How is Soverinty Defined?

[jdlongmire]

I would also recommend obtaining a copy of "The Sovereignty of God" by A.W. Pink.

Here it is online.

 

[Reformer]

God the good Creator of all things, in his infinite power and wisdom doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, to the end for the which they were created, according unto his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will; to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, infinite goodness, and mercy.

Man that is good, not a word for me to disagree with, and I would be scared to add to it
Was that a quote from Spurgeon :laugh:

Reformer

 

[Reformer]

Sovereignty means freedom from external control or controlling influences.

God can’t be changed in any way by what his creation does.

This has an influence on the aspect of God’s foreknowledge: God knows us before we were born, knows what will happen, knows our thoughts, knows our decisions.

But there is an facet of God that is difficult for us to understand;
God is sovereign but he holds man responsible for his own actions.

The beautiful puzzle that drives these C/A debates.



Rob

A very true and accurate statement :thumbsup:

Reformer

 

[jdlongmire]

Man that is good, not a word for me to disagree with, and I would be scared to add to it
Was that a quote from Spurgeon :laugh:

Reformer

1689 LBC - excellent confession

 

[Deacon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deacon
God can’t be changed in any way by what his creation does.

By that you are saying prayer doesn't change anything. I disagree with you here.
MB

Excellent point!

But we are instructed to pray "in Jesus' name", in a way, this means pray with God, pray as God; pray in God's authority.
We pray as Jesus would pray.

Our prayers have power only as they represent the will of Jesus.
We are armed with HIS influence.

Rob

 

[rdwhite]

May I add a question to my question?

Dose you view of Gods sovernty exclude total control (either directly or indirectly) and if so how do you avoid Open Theism?

My view of God's sovereignty excludes total control indirectly. In his sovereignty, he created man in his image and gave to man the same volition that he enjoys. God retains the right to intervene at any time and take divine control (such as in the case of miraculous events), but returns things to free control afterward. God could have created a world in which he retained complete and total control, if he so desired; however, I believe, based on many verses, that God allows man to enjoy a free will.

I am not familiar with the term Open Theism, so I try neither to avoid it nor hit it.

 

[rdwhite]

Well, I was going to comment on rdwhites' cutting down on Calvinists in the same breath he was telling his definition of sovereign. Was merely going to ask him if he would just give his definition without trying to make it a C/A debate or to not belittle the Calvinists.

Point taken, I did take a cheap shot, and I apologize to those who took offense. However, I do not believe that sovereignty can be discussed without Calvinist and Arminian beliefs manifesting into the discussion. I apologize if my Calvinist brothers felt they were belittled by my previous post.

:1_grouphug:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

In the matter of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will and/or his responsibility, to say that there is a balance at the center would not be appropriate. Both divine sovereignty and human responsibility are truths found in the Word of God. They are not competing truths they are truths! They are truths that cannot be reconciled.

The free will of man does no violence to God’s sovereignty! In short, freedom of will is no threat to, nor is it a denial of the sovereignty of God. In my opinion God’s sovereignty is actually magnified when we allow for the free will of man and His sovereignty to co-exist. His sovereignty is not diminished and done no damage by or through the will of man.

Which concept of God is greater: The concept of a God who decrees every detail and decision in all spheres of life and existence because He is sovereign; or the concept of a God who allows his creation the free will and ability to choose, yet He still knows all things, and is sovereign in the whole process? In my opinion, human freedom is no threat to, does not infringe upon, nor is it a denial of the sovereignty of God.

It is a mystery how the divine sovereignty of God and the free will of man can coexist and no damage be done to God’s sovereignty. The infinite ways of God will always be a mystery to the finite mind of man (Isaiah 55:8-9).

 

[Reformer]

My view of God's sovereignty excludes total control indirectly. In his sovereignty, he created man in his image and gave to man the same volition that he enjoys. God retains the right to intervene at any time and take divine control (such as in the case of miraculous events), but returns things to free control afterward. God could have created a world in which he retained complete and total control, if he so desired; however, I believe, based on many verses, that God allows man to enjoy a free will.

May I ask for for some of the many verses all I have ever found is in Romans 7

15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice

and honestly that isn't the modern definition of a free will,

I am not being sarcastic I am honestly trying to understand, so please don't be offended

Reformer

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Man that is good, not a word for me to disagree with, and I would be scared to add to it
Was that a quote from Spurgeon :laugh:

Reformer

It is the London Baptist Confession of Faith...which also was Spurgeon's confession. :thumbsup:

 

[webdog]

May I add a question to my question?

Dose you view of Gods sovernty exclude total control (either directly or indirectly) and if so how do you avoid Open Theism?

Aaron, thanks for the reference to Pinks book I have been meaning to read that one for a while, I guess the time has come to do it

Reformer

It depends on how you are defining "total control". If you mean controlling, and you believe this, you have God authoring and supporting sin.

 

[rdwhite]

May I ask for for some of the many verses...

I am not being sarcastic I am honestly trying to understand, so please don't be offended

Br. Reformer, I am not one easily offended, and I sometimes enjoy a good sarcastic retort. Such as "Apologist Man", I don't care who you are, that was funny.

Let's start with Acts 21 and we can move on from there. Look carefully at verses 4 and 11, cross-referenced with 20:21-24.

