How is Soverinty Defined?

Here it is online.

 

1689 LBC - excellent confession

 

Excellent point!

But we are instructed to pray "in Jesus' name", in a way, this means pray with God, pray as God; pray in God's authority.
We pray as Jesus would pray.

Our prayers have power only as they represent the will of Jesus.
We are armed with HIS influence.

Rob

 

My view of God's sovereignty excludes total control indirectly. In his sovereignty, he created man in his image and gave to man the same volition that he enjoys. God retains the right to intervene at any time and take divine control (such as in the case of miraculous events), but returns things to free control afterward. God could have created a world in which he retained complete and total control, if he so desired; however, I believe, based on many verses, that God allows man to enjoy a free will.

I am not familiar with the term Open Theism, so I try neither to avoid it nor hit it.

 

Point taken, I did take a cheap shot, and I apologize to those who took offense. However, I do not believe that sovereignty can be discussed without Calvinist and Arminian beliefs manifesting into the discussion. I apologize if my Calvinist brothers felt they were belittled by my previous post.

:1_grouphug:

 

In the matter of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will and/or his responsibility, to say that there is a balance at the center would not be appropriate. Both divine sovereignty and human responsibility are truths found in the Word of God. They are not competing truths they are truths! They are truths that cannot be reconciled.

The free will of man does no violence to God’s sovereignty! In short, freedom of will is no threat to, nor is it a denial of the sovereignty of God. In my opinion God’s sovereignty is actually magnified when we allow for the free will of man and His sovereignty to co-exist. His sovereignty is not diminished and done no damage by or through the will of man.

Which concept of God is greater: The concept of a God who decrees every detail and decision in all spheres of life and existence because He is sovereign; or the concept of a God who allows his creation the free will and ability to choose, yet He still knows all things, and is sovereign in the whole process? In my opinion, human freedom is no threat to, does not infringe upon, nor is it a denial of the sovereignty of God.

It is a mystery how the divine sovereignty of God and the free will of man can coexist and no damage be done to God’s sovereignty. The infinite ways of God will always be a mystery to the finite mind of man (Isaiah 55:8-9).

 

It is the London Baptist Confession of Faith...which also was Spurgeon's confession. :thumbsup:

 

It depends on how you are defining "total control". If you mean controlling, and you believe this, you have God authoring and supporting sin.

 

Br. Reformer, I am not one easily offended, and I sometimes enjoy a good sarcastic retort. Such as "Apologist Man", I don't care who you are, that was funny.

Let's start with Acts 21 and we can move on from there. Look carefully at verses 4 and 11, cross-referenced with 20:21-24.

Paul was warned of God numerous times to not go to Jerusalem. It was not God's will for Paul to go, and yet Paul went anyway. Paul had been burdened of God to go to Spain and had intended to go on his next journey (Romans 15:24-28). Because he thwarted God's will, Paul never went to Spain. Had he obeyed God, stayed away from Jerusalem, and gone to Spain, we can only imagine how the course of history could have been changed.

Imagine if Paul had gone to Spain and established churches, imagine if Spanish explorers were Christian instead of Catholic, imagine if Christian missionaries had landed in South America instead of Catholic. But Paul was determined to do his will, contrary to and against the will of God. Paul bowed up and was determined in his mind to go to Jerusalem, in spite of God's warnings. God allowed Paul to exercise volition and determine his own course of action in direct contradiction to what God wanted. God could have forced Paul to stay away from Jerusalem. God could have translated Paul to Spain (as he translated Phillip). God could have intervened in the situation, taken divine control, and caused his will to be done; however that would have violated his principal of allowing man to make his own decisions.

 

I think we see both God's sovereignty in the Bible as well as man having his will. After all, we are made in the image of God and this includes the attribute of a will. We are not robots. To what extent we can decide things is unknown, but I do not believe God in any way is affected by what we decide because He knows all past, present, and future at once.

What about Matt 23:37? I think this shows the tension between God's will, what He allows, and what man does.

 

Marcia,

How do you define the will of man as free? You said that we have free-will because we are in His image after all. Are you saying our will is as free as God's?

If you believe God knows all things, past, present and future and that from all eternity (at once) how is it that anything can happen apart from the will of God (whether we see it as active or passive)?

 

Knowledge does not equal will, will does not equal knowledge. Things that are different are not the same.

I know my children, and I know when they are thinking mischief, I know when they are about to do something they should not. Sometimes I give them a warning, sometimes they heed my warning, but sometimes they ignore the warning and commit the act against my will. I knew it was going to happen, but that does not mean I willed it to happen. I am only human and sometimes they do surprise me, God is never surprised.

Sometimes I allow the action to proceed without warning and I use the event as a learning experience. Sometimes, I intervene and prevent the action from taking place, to prevent serious injury. We learn by trial and error, sometimes lots of error and much trial. If God has mandated every action, there is nothing to be learned.

In my view of God's sovereignty, he is so sovereign that he can choose to know or not to know. By him choosing to not know does not affect his ability to know, it does not diminish his sovereignty, it augments his sovereignty.

 

Rdwhite

Are you an advocate of Open Theism?

 

I am not aware of the principles of Open Theism nor of its proponents, so I could not advocate something of which I am not aware.

 

Matt Slick has a pretty good summary of it. http://www.carm.org/open/intro.htm

 

ReformedBaptist,

This explanation seems to be an answer to your equating will and knowledge. This explanation also equates will and knowledge and then refutes knowledge on the basis that it effects will. So no, I do not advocate open theism, based on the above quote.

I am maintaining that knowledge and will are not equivocable. God can possess knowledge of future events without those events being his divine will.

I do not limit God by maintaining that he must or must not have knowledge of future events. I do not question is ability, I merely maintain that he is sovereign to choose.

 

It's not a matter of whether one limits God or not. It's a matter of the doctrine of Holy Scripture.