The Sovereign Lord

Where is the supposed contradiction. to begin with? Only in the minds of those who have already decided to follow some particular man-made system of theology, of whatever flavor, IMO. Simply put.

The word "sovereign" is not found in the KJV, RV, or ASV, as far as I can determine. Sovereignty is used once in the RV and ASV, but not the KJV. However the concept is to be found in Scripture, IMO. Humble or not. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

#1. Calvinism is wrong. Using that as a starting point a lot of answers just come right into place!

Speaking of going to the start -- In the beginning God "Created".

Nothing existed - so God made it -- He is sovereign. All things came into being by His Will that they should exist.

So at the starting point God makes some decisions --

2. Just make ants and be the God of a giant ant-universe or making even more amazing stuff? God must sovereignly choose.

3. Make intelligent life - capable of independant thought and reason or just make chemical and stimulus driven drones? God must sovereignly choose free-will or a universe frull of drones.

4. Allow himself to be "audited" and questioned by his own intelligent creation or arbitrary decision making with no point in questioning/auditing/testing? (Job 1 and 2 comes to mind as does Romans 3:3, Rev 19:1-4).

In all these cases God has MORE than ONE choice available to Him and He can sovereignly CHOOSE EITHER of them!!

Calvinism tries to "imagine" that God has no choice IF He wants to be sovereign. But that is because Calvinism has a limited tiny-world sense of what sovereign "means". As always - Calvinist definitions are defective.

In Christ,


Bob

 

I guess to understand why we use the word "soveriegn" a definition of the word is in order.

sov·er·eign
–noun 1.a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler. 2.a person who has sovereign power or authority. 3.a group or body of persons or a state having sovereign authority. 4.a gold coin of the United Kingdom, equal to one pound sterling: went out of circulation after 1914. –adjective 5.belonging to or characteristic of a sovereign or sovereignty; royal. 6.having supreme rank, power, or authority. 7.supreme; preeminent; indisputable: a sovereign right. 8.greatest in degree; utmost or extreme. 9.being above all others in character, importance, excellence, etc. 10.efficacious; potent: a sovereign remedy.


From Scripture, we know that these definitions do fit God's character. Especially definitions 1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10. I think soveriegn is a great word to desribe God, since He is sovereign.

 

First off let me say up front that I am no 5 point Calvinist (but I am the Moderator that was debateing with HBSMN in the other thread). He has not provided you with the full conext of that debate. So I will. Let me go copy the portions of that thead and repost them here. Back in a bit.

 

Finally, I would add regarding HBSMN’s Queen of England line of argumentation we are not debating whether or not if God is always obeyed. We are talking about whether or not His Sovereign Will is carried out or if it can be thwarted in some way.

 

Keep burning up those strawmen, Bob. Indeed God does choose, but I think it's safe to say that He has more choices than you would give Him. In fact, if you want to get really into it, the choices that you give God to make are only based on what God has given us. Creation could have been competely different, we could have been a creation totally unthinkable to us at this point. Completely beyond our realm of thought and reason. But it pleased God to make us in His image. We are an image of the God who created us. It pleased God to interact with us.

I think part of your misunderstanding of the system of soteriology known as Calvinism, is a misunderstanding of the attributes of God, and the means that God uses to reconcile sinful humanity to Himself. Instead of giving God the glory for intimatly knowing His creation before He actually created us, predestinating us to be conformed into the image of His Son, calling us, justifying us, and ultimatly glorifying us, you corrupt this messege by making salvation hinge on a decision a sinful man makes, and not on God from whom all mercy and forgiveness flows. For someone who claims "sola scriptura" you seem to have a very low (and unscriptural)view of grace in light of our sinfulness.

To make man the master of his own destiny is an anti-Christian idea. The idea of libertarian free will is not only a snare, but it also promotes self love, self righteousness, pride, and is an idol. In attacking the system of Calvinism, you must ignore or misinterpret much of the Bible. That very idea is based on the presupposition that man, in his current sinful state, is completely free to do good or evil. But that is not the case, senor. Scripture doesn't allow for such.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

Help me out here, Dustin. If 5-point Calvinism is true, then wouldn't it be impossible for those chosen in advance to reject salvation? Or unnecessary to even bother about salvation, since they have an advance guarantee?

Isn't it more sound to say that God came up with a plan to invite all his creation to receive Jesus as Savior, and some who hear the message reject it? Given a choice, the rejecters choose not to believe? Isn't it a little off the mark to say that man in his sinful state can't accept or reject the Gospel? If the Holy Spirit is the one who brings the message (and He is), then the call is authentic and based on God's love for his creation, is it not? If that is the case isn't it a little off the mark to suggest that a loving God created SOME who are too sinful to accept, or to even hear God's call? I get the image of a guy sitting in a dirty bar drinking beer, chain smoking in the presence of other beer guzzlers and chain smokers, uttering one curse word after another, one sad song after another on the juke box (do they still have those?) when the dump catches on fire and he can't escape.

