Arminians and Sovereignty

Winman, God does not command me to breathe, but he controls my breathing. I breathe by his power. I will stop breathing the moment he stops powering my lungs. What he commands has nothing to do with what he controls.

The fact that God did not command them to burn their children proves nothing.

Your contention is that God had no control over the burning of their children. He was not in control as they burned them. He ruled, powered, controlled the vast cosmos except for one tiny stretch of land that night. Thus, according to your belief, God is not truly sovereign.

 

I was an Arminian for better than a decade. I was first educated at an Arminian college. I am familiar with the Remonastrants and the tenets of Arminians taken from the teachings of their late founder, Arminius.

The doctrine set forth claims sovereignty but then undermines it.

RC Sproul said this week at the Expository Preaching Conference in Mobile that the first page of everyone's Systematic Theology, their Theology Proper, looks the same. Arminians and Calvinists alike use the same terms and practically the same definitions. The difference is that Calvinists do ont contradict their first page with the rest of their theology- Armininians do.

 

Why is it obvious? Make a case. What if we all just said, "obviously" instead of forming arguments? This would be a pretty pointless site wouldn't it.

I don't think it is obvious; in fact, I think it is obvious that God works ALL THINGS after the counsel of his own will and that of him and through Him and to Him are all things.

 

God is ultimately responsible for evil. There is no logical way around that. What you have not yet considered, as I had not for many years, is that evil... is a necessary evil.

God always intended to create man who he knew would sin which would provide God with the opportunity to magnify his grace and mercy on Calvary and to raise up a people who would praise his son forever for his grace.

Evil in that sense is good because it brings glory to God. Anything that brings glory to God is good because that is the measure of what is good.

God was working the fall out for his own purposes. He intended Adam to fall, he intended for sin to enter the world. He would use it for his glory which is the highest and noblest of purposes in the universe.

Without evil, there cannot be grace and mercy.

That men suffer and many go to hell is a small, infinitely small price to pay for the eternal glory of God he receives for his mercy and grace.

God created evil for that purpose. This is why he hardens hearts and drives men to do what they do.

The alternative is to purport that things happen totally outside the control of God but then God comes along and works them out after they have happened- that is not Sovereignty.

 

Yea, I think Augustine's view of evil being the privation of good is accurate- just as darkness is not a thing; it is the absence of light.

But Sovereignty, at least exhaustive sovereignty (which is really the only kind a divine, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being can possess) demands that God is Lord even over the privation- he is God even of the hole.

And there is no denying that the privation of good was necessary to the extension of grace and mercy whereby Christ will be magnified forever.

The problem some folks have with God being ultimately responsible for evil is that they think that if it is evil to us then it is evil for God- not so.

What is evil for us can be perfectly good for God. By evil comes great virtues: courage is not possible without evil. Sacrifice is not possible without evil. Grace and Mercy, etc... Evil grants the ability for these virtues to exist which makes evil a good thing.

 

Sure he had glory Amy, sure he did. But there are things that he could not get glory for without sin and evil.
Explain how he gets glory for mercy without sin.
Explain how he gets glory for grace without sin.
Explain the need of sacrifice and how he gets glory for it without sin.

You guys are responding in knee jerk fashion to what you perceive as blasphemy without considering it is the theology of Spurgeon and Edwards and a host of other greats throughout Christian history.

To read this post and knee jerk declare that it is messed up theology is to condemn the theology of the greats as well.

Think it through, don't just knee jerk respond.

How does God get glory for unmerited favor without sin? Now don't run away at this point. You attacked- now stay int he pocket and answer the question.

 

Since you have retreated for the night just when you were getting cornered, I thought I would give you some Edwards on the above accusation of blasphemy and let you call him a blasphemer if you so choose.

Thus in one sense God wills that what he hates come to pass, as well as what he loves.

 

Here is the proof you request:

God often expresses his will to be one way, and then acts to bring about another state of affairs. God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 – "He turned their hearts to hate his people."). He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1). He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10). He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11). He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16). He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28). He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26).

 

I cannot improve upon Jonathan Edwards on this matter. For those who really want to know the truth about evil rather than just drive by posting against someone who you disagree with in a knee jerk fashion read below what the greatest theological mind in American history had to say on the matter:

 

Once again, knee jerk reaction rather than a thoughtful one.

Call Jonathan Edwards guilty of borderline blasphemy. I have his thoughts on it quoted above.

Call Charles Spurgeon a blasphemer.

It is not about that he is the direct author of sin, but that he willed the existence of sin. He is the Sovereign ruler of all things including the creation of evil.

That's Bible. There are a host of Bible passages two or three posts up that I provide.

This is classical theology. It is reformation theology. To call it blasphemy is to identify your own ignorance.

 

Is this guy for real???