Sovereignty of God and Moral Responsibility of Man

[unclefester]

No I'll tell you the truth Uncle that any unbaised person clearly knows to be true, you are in an impossible position, so you cannot honestly, and forthrightly answer the question

One of us is Mark ... and it is you. Please tell me that you know what being a professed "Trinitarian" encompasses and means ? Because the entire essence of your argument(s) is predicated on this very word. You consistently mention the "Trinitarian churches and ministers" where you live ... how almost ALL don't preach what you see and read on this website. But it is a misnomer and a contradiction to claim that a Trinitarian does not believe in the three persons of the Triune Godhead ... the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as being co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial. If one does not believe this, they're simply not a "Trinitarian" .... period ! So what's your argument again ??

 

[unclefester]

So what's your argument again ??

Scratch that ... i.e.... nevermind. I don't want to know. I've derailed Elin's thread more than I've wanted to. My apologies Elin

 

[zone]

I am not saying that God takes pleasure in condemning sinful men, but that his justice requires that sin be punished.

100% true.

and so is the fact that not all men will be saved.
i don't see the issue.

 

[Abiding]

We are both dealing with the same situation, why some are saved and why some are not.In 40 years i didnt consider that a situation. Men didnt want to believe, resisted, and hardened their hearts. Early chapters of Romans, Jesus taught it. Its a major biblical theme.

Synergism does not address the problem.Athough its a biblical word lets drop the word, its been overused and doesnt have the same meaning to everyone anyway.

Scripture presents a God who is omnipotent, and who always has the power to change a heart and save it.
So why does he choose not to do so Thats not the point. Of coarse He is omnipotant. His power is not in question by most people at least not me. Nor are His rights. The questions are what did He reveal for us to know. And what has been added by the masses. Youve added much, far past the text.

The answers of synergism are inadequate When i say synergism(and im gona quit using the word since it infers arminianiasm) I mean on One hand God is electing while man is assenting with His will(with faith, repentance, and confession). And i find nothing lacking since i dont find the question is at all about Gods power or rights, but just His will.

And the answers of monergism are objectionable to the mind of fallen man That just your(and others) opinion, did u take a worldwide pole? And who cares. If monergism was completely biblical id be fine with it. It just isnt. Does God do all the necessaries for salvation? Yes! Do all men receive it and cant resist? No!

But Ro 9:21 is irrefutable: the potter has the right to make from the same lump of clay, some for noble purposes (salvation to glorify his mercy) and some for ignoble (vessels of human waste) purposes (destruction to glorify his justice Your not even understanding half of what that text is teaching. We went through that already. The answer is Yes He does have the right and He also does the same all the time.

Lets point out your wooden narrow definition there of "vessels of wrath" and inserted "justice" and also added
glory. When the text is not teaching that.

Ill agree that Romans 9 is one of the best if not the best text for the Sovereignty of God. But all that He hardens are not destroyed eternally as you imply. The text is about Him showing His wrath to show His Mercy and also showing the world who He is. To the Israelites as He did in Egypt. You have added to the text.

Ro 9:23 lifts the curtain for a glimpse of that ignoble purpose: what if he made some for ignoble purposes to make his riches known to the objects of his mercy, as a foil or backdrop for the glory of his graceyour reading into the text. And missing some of what its saying at the same time. God showed His wrath to Israel they were fitted or ripe to be destroyed in judgement. Nothing is said whether they were saved or not. That comes up later in the chapter. Many who received His wrath found mercy after they believed which was His intention all along. Gods wrath was kindled against Moses and a lot of others that later received His mercy. You are overkilling the parts in the wider text 9-11

And don't try to limit it to Israel. Paul uses God's name in Ex 33:19 to prove that God sovereignly has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and hardens whom he wants to harden, based totally in his sovereign choice and independent of man's effort or desire or anything man does (Ro 9:16, 18). It's not about just Israel First im not limiting it to Israel the text does. Although later in 9 talks about believing to be grafted in or regrafted for jews chapter 9-11 is a big parentheses totally about Israel. It is not limiting salvations scope as you and others claim. Far from it. And just because there is references to salvation doesnt make it about limited atonement....thats way past its purpose, and added in. then chapter 10 deals with mans responsibility in salvation as well as the end of chapter 9.

