Sovereignty of Man

I get the impression from how free-willers interact in other threads that you put too much Bible back into my original list for it to be 100% acceptable to free-willers, but I hope I'm pleasantly surprised. If free-willers can sign-off on this, it would be great. It would help make it clear what they believe.

 

Last thing I want is to be shorted on God's grace.

 

When I tried to have a list not long ago everyone diagreed with this.

 

Just an observation...what is the need from our calvinist brothers and sister to need a nice little five points to define any theology? Is our infinite God that simple that He can be understood using five points?

 

Your OP is wrong. "The Sovereignty of Man".

The list is close to what I believe but I do not consider it "my Sovereignty" but the Soverignty of God to create man with the ability to believe or not believe. We didn't do it, He through His Sovereignty, made us this way. Also, He will control the result of what we do, believe or not believe. We sure won't have no say in what happens to us, in accordance to how we choose, but we are totally dependant upon Him.

The Creature was made "subject" to vanity, but not willingly, but by reason of Him who subjected the same in Hope.

Although God made us so we could believe or not believe, its not His will that we disbelieve, but if so, He (God) subjected the same in Hope (Christ).

The list is very close to what I believe with the exception of "Sovereignty of Man" part.

If it helps you as mortal man, understand me, I have no problem with it. I am not restricted to it, for God and man, are very complicated, and who has known the mind of God, and who has been His councelor..

 

I agree with Brother Bob. What is being discussed here is about the sovereignty of God. Man is not sovereign, God is. All Christians believe God is sovereign and man is not. Can you change the title to: The Sovereignty of God?

 

Skypair is very upfront about his belief in the sovereignty of humans . He allows God His realm of sovereignty too .

 

Is your memory that bad? I started this idea, and I stated right up front the number 5 was arbitrary. Add, subtract, do whatever you like. The idea was simply to pin down a framework on what free-willers believe. It's easier to deal with than trying to pin down every free-willer, since free-willers seem to bend to and fro, tossed about by....oh, you know.

 

1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Sovereignty

 

...or they come to the conclusion that we can't pin God and theology down to 5 petals of a flower, as your side does.

 

I was just joking around, but if you want to get serious, it was the Arminians (Remonstants) who first penned 5 points to describe their doctrine. Calvinists created TULIP in response, in order to counter what they felt was heresy.

 

That's why I'm not arminian...

 

That's cool, but you're misrepresenting Calvinists if you think they originated the idea. TULIP was simply a 5 point response to the 5 points of the remonstance.

 

Thanks for making that known. I think people need to put the TULIP in its proper historical context.:thumbs:

 

They don't need five points, whether they are "nice little" points or not. The reason for the five points of Calvinism is that they were formulated in answer to the earlier "Remonstrant Articles" (sometimes nicknamed "The Five Points of Arminianism). It is a mistake to imagine that all that calvinists believe is contained in the five points.

Perhaps a modern example would help explain what I am (in my stumbling way) attempting to say. Recently in the UK, a Baptist minister wrote a book, "The Lost Message of Jesus" in which he cast doubt on the doctrine of penal substitution - indeed he denied it. If Christian X wrote a book or pamphlet in response to that, affirming the doctrine, would we be right in assuming that Mr X's beliefs consisted only of the doctrine of penal substitution? Of course not - he was writing with a particular purpose. The five points of Calvinism are similar in that respect.

 

You're on to a central idea there. The idea that freewillers have is that God voluntarily surrenders His sovereignty to man's choice in salvation. But it is impossible for God, who's sovereign jurisdiction is boundless, to both be sovereign and yet not sovereign.

Not only is it impossible for God to not be sovereign, it is also logically impossible for man's will to be free (as in, able to change his own nature, or desire that which he does not desire) or for man to determine his own destiny, or determine the events of the future in any other way than that which is bound to happen.

Even godless philosophers have recognized this fact. Take the phrase "what ever will be will be". There was a popular song back in the 50's by Doris Day that featured these words, but it is in fact a profound truth over wich the great thinkers have thought.

Any kind of liquid determinism (free will theology, humanism, open theism, etc.) requires a formula that says "whatever will be might be" or "whatever will be won't be". The logical truth is that "whatever will be must be". Thus, the events of the future are fixed.

But what are they fixed by? That's the next logical question. The atheist says "luck" or "nothing". But the theist says "God".

So we can see that atheistic determinism leads to pessimism because after all, what's the use of trying? If there is no God, and who's knows what "luck" really is, we are subjects of impersonal fate and are without hope in the world.

Theistic determinism, on the other hand, leads to optimism. Although the future is fixed and can not be any other thing than what it will be, we know that an intelligent, loving, wise, and righteous God has determined the future and therefore we have continual hope that the end will turn out for God's glory and our good.

 

Strawman....:BangHead:. The answer is "no".