How is Soverinty Defined?

[rdwhite]

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

By dogmatically asserting that God must know or must not know is to assert that God is not free to choose and thus limits the sovereignty of God in the mind of the thinker. If God chooses to know, he chooses to know. If God chooses not to know, he chooses not to know. The choice is his to make.

When finite man asserts that an infinite God must or must not behave in a certain manner, then the sovereignty of God becomes limited in the mind of finite man. God is never actually limited, except in the mind of man who places bounds upon God.

Whatever God's choice may be, he is righteous in his decision. If God chooses to know, he is righteous, and his choice does not affect the volition of man. If God chooses to not know, he is righteous, and his choice does not affect his sovereignty nor does it affect his ability.

If God could not choose to limit his knowledge, then God could not choose to forget. How would it be possible for an omniscient God to put sin out of his memory, unless he chooses to limit his knowledge by choosing to not remember.

Jeremiah 31:34 - 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.

In God's sovereign will, he chooses to not remember, he chooses to limit his knowledge.

I cannot say whether God knows or chooses to not know future events, that is his prerogative, either way it does not affect my belief. I believe that God knows future events, but that in certain situations, he chooses to not know. For example when our Lord and Saviour said "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" he was choosing to limit his knowledge. But that in no way diminished his sovereignty.

I do know for certain, that when God remembers sin no more, he has chosen by his own divine will to limit his knowledge.

But these are only the ponderings of a finite man.

To God be all glory and honour and praise.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

By dogmatically asserting that God must know or must not know is to assert that God is not free to choose and thus limits the sovereignty of God in the mind of the thinker. If God chooses to know, he chooses to know. If God chooses not to know, he chooses not to know. The choice is his to make.

When finite man asserts that an infinite God must or must not behave in a certain manner, then the sovereignty of God becomes limited in the mind of finite man. God is never actually limited, except in the mind of man who places bounds upon God.

Whatever God's choice may be, he is righteous in his decision. If God chooses to know, he is righteous, and his choice does not affect the volition of man. If God chooses to not know, he is righteous, and his choice does not affect his sovereignty nor does it affect his ability.

If God could not choose to limit his knowledge, then God could not choose to forget. How would it be possible for an omniscient God to put sin out of his memory, unless he chooses to limit his knowledge by choosing to not remember.

In God's sovereign will, he chooses to not remember, he chooses to limit his knowledge.

I cannot say whether God knows or chooses to not know future events, that is his prerogative, either way it does not affect my belief. I believe that God knows future events, but that in certain situations, he chooses to not know. For example when our Lord and Saviour said "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" he was choosing to limit his knowledge. But that in no way diminished his sovereignty.

I do know for certain, that when God remembers sin no more, he has chosen by his own divine will to limit his knowledge.

But these are only the ponderings of a finite man.

To God be all glory and honour and praise.

thanks for yoru musings. I will respond in a bit.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

By dogmatically asserting that God must know or must not know is to assert that God is not free to choose and thus limits the sovereignty of God in the mind of the thinker. If God chooses to know, he chooses to know. If God chooses not to know, he chooses not to know. The choice is his to make.

When finite man asserts that an infinite God must or must not behave in a certain manner, then the sovereignty of God becomes limited in the mind of finite man. God is never actually limited, except in the mind of man who places bounds upon God.

Whatever God's choice may be, he is righteous in his decision. If God chooses to know, he is righteous, and his choice does not affect the volition of man. If God chooses to not know, he is righteous, and his choice does not affect his sovereignty nor does it affect his ability.

If God could not choose to limit his knowledge, then God could not choose to forget. How would it be possible for an omniscient God to put sin out of his memory, unless he chooses to limit his knowledge by choosing to not remember.

Can God sin? Can God lie? Can God make a rock too big that even He can't lift it? None of these things limit God. And by saying the Infinite cannot not know, is not limiting God anymore than that the Scripture teaches God cannot lie.