It is monergism that reckons with the plain Scriptures which are so contrary to fallen man's disposition, and does not alter their plain meaning Plain meaning? funny look how many verses and texts have to be messed with and changed throughout the bible to come up with this "plain meaning" . And if people find it contrary then i doubt its with their fallen dispositions(that come off as your jab to them by the way) but with the entire bibles revelation of Gods character and the Word itself. And especially in the Cross!

I am not saying that God takes pleasure in condemning sinful men, but that his justice requires that sin be punished.[/QUOTE Well honestly that was not at all how it read in your outline. I agree His justice for sin is Holy and im not finding fault in that. In fact i Love Holy God, even when im being chastised. But what you contended was that for no other reason than to show His character He purposely created people and chose them for damnation because it glorified a part in Him that was more important than a mans salvation.
Now that causes alot of implications that goes against His Omnipotence and other attributes. And makes Him into a God that isnt Holy complete in Himself. If that were true it effects His Love.....what a mess!

So what did you think about the excerpts from the prince of preachers?

 

[Abiding]

Scratch that ... i.e.... nevermind. I don't want to know. I've derailed Elin's thread more than I've wanted to. My apologies Elin

Dont worry about the thread....just dont get into a neverending nothingness

 

[Abiding]

The theological concept of “covenant” unites the sovereignty of God (who always takes the
initiative and sets the agenda) with a mandatory initial and continuing repentant, faith response from
man. Be careful of proof-texting one side of the paradox and depreciating the other! Be careful of
asserting only your favorite doctrine or system of theology

 

[Abiding]

Election is a wonderful doctrine. However, it is not a call to favoritism, but a call to be a channel, a tool
or means of others’ redemption! In the Old Testament the term was used primarily for service; in the New
Testament it is used primarily for salvation which issues in service. The Bible never reconciles the seeming
contradiction between God’s sovereignty and mankind’s free will, but affirms them both! A good example
of the biblical tension would be Romans 9 on God’s sovereign choice and Romans 10 on mankind’s
necessary response (cf. 10:11,13).
The key to this theological tension may be found in Ephesians 1:4. Jesus is God’s elect man and all are
potentially elect in Him (Karl Barth). Jesus is God’s “yes” to fallen mankind’s need (Karl Barth). Ephesians
1:4 also helps clarify the issue by asserting that the goal of predestination is not heaven, but holiness
(Christlikeness). We are often attracted to the benefits of the gospel and ignore the responsibilities! God’s
call (election) is for time as well as eternity!
Doctrines come in relation to other truths, not as single, unrelated truths. A good analogy would be a
constellation versus a single star. God presents truth in eastern, not western, genres. We must not remove
the tension caused by dialectical (paradoxical) pairs of doctrinal truths (God as transcendent versus God as
immanent; security vs. perseverance; Jesus as equal with the Father vs. Jesus as subservient to the Father;
Christian freedom vs. Christian responsibility to a covenant partner; etc.).Bob Utley

 

[Elin]

