| Author |
Message |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 143
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 10:56 am: |     |
Susan,
LOL ń you are right about Armenians and Arians, just not what we are talking about.
Colleen,
I would like to share some more thoughts about this if I may, but if you want to tell me to shut up about it I would be happy to comply. It is, after all, not exactly on the subject of Adventism. I do not think it is worth dividing over either. It is just interesting to try to figure out exactly what things like election, calling, predestination, foreknowledge and stuff mean. If everyone else is bored sick with it, then I could shut up as well.
Jeremy,
I loved your Ellen White quote from GC about Bible interpretation on the other thread, I had not spotted that before. Thanks for Ps 130: 3 too ń good verse.
About Arminianism: I think again we may not be quite understanding each other. I did not mean to upset anyone, but I do think it is useful to examine, even question familiar concepts so we can learn.
Just as I have never been SDA, I have also never been Calvinist, therefore when I have looked at these systems, it has been as an outsider, so I may not really understand the corresponding mentalities, as others may not understand mine.
I have always known, and taught, that the way of salvation is by grace, through faith, with works of the law playing no part in it. I have to emphasise this here most strongly, so that people understand, as this is a Catholic country, and legalism is very strong in all the Protestant churches too. I consider it a given, that God in His sovereignty has been the initiator in providing salvation for man, and we have to accept His way (by grace through faith) and not invent one of our own ń He is king, after all, and He determines how this is. I did not think this point was in dispute at all, I thought all Evangelicals believed that. It is the details I have problems with. Like, not grace as such, but irresistible grace.
I think I should just give you the bottom line on why I am not a Calvinist, and then see where we can go from there.
Perhaps I should say I have a background in the physical sciences (chemistry) so I tend, maybe even unconsciously, to apply the ěscientific methodî when thinking about theological issues too.
This works approximately as follows:
We make observations.
We construct a hypothesis based on the observations.
We make predictions based on the hypothesis.
We do further experiments to see if the predictions are true.
If the predictions are true, the hypothesis is supported, if not, it needs to be modified (if possible) or rejected and a new one constructed.
In the case of Christian theology, the material for the ěobservationsî is the word of God, interpreted using various hermeneutical principles.
I used this method on Adventism too, and found the theory had to be discarded.
When testing the ěCalvinist hypothesisî against the word of God, I find I come upon a logical impossibility. I am not an expert in logic, but I believe it is generally accepted that we cannot say:
ěX is Yî and ěX is not Yî and have these both be true at the same time.
I cannot say, ěthis cat is blackî and ěthis cat is not black.î
This is my problem with the system:
The Bible tells me that God has various moral attributes. He is loving, kind, long suffering, righteous and holy. There are specific verses that tell me God is impartial, He makes just judgements, and that He commands His people to do the same, e.g.
ěDo not pervert justice or show partialityî (Deut 16: 19)
ěNow let the fear of the Lord be upon you. Judge carefully, for with the Lord our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery.î (2 Chron 19: 7)
ěTeacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right and that you do not show partialityî (Luke 20: 21) ń said to Jesus, who is God.
ěI charge you, in the sight of God and Jesus Christ and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favouritismî (1 Tim 5: 21).
Also Acts 10: 34-35; Rom 2: 9-11.
Then the Calvinist theory of election tells me that God chooses one individual over another based on absolutely no criteria, other than the fact that He just does it.
So I have to believe:
ěGod is impartialî
and
ěGod is not impartialî
at the same time.
This is either an inscrutable mystery, or it is just wrong.
This is not the same as the Trinity. If God were one person and three persons, it would be illogical, but He is three persons in one being, so it is not.
I have thought about whether Calvinism can be modified in any way, like saying God claims to be impartial, but still makes arbitrary choices, but that would make Him a deceiver, and the Bible tells me God does not lie (Titus 1: 2; Heb 6: 18).
It seems there is no way to avoid this logical contradiction, and still retain the hypothesis, so I feel I have to make the decision to discard it and move on. It is obviously not out of the question that my logic may be false, or I may have missed something.
If the logic is correct, this means that there has to be another hypothesis that explains the Biblical evidence better.
I am still in the process of examining alternatives.
God bless you all,
Adrian
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 838
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 10:13 am: | |
Very interesting, Adrian. And please don't hear me arguing with you. I, as I've said before, am not in the business of defending either position as CORRECT. I'll just share the way the adjectives "impartial" and "not impartial" look to me. Actually, what you have said makes sense, yet I still see an "illogical" component in some passages of Scripture.
