Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ God's Sovereignty

[titus213]

"You fail to understand where disease came from. It is from the curse brought on by fall of man."

yes, but that is not what Sproul and Calvinists (most of them) believe. Actually, according to them, God foreordained the Fall of man (not just allowed for it, but decreed it must happen). Thus, although the curse was a consequence of the Fall of man, it was all pre-determined by God. And (as Sproul said) there cannot even be a renegade molecule anywhere beyond God's control, whether coming from the curse or not.

"Actually Sovereignty is often mistakenly assigned to man as royal power. But no man is sovereign over man but by power. Now you will agree God's power is limitless? Or do you limit you God?"

God's power is limited by God's character; I don't limit him beyond the limit he has placed on himself. Here's an example: could I murder my wife? I could, as far as power goes; but I would not, because that's not the kind of man I am. God's power is unlimited in the same way - what he COULD do is anything at all; what he WOULD is limited by the contraints of his character. His power doesn't somehow trump his goodness. It is unscriptural to limit God's goodness by emphasizing his power, as Sproul does; the Bible limits God's power by emphasizing his goodness. For example, he has the power to lie, but he cannot . . . not because he doesn't have the power, but because of who he is.

"God allows us to our will because first God knows what we are going to do"

Here again, this is something Sproul and his buddies absolutely do not believe. They believe what we will has already been determined by God - he not merely knows what we will do, but has foreordained what we will do so that what we do is exactly what he has determined.

"God already has things in place to make our decision fulfill God's plan"

According to Sproul and his cronies we actually don't make a decision . . . God makes the decision by bending our will.

Your view of sovereignty is what they would call "soft"; it's more in keeping with what the Bible says than what they actually promote.

[branham1965]

no offence to anyone but that hit my funny bone.that is thats one of the funniest things ive read heard in ages...
i think Calvin was the skunk of papacy fighters.he has hoodwinked,bamboozled,misled .....more people than anyone in the reformation.he burned a poor soul at the stake for either being :
1.Oneness...they say
2.or for being an Arian...they say
this Sproul bloke i had a few of his books years ago.
when i found out Spurgeon was a dyed in the wool Calvinist i nearly took a swim with the sharks. and he smoked cigars!!!!i bet he did not inhale i dont know how he did this.Dr.Dowie would have sailed to England and prayed for him in the Tabernacle. i reckon it was right popular then.Brother Branham might have taken the Chariot straight out of the Pulpit if he knew that one..........

R. C. Sproul ??

Well, as always, one needs to consider the source. This is the guy who wrote that non-Calvinists MAY be Christians, but "just barely", and only because they are inconsistent! (in his book "Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will" (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), page 140.

How true!

I have a couple of books by Sproul, (have used them to write papers) but over the years have found them to be useless when it comes to real Bible study.

[Justaned]

"You fail to understand where disease came from. It is from the curse brought on by fall of man."

yes, but that is not what Sproul and Calvinists (most of them) believe. Actually, according to them, God foreordained the Fall of man (not just allowed for it, but decreed it must happen). Thus, although the curse was a consequence of the Fall of man, it was all pre-determined by God. And (as Sproul said) there cannot even be a renegade molecule anywhere beyond God's control, whether coming from the curse or not.

"Actually Sovereignty is often mistakenly assigned to man as royal power. But no man is sovereign over man but by power. Now you will agree God's power is limitless? Or do you limit you God?"

God's power is limited by God's character; I don't limit him beyond the limit he has placed on himself. Here's an example: could I murder my wife? I could, as far as power goes; but I would not, because that's not the kind of man I am. God's power is unlimited in the same way - what he COULD do is anything at all; what he WOULD is limited by the contraints of his character. His power doesn't somehow trump his goodness. It is unscriptural to limit God's goodness by emphasizing his power, as Sproul does; the Bible limits God's power by emphasizing his goodness. For example, he has the power to lie, but he cannot . . . not because he doesn't have the power, but because of who he is.

"God allows us to our will because first God knows what we are going to do"

Here again, this is something Sproul and his buddies absolutely do not believe. They believe what we will has already been determined by God - he not merely knows what we will do, but has foreordained what we will do so that what we do is exactly what he has determined.

"God already has things in place to make our decision fulfill God's plan"

According to Sproul and his cronies we actually don't make a decision . . . God makes the decision by bending our will.

Your view of sovereignty is what they would call "soft"; it's more in keeping with what the Bible says than what they actually promote.

I'm not here to defend Calvin in fact I think a lot like Billy said he was shunk or rather the people that used him on whom he later turned on. Nor am I here to defend Spoul who like any man stumbles on the truth once in while (even a blind pig will find an acorn once in awhile).

What I'm here to do it to show God's sovereignty. So why don't you show me what part of the story was a surprise to God and which part was blind luck?