I cannot concieve of God acting or being contrary to His character. So while your reply is interesting, it just doesn't follow. What I mean is, the logic that "If God cannot or could not... means thus and thus"

In God's sovereign will, he chooses to not remember, he chooses to limit his knowledge.

I cannot say whether God knows or chooses to not know future events, that is his prerogative, either way it does not affect my belief. I believe that God knows future events, but that in certain situations, he chooses to not know. For example when our Lord and Saviour said "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" he was choosing to limit his knowledge. But that in no way diminished his sovereignty.

I do know for certain, that when God remembers sin no more, he has chosen by his own divine will to limit his knowledge.

But these are only the ponderings of a finite man.

Are you sure you have understood the prophet correctly? He who is infinite in knowledge and widsom and understanding, according to His nature, can forget? Will He then not be able to call the things to HIs mind again because He chose to forget? Or does the Scripture mean that God will not remember sins against them?

To God be all glory and honour and praise.

Amen.

 

[Marcia]

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)?

If you'll notice, I did not use the term "free will" therefore, I do not have to define it.

How can anything happen apart from the will of God? Where did I say that?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

If you'll notice, I did not use the term "free will" therefore, I do not have to define it.

How can anything happen apart from the will of God? Where did I say that?

Marcia,

I was simply asking questions. You don't have to answer any of them. I fear that you have taken my questions as points of attack. They are not.

May the grace and peace of Christ be with you.

RB

 

[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.

ReformedBapist, here is what I said. No "free will."

How do you take this passage from Matt. 23?

 

[Marcia]

Marcia,

I was simply asking questions. You don't have to answer any of them. I fear that you have taken my questions as points of attack. They are not.

May the grace and peace of Christ be with you.

RB

No, I didn't take it as an attack. I think you are one of the more civil debaters here and I appreciate that!

But you were wrong in saying I talked about "free will." I didn't. Nor did I say that things happen apart from God's will, so how can I answer a question about things I didn't say or assert? That's all I'm saying. Is it fair to ask questions about things I didn't say?

Do you see what I mean?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

ReformedBapist, here is what I said. No "free will."

How do you take this passage from Matt. 23?

As Christ's compassion toward a people who were about to be destroyed.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

No, I didn't take it as an attack. I think you are one of the more civil debaters here and I appreciate that!

But you were wrong in saying I talked about "free will." I didn't. Nor did I say that things happen apart from God's will, so how can I answer a question about things I didn't say or assert? That's all I'm saying. Is it fair to ask questions about things I didn't say?

Do you see what I mean?

Yes, I read "free" into your response. Sorry about that.

 

[Marcia]

Yes, I read "free" into your response. Sorry about that.

Thanks for the apology! :wavey:

 

[Marcia]

As Christ's compassion toward a people who were about to be destroyed.

What about Jesus saying He was wanting them to come to Him but they were "unwilling?" Doesn't this indicate that God allows men to choose things God doesn't want?

I am trying to point out that it is not so black and white an issue. There is a tension there, because like the Trinity and the Incarnation, this goes to the nature of God, something we cannot totally comprehend. I think that is why there ends up being so much debate on this topic.

(I am not saying the Trinity is not necessarily true! I'm talking about explaining it - we can only go so far in that, also with the Incarnation of Jesus).

 

[rdwhite]

Are you sure you have understood the prophet correctly? He who is infinite in knowledge and widsom and understanding, according to His nature, can forget? Will He then not be able to call the things to HIs mind again because He chose to forget? Or does the Scripture mean that God will not remember sins against them?

Well it says what it says, and I believe it they way it is written. The Most High God said "I will remember their sin no more". If it becomes necessary to read into the passage things that are not written in order to make the passage fit my ideology, then I would question my ideology.

"Let God be true and every man a liar."

Scripture corrects me, I never correct scripture. This is my doctrine of the Holy Scriptures.

You did not address the passage concerning Jesus not having knowledge concerning a particular futuristic event. What do you read into that passage to make it fit your ideology?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Reformer]

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.