For example, (this is the example that I keep coming back to!) God chose Abram out of Ur before He was (to our knowledge, anyway) a believer. His family were moon worshipers, and we have no reason to believe Abram was not before God called him. (Joshua 24:4) There's absolutely no reason given as to why God chose Abram (later Abraham). I think we can accurately conclude that God knew him and understood that Abraham's heart wanted truth and reality and honored God when He revealed Himself to Abraham, but we don't know the reason God chose Abraham, and we don't know the reason Abraham was open to God while his family were idolaters.
I guess I'm saying that God's "impartiality" or "partiality" is relative to our persepctive. The Bible clearly says God is impartial. Yet from our persepctive, God clearly makes some choices that appear arbitrary. None of this discussion, of course, includes whether or not Abraham could have said "no" to God. I guess what I'm further saying is that from our perspective, God may well appear arbitrary, while from an eternal perspective there may be data that fully explains his "arbitrariness", but we can't see it.
I've also recently pondered the fact that before Esau and Jacob were born, God told Rebekah that the older would serve the younger. In Romans 9:11-12, Paul explains that God told her that before the twins were born and before they could have done anything good or bad "in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls."
I understand that this verse does not mean Esau was necessarily lost while Jacob was saved. But it does suggest that God's appointment of Jacob for the role of the father of the 12 tribes was a sovereign choice for which we have no explantion here. He certainly was not a person of sterling character--he was a deceiver and a manipulator, as his name described him. Yet God changed his name to Israel (which means "struggled with God", interestingly), and gave him a fore-ordained job to do for which his bad choices had not prepared him. God prepared him--yet Jacob did surrender to God.
I have also struggled with the logical contradiction of many of these texts. I truly can't resolve them with the information I can find, and I can't resolve them logically, either. I do not believe God is capricious and impulsive, subjectively choosing one and rejecting another. Yet I cannot explain all His choices and actions logically from my perspective, either. This inability to make a nice "unified theory of everything" is the reason I assign it to my "paradox box", and I can live with the tension because I realize God's ways are inscrutable to me even though they're probably "logical" from an eternal perspective.
So even in this I come back to Ephesians 5:19-20--"Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."
And for me, this command results in an illogical paean: Thank you, Father, for your sovereign decisions. Thank you for what you are doing even in the situations and relationships I cannot resolve. Thank you for being Lord even over those I love who do not honor you. Thank you for honoring my desire to know you. Thank you for revealing yourself to all of us who have found You to be our true Sabbath rest. Thank you for allowing us to struggle with paradoxical relationships with you. Thank you for the lack of resolution we experience in many theological issues and in our relationships with You. Thank you for your impartiality to all humanity. Thank you for your choice and election. Thank you for including us as part of Your story.
Thank you for being our sovereign God and for giving us the ability and the desire to worship You!
Colleen |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 149
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 10:53 pm: | |
Thanks for your reply Colleen,
I am off to Slovakia today, so I will get back later. I continue to ponder the matter,
God bless,
Adrian |
Dane
Registered user
Username: Dane
Post Number: 55
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 6:02 am: | |
I want to speak to a point that Dennis made back on Oct 14. It will be easer if I copy his comments here. He wrote,"The sinful human heart will never desire Christ on its own--due to original sin. God must first do something in us (our calling and election) in order for us to have the ability and/or desire to choose him.
Jesus said, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father" (John 6:65 NASU). In his book, CHOSEN BY GOD, theologian R. C. Sproul comments on this verse on page 68 as follows:
In this passage Jesus is not saying, "No one is allowed to come to me..." He is saying, "No one is ABLE to come to me..."
The next word in the passage is also vital. "Unless" refers to what we call a NECESSARY CONDITION. A necessary condition refers to something that must happen before something else can happen.
The meaning of Jesus' words is clear. No human being can possibly come to Christ unless something happens that makes it possible for him to come. That necessary condition Jesus declares is that "it has been granted to him by the Father." Jesus is saying here that the ability to come to him is a gift of God. Man does not have the ability in and of himself to come to Christ. God must do something first."
Dennis, I agree with you that the Bible teaches that sinful man can't even start coming to Christ without the drawing power of God. Where I take issue with Calvinism is that I think this idea is pressed too far.
As I understand Calvinism, (and I have not studied it deeply) the doctrine of irresistible grace appears to totally abrogate man's free will. I don't think this is Biblical.
