What is "Sovereignty"??

[Derf B]

You are changing the definition to suit you. I gave the definition according to Gordon Clark's description of it. You should honestly define the word by his use of it. More follows at the link I posted. Think of it this way. God created evil when he created Adam. But Adam was the author of his sin because it is exactly the actions he chose to use. Just as authors choose their words.

That’s more than a little funny that I give you a dictionary’s definition, and you say I am the one that’s changing the definition to suit myself.

But here’s the other funny thing: by saying that “Adam was the author of his sin because it is exactly the actions he chose to use,” you are saying that his actions were NOT the actions God chose to use, which denies Calvinism.

 

[Derf B]

Think of it this way. God created evil when he created Adam.

In addition, you’ve said here that God created Adam WITH SIN, meaning God did not create something “very good”.

This is the problem with Calvinists—that they spend all their bible time redefining what God really means with His words, in order to make God fit their theology.

You should read the Bible for yourself sometimes. It’s a wonder book that gives beautifully real pictures of God.

 

[1689Dave]

That’s more than a little funny that I give you a dictionary’s definition, and you say I am the one that’s changing the definition to suit myself.

But here’s the other funny thing: by saying that “Adam was the author of his sin because it is exactly the actions he chose to use,” you are saying that his actions were NOT the actions God chose to use, which denies Calvinism.

Had you and your pastor read Clark (everybody familiar with the Reformed view) read what he said in the Clark Van Til debates, you would have found your answer. Not just a feeble attempt to cover your lack of understanding.

 

[1689Dave]

In addition, you’ve said here that God created Adam WITH SIN, meaning God did not create something “very good”.

This is the problem with Calvinists—that they spend all their bible time redefining what God really means with His words, in order to make God fit their theology.

You should read the Bible for yourself sometimes. It’s a wonder book that gives beautifully real pictures of God.

God sees true goodness. The carnal mind sees goodness as anything appealing to the flesh.

 

[1689Dave]

That’s more than a little funny that I give you a dictionary’s definition, and you say I am the one that’s changing the definition to suit myself.

But here’s the other funny thing: by saying that “Adam was the author of his sin because it is exactly the actions he chose to use,” you are saying that his actions were NOT the actions God chose to use, which denies Calvinism.

God gave the conditions for Adam to base his choices on thereby determining the sins Adam wanted to perform would happen. Go back and re-read the 1689 LBC or Westminster chapter 3.

 

[Derf B]

Had you and your pastor read Clark (everybody familiar with the Reformed view) read what he said in the Clark Van Til debates, you would have found your answer. Not just a feeble attempt to cover your lack of understanding.

Yes, we both had. I found Clark’s answer, but not mine.

If my pastor’s answer was feeble, what would you call yours, where you can’t even provide one, but have to send me to Clark?

God sees true goodness. The carnal mind sees goodness as anything appealing to the flesh.

Just so you know, you are telling God that He created man with a sin nature, and that is blasphemy.

God gave the conditions for Adam to base his choices on thereby determining the sins Adam wanted to perform would happen. Go back and re-read the 1689 LBC or Westminster chapter 3.

God only offered Adam one sin: eat from the wrong tree. So I agree Adam’s choices were limited. Why don’t you tell me what it is in the confessions you want me to consider, since I already quoted that section to you.

 

[1689Dave]

Yes, we both had. I found Clark’s answer, but not mine.

If my pastor’s answer was feeble, what would you call yours, where you can’t even provide one, but have to send me to Clark?

Just so you know, you are telling God that He created man with a sin nature, and that is blasphemy.

God only offered Adam one sin: eat from the wrong tree. So I agree Adam’s choices were limited. Why don’t you tell me what it is in the confessions you want me to consider, since I already quoted that section to you.

If God did not create all, including sin, who did. You are suggesting there is another god independent of the One God of the bible. That is worse than blasphemy.

 

[Derf B]

If God did not create all, including sin, who did. You are suggesting there is another god independent of the One God of the bible. That is worse than blasphemy.

Is it worse? Does that mean you’re admitting to blasphemy?

But no, sin is not a created thing. It’s something a man could do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[1689Dave]

Is it worse? Does that mean you’re admitting to blasphemy?

But no, sin is not a created thing. It’s something a man could do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Blasphemy = attributing God's work to the devil.I'm saying God created all including sin when he created Adam with full knowledge of his looming sin. You might be the one blaspheming God here.

 

[Derf B]

Blasphemy = attributing God's work to the devil.I'm saying God created all including sin when he created Adam with full knowledge of his looming sin. You might be the one blaspheming God here.

Is that your definition, or did you get it from somewhere. I’m new here, so if you’ve already established yourself as an expert linguist, I wouldn’t yet know it. So if you don’t mind, please identify your sources.

I wonder whether it’s worse to attribute God’s works to Satan, or Satan’s works to God.

I’ll use what I believe to be your source for the definition of blasphemy (once more doing your work for you) from Mark 3: 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: 30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

But the context is enlightening, in that Jesus rebukes the Pharisees by saying earlier, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.”

