Objections to God's Sovereignty Answered..........Some

[Fastfredy0]

Hi Miamited

Yes, that's exactly right!! God predestined 'us' all of those new believers that Paul is writing to that if they would believe in His Son, they would be saved. God did absolutely predestine that glorious eventuality.

Well, caught me off guard when you said God predestined the plan and not people's decision. Since I believe God predestined all things I agree with your first premise.
John 1:12-13 contradicts your 2nd premise. It says one is not saved by man's will. So, you have to explain that (amongst other things.

Yes! Exactly !!!!! God chose the people who would follow His method to be saved before the foundations of the earth were set in place. God sent His Son into the world that men might be saved. God predestined that all men who would believe in His Son would be saved. So, you're right that it is not a method. It is a belief...a faith, that can start as small as a mustard seed. Then mature into a tree in which even the birds can rest from their toils. That is what God predestined for His Creation.

So God also predestined that billions of people would not have an opportunity to use His method (Faith in Christ) to be saved? How 'bout the millions of people killed by Stalin, Paul Pot, Hitler, etc. How come the FREE WILL of these men is allowed to cancel the FREE WILL of millions of others? ....and while I am at it, please, please,please,please, define FREE WILL.

Just take a little bit from everyone so that none have too much or none have too little.

Interesting method. I would assume each groups theology tries to be a cohesive, non-contradictory whole so that would put your method at a disadvantage as it would have more conflicts theoretically. Granted, all sides have errors. Also, except for reformed theology I have not found any group of any size that tries to put it all together. Most statements of faith of most church is one or two pages long.

Another sticking point with me is the 'Jesus is God' claim. I'm more comfortable with referring to Jesus as both he and his Father do. This is my Son in whom I am well pleased. Ask of the Father and you will be given. Jesus is God's Son and God is Jesus' Father.

I give you credit for being candid. I am not sure exactly what your saying.
It a complicated area of study and to some extent theologians don't understand some nuisances.
Are you saying Jesus is not God? ... that would be dangerous ground to step upon IMO.

So, I find my self often participating with a particular fellowship of the believers, but I'm often testing and checking.

That's a wise thing to do. Be like the Bereans or Reagan; trust but verify. I would suggest books by those who have studied these matters and more likely to come to some sort of consensus based on the wisdom of many who based knowledge on the Bible of course. (Aside: what is truth)

Psalm 14:1-3 says: Sin has tainted everything humanity does, and everyone has turned away.

This is not God telling anyone they can't come to Him!!

Well, we are agreed. Our point of contention is "what is the cause of someone coming to Him".

This is God begging them to come to Him. Oh friend, please don't think that the passage you quoted means that God says we can't come to Him on our own.

Again, this highlights the crux of our disagreement. Since you have not defined Free Will and since Free Will does not have a commonly understand definition I can't dissect your position.

God, like the father of the Prodigal son, stands with open arms waiting for you to come to Him.

I try to avoid parables. So many interpretations. But to suggest another interpretation. The father in the parable is no welcoming a stranger, he is welcome someone that is already one of his own back to the fold. The prodigal already had union with the father (salvation with God) and now there fellowship has been renewed (the 1 of 100 sheep has returned. Anyways, parables usually are not the way to go to find the explicit meaning of other scripture.

The angels of heaven rejoice, my friend, like they sang on that night over Bethlehem, although I'm sure not quite so grand and glorious, every time a little one returns to Him.

True, but not relevant as it does not explain why a "little one returns to him"

But it is the Holy Spirit that pricks our spirit to hear and understand and to plant that small mustard seed of faith. Then as we water and we feed that tender seed as the husk breaks open and tiny first starter leaves come up. We know that it is God that makes it grow. Praise Him!!

Aside: you write good pose
Again, John 1:12-13 explicitly says one is born again by God's will and then to hammer the point in the verses say we are not born again by the will of man, several times even.
Again, you have not define Free Will so I won't engage in a undefined debate too long.
Aside: At least you are pleasant and seemingly intelligent to talk too.

God does not contradict Himself.

Agreed ... except in anthropomorphic verses verses that people take literary

 

[Iconoclast]

Didn't you read Romans?
What does Romans 1:19-20 mean to you??

1. A person living in 1400 in No. America could look up at the sky and know that there must be a being bigger than himself. He could come to believe in God just from the creation. He could come to worship God.
(and, just like right now, another person would not).

A person living near Notre Dame in Paris in 1400 has the same opportunity.
It would be maybe by hearing...or maybe not. It might still be creation that convinces them...
it's always the Holy Spirit working.

