Question for the Non-Sovereigntists

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Absolute sovereignty is the invention of Calvin and/or probably Augustine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other; There is no God besides Me. I will gird you, though you have not known Me,
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting That there is none besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other;
7 I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.’

Sounds like an invention of God to me.

 

Chris,

You jotted down excellent verses. I believe them also. Thank God for His Word.

"Ray"

 

This verse has reference to one whose life, centered and dominated by the flesh, is thereby unable to please God by means of obedience to the law. However, nothing is stated regarding any depravity to the point of a natural inability to turn to God in repentance and faith. Please note my statement reads, “Nowhere does the clear teaching of Scripture state that man cannot…choose to believe God.”

Nothing is said here about any kind of depravity that leaves one without ability whatsoever to repent and believe. All that’s said here is that all men are sinners and, in poetic style, quotes from the OT a sampling of what is characteristic of man as a sinner.

All that is stated is that access and “approach of the soul to God is initiated by God.” See Robertson Word Pictures. There is nothing here with reference to any inability in the sinner to repent and believe, which he is everywhere commanded of sinners in the New Testament.

Again, no mention is made of any depravity to the point of a natural inability in man as a sinner to come to God in repentance and faith. What is stated in these verses is that (1) Jesus was aware of those who would choose not to believe His teachings (vs. 45), and (2) access to Christ for salvation is a gift granted by God (but only to those who receive the teachings of God; see vs. 45; 59-61).

If one declares Scripture speaks for itself and that they are only saying what Scripture says, then the interpretation of a text should not go beyond, as Larry has done in his above explanations, what is clearly stated.

It is quite clear in the Bible that salvation is conditional, though not meritorious, and as such, man has a part in his own salvation and I dare say the salvation of others.

As has been clarified repeatedly, it does not read “Larry says” but “Larry seems to imply.” The point being made is that Larry’s statements can reasonably lead one to conclude that God authors and commits sin. Such was discussed in my post, dated 1/1/02 at 10:58 PM and on 1/3/02 at 12:46 AM, in response to Larry’s dated 1/1/02 at 3:39 PM and 1/2/02 at 9:28 PM respectively.

Larry has emphasized that he is very careful with his wording. My argument is based on what he has stated and how he stated it.

“Do” means “to perform an action; to finish; to cause.” Evidently, if there is a misunderstanding, it is not because there is any “desire to misunderstand.”

No “subtle attempt” at misrepresentation is being submitted here. See above regarding comments on the word “do”.

In reviewing aforementioned posts Larry seeks to demonstrate that God is neither passive nor reactive in “working all things” including sin and evil. He states that the word “work” is an “active” verb that clearly teaches control, not reaction and that to work all things is to bring about or to effect. If Larry is correct, then God’s active participation is clearly expressed; it shows what God does and not what He reacts to. As such, God is not a mere, passive spectator to a rape.

It is necessary, at this point, to make a clarification. If by evil, one means tragedy, then it is possible, God caused the tragedy. That some tragedy is attributable to God cannot be denied and does not impugn His nature. The plagues of Egypt are an obvious example. Larry’s example above can fall under that category wherein not only can it be rightly interpreted that God may have permitted it but he may have had a hand in it (though I do not go so far as to say it was necessarily preordained).

However, if by “evil” sin is meant, God can is in no way be involved with it as far as either ordaining or preordaining it (except by permission) or participating in it. My example, the rape of a child, falls under this category. This view of evil as sin is the focus of discussion although I had made no distinctions previously. Please note, in some posts I have attempted to make this distinction by stating “sin and evil”.

It may be hard to reconcile God’s goodness in light of many evils defined as tragedy, which He could have prevented, however, it is neither impossible in every case nor is every tragedy His doing. Furthermore, depending upon the nature of the tragedy, in some cases the reason why God did not prevent it is reasonably reconcilable.

On the other hand, it is Biblically unacceptable, an insult to His character, and a violation of common sense to promote God as ordaining sin, especially as Larry explains it, and, afterwards or in the face of it, declare that God is good. The interpretations made to Ephesians 1:11 are a clear example of misrepresenting the clear wording and intent of the Biblical texts. Where it states God works, it is wrongly interpreted to mean God wills.

As such, Larry’s position, I reiterate, is the more tenuous.

It seems Larry misunderstands the concept of free will and it’s relation to human nature. Choosing between two opposing choices is not choosing “contrary to one’s nature.” Everyday people choose between competing moral and non-moral choices and to cite examples is superfluous. It is inherent in man and not against his nature to choose between competing choices.

A dog also has no free will and cannot believe God since it is not in its nature to do so. A dog can only choose what is inherent in its nature to choose and those choices it makes have no bearing at all on morality or ethics. A dog is not condemned for disobeying God’s Law or for not believing in God. God cannot condemn a dog to hell for committing what to us is a moral evil.