Notice that applies not just to Satan, but to any house or kingdom. God has a kingdom. If God be divided, His kingdom cannot stand. If He will both sin and righteousness, He rises up against Himself.

Your theology makes God out to be divided.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[1689Dave]

Is that your definition, or did you get it from somewhere. I’m new here, so if you’ve already established yourself as an expert linguist, I wouldn’t yet know it. So if you don’t mind, please identify your sources.

I wonder whether it’s worse to attribute God’s works to Satan, or Satan’s works to God.

I’ll use what I believe to be your source for the definition of blasphemy (once more doing your work for you) from Mark 3: 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: 30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

But the context is enlightening, in that Jesus rebukes the Pharisees by saying earlier, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.”

Notice that applies not just to Satan, but to any house or kingdom. God has a kingdom. If God be divided, His kingdom cannot stand. If He will both sin and righteousness, He rises up against Himself.

Your theology makes God out to be divided.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

God created all for his glory including sin. No sin = God cannot be revealed as merciful, Just, Holy Righteous, Sovereign, good (in his punishment of sin) and more.

 

[Derf B]

God created all for his glory including sin. No sin = God cannot be revealed as merciful, Just, Holy Righteous, Sovereign, good (in his punishment of sin) and more.

So you agree that God's kingdom is divided against itself. Thank you for that clarification.

What you are saying is that God needs sin. He is incomplete without it. Sin is a part of God's character. "Holy Righteous" and "Wholly Sinful" are synonymous, since God, in your view, is wholly responsible for sin.

Please don't just dismiss my post with a handwave. This is a serious mischaracterization of God that is the result of your theology.

 

[1689Dave]

So you agree that God's kingdom is divided against itself. Thank you for that clarification.

What you are saying is that God needs sin. He is incomplete without it. Sin is a part of God's character. "Holy Righteous" and "Wholly Sinful" are synonymous, since God, in your view, is wholly responsible for sin.

Please don't just dismiss my post with a handwave. This is a serious mischaracterization of God that is the result of your theology.

I don't agree with you on anything so far. And it's doubtful that I ever will. Sin makes God known. He would not be knowable without it.

 

[Particular]

So you agree that God's kingdom is divided against itself. Thank you for that clarification.

What you are saying is that God needs sin. He is incomplete without it. Sin is a part of God's character. "Holy Righteous" and "Wholly Sinful" are synonymous, since God, in your view, is wholly responsible for sin.

Please don't just dismiss my post with a handwave. This is a serious mischaracterization of God that is the result of your theology.

This is not what dave said...at all.

 

[Particular]

I don't agree with you on anything so far. And it's doubtful that I ever will. Sin makes God known. He would not be knowable without it.

Dave, you are making assertions without biblical support.

What we know is that God created Adam in His image. We know that, like the angels, God ordained the capacity for Adam (and all his offspring) to rebel against God's command. God foreknew that Adam would rebel, just as He foreknew that Lucifer would rebel. The ordination of God to give humanity the capacity to rebel does not equal "God created sin" as you are claiming. We will disagree on that point.
God, being Sovereign, ordained (said yes) to humans having the capacity to rebel. He didn't create rebellion.

God, in his mercy, also ordained that a Promised One would redeem humans of God's choosing. Just as the Promised One was known before the foundation of the world, so those chosen to be adopted were known before the foundation of the world. This all was predestined by ordination of God. This does not mean God created sin. That would make sin...good, which is false. Sin is rebellion against God. Sin is not good and it is not created by God. It is, however, ordained by God according to God's perfect plan and will.

 

[Derf B]

Dave, you are making assertions without biblical support.

What we know is that God created Adam in His image. We know that, like the angels, God ordained the capacity for Adam (and all his offspring) to rebel against God's command. God foreknew that Adam would rebel, just as He foreknew that Lucifer would rebel. The ordination of God to give humanity the capacity to rebel does not equal "God created sin" as you are claiming. We will disagree on that point.
God, being Sovereign, ordained (said yes) to humans having the capacity to rebel. He didn't create rebellion.

God, in his mercy, also ordained that a Promised One would redeem humans of God's choosing. Just as the Promised One was known before the foundation of the world, so those chosen to be adopted were known before the foundation of the world. This all was predestined by ordination of God. This does not mean God created sin. That would make sin...good, which is false. Sin is rebellion against God. Sin is not good and it is not created by God. It is, however, ordained by God according to God's perfect plan and will.

Thank you, Particular. I appreciate your stepping in here, and your delineation of the foreknowledge of sin as opposed to the creation of sin.

I do have a question for you. How does one foreknow a particular someone (like Satan) is going to rebel if that person is not around (does not exist) yet? Is the future a fixed thing that is knowable without error? How did it get to be a fixed thing?

