Sovereignty of Man

[IFB Mole]

From another thread and after discussing with other free-willers, here's what they agreed to, do other "non Cals" agree??

1. Spiritual Inability: Man is spiritually depraved but not absolutely depraved, by the fall, so he is able to will or to do good. (i.e man does have enough good in him to perform good human works, since man remains created in the image of God, man has enough good in him that he is able to incline himself toward acknowledging there is a God - a God consciousness). Man is also not so fallen that he is unable to believe there is a God of his own free will, but apart from the Gospel he is spiritually unable to “save himself” on God’s terms – his good works are as filthy rags.

2. Accountability of sin: Man is born a sinner but innocent of its condemnation only if a man dies before reaching the age of accountability (ability to exercise faith and acknowledge sin), Man does not come under the condemnation (wages or penalty) of sin until he knowingly and willfully understands his sinful condition.

3. Sovereignty Sovereignly Limited: It is God's sovereign will to LIMIT His sovereignty to man with respect to man's will. God remains absolutely sovereign over all things EVEN man's will, but it is His sovereign decision to LIMIT His absolute sovereignty over man's will – i.e to make it “irresistible” for man to believe the Gospel. God compels, He convicts, He persuades but He doesn’t “coerce”.

4. Free Grace: It is God's will that all men be saved, but God does not impose His will upon man. God gives man enough grace to be saved, but not so much as to coerce man's salvation contrary to man’s will. Man may resist God's grace and refuse the gift of salvation, thereby thwarting God's will that all men be saved, but thus holding man responsible to the Gospel, so man is without excuse.

5. Saving Faith: The driving force behind the previous points is that God wants man to have faith in Him, but does not consider faith worth accepting unless man gives faith to Him freely from his heart and not coerced, i.e. according to man's own will once enlightened by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is IMPOSSIBLE that apart from the Gospel that a man can “will himself” to be saved, it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and man’s faith that ensures his heavenly home. Faith is essential in salvation.

 

[npetreley]

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.

 

[donnA]

4. Free Grace: It is God's will that all men be saved, but God does not impose His will upon man. God gives man enough grace to be saved, but not so much as to coerce man's salvation contrary to man’s will. Man may resist God's grace and refuse the gift of salvation, thereby thwarting God's will that all men be saved, but thus holding man responsible to the Gospel, so man is without excuse.

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

 

[donnA]

1. Spiritual Inability: Man is spiritually depraved but not absolutely depraved, by the fall, so he is able to will or to do good. (i.e man does have enough good in him to perform good human works, since man remains created in the image of God, man has enough good in him that he is able to incline himself toward acknowledging there is a God - a God consciousness). Man is also not so fallen that he is unable to believe there is a God of his own free will, but apart from the Gospel he is spiritually unable to “save himself” on God’s terms – his good works are as filthy rags.

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

 

[webdog]

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?

 

[Brother Bob]

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..

 

[drfuss]

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?

 

[Rippon]

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

 

[npetreley]

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?

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.

 

[donnA]

sov·er·eign·ty

1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government

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

 

[webdog]

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.

...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.

 

[npetreley]

...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.

 

[webdog]

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...

 

[npetreley]

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.

 

[TCGreek]

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:

 

[David Lamb]

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?

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.

 

[IFB Mole]

If man has a Free Will then is not his will sovereign? The doctrine of free will as believed by free will advocates makes man's will essentially "neutral" in salvation

 

[J.D.]

If man has a Free Will then is not his will sovereign? The doctrine of free will as believed by free will advocates makes man's will essentially "neutral" in salvation

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.

 

[webdog]

If man has a Free Will then is not his will sovereign? The doctrine of free will as believed by free will advocates makes man's will essentially "neutral" in salvation

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