Iconoclast
Member
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!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Objections to God's Sovereignty Answered..........Some
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
Iconoclast
Member
Iconoclast
Member
Iconoclast
Member
Iconoclast
Member
Iconoclast
Member
This small sample shows how easily Skandelon [aka, Leighton Flowers}was handled by every Cal on the site. There were several more who easily and scripturally refuted him.
Iconoclast
Member
An Omnipresent God is The Absolute Sovereign of the Universe.
Psalm 139
King James Version
139 O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me.2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.
4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether.
5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!
18 If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.
19 Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.
20 For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.
21 Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.
Robert Pate
Member
God did not create robots. God created man with a free will. Everyone has the ability to make choices. Adam by his own free will chose to sin against God. He did not lose his free will in the fall. Where does it say that he did? You rob God of his glory when you say that he did not create man with a free will. You believe terrible things about God and his Son Jesus Christ. It is not going to go well for you in the judgment.
Iconoclast
Member
Of course not. He created man as an image-bearer, who was upright and very good.
Men have self-will. Originally man had an original righteousness that was untested. Some suggest he was in a covenant of works.
Yes by all means. We are free moral agents, we make choices every day. Sin and death leave us spiritually dead and bound in sin, alienated from the life of God. These words have meaning, Robert.
He did sin and rebel. He lost original righteousness, breaking the original arrangement with God. He fell into sin and death as our representative men. We all are born dead in Adam.
He lost the ability to commune with God. Sin caused a seperation
The bible never says man had free will. Not one verse! The teaching of it is not found inscripture. Free will is a philosophical idea, from unsaved carnal thinkers who do not submit to God, that is why biblical persons reject this anti Christ idea that calls upon bound men to think they can bring themselves to life or God does His part, then we do our part! Jonah said it right...salvation is of the Lord.
Not at all and let me explain why . man was originally made an image bearer of God, the fall broke that image.
When we are saved and glorified that true Image is restored to the highest height IN JESUS; look carefully
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy:
and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
Robert...I know you want to oppose this idea of reformed truth, but reformed truth is derived from the scriptures.
What does God say gets restored and in fact improved? man as Image -bearer, or a mythical free will? Read this passage 20x in a row....physical, then spiritual, temporal, then eternal, earthy, then heavenly...do you see it?
I believe what is written, with understanding.
My sins have already been judged at the cross and paid in full by my Lord and Saviour. I will not be found being judged at the white throne, that is a lie of Satan...
I have these promises; rom8
8 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Last edited:
Y'know, when I watched the debate between Leighton and James, it didn't seem to me that Leighton was "disgraced" in the least. In any case, I didn't post the link for you but for those looking for a more rational and biblical soteriological alternative to Reformed doctrine.
I'm familiar with James's podcast. They're...difficult to watch. Mainly because James seems oblivious to the myriad logical fallacies he employs and because he adopts such an ugly, condescending attitude toward Leighton. When I watch James's podcasts, I'm reminded of Paul's words:
1 Corinthians 8:1-2 (NASB)
1 ...Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.
2 If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know;
This sounds an awful lot like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Regardless, even if Leighton was not properly a Calvinist "way back when," he takes pains now to address Reformed doctrines as they are laid out by present and past prominent proponents (how's that for alliteration!) of the systematic. Leighton doesn't rely on a former, personal conception of Calvinism in framing his arguments, but offers quotations from books and clips of podcasts and sermons from the likes of Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, Baucham, Durbin, Chandler, and, many times, Calvin himself. In light of this, the "he was never truly a Calvinist" objection to Leighton seems pretty vaporous, to me.
Iconoclast
Member
Some objections are about the doctrine itself.
For some people the doctrine itself is different than anything they have heard in this world, or in school, or Tv news and talk shows.
7._____ The doctrine of the high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation,
be assured of their eternal election; so shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God,
and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.
( 1 Thessalonians 1:4, 5; 2 Peter 1:10; Ephesians 1:6; Romans 11:33; Romans 11:5, 6, 20; Luke 10:20 )
For some people the doctrine itself is different than anything they have heard in this world, or in school, or Tv news and talk shows.
7._____ The doctrine of the high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation,
be assured of their eternal election; so shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God,
and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.
( 1 Thessalonians 1:4, 5; 2 Peter 1:10; Ephesians 1:6; Romans 11:33; Romans 11:5, 6, 20; Luke 10:20 )
Iconoclast
Member
what i mean by disgraced is that he did not do any exegesis at all.
He attempted to "lecture" Dr. White on his personal philosophy of how he{Leighton} views the world.
in doing this he disgraced himself as an academic failing to face the text.
My friend, you are free to call the dividing line and speak directly to these concerns. You can offer correction to Dr.White who does not shy back from being open to critics in the public forum. Do you understand that critics pop up from everywhere,and have made vile personal attacks against Dr,White and his family?
