• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Sovereignty of God

Odemus

New Member
Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
It is the Arminian position that unless God allows man a free choice, God "forces" his salvation on people and that God does not give a chance to those who will ultimately end up in Hell.
It is only through the conviction of the Holy Spirit that man can come to God.You can present the Gospel to someone all day and all night but without God initiating true conviction no man can begin to reconcile himself to God.

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Therefore, to Ray, myself, and other Arminian brethren on the board, any position that states that God does not give a free choice to all men is forcing them to choose what He wants them to, making God a tyrant.
To create all men as blank templates with equal ability to 'choose' saving faith in Christ, and at the same time hide the Gospel from many of them (American Indians before America was discovered for example) would make God a tyrant.

Fortunately someone who understands the infinite goodness of God understands the significance of just one single transgression.God would still be perfectly just and perfectly good had He chosen to condemn every single person who ever walked the earth to eternal damnation.It is a testament to His amazing grace that He should choose to save any of us at all.

[ July 19, 2002, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Odemus ]
 

Odemus

New Member
Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Odemus:
Foreknowledge and predestination cannot be separated.
Can you show logically or Biblically that this is true, or are we just supposed to take your word for it. If God is, as we say, outside the realm of time, then Paul was capable of any alternative, saying 'yes,' 'no,' 'maybe,' and so on.

Foreknowledge doesn't mean that predestination of God.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Nice of you to keep dodging the question.You tell me how Paul could have 'chosen' against salvation and I'll explain exactly how foreknowledge and predestination can't be separated.
 

ScottEmerson

Active Member
Originally posted by Odemus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Odemus:
Foreknowledge and predestination cannot be separated.
Can you show logically or Biblically that this is true, or are we just supposed to take your word for it. If God is, as we say, outside the realm of time, then Paul was capable of any alternative, saying 'yes,' 'no,' 'maybe,' and so on.

Foreknowledge doesn't mean that predestination of God.
</font>[/QUOTE]Nice of you to keep dodging the question.You tell me how Paul could have 'chosen' against salvation and I'll explain exactly how foreknowledge and predestination can't be separated.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]The same way that people all over the world choose against salvation. They say "no." We have to remember that Paul had more than likely heard the gospel several times - he probably heard Stephen's testimony. He said no then and could have said no again. It is because God knew that he would say yes that He chose Paul to do mighty works and enabled him to do so. Such is foreknowledge. Because it was Paul's free choice, it was not predestined by God to happen.
 

ScottEmerson

Active Member
Originally posted by Odemus:
It is only through the conviction of the Holy Spirit that man can come to God.You can present the Gospel to someone all day and all night but without God initiating true conviction no man can begin to reconcile himself to God.
Christ was the light who gives light to all men (John 1.) All men have a chance - apparently, even those who haven't expressly heard the gospel...or haven't you heard the stories about missionaries who go to countries in Africa, only to find out that somehow there are those who believe in a man who died on an X things. Romans 1 states that no man is without excuse - nature shows the glory of God enough.

To create all men as blank templates with equal ability to 'choose' saving faith in Christ, and at the same time hide the Gospel from many of them (American Indians before America was discovered for example) would make God a tyrant.
See above. The fact that you'd rather God pass over people, sending them to Hell, than have all men have a free chance to choose says a lot about who you are.

Fortunately someone who understands the infinite goodness of God understands the significance of just one single transgression.God would still be perfectly just and perfectly good had He chosen to condemn every single person who ever walked the earth to eternal damnation.It is a testament to His amazing grace that He should choose to save any of us at all.[/QB]
God would be perfectly just to kill us all. However, it should be even a greater testament that He chose "whosoever," and that he desires that "all men should come to a saving knowledge of Him."
 

pinoybaptist

Active Member
Site Supporter
"But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification the Spirit and belief of the truth" 2 Thess. 2:13.

There are three things here which deserve special attention. First, the fact that we are expressly told that God's elect are "chosen to salvation." Language could not be more explicit. How summarily do these words dispose of the sophistries and equivocations of all who would make election refer nothing but external privileges or rank in service!

It is to "salvation" itself that God hath chosen us.