Election is a wonderful doctrine. However, it is not a call to favoritism, but a call to be a channel, a tool
or means of others’ redemption! In the Old Testament the term was used primarily for service; in the New
Testament it is used primarily for salvation which issues in service.
The Bible never reconciles the seeming contradiction between God’s sovereignty and mankind’s free will, but affirms them both! A good example
of the biblical tension would be Romans 9 on God’s sovereign choice and Romans 10 on mankind’s
necessary response (cf. 10:11,13).
The key to this theological tension may be found in Ephesians 1:4. Jesus is God’s elect man and all are
potentially elect in Him (Karl Barth). Jesus is God’s “yes” to fallen mankind’s need (Karl Barth). Ephesians
1:4 also helps clarify the issue by asserting that the goal of predestination is not heaven, but holiness
(Christlikeness). We are often attracted to the benefits of the gospel and ignore the responsibilities! God’s
call (election) is for time as well as eternity!
Doctrines come in relation to other truths, not as single, unrelated truths. A good analogy would be a
constellation versus a single star. God presents truth in eastern, not western, genres. We must not remove
the tension caused by dialectical (paradoxical) pairs of doctrinal truths (God as transcendent versus God as
immanent; security vs. perseverance; Jesus as equal with the Father vs. Jesus as subservient to the Father;
Christian freedom vs. Christian responsibility to a covenant partner; etc.).Bob Utley

I think the Bible reconciles all the things you think it does not.

 

[zone]

The key to this theological tension may be found in Ephesians 1:4. Jesus is God’s elect man and all are
potentially elect in Him (Karl Barth). Jesus is God’s “yes” to fallen mankind’s need (Karl Barth).

hi Abiding.
re Karl Barth's thesis.

okay...i know Barth's position, and no one can disagree that God did elect Christ.

Barth's idea was that 'God had never elected any individuals, but His election of Christ allowed a way for men and women to join the elect by clinging to the elected one--that is, by being "in Christ.'

but, God had to have elected some individuals - we know He did.
Christ's genealogy for example. was that left to people who God foresaw would choose/obey?

and the NT says The Lord chose, set Paul apart from his mother's womb....even if you have this being set aside as an Hebrew who would be faithful concerning the Law...it still has Paul saying he was set apart beforehand.

then there's paul's conversion...he wasn't listening to the Gospel and made a decision, that much is clear.

so though i surely agree Christ is said by God to be "Mine Elect, My Chosen"....there are other individuals.
the Twelve..they were fishing.
Jesus found them. it says clearly that He did.

Barth: "Jesus is God’s elect man and all are potentially elect in Him (Karl Barth)."
but here Barth is co-opting the term elect which specifically means a set apart chosen group.
if he means the purpose, or means of salvation - 'election', then he is saying without saying it that God failed in His efforts to elect all men.

isn't he...ultimately?

Doctrines come in relation to other truths, not as single, unrelated truths. A good analogy would be a
constellation versus a single star. God presents truth in eastern, not western, genres. We must not remove
the tension caused by dialectical (paradoxical) pairs of doctrinal truths (God as transcendent versus God as
immanent; security vs. perseverance; Jesus as equal with the Father vs. Jesus as subservient to the Father;
Christian freedom vs. Christian responsibility to a covenant partner; etc.).Bob Utley

i didn't see that happening here.
i just see reaction to some terms.
like Limited Atonement - when it just plainly is reality that not all will be saved, so the Atonement (salvation) is in that sense limited to the limited number who end up saved.

i don't see any of these as being, nor being represented as unrelated separate truths.
i just see separate threads on an internet forum.

 

[Abiding]

I think the Bible reconciles all the things you think it does not.

But i didnt have any problems with unanswered questions.
I never once cried out to God saying why dont you change
this or that person into a believer. I know you have the power
so why wont you. It just never came to mind.

The truth seemed evident in scripture. And i dont mean out
of just a few texts, but from Gen-rev.

whats the adage? you can make the evidence say anything
you want if you torture it enuf thats what i see going on.
I keep a policy to never be unwilling to change my view.

 

[Abiding]

hi Abiding.
re Karl Barth's thesis.

okay...i know Barth's position, and no one can disagree that God did elect Christ.