The Bible obviously teaches both that God predestins and that humans have free will. The problem lies in reconciling this apparent contradiction. (let me insert here that I view Scripture as being complete, authoritative, and without any error)
If humans have true free will, and I think the Scriptures are more than clear that we do, then it follows that the choices we make are "true choices" It also follows that we have the ability to "unchoose" something we had previously chosen. (more on this in a later post)
My view of God's "calling the sinner" is analagous to the owner of an inpenatrable fortress surrounded with a Grand Canyon sized moat and every type of defense. The owner sees a poor beggar outside and decides to help him. The drawbridge is lowered over the moat and the owner comes to the beggar and invites him in. At this point if the Calvinist view is correct then owner forcibly takes the beggar into the fortress. I don't think this is what happens. I think that the beggar has a real choice here as to whether or not he will accept the invitation. I believe this view is fully compatible with John 6:65. Neither in this text nor in any other do I find evidence that God forces someone to accept salvation. Now, maybe I am completely misunderstanding the Calvinist idea of "irrestible grace" but it appears to me that it teaches "salvation by force".
The connection to predestination is that God foreknew whom he would call and also who would accept the call.
That is the way I currently see things.
Dane
|
Dane
Registered user
Username: Dane
Post Number: 56
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 7:26 am: | |
I think I need to clarify where I stand in this debate between Calvinism and Arminianism.
First of all, "we see through a glass darkly". Because of this I don't think anyone has the final say in this debate except God. On the other hand I believe that we have a duty to try to understand what God has revealed to us.
That being said, I can see postives and negatives in both positions. However, at this point in my growth I find more evidence for Arminianism than for Calvinism.
Does this mean I am Arminian? It depends on how you interpret the various Arminian concepts. For example,there are those in the Arminian camp who seem to say that we can never have the assurance of salvation. Then there are others, I think most, who find clear support for the assurance of salvation. Therefore I see different "forms" of Arminianism.
So, although the Biblical evidence I find pushes me to lean more to an Arminian position, I would have differences with some in that camp.
I also think that while this debate is interesting and should be engaged in, the issue is not an "essential of the faith" and therefore should not divide fellowship.
Dane |
Dane
Registered user
Username: Dane
Post Number: 57
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 7:56 am: | |
I want to briefly expand upon my last statement in my previous post.
The gospel is not about theological debate. It is about the acceptance of the free gift of salvation. If this required a deep understanding of what we deem "theological issues" then most Christians throughout history would not have salvation.
As I understand the teaching of God in the New Testament, the simplest, illiterate native Christian deep in a rain forest has the same salvation as that of the most highly educated Bible scholar. And I would guess that the poor native does not spend nearly as much time worrying about it as does the scholar.
Let our attitude be as that of a little child and worship our Awesome God together.
Dane |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 62
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 9:33 am: | |
Dane--I love your practical points.
Personally I have found the whole discussion enlightening as I try to define better what I believe. I find myself less Arminian than I was as an SDA. But that doesn't place me firmly into the Calvinist camp either. I know that God's revelation of His Grace is a powerful thing that I don't know how anyone can resist, but I still believe that everyone has that option. And I have clearly moved away from the idea that I "found" or "understood" His grace somehow. Again if the power of grace is somehow based on what I did, it starts losing its "gift" status and starts to allow for many other things that I do to be tacked on as requirements for gift recipient status. |
Denisegilmore
Registered user
Username: Denisegilmore
Post Number: 110
Registered: 10-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 10:46 pm: | |
Dear Doc, and everyone else who has contributed thoughts into this topic,
First off, I'd like address Doc for his beautiful spirit and Adrian, contrary to your thought, there is no argument nor a debate. As a matter of fact, I'd like to give you a hug. May God Bless you.
This topic indeed brings forth God Almighty and His Sovereignty!
I want to add to this discussion however:
Just Friday, my brother Dennis was found dead and Saturday I was notified of his death. I have plenty to add to this this discussion however my brain at this point and my heart is full of grief.
If given a week or so, perhaps more if I need to travel, I'll be back because there are so many statements I'd like to comment on or about.
Please forgive me everyone.
Love in Christ, Jesus.
denise
|
Dane
Registered user
Username: Dane
Post Number: 58
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 3:27 am: | |
Denise,
We are praying for you.
Dane |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 153
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 7:23 am: | |
Denise,
Nothing to forgive. So sorry about your loss. May God just make you aware of Himself at this time. Thank you for your nice comments.
