Sovereignty of God???

It is a wonderful question to ask, and I'm really glad you posed it, because it is central to understanding the whole issue.

First, does scripture actually tell us to do or not do something when we can't make the choice? Absolutely.

The OT is filled with commandments we are incapable of following. God surely knows we are incapable of following these commandments, and yet He issued them in spite of this knowledge. Technically, God is the One who made us incapable. He created a system where we would inherit a sin nature from Adam's transgression, thus crippling our ability to comply with His commandments. Yet there you have it in black and white -- not only does Deuteronomy say, "Do this and be blessed, do that and be cursed," it also says, "I'll tell you something ahead of time, folks -- you're going to do *that* and I'm going to curse you." So God not only laid out the rules for a people He knew could not follow them, he told them (us) ahead of time that we'd disobey and get cursed.

So if you're going to assume you can judge God as to His justice based on the conclusion that God would not "set up" humans to fail and then still have the right to punish them, then you have to deal with these OT/law issues LONG before you ever get to the issues of salvation.

Why? Because you are inclined a certain way. See below.

Strange to the human mind, isn't it? But how could God demonstrate His mercy unless He ensured disobedience? But that's what the Bible says -- Romans 11:32 "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all."

And we may never be able to wrap our minds around that, as Paul says in the very next verse:

"33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!"

Not deceptive at all! I think God has been very forthright about how it all works. IMO it is the stubborn pride of man that makes it difficult for us to see the obvious. Also, remember, "free will" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. We do what we want to -- and that's free will in a sense, but it is limited by the fact that we are inclined to want only certain things. When people think of "free will" they often forget that obvious limitation.

Now -- WHO is capable of changing one's heart so that one will want something other than what one wants today?

In other words, if your decisions are driven by your inclinations, and only God can change your inclinations, then how could anyone possibly attribute any change in heart to his/her own free will? How, then could anyone possibly say they were saved by a free will choice, if they could not possibly want salvation unless their heart was changed by God?

 

But npetreley, remember what Pastor Larry wrote on page 1:

As I keep pointing out, if "NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING" is out of his control, then he must do MORE than just "guarentee" that Adam fell. He must have controlled EVERYTHING. That includes Adam's movements, his words, his thoughts, and every other THING! You're right: that's not a puppet. It's a heck of a lot more control than that. If you do not believe this, that is fine. But it means you don't believe in the soverignty of God according to Pastor Larry's definition.

But the problem with your argument is it assumes that man acts the way he does because of the conditions he finds himself in. It is true that machines work like this: and so if man were a machine, then yes, God would be ultimately responsible, for he could do nothing else. It would be just like the man who pulls the trigger is responsible for firing the gun - once the trigger is pulled, the gun can do nothing else. However, man is not a machine! Adam and Eve had a free will. Circumstances did NOT dictate what they did. If they were a gun, they would NOT be forced to shoot if the trigger was pulled. And so God is NOT responsible - THEY ARE! We see that in giving man a will, God has delegated some control to him. This is surely consistent with being made in the image of God; and also fits nicely into the command to rule the earth. It is also the reason why man, not God, is responsible.

But the difference is that man is not a machine! This is not splitting hairs!

 

Unfortunately, this is a long series of non-sequiturs, the first of which is easy to dispell. It does not follow that if God is responsible for sin, then He is engaged in it and therefore sinful.

Sin is not being in alignment or agreement with God. That comparison alone tells you God can easily create a sinful being without God Himself being sinful. All God has to do is create a being that is not inclined to be in alignment or agreement with Himself.

Yet it is still impossible for God to be sinful by this very definition. Alignment with God means God is the measuring stick by which sin is defined. Anything that is not in agreement with God is therefore sin, but since God is God, He cannot be anything but in agreement with Himself and therefore is incapable of sin.

 

Here's the core of our disagreement. You insist that total control over everything, everything, everything must be defined as God manipulating every movement, word, thought, etc., micromanaging every detail. This is one of many no-sequiturs (see other post for another) on which you base your argument, but you have arrived at that conclusion and will not consider the possibility that your conclusion is in error. There's no point in discussing any of the other issues because they all stem from this difference.

 

But npeterley, the post you responded to was not arguing against your position, but that of superdave, who wrote:

"All things" includes what Adam did, said and thought. So according to Superdave's position (which by what you have said, you obviously don't agree with), God is working man much more completely than even a puppet.

And BTW, I was not talking about God creating something that was not in alignment with himself; but about God "controling all things". If he controls all things, then he controls sin, which is a "thing". This would mean he REALLY IS engaged in sin! Since you pointed out that this is impossible, it also follows that the idea that God CONTROLS all things is also impossible.

 

It appears that we are descending into a game of semantics. "Everything" means just that: EVERY THING. An action is a "thing" - does God control all actions? A thought is a "thing" - does God control all thoughts? A detail is a "thing" - does God control all details? From what you've written, I don't think you believe this. And neither do I! The problem is that that is how Pastor Larry defined "Sovereignty" on page 1 - and as he said, "You either believe it or you don't"!

 

Bartholomew,

Your problem is not with what I said. Your problem is with what Scripture said. All I did was quote Scripture. The sovereignty of God does not make him responsible for sin. That is the conclusion of your own finite thinking and is a direct contradiction of Scripture. However, it is clear that God does ordain and control sin for his own purpose. We need look no further than the cross to see your idea refuted. This issue, as it so often does, has boiled down to whether God is obligated to make himself understandable to our finite minds, or whether we should simply take his word for what it says and believe it, or whether we should question or doubt certain parts of his word because we don't understand how it fits together. The second option is the only good one and it is the one I have taken.

