Ravi Zacharius on Sovereignty

[12strings]

2 questions on this 11 minute Clip:
-1st is on abortion.
-2nd on Sovereignty/free will...start listening at the 5:45 mark for question #2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyKR6IQBDGg&playnext=1&list=PLFAC72E93CF701989&feature=results_video

 

[Revmitchell]

His position is exactly my position.

 

[Amy.G]

I would agree with that.

 

[quantumfaith]

I think he did an excellent job with the "tension". IMHO there are multiple "tensions" in our understanding and capability of understanding the revelation of God to us the creatures. i.e. grace and truth

 

[Van]

Thanks, 12 Strings, for the thread with two sound topics.

His answer for abortion was if it is wrong for God to cause death, then it is wrong for us to cause death. This asserts God is under the law given for us, i.e. thou shall not murder. But, as he pointed out, a baby is alive at conception, separate and unique from the mother and father, so it is the taking of a life which is morally wrong.

But as to the tension argument for addressing the supposed conflict between predestination and free will, I think he is off the mark.

I agree that our will is limited especially in the possible outcomes of our choices. I can will to fly by flapping my arms but the outcome is limited to staying grounded.

He used several verses to indicate both factors are at work as if in tension. This seems wrong. If God desires us to do this or that, He can cause us to do this or that, i.e. Peter walking on water. But many times His desires are conditioned upon our heart or core belief and attitude. Note what happened to Peter.

For us born again believers, the Holy Spirit leads but we must follow.

There would be tension if our will could hinder God's predetermined outcome. But since God allows us to choose between life and death, there is no tension for either choice is in accord with God's sovereign choice of granting limited freedom of the will.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 plainly puts forth God's conditional election of us for salvation through God accepting our faith in the truth as righteousness.

 

[MB]

12 Strings;
Abortion is murder. Even my 5 year old great grand daughter knows this.

We have an invitation for Salvation.
Mat_11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

12 Strings;
Abortion is murder. Even my 5 year old great grand daughter knows this.

We have an invitation for Salvation.
Mat_11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
MB

Also have 'to those who have been given the ears to hear!"

 

[12strings]

12 Strings;
Abortion is murder. Even my 5 year old great grand daughter knows this.

I'm confused, is there some reason you think I would disagree with this?

Also, I don't think Ravi would disagree with this either...but I will have to go back and listen to the first half again.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

OK, how far do you take determinism? Please explain your view.

 

[12strings]

OK, how far do you take determinism? Please explain your view.

1. I believe that the scriptures on Election put forth a view that God predestined individuals, from the foundation of the world, for salvation. I don't believe that the foresight of faith view, or the corporate election view, make good biblical sense of the scriptural evidence. This alone, with its implications, aligns me at minimum with the TUIP of Calvinism. I believe the Limited Atonement arguments on both sides are mostly semantics.

2. Beyond that, I believe scriptures say that nothing happens outside of God's sovereignty, and also that man make real choices and is responsible for his actions. I don't know how that works...which I think is what Ravi is saying.

In other words, I don't have an airtight view...no one does.

 

[12strings]

12 Strings;
Abortion is murder. Even my 5 year old great grand daughter knows this.

Explanation of Ravi's Words:

1. Ravi first uses the pro-abortionists own argument, that God killing people is immoral, to show that they want a moral choice that they are unwilling to grant even to God.

2. He then presents 4 options: a) it is a life and you know it, b) it is a life, but you don't know it, c) It isn't a life and you don't know it, and d) it isn't a life, and you do know it....as the only LOGICAL choices. He is NOT saying they are equally true, but simply giving the logical choices, if no other facts were known.

3. He then states that it IS precious life, not the mother's or the father's, but its own. He then, in order to get those pro-abortion listeners to thing, says those are taking these lives need to answer the question, "what if it is a life?"

4. He then says he will work hard to tell every person about the sanctity of that life.

So again, I don't understand what prompted your statement, unless you are simply agreeing with him.

 

[psalms109:31]

" II. This brings me now to note THE REASONS WHY WE THUS THINK INFANTS ARE SAVED.
First, we ground our conviction very much upon the goodness of the nature of God. We say that the opposite doctrine that some infants perish and are lost, is altogether repugnant to the idea which we have of Him whose name is love. If we had a God, whose name was Moloch, if God were an arbitrary tyrant, without benevolence or grace, we could suppose some infants being cast into hell; but our God, who heareth the young ravens when they cry, certainly will find no delight in the shrieks and cries of infants cast away from his presence. We read of him that he is so tender, that he careth for oxen, that he would not have the mouth of the ox muzzled, that treadeth out the corn. Nay, he careth for the bird upon the nest, and would not have the mother bird killed while sitting upon its nest with its little ones. He made ordinances and commands even for irrational creatures. He finds food for the most loathsome animal, nor does he neglect the worm any more than the angel, and shall we believe with such universal goodness as this, that he would cast away the infant soul I say it would he clear contrary to all that we have ever read or ever believed of Him, that our faith would stagger before a revelation which should display a fact so singularly exceptional to the tenor of his other deeds. We have learned humbly to submit our judgments to his will, and we dare not criticise or accuse the Lord of All; we believe him to be just, let him do as he may, and? Therefore, whatever he might reveal we would accept; but he never has, and I think he never will require of us so desperate a stretch of faith as to see goodness in the eternal misery of an infinite cast into hell"

C.H. Spurgeon

Original sin is where so many jump head first into a not so sound doctrine, that infants shall burn in hell. I praise God we do not worship a God named Moloch that desires a sacrifice of our children to suffer in hell for eternity.