Paul was warned of God numerous times to not go to Jerusalem. It was not God's will for Paul to go, and yet Paul went anyway. Paul had been burdened of God to go to Spain and had intended to go on his next journey (Romans 15:24-28). Because he thwarted God's will, Paul never went to Spain. Had he obeyed God, stayed away from Jerusalem, and gone to Spain, we can only imagine how the course of history could have been changed.

Imagine if Paul had gone to Spain and established churches, imagine if Spanish explorers were Christian instead of Catholic, imagine if Christian missionaries had landed in South America instead of Catholic. But Paul was determined to do his will, contrary to and against the will of God. Paul bowed up and was determined in his mind to go to Jerusalem, in spite of God's warnings. God allowed Paul to exercise volition and determine his own course of action in direct contradiction to what God wanted. God could have forced Paul to stay away from Jerusalem. God could have translated Paul to Spain (as he translated Phillip). God could have intervened in the situation, taken divine control, and caused his will to be done; however that would have violated his principal of allowing man to make his own decisions.

 

[Marcia]

I think we see both God's sovereignty in the Bible as well as man having his will. After all, we are made in the image of God and this includes the attribute of a will. We are not robots. To what extent we can decide things is unknown, but I do not believe God in any way is affected by what we decide because He knows all past, present, and future at once.

What about Matt 23:37? I think this shows the tension between God's will, what He allows, and what man does.

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I think we see both God's sovereignty in the Bible as well as man having his will. After all, we are made in the image of God and this includes the attribute of a will. We are not robots. To what extent we can decide things is unknown, but I do not believe God in any way is affected by what we decide because He knows all past, present, and future at once.

What about Matt 23:37? I think this shows the tension between God's will, what He allows, and what man does.

Marcia,

How do you define the will of man as free? You said that we have free-will because we are in His image after all. Are you saying our will is as free as God's?

If you believe God knows all things, past, present and future and that from all eternity (at once) how is it that anything can happen apart from the will of God (whether we see it as active or passive)?

 

[rdwhite]

If you believe God knows all things, past, present and future and that from all eternity (at once) how is it that anything can happen apart from the will of God (whether we see it as active or passive)?

Knowledge does not equal will, will does not equal knowledge. Things that are different are not the same.

I know my children, and I know when they are thinking mischief, I know when they are about to do something they should not. Sometimes I give them a warning, sometimes they heed my warning, but sometimes they ignore the warning and commit the act against my will. I knew it was going to happen, but that does not mean I willed it to happen. I am only human and sometimes they do surprise me, God is never surprised.

Sometimes I allow the action to proceed without warning and I use the event as a learning experience. Sometimes, I intervene and prevent the action from taking place, to prevent serious injury. We learn by trial and error, sometimes lots of error and much trial. If God has mandated every action, there is nothing to be learned.

In my view of God's sovereignty, he is so sovereign that he can choose to know or not to know. By him choosing to not know does not affect his ability to know, it does not diminish his sovereignty, it augments his sovereignty.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Rdwhite

In my view of God's sovereignty, he is so sovereign that he can choose to know or not to know. By him choosing to not know does not affect his ability to know, it does not diminish his sovereignty, it augments his sovereignty.

Are you an advocate of Open Theism?

 

[rdwhite]

Rdwhite

Are you an advocate of Open Theism?

I am not aware of the principles of Open Theism nor of its proponents, so I could not advocate something of which I am not aware.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Matt Slick has a pretty good summary of it. http://www.carm.org/open/intro.htm

Open theism, also called openness and the open view, is a theological position dealing with human free will and its relationship to God and the nature of the future. It is the teaching that God has granted to humanity free will and that in order for the free will to be truly free, the future free will choices of individuals cannot be known ahead of time by God. They hold that if God knows what we are going to choose, then how can we be truly free when it is time to make those choices since a counter choice cannot then be made by us because it is already "known" what we are going to do.1 In other words, we would not actually be able to make a contrary choice to what God "knows" we will choose thus implying that we would not then be free. In open theism, the future is either knowable or not knowable. For the open theists who hold that the future is knowable by God, they maintain that God voluntarily limits His knowledge of free will choices so that they can remain truly free.

 

[rdwhite]

ReformedBaptist,

It is the teaching that God has granted to humanity free will and that in order for the free will to be truly free, the future free will choices of individuals cannot be known ahead of time by God.

This explanation seems to be an answer to your equating will and knowledge. This explanation also equates will and knowledge and then refutes knowledge on the basis that it effects will. So no, I do not advocate open theism, based on the above quote.

I am maintaining that knowledge and will are not equivocable. God can possess knowledge of future events without those events being his divine will.

I do not limit God by maintaining that he must or must not have knowledge of future events. I do not question is ability, I merely maintain that he is sovereign to choose.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

ReformedBaptist,



This explanation seems to be an answer to your equating will and knowledge. This explanation also equates will and knowledge and then refutes knowledge on the basis that it effects will. So no, I do not advocate open theism, based on the above quote.

I am maintaining that knowledge and will are not equivocable. God can possess knowledge of future events without those events being his divine will.

I do not limit God by maintaining that he must or must not have knowledge of future events. I do not question is ability, I merely maintain that he is sovereign to choose.

It's not a matter of whether one limits God or not. It's a matter of the doctrine of Holy Scripture.