Dane,
I think I am probably at about where you are. And AMEN to not having to be a theologian to be saved.
I am just amazed sometimes at how wonderful the Bible is, and of course, the God who gave it.
I think the basic gospel is so simple that anyone can understand it (though of course, many do in fact misunderstand). On the other hand, if you choose to study, you can just go deeper and deeper, and find out more and more about God all the time, and there seems to be no end of wonderful, amazing thoughts and insights in there. Only God could have come up with it!
I am still thinking about this subject, but I have no time so say any more right now.
God bless,
Adrian |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 846
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 9:23 am: | |
Thanks again for your clear statements, Dane. I see myself about where you describe yourself as well. I really can't label my position. I just know that God has much more to do with who and where I am than I ever used to think He did!
Denise, I'm praying for you.
Colleen |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 678
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
Denise,
I am so sorry for your sorrow. God has his arms around you right now and is carrying you through this time. I am praying for you.
Diana |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 54
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 6:04 pm: | |
Adrian,
I do not agree with everything Calvinism teaches. I do firmly believe in eternal security, however.
Dane,
Continuing with your analogy: Once the man was safe inside, what if there was a deadly danger on the oustide, on the other side of the moat? If the guy wanted to go outside and die, wouldn't the owner have to once again lower the drawbridge and allow the guy to go back outside and die? Would the owner do that? Would a loving Father do that?
If I was crossing a busy street with my child and holding on to him, and he wanted to get out of my hand's grasp and stand there in the middle of the street and get run over, would I be a good father if I let go of him?
Jeremy |
Dane
Registered user
Username: Dane
Post Number: 60
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 12:41 pm: | |
Hi Jeremy,
I too believe in eternal security, but not in the same sense as is laid out in strict Calvinist doctrine. I really don't want to get into that at this moment. We can look at it later if that is OK.
I liked your analogies above. Quite thought provoking. Analogies can be good, bad, or neutral depending on how they are structured and used.
I created my analogy merely to help explain my thought processes at this time. And it looks like that was also your intent. Analogies can be quite useful but cannot by themselves prove anything.
In looking at our analogies together it seems that we are basing them on apparently opposing presuppositions. My presupposition is that God created us with "true" free will. Your presup. appears to be that we were created without "true" free will. (my thumnail definition of "true" free will involves the real ability to change our minds [within the context of this topic])
By structuring your first analogy as a continuation of mine you appear to concede that the man had "true" free will to choose to enter the fortress. However, once inside, the owner makes him a de facto prisoner thus denying the man any future "true" free will. If you believe as I do that God is logically consistent, I'm having difficulty understanding what I see as a contradiction here. Help?
IMHO your second analogy could be stronger if there was more similarity between it and what we are tying to understand. Our issue here concerns free will. I view the "free will" of a child as quite dissimilar to that of an adult. (however you may be trying to point out that our free will is like that of a child ???) When my children were young I did not let them exercise their will in the same way or to the same extent as when they were teenagers. Now as adults they have "true" free will in that they not only can have desires but can freely act on those desires. (I'm really tired today and I'm not sure how much sense I'm making here.)
Anyway, I think we're having a useful exchange that hopefully will bear some kind of good fruit.
Please keep in mind that I'm not claiming you are wrong in your position, only that I'm not at this point convinced.
May I make a suggestion? If we wish to continue with these little chats I think it would be helpful if we each carefully defined our terms as we use them. Sometimes differences of opinion are based largely on a misunderstanding of definitions.
At the beginning of this post I mentioned that I believe in "eternal security" but not in the sense as strict Calvinism. I also do not subscribe to the SDA view of this issue. Neither is my position somewhere in between if one is viewing this as a linear model.
Very briefly,
1. I see strict Calvinism as denying free will.
2. I do not see the Arminian view as supporting a works-related salvation. (understand that I have not studied this deeply, but I associate with many people who at least claim to support the Arminian position who would be horrified at the idea of a works-related salvation)
3. SDA's reject the idea of eternal security and endorse a works-related salvation, therefor I don't see them as Arminian, but as semi-Pelagian.
4. I believe it can be shown that is Biblically and logically consistent to hold that man's acceptance of and security in salvation is compatible with both man's free will and God's sovreignty without doing damage to either.
After I've rested and collected my thoughts for a few days, I'll continue. But don't expect any great Bible study. I'm just muddling along as best I can.
Grace to you all,
Dane
|
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 156
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 5:43 am: | |
Jeremy,
Thanks for clarifying that point.