Thank you for this post it has helped me better see where you are coming from. That doesn't mean I agree with you, but my goal is to better understand where theology that is different from mine comes from, not to convince myself of something

and as I read this and some of your following posts I kept thinking something by Piper that might be of interest to you, it certainly was to me anyway here it is

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/

I would very be interested to here what you think about it

Thanks

Reformer

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well it says what it says, and I believe it they way it is written. The Most High God said "I will remember their sin no more". If it becomes necessary to read into the passage things that are not written in order to make the passage fit my ideology, then I would question my ideology.

"Let God be true and every man a liar."

Scripture corrects me, I never correct scripture. This is my doctrine of the Holy Scriptures.

You did not address the passage concerning Jesus not having knowledge concerning a particular futuristic event. What do you read into that passage to make it fit your ideology?:smilewinkgrin:

Well my friend, it wasn't written in English. It was translated into English, but immediately inspired in English. The word translated to remember means to remember, recall, call to mind. God will not recall or call to mind their sins anymore. Now, unless your a dispensationalist (no, this is not an attack on dispies, but to recognize different interpretations), this passage is concerning the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ. Contrasted with the Old Covenant, where there was a rememberance of sin year after year, under the New Covenant there is no more remembrance of sin because Christ was sacrificed once for all.

Has the Scripture now corrected you?

I will get to the other Scripture in a moment, somehow I missed it.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I cannot say whether God knows or chooses to not know future events, that is his prerogative, either way it does not affect my belief. I believe that God knows future events, but that in certain situations, he chooses to not know. For example when our Lord and Saviour said "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" he was choosing to limit his knowledge. But that in no way diminished his sovereignty.

The Scripture you referenced is Matt 24:36; Mark 13:32

Now, you ask me how I am going to understand this verse to fit my ideaology, which you probably meant theology. Can we leave the pettiness to the children? I would not expect you to wrest the Scripture to fit your theology and I would ask the same courtesy. And it is possible for us both to misunderstand the passage.

In this passage the object is Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Man. We understand that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh. He did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, being in the form of God, but made Himself of no reputation and took upon the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Phil 2:8

So I take the passage as to the limitation of Christ's knowledge to be in regard to His humanity and not His divinity. He did not know as the Son of Man. Do we dimish the nature of Christ, as the false teachers of the Jehovah's Witnesses do, which site the passage of Christ saying the Father is great than He is? Of course not. The explaination runs the same line of reasoning and does no violence to the Scripture.

RB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

What about Jesus saying He was wanting them to come to Him but they were "unwilling?" Doesn't this indicate that God allows men to choose things God doesn't want?

I am trying to point out that it is not so black and white an issue. There is a tension there, because like the Trinity and the Incarnation, this goes to the nature of God, something we cannot totally comprehend. I think that is why there ends up being so much debate on this topic.

(I am not saying the Trinity is not necessarily true! I'm talking about explaining it - we can only go so far in that, also with the Incarnation of Jesus).

There have been many explainations on the subject which I have read. It is not something that I can say I fully comprehend, but it is something that I have apprehended. Take for example this, "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" Acts 2:23

Jesus was delivered and crucified according to the determined counsel (decree, will) and foreknowledge of God. Everything happened according to His will. Yet is will accomplished by an angry mob. Did the crowd think to themselves "We are doing what God foreordained." ? I don't think so. They were acting accordign to their volition and desires, perfectly fulfilling what God had already determined to happen. The mechanism of this I do not fully understand. But the recognition of it I cannot deny. Therefore I say, "I cannot fully comprehend it, but by faith I fully apprehend it."

 

[rdwhite]

Well my friend, it wasn't written in English. It was translated into English, but immediately inspired in English.

Well praise God, at least we both believe our English translation is inspired.

The word translated to remember means to remember...

