Sovereignty of God???

[Aki]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Q. What is the WORST THING man has ever done?

A. Killed the Son of God.

Was EVEN THAT awful thing planned and determined by a Sovereign God? First NT sermon (acts 2) of the church said . .

i'd say disobeyed God. was Adam's disobedience planned and determined by a Sovereign God? if yes, then God is the author of sin. if no, then God is not sovereign.

Q. so which is which?
A. Nothing.

God gave volition, and in His foreknowledge knew what man will choose. God in His sovereignty decided to let man choose for his own.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
"All things" is the operative phrase. That means nothing is left out of his control, nothing, nothing, nothing.

There is nothing that works apart from his sovereign control.

Pastor, how do you reconcile what you wrote there with what the next phrase (this is a serious question)?

I do believe in freedom. I believe that man is completely free to do whatever he wants to do. It is the same as it is with God. Just as God can be free without being able to do everything, so man can be. He, like God, is free to do anything in accordance with his nature.

But how can man be free to do whatever he wants to do, if NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING is out of God's control? How can man be anything other than a robot? For if man does something, well, that is someTHING. And as you said, "noTHING, noTHING, noTHING" is out of God's control. Even sins are "things". So does God control them? Did God control Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (that was certianly a "thing"!) If so, he is the author of sin. If not, there are someTHINGS which he does not control. And besides, if everyTHING is within God's control, then the only THING man can do is that which God causes. How is this "freedom" in any way, shape or form? How is this "FREE will?"

 

[Bartholomew]

Oops! I didn't realise there was a "page 2", so have just repeated some points made by others. Still, I think they're vaild (and also not answered properly).

 

[superdave]

Did God control Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (that was certianly a "thing"!) If so, he is the author of sin. If not, there are someTHINGS which he does not control. And besides, if everyTHING is within God's control, then the only THING man can do is that which God causes.

I think the fall is pretty clear if you study the attributes of God and little else.

God decreed the fall or he would not be Sovereign, in a way that he is not responsible or he would cease to be holy. I can't wrap my finite brain around that, but when experience collides with theology, clearly, you stick with your theology

My above post also addressed this issue

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
Did God control Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (that was certianly a "thing"!)

In my opinion, no God did not control Adam. God did, however, create Adam and Eve without enough of whatever would have been necessary to be faithful and obedient even in the face of temptation. Clearly, we know it is not impossible for God to make us that way, because Jesus is that way, and that's what we'll be like in heaven.

So while God did not "control" Adam and force him to sin, God did knowingly set up a situation where Adam and Eve would be tempted into sin and bring about the fall.

Why would God do something like this?

Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

You conclude...

If so, he is the author of sin. If not, there are someTHINGS which he does not control.

That's a false dichotomy, since it assumes that it has to be one or the other and there is no third (or fouth, or fifth....) option.

God is the ultimate cause of sin, in that God is the ultimate cause of everything --- nothing would happen if it were not for God, and since God foreknows everything, nothing happens without His permission. But God is not the author of sin, in the sense that God actually made Adam sin against his will or manipulated Adam like a puppet with no will at all.

And besides, if everyTHING is within God's control, then the only THING man can do is that which God causes.

This is correct, although I would add "or permits". The only thing man can do is that which God causes or permits. But that is not the same thing as "the only thing man can do is that which God forces man to do against man's will". It is also not the same thing as "therefore man has no will, and God simply manipulates man like a puppet."

 

[Artimaeus]

It seems that it boils down to two choices.

"A" God directly controls everything.
"B" God doesn't directly control everything.

With "A" there is no room for hedging. Everything is in the direct will of God. He decides beforehand how everything is going to work and then activly arranges everything to work exactly in the minutest details the way He wants.

With "B" there is room for every other scenerio imaginable.
B(1) God CAN do anything but chooses to not interfer with man's free will. OR:
B(2) God chooses the destination and allows man free will to decide among paths leading to that destination. OR:
B(3) _____________ (fill in the blank with other possibilities)

I started this thread to discover if the commonly accepted definition for "Sovereignty of God was "A" or NOT "A".