2. Muslims. Right. Well, if a person is a Muslim and he loves God and worships Him, he is most probably saved.
You see A, there's only One God. If a person is worshipping the correct God (not Buddha). then he is also worshipping Jesus because Jesus is God. God is our savior.
Isaiah 12:2
2“Behold, God is my salvation,
I will trust and not be afraid;
For the LORD GOD is my strength and song,
And He has become my salvation.”

Don't you believe in a sovereign God?
God is sovereign and powerful.
He could do what He wishes.
For God everything is possible.

Bad theology denying Sovereign grace leads to magical thinking as if man is not spiritually dead.

Muslims deny the biblical Jesus.
Surah 112 – Sincerity


With the Name of Allah, the Merciful Benefactor, The Merciful Redeemer

1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;

2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;

3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;

4. And there is none like unto Him.”
Scripture speaks of another jesus who is false.
2cor11:
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

 

[Iconoclast]

John Calvin based all of his ideas on two premises:
1 Man is born totally depraved...not as depraved in every part of himself, but so depraved that he is unable to seek God. This makes it necessary for God to pull man to Himself by only God's choice.
2 Man does not have free will and so cannot choose God but will always choose to serve satan.

these are the 2 premises upon which reformed theology is built.

As to
John 15:16
16“You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.

The above verse is Jesus speaking to His Apostles.
He chose them individually, 12, representing the 12 Tribes of Israel.
He appointed them to go and bear fruit. Jesus did not appoint all disciples to go and bear fruit, but only His original Apostles.

This can be confirmed by the last verse,
John 15:26-27
26“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,
27and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning.

Only the Apostles were with Jesus from the beginning.
Jesus is speaking to the Apostles and all scholars will affirm this except for the reformed.
They did not choose Jesus to be their teacher, but Jesus chose them to be His Apostels.


I'll be happy to discuss any scripture with you,
but one at a time. I'm not responding to carpet-bombing.


I have asked quite a few times where in the OT free will was taken away from us since Adam surely had it...
but no answer is forthcoming.

The bible does not say Adam had it, or that it even exists

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No you cannot because Jesus did say the God didn't give man FREE WILL in regards to believe or not.

Where? I want the Scripture where Jesus said, "God does not give any man a choice whether to believe or not." You demand he said he did so I demand you show where he said this. He said no one comes unless drawn. They he said whosoever will clearly saying that anyone who wants to. Now you will say that I make no references to the Bible whatsoever and those are two clear references woven into the text that fits. This is not a law book where we are discussing chapter, paragraph and section of a legal reference.

Aside: Again, you have not defined FREE WILL, so that makes for a discussion without foundation.

I have defined it more than once and it never changed.

Love is a volition to favor. One cannot be righteous and not love God. They are related to a degree.

Jesus did not say this or think. Or can you prove a Scripture that supports this opinion?

That being said I wasn't speaking of righteousness in relation to love. I was speaking of the imputation of righteous. I think some miscommunication is all.

I was speaking of love you and you offered scripture that speaks of righteousness. And yes, a man can have imputed righteousness from faith but that does not mean all the fruits of the Spirit, including love, are credited to him. That is your position, right?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Just out of curiosity, do you know WHY you "accepted"?
I mean, why does anyone believe "one thing" over "another thing"?

For the wise man, the preponderance of evidence sways them. For the foolish man, it appeals to something they like or they get something out of giving mental agreement to that position.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Hi wondering

Just curious, but I looked up 'what' reformed theology means, because I'm not particularly familiar with the term. However, the definition I found doesn't really line up with yours:

Broadly speaking, Reformed theology includes any system of belief that traces its roots back to the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century. Of course, the Reformers themselves traced their doctrine to Scripture, as indicated by their credo of “sola scriptura,” so Reformed theology is not a “new” belief system but one that seeks to continue apostolic doctrine.


Where did you say this belief that:


came from? What's the first time that claim was made. I mean, that's not saying the same thing as "For all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." That passage just says that all men have sinned, it doesn't give a clue as to whether or not men can seek God on their own. In fact, God's word promises that He will be found by those who seek diligently for Him. I don't read that as saying that no one can seek diligently for God unless God makes them. Do you?

I don't see that point made in the Scriptures, either.

So, you may be correct in what you're saying about reformed theology, as I said, I'm not familiar with the term, but I don't think the claims that you're saying such theology is based on comes from the Scriptures.

God bless,
Ted

The definition reminds me of the Catholics who insist their religion goes back to the Apostle Peter. Reformed theology is not new because the word Reformation has “reform” in it, essentially.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

How is God impartial?

