligent and intentional decision of the fate of individuals, practically fixed thereby.
If God be not sovereign in regards to salvation then believers would have no sufficient warrant to pray to God for salvation.
If God be not sovereign then we should degrade God's almighty work of grace, into an equal contention between Him and His doomed rebel slave, Satan, in which the latter succeeds at least as often as God!
It is part of wisdom to proceed in every undertaking according to a plan. The greater the undertaking, the more needful a plan. Wisdom, moreover, shows itself in a careful provision for all possible circumstances and emergencies that can arise in the execution of its plan. It belongs to infinite wisdom, therefore, not only to have a plan, but to embrace all, even the minutest details, in the plan of the universe. Given that God has a plan (Acts 15:18; Psalm 33:11), which is all-inclusive (Ephesians 1:11) and because of God’s nature the plan must be the “best plan” … how is it possible to have the “best plan” when it is dependent upon the will of men who by nature are sinful. Why would an all knowing, perfect, rational God leave any part of His plan to evil, irrational beings?
Omnisapience (God is all wise) … how can the supposed “free will” of man with all it ancillary consequences be of superior wisdom to the decisions of God?
1 Corinthians 4:7 "Who maketh thee to differ from another? And what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?". God had given them everything they had; everything includes faith for those elect
Fred,
I do wish you would know your facts about Arminian theology from Arminians. Here you have dished up a concocted Calvinistic view of Arminianism.
The truth is: Arminianism: It’s All About Grace
Oz
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
I know you agree with me....
but when you write out your thoughts, you sometimes sound very reformed.
I'm not going to go back and look for what you said..
but you're getting likes from Fastfredy0 and I KNOW he's not undersatnding what you're writing.
It's good that you agreed with my post in case he's reading along.
It's just that when someone like you (a scholar) speaks to those less knowledgeable, sometimes
it doesn't come out right because you assume we'll understand what you mean. Maybe you could use simpler language?
I know what you mean because it's been years on here,,,but what about those that don't?
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Fred,
Maybe Oz could read all you write because he's trained to...
but could you have some pity on the rest of us?
Could you narrow down your comments so I don't have to give up my readings for the day to read your post???
Pretty Please?
I do like what you have to say and would like to converse with you.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
We may have to agree to disagree, so this is my last try.
You say that in Adam all people are condemned as in Romans 5:18.
AGREED.
Adam, being responsible for all mankind, fell, and as a result all of mankind fell.
Through this fall we all are born with the sin nature/original sin as a result of his fall.
Can we agree on this? (I think so).
So too are we made righteous through the one act of Jesus...
through HIM we can be saved if we accept His sacrifice for our sins.
Can we agree on this? (I think so).
You don't like the word RESULT of what Adam did and what Jesus did.
I claim that as a RESULT of Adam's sin, we are all made sinner.
BUT WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUALLY for that sin of Adam.
As a RESULT of Jesus' sacrifice we are all made righteous in Him.
BUT WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUALLY for the sacrifice of Jesus. This was the plan God made from the beginning, GOD planned for Jesus to be our propitiation. Because of the sinfulness of mankind Jesus is made our atonement.....
But GOD planned for this atonement,,,but each one of us.
Correct!
God thinks of Adam's sin as belonging to the entire human race.
But God does not think of Jesus' sacrifice as belonging to the entire human race, but only to those that accept Jesus' sacrifice. Only THOSE are made righteous in Christ.
And yet, we are ALL infected with the sin nature...
so there IS a difference between Adam's sin and Jesus' atonement.
One is for all men....
and one is only for those that accept...otherwise we'd have universalism.
Right.
Just as I've stated above,,,,God thinks of Christ's righteousness as belonging to those who BELIEVE.
But, as Romans states....we have not sinned as Adam did....
Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Verse 12 and 13....... tells us that because of Adam's sin death entered into all humans so that humans DID die after Adam sinned.
It says that it was Adam's sin that CAUSED THIS (death)
Verse 13.......God DID NOT in those days judge those persons (from Adam to Moses) guilty of death for breaking laws, because they had not been give yet (to Moses).
Verse 14......So when those persons died it was not FOR THEIR OWN SINS, since they themselves had never DISOBEYED GOD'S law against eating the fruit...as Adam had.
IOW,,,The people after Adam and up until Moses did not die FOR THEIR OWN SINS,,,but because Adam sinned and he CAUSED all mankind to fall. The people were not held RESPONSIBLE for Adam's sin even though they DID DIE because of it.
I don't think it's unfair and the above is not at all what I'm speaking to.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
By SOVEREIGN the reformed mean CONTROL.
We all believe God is Sovereign...
but when a reformed uses this word,,,
they mean that God CONTROLS everything, including our free will.
This is a reformed view with which I do NOT agree..so I have no idea what scripture to use since I don't even believe reformed theology is biblically correct.
This interview with John Piper may help....I'm not sure it's what you're asking of me.
If you read it carefully, you'll find that to him, sovereign means that God CONTROLS everything.
Being sovereign,,,like an earthly king, means that one is ABLE to control everything, but it does NOT mean that he necessarily does. For instance, an earthly King does not control who one marries...or what profession a person chooses, or where someone lives, etc.
Is God Sovereign over My Free Will?
We do not have ultimate self-determination, but we will all give an account to God for our choices.
www.desiringgod.org
What does Sovereignty mean to you?
Word definition is important to understand what a person means.
Please consider this scripture in this discussion topic.
The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’s;
But the earth He has given to the children of men.
Psalm 116:15
If God has given the earth to men, to rule and have dominion over, then we should consider that God has given men the ability to choose, to make decisions, to govern the earth.
IOW God being Sovereign has granted man to rule as a ruler, which by definition means man is a sovereign (ruler) as well.
This is the biblical definition of Sovereign.
which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate (Sovereign), the King of kings and Lord of lords, 1 Timothy 6:15
God is a Potentate, a Sovereign a ruler; more specifically He is the Lord of lords and King of kings.
He is the Ruler of rulers.
JLB
... Hey, the first few times Oz posted I thought he might be reformed. I am sure he and I agree on more that we disagree.
Oz .... you are welcome anytime to join us on 'the dark (reformed)' side (I better specific that the Dark Side is reference to "Star Wars")
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador