-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is there really a conflict between Freedom and Sovereignty, if rightly defined?
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
Who's trying to explain that?
I don't care if that is the case.
What I do care about is the fact that the only God who is, is the One whose power moves all things and holds all things together. That the only God who is, is the One who has always known all there is to ever know about everything including EXACTLY what future would unfold. That the God who ACTUALLY is, as opposed to the god that men WISHED existed, has a purpose for every single thing that ever transpires in his universe- even the individual decisions men make.
If that means to you that men are puppets or whatever- I could not care less.
I am more concerned with what God really is than exalting man.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
It didn't?
Oh, let me try again, "God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise..." 1 Cor. 1:27
Luke's Response, "God doesn't make choices."
Hmmm, the bible says that God chose and Luke says that God doesn't choose....weird.
psalms109:31
Active Member
Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
do·min·ion (d-mnyn)
n.
1. Control or the exercise of control; sovereignty: "The devil . . . has their souls in his possession, and under his dominion" (Jonathan Edwards).
2. A territory or sphere of influence or control; a realm.
3. often Dominion Abbr. Dom. One of the self-governing nations within the British Commonwealth.
I do believe God did give a dominion within the realm God created. I just can't jump off a cliff and fly all by my self, because God created gravity. What comes up most come down.
I for one am not a free willer, because we can't just do anything we want we have limitations God created; nor do i believe in a free moral agency, we do not always choose the good.
What i do believe is we are a free agency, when God places life and death before us that is a real choice, not an illusion that God has no problem given us dominion within what God places us in.
It does not make man their own god or above God, because we do not live or die by our choice, but by what the word of God say's.
Their is no conflict within the freedom God Himself placed us in and the sovereignty of God.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
do·min·ion (d-mnyn)
n.
1. Control or the exercise of control; sovereignty: "The devil . . . has their souls in his possession, and under his dominion" (Jonathan Edwards).
2. A territory or sphere of influence or control; a realm.
3. often Dominion Abbr. Dom. One of the self-governing nations within the British Commonwealth.
I do believe God did give a dominion within the realm God created. I just can't jump off a cliff and fly all by my self, because God created gravity. What comes up most come down.
I for one am not a free willer, because we can't just do anything we want we have limitations God created; nor do i believe in a free moral agency, we do not always choose the good.
What i do believe is we are a free agency, when God places life and death before us that is a real choice, not an illusion that God has no problem given us dominion within what God places us in.
It does not make man their own god or above God, because we do not live or die by our choice, but by what the word of God say's.
Their is no conflict within the freedom God Himself placed us in and the sovereignty of God.
Last edited by a moderator:
DrJamesAch
New Member
as predicted...
dosie doe...
clear anthropomorphism.
To take a clear bible teaching and doctrine like the omniscience of God and molest it with an obscure reference like this is terrible hermeneutics.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
All I have to do is quote scripture verbatim and you get all worked up... :saint:
Bottom line is that the scripture says that God makes choices and you deny that he makes choices, period. Own it.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Luke, if God chose to reveal himself 'anthropomorphically' (i.e. making choices) what is wrong with understanding and believing God by those same terms (i.e. that he actually makes choices)?
Do you really think we are going to get to heaven and God is going to scold me for believing that he made choices? You do realize that 98% of the world population doesn't even know what anthropomorphic language is? Do you really think God is expecting us to figure that one out, or could it be that he is fine with us understanding him by the terms He has chosen to reveal Himself?
Do you really think he needs you going around explaining what he REALLY meant? After all, he could have had someone as smart as you just write it down to begin with, couldn't He?
Do you really think we are going to get to heaven and God is going to scold me for believing that he made choices? You do realize that 98% of the world population doesn't even know what anthropomorphic language is? Do you really think God is expecting us to figure that one out, or could it be that he is fine with us understanding him by the terms He has chosen to reveal Himself?
Do you really think he needs you going around explaining what he REALLY meant? After all, he could have had someone as smart as you just write it down to begin with, couldn't He?
convicted1
Guest
Agree that that is the result,:thumbs: I put it like this in another thread:
...disregards that those chosen were chosen “in" the Lord Christ, -our Mediator is plainly in view, but you attempt to reduce the Mediator from a Righteous Judge to a preprogrammed puppet to serve your Determinist doctrines.
convicted1
Guest
I understand what you're trying to convey here, but let's take a look at how choices are made, in regards to salvation.
Jesus told a parable that we have all come to know as the "Good Samaritan". He came up to a man who had been beaten and left half-dead. What did he do? Did he ask this man, "May I pick you up, place you on my beast, take you to the inn, pay you room and board"? Or did he simply pick him up and take him to the inn? That is what God does for His children. We were in a dead state of sin, and were unable to make a choice for Christ unless He first unshackled us from the bondage of sin we were in. Then, and only then, were we able to respond to Him in faith, which He gave to us to begin with.
Then, let us examine Jonah for a moment. Did he really have a choice to go to Ninevah? When he rebelled, God had him put inside a whale's belly, which, in turn, caused him to repent, and after being reguritated, he went to Ninevah and preached. He did what God told him to do.
Then, Lazarus, when Jesus raised him from the dead. Did he have a choice?
How about the man with the withered hand? Jesus told him to stand forth, and then told him to extend his withered hand. He didn't ask him if it was okay for Him to do, but do it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Scripture says God has tons of eyes all over his head too.
Scripture says God forgets.
But only a moron would say, "See!! Scripture says God has a bunch of eyes and a flawed memory!!! I got SCRIPTURE for that!!"
What are these terms for if not to help us understand His Nature? Seems a moron would envision God with a bunch of eyes all over His head as the only alternative meaning of that scripture. But a rational person might take it to actually have some meaning such as God sees everything all at once.
A rational person might see God choosing the foolish things in the world to shame the wise to demonstrate that He is managing things in the world(Providentially Sovereign), that His nature is that He can use simple things to influence people who think they are wise and shame them into possibly having different response or feelings about an issue as an ongoing agenda to fulfill His purposes. (toward volitional creatures, of course
)What are these terms for if not to help us understand His Nature? Seems a moron would envision God with a bunch of eyes all over His head as the only alternative meaning of that scripture. But a rational person might take it to actually have some meaning such as God sees everything all at once.
A rational person might see God choosing the foolish things in the world to shame the wise to demonstrate that He is managing things in the world(Providentially Sovereign), that His nature is that He can use simple things to influence people who think they are wise and shame them into possibly having different response or feelings about an issue as an ongoing agenda to fulfill His purposes. (toward volitional creatures, of course
That's the point. Only a moron would demand that every passage about God be taken literally. A ten year old can easily understand that passages about God forgetting or God pondering an answer are not to be taken literally.
The only reason anyone would try to force such passages to be literal is if he has an agenda- a pet doctrine he desperately needs to proof text.
Since scripture clearly teaches that God knows all things including exactly what future will unfold, the open theist is forced to snatch obscure texts out of context and force absolute literal interpretations on them when they clearly are not literal.
It's sad really.
Well, you assuming either literal or for a "pet doctrine", so then it must be your pet doctrine to follow that you try to force the passage into, correct? IOWs your pet doctrine is if God knows all things then He can't make a move to change things that He already predetermined, therefore you fit the "desperately" needed interpretation into a certain presumed view to fit your proof-text to come. Your fingers are pointing right back at you...
Last edited by a moderator:
Willis, it is assumed the injured and half dead man would want help. Any person in this situation would desire help whether they could express it or not.
And note that the man is described as "half dead", not completely dead.
Actually, Jonah had a choice and made it, he refused to obey the Lord and tried to run away. In this instance, God overrode his free will choice and put pressure on Jonah to go to Nineveh. Still, Jonah had to obey, he had to choose to go. God did not literally pick him up and place him in Nineveh.
Lazarus had already made his choice when he was alive, he was a believer. Any person who trusts Jesus has decided they desire to live.
You must remember, Jesus was healing folks by the hundreds and thousands, great crowds followed him. It is fairly safe to assume this man had heard of Jesus and the miracles he had performed. Of course he would obey and stretch out his hand when Jesus commanded, why would he not?
God does not force himself on people Willis. In many accounts folks clearly begged Jesus to help them.
Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
This woman absolutely desired Jesus's help. The Lord actually ignored and refused her request three times to test her faith. She had faith in God's mercy and believed if she persisted that Jesus could be entreated. She was correct, and Jesus healed her daughter.
So, you have many examples of people approaching Jesus and asking for his help in scripture. People can choose to be saved or healed, Total Inability is a false doctrine.
convicted1
Guest
Brother Winman, it's not good to assume this man wanted help, being half-dead. Assumptions have led to a myriad of false doctrines, imo. He may have been unconscious, for all we know. The only thing that this parable shows is that the "Good Samaritan" picked up a man, who was unable to pick himself up, btw, and placed him on his beast, w/o seeking permission to do so. We, when we were sinners, were unable to ask for help w/o assistance from Him. We loved sin too much, and if given the chance to respond, by ourslef w/o His help, would choose sin each and every time. That's why Jesus came and picked us up, because we couldn't do it ourself. We were in bondage to, and by sin, and He came and broke that yoke from us, because we couldn't and wouldn't break it ourself.
