Ravi Zacharius on Sovereignty

[Luke2427]

Agreed. I appreciate Luke's posts. I have much to work on too. But people call him a "troll" when he is Anything but. Certainly, he may have to learn some discernment about the time to be direct and the time it would be more constructive to be gentler in his approach. (I do too). But his overriding concern is to "earnestly contend". He doesn't mince words, nor should he.

Once again, thank you.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke is not a troll in any sense of the word. I notice he lives in the same state I grew up in, although a much different time. Luke is direct, forceful, and sometimes dry. He stands up for what he believes in, and that is a step beyond the wishy washy posts of most.

I will say I agree with Luke about 80% of the time. When I disagree with him, he gives his repsonse in his own direct way, and we leave it at that. However, Luke has never called me a heretic, believer in false doctrine, or unsaved.

There is no reason we cannot disagree, even forcefully sometimes, without the names. If you cannot handle his style or postions on sovereignty or any other doctrine without anger, then debate someone else.

That means more than you know!

Thank you.

It takes a heck of a man to say this about me like you do, because I have been forthright and stinging with you a few times too.

This proves to me that you are a man of principles, because it would be easier to jump on the bandwagon with people I cut to the quick and dismiss me by calling me names.

You have done the opposite and I am deeply moved by your principled character.

 

[saturneptune]

That means more than you know!

Thank you.

It takes a heck of a man to say this about me like you do, because I have been forthright and stinging with you a few times too.

This proves to me that you are a man of principles, because it would be easier to jump on the bandwagon with people I cut to the quick and dismiss me by calling me names.

You have done the opposite and I am deeply moved by your principled character.

Thanks for the kind words. I have been short with others besides you and learn as I go to express myself better. No doubt there are several others I have gotten into back and forths that could have been better expressed, but people on the board are generally forgiving, like Icon and 12strings for example.

 

[Luke2427]

Thanks for the kind words. I have been short with others besides you and learn as I go to express myself better. No doubt there are several others I have gotten into back and forths that could have been better expressed, but people on the board are generally forgiving, like Icon and 12strings for example.

It seems to me that you choose the high road of judging a man based on the merits of arguments not his propensity or lack thereof to politic.

This means that you ought to be able to say to me, "NO!!! You are dead wrong!! How could you be so blind t the truth here!!! Here is why you are wrong...."

And I ought to be able to take it and judge your argument based on its merits.

So many people are so obsessed with everybody's feelings that you can't make any effective arguments on here.

I don't want to know so much whether or not somebody likes me- I want to know if that somebody has a POINT. That's what matters.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

God is good just as God is logical. Both are eternal attributes of God. But your definition of good is the problem.

Good is that which brings glory to God.

Good is not that which makes the most human beings happy.

In order for you and I to discuss this further we need your concrete definition of "good" as it pertains to God.



No, he is both so long as in everything he does he is pursuing his own highest honor and glory.



No it is not. Not in the context of this discussion. This discussion is about air-tightness- whether or not there IS a view which is consistent through and through.




But he chose to create knowing full well the trillions of murders and child molestings and rapings that would take place before he would eventually eradicate evil.

He did not create blindly. This world is the one he always intended to create.

You've got to deal with that and show how your view addresses that problem.

And you don't get to attack the future knowledge of God in so doing- not and remain orthodox.

Skandelon's arguments fell through here. He wanted to pretend mystery so that he could continue to resist Calvinism.

But there is no mystery about how God knows the future. He KNOWS it- precisely as it will unfold.

There is a second problem with your quote above. It is that God did not JUST create the world and then evil come to pass in it.

God SUSTAINS the world- on a molecular level. Nothing moves apart from his power. The very synopses of your brain look every millisecond to God for power and guidance.

God powered the arm that dropped down upon the skull of Able.

This is something your system has to address. God did not JUST create a world knowing EXACTLY how much evil would unfold in it, but God also sustains that world every second.




Nothing that exists was not known about by God forever in the past.

I can conceive of evil before it exists without being evil myself. God certainly can.




This is where you are most wrong, imo. This proves that you define good based, in part, by how God behaves towards sinners.

It has you believing that in order to be good God HAS to be as nice as possible to sinners.

This is very problematic.

The welfare of man is not even PART of what makes God good. Not even part of it.

That he is benevolent towards sinners proves he is gracious but it is not an essential part of his goodness.




That is right.




The problem, brother, is that your system leads to the EXACT same conclusions.

God is willing, more than willing, for billions of people to go to hell in order to achieve an ultimate good.

God is MORE than willing for children to be molested and others starve to death by the millions in order to achieve an ultimate eternal good.

Your system has that exact same problem.

But for me, it is not a problem. That's the only difference. I accept this fact and say, "God, you are the measure. I trust you. Man is not the measure. you know what you are doing. And I recognize that all the suffering that will ever take place from human beings is an infinitesimally small price to pay for the glory that the Trinity will receive forever for having made this very world."

I think this discussion deserves a thread of its own:
I'll create one. http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1970516#post1970516