Second, we are warned here that election unto salvation does not disregard the use of appropriate means: salvation is reached through "sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." It is not true that because God has chosen a certain one to salvation that he will be saved willy nilly, whether he believes or not: nowhere do the scriptures so represent it.

The same God who predestined the end, also appointed the means; the same God who "chose unto salvation", decreed that his purpose should, be realized through the work of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

Third, that God has chosen us unto salvation is a profound cause for fervent praise. Note how strongly the apostle expresses this — "we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation", etc.

Instead of shrinking in horror from the doctrine of predestination, the believer, when he sees this blessed truth as it is unfolded in the Word, discovers a ground for gratitude and thanksgiving such as nothing else affords, save the unspeakable gift of the Redeemer himself.
 

absturzen

New Member
The same way that people all over the world choose against salvation. They say "no."
What sane person would believe the gospel as being true and then reject it?

Stevie

[ July 20, 2002, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: absturzen ]
 

Odemus

New Member
Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
The fact that you'd rather God pass over people, sending them to Hell, than have all men have a free chance to choose says a lot about who you are.
Two can play that game.

The fact that you would rather believe God leaves salvation entirely dependant on the 'choice' of man while knowingly allowing whole civilizations to exist without any chance of hearing the Gospel says a lot about who you are and the kind of God you worship.

By the way, you still didn't answer my question.I'll generalize it:If God knows everything that will ever happen, how can one excersise free will to choose an alternative to what God already knows will happen?
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Odemus:
If God knows everything that will ever happen, how can one excersise free will to choose an alternative to what God already knows will happen?
That's why free will salvation advocates can so easily end up falling into Open Theism. Open Theism is consistent with their belief on free will. To be consistent theologically, all free will salvation advocates should openly embrace Open Theism.

Ken
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Odemus:
If God knows everything that will ever happen, how can one excersise free will to choose an alternative to what God already knows will happen?
That's why free will salvation advocates can so easily end up falling into Open Theism. Open Theism is consistent with their belief on free will. To be consistent theologically, all free will salvation advocates should openly embrace Open Theism.</font>[/QUOTE]So if God reveals to you that 5-point Calvinism is a false teaching, will be become and open theist?

I'm asking because I'm truly interested to know if you are open to learning something new about God.

If you are, you *may* find yourself becoming an open theist.

If not, then you will remain as you are.

If you respond with hostility or claiming that the Bible teaches no such thing, you *may* be closed to hearing another point of view -- which might be the voice of the Spirit of God.

I don't know you and you don't know me, but the written "tone" of your posts come across as so sure of your position that you try to push everyone who does not agree with you regarding free-will/sovereignty into one lump of people who either don't know or believe their Bible. It is exceptionally unbecoming. Again, I don't know you and I'm not trying to judge your motives or spiritual character, but that's the impression I'm getting. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


Having said that, I do think you made an interesting point here. A strong belief in free will working within the context of God's sovereignty does fit very nicely with some Open Theism models. My own personal theology that I developed over the last 23 years has many similarities with Open Theism, a concept I've only heard about recently. I am in the process of working through the implications of what is being taught by some Open Theism teachers to see if "mainstream" Open Theism correctly portrays my Biblical understanding. I always find it very interesting when I come to conclusions that may not be popular from my own personal Bible study and find them promoted a few years later when someone writes a popular book. The first time that happened was when John McArthur(sp?) came out with "The Gospel According to Jesus". It has happened many times since.
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
So if God reveals to you that 5-point Calvinism is a false teaching, will be become and open theist?

I don't know you and you don't know me, but the written "tone" of your posts come across as so sure of your position that you try to push everyone who does not agree with you regarding free-will/sovereignty into one lump of people who either don't know or believe their Bible

A strong belief in free will working within the context of God's sovereignty does fit very nicely with some Open Theism models.
1) I will let the facts that I was a rip snorting Pelagian for most of my life and am now a Calvinist, that I was a New Covenantalist and am now a Covenantalist, and that I was an amillennialist and am now a postmillennialist answer the first point.


2) Sorry about that. :(

3) Well, aren't you agreeing with what I said about free will advocates easily going into Open Theism. :confused:

Ken
The Happy Calvinist :D :D :D :D
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
Well, aren't you agreeing with what I said about free will advocates easily going into Open Theism. :confused:
I'm agreeing that for *many* of us free will advocates, open theism sounds like an attractive way to understand the way God is working in His creation.