Dane,
I think you are right about terminology meaning different things to different people, and also about the concept of human will being a basic difference. Another very important point is how the sovereignty of God is understood.
I have been thinking about that and have a few points to share, but because it seems the difference in understanding is pretty great, it may take a while to explain, so please bear with me.
I mentioned in another post that theology has dealt with the attributes of God, and divides them into essential and moral characteristics. Essential attributes include omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, whereas moral attributes are like love, holiness, righteousness, equity.
Now God is sovereign, as we agree. I believe that means He is absolute king, monarch, He makes all the plans, and fulfils His purposes, and no-one has the right to tell Him to do things differently. However, I believe that although at times God may voluntarily restrict the unlimited use of his essential attributes in order to fulfil His purposes, He will not restrict His morality. I had better clarify that.
It has been said that God is able to keep me from falling. This statement is true, but the question is, is it meaningful? If God is omnipotent, He is able to keep me from falling, and He is also able to drop me from a great height. He is able to squeeze the universe into the size of a tennis ball at three oíclock tomorrow afternoon, but will He? I would say that because He is loving, kind, long-suffering, faithful, truthful (about what He has revealed in His word) and just, He will choose not to destroy the universe tomorrow.
An obvious case where God restricted Himself is in the incarnation. Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity. The Bible says this about him, ěbeing in very nature God, He did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death ń even death on a cross!î (Phil 2: 6-7)
The exact meaning of this ěemptyingî (or kenosis in theological terminology) is a disputed area, but the generally accepted, conservative Evangelical view is that Jesus voluntarily gave up the right to exercise His divine attributes independently of the Fatherís will. He said He did not know the date of His own return, so presumably He did not use His omniscience. He could have escaped the cross by His own power, but chose not to, because it was the Fatherís will, and because it was necessary for Godís purposes to be fulfilled.
However, as Jesus was the perfect revelation of God, He never acted in a way that was immoral, unjust, unloving, or sinful in any way. For instance, He could maybe have made more disciples and been more popular, if He had made the conditions a bit easier, and not condemned the abuses of the religious leadership so strongly, but that would not have been righteous. If we try to fulfil our purposes by taking a short cut, which may involve questionable practices, that is called, ěthe end justifies the means,î and I can hardly imagine the God revealed in the Bible doing anything like that.
Sorry if I have laboured this point a bit, but one problem I see with Calvinism, is that this order is reversed. Godís omnipotence and sovereignty are stressed at the expense of His morality, and this is the wrong way round.
Questions which arise, in terms of Godís morality are:
If God really has made man without free will, and He is able to draw men to Himself by irresistible grace, then is He not unloving and unjust if He does not draw everyone?
I know I have said that before, but I wanted to explain the background in a bit more detail. More about Godís purposes in the next post.
God bless,
Adrian
|
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 157
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 11:01 am: | |
Thinking about Godís purposes. It seems loving relationships are important to God. If we consider who God is, then we even see this as a part of His essential being.
Each member of the Trinity loves and honours the others. We see this revealed really only in the New Testament. For instance in the Gospels we see that the Father loves the Son and gives all things into His hands. The Father bears witness to the Son, e.g. at His baptism and at the transfiguration. The Son loves the Father, and submits to His will, only doing what He sees the Father doing. His will was also to glorify the Father. When the Spirit comes, He will bear witness to the Son, and glorify Him. (See e,g. Jn 3: 34-35; 16: 13-15 and many other places). Each one seems to prefer to love, honour and bear witness to the others rather than to himself.
Although it is acknowledged that God does not ěneedî anyone other than Himself, and can even be a loving, giving being within Himself, just maybe part of His purpose in creation was to have creatures who would reflect this same sort of ethos.
Maybe God wanted creatures who He could love and cherish and look after, and give things to, and who would return the love that He gave them. He wanted to extend this relationship of mutual love and honour to other creatures.
But this love and mutual respect has to be by the free will of each party for it to be really satisfying, because if a robot or a puppet with no choice loves Him, it is rather empty. So He made the sovereign choice to form creatures with free will, who could then make their choice to turn to Him and love Him. I do not think this ědetracts fromî Godís sovereignty in any way, if this was the highest good and the highest purpose. It did, however, involve taking the ěriskî that the creatures would turn away and seek their own good and honour and not that of the Creator.
This is what happened, of course, first Satan turned from glorifying God and looked at his own beauty, and turned many angels away in rebellion.
Then He tempted the human pair, and they sinned.
