Question for the Non-Sovereigntists

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>by Larry: You said, on various issues, that God either “cannot” or “should not” do thing that God has clearly done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My answers were not ambiguous.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yet you do not answer the question…Then you ignore the text.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As mentioned before, Larry’s position renders God as the author of sin and evil with reference to the example of the raping of an 8-year-old child. No answer has been given to extricate God from such a conclusion.

And, again, I have responded to the verses in question. Please cite any verses I have not answered.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The deciding issue is the grammatical-historical interpretation. Your position, as has been and will be shown, cannot withstand that level of examination.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Whatever examination is proposed, the interpretation should not contradict clear Biblical truths and common sense. If it does, its legitimacy should be in doubt.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>by Nelson: However, the view Larry has expressed would, I contend, logically lead to that conclusion and is tantamount to asserting that God is evil. I believe the views I hold are less tenuous than Larry’s.I am still under the impression that Larry’s view, as he has explained it, leads to the idea that God is the author of sin.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>by Larry: I do not believe this and I have said nothing to make you believe this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As quotes above demonstrate, I did not say Larry believes God is evil. I did, however, show that his position could reasonably lead to such an assertion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>With all due respect, your logical conclusion is dead wrong and my position has been uniformly defended for centuries by people who hold my position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A position held for long centuries, while impressive, does not necessarily guarantee validity.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am willing to leave God in control and believe that he does not contradict himself or impugn himself. I am willing to let the texts of Scripture stand as they do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That Larry is willing to “leave God in control” (exhaustive and minute control would not be erroneous to add), I agree. That Larry believes God does not contradict himself or impugn His own character, I agree. That Larry is willing to let the “texts of scripture stand as they do” – apart from the Reformed/Calvinistic tradition – is questionable.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Then you contend that I misunderstood my own questions. That does not even make sense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree. It didn’t make sense to me either that Larry didn’t understand his own questions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>by Nelson: On post of 1/6/02, 03:34 PM, I responded to more of verses Paul cited, which were Gen. 50:20; again Acts 2:23 and Job 2:10; 4:28; and finally, Ps. 115 and 136.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>by Larry: But your responses are clearly inadequate…<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Since it was not my intention to write a systematic theology, my responses were brief and confined to the specific point. However, allow me to make a few observations:

To my question of how would he explain, in accordance with his view of divine sovereignty (for which he agrees I have a general understanding), the rape of a child without impugning God’s character, Larry answers, “To do so would take a much greater mind than I have. God has not revealed to us the infinite perfections or the interworkings of his mind. His thoughts and ways are above ours. I think it is outside the place of man to try to ‘figure it out.’ We must simply take God at what he says and live accordingly. God's character is not impugned because our minds are too small to comprehend his plan. I would be careful asserting otherwise.”

A simple, “I don’t know,” would have sufficed.

Larry ignored my post dated January 03, 2002 12:46 PM, wherein it was logically concluded that his views render the idea that God is an active participant, as well as the first cause, of the child raped.

Could it be that Larry perceives that my posts are inadequate, not because that are really so but because they contradict his views?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>“This man” was the one delivered over and he was delivered by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. You can’t really get around that in the text.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It can be agreed that it was God’s will for Jesus to suffer and be crucified. However, I don’t think God’s choice of Christ to suffer and die can be equated with a “predetermined plan” to have the rape of an 8-year-old child occur, especially interpreted as Larry does.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As for Gen 50:20, your statement – “I agree with the meaning of the word itself” - is undermined by your rejection of what it says.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>God purposed the good by allowing the evil and in that sense I agree with the text. God meant “it” (the evil acted out by Joseph’s brothers) for good (deliverance from famine). Consequently, what is “meant” was that the evil committed by Joseph’s brothers be used for good purposes but not that the evil in itself is something that God had purposed except to allow its occurrence.