Other free willers may live with more of a paradox, knowing that they don't have to impose a rationalist system on the mysterious ways of God.

I can only speak for myself, but I find both of these statements to be true in my own life.

I flirted with Calvinism at two points in my spiritual life (it is very attractive in a rational sense), but I could not reconcile the viewpoint with the "big picture" of the story of scripture as well as many specific places where God calls us to repent and turn to Him.

:D :D :D :D :D
 

pinoybaptist

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Odemus:
It is only through the conviction of the Holy Spirit that man can come to God.You can present the Gospel to someone all day and all night but without God initiating true conviction no man can begin to reconcile himself to God.
Amen, Odemus.

Originally by Odemus
To create all men as blank templates with equal ability to 'choose' saving faith in Christ, and at the same time hide the Gospel from many of them (American Indians before America was discovered for example) would make God a tyrant.
And what about the Aztecs, Incas, the Amazon tribes, then and now. But the Bible speaks of
many, of multitudes that no man can number. God told Abraham his seed will be as numerous as the stars.

Fortunately someone who understands the infinite goodness of God understands the significance of just one single transgression.God would still be perfectly just and perfectly good had He chosen to condemn every single person who ever walked the earth to eternal damnation.It is a testament to His amazing grace that He should choose to save any of us at all.
Truly Amazing, that grace, brother.
 

ScottEmerson

Active Member
Originally posted by Odemus:
The fact that you would rather believe God leaves salvation entirely dependant on the 'choice' of man while knowingly allowing whole civilizations to exist without any chance of hearing the Gospel says a lot about who you are and the kind of God you worship.
Did you skip over what I wrote about the salvation of such civilizations? You're misrepresenting the Arminian position, I think - at least my own.

By the way, you still didn't answer my question.I'll generalize it:If God knows everything that will ever happen, how can one excersise free will to choose an alternative to what God already knows will happen?[/QB]
Because God works outside of time and in time at the same time. God knows the end results of man's free choice - Time is linear in man's perspective and reality. In God's reality, he knows the results of our free choices. In this manner, God did not ordain our choices, but sees the end result of such.
 

Ray Berrian

New Member
Check the Book. 'Satan is the god of this world.' With all the power of Almighty God He still according to His sovereign will, has decreed the free agency of human beings. He will invite, convince, convict sinners but He will not override what He has decreed. In a real sense, God is not doing too well, considering that only 2-3% of all of the world can in any way be considered Christian. At the Great White Throne Judgment He will deliver His verdict and sentencing to all who have not facilitated their sovereign right as human beings to receive Christ.
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
In a real sense, God is not doing too well
??????

Ken
The Happy Calvinist :D :D :D :D

[ July 20, 2002, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]
 

pinoybaptist

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Check the Book. 'Satan is the god of this world.' With all the power of Almighty God He still according to His sovereign will, has decreed the free agency of human beings. He will invite, convince, convict sinners but He will not override what He has decreed. In a real sense, God is not doing too well, considering that only 2-3% of all of the world can in any way be considered Christian. At the Great White Throne Judgment He will deliver His verdict and sentencing to all who have not facilitated their sovereign right as human beings to receive Christ.
That's a strange god you have, man.
A god who is not doing too well.
I remember an incident in my life which pushed me towards atheism at first. I was in my late teens and living with an uncle who was very strict and of whom I both feared and respected.
One day this uncle came home and you could feel the tension in the air. His eyebrows were crossed. He did not have money for (1) his kids' tuitions, and (2) a gambling habit he had.
As he got to the top of the stairs, he looked up and saw his catholic icons and statues. He went and threw them to the floor one by one. Plasters of Paris heads and arms and torsos flew everywhere as we stood there shocked waiting for the curse of God to pin him to the floor, or whatever.
But nothing happened.
When he calmed down, he picked up the pieces and glued them together and set them back on their places, then he called for afternoon prayers.
We came save for one cousin of mine who whispered,
"....don't need a god I can throw around, need one who can throw me around...."