I just couldn't help myself, I had to do this.:wavey:

The word translated to remember means to remember, recall, call to mind. God will not recall or call to mind their sins anymore.

So of his own will he has chosen to put those things out of his mind. He has chosen to not recall, he has chosen to limit his knowledge.

Now, unless your a dispensationalist (no, this is not an attack on dispies, but to recognize different interpretations), this passage is concerning the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ. Contrasted with the Old Covenant, where there was a rememberance of sin year after year, under the New Covenant there is no more remembrance of sin because Christ was sacrificed once for all.

Has the Scripture now corrected you?

Well I do believe in dispensations, but maybe not to the extent that others do. I have no dispute with your explanation, and I still believe that God in this situation has chosen to put these memories out of his mind, he has chosen to limit his knowledge by choosing to remember them no more. This is exactly what I stated in the previous post, and I do not see that what you have explained contradicts that point. Perhaps I am missing something in your post.

Brother, the scriptures always correct me, they do now correct me, and I pray they will continue to do so.

 

[rdwhite]

The Scripture you referenced is Matt 24:36; Mark 13:32

Now, you ask me how I am going to understand this verse to fit my ideaology, which you probably meant theology. Can we leave the pettiness to the children? I would not expect you to wrest the Scripture to fit your theology and I would ask the same courtesy. And it is possible for us both to misunderstand the passage.

I do apologize that you took offense, I was not intending to be petty, and I never accused you of wresting the scriptures

In this passage the object is Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Man. We understand that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh. He did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, being in the form of God, but made Himself of no reputation and took upon the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Phil 2:8

Amen, Amen, Amen

So I take the passage as to the limitation of Christ's knowledge to be in regard to His humanity and not His divinity. He did not know as the Son of Man.

My point is that exactly. As the Son of Man, he divinely chose to limit his knowledge in this situation. I believe that he had the ability to know, had he so desired; yet, he chose to not know. In his sovereign will he determined to limit his knowledge.

Do we dimish the nature of Christ, as the false teachers of the Jehovah's Witnesses do, which site the passage of Christ saying the Father is great than He is? Of course not. The explaination runs the same line of reasoning and does no violence to the Scripture.

Amen, Amen.

I believe it augments God's sovereignty, in the mind of man, when man, allows God to limit his knowledge, if God so chooses. Of course in reality, we do not have the ability to augment nor diminish God's sovereignty, I am writing of how we perceive God in our mind.

This has been interesting and I appreciate your responses. May our Lord and Saviour bless you and all that you do for his honour and glory.

 

[rdwhite]

...and as I read this and some of your following posts I kept thinking something by Piper that might be of interest to you, it certainly was to me anyway here it is

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/

I would very be interested to here what you think about it

Wow, that is a long article, it will take some time to peruse. I have started reading it, may have to finish it tomorrow.

 

[Marcia]

There have been many explainations on the subject which I have read. It is not something that I can say I fully comprehend, but it is something that I have apprehended. Take for example this, "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" Acts 2:23

Jesus was delivered and crucified according to the determined counsel (decree, will) and foreknowledge of God. Everything happened according to His will. Yet is will accomplished by an angry mob. Did the crowd think to themselves "We are doing what God foreordained." ? I don't think so. They were acting accordign to their volition and desires, perfectly fulfilling what God had already determined to happen. The mechanism of this I do not fully understand. But the recognition of it I cannot deny. Therefore I say, "I cannot fully comprehend it, but by faith I fully apprehend it."

I agree there are some things we can apprehend but not fully comprehend. I think this passage in Matt 23 is one of them, and the whole issue of God's sovereignty vs. man's will (however that is defined or understood or known) and how all that plays out. It's like explaining salvation, another area that goes to the nature of God and thus something we cannot absolutely understand.

So these things I put in that category:
God's sovereingty (in light of man's will)
How God saves
The Trinity
The Incarnation

Christians are never going to agree on exactly how to explain these, especially the first two. That is why the debate gets so intense and why I try not to get caught up in those debates.