Nope. If he truly had a choice, he would not have went to Ninevah to begin with. He got on that ship to try to get away from what God commanded him to do. God prepared a great fish for him, and after three days and nights in a whale's belly, he repented and did what God commanded him to do to start with. He had no other choice than to preach to them in Ninevah.
Lazarus, being in the tomb, was blinded and binded. These are two characteristics of being dead in sin. When Jesus called him out of the tomb, Jesus told them to turn him loose and let him go. Also, they took the veil off of his face. All of this is a picture of what God does for His children at the point of salvation.
Remember this; Jesus told him to stand forth, and then after perusing the crowd, told him to stretch forth his hand. He didn't ask him to do either, He told him to do it.
I agree that God doesn't force Himself on anyone. He changes their will, their "want to", so that they want to serve Him. That's how it was with me. He changed my desire of loving myself and loving Him. I am thankful, because w/o Him doing that, I would still be a sinner.
Jer. 31:18 ¶ I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself [thus]; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed [to the yoke]: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou [art] the LORD my God.
When God turns someone, they're turned......
Brother Willis, this is a very good point. We love sin too much. Not only does the sinner love sin, he serves sin.
Ephesians 2:2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,
And not only does the sinner serve sin, the sinner is a slave to sin.
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin".
Romans 6:20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
And once were we until we were washed in the blood of the Lamb and transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light.
1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.
DrJamesAch
New Member
Although this is switching the gears of the argument slightly, I'll just say it is not wise to see a Deterministic view of inability in every parable of the Bible. It causes one to miss the greater points of the parable.
The Good Samaritan wasn't picking up a dead man, he may have been beaten and bruised but He wasn't dead. I have numerous examples of people that have refused medical treatment. The injured man certainly could have refused help.
The parable was about an example of who is our neighbor, and was given to demonstrate how MEN should act towards others, not how God acts in salvation. Moreover, the Good Samaritan hadn't paid ALL OF HIS DEBT, because there was a potential for more to be paid,
"and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee"
Had this been intended to be a model for salvation, the man's debt would have been paid in full.
Yes, Jonah still had a choice. Of course in this situation it was definitely more of a Hobson's Choice LOL, but Johah's example still is not an appropriate one for evaluation salvation. There are consequences for disobedience to God. Jonah was a prophet, so preaching to others what already what was expected of him. God was chastising Jonah for his disobedience, not trying to demonstrate salvation by a person who was ALREADY ELECTED. Jonah did freely rebel at the risk of putting others at harm and freely offered himself up to avoid the judgment being inflicted on the men of the boat. This was an illustration of God being merciful to all men by the willing sacrifice of a man to spare the lives of others which is why Jesus used it as an example of His death burial and resurrection in the NT. (And I believe Jonah died in that fish, but that's another story!)
Lazarus was already saved before he died. Plus, you are equating spiritual death with physical death. Physically dead man can't sin so if being spiritually dead is going to be equated with physical death, then one needs to follow the same standards. Thus if spiritual is comparable to physical death, and a physically dead person can't sin, then a spiritually dead person has nothing to be saved from because he's done nothing wrong.
Yet notice that the raising of Lazarus was at the request of his sisters. Jesus wasn't predisposed to raise Lazarus from the dead which would be important to the Calvinist system if this verse were to be a demonstration of salvation.
This was more of a demonstration about Christ's own ability to conquer death, and a picture of the resurrection of just saints and the rapture.
The man with the withered hand sought out Christ for healing. That's why he went to the synagogue in the first place. In Mark 3 he tells the man to "stand forth". Thus the man in Mark 3 had a choice as to whether to stand forth or not. In verse 5 he was also given the choice to stretch out his hand. If the Calvinist interpretation were correct, and this verse was analogous to salvation, Christ wouldn't require any part of the man's actions to be healed, He would have simply healed him without telling the man to stretch forth his hand.
When Adam was "dead in sin" he not only heard the voice of God but responded to him. Genesis 3:9
In John 6:36, Jesus told those who were dead in sin, 'ye SEE ME, and believe not".
Romans 1 says:
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"
And then in Romans 2:14-15 "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: , which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another". Calvinists often resort to 1 Cor 2:14 "for the natural man understand not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them for they are spiritually discerned". This chapter followed Paul's rebuke of human wisdom in chapter one, and was showing that the natural man does not have the market cornered on knowing the things of God that He reveals to His children as they continue to progress in their walk with Him. Eph 3:19, Phil 3:11-13. It is not a reference that demonstrates man has no idea of the consequences of rejecting Christ, or the ability to understand that sin separates Him from God and only the cross can bridge that gap. That is what marks the clear distinction between Romans 1-2 and 1 Corinthians 2.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status