Don't need a god who is not doing well, who is failing in his intent, whose will is overriden by his creation's "right". Ain't no god at all.
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
It is the Arminian position that unless God allows man a free choice, God "forces" his salvation on people and that God does not give a chance to those who will ultimately end up in Hell.
Well said. But I have repeatedly asked you not to state our position for us. Admit that it is your position, not ours. We do not believe that and never will. Period.
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
See above. The fact that you'd rather God pass over people, sending them to Hell, than have all men have a free chance to choose says a lot about who you are.
These types of personal attacks will not be tolerated. You are being warned. Continued posting of this type will result in a temporary suspension for your demeanor. This is wholly inappropriate and incompatible with the graces that are to be being demonstrated.
 

Odemus

New Member
Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Did you skip over what I wrote about the salvation of such civilizations? You're misrepresenting the Arminian position, I think - at least my own.
If your version of the Arminian position involves obtaining salvation without the Gospel of Christ you might as well bail from the discussion now because we will never find common ground.The Bible is explicit about this issue.

Originally posted by Odemus:
By the way, you still didn't answer my question.I'll generalize it:If God knows everything that will ever happen, how can one excercise free will to choose an alternative to what God already knows will happen?
Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Because God works outside of time and in time at the same time. God knows the end results of man's free choice - Time is linear in man's perspective and reality. In God's reality, he knows the results of our free choices. In this manner, God did not ordain our choices, but sees the end result of such.
That doesn't make any sense.If everything about us is already known, that is if God already knows what you will do or what will happen regarding any given circumstance, then there can and will always be only one possible outcome, and that is the one God knows will be.

[ July 21, 2002, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Odemus ]
 

pinoybaptist

Active Member
Site Supporter
More From the AW Pink Archives:

2. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD THE SON IN SALVATION.

For whom did Christ die? It surely does not need arguing that the Father had an express purpose in giving Him to die, or that God the Son had a definite design before Him in laying down His life-"Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world" (Acts 15:18). What then was the purpose of the Father and the design of the Son. We answer, Christ died for "God's elect."

We are not unmindful of the fact that the limited design in the death of Christ has been the subject of much controversy-what great truth revealed in Scripture has not? Nor do we forget that anything which has to do with the Person and work of our blessed Lord requires to be handled with the utmost reverence, and that a "Thus saith the Lord" must be given in support of every assertion we make. Our appeal shall be to the Law and to the Testimony.

For whom did Christ die? Who were the ones He intended to redeem by His blood-shedding? Surely the Lord Jesus had some absolute determination before Him when He went to the Cross. If He had, then it necessarily follows that the extent of that purpose was limited, because an absolute determination of purpose must be effected. If the absolute determination of Christ included all mankind, then all mankind would most certainly be saved. To escape this inevitable conclusion many have affirmed that there was not such absolute determination before Christ, that in His death a merely conditional provision of salvation has been made for all mankind. The refutation of this assertion is found in the promises made by the Father to His Son before He went to the Cross, yea, before He became incarnate. The Old Testament Scriptures represent the Father as promising the Son a certain reward for His sufferings on behalf of sinners. At this stage we shall confine ourselves to one or two statements recorded in the well known Fifty-third of Isaiah. There we find God saying, "When Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed," that "He shall see of the travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied," and that God's righteous Servant "should justify many" (vv. 10 and 11). But here we would pause and ask, How could it be certain that Christ should "see His seed," and "see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied," unless the salvation of certain members of the human race had been Divinely decreed, and therefore was sure? How could it be certain that Christ should "justify many," if no effectual provision was made that any should receive Him as their Lord and Saviour? On the other hand, to insist that the Lord Jesus did expressly purpose the salvation of all mankind is to charge Him with that which no intelligent being should be guilty of, namely, to design that which by virtue of His omniscience He knew would never come to pass. Hence, the only alternative left us is that, so far as the pre-determined purpose of His death is concerned Christ died for the elect only. Summing up in a sentence, which we trust will be intelligible to every reader, we would say, Christ died not merely to make possible the salvation of all mankind, but to make certain the salvation of all that the Father had given to Him. Christ died not simply to render sins pardonable, but "to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb. 9:26). As to whose "sin" (i.e., guilt, as in 1 John 1:7, etc.) has been "put away," Scripture leaves us in no doubt-it was that of the elect, the "world" (John 1:29) of God's people!
 
Top