 

Pastor, would you care to tell me how God can control sin, and yet not be responsible for it? Can you tell me why the other Calvinists in this discussion think he IS responsible for sin?

 

Pastor, would you care to tell me how God can control sin, and yet not be responsible for it? Can you tell me why the other Calvinists in this discussion think he IS responsible for sin? </font>[/QUOTE]Because control does not equal responsibility, in theological terms. In use responsible in terms of culpability or liability. God is not culpable for my sin, Adam's sin, your sin, or anyone's sin. I can't answer for others but my guess is we are probably both saying essentially the same thing. God has always controlled and even ordained sin for his own purposes. The Bible is explicit about this. The Bible is also explicit that God does not tempt man with sin. Therefore, I believe both truths and understand that any tension is because of my own failure to understand, not his. You must accept the truth of Scripture and allow your own thinking to change to conform to it.

[ June 13, 2003, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Or, you must be wrong in your understanding of scripture.

 

How? It's out of my control, isn't it? Doesn't "allowing" my thinking to change mean *I* have the control to make the choice to accept it? How does one "submit" to accepting this doctrine if one is not predestined to?

 

Or, you must be wrong in your understanding of scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]But I have already demonstrated that not to be the case but supporting my view from the text of Scripture rightly interpreted.

 

Oh, and Pastor, I asked you this question on page 2. What are your thoughts?

 

How? It's out of my control, isn't it? Doesn't "allowing" my thinking to change mean *I* have the control to make the choice to accept it? How does one "submit" to accepting this doctrine if one is not predestined to? </font>[/QUOTE]God is not manipulating you or forcing you to do anything. You have the responsibility to believe the truth of God.

This is an area where your view insists that there can be nothing about the infinitude of God that is hidden from man. You insist that if it doesn't make sense to man, then it must be wrong. However, as I just said, I have shown from Scripture that what I believe is taught. I don't have to understand it for it to be true. I will be held responsible if I do not accept its truth. A large part of this problem is that people from yoru view are so driven by human autonomy and superiority that they refuse to accept that which they cannot reconcile. I don't say that as a slam against your or Bartholomew or anyone else on that side. I simply say that to say that you are being driven by your own logic rather than be the revelation of Scripture. That, I believe, is a troublesome position. I would rather be driven by Scripture.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]I didn't see the question. I dropped out on page 1 I think (or a while ago). You have again demonstrated a fallacy by believing that control equals causation. I reject that. Man is free to do whatever he wants to do. From our perspective we can make any one of dozens of choices at any given time. We are free to do whatever we want. That is biblical free will. It is contradictory to nothing I have said.

 

HOW do I believe, if it's not in my control?

I insist no such thing. I am only trying to understand how anyone can truly "accept", can "submit", can "believe", if "nothing is left out of his control, nothing, nothing, nothing."

But, according to you, what choice do I have? It's all in HIS control, not mine. I literally have NO CHOICE but to disagree with you, if you are correct. It was predestined, inevitable. Can you not see this?

 

I see what you are saying. But I don't see it in Scripture. That is why I reject it. You seem to believe that total control means that man is a robot. I reject that. Man is responsible to believe and will held liable for not believing. That is the clear teaching of Scripture. The fact that God is in control of everything is also the clear teaching of Scripture. You seem to insist that they cannot be both be true. Scripture disagrees with that.

The only thing I don't see is why some of my BB friends here are so willing to insist that truth must fit their own conception of what is possible rather than letting Scripture decide for us. Having been through this ad nauseum in the CvA forum, I don't harbor any illusions of solving it here thought.

 

You've got two slippery debate techniques going on here. First, your use of the word "engaged" makes it possible to slip around other definitions. So please define this more directly -- when you say God would be engaged in sin, are you saying that God is sinning?

Second, you define sin as a thing, and then use your definition to prove your point. I defined sin as "not in agreement or alignment with God". That is not a thing, it is a state. You can disagree with me, and that's fine -- but you just slipped from one definition to another without explaining why, and then declared victory.

A sin may be a thing, mind you, and that's where I think you've gone off track -- you aren't distinguishing between sin and "a" sin. Someone commits a sin because they are not in alignment with God, not in agreement with God, and not inclined to be in alignment or agreement. So their sinful nature is behind their sin -- NOT God. God may have created them with a sinful nature (or imputed a sinful nature upon them, however you want to see it), which guarantees they will sin, but God does not actually commit the sin.

 

But it seems to be the only logical conclusion to your position (as I understand it).

If man is not a robot, then I it's not *total* control. Man has some control of his choices and actions, or he doesn't. It's that simple.

If that's what you think I'm doing, you're mistaken. But maybe you were predestined to be mistaken. At least one of us has to be, eh?

 

Pastor, would you care to tell me how God can control sin, and yet not be responsible for it? Can you tell me why the other Calvinists in this discussion think he IS responsible for sin? </font>[/QUOTE]I just want to make sure you understand that when I say God is responsible for sin, I mean He is the ultimate cause. I don't mean he is responsible in the same sense we are responsible for our sin -- that he could be judged as guilty of sin, Himself.