Were the ancient Norse treated the same as the ancient Jews?
Where was my ancestor's burning bush to teach us about God?

God is "no respecter of persons". God chose some Jews (like David) and not others (like Esau). God chose some non-Jews (like Ruth) and not others (the Canaanites). God chose some members of my family (Me) and not others (my murdered siblings and atheist parent).

One has to look at IF God is doing the choosing WHY He does when He does. The answers show impartiality.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Fastfredy0

You know, I started a whole thread on free will in my view so you really have no excuse when you hide behind “me not defining free will.”

Read my thread if you want to know how I define free will. I’m not constantly changing it.

 

[GodsGrace]

Bad theology denying Sovereign grace leads to magical thinking as if man is not spiritually dead.

Muslims deny the biblical Jesus.
Surah 112 – Sincerity


With the Name of Allah, the Merciful Benefactor, The Merciful Redeemer

1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;

2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;

3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;

4. And there is none like unto Him.”
Scripture speaks of another jesus who is false.
2cor11:
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

What are you talking about?
Read my posts.

 

[GodsGrace]

Fastfredy0

You know, I started a whole thread on free will in my view so you really have no excuse when you hide behind “me not defining free will.”

Read my thread if you want to know how I define free will. I’m not constantly changing it.

No one can describe free will to the other member. Quit trying!!!
He's just too smart for us.

 

[jasonc]

Someone has to teach or its revealed.

The stars,local nature doesn't teach who God is and what sin is.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No one can describe free will to the other member. Quit trying!!!
He's just too smart for us.

That he refuses to understand doesn’t limit my explaining.

 

[GodsGrace]

Good Night.

God is LOVING: John 3:14-21 (He came Himself and made a way)
God is MERCIFUL: Romans 3:10-12; Ephesians 2:1-10 (He saves those that do not deserve it)
God is JUST: Revelation 20:11-15 (He punishes the guilty)

Right.
But I don't see these qualities in God as the reformed characterize Him, or portray Him.
Loving, Merciful, Just.

 

[GodsGrace]

Fastfredy0

You know, I started a whole thread on free will in my view so you really have no excuse when you hide behind “me not defining free will.”

Read my thread if you want to know how I define free will. I’m not constantly changing it.

Where's the free will thread?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Where's the free will thread?

Under theology

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Doesn't that just "kick the ball down the field"?
So then: Why does one yield to the Holy Spirit and another resist the power of God?

Because yielding is costly and unpleasant.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Why is it for YOU (or me) to know God's reasons?

Because God wants us to know.

Who is standing in judgement of whom?
Does everyone have the same opportunity? I think not, and keep giving examples from History and the Modern World where two people have unequal opportunity to even HEAR the Gospel.

Why is this important?

 

[miamited]

Hi Fastfredy0

John 1:12-13 contradicts your 2nd premise. It says one is not saved by man's will. So, you have to explain that (amongst other things.

I'm sorry, but I don't read that as you seem to be:
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
What that says is that it is the 'will' of God that allows that a man can be born again. It is not the will of their mother or father or friends, but God's will that that any of us 'can' be born again. Just as it is God's will that all men come to the knowledge of God and His salvation. But that obviously doesn't mean that all men will be saved, does it? Just because one entity has a will to do something, or that others do something, doesn't mean that they make the other party do anything. It isn't a kind of, I'm going to force you in this.

So God also predestined that billions of people would not have an opportunity to use His method (Faith in Christ) to be saved?

No, God sent His Son into the world for the sins of all mankind. But, God is wiser than you or I will ever be. God had a plan that had to be followed to introduce His Son and his purpose in visiting us. That plan started with His call to Abram of Ur, through who's descendants God had a few faithful people of Israel write down His Scriptures. That had to be done, and those Scriptures had to tell us about 'who' and 'what' Jesus was going to do for us, before Jesus could actually come and die for us. Otherwise, Jesus' death was just a man who died as some liar spouting crap about their God. Just imagine, if the entire life of Jesus had passed, without there being a single word of Scripture ever put down on parchment. There was no Pentateuch or Torah or major or minor prophets. No report and chronology of all the work that God had done previous to His Son's introduction to us.

However, God also took care of your complaint. You see, those same Scriptures, although now as new covenant writings, tell us that Jesus went down to the grave and preached His message of salvation unto them also. So, you're wrong on that front also.

Interesting method. I would assume each groups theology tries to be a cohesive, non-contradictory whole so that would put your method at a disadvantage as it would have more conflicts theoretically.

I can't imagine why it would have more conflicts theoretically. Then your very next claim is:

Granted, all sides have errors.