The reason I ask this is because despite my disagreement with @1689Dave's assertion that God created evil, I have a hard time with the idea that God could know that Satan would rebel and that Adam would sin when He created them, unless
1. He created them with a propensity ("nature") to sin, which Dave seems to embrace, but you and I reject, (I'll call this "Calvinism") or
2. Their character was determined from a source outside of both themselves and God, and thus God could know their character without having predetermined their character/nature as sinful. (I'll call this "Arminianism", or the model that says God "looks down through time to know what each person will do".) That source would, of course, be preexisting before God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, and therefore would be coexistent with God in eternity past, if I understand eternity correctly. I reject other sources than God for such a character, except other created agents, like Satan and Adam. The preferred option, of course is that Satan is responsible for his character (and his actions) and Adam is responsible for his own character (and actions).

That drives me to a third option, where Satan and Adam are created able to rebel, but are neither forced to ("ordained"), nor are unable to resist (it was not according to their "nature", which God created them with). Nor does God necessarily have to know that they are going to rebel, since it is not predetermined that they do so.

 

[Calminian]

That drives me to a third option, where Satan and Adam are created able to rebel, but are neither forced to ("ordained"), nor are unable to resist (it was not according to their "nature", which God created them with). Nor does God necessarily have to know that they are going to rebel, since it is not predetermined that they do so.

Why can't God know the future?

 

[1689Dave]

Thank you, Particular. I appreciate your stepping in here, and your delineation of the foreknowledge of sin as opposed to the creation of sin.

I do have a question for you. How does one foreknow a particular someone (like Satan) is going to rebel if that person is not around (does not exist) yet? Is the future a fixed thing that is knowable without error? How did it get to be a fixed thing?

The reason I ask this is because despite my disagreement with @1689Dave's assertion that God created evil, I have a hard time with the idea that God could know that Satan would rebel and that Adam would sin when He created them, unless
1. He created them with a propensity ("nature") to sin, which Dave seems to embrace, but you and I reject, (I'll call this "Calvinism") or
2. Their character was determined from a source outside of both themselves and God, and thus God could know their character without having predetermined their character/nature as sinful. (I'll call this "Arminianism", or the model that says God "looks down through time to know what each person will do".) That source would, of course, be preexisting before God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, and therefore would be coexistent with God in eternity past, if I understand eternity correctly. I reject other sources than God for such a character, except other created agents, like Satan and Adam. The preferred option, of course is that Satan is responsible for his character (and his actions) and Adam is responsible for his own character (and actions).

That drives me to a third option, where Satan and Adam are created able to rebel, but are neither forced to ("ordained"), nor are unable to resist (it was not according to their "nature", which God created them with). Nor does God necessarily have to know that they are going to rebel, since it is not predetermined that they do so.

I can accuse both of you with many things. Until you follow what you accuse me of with "direct quotes" made by me I say you are lying. Now it's up to you to prove you are not.

 

[1689Dave]

Dave, you are making assertions without biblical support.

What we know is that God created Adam in His image. We know that, like the angels, God ordained the capacity for Adam (and all his offspring) to rebel against God's command. God foreknew that Adam would rebel, just as He foreknew that Lucifer would rebel. The ordination of God to give humanity the capacity to rebel does not equal "God created sin" as you are claiming. We will disagree on that point.
God, being Sovereign, ordained (said yes) to humans having the capacity to rebel. He didn't create rebellion.

God, in his mercy, also ordained that a Promised One would redeem humans of God's choosing. Just as the Promised One was known before the foundation of the world, so those chosen to be adopted were known before the foundation of the world. This all was predestined by ordination of God. This does not mean God created sin. That would make sin...good, which is false. Sin is rebellion against God. Sin is not good and it is not created by God. It is, however, ordained by God according to God's perfect plan and will.

From your view only. Scripture fully supports my claims.

 

[Derf B]

Why can't God know the future?

Thanks for jumping in, Calminian. I love the username!

My first response is, "Why is God required to know the future?" The bible doesn't ever say God knows the future, except where it talks about what He plans to do. In other words, He knows what He will accomplish, and He knows that He will accomplish it. But unless the future is a fixed thing, that He Himself cannot change (else it wouldn't be a fixed thing), it must be an unfixed thing.

There are two ways a fixed future could work, as I've outlined above.
1. Calvinism: Where God ordains all that comes to pass, including being the author of sin (@1689Dave is consistent here!)
2. Arminianism: Where God can see the future, but doesn't determine it. It is already determined before man exists (or Satan), and it is unchangeable.

#2 may be offensive to Arminians, but think of it this way. Can God prevent an event that He has foreseen by looking into the future? If so, then the future's not fixed. If not, the future is, but God is powerless against it. The remedy, while still maintaining a fixed future, is that God determined everything--let that sink in--that was ever going to happen. That's Calvinism, which has God as the author of sin, as Dave pointed out so clearly.

This conundrum results from the supposition that God knows everything about the future, even what you are going to eat for breakfast 10 years from now. If the future is fixed, then it's fixed.

God can't both know something is going to happen in the future and prevent it from happening.