So the relationship with God was broken ń see Gen 3: 8-10
And now the creatures start looking at each other, but not to honour each other, but to pass the buck, lay the blame.
Donít ask me, it was the wife.
Donít blame me, it was the serpent.
God has since sought those who want to walk with Him, and He is constantly approaching man to get Him to relate to Him.
E.g. Enoch ń Gen 5: 21-24
Abraham ń Gen 18: 17 ff.; 2 Chron 20: 7
Moses ń Ex 33: 9-11
God did all good things on His part that man would love Him
See His sadness, in passages like:
Isaiah 5: 1-4; 65: 1-3; Ezekiel 17: 1-8; 23: 1 ff.
God says He did everything possible for Israel, looked for her, heard her cry, liberated her from slavery in Egypt, brought her into a pleasant land, and gave many good things to her, but basically, she was not interested.
Now under the New Covenant, God has done everything possible for the church.
Remember, God is sovereign, and the plan of salvation is Godís idea:
Man was lost in sin, with no hope of having a relationship with God.
So God sent His son to die for sin, His initiative ń now the way to relate directly to God is open.
The Holy Spirit is sent to help us walk with God day by day.
God has paid the price for both these gifts, and offers them to man freely, just to accept, it does not cost anything.
He could not possibly have done any more.
Based on this scenario, I think God provides the whole plan of salvation, and the Holy Spirit is sent, among other reasons, to enable man to accept it (John 16: 8-11). This is all the sovereign plan of God, but man has to make the choice to accept or reject.
I do not think this makes manís will sovereign, because if it were, either:
a) Man would be able to figure out his own plan of salvation and not bother with Godís, or
b) There would be no consequences for rejecting Godís plan. But because God is sovereign, and He makes the rules, there are eternal consequences.
That will do for now,
God bless,
Adrian
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 875
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 9:58 am: | |
Thank you, Adrian. I like your conclusion in the last two paragraphs.
There is volition in our acceptance of salvation. Concurrently, we would have no volition if the Holy Spirit did not "quicken" our dead spirits to see the reality of Jesus.
Praise God for Himself!
Colleen |
Dd
Registered user
Username: Dd
Post Number: 176
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 4:05 pm: | |
Doctor Adrian  -
Thank you for your time and effort. I really have appreciated reading these thoughts. Only a God such as ours, the One and Only Lord of Lords, has both moral and essential attributes. I like the picture you have painted. |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 165
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 10:37 am: | |
Sorry I have not continued this for a while, I have been busy.
I explained in the first two sections, that God is sovereign, though he will on occasions limit his omnipotence, but not his morality. Also, that God desires a relationship with His creatures, who must make a choice to turn to Him, or away from Him.
Carrying on with the idea of sovereignty:
Just taking the analogy of a human king. If there is an absolute monarch over a realm, then he makes the laws, he issues orders and expects to be obeyed. If the orders are kept, then he may give rewards, and if they are not, he can ordain punishment. On the other hand, the king does not give orders, and then run around pushing people out of the way, and carrying them out himself, just to make sure the job gets done properly. Or he does not stand behind some people making them do what he says, and yet prevent others from doing so.
It is perfectly in line with the concept of ěsovereigntyî for a king to delegate authority, and then not to interfere in how things are done, but to provide help if it is requested. I believe that the Bible teaches us that this is what God, as sovereign, has done.
After God had made the earth, he gave it to man to look after (Gen 1: 27-28). Of course, man has made a few mistakes along the way.
In this present age, God has provided man with the gospel, the way of salvation. He has delegated the job of spreading the gospel to the church (Mat 28: 18-20). Some of the parables indicate that God expects the church to get on with this work while Jesus is absent (in the body, that is), e.g. in Mat 25. Besides giving us the mandate (authority, commission) to do this work, God has also given us all the help (power) we need to do the job, by sending the Holy Spirit (Acts 1: 8). He has also told us all about it in His word, of course.
So God has given man everything he needs to be saved, and to build the church, the body of Christ, including drawing him by the Spirit and ěenablingî him to believe, but He still leaves the final decision to man, as to whether he wants to link in with the purposes of God, or not. Godís sovereignty will finally be made manifest at the Last Judgement, but until then, His long suffering and patience are to lead us to repentance (2 Peter 3: 8-9).
So I believe in the sovereignty of God, but I see it as I have described it above. I think the Calvinist view, that God would not be sovereign if He did not determine everything that happens, is a distortion.
Bye for now,
Adrian |
|
