Sovereignty of God???

Today I was tempted to sin, and I gave in and sinned. Three questions:

1. Since it happened, and if God is in total control so that it was inevitable that could not have done otherwise, it was ultimately God's will. How can committing a sin be both God's will and *against* God's will at the same time? Is God "double-minded"?

2. Since it was God's will that this happen, would I have been in the wrong to resist the temptation (i.e. would I have been in the wrong to resist God's will)? *Can* I even resist, when it's God's will that the sin be committed?

3. 1 Cor 10:13 says no one is tempted beyond what they can bear, but God will also make a way out, so you can resist the temptation. This seems to me that God provides at least *two* alternatives, to sin or not to sin, leaving the control in our hands. This verse makes *perfect* sense from my viewpoint. But if everything is "inevitable", I *really* don't understand this passage *at all*. How do you reconcile this?

 

Hey, hey , hey!

Who said you were allowed to ask any more questions until you answered mine???????

But I shall answer your questions anyway.

1. Because you're using the word "will" in different ways. No.

2. No. Yes.

3. I should not have ever used the word "inevitable". Should have said the outcome is certain.

Does that help?

 

Sorry, I sort of answered yours with questions. If God was in total control (and not just "in part") of the king of Assyria, that indicates to me that *God's will* was that the king do that, i.e. it was God's will that he (and I) sin. Since I do not believe it it God's will that someone commit sin, then that's why I said "in part" - ie. some of the control is left to the individual.

How did I use it in different ways? I'm just repeating back to you guys what *you're* saying, trying to understand how God's will is that we don't sin, yet if we sin it was because it was God's will.

No? It's good that I resist God's will?

That doesn't answer (or change) my question at all. If the outcome is "certain", why does the verse say there are two outcomes, providing us a choice?

Not in the slightest.

 

Easy. From your perspective, the choice can go either way. From God's perspective, You will make the choice that God has foreordained to direct or permit.

 

Brian,

I think you make a great point concerning the idea that God does USES certain people's sinfulness by hardening them in order to accomplish His purpose through them.

Npetreley seems to think that if you can accept that truth in the scripture you should be able to accept the fact that God is "in control" of all sin as he has explained it, but he is ignoring the differences between the two:

1. God hardens someone after they have made their sinful choices. He doesn't force them to make those choices he just uses their choices to accomplish his purpose. Therefore he is not culpable for hardening as he would be for controlling all sin in all men.

2. The scritpture that Npetereley uses to support his views of Sovereignty are not speaking about God's dealings with all men, but his hardening of Israel as is clearly seen in the context. Therefore, the passages he uses to support his view of Sovereignty are actually explainations of God's justice in light of his hardening of Israel, not an explaination of God's culpablity for man's sin in general. Therefore, you can apply Romans 9 as an explaination of how God is not cupable for hardening, but he shouldn't apply that same passage as an explaination for God's cupablity for all sin.

 

Please, Mr Bill or whatever your name really is -- I came here to get away from you and I was really enjoying the relief. I can't stop you from participating, but I was hoping to have discussions with people who honestly represent themselves instead of people like you. But if I have to leave here, too, I will.

You haven't been participating here, as far as I can see [attack against another poster editted by Moderator]. Again, I know you don't have to, but I'm asking you to.

By the way, since you have confessed to using multiple identities to play games, and have posted here as different people -- that raises the question as to whether anyone can believe you're even Baptist and should be posting here. Except for an accident, I did not post in the Baptist forums until I started attending Biltmore Baptist church. And since (unlike you) I use my real name, anyone here can check that.

[ June 17, 2003, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

Nick,

I am trying to have an honest and civilized discussion, you don't need to get personal. I was addressing Brian, not you.

I have not used multiple IDs here, as I explained my son uses this IP address as well. I know you don't believe me but what can I do about that.

As for my real name, many here don't use their real names to protect their idenitity. My name is very recognizable in Baptist circles here in Texas and I have my reasons for keeping my idenity to myself. That is really none of your business.

So, please can we discuss the issues and drop the personal attacks.

Thank you.

 

Brian,

Okay, so since you didn't like the answers I gave before, I shall now give your questions the attention they deserve....

Because the Bible (and you) use the term "God's will" to mean different things in different contexts. For instance, in Job somewhere near the end it says that God has a will (or a purpose, depending on which translation you use) that cannot be thwarted. There are other places that describe this type of will as well--like in Daniel, where Nebu-can't-spell-the-rest says that God does as he pleases among the inhabitants of the earth and no one can stay His hand. This type of will seems to be God's plan for history, also called in scripture His purpose, or the counsel of His will.