[Justaned]

no offence to anyone but that hit my funny bone.that is thats one of the funniest things ive read heard in ages...
i think Calvin was the skunk of papacy fighters.he has hoodwinked,bamboozled,misled .....more people than anyone in the reformation.he burned a poor soul at the stake for either being :
1.Oneness...they say
2.or for being an Arian...they say
this Sproul bloke i had a few of his books years ago.
when i found out Spurgeon was a dyed in the wool Calvinist i nearly took a swim with the sharks. and he smoked cigars!!!!i bet he did not inhale i dont know how he did this.Dr.Dowie would have sailed to England and prayed for him in the Tabernacle. i reckon it was right popular then.Brother Branham might have taken the Chariot straight out of the Pulpit if he knew that one..........

R. C. Sproul ??

Well, as always, one needs to consider the source. This is the guy who wrote that non-Calvinists MAY be Christians, but "just barely", and only because they are inconsistent! (in his book "Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will" (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), page 140.

How true!

I have a couple of books by Sproul, (have used them to write papers) but over the years have found them to be useless when it comes to real Bible study.

Billy I agree with you Calvin was smuck but know this Spureon would have probably prayed for Dowie's salvation had Dowies sailed to England.

As far as Sproul he is not unlike those that stand on the other side of the road in the ditch on that side. What amazes me is God is standing in the middle trying to get both groups out of the ditch and up on to the road. So they can be about God's business instead of tossing rocks back and forth across the road at each other.

[scottae316]

The real problem with the Reformed camp and the pseudo-Arminian/Wesleyan camp is that they do not read and interpret Scripture and attempt to bring their understanding and the need to understand it with them. It really becomes clear when you look at the doctrine of election and predestination. On the one hand you have the Reformed/Calvinist saying that God elected and predetermined who will be saved before the world was created and it is based on God's choice. On the other hand you have modern pseudo Arminian/Wesleyans saying that God has nothing to do with it that it is a persons choice and I have heard some preachers say God is standing there begging you to choose Him. Both positions are repulsive to me and Scripture. Now I will stop here and if there is interest I will continue and explain, if not this reply can sit here.

[branham1965]

The real problem with the Reformed camp and the pseudo-Arminian/Wesleyan camp is that they do not read and interpret Scripture and attempt to bring their understanding and the need to understand it with them. It really becomes clear when you look at the doctrine of election and predestination. On the one hand you have the Reformed/Calvinist saying that God elected and predetermined who will be saved before the world was created and it is based on God's choice. On the other hand you have modern pseudo Arminian/Wesleyans saying that God has nothing to do with it that it is a persons choice and I have heard some preachers say God is standing there begging you to choose Him. Both positions are repulsive to me and Scripture. Now I will stop here and if there is interest I will continue and explain, if not this reply can sit here.

SCOTT
why and how did the camps get the way they are???

[titus213]

Justaned asked: "So why don't you show me what part of the story was a surprise to God and which part was blind luck?"

Don't know what you're talking about - I wasn't talking about a story and I never said God is surprised by events. But that has nothing to do with sovereignty; it has to do with foreknowledge. They are not the same thing.

[Justaned]

Justaned asked: "So why don't you show me what part of the story was a surprise to God and which part was blind luck?"

Don't know what you're talking about - I wasn't talking about a story and I never said God is surprised by events. But that has nothing to do with sovereignty; it has to do with foreknowledge. They are not the same thing.

Oh so God foreknew but had to stand as bemused spectator and watch? Come on we are talking about God who was able to create all from nothing, to bring life to dust and created the cosmos and all that we can imagine.

Of course God's hand was in Joseph's story or else the story of Joseph is nothing more than good reading. Why do you think the story is in the Bible?

Scripture is not about man it is about God with man playing a bit part. God is sovereign and God transcend time (can see the past, present and future) because God created and controls time. Joseph was a humble servant of the Lord, that God used to save the Nation of Israel and give it a place to grow into a mighty nation. He then lead them from Egypt to land God had given to Abraham.
Think man!

[titus213]

"Oh so God foreknew but had to stand as bemused spectator and watch? Come on we are talking about God who was able to create all from nothing, to bring life to dust and created the cosmos and all that we can imagine.
Of course God's hand was in Joseph's story or else the story of Joseph is nothing more than good reading. Why do you think the story is in the Bible?"

Did I say God was just a bemused spectator? Or that his hand was not in the story of Joseph? You keep placing words in my mouth which I didn't say - usually a sign of desparation, in my experience. What I object to (from the quotes of writers which YOU opened up this discussion with) is their statements about God being the one who controls all that happens in such a way that his plan can never be thwarted, and that he in fact has pre-determined the decisions and actions of man. These ideas are clearly contrary to the Bible, which is why I object to them so strongly.