So, you believe that because we attach ourselves to some worldly defined denomination in order to participate in corporate worship, that we then have to agree and believe with everything we are told in that group...even though we know that they have errors? Hmmmm. Ok, but that's not the way I understand what God asks of us. Seems that would make Jesus' letters to the churches rather a wasted idea since it doesn't matter what one believes, so long as it's what the earthly denomination of worshippers believe. According to you.

Are you saying Jesus is not God? .

I believe that Jesus is a part of the Godhead. That consists of three separate and distinct personages. But in defining 'who' Jesus is, I believe that Jesus is God's Son, not the God of God who is the Father. The old covenant describes 'who' Jesus is as God's servant. God says, “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations."

Here is my servant (that's God speaking, telling us that Jesus is God's servant), whom I (that's God) uphold (so God is what keeps Jesus going. He is where Jesus gets his strength from). My chosen one (hmmm God chose Jesus, who is Him) in whom I (God) delight. I (God) will put my Spirit, (the Holy Spirit) upon him (uh-oh, how is one who is God, not have God's Spirit all the time?) Why is it necessary that one part of the Godhead has to 'put' the Spirit of another part of the Godhead on another? If Jesus is God, then God doesn't have to put His Spirit on him. He would have always had, from birth, the Spirit of God.

There are several dozen other examples where Paul, writing his salutations, seems to clearly define his greeting to both the Father and the Son. But the next greatest example that I have is Jesus own words in the opening of the writing of John's Revelation of Jesus.
The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
So, for me, there is a clear defining of a God who is the Father and a servant, who is Jesus. A servant that God chose to do the things that Jesus did. A servant that God always refers to as His Son. Now, I have a son. He isn't me. I believe that God also has a Son, and it isn't God.
So yes, that understanding that I believe comes straight from the Scriptures, does cause issues when the subject comes up and I say, "Well, I'm not completely sold on that understanding.
Now, many will make the claim, well, Jesus said those great words, "I am". He was saying that he is God. No, if we read the gospels carefully we find that Jesus said that his words were not his own. That it was his Father who 'gave him the words to speak'. So this is similar to when Moses first made the statement to the Jews. Moses was not God, but he's the one that was 'told to say to the people, I am, has sent me. That's exactly what Jesus was saying to the Jews. I am has sent me. God gave Jesus those words to say because He wanted the Jews to know, just like with Moses, that he (Jesus) was speaking for God. And that's pretty clearly what Jesus told us. That the words he spoke were not his own.

Again, this highlights the crux of our disagreement. Since you have not defined Free Will and since Free Will does not have a commonly understand definition I can't dissect your position.

Well, then I guess you'll have to figure out 'how' you want to define it. Put it out here for all of us to know 'how' you define it and the rest of us can try to work around your definition. I'm not sure that your inability to define free will is a problem for me.

I try to avoid parables.

But Jesus said that he spoke in parables to the people. Seems to me he expected us to look into them and understand what they mean. Because Jesus followed that up by repeating the old covenant claim: This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
Is that who you want to be, one of those hearing but never understanding? I believe that Jesus does want those who are faithful to him to understand the parables, which is why we see a couple of examples where Jesus spoke privately to his disciples to explain for their understanding.

Again, John 1:12-13

Already covered that.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Since I believe God predestined all things

Hi again Fastfredy0

Can you give me the Scriptural reference that leads you to that understanding? I know that God knows all things. He knows the end from the beginning, but that, to me, doesn't say that He predestines all things. You talk about God being unfair in not allowing the gospel of Jesus to go out to those who lived before Jesus' life. But you believe that God predestined all of the sin and suffering in the world? Man, that's a pretty wicked God. He predestined that 6 million of His people would be murdered during WWII? He predestined that 2500 people would die in New York City on Sept. 11 2001? Man, your God is a tough guy.

Now, did He know that Hitler's machine was going to kill 6 million of His people? Yes. Did He know that a group of muslims were going to fly planes into the WTC? Yes. But did He direct those efforts? He did warn His people that when He turned them out, they would become a stench unto the whole world, but I'm not in agreement that the way the world has responded to this 'stench' of His people going out from Israel, was predestined by God.

Honestly, it seems to me that if God were predestining everything that man has done...He would have predestined that Eve not eat the fruit.

God bless,
Ted

 

[atpollard]

One has to look at IF God is doing the choosing WHY He does when He does. The answers show impartiality.

Please explain the innate merits in Jacob over Esau?
Clearly, God CHOSE Jacob and rejected Esau, but what about that shows God’s impartiality?