Then there is the type of will of God that Jesus talks about when He says that it is those who do His Father's will who are his kinfolk. Obviously, this type of will of God can be--and is quite regularly--thwarted. This type of will is whatever God commands of us. We act according to this type of will of God when we are obedient, and when we are disobedient, we thwart it.

So when you commited your sin, you went against this second type of will (the commanded will), but did not go against the first type of will (God's plan for history). And those who crucified Christ fulfilled the first type of will of God--His plan for history, while disobeying the second type of will of God--His command not to murder.

No, I don't think so, but you can sure make Him seem that way when you use the words "God's will" to mean the two different types of wills in one sentence!

It is always wrong to go against God's commanded will, and always right to fulfill it. And those who go against this will are justly punished just as the King of Assyria was in Isaiah 10. I think it is C. S. Lewis (could be wrong) who says something like this: No matter what you do, you will be fulfilling God's will; but it makes a whole lot of difference to you whether you filfill it like Paul did or like Judas did. What we need to concentrate on is the second half of that sentence--making sure we are fulfilling God's purpose with obedient acts rather than disobedient ones.

I will try to answer the second part of this question in my answer to the next one.

There are always two viable (and maybe more) alternatives we could choose. There is only one we will choose. From God's viewpoint, the outcome of our choice is certain--it's the one alternative that we actually will choose. But it's never necessary that we choose it.

Maybe an illustration from real life will help. If I don't I remind my son to put his lunch in his pack, he will certainly leave it behind tomorrow morning. There are two real alternatives for him--take his lunch, or leave it behind in the fridge. He's not incapable of opening the fridge door, taking out the little brown bag, and putting it in his backpack. He's capable of remembering his gym shoes every morning, so there's no reason he can't remember his pack. If he really put his mind to the task of remembering that lunch--if he made it his priority, he would certainly remember to take it.

Two real alternatives, but one inevitable outcome. The certainty of the outcome doesn't effect the reality of the alternatives.

[ June 18, 2003, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

Sorry -- I don't know why BB tolerates people who post under different names and admit to have done so just to "argue from both sides" as two different people, but that's up to BB not me. But if that's how BB handles things and he persists here, I'll just have to drop out. IMO, there is no room for that kind of behavior on a Christian board, but I don't make the rules. As for PM, I am apparently on his ignore list (as he is on mine) and cannot PM him.

As for the excuse for anonymity and fake names, his excuse is:

My business or not, the excuse he gives on the ca/ar forum is that he does not believe in calvinism as his church does, and therefore does not want his arminian views exposed as his own. What does that tell me but that he is being deliberately deceptive to his own church, and does not have the courage of his convictions to be honest with both us and his church? Who is the father of lies?

Again, it baffles me as to why that is a permissible excuse to use false names and masquerade as different people at the same time on BB, but that's your choice, not mine. But if BB thinks this is acceptable behavior, then perhaps I don't belong here after all.

 

Easy. From your perspective, the choice can go either way. From God's perspective, You will make the choice that God has foreordained to direct or permit.
</font>[/QUOTE] But the passage indicates that the way out is provided so you have a way to avoid giving in to the temptation. We are not tempted beyond what we are able to withstand. Yet you are saying if we give in, it was because we were literally unable to withstand it.

So when you commited your sin, you went against this second type of will (the commanded will), but did not go against the first type of will (God's plan for history). And those who crucified Christ fulfilled the first type of will of God--His plan for history, while disobeying the second type of will of God--His command not to murder.
</font>[/QUOTE]Honestly, I don't understand. You're telling me that God's will is sometimes in opposition to God's will. Either this is double talk, or at least one of us doesn't understand the other.

It is always wrong to go against God's commanded will, and always right to fulfill it. And those who go against this will are justly punished just as the King of Assyria was in Isaiah 10.
</font>[/QUOTE]But you guys just finished telling my the king of Assyria did what he did because it was God's will!

How can we "make sure we are fulfilling God's purpose with obedient acts rather than disobedient ones"? You talk as though *I* have some control to decide which to fulfill, yet me having any control is what you guys are arguing *against*.