God is sovereign, of course. He is also love. What say you?

 

When discussing 2Peter 3 "God is not WILLING that ANY should perish but that ALL SHOULD come to repentance"

As predicted Calvinism always comes up with the "GOD CAN NOT..." and then plugs a bogus Calvinist argument in ...

And as I have ALREADY said

NOTE: Just when Dustin wants to make the bogus argument that such a clear case of a faulty Calvinist argument is not in existence -- Bible Boy has come along to SHOW that it clearly IS in existence and IS the predictable pattern always used by them.

In the case above it is clear to ALL that the 2Peter 3 statement God makes is not in the form of the Soveriegn PREDICTIVE "ALL WILL BE SAVED" - Rather it is of the form "God is NOT WILLING that any should perish but rather (God WILLS) that ALL should come to repentance".

Clearly the fact that ALL do NOT come to repentance is not the FAULT of God (as Calvinism so often likes to imagine) in not WILLING sufficiently.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Great question! About Unconditional Election, this particualar aspect is an eternal decree. Quite simply, God knows whom He has chosen, we do not. It is very safe to say that there are people in churches where the Gospel is not being preached, no sacraments administered, faithful biblical exposition going on, that at some point before they die, will be moved away from such teaching and believe the true Gospel and be saved.


Conversly, there are those who are in very conservative, Bible believing churches that administer the sacraments and hear solid, sound, teaching every Lord's Day that will, at some point before they die, turn away from the faith completely.

Now, if you look at these people in thier present state, it's safe to say you would assume that the outcome would be the opposite from what I just described. But we don't know for sure. But, I believe that the outcome of those peoples lives would be exactly according to God's eternal decree of election. God has mercy on whom He has mercy, God hardens whomever He will harden. We do not know who the chosen are, God does. Predestination, election and the like seem unfair to us. They seemed unfair to me at one time, but it's in the Bible, I must accept it.

Don't think that I am being cold, or unloving, because as much as I might come off being that way, it's not intended. Indeed, considering our sinfulness, and God's holiness, it is a wonder why He chose to save ANY of us. God loves his creation, no doubt about that. I believe God loves His WHOLE creation. But not the same way He loves a believer in Christ. In Romans 8 it says that God foreknows us. What does that mean? Not that He simply knew that at some point in the future we would become Christians, but that He knew us in a very intimate sense. Because the Bible says those He foreknew, He predestined to be conformed in the image of His Son.

Now of course, God forknew everything. He foreknew those who would be saved and those who would be damned. God knew in eternity past that Peter and Judas Iscariot would make professions of Christ. He knew Peter would deny Christ. He knew that Judas would betray Christ. But what really seperates Peter from Judas Iscariot? They were both sinners. They both turned away from Christ. But Peter died a martyr and Judas died an apostate. What's the difference? God is. It pleased God to grant Peter repenance and it pleased God to condemn Judas. God forknew Peter, pedestined him to be conformed to the image of His Son, He called him, justified him, and glorified him. God foreknew Judas, but not in the same way. God loved Peter in a more intimate way that He loved Judas, to put it very simply.

I'm not even done with answering your post, and I've rambled so much already. I'm gonna cut it off for now. It's just really good questions like this are a long time coming.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

Exactly, it's because man sinned and stands guilty. God is not willing that any should perish but God is just and must punish sin. Sin consumes the heart of a man, so that he desires sin. He will not desire God. He desires to gratify his sinful nature. Only when God changes someones heart, will they desire Him.

It's called monergism.

Here's a definition: "In theology, the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration - that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration."

It is only by God's mercy that any are saved. God chooses some, God passes over others. It is not that God is not willing enough, it is that God has no obligation to save any of us, and only does so because He loves us and has mercy on us and grants us grace.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

That is not entirely true. God argues that HIS DRAWING enables the sinful heart to choose. Even Calvinism admits to this. The problem is that Calvinism blunders into the false argument that God's drawing MUST ALSO cause the regenerative new birth BEFORE the heart can choose or can desire HIM.

But as Christ shows clearly in Rev 3 - while God is on the OUTSIDE and the sinner ALONE and on the INSIDE -- Christ stands OUTSIDE knocking -- it is up to the sinner ALONE on the INSIDE to OPEN the door.

That is not the disputed point.

The Arminian position is that the Holy Spirit is the one who DRAWS AND the Holy Spirit is the one who regenerates the heart.

But the DISTINCTIVE is that the Arminian position admits to the Bible truth that though ALL ARE DRAWN not ALL are regenerate for in the drawing is the ENABLING to CHOOSE - but in the choosing not ALL decide to open he door.