Barth's idea was that 'God had never elected any individuals, but His election of Christ allowed a way for men and women to join the elect by clinging to the elected one--that is, by being "in Christ.'

but, God had to have elected some individuals - we know He did.
Christ's genealogy for example. was that left to people who God foresaw would choose/obey?

and the NT says The Lord chose, set Paul apart from his mother's womb....even if you have this being set aside as an Hebrew who would be faithful concerning the Law...it still has Paul saying he was set apart beforehand.

then there's paul's conversion...he wasn't listening to the Gospel and made a decision, that much is clear.

so though i surely agree Christ is said by God to be "Mine Elect, My Chosen"....there are other individuals.
the Twelve..they were fishing.
Jesus found them. it says clearly that He did.

Barth: "Jesus is God’s elect man and all are potentially elect in Him (Karl Barth)."
but here Barth is co-opting the term elect which specifically means a set apart chosen group.
if he means the purpose, or means of salvation - 'election', then he is saying without saying it that God failed in His efforts to elect all men.

isn't he...ultimately?



i didn't see that happening here.
i just see reaction to some terms.
like Limited Atonement - when it just plainly is reality that not all will be saved, so the Atonement (salvation) is in that sense limited to the limited number who end up saved.

i don't see any of these as being, nor being represented as unrelated separate truths.
i just see separate threads on an internet forum.

this is nothing but attitude. I dont think you even know why i started
posting today. Same cliches. That wasnt even Barths thesis.

 

[zone]

this is nothing but attitude.

oh. okay.
it wasn't, at all.

it is actually careful thought i've myself been giving to this matter.

but i see you receive it as nothing but attitude - i'll be careful not to post again.
don't need it mike.

I dont think you even know why i started
posting today.

my questions weren't really about you, or why you anything like that.
if you read my post again maybe you'll see i was merely taking part in the discussion.
the topic (and related) which has been discussed by many of late (and throughout time).

Same cliches.

okay.

That wasnt even Barths thesis.

okay sorry.
i guess i'll re read his theses.

 

[GreenNnice]

God gives commands.
Jesus gives commands.

But, this tells me one thing, abide in Him.

Lord, I HEAR you, my hope is in you, Lord, I have faith in you, in your sovereign leading, of grace , and, of mercy, and, of love shown, agape; I will abide.

I am abiding. There can be no other way; a lot of ways out there but I TRUST in you, Lord, I will not lean on my finite understanding but on your infinite understanding that increases my faith in you, as I follow your way and you show me the way Home.

The Lord leads.

 

[Abiding]

oh. okay.
it wasn't, at all.

it is actually careful thought i've myself been giving to this matter.

but i see you receive it as nothing but attitude - i'll be careful not to post again.
don't need it mike.



my questions weren't really about you, or why you anything like that.
if you read my post again maybe you'll see i was merely taking part in the discussion.
the topic (and related) which has been discussed by many of late (and throughout time).



okay.



okay sorry.
i guess i'll re read his theses.

That was a snippet from Bob utley.
Todays post of mine was on this. From Elins OP:

"God glorifies his mercy by saving only some men, because the glory of his justice is more important than the salvation of all men."

Zone to me i see limited Atonement on steroids. But limited atonement wasnt exactly
my point of response. Although its very much related.

Ive never contended against God making choices. We all know He did and will continue.
To mix up nations and leaders and seperate individuals salvation i will contend is sloppy
and bad theology. To say that God is more glorified in creating men for eternal destruction
than He is to save....well i just cant keep my food down with that. Nor can i find scriptural
precedent.

But what can a reformed even say? Nothing! So its me that should leave the thread.
Because to the reformed..that have taken out something about israel and applied it to personal
salvation and believe man does nothing! to get saved. Well not much can be said. cya around
tip: dont read chapter 10. itll ,mess up what you think 9 says.

 

[GreenNnice]

whatifisayichoosetolikeUnilE

 

[Elin]

whatifisayichoosetolikeUnilE

Are you saying you didn't before?