There are always two viable (and maybe more) alternatives we could choose. There is only one we will choose. From God's viewpoint, the outcome of our choice is certain--it's the one alternative that we actually will choose. But it's never necessary that we choose it.
</font>[/QUOTE]Whoa, whoa, whoa. Now you say we have a choice, and it's never necessary that we choose the wrong choice. If God is in "total, total" control, our choice is an illusion, and it IS necessary that we make the wrong "choice" if that's what God has predestined, right?

Again, you're talking about your son *having some control* - the control to put his mind to the task, make it his priority, etc. This contradicts your main argument, does it not?

 

Well, yes, sometimes God's plan for human history includes acts that go against his commands to us. Like the acts of those who crucified Christ--who did what God had predetermined would happen and yet sinned in doing it. Like Joseph's brothers who did what God intended be done, and yet their intentions were evil.

God's plan for human history includes both things he actively causes to happen, and things he chooses to allow to happen for a reason. Both things that God actively causes and things that He chooses to let happen for good reason can be rightly called God's will (in the plan for history sense) because scripture calls them God's will.

In the group of things God chooses to let happen for good reason you have some things (like the two things listed above) that go against His commands.

It was God's will that the king do what he did--it was part of God's plan for history. But this, too, was part of this second category of things in God's plan--things God chooses to allow for His own purpose. God did not actively cause this; in other words, He did not send His Holy Spirit to move within the king's heart so that the king would do this. The motivation for this act came from within the kings arrogant heart, and God let that arrogant heart do what it wanted because it suited his purposes. God was in control of the act in the sense that He could have prevented it, but chose not to for good reason.

You do have control over your own actions. I'm not arguing against human accountability. We have control over our own actions, and yet our actions are not outside of God's control. I'm not claiming to understand exactly how it works--exactly how the two things fit together--just claiming that this seems to be the way scripture looks at these things.

Nope. We have real choices AND God is in total control. We have at least two viable alternatives every time we make a decision. We look at those two alternatives, weigh them, and decide which one we desire most, or which one seems best to us, or whatever. Yet none of those choices is ever outside of God's control: our good choices come by the direct agency of the Holy Spirit, and our bad ones are allowed by God for His own good reasons.

You seem to be presupposing that choices God predestines cannot be REAL choices, and while that may seem to be a logical presupposition, I think that scripture everywhere presupposes the opposite--that predestined choices are REAL choices. I don't know exactly how to fit those two things together, but I'm not sure I have to understand how it works in order to argue it from scripture.

 

Russell,

I agree with your interpretation of God's Sovereignty.

My question to those that say that God absolutely predestines everything is the following:

What if it had been God's plan to create a being (man) who had freedom to make the right choice or the wrong one? It seems to me that those who don't allow God to have this option are arguing that He is not all-powerful. He is as I describe Him to be. To be all powerful means that God can certainly do anything we mere men can conceive of and much, much more.

 

I agree, and have no problem with that statement. However, the jist of the thread so far, usually from npetreley and Pastor Larry (both of whom seem to have abandoned the discussion), is that what he "allows to happen" is "allowed" in appearance only: i.e. God actively controls *everything*. Pastor Larry said "God is in control, working all things after the counsel of his own will (Eph 1:11). "All things" is the operative phrase. That means nothing is left out of his control, nothing, nothing, nothing." That means even things that look like they are simply "allowed" by God, are ultimately also under God's control. If God controls everything, God controls *every thing*: the environment, people's biology, their circumstances, their history, their wants, thoughts and emotions, their choices, their actions. If God TRULY "allows", then that places some control in the hands of people - God "allowing" them true choice. If they have no option to do anything except what is predetermined (or "inevitable" or "certain" or "guaranteed" or whatever word seem most accurate), then this is not "allowing", for the choice is an illusion. Sure, God still has the right to hold us responsible for our choices and actions, but ultimately he controlls the situation so that we have no option but to think, choose and act as he controls. Some on this thread have said they "chose" to submit or believe in God's total control, and don't seem to realize the inherent contradiction in such a statement.

I agree. This gives some control, and a REAL choice, to the Assyrian king. But this is not "nothing is left out of his control, nothing, nothing, nothing."

I have no problems with that statement. I don't understand it totally either. But again, some here seem to be arguing for God's "total" control, and I don't see how that allows us real choice.