Calvinism simply prefers to view this as arbitrary selection where God innexplicably refuses to sufficiently DRAW ALL even though HE claims He will do so in John 12:32.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That is a good statement of the Calvinist doctrine error regarding the INNABILITY of God to enable choice by simply DRAWING ALL to Himself. Calvinism argues that God MUST ALSO regenerate the one drawn so that they CAN choose and that choosing is only STARTED once you are a born-again forgiven saint. Something that is not taught in all of scripture.

Now see? We agree on "something"!

As already stated -- Calvinism teaches "arbitrary selection".

In Calvinism instead of "God so loving the WORLD that He gave..." we have "God so arbitrarily selected out the FEW of Matt 7 to love that for THEM ALONE HE gave...".

Calvinism's need to rewrite the text of scripture is apparent from day one.

As the "Calvinist future scenario" demonstrates the principle in 4 and 5 point calvism demands a certain cold heartless disconcern for those NOT arbitrarily selected so that the focus is only on "God chose ME" and no concern for "you" if you are not arbitrarily selected.

You stated this doctrinal error in Calvinism perfectly when you said

Dustin - this is not going to be an easy discussion for you - as the Bible will be shown repeatedly to debunk the false teachings of Calvinism AND WILL show that God "SO LOVED THE WORLD that HE gave" -- yes really. It will show that HE IS NOT WILLING for ANY to Perish -- and that this is not simply "word gaming" by God nor "False marketing" it is actually true. And that really causes the Calvinist argument to choke.

Just when Calvinism wants to argue a cold heartless arbitrary selection when it comes to the lost -- God will say "He is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR SINS and NOT for our sins only but for the SINS of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2.

Just when Calvinism will want to argue "God did NOT send his son to be the savior of the WORLD" -- God will say "God sent His Son to be the savior of the WORLD" 1John 4:10-14.

So as we unfold the stark contrast between the pure Bible view of God vs Calvinism you will be asked to admit to "God who IS LOVE" rather than "God who IS arbitrary" -- don't fight it for how in the world can this be bad for you? Where does this damage or threaten you in any way? Rather it is GOOD for you AND for all those you care about.

In Romans 2 God argues that HE IS NOT partial - arbitrary and biased -- Just when Calvinism wants to argue "arbitrary selection".

It is so funny that Arminians will argue the point with Calvinists that God DOES love them AND ALL their family an loved ones. Calvinists will then get hot under the collar and insult the Arminians for saying such a thing. They will insist rather that God arbitrarily selects -- chooses and picks between them and their family members -- who to love and who to toss into the torture flames for all eternity. They willl then be dismissive and harsh towards any Arminian that would dare highlight the Bible truths that debunk that harsh view of God.


In Christ,

Bob

 

That is the part we all agree to -

The "distinctive" in 4 and 5 point calvinism is that they argue "sinful man who is DRAWN to Christ but not ALSO born-again will STILL always reject the Gospel because any DRAWING of God that does not ALSO cause the New Birth is STILL insufficien".

And that is where Calvinists and Arminian views differ.

You are mixing too different topics. Leave it at those who are IN the church who ARE saved vs those IN the church who are NOT saved and you have the clear Arminian vs Calvinist "difference" for you would say the SAME as you have above -- about that IN CHURCH context.

Once you get that IN CHURCH doctrine correct regarding God's act in choosing you will then be able to correctly address the NOT IN Church context mentioned above. But why start off by muddying the waters until the simple - easy scenario is correctly stated?

In Christ,

Bob

 

If you refuse to look at Bible passages in context then I refuse to answer every single argument you present. These issues have been dealt with munerous time by me and the other Calvinists on the board. Election is NOT arbitrary selection! Election is a means God uses to save sinners. If you ever want to really debate the subject, then learn a thing or two about Calvinism and then we can talk. I will not waste my time with your Arminian strawmen. It is one thing to have a healthy edifying discussion of bible doctrine and it is another to sift through your usual screen of ad hominem and bunk arguments to make a valid point.

By the way, God is not partial to Jews only, as the context of Romans 2 states if you read the verse before it.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I was talking about those who are unchurched. The "people in a remote jungle" who live and die and never hear of Jesus Christ. I was pondering why that is. If God draws all men in the way you say, then why do some not hear the Gospel? I'm not trying to debate anything on the issue, I was genuinly wondering. I have ideas about it, but I just don't know enough to make a concrete statement, so I left it all up in the air so to speak. I would have to answer that by saying if some live and die without hearing the Gospel, then that is God's purpose (which I have no right to protest anyway). But other than that, I have nothing else.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

"GOD, is not willing that any should PERISH" -- what a difference from: quoting BobRyan: "God is not WILLING that ANY should perish".

See the difference? It's huge and absolute! If you can't, it's no use trying to explain it to YOU.