I believed they are saved by the same way we are by being in His rest. I don't know the day we start working thirteen or what ever it will be to enter the rest that we were in as infants, but be assured babies, infants are in the rest that we the saved are. I know that God will wipe our tears away for them, and the truth will be right before us.

When we come to a place we do not know or understand we are to turn it into prayers and petition to God and put it in His hands, not to have an unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God, or sacrifice our children and put our Lord our God to a test.

In His rest original sin does not effect those who are in His rest.

 

[MB]

Explanation of Ravi's Words:

1. Ravi first uses the pro-abortionists own argument, that God killing people is immoral, to show that they want a moral choice that they are unwilling to grant even to God.

2. He then presents 4 options: a) it is a life and you know it, b) it is a life, but you don't know it, c) It isn't a life and you don't know it, and d) it isn't a life, and you do know it....as the only LOGICAL choices. He is NOT saying they are equally true, but simply giving the logical choices, if no other facts were known.

My point is simply that I don't believe anyone with a brain can honestly say that the killing of a baby not yet born is not murder. They may say it but they aren't being honest. The whole pro abortion idea is dishonest. The evidence of this is in the guilt the women who have them are stricken with afterwards. If they truly believed it was right they would not have any guilt. The ones who have no guilt have had so many abortions that the sin has seared the conscience.

3. He then states that it IS precious life, not the mother's or the father's, but its own. He then, in order to get those pro-abortion listeners to thing, says those are taking these lives need to answer the question, "what if it is a life?"

I listen to the whole video. He is right the child is a life of it's own. This in my opinion exposes the selfishness of the one having the abortion in the first place. They feel it's there decision but no one should be allowed to make such a decision. The life of the baby is not theirs.

4. He then says he will work hard to tell every person about the sanctity of that life.

So again, I don't understand what prompted your statement, unless you are simply agreeing with him.

I know you may find it hard to believe. I do agree with him on this subject.

I also agree with Him on the Sovereignty and limited freewill. I have never believed I could fly but I have always believed that God gave us freewill and that this gift does not have any effect on God's Sovereignty. We can and do Choose Christ the idea that we can't is a doctrine of men.
MB

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

1. I believe that the scriptures on Election put forth a view that God predestined individuals, from the foundation of the world, for salvation. I don't believe that the foresight of faith view, or the corporate election view, make good biblical sense of the scriptural evidence. This alone, with its implications, aligns me at minimum with the TUIP of Calvinism. I believe the Limited Atonement arguments on both sides are mostly semantics.

2. Beyond that, I believe scriptures say that nothing happens outside of God's sovereignty, and also that man make real choices and is responsible for his actions. I don't know how that works...which I think is what Ravi is saying.

In other words, I don't have an airtight view...no one does.

He was to brief & not nearly detailed enough for my taste. do you know if he has published any detail or do we only have the readers digest version of his theory.

 

[Van]

But as to the tension argument for addressing the supposed conflict between predestination and free will, I think he is off the mark.

I agree that our will is limited especially in the possible outcomes of our choices. I can will to fly by flapping my arms but the outcome is limited to staying grounded.

He used several verses to indicate both factors are at work as if in tension. This seems wrong. If God desires us to do this or that, He can cause us to do this or that, i.e. Peter walking on water. But many times His desires are conditioned upon our heart or core belief and attitude. Note what happened to Peter.

For us born again believers, the Holy Spirit leads but we must follow.

There would be tension if our will could hinder God's predetermined outcome. But since God allows us to choose between life and death, there is no tension for either choice is in accord with God's sovereign choice of granting limited freedom of the will.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 plainly puts forth God's conditional election of us for salvation through God accepting our faith in the truth as righteousness. Therefore, to claim we were individually elected before we had faith doesn't "make good biblical sense of the scriptural evidence."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

For any of us to face the scripture in a holistic & balanced way we must 1st allow this to unfold through scriptural study, humility & prayer to the HS for open minds. Your understanding & the understanding of your opponent are two sides of the same coin....it seems in scripture we cant have one side without the other.

But God is humble and able to use both understanding of theology for our understanding & appreciation of his plan. It's we who have a problem living with both sides.

 

[quantumfaith]

For any of us to face the scripture in a holistic & balanced way we must 1st allow this to unfold through scriptural study, humility & prayer to the HS for open minds. Your understanding & the understanding of your opponent are two sides of the same coin....it seems in scripture we cant have one side without the other.