I paraphrase Joseph’s words in order to express what I believe is the Scriptural intent: “As for you, you meant to cause me evil but God planned (Strong’s #2803) using your evil actions in order to bring about good.”

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Here is a fundamental problem. You misunderstood “will…what God determines to bring about. It can, in some contexts, refer to either his desires or to his decree.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It can mean what he “determines to bring about,” that is (as I understand what Larry is trying to bring out), the event He causes to occur inevitably. However, to my mind, it can also mean what God desires though what actually occurs contradicts such desire. My definition of His primary will incorporates both aspects. What aspect is intended would be interpreted according to the Biblical context.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>by Nelson:Job had not read the chapter before at the time Satan attacked him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>By Larry: Another example of faulty reasoning.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just joking here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>by Nelson:This is my main objection to Larry’s interpretation of Scripture because God is made the first and only cause of sin; Larry makes God to be the author of sin.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>by Larry:False. Read any number of writers on this topic and you will understand why this is not so. You are not distinguishing between primary and secondary causation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unfortunately, my objection is not with “any number of writers” but with Larry’s interpretation of Scripture as he, so far, has explained it. And in my earlier post (the portion he chose not to reply) I showed how his interpretation makes “secondary causes,” for all intents and purposes, irrelevant.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You do not seem to understand free will. Free will is the ability to act in accordance with the nature.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I do not agree with Larry’s definition of “free will”. It falls short of what the Bible and experience, as far as I can tell, demonstrate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>by Nelson: What is being asked is one thing: How do his views preserve God’s holiness? Can his views be explained in a reasonable fashion that does not lead to dispute God’s holiness. He admits he cannot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Where did I admit this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Has already been referred to above.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>by Nelson: I do not believe God ordained the rape of an 8-year-old boy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>by Larry:Then “all things” are not worked by God according to his will? You are plainly denying Scripture at this point. Consider Psalm 139:16: Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.

 

Pastor Larry & James 2,

I just came across your question as to why some receive Christ and some reject Him. From my perspective the Parable of the Sowers explains a lot of the questions you might have in your minds. [Matt. 13:3-8; Mark 4:14-20; Luke 8:5-15]

Nothing was wrong with the sower of the seed--those who witness or preach the Gospel. The seed, the Word of God, was not ineffectual in any way. The problem is the heart-life of the human being. I think some of the answers can be found in this one parable that is cited in the three Gospels.

These are some of the things that I think keep the lost from believing in Jesus:

1. Satan is quick to take the seed out of the hearts and minds of the lost.
2. The depravity of the human being is ever present.
3. No one has ever witnessed or preached the Gospel to many segments of nations.
4. Some people have an obsession with accumulating wealth.
5. Modern people live in a culture where God has been neutralized before their very eyes.

I am sure there is an endless list of things that inhibit people from hearing and believing the Gospel.

Does this help answer your question?

Oh, as an aside the title "Questions For The Non-Sovereignists" is a misnomer. We believe in a limited sovereignty. Clark Pinnock, a former Calvinist, says, 'Thus, God gives a degree of reality and power to the creation and does not retain a monopoly of power for Himself. His sovereignty is not the all-determining kind, but an omnicompetent kind. God is certainly able to deal with any circumstances which might arise, and nothing can possibly defeat or destroy God. But he does not contol everything that occurs. God honors the degree of relative autonomy which he grants the world.' "Predestination & Free Will" InterVarsity Press, p. 146. If you read this book you will find error in each of the writers.

Respectfully,

"Ray"

 

In a real sense of the word you Calvinists believe in a limited sovereignty as [non-Calvinists] do. By this I mean, since Christ died for the sins of the whole world [I John 2:2] He limited His sovereignty by saving only those who call on Him for salvation. Since He died for every human being's salvation, theoretically He could have saved everyone. It is clear and most apparent that the human will must be factored into the scheme of eternal salvation. 'Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit, as your fathers did, so do ye.' [Acts7:51 & John 3:16C '. . . that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.'