 

[Elin]

But i didnt have any problems with unanswered questions.
I never once cried out to God saying why dont you change
this or that person into a believer. I know you have the power
so why wont you. It just never came to mind.
The truth seemed evident in scripture. And i dont mean out
of just a few texts, but from Gen-rev.

Paul and Jesus were a little less neutral abut God's ways.
As was David.

whats the adage? you can make the evidence say anything
you want if you torture it enuf thats what i see going on.

And others don't see it that way at all.

I keep a policy to never be unwilling to change my view.

Relevance of your comments in this post?

 

[Elin]

The theological concept of “covenant” unites the sovereignty of God (who always takes the
initiative and sets the agenda) with a mandatory initial and continuing repentant, faith response from
man. Be careful of proof-texting one side of the paradox and depreciating the other! Be careful of
asserting only your favorite doctrine or system of theology

The covenant to Noah (Ge 9:8-17) was not such.

The covenant of the land to Abraham (Ge 15:9-21) was not such.

The covenant to Phinehas (Nu 15:10-31) was not such.

The covenant to David (2Sa 7:5-16) was not such.

The covenant to Israel (Jer 31:31-34) to forgive her sin was not such.

All of these covenants required no initial or continuing response.

None of these covenants could be broken by men.

 

[unclefester]

The covenant to Noah (Ge 9:8-17) was not such.

The covenant of the land to Abraham (Ge 15:9-21) was not such.

The covenant to Phinehas (Nu 15:10-31) was not such.

The covenant to David (2Sa 7:5-16) was not such.

The covenant to Israel (Jer 31:31-34) to forgive her sin was not such.

All of these covenants required no initial or continuing response.

None of these covenants could be broken by men.

The crux and final rendering of all matters pertaining to God's sovereignty. Not unlike Abiding's contention and others I'm certain as well, I too find myself not necessarily in agreement with the following excerpt from the OP : "God glorifies his mercy by saving only some men, because the glory of his justice is more important than the salvation of all men." ... but, the fact remains that not all will be saved ... and God foreknew those who are His own. In it's simplest terms, any and/or all of our objections remain inconsequential. God's fairness is not in question. Man's understanding of it is ... and can only be reconciled through complete and childlike trust in His infinite wisdom, goodness and love.

John 6:64-66
[SUP] 64 [/SUP]But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. [SUP]65 [/SUP]And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”[SUP]66 [/SUP]From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

BUT ... we say with Peter ... Lord, to whom shall we go ? You have the words to eternal life.

 

[Elin]

An

We are both dealing with the same situation, why some are saved and why some are not.

In 40 years i didnt consider that a situation. Men didnt want to believe, resisted, and hardened their hearts. Early chapters of Romans, Jesus taught it. Its a major biblical theme.

Synergism does not address the problem.

Athough its a biblical word lets drop the word, its been overused and doesnt have the same meaning to everyone anyway.

It's a good word which accurately distinguishes the difference from the absolute sovereignty of God in all things.
I think I'm gonna' keep it.

Scripture presents a God who is omnipotent, and who always has the power to change a heart and save it.
So why does he choose not to do so?

Thats not the point. Of coarse He is omnipotant. His power is not in question by most people at least not me. Nor are His rights. The questions are what did He reveal for us to know. And what has been added by the masses. Youve added much, far past the text.

That particular text is not all that Scripture presents on the subject.

The answers of synergism are inadequate.

When i say synergism(and im gona quit using the word since it infers arminianiasm) I mean on One hand God is electing while man is assenting with His will(with faith, repentance, and confession). And i find nothing lacking since i dont find the question is at all about Gods power or rights, but just His will.

The question is why he wills their destruction instead willing to exercise his power to save them.
"His will" does not answer the question raised by the mind of man.

and the answers of monergism are objectionable to the mind of man

That just your(and others) opinion, did u take a worldwide pole?

Kinda' silly question. . .there is plenty about it in print. One doesn't need to take a pole to be aware of the issue.