I am not saying you are doing such things, but you are free to engage Dr, White openly, live on the phone, or if really concerned...face to face. He makes known his scheduled speaking and preaching times and locations.
Dr.White is a friend of mine. I have seen him preach and debate several times, at my former church,other local churches, and debates.
I have seen several approach him with sincere questions.he did not bite their head off, but was very grace filled in offering biblical responses. Most people are satisfied with his biblical answers.
Knowledge can do that. But a solid biblical confidence can come across that way, to the person who is being corrected by truth. They feel over run as they try and hold on to error as truth comes in like a flood.
Dr. White does not need me or anyone else to defend himself. I just offer this as a firsthand eyewitness.
Dr. White has a sense of humor and is kind to people. When in a debate setting with people who are adversarial he still exhibits grace, but is quite firm against error.
What he actually does the majority of the time, is take out-of-context quotes, and attempt to pit one against the others. A target is often John Piper who while a good man is not the best in explaining some of the truths.
When he does his flawed podcast no one is there to correct this. DR.White will give Leightons the whole quote then give correction from the greek text, or facts from church history.
Dorothy Mae
Member
Probably this is a case of the OP poster personally deciding how “sovereignty” is defined and anyone with a different definition just doesn’t believe God is sovereign at all. Seems to be the case.
I’ve read similar in how some have decided God has to behave. If He actually doesn’t do as they’ve dictated he must, He just isn’t God at all. They are the Master and He must perform as required.
The alternative, of course, is to let God define how He sees himself and his sovereignty.
I’ve read similar in how some have decided God has to behave. If He actually doesn’t do as they’ve dictated he must, He just isn’t God at all. They are the Master and He must perform as required.
The alternative, of course, is to let God define how He sees himself and his sovereignty.
Last edited:
This is a great example of how bias blinds. From my perspective, I saw Leighton refusing to debate on James's terms. That's an important debate strategy, in my opinion. Though it's been awhile since I watched the debate, I don't recall Leighton refusing to do any exegesis at all. I'll have to take a look at the debate again and see if what you've asserted is actually so.
I've watched enough of James' podcasts and online exchanges with folks to be...extremely disinterested in talking with him about anything. I don't know why you are unable to see it, but James comes off as very pedantic and patronizing, a combination toxic to positive dialogue, as he has demonstrated again and again.
And? Is this supposed to justify James' ugly behavior?
But others have done so many times. Leighton has, again and again; but James responds with consistent and astonishing hubris, ad hominem, poisoning-the-well and Strawman argumentation, and so on. In light of this, why would I want to have my own, personal experience of such things with James? He appears to scorn all criticism, though it confronts him from many witnesses. I'm not eager to rebuke such a man and get to myself dishonor (Proverbs 9:7).
Leighton isn't satisfied. And James appears to hate that this is so. You can tell by the sour manner in which he responds to Leighton's challenges to him.
Biblical confidence divorced from a Spirit-controlled heart and mind inevitably produces "puffiness." James is enormously confident in his knowledge of the Bible, but I see little that indicates that he's under the control of the Spirit of Christ. If he were, his "biblical confidence" would conform to the description of the servant of the Lord that Paul gave to Timothy (2 Timothy 2:24-25). But I don't see such conformity in how James interacts with Leighton. Instead, there's just a whole lot of ugly "puffiness."
This is a great example of the incredible distortion that bias creates and how vital it is that God is in the mix overcoming such biases and leading us to His truth. When I read what you wrote here, I realized the depth of your investment in Reformed doctrine and the impossibility of any adjustment to your resulting severe bias (save by the work of God).
In actuality, Leighton does not commonly quote Reformed theologians in an out-of-context way but has sometimes read through pages of what they've written, or has played ten, or fifteen, minutes (or more) of their spoken remarks in order to establish the full context of what they've communicated. I've also seen him repeatedly, on his podcasts, go back-and-forth with scholarly Calvinists, giving them plenty of opportunity to fully express their views. It can only be the distortion of a deep bias, then, that could prompt you to describe Leighton in the false manner you did above. What does such readiness to contort the facts in service to your views suggest about the productiveness of discussion with you? Nothing good, I think.
electedbyhim
Member
Agreed, his writing are inspiring and glorify the Lord.
electedbyhim
Member
Dr White is an excellent Apologist.
For anyone interested ...
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/
Grace and peace to you.
electedbyhim
Member
Psalm 139:1–24
This intensely personal Davidic psalm expresses the psalmist’s awe that God knew him, even to the minutest detail. David might have remembered the Lord’s words, “ … the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). The exact occasion is unknown.
I. God’s Omniscience (139:1–6)
II. God’s Omnipresence (139:7–12)
III. God’s Omnipotence (139:13–18)
IV. David’s Obeisance (139:19–24)
139:1–6 God knows everything about David.