But God is humble and able to use both understanding of theology for our understanding & appreciation of his plan. It's we who have a problem living with both sides.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[12strings]

My point is simply that I don't believe anyone with a brain can honestly say that the killing of a baby not yet born is not murder. They may say it but they aren't being honest. The whole pro abortion idea is dishonest. The evidence of this is in the guilt the women who have them are stricken with afterwards. If they truly believed it was right they would not have any guilt. The ones who have no guilt have had so many abortions that the sin has seared the conscience.

True, all sin is both insanity and self-deception. Although I doubt the NUMBER of abortions has as much to do with it as you think...I'm sure there are women who have had just 1 abortion, and for whatever reason believe it was OK. But you are right, there are many more who feel guilty about it than gets reported in the media.

I listen to the whole video. He is right the child is a life of it's own. This in my opinion exposes the selfishness of the one having the abortion in the first place. They feel it's there decision but no one should be allowed to make such a decision. The life of the baby is not theirs.

Agreed.

I know you may find it hard to believe. I do agree with him on this subject.

I don't find it hard to believe at all...nearly everyone on this board would agree with him.

 

[Luke2427]

1. I believe that the scriptures on Election put forth a view that God predestined individuals, from the foundation of the world, for salvation. I don't believe that the foresight of faith view, or the corporate election view, make good biblical sense of the scriptural evidence. This alone, with its implications, aligns me at minimum with the TUIP of Calvinism. I believe the Limited Atonement arguments on both sides are mostly semantics.

2. Beyond that, I believe scriptures say that nothing happens outside of God's sovereignty, and also that man make real choices and is responsible for his actions. I don't know how that works...which I think is what Ravi is saying.

In other words, I don't have an airtight view...no one does.

I appreciate what you are saying here and agree with much of it in principle.

I would say, however, that some DO have an airtight view.

The libertarian free will guy who has God wishing for all kinds of things and rarely getting his way does have an airtight view if God is that way.

The hard determinist who believes EVERYTHING happens directly according to the ultimate will of God has an airtight view as well.

The classic atheist argument against God is that God is either good and too weak to make things better or God is powerful and not good so he doesn't care to make things better.

The former attacks the libertarin free will guy and the latter attacks the hard determinist.

Except that the hard determinist may argue that the atheist does not get to define good and evil since he believes in neither and good is whatever God wants. Since, in the hard determinist model, God always gets what he wants, God is both all good and all powerful.

I think that is airtight. Now, someone might say this makes God the author of evil- I disagree, but so what? So what if it does?

Everybody believes God is the ultimate author of everything- in other words that there was once God and nothing else and then God made everything and evil came from what God made so God is a few steps removed from being the direct author but undeniably the author in an ultimate sense.

Now, it is not that this view is not biblical or logical. It is that it is unpleasant to many people because they think human well being is the measure of good. If God is good he has to be good to people as much as he possibly can. Human welfare, though, is NOT the measure of good.

The glory of God is the measure of good, and if God can get glory from willing that evil be that he may destroy it and save sinners- the evil serves an infinitely good and holy purpose.

The only counter argument I ever hear to this is based, not in Scripture rightly divided or logic- but emotion.

YOUR GOD IS A MONSTER, stupid mess.

But it is, for all practical purposes, air tight.

 

[12strings]

I appreciate what you are saying here and agree with much of it in principle.

I would say, however, that some DO have an airtight view.

The libertarian free will guy who has God wishing for all kinds of things and rarely getting his way does have an airtight view if God is that way.

The hard determinist who believes EVERYTHING happens directly according to the ultimate will of God has an airtight view as well.

The classic atheist argument against God is that God is either good and too weak to make things better or God is powerful and not good so he doesn't care to make things better.

The former attacks the libertarin free will guy and the latter attacks the hard determinist.

Except that the hard determinist may argue that the atheist does not get to define good and evil since he believes in neither and good is whatever God wants. Since, in the hard determinist model, God always gets what he wants, God is both all good and all powerful.

I think that is airtight. Now, someone might say this makes God the author of evil- I disagree, but so what? So what if it does?

Everybody believes God is the ultimate author of everything- in other words that there was once God and nothing else and then God made everything and evil came from what God made so God is a few steps removed from being the direct author but undeniably the author in an ultimate sense.

Now, it is not that this view is not biblical or logical. It is that it is unpleasant to many people because they think human well being is the measure of good. If God is good he has to be good to people as much as he possibly can. Human welfare, though, is NOT the measure of good.

The glory of God is the measure of good, and if God can get glory from willing that evil be that he may destroy it and save sinners- the evil serves an infinitely good and holy purpose.

The only counter argument I ever hear to this is based, not in Scripture rightly divided or logic- but emotion.

YOUR GOD IS A MONSTER, stupid mess.

But it is, for all practical purposes, air tight.

I would say neither of those really has an airtight view, because each has questions that are difficult to answer according to their view...

-Why can God punish someone for a sin he caused them to do? Why does any choice matter?
-If man has absolute free will, how can God work all things together for good if at any time, a free creature may make the sinful choice that is the opposite of what God wants him/her to do?