If a man cannot believe in God because it is his nature not to believe, then he cannot be held morally accountable for not believing. If he sins because his nature requires that he do nothing but sin and it is impossible for him to choose repentance and faith in God because it is contrary to his nature, then God cannot and will not hold him accountable for either sin or unbelief.

If such is the case as Larry presents it, man is in the same relation to God as is the dog.

An observation: If a dead man cannot believe, it should be important to remind ourselves that a dead man cannot not believe either.

It is unfortunate that an offense was taken. I cannot admit to having made any misrepresentations and no intent to slander was made (nor can it be construed) in my "imagine" remark.

However, in his response of February 09, 2002 10:39 AM, Larry read way too much into “imagine” and has constructed an argument based on a desire to discredit the opposing view. My only purpose was to show that Larry's position could reasonably lead one to conclusions that would make God the author of sin.

Concerning what Larry can imagine, I have not stated that was what he actually believes. On the contrary, where Larry has previously stated that I said he believed God is evil or commits sin, I corrected him by demonstrating that was not the case nor can it be shown by any of my posts that it is. However, it was admitted that the views Larry holds could be reasonably interpreted as God being the author of sin and, as such, lead others to the same conclusion. There is no misrepresentation of his stated position.

Furthermore, it has not been explained (except by mere assertions similar to the present one above) by the offended party where and how specific misrepresentations of the stated position have occurred.

Please note that "imagine" means "to make a mental image". Such a mental image may be taken from reality. For example, I can imagine David killing Goliath. It can, admittedly, also be an image from what is not reality, for example, Goliath killing David. However, as mentioned earlier, the basis of what I imagined is scriptural (i.e. based upon reality) with no intent to prove the validity of my position via the imagination.

Therefore, because I believe that scripture shows the sinner resisting God's final judgment, I stated what I could not imagine.

By the same token, since Larry views God as ordaining "all things," which necessarily include sin and evil, I only stated what seems possible for him to imagine based upon his past statements (for example, post dated posted January 01, 2002 at 3:39 PM ), and from clear and reasonable implications derived therein.

[ March 12, 2002, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Nelson ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by swaimj:

Pastor Larry, I have attempted to give a biblical basis for my position and a thoughtful reply to your question. If something I said needs clarification, I'll try to clarify it. Please don't try to twist it into a straw-man you can attack. BTW, I have about a 30 minute trip to church each way on Sundays and gave this some thought tonite. Let me try to approach this issue from a different angle. Perhaps as you read this you will understand why I have difficulty with your position.

There is another biblical issue in which the sovereignty of God and the instrumentality of man comes into play, and that is in the issue of inspiration. I think that you and I would have to discuss this issue at length and try extremely hard to find a point of disagreement on the issue of inspiration. We believe that the scriptures are the Word of God, yea, even the words of God. Yet, we also agree that men wrote the Bible (holy men of old wrote as they were borne along by the Holy Spirit). There is an element of mystery here which we cannot fully explain. God's sovereignty and human instrumentality are in tension in the human mind, but are not in contradiction in God's mind. If I stood in your pulpit and said, for instance "Paul says in chapter 8, verse 12 that...", you would not stand up and say "Hey, you heretic, God said that, not Paul!" And yet, God's sovereignty and human instrumentality are involved in salvation as well. Why can we not agree on how to state this? I say this with humility, Pastor Larry, and with deep respect for your position and for the knowledge and giftedness you display on this board, but I think the problem is that you are inconsistent; reconciling sovereignty and instrumentality in the area of soteriology differently from the way you reconcile it in the area of inspiration. In the area of salvation, you hold a position that is analogous to a dictation theory of inspiration. Salvation is all of God and none of man, you say. I agree, but there is human instrumentality involved as well. If I mention human instrumentality in the area of inspiration, it passes with no comment, but the least hint of human instrumentality in the area of salvation brings a charge of Armenianism. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying, or do you ligitimately see a difference in the way the two are reconciled in the two different areas?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is a great post, and in 5 pages on this thread, no one has responded to it.

Karen

 

I think this is a great post, and in 5 pages on this thread, no one has responded to it.

Karen</font>[/QUOTE]bump

 

(John 1:13) Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

(Rom. 9:16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

(Ps. 58:3) The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. (4) Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear; (5) Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.

The unregenerate man is like a deaf adder who cannot hear the voice of the charmer. A preacher could preach about the blessings of being in Christ Jesus until the second coming. If our hearts are not opened by the Lord, we will not attend to spiritual things.

(Acts 16:14) And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

 

Many of us believe in a limited sovereignty.

What benefit would God receive if He autocratically saved some through Special Election, and then said, "O.K. brethren now it is time to begin a life time of worshiping Me." He then would only be showing we enlightened Christians, that He has the power of coercion.

True worship requires that the creature voluntarily bow to Almighty God. The sinner after conviction of sin, hopefully will yield to Jesus. God often puts great pressure/Influence on the sinner but He never overrides the freedom of the will of man.

Respectfully,

Dr. Berrian