139:1 searched me. As it has been in David’s life, he prays later that it will continue to be (cf. vv. 23, 24). David understands that nothing inside of him can be hidden from God.
139:5 hedged me. God used circumstances to limit David’s actions.
139:6 too wonderful. Cf. Ps. 131:1; Rom. 11:33–36.
139:7–12 God was always watching over David and thus it was impossible to do anything over which God is not a spectator.
139:7 Your Spirit. A reference to the Holy Spirit (cf. Pss. 51:11; 143:10). See “The Anointing of the Holy Spirit in the OT” at Ps. 51.
139:9 the wings of the morning. In conjunction with “the uttermost parts of the sea,” David uses this literary figure to express distance.
139:13–18 God’s power is magnified in the development of human life before birth.
139:13 formed … covered. By virtue of the divinely designed period of pregnancy, God providentially watches over the development of the child while yet in the mother’s womb.
139:15 secret … lowest parts. Used figuratively of the womb.
139:16 Your book. This figure of speech likens God’s mind to a book of remembrance. none of them. God sovereignly ordained David’s life before he was conceived.
139:17, 18 David expresses his amazement at the infinite mind of God compared to the limited mind of man, especially as it relates to the physiology of human life (cf. vv. 13–16).
139:22 perfect hatred. David has no other response to God’s enemies than that of hatred, i.e., he is not neutral towards them nor will he ever ally himself with them.
139:23, 24 In light of vv. 19–22, David invites God to continue searching his heart to root out any unrighteousness, even when it is expressed against God’s enemies.
139:24 the way everlasting. David expresses his desire/expectation of eternal life
Iconoclast
Member
God has indeed defined this for us, so your objection holds no water.
Isa46.:9-11...psalm115 Dan4:35 do very well.
I think such an objection seeks to water down the God revealed in all of Scripture.
Those who struggle with grace water down the meanings.Hopefully that was not your intent.
I can't say how others view sovereignty of YHWH God but in the Hebrew Scriptures the word Adhonai appears frequently, and the expression ʼAdhonai Yehwih 285 times. Adhonai is a plural form of adhohn, meaning “lord; master.” The plural form adhonim may be applied to men in simple plurality, as “lords,” or “masters.” But the term Adhonai without an additional suffix is always used in the scriptures with reference to the True God YHWH, the plural being employed to denote excellence or majesty. It is most frequently rendered “Lord” by most translators. When it appears with the name of God (Adhonai Yehwih), as, for example, at Psalm 73:28, the expression is translated “Lord GOD” (AT, KJ, RS); “Lord God” (Dy [72:28]); “Lord, my Master” (Kx [72:28]); “Lord Jehovah” (Yg); “Sovereign Lord Jehovah” (NW).
The Greek word despotes means one who possesses supreme authority, or absolute ownership and uncontrolled power. (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1981, Vol. 3, pp. 18, 46) It is translated “lord,” “master,” “owner,” and when used in direct address to God is rendered “Lord” (KJ, Yg, and others), “Ruler of all” (Kx), “Sovereign Lord” (NW), at Luke 2:29, Acts 4:24, and Revelation 6:10. In the last text, Knox, The New English Bible, Moffatt, and the Revised Standard Version read “Sovereign Lord”; Young’s translation and the Kingdom Interlinear read “master.”
So, while the Hebrew and Greek texts do not have a separate qualifying word for “sovereign,” the flavor is contained in the words Adhonai and despotes when they are used in the scriptures as applying to YHWH God, the qualification denoting the excellence of his lordship.
YHWH God is the Sovereign of the universe by reason of his Creatorship, his Godship, and his supremacy as the Almighty. (Genesis 17:1; Exodus 6:3; Revelation 16:14) He is the Owner of all things and the Source of all authority and power, the Supreme Ruler in government. (Psalm 24:1; Isaiah 40:21-23; Revelation 4:11; 11:15) The psalmist sang of him: “YHWH himself has firmly established his throne in the very heavens; and over everything his own kingship has held domination.” (Psalm 103:19; 145:13) Jesus’ disciples prayed, addressing God: “Sovereign Lord, you are the One who made the heaven and the earth.” (Acts 4:24) To the nation of Israel, God himself constituted all three branches of government, the judicial, the legislative, and the executive. The prophet Isaiah said: “YHWH is our Judge, YHWH is our Statute-giver, YHWH is our King; he himself will save us.” (Isaiah 33:22) Moses gives a notable description of God as Sovereign at Deuteronomy 10:17.
In his sovereign position YHWH God has the right and authority to delegate ruling responsibilities. David was made king of Israel, and the scriptures speak of ‘the kingdom of David’ as though it was his kingdom. But David acknowledged YHWH God as the great Sovereign Ruler, saying at 1 Chronicles 29:11: “Yours, O YHWH, are the greatness and the mightiness and the beauty and the excellency and the dignity; for everything in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O YHWH, the One also lifting yourself up as head over all.”