"Ray"

______________

I will no longer permit you to use the term "biblical theology" in reference to your position. It does no good to attempt to prejudice the argument by claiming the Bible. Argue your position from the Bible if you will. But do not assert it as biblical until you have done so.

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

I believe in the doctrine of Totally Depravity the first point of the T.U.L.I.P doctrine. If one understand this doctrine then they can see it is impossible for a man to accept or reject anything as he is dead. He's dead body, soul, and spirit and only Christ can quicken him.

How can he accept or reject anything being in this position as he has no vote in the matter? Weather you believe it or not does not matter and Christ is true and will save all that the Father had given him and no other. Election is not based on our goodness but on the Sovereign Love of an Almighty God... Believe it or not!... Brother Glen

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

Calvinism vs. Armenianism is something that I've wrestled back and forth with practically all my Christian life, so I'm not being arguementative when I ask a question about it, I am sincerely looking for the truth. The points made on both sides are cogent. But what I would like to know is this. I've heard Calvinists say that "believing" is a work and we cant do it on our own but I see many scriptures that tell us to believe such as " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved...". If belief is a work and we are unable to believe on our own, why would God tell us to do it? I hope this doesnt turn out to be a dumb question with a simple answer.

 

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Notice he puts his law in our inward parts and writes it in our hearts, and will be our God and we shall be his people. God does all the work weather we understand it or not does not matter. God has to remove the scales from our eyes so we can see and believe and see his Son the Lord Jesus Christ. All of Gods children are Jews inwardly and God gives the istructions thru his word... Brother Glen

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If ..... we are unable to believe on our own, why would God tell us to do it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He tells us to do it, because we must do it in order to be saved.

I think it is a mistake to assume that when God tells people to do something they must necessarily be able to do it on their own. Could the Israelites keep the law? Of course not, and yet they were told "Do this and you shall live."

There are many other commands God gives in scripture for which we also learn that it is He who works the obedience to those commands within us.

 

Pastor Larry,

Here is where the modern day Calvinists twist the Scriptures to fit the teaching of the noted John Calvin.

John 1:13 does not say, in an of itself, that Christians are ‘. . . born, not of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.' One must read the whole context of this concept. What John is telling the church is that vs. 12 when someone receives Christ, when they yield their will to God and allow Him to transform their lives, He then makes them sons and daughters of God, that is those who believe in His Name.

After they yield their lives to Christ and He transforms them, then God speaking through John says, I want you to know that this regeneration and giving of the Holy Spirit was not authored by ‘ . . . blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.' Salvation is all of God and grace is His free gift. You don't force anyone to receive a gift; you offer a gift to the potential receiver.

I think you asked for a verse that made ‘repentance' a requirement for salvation. I am sure you will abide by the words of our Lord who said, ‘I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall likewise perish.' The is no ‘Effectual Call' in the verse; neither is their a call to ‘believe' or to have ‘faith.' Jesus said as I see it, "REPENT OR PERISH!" In this verse, we see only a firm,call to the Gospel truth.

Dr. Berrian

 

When God allow the Jews to reject His claim of Messiah He was limiting His sovereignty. Hypothetically, He could have decreed the salvation of all human beings. Absolute sovereignty would require that God save every human born since Adam. Especially, since the Word of God says, that ‘He died for the sins of the whole world.' [I John 2:2] What kept Him from not showing His absolute and mighty power of sovereignty from saving every soul born of a woman? The atonement was provided for everyone. What kept Him from doing this was our personal responsibility of recovering from the Adamic nature. The human exercise of the will, insured this. The utilizing of the human being's volition also assured a valid worship. If God decreed the salvation of all people, the worship would be flawed because it would have been coerced and extorted. The worship would not have been valid.

