Featured Ravi Zacharius on Sovereignty

I see that Luke defends what he believes well & I respect that. He is no idealist either running around claiming everything is fine with the world when a blind man can see it isn't. Would I ask him to work on his delivery...yes & ive done that, but I like that he denounces fools because they will eventually distroy America...they are the Vandals within. So rather than villify the guy, I choose to support him...& not rush to judge (even though I am guilty of acting that way in the past.:wavey:

 

Agreed. I appreciate Luke's posts. I have much to work on too. But people call him a "troll" when he is Anything but. Certainly, he may have to learn some discernment about the time to be direct and the time it would be more constructive to be gentler in his approach. (I do too). But his overriding concern is to "earnestly contend". He doesn't mince words, nor should he.

 

"God in His full 'sovereignty' yields His sovereignty to men in some cases." That's Zacharius' response in Reader's Digest fashion, and it's nothing we haven't heard time and again in these fora.

Poppycock.

He also completely missed it concerning the Christian's response to abortion. No, we don't preach the kingdom with the sword, but we certainly use it to defend innocent life.

This isn't to say that most of what he has to say isn't well worth pondering.

 

Luke is not a troll in any sense of the word. I notice he lives in the same state I grew up in, although a much different time. Luke is direct, forceful, and sometimes dry. He stands up for what he believes in, and that is a step beyond the wishy washy posts of most.

I will say I agree with Luke about 80% of the time. When I disagree with him, he gives his repsonse in his own direct way, and we leave it at that. However, Luke has never called me a heretic, believer in false doctrine, or unsaved.

There is no reason we cannot disagree, even forcefully sometimes, without the names. If you cannot handle his style or postions on sovereignty or any other doctrine without anger, then debate someone else.

 

Genesis 3 :
22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

In God's sovereignty and man's free agency God had the way guarded to the tree of life.

That is why we have a free agency not a free will, because we can only do things within the bounds God has placed us in. A free will suggest to me we can do anything we want without any restraints.

When God places life and death before us it is a real choice for our free agency unless you think you are wiser than God.

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

So God is waiting on our choice, no you are headed for destruction and you are dead.

It is the will of God that those who will repent will live, not our will. I had no desire to repent until His word. My will the will of my flesh did not want to.

John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

Luke 22:42
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

1 Corinthians 9:27
27 No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

 

In his discussion, he uses the term "alive" in reference to the fetus in the womb.
Yes, the fetus is "alive", as is the dog fetus in the womb - but in the case of humans, a soul is involved.
The fetus is devoid of a soul until it takes its first breath. It has "life", but so do all unborn mammals.
The killing of another living soul is a punishable offense, the removal of a (as yet) a genetically human fetus - devoid of a soul - is not.
God gives the soul, all the rest is just DNA assembled and replicated like a computer program.

 

Just so I understand you, you are suggesting that abortion is acceptable because the "fetus" has not yet drawn its first life giving breath? If this is in fact your position, then I quote another member and contributor.....ABSOLUTE POPPYCOCK. If I misread you, my apologies.

 

80%?! Dude, you are seriously more messed up than I thought...

 

Well thank you very much. It could explain why I hit myself with a hammer. It feels so good when I stop.

 

Adam was first created and then God breathed into him and he became a living soul at that point in time.
The soul is imparted at first breath, everything else is created by the mechanisms of genetics (DNA) which God created.
This does not conflict with the foreknowledge of God which has an eternal perspective outside of time. Rom 8:29, Jer 1:5

This perspective/option/possibility was never even address by the philosopher in the original post.

 

This is what is called a begging the question fallacy. And being that such a fallacy is being used to justify the slaughter of unborn children it is against the posting rules.

 

And all this time I thought the soul was created at the moment we drank our first beer so we could feel guilty about not abstaining.

 

According to the Mosaic law.... the killing of an unborn child results in the death penalty (even an in-voluntary one)
Exd 21:22 ¶ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine].
Exd 21:23 And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

1.) "Her fruit departing from her"...means a pre-mature birth.
2.) "No Mischief follows", means that the woman has given birth prematurely, but the baby is un-harmed....a monetary recompense is due.
3.) If this results in a "miss-carriage" or the death of the baby....the DEATH penalty is required.

No informed Bible-Believer can rightly justify the killing of an unborn baby.

 

Actually the Baby breathes while inside it's mother. It breathes the fluid inside the placenta.
MB

 

The focus of Exodus 21:22-23 is on the woman (wife). If she was permanently injured during the fight,
the same injuries must be inflicted upon the perpetrator (eye, foot, hand, bruise, etc.).
If all that was inflicted was premature labor, then a fine is required.

 

God is good just as God is logical. Both are eternal attributes of God. But your definition of good is the problem.

Good is that which brings glory to God.

Good is not that which makes the most human beings happy.

In order for you and I to discuss this further we need your concrete definition of "good" as it pertains to God.

No, he is both so long as in everything he does he is pursuing his own highest honor and glory.

No it is not. Not in the context of this discussion. This discussion is about air-tightness- whether or not there IS a view which is consistent through and through.

But he chose to create knowing full well the trillions of murders and child molestings and rapings that would take place before he would eventually eradicate evil.

He did not create blindly. This world is the one he always intended to create.

You've got to deal with that and show how your view addresses that problem.

And you don't get to attack the future knowledge of God in so doing- not and remain orthodox.

Skandelon's arguments fell through here. He wanted to pretend mystery so that he could continue to resist Calvinism.

But there is no mystery about how God knows the future. He KNOWS it- precisely as it will unfold.

There is a second problem with your quote above. It is that God did not JUST create the world and then evil come to pass in it.

God SUSTAINS the world- on a molecular level. Nothing moves apart from his power. The very synopses of your brain look every millisecond to God for power and guidance.

God powered the arm that dropped down upon the skull of Able.

This is something your system has to address. God did not JUST create a world knowing EXACTLY how much evil would unfold in it, but God also sustains that world every second.

Nothing that exists was not known about by God forever in the past.

I can conceive of evil before it exists without being evil myself. God certainly can.

This is where you are most wrong, imo. This proves that you define good based, in part, by how God behaves towards sinners.

It has you believing that in order to be good God HAS to be as nice as possible to sinners.

This is very problematic.

The welfare of man is not even PART of what makes God good. Not even part of it.

That he is benevolent towards sinners proves he is gracious but it is not an essential part of his goodness.

That is right.

The problem, brother, is that your system leads to the EXACT same conclusions.

God is willing, more than willing, for billions of people to go to hell in order to achieve an ultimate good.

God is MORE than willing for children to be molested and others starve to death by the millions in order to achieve an ultimate eternal good.

Your system has that exact same problem.

But for me, it is not a problem. That's the only difference. I accept this fact and say, "God, you are the measure. I trust you. Man is not the measure. you know what you are doing. And I recognize that all the suffering that will ever take place from human beings is an infinitesimally small price to pay for the glory that the Trinity will receive forever for having made this very world."

 

Thank you very much.

This kind of post makes me WANT to work on my delivery.

Whatever I am, I am pursuing what I believe to be right with all of my heart.

I think objective people can see that and appreciate it.

Thanks!