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Artimaeus:
With "A" there is no room for hedging. Everything is in the direct will of God. He decides beforehand how everything is going to work and then activly arranges everything to work exactly in the minutest details the way He wants.

I don't know what you mean by hedging, but there is plenty of room for wills other than God's will in "A". Depending on how one defines free will, there is even room for free will in "A".

At the risk of diverting the discussion to an analogy, here's one. You may choose of your own "free will" to wear a green shirt today. God foreknows that choice and may take any of many different actions. He can change the circumstances of your life so that you are more inclined to wear blue. He may outright deny you the ability to make the choice. He may let you make the choice but deny you the ability to follow through. He may permit the choice, and/or permit you to follow through. In the end, whether or not you choose to wear a green shirt is still your own decision, but it is nevertheless in the direct will of God.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by npetreley:
You may choose of your own "free will" to wear a green shirt today. God foreknows that choice...

I see it a little different than that. I don't think God "foreknows" in the normal sense of the word. Technically, foreknowledge actually puts a limit on God, the limit being that he's moving through time like the rest of us, and just happens to know what will happen in the future. I believe that although God deals with us within the realm of "time", God himself is above time (for it is part of creation). So God "foreknows", not because he simple knows the future, but because he exists at the future, and every point in the future and past. He knows you'll put a green shirt on because he's already at the point in time where you're wearing it.

Mind bender.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by BrianT:
I see it a little different than that. I don't think God "foreknows" in the normal sense of the word.

I agree 100%, I just didn't want to complicate an issue that is already difficult to grasp!

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by superdave:
God decreed the fall or he would not be Sovereign, in a way that he is not responsible or he would cease to be holy. I can't wrap my finite brain around that, but when experience collides with theology, clearly, you stick with your theology

But Dave, it's not about "experience", but about simple logic. This is something I've noticed recently about Calvinism: its whole existence RELIES upon logic (e.g. the "limited atonement" idea, which although logical within Calvinist theology, is not taught in scripture); and yet, it CANNOT allow logical argument to go to its logical conclusion, because otherwise Calvinism would be no more. Statements such as yours seem (to me at least) to prove that your position is illogical. I would remind you that NO real argument can proceed without logic; indeed, Paul often looks at OT passages and shows what they mean by using logic AS WELL AS what the passage explicitly says in order to derive doctrine from it. As Artimaeus pointed out so well, you have only two LOGICAL options. If God controls ALL things, he is the author of sin (for sin is a "thing"). Believe that if you like, but that will only prove Calvinism is not Biblical. This discussion is cementing my Arminianism more and more...

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by npetreley:
In my opinion, no God did not control Adam. God did, however, create Adam and Eve without enough of whatever would have been necessary to be faithful and obedient even in the face of temptation.

I have no problem with this position!

However, you must realize that this is not the "soverignty of God" aspoused by the likes of Pastor Larry and other Calvinists. As the Pastor said, "NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING" is out of God's control. So either God is "sovereign" (as Calvinists use the term), which means he DID make Adam sin; or he is not.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If so, he is the author of sin. If not, there are someTHINGS which he does not control.

That's a false dichotomy, since it assumes that it has to be one or the other and there is no third (or fouth, or fifth....) option.</font>[/QUOTE]But there can be NO other option! Either God CONTROLS people to make them sin, or there are some things he doesn't contol. There is NO other option!

The only thing man can do is that which God causes or permits. But that is not the same thing as "the only thing man can do is that which God forces man to do against man's will". It is also not the same thing as "therefore man has no will, and God simply manipulates man like a puppet."

Quite - and I agree. The problem is that Calvinism says that ALL THINGS are controlled by God. THAT would make him the author of sin, and take away any free will from man. However, if there are some things God DOESN'T control, but only ALLOWS, then we have no problem. I *think* this is what they call "Arminianism". Welcome to the fold!

 

[superdave]

God is the author of sin, in the sense that he is in complete control of all things, that would seem to be the definition of sovereignty. The rub is that he is not held responsible for things in the same manner as a finite being. We are held responsible for our decisions and actions even though they were ultimately decreed by God. Is that just? Of course, since God is the definition of justice! How can God allow sinners into holy heaven? Because Jesus is the justifier of the sinner.

BTW, I refer to myself as a calvinist, but I do not hold as tightly to Limited Atonement as the other points mainly because I agree with you that it is more a logical outgrowth of the rest of the points rather than a fully scripturally developed theological truth. Clearly not all men will be saved, and since Predestination is clearly taught as a work of God, Those who accept are forordained to walk in Christ, they are already chosen. Which flows nicely into my other comment about foreknowlege

Look at all the verses using the word foreknowlege, it is always God knows people not things. "Those he did forknow" God has intimate knowlege of those who are his children, and has had such knowlege before the foundations of the world. It is also tied to predestination. "Those he did foreknow, he also did predestinate" God knows because he chose. "The Lord knoweth them that are his" It is never in reference to God just knowing who will accept, but truly knowing those who will accept if you catch the difference. It is not intellectual in nature, it is more Biblical in the sense of being an intimate personal knowlege of those who are called.

Also interesting that we are not merely called to salvation but to sanctification, which is also the work of God. "Those he did foreknow, he also did predestinate, to be conformed to the image of his Son" This speaks directly to the Perseverance of the saints. I cannot "fall away" if I am truly among the elect of God. I may profess and never possess, but never truly possess and than turn away.

Doesn't even take any logic there, you just have to be able to read

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
I have no problem with this position!

However, you must realize that this is not the "soverignty of God" aspoused by the likes of Pastor Larry and other Calvinists. As the Pastor said, "NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING" is out of God's control. So either God is "sovereign" (as Calvinists use the term), which means he DID make Adam sin; or he is not.

But I am saying basically the same thing as Pastor Larry in that respect. God didn't make Adam sin in the "puppet" sense, but God essentially guaranteed that Adam would sin and bring about the fall. Or are you suggesting that Adam's sin was a surprise to God? That God didn't know who the antagonist in the sinful act would be? That God didn't deliberately allow satan into the garden knowing what he would do, and how Adam and Eve would respond?

I could go on -- obviously God knew all these things and set them in motion to happen the way He knew the events would occur. Therefore, although God did not force Adam to sin by "pulling the strings of brainless puppets", nevertheless God was both ultimately and deliberately behind the whole thing.

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
But there can be NO other option! Either God CONTROLS people to make them sin, or there are some things he doesn't contol. There is NO other option!

True, either God is in control or He isn't, but your wording implies that God controls them to make them sin as in manipulating them like mindless puppets. That's not at all what I'm saying. God is in TOTAL control when He manipulates CIRCUMSTANCES such that people will do exactly what he foreknows and intends them to do. That's still total control, but it isn't controlling people like mindless puppets.

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
Quite - and I agree. The problem is that Calvinism says that ALL THINGS are controlled by God. THAT would make him the author of sin, and take away any free will from man. However, if there are some things God DOESN'T control, but only ALLOWS, then we have no problem. I *think* this is what they call "Arminianism". Welcome to the fold!

Now you're really splitting hairs. I can steer my car to the right, or if my car tends to pull to the right I can also let go of the wheel and allow it to go to the right. Either way, I am in total control of where the car goes, since I know exactly what it will do whether I manually turn the wheel or let go and let the wheel turn itself. (Please don't take the analogy too far -- I know that it's insufficient since there are potholes, etc., but you get the idea.)

IMO, it is a game of semantics to say that this means God is the author of sin. In one respect, God certainly is the author of sin. Sin only exists because God's creation is not equipped to be in perfect alignment with God -- and God is the ONLY one responsible for the capabilities of His creation.

So God is ultimately responsible for sin? I have no problem with that. Personally, I don't see why anyone else does. God has the right to create a creature with a will that does not align itself with God, and then hold that creature responsible for its pre-determined actions. He is God, after all.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by npetreley:
So God is ultimately responsible for sin? I have no problem with that. Personally, I don't see why anyone else does. God has the right to create a creature with a will that does not align itself with God, and then hold that creature responsible for its pre-determined actions. He is God, after all.

But is that just? Is it just for God to hold someone responsible for something God himself is "ultimately responsible" for?

If I made my son do something bad, and then punish him for it, who is really in the wrong?

 

[russell55]

But is that just? Is it just for God to hold someone responsible for something God himself is "ultimately responsible" for?

I think that responsible is a word we really can't use in regards to God. That word implies that there is something higher to be held responsible to, that there is some sort of standard outside of God that we can hold him accountable to. What God does is right because He does it, and if God set things up the way npetreley describes, then that was the completly, perfectly, most right way to do things.

If I made my son do something bad, and then punish him for it, who is really in the wrong?

But in the circumstances described, God didn't MAKE Adam do something bad. He set things up so that Adam inevitably (but not necessarily) gave into the temptation.

As I see it, to deny that requires chucking either God's omniscience (or timelessness, as you like to think of it), His infinite power, or His constant interest in the affairs of His creation.

One more thing: Won't the final results of all this--a race of redeemed human beings who will really understand in every fiber of their being how far their God will go to save them, who will forever freely love and praise Him because of what He has done for them--be better than if things had forever stayed just the way they were in the G of E?

[ June 13, 2003, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by russell55:
He set things up so that Adam inevitably (but not necessarily) gave into the temptation.

Why "not necessarily"? It seems to me that it would be quite necessarily, i.e. Adam had no option.

As I see it, to deny that requires chucking either God's omniscience (or timelessness, as you like to think of it), His infinite power, or His constant interest in the affairs of His creation.

Yes, but as I see it, to *not* deny that requires chucking our own will. Thus the tension, the unexplainable.

What choice do I have but to do what God already predestined? Very early in this thread, Pastor Larry said absolute sovereignty brought dramatic change to him when he finally submitted to it. I honestly don't understand how he "submitted" to it, if it was predetermined that he "submit" at that point. And what of those that disagree with him, and don't submit: are they then also not submitting because it is God's will that they *not* sumbit? God desires someone to remain in error, makes it inevitable, and then punishes them for it?

This is not a flippant question: Why should I not simply do whatever I "want"? I've asked this before in an "eternal security" thread, and was told "God wants you to obey him, that should be reason enough", but this sovereignty perspective adds a new spin to the question: If I disobey God, is that not because ultimately it was God's will that I disobey him?

One more thing: Won't the final results of all this--a race of redeemed human beings who will really understand in every fiber of their being how far their God will go to save them, who will forever freely love and praise Him because of what He has done for them--be better than if things had forever stayed just the way they were in the G of E?

Actually, I'm not sure it would be better. Are you not describing happy robots (who have forgotten the millions of other robots destroyed through inevitability)?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by BrianT:
But is that just? Is it just for God to hold someone responsible for something God himself is "ultimately responsible" for?

Yes, it must be just because God is just, and God did it.

Originally posted by BrianT:
If I made my son do something bad, and then punish him for it, who is really in the wrong?

It depends. Let's say the sin is eating a candy bar before dinner. If you grab his hands and force him to unwrap the candy bar and then manipulate his hands to put it in his mouth, then you're at fault.

But suppose you told your son to wait until after dinner to eat the candy, and want to teach your son a valuable lesson about the consequences of disobedience. In order to accomplish this purpose, you give the candy bar to satan, who you know without a doubt will leave the candy bar on the kitchen table in order to tempt your son. You also know full well that your son will give in to the temptation.

You orchestrate all this because you know exactly what the consequences will be, and you know exactly how you will deal with it, and you know exactly what the beneficial long-term outcome will be. None of it would happen unless you orchestrated it, so you are the ultimate cause, and in TOTAL control over every detail. Nevertheless, your son is still responsible for taking the candy when he knows he should wait until after dinner.

That's why there's a HUGE difference between total control as in "pulling the strings of mindless puppets" and total control as in "orchestrating history through a variety of means".

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by russell55:
He set things up so that Adam inevitably (but not necessarily) gave into the temptation.

Why "not necessarily"? It seems to me that it would be quite necessarily, i.e. Adam had no option.</font>[/QUOTE]Personally, I woudl disagree with russell55 and agree Adam had no other option.

Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As I see it, to deny that requires chucking either God's omniscience (or timelessness, as you like to think of it), His infinite power, or His constant interest in the affairs of His creation.

Yes, but as I see it, to *not* deny that requires chucking our own will. Thus the tension, the unexplainable.</font>[/QUOTE]I see this as the problem, too, but not exactly as you have described it. It does not require that we chuck our own will -- it requires that we chuck the concept that our will is totally free.

IMO, the tension is not between God's omniscience /omnipotence and man's "free" will -- it is between God's omniscience/omnipotence and man's pride.

Originally posted by BrianT:
What choice do I have but to do what God already predestined?

You make your own choices, but since they are predestined, those are the only choices you will want to make. We can explore that if you want, but let me help you jump ahead to the next logical question: "If my choices are predetermined, why does God still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" Paul answers, "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? ... Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"

The next logical question is, "What possible reason would God have to create vessels unto dishonor?" To which Paul replies, "What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory"

That's a profound statement, IMO -- that God WANTS to show His wrath and make His power known by creating vessels to dishonor prepared for destruction, and that is somehow wrapped up in the way God will show mercy and love to those He prepared for glory. And if God does it that way, then what's it to you? You and I have no idea if it's even possible to accomplish this purpose any other way, so are you really going to say God is wrong for setting up a system that works this way?

Originally posted by BrianT:
God desires someone to remain in error, makes it inevitable, and then punishes them for it?

See above.

Originally posted by BrianT:
This is not a flippant question: Why should I not simply do whatever I "want"?

You DO whatever you want. You did whatever you wanted as a sinner, and you now do whatever you want as a saint. That's the way it works.

Originally posted by BrianT:
Actually, I'm not sure it would be better. Are you not describing happy robots (who have forgotten the millions of other robots destroyed through inevitability)?

The use of the term "robot" is designed to make the above scenario distasteful. But what's wrong with this scenario? I pray all the time that God would replace my heart with one that cannot sin, and cannot even desire to sin, and I LONG for the day when I'll be transformed into that kind of creature. I don't care what anyone thinks that makes me, happy robot or otherwise -- I say bring it on, baby!!

 

[BrianT]

Hey npetreley,

You've given me lots to think about, I'll have to mull some of this over for a while. One thing I want to ask right now:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BrianT:
This is not a flippant question: Why should I not simply do whatever I "want"?

You DO whatever you want. You did whatever you wanted as a sinner, and you now do whatever you want as a saint. That's the way it works.
</font>[/QUOTE]The thrust of my question had more to do with doing what we want verses what scripture exhorts us to do (i.e. why would scripture tell us to do or not do something, if we can't make the choice anyway). But putting that aside for the moment, *why* do I "want" something in the first place? Is not this wanting also predetermined? I'm really having a hard time wrapping my brain around this: God predetermining our wants, our choices, and our actions, telling us to do the opposite, and then punishing us for not being able to get around inevitability.

One last thought: since it *appears* we have free will (even in scripture), is God not being deceptive about the whole thing?

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by superdave:
God is the author of sin, in the sense that he is in complete control of all things, that would seem to be the definition of sovereignty.

If that is true, then I cannot see how the gospel can be true. If he is the author of sin and actually CONTROLING our sin, then he is intimately engaged in sin. If he is intimately engaged in sin, he is not seperate from sin. If he is not seperate from sin, he is not holy. If he is not holy, he can accept sin. If he can accept sin, he needs no punishment for sin. And if he needs no punishment for sin, THEN THE GOSPEL IS A LIE!!!

Is that just? Of course, since God is the definition of justice!

Have you ever tried witnessing to a Muslim? Can you tell me why the Muslim view (that Allah can forgive whomever he wants because he's God) is wrong? The reason is because such a view is unjust. God doesn't change, so neither does justice, so such a view that goes totally against what he has written into our consciences cannot be true either. True, everything God does is just; but if the Calvinists tell us that God does something that is manifestly unjust, then are we not justified in rejecting the Calvinist claim (just as we do the Muslims')? If God could do anything, and that would be just, then why send Jesus to die? Why not just forgive the elect without the death of his Son? The answer is because that's not just! The Muslims are wrong: they have an unjust god. And I can't help but wonder whether the Calvinists do, too.