The Bible teaches a limited sovereignty and also the interplay of the human will. Jesus said to some people, ‘And ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life. The Lord required here that man make his move toward the Living God. If they made the move they received life. If they refused to yield to Him, they remained in their sins and in diabolical darkness. Incidentally, here is a verse, among many, that refutes Irresistible Grace.

Dr. Berrian

 

Pastor Larry,

Let me know you real belief at this point in time. Can a person truly repent and not be made one of the true elect? What I am saying from my understanding is when a person truly repents he or she becomes one of His elect.

"Ray"

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You have again misdefined free will. See other posts on this issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I do not believe my definition of free will is erroneous, not as I see it in the Bible. Of course the exercise of free will is confined to certain aspects of human nature, however, human nature regarding the will does allow one to choose between two opposing choices, for example, to choose for or against God. Nowhere does the clear teaching of Scripture state that man cannot (i.e. it is impossible even in his sinful condition) choose to believe God. But everywhere God commands men, as sinners, to choose God, that is, to repent and believe. He does not call men to salvation either as regenerate men or as sinners with the inability whatsoever to obey his commands; but God calls men as sinners to turn to Him by faith in Christ.

The essential error in the Larry’s position is not that He makes God sovereign but that he makes God hideously sovereign by absolutely discounting man’s part in salvation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>by Nelson: The mystery I see is not the existence of sin and evil itself, but why God would allow one evil to occur here but prevent another there? Or, why would God allow this child to be sinned against and not that child?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>by Larry: I don't see any mystery in the existence of sin and evil. I do see a mystery as to why God would do one thing here and another there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I assume Larry, by “one thing” and “another,” means sin and evil in particular or God doing things in general (which, in any case, would include sin and evil since Larry believes God ordains all things), therefore:

1. What I understand Larry to consider being a mystery is why God would commit or have an active part in - “why would God do" - one sin and evil “here” and another sin and evil “there” (which is quite different from what I see as mysterious). Larry seems to imply that (a) all sin and evil is attributable to God, and (b) God actually commits or, at the least, is an active participant in the sin and evil.

2. Larry statement - “God would do” – conveys the irrelevancy of arguing second causes. In attributing to God the doing of sin and evil, Larry’s statement can also be phrased, “I do see a mystery as to why God would commit a rape here and another rape there.” (I find it a mystery why God, being absolute good, would commit or actively participate in rape at all!)

3. In the light of his assertions, what is a mystery is that Larry does not see any mystery in the existence of sin and evil. For all intents and purposes his statements are tantamount to attributing sin and evil as something a good God authors and commits.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>by Larry: That day [when God will overrule man’s free will] has been since the beginning of time itself. God overrules man's free will to bring them to himself. If God did not do this, no one would be saved. "I cannot imagine" is not good theological argumentation...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>God does not overrule to the extent of violating man’s free will to bring them to himself, nor is there any Scriptural example or teaching as such. The idea that no one would be saved unless God intervened by overruling so as to violate man’s free will must follow if both the ability to reject and choose God is removed from the definition of “free will”. However, the Bible does not assert such is the case and any such view of free will is derived by an erroneous interpretation of Biblical text as, for example, Ephesians 2:1 wherein the focus is man’s separation from God and not any absolute inability to obey God (Isaiah 59:2).

It is admitted that God does exercise His sovereignty to overrule in matters of His choosing yet, without violating free will and God does not exercise rule exhaustively so as to nullify it.

The reason I can’t imagine someone skipping happily off to hell is because scripture doesn’t acknowledge such a situation transpiring. Apparently, Larry can also imagine God preordaining, inciting, and effectually working through every person (including both rapist and victim) and thing for the rape, in every minute detail, of an 8-year-old boy to occur.

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Nelson ]

 

In many theological books Sovereignty is not even given a section for consideration. It is only of interest to those who believe in Unconditional Election.

Absolute sovereignty is the invention of Calvin and/or probably Augustine. For sure Calvin projected this misfire of theological truth.

Respectfully,

Ray