We *don't* have two viable alternatives if one of them is predestined/certain/inevitable/guaranteed. When I'm about to enter my house, I don't have two options: walking through the door or floating through a wall. If only one option is possible, there are no alternatives. If God has "total control", it is impossible to do something outside that control, to make a choice other than what he controls (yes, controls) us to make. Earlier, someone used the analogy of steering a car, God being the driver and us being the car. When God steers to the right or if the car pulls to the right, the car continues to the right whether God continues to hold the wheel or not - i.e. God is in control, either directly controlling the car to go to the right, or allowing the car to go to the right. I can understand this. The problem is that it is then, by definition, impossible for the car to choose to go to the left of it's own will if God is in control of the car going right. Going left is not a "viable alternative".

Not if God is in "total" control, for then he would control our mind when it goes through the "weighing and deciding" process, controlling how we think it through in the first place. We make choices based on desires, reasoning, experience, etc. But who controlled things so we would have those desires, those methods of reasoning, those experiences? God. If God is in "total" control, we indeed are puppets, God pulling all the strings. Granted, there are many strings and the cause-effect system would be very complicated, but it's strings nonetheless. People who hold this doctine say we're NOT puppets or robots, but then they fail to explain how any other conclusion is even possible.

I sort of agree. Yes, I am presupposing that choices that God predestines cannot be REAL choices. The reason scripture seems to presuppose the opposite is not that choices are not real, but rather that the choices are not predestined.

I do computer programming for a living. I control how a program "thinks", how it makes decisions. The decisions are not made until the program is executed, but the "choices" are predetermined based on conditions. When the program runs, it "chooses" to do this or that, because I as the programmer am in control and predetermined things. The program itself, even though it appears to "choose" to do something, really has no choice, no free-will of it's own - it's an illusion.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]...You have again demonstrated a fallacy by believing that control equals causation. I reject that.</font>[/QUOTE]Why? Surely you are just playing about with words? If I control a radio-controlled car, then surely I am the cause of it turning left? How can someone CONTROL something and not be the CAUSE? What does the word "control" mean if not implying causation???

Accepted. But it is not "free", because what we "want" has already been controlled by God!!! So what you're really saying is that "free will" means that God doesn't just control what we do against our wills, but he even controls our wills as well! Wow - some "freedom"!!! In fact, you're even further off the mark because the term is "free WILL"; not "free ACTION" (I know some Calvinists prefer that term, but the Bible doesn't! e.g. Lev 22:18). You're trying to argue that ACTION is "free", but in fact you need to WILL to be "free"! And in your system, where God even controls the will, that is simply not the case! Again, surely you're just refusing the words "free" and "will" mean what they say???

 

It means that God is not the direct cause of man's being tempted (once again, a question that was already answered). To say that God does not tempt man with sin does not mean that sin or temptation is out of his control.</font>[/QUOTE]So what you're saying is that God DOES tempt man with sin, but that it just isn't his fault. Not only does that make a mockery of the very WORDS you used to express your belief ("God does not tempt man with sin"), but it is slander against God. "God - you did something really bad. But I'll blame someone else!"

But did God lie??? Oh no he did not! Michaiah told the truth! God was not culpable for the lie because he did not tell it. The bible does not say that the lying spirit was controlled by God. But God was responsible for sending the spirit! As Michaiah said,

Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee. (1 Kings 22:23)

Surely you don't think it ws only as to "where" and "when"? Do you not think he was controling the Romans' hands as they nailed him to the cross? Alas, but the Bible does not say this. Rather Acts 2:23 simply says:

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

God wasn't controling Satan; only allowing him to act within certain boundaries that he had set!

No, it shows that he allowed the sin of his brothers in order to accomplish his purposes. He worked through the situation - as per Ephesians 1:11. Had his brothers chosen not to throw him down that hole, I'm certain God would have used some other way to take him to Egypt.

[ June 24, 2003, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Bartholomew ]

 

Easy. From your perspective, the choice can go either way. From God's perspective, You will make the choice that God has foreordained to direct or permit.
</font>[/QUOTE] But the passage indicates that the way out is provided so you have a way to avoid giving in to the temptation. We are not tempted beyond what we are able to withstand. Yet you are saying if we give in, it was because we were literally unable to withstand it.</font>[/QUOTE]The important thing you're missing is that from our perspective, things are not set in stone. We are exposed to circumstances, we are given options, we make choices. God has sovereign control over these external stimuli and circumstances, and to Him nothing we choose is a surprise. From God's perspective, it is all set in stone according to His good pleasure. He transcends time and therefore sees it differently than we do, but that doesn't mean He communicates it that way to us, because to us, there are choices.