How is Soverinty Defined?

[ReformedBaptist]

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


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


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.


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.

I don't think there can be anything more said on the matter. But I do want to clarify: No, I do not believe the English is inspired. It is a translation. Inspiration deals with the autographs and original languages. My view on the matter is summarized by the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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


Amen, Amen, Amen


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.


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.

Actually, what your maintaining is God in all His fullness is also limiting His knowledge. It can be recognized during the humiliation of the Son of God, but not now. Nor was God the Father limited in His knoweldge when the Son of Man said He did not know the hour. But now the Son of God and Son of Man is glorified with the glory He has with the Father before the world was.

May the Lord bless you as well.

 

[rdwhite]

Actually, what your maintaining is God in all His fullness is also limiting His knowledge. It can be recognized during the humiliation of the Son of God, but not now. Nor was God the Father limited in His knoweldge when the Son of Man said He did not know the hour. But now the Son of God and Son of Man is glorified with the glory He has with the Father before the world was.

May the Lord bless you as well.

Actually what I am maintaining is that he could if he so chose, he can do whatever he wants because he is God and he is sovereign. I agree with the rest of your post.

I never asserted that God does not know future events. I believe that he does, or else there could never be prophesy of futuristic events. None of the prophets could have written their books and John could not have written the book of the Revelation, if God did not have knowledge of future events. The point I was trying to make, was that in certain situations God could choose to limit is knowledge.

In the grand scheme of things it really does not matter. We both believe that God is sovereign, we are just seeing the same God from different perspectives. It may be that I am completely wrong about God limiting his knowledge in certain situations. If I am, I will give account for it, and the Lord will correct me. I am quit sure that on that day, I will receive much correction. My hope is that the longer I live the more I can correct myself, so that on the day of judgment, he will not have so much correcting to do.

What I do not agree with is that knowledge is equivalent to will. Just because God has knowledge of an event before hand does not mean that he desires it to be so. But that may be a topic for a new thread.

Reformer originally asked how we define sovereignty, and my responses have been an attempt at answering that post.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Actually what I am maintaining is that he could if he so chose, he can do whatever he wants because he is God and he is sovereign.

Can God lie?

Edited in: hey brother, I don't mean to keep pressing the issue. I am fine with letting the subject drop.

 

[rdwhite]

I don't think there can be anything more said on the matter. But I do want to clarify: No, I do not believe the English is inspired. It is a translation. Inspiration deals with the autographs and original languages. My view on the matter is summarized by the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy.

Wow, since there are no extant autographs, then there are no extant inspired scriptures, so I guess God failed in his promise to preserve his word. That has got to be frustrating, I don't see how you handle it. I'll just be content to believe the Bible I hold in my hands is God's inspired and preserved words.

Oh well I am glad you corrected your statement. Was that a Freudian slip?

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

 

[rdwhite]

Can God lie?

Edited in: hey brother, I don't mean to keep pressing the issue. I am fine with letting the subject drop.

Well that is kind of a trick question now isn't it. That would violate his nature, besides, the moment he spoke the lie, would make it truth. And round and round the merry-go-round goes.

I do not believe that choosing to "remember no more" would be a violation of his nature. That is his divine choice.

 

[rdwhite]

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

Well, I read a little, skipped a little, and read a little more. Mr. Piper is just rehashing the same old stuff that has been hashed for centuries. But he seems a little confused and conflicted. At times, he makes statements that leads me to believe that he really does not know where he stands on the issue. Then he comes back and takes a stand, and then he doesn't. He should run for public office, would make a great politician.

p.s. politician is not a compliment.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Wow, since there are no extant autographs, then there are no extant inspired scriptures, so I guess God failed in his promise to preserve his word. That has got to be frustrating, I don't see how you handle it. I'll just be content to believe the Bible I hold in my hands is God's inspired and preserved words.

Oh well I am glad you corrected your statement. Was that a Freudian slip?

If KJVO needs to be discussed we should probably do it on another thread. But the radical forms of KJVO I have refuted on my blog. Part 2 is coming.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well that is kind of a trick question now isn't it. That would violate his nature, besides, the moment he spoke the lie, would make it truth. And round and round the merry-go-round goes.

I do not believe that choosing to "remember no more" would be a violation of his nature. That is his divine choice.

So you see the point. In order to maintain your view you have to deny that God's mind is a part of His nature.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well, I read a little, skipped a little, and read a little more. Mr. Piper is just rehashing the same old stuff that has been hashed for centuries. But he seems a little confused and conflicted. At times, he makes statements that leads me to believe that he really does not know where he stands on the issue. Then he comes back and takes a stand, and then he doesn't. He should run for public office, would make a great politician.

p.s. politician is not a compliment.

You ought to re-read his article in full. Perhaps you would not not be so inclinded to speak disparangly against him. But speak as you may. Methinks you have your agenda.

 

[Reformer]

Well, I read a little, skipped a little, and read a little more. Mr. Piper is just rehashing the same old stuff that has been hashed for centuries. But he seems a little confused and conflicted. At times, he makes statements that leads me to believe that he really does not know where he stands on the issue. Then he comes back and takes a stand, and then he doesn't. He should run for public office, would make a great politician.

Well if you didn't read it in it's entirety I can easily see how you could be confussed and therefore accuse him being confused.

Anyway we can definitly agree on thing for sure :laugh:

p.s. politician is not a compliment.