So according to your view, did God actually bring about the jealousy of Joseph's brothers which caused them to sin by selling him into slavery? Did he bring about the arrogance of Joseph which led him to sin against his family? Did he cause a woman to tempt Joseph with sexual sin? The story shows how God can take the sinful decisions and actions of man and bring about good from such things. But it surely does not (and indeed cannot) show us a God who has determined those sinful decisions and actions in advance and then has made sure people carried out his "sovereign" plan.

As I mentioned some time back in another discussion, can God be so sovereign that he is sovereign even over his own sovereignty? Of course, the answer is yes. So I am willing to acknowledge that God is even more sovereign than you seem to think he is. But he will not act contrary to his nature -- to who he is -- so he does not have to control all things the way Sproul and the other guy you quoted have said.

"Scripture is not about man it is about God with man playing a bit part. God is sovereign and God transcend time (can see the past, present and future) because God created and controls time. Joseph was a humble servant of the Lord, that God used to save the Nation of Israel and give it a place to grow into a mighty nation. He then lead them from Egypt to land God had given to Abraham."

Gosh, I must have missed the "man playing a bit part" section of the Bible. That's a pretty warped view of how God sees man, I'm afraid. It's too bad that someone forgot to let Jesus know that he was coming to man's world to die for mere bit players in God's grand "sovereign" scheme of things.

[Justaned]

The real problem with the Reformed camp and the pseudo-Arminian/Wesleyan camp is that they do not read and interpret Scripture and attempt to bring their understanding and the need to understand it with them. It really becomes clear when you look at the doctrine of election and predestination. On the one hand you have the Reformed/Calvinist saying that God elected and predetermined who will be saved before the world was created and it is based on God's choice. On the other hand you have modern pseudo Arminian/Wesleyans saying that God has nothing to do with it that it is a persons choice and I have heard some preachers say God is standing there begging you to choose Him. Both positions are repulsive to me and Scripture. Now I will stop here and if there is interest I will continue and explain, if not this reply can sit here.

SCOTT
why and how did the camps get the way they are???

Billy to understand this you have to understand the Reformation.
Most of think it was some great religious Reformation. When in fact it was about who would wield the power, Rome or the Monarchs of Europe. Who would get the tax money Rome or Europe.

Rome had decided to build St Peters, it costs tons of money, to get that money Rome basically was sucking dry the people which was sucking dry the treasuraries of Europe, it was putting a crimp on the plans of the Monarchs. Besides they were growing weary of Rome's involvment in their day to day lives (read they were tired of Rome demanding huge sums of money so they could get rid of an old wife and get a new honey)

Then there was this marginal monk Luther that came up and posted his list of questions for Rome to answer. Rome instead of simply answering them decided to play hard ball and demanded Luther to recant even the very idea of questioning Rome. Had Rome simply answered the questions Luther's name would probably never be known. Well this hubbub was enough for the political powers to sieze upon calling Rome corrupt and demanding a reformation.

Calvin was a what we would call a beatnik, a boehemian, crazy kid of the time. The reformers needed someone to speak for them most of the educated was Europes elite and had little to with religion or law. Here was Calvin a person that had some interest in religion but was not part of the clergy of the church (although he was raised Catholic all his life), plus he had a bonus he had trained a few years at his father insistence to be a lawyer (dropped out of law school the minute his father died) . Who better to be the mouth piece of the Reformation than a young easy to control philosopher that was trained in Wordsmithing. Hence Calvin was put to the task of explaining the Reformed religion to the King of France in what is now known as the Christian Institutes, which have been rewritten over and over to clean up and have them agree with developing Reformed theology.

In the mean time other Reformers had their guy doing the same thing, since each was writing as he personally or a small number understood they took many different ways. Soon people were questioning which was right, the reformers were not stupid they knew to succeed the had to have power so each set about convincing the Monarcy of their country their brand of theology was correct. The Monarchs didn't care as long as the hold of Rome was loosed from their neck and their purse strings. Now the Reformers had the armies of those countries behind them. Then all hell broke out in Europe as one country after another tried to eliminate that countries theology. It go so bad that people (pilgrims, puritians, Catholics, Amish, Menonites and others) had to flee Europe to find religious freedom. This did one thing made each side deepen their conviction they were right and made them fashion their stance more unique to insure everyone would know their position.

Had the Reformation been a real reform of the church, the Catholic church would have been changed (which later happened anyhow) and we all would have remained Catholics. Most of the goofy ideas birthed in the Reformation would not be considered or would in the light of ALL of scripture been proven wrong and we all would be back on the road serving God instead of fighting amidst each other over what formula should be used for Baptism, or is it grace or works or both that save us, and on and on it goes. We argue and while we do sinners are dying without hearing the Good News of Jesus Christ. I wonder who came up with the whole idea that has basically divided and fragmented Christianity and has kept that way for over 600 years? Do you think it might have been Satan?