Sovereign in all ways, at the same time, for all time?

[Skandelon]

God is NOT the one that regulated all men to being spiritually dead and depraved though, that was outr "father" Adam at his fall

When your kid disobeys who is it that determines what his punishment will be? You or your kid?

God indeeds allows/permits man to "do as he wills" its just that being corrupted by the fall,

You make it sound as if "the Fall" has a power of its own or something. Who, besides God, determined the effects of the fall? We both agree that it resulted in men becoming enemies, but now can we find the verse where it teaches that the enemy can't respond to His powerful appeal for reconciliation?

 

[JesusFan]

[

QUOTE=Skandelon;1726280]When your kid disobeys who is it that determines what his punishment will be? You or your kid?

God established the punishment, but stilll was their"free will choice" to sin against God and fall!

Different for us after Adam, as he made a free will choice, and we ALL were ilcluded by God into having now both physical/spiritual death at birth!

You make it sound as if "the Fall" has a power of its own or something. Who, besides God, determined the effects of the fall? We both agree that it resulted in men becoming enemies, but now can we find the verse where it teaches that the enemy can't respond to His powerful appeal for reconciliation?

[/QUOTE]

the fall brought a UNIVERSAl Curse upon ALL creation, including humanity!

yes, would say had "power or something!"
God determined the extent of it effect, and also determined how to eventually reverse/undo it effects, through the death of His Son jesus!

And for "hearing" the message...

per John....

Jesus has the autority/power top raise ALl those whom the father has elected to grant unto Him in "last days"

 

[Skandelon]

God established the punishment, but stilll was their"free will choice" to sin against God and fall!

We agree on this point, assuming you define "free will" as I do. But, where does the bible say that God established the punishment to be total inability to respond to His appeal to be reconciled?

 

[quantumfaith]

The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths.
Ps. 135:6

The problem is when people presume that "whatever God pleases" is equal to their pet dogma.

This is so wise and exceedingly profound.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[JesusFan]

We agree on this point, assuming you define "free will" as I do. But, where does the bible say that God established the punishment to be total inability to respond to His appeal to be reconciled?

per the Apostle paul, when he states that as in Adam ALL men sinned and fell, became "dead: in their sins, so in Christ ALL men made alive again...

I take it as referencing that due to fall of Adam, ALL of us were born inheriting his sin nature, his curse, and were spiritually dead....

 

[Skandelon]

per the Apostle paul, when he states that as in Adam ALL men sinned and fell, became "dead: in their sins, so in Christ ALL men made alive again...

I take it as referencing that due to fall of Adam, ALL of us were born inheriting his sin nature, his curse, and were spiritually dead....

I'm not sure how this answer relates to my question?

 

[JesusFan]

I'm not sure how this answer relates to my question?

Was just saying in a too verbose way that the message to be reconciled to God is given out to all, but only those who have the 'ears to hear" will respond to it and be saved!

 

[Skandelon]

Was just saying in a too verbose way that the message to be reconciled to God is given out to all, but only those who have the 'ears to hear" will respond to it and be saved!

I agree and who are those who don't have ears to hear at the time Christ was here on earth?

Hint, read Acts 28:21-28. Especially look at verse 28 and notice the difference in those who have GROWN calloused to God's revelation and those who are just now receiving it. In summary, it says the Jews have heard and rejected for so long they have grown hardened, otherwise they might hear and be saved, but now the message is being sent to the Gentiles and they will listen. This proves that the nature of man from birth is NOT "deaf, blind and unable to understand." That is a condition of one hardened over time after rebelling. This is why children are typically receptive to the gospel and humble. And why God points out children as being what we must be like to enter his Kingdom.

 

[JesusFan]

I agree and who are those who don't have ears to hear at the time Christ was here on earth?

Hint, read Acts 28:21-28. Especially look at verse 28 and notice the difference in those who have GROWN calloused to God's revelation and those who are just now receiving it. In summary, it says the Jews have heard and rejected for so long they have grown hardened, otherwise they might hear and be saved, but now the message is being sent to the Gentiles and they will listen. This proves that the nature of man from birth is NOT "deaf, blind and unable to understand." That is a condition of one hardened over time after rebelling. This is why children are typically receptive to the gospel and humble. And why God points out children as being what we must be like to enter his Kingdom.

Just proves that we see the result of the fall of Adam in different ways!

You would tend to see us as be marred by it, but that we still have the capacity within us to freely respond to the Gospel, while I\i would tend to see us as being unable to freely respond to God, as we were "killed" by the fall in our spiritual nature, dead in sins and transgressions!


What you see as "judicial hardening" as a special case to Isreal f that time, we would see as all of us in Adam being found in now!

 

[Skandelon]

JF, did you read the verse? What else could that passage possible mean? Why else would Paul contrast the Jews who have "grown calloused" and the Gentiles "who will listen?"

Can you deal with the text? If Paul believed that Israel and the Gentiles were in the same inherent state from birth then what is the point of this passage and many other passages dealing with the hardening of Israel?

 

[12strings]

Here's something else to think about:

Hypothetical situation 1.
God creates (through natural birth) a set of twin boys. Their room is blue. as they grow older, one decides blue is his favorite color. The other has the opposite reaction and decides that he hates the color blue.
-Same environment. What caused the difference?

Options (if you are not an open theist):
1. God gave them Free will, and allowed this area or their lives to be outside his control.
2. Their own Free choices that were driven by their God-created differences.
3. God directly directed their choices by his divine intervention in their lives.
4. (another option?)

Follow-up Question:
If at some point one twin believes the gospel and turns to Jesus, while the other rejects it, would not an arminian have to choose option #1? ...and a calvinist choose option #3? Or is option 2 a possibility?

-I have my opinion, but I'd be interested to hear others?

 

[Skandelon]

12strings,

Can you define what you mean by "free will?" Compatibilistic Calvinists affirm a concept of "freedom" that is much different than that of the libertarian.

 

[12strings]

Yes they do, for option one, I would be refering to the arminian view of free will, in which God has no control over that choice.

More on combatibalist free will later...

 

[Skandelon]

Yes they do, for option one, I would be refering to the arminian view of free will, in which God has no control over that choice.

More on combatibalist free will later...

When you say "no control over" do you mean that He couldn't have prevented or changed that choice if He so chose, because that is not what the 'Arminian' believes. Just checking for clarity...

 

[Skandelon]

Luke's appeal to Augustine, doesn't answer the question I've posed to him on numerous occasions, though he thinks it does.

He refers to Augustines teaching of evil as the "privatio boni ('privation of good'), or that which occurs when a being renounces its proper role in the order and structure of creation."

Augustine's teaching that 'sickness and wounds are nothing but the privation of health', works when it comes to sickness, and may apply to other aspects of life. However, this doesn't answer where evil (or the ability for things to become corrupted), first begin? It tells us the condition of a person who does evil, but it doesn't tell us how and where the evil intent originates. Who first thought of the idea to molest a child, for example? There had to be a first time, right? Where did that intent originate and how?

Augustine does indeed provide an answer to that question, but his views of privation only address apart of the answer. So, what does Augustine teach?

"Well as far as Augustine is concerned, evil entered the world as a result of the wrong choices of free beings (free in the sense that there was no external force necessitating them to do wrong). In other words, corruption occurred as a result of freewill."

Now, this view of freewill may be argued to be more in line with the "compatibilistic" model of freedom (but that is in question) which is defined as, "someone is free if they are acting in accordance with their desire/intent." In other words, the compatiblists thinks someone is FREE if that someone is doing what they want. But, notice the KEY point left out by the compatiblists? What is the ORIGEN of the intent which makes the agent WANT to do what they end up doing?

So, once again the question remains. Who originated the intent to molest? Did God think of it first, like an author of a book does and write it into the nature of His made up characters? Or did the idea originate in the free moral agent?

Don't expect an answer to this question anytime soon because to do so forces the Calvinist to either admit God is the author of evil or that man is able to originate an intent (thus validating the concept of libertarian freewill, which Augustine appears to do at times in his writings.)

Looks like I was right about not expecting an answer to this question anytime soon...

 

[12strings]

Here are a few points on the compatibility of free will and God's sovereignty:

1. Most on this board would believe that the scriptures are inspired by God, and that when they were moved by the Holy spirit, they wrote exactly what God wanted them to write. However, their personalities come through in their writings, and it is not all simply dictation. The person wrote exactly what they wanted (willed, chose) to write. If God had given them complete free will, then he got very lucky that the bible came out all right.

2. Joseph, after being sold by his brothers into slavery said, "So it was not you who sent me here, but God." Joseph's brothers sinfully acted and did exactly what they wanted to do, but Joseph said it was God who did it. (He did not say, you sent me here because of your jealousy and then God made something good out of it). God acted, using people's free sinful actions, to bring about his will.

3. When Satan took away Job's family and wealth, he said, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord." The passage goes on to say that "Job did not sin with his lips."
SO...it is NOT a sin to say that when Satan does something, it is actually God who did it.

4. Who Killed Jesus, God, or godless men? (insert your own answer)

The Combatibalist view of free will states that men will do exactly what they most desire to do, but that God ordains that those actions work toward ultimate good. As Joseph said, "You meant it for evil, God meant it for good."


-Andy

 

[12strings]

To the previous question,

no, i'm not saying God couldn't affect that choice, but that God decided not to. I believe that would be the arminian position, that God could have made a world full of people that he controlled absolutly, but simply decided not to.

-andy

 

[12strings]

One more point,

throughout the Old testament you see God repeatedly doing 2 things:

1. Ordaining that wicked, foreign nations come and oppress and plunder Israel.

2. Pronouncing judgement on those same nations for their wicked actions against God's chosen people.

-What gives?

 

[Skandelon]

Here are a few points on the compatibility of free will and God's sovereignty:

1. Most on this board would believe that the scriptures are inspired by God, and that when they were moved by the Holy spirit, they wrote exactly what God wanted them to write. However, their personalities come through in their writings, and it is not all simply dictation. The person wrote exactly what they wanted (willed, chose) to write. If God had given them complete free will, then he got very lucky that the bible came out all right.....

4. Who Killed Jesus, God, or godless men? (insert your own answer)

The Combatibalist view of free will states...

What you seem to not fully understand or recognize is that Libertarians don't deny that God does at times throughout history intervened to effectuate His desired outcome. And that He may do so through causally determined means such as a Compatabilist might describe (i.e. the use of appointed circumstances, sinful agents, second causes and the like). But those are unique examples of God's positive agency as he actively intervenes to DO something. That is what uniquely makes the scripture "divinely inspired" after all. If God causally determines all things in like manner then what is "divine" about the inspiration of scripture? How is scripture effectuated by God any differently than other Christian books if indeed God has actively determined all things in like manner? Such a view only undermines the uniqueness of God's ACTIVE work and inspiration.

So, while Libertarians might agree that God DID actively intervene to ensure the crucifixion of his Son (through second causes as a Compatibist would describe) in order to bring about the redemption of mankind, that in no way proves or even implies He likewise actively intervenes to ensure the molestation of a five year old girl as just one example. Looking to one divine example of intervention doesn't prove universal divine intervention in all matters, otherwise what is uniquely divine about the redemption? Same goes with the other examples of "divine intervention" you have mentioned.

It is most certainly justifiable for God to actively intervene to ensure redemption (while doing so through second causes etc to ensure his holiness isn't compromised), but to PRESUME that justifies and proves that God likewise brings about every sinful deed in a similar manner is baseless and completely unbiblical. God doesn't even TEMPT men to sin, yet this Calvinistic system has God not only casually determining the tempter, but actively determining the nature of the one tempted so that when he sins he could not willingly do otherwise.

 

[12strings]

What you seem to not fully understand or recognize is that Libertarians don't deny that God does at times throughout history intervened to effectuate His desired outcome.

-You are correct that I did not think that through very well. Given that scripture could simply be a unique act in which God acted specifically to ensure his perfect word, that example might not be very helpful at all.

It is most certainly justifiable for God to actively intervene to ensure redemption (while doing so through second causes etc to ensure his holiness isn't compromised), but to PRESUME that justifies and proves that God likewise brings about every sinful deed in a similar manner is baseless and completely unbiblical.

-I don't believe it is unbiblical to say that God is active in every event in history, because through scriptures this is the way God works: He brings about his good ends through secondary causes that include sinful actions by people who are responsible for those actions.
"Does disaster come to a city, unless the Lord has done it?" (Amos 3:6)
"I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things." (Is. 45:7)

...Those are unique examples of God's positive agency as he actively intervenes to DO something.

-So are you saying that in the normal course of human activity, God is NOT DOING something?

So, while Libertarians might agree that God DID actively intervene to ensure the crucifixion of his Son (through second causes as a Compatibist would describe) in order to bring about the redemption of mankind, that in no way proves or even implies He likewise actively intervenes to ensure the molestation of a five year old girl as just one example.

-So would a Libertarian say that the child molester is MORE responsible for his sin than the people who crucified Jesus?
-Also, this question makes it sound like it is easier to accept that God brought about the murder of his son than it is to accept that God brought about the molestation of a child.

Lastly, I think at the very least, if you accept an omnipotent, omniscient, good God...You have to say that, at the very least, God looked down through history and saw child molesters, Brothers who betrayed their siblings, nations that warred against each other, and a Satan who would kill Job's children...and determined for some Good purpose to go ahead and create such a world, rather than create the world in some different way in which some or all of theses sufferings would not exist. (The sometimes given answer is that he wanted people who would choose him willingly, not robots... but given the suffering in the world, is it worth it?)

I don't see how that view is any more biblical or comforting than the alternative that God has a sovereign plan for all of this suffering that will turn out for more good in the end, and more glory for himself, than some sinless other world.

-Andy,