(con't)

And who cares. If monergism was completely biblical id be fine with it. It just isnt. Does God do all the necessaries for salvation? Yes! Do all men receive it and can't resist it? No!

No disagreement there.
God does it all, and all men do not receive it.

But Ro 9:21 is irrefutable: the potter has the right to make from the same lump of clay, some for noble purposes (salvation to glorify his mercy) and some for ignoble (vessels of human waste) purposes (destruction to glorify his justice)
edit: make that "which glorifies his justice"
Is that better?

Your not even understanding half of what that text is teaching.

That's a matter of opinion.

We went through that already. The answer is Yes He does have the right and He also does the same all the time. Let's point out your wooden narrow definition there of "vessels of wrath" and inserted "justice" and also added glory. When the text is not teaching that.

The glory of God's justice is treated in other places.
It doesn't have to be stated in this text to relate to it.

Ill agree that Romans 9 is one of the best if not the best text for the Sovereignty of God. But all that He hardens are not destroyed eternally as you imply.

All that he hardens do not believe.
All that do not believe suffer eternal damnation.
What am I missing?

The text is about Him showing His wrath to show His Mercy

But in the text the ones to whom he shows his wrath are not the ones to whom he shows his mercy.
So how is this relevant to your point?

and also showing the world who He is. To the Israelites as He did in Egypt. You have added to the text.

I have added nothing that is not Scriptural.
Your argument fails.

Ro 9:23 lifts the curtain for a glimpse of that ignoble purpose: what if he made some for ignoble purposes to make his riches known to the objects of his mercy, as a foil or backdrop for the glory of his grace.

your reading into the text. And missing some of what its saying at the same time. God showed His wrath to Israel they were fitted or ripe to be destroyed in judgement. Nothing is said whether they were saved or not.

What do you think cutting them off the one olive tree because of unbelief in Jesus Christ means?
Are you saying they were saved even though they rejected Christ?
That's a fail.

That comes up later in the chapter. Many who received His wrath found mercy after they believed which was His intention all along.

What wrath are you talking about?
Ro 9 deals with only one judgment, the hardening of unbelieving Israel.

In their unbelief, they are cut off from the one olive tree of the saved, and will be grafted back in only if they do not persist in their unbelief (Ro 11:23).
Whatever are you talking about?

Gods wrath was kindled against Moses and a lot of others that later received His mercy.

They received mercy when they came into obedience, as will unbelieving Israel when they come into obedience to the gospel of Mk 1:15.

You are overkilling the parts in the wider text 9-11

Naah. . .your understanding is just not consistent with the rest of Scripture.

And don't try to limit it to Israel. Paul uses God's name in Ex 33:19 to prove that God sovereignly has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and hardens whom he wants to harden, based totally in his sovereign choice and independent of man's effort or desire or anything man does (Ro 9:16, 18). It's not about just Israel.

First im not limiting it to Israel the text does.

Pharoah is not Israel, and is used as an example of God's sovereign choice based on nothing more than the purpose of his election.

Although later in 9 talks about believing to be grafted in or regrafted for jews chapter 9-11 is a big parentheses totally about Israel.

Chp 9 does not mention grafting or regrafting.

It is not limiting salvations scope as you and others claim. Far from it. And just because there is reference to salvation doesn't make it about limited atonement....that's way past its purpose, and added in. Then chapter 10 deals with mans responsibility in salvation as well as the end of chpater 9.

Who are you talking to?
I've said nothing on this topic about limiting salvation, or limited atonement.

It is monergism that reckons with the plain Scriptures which are so contrary to fallen man's disposition, and does not alter their plain meaning.

Plain meaning? funny look how many verses and texts have to be messed with and changed throughout the bible to come up with this "plain meaning" . And if people find it contrary then i doubt its with their fallen dispositions(that come off as your jab to them by the way) but with the entire bibles revelation of Gods character and the Word itself. And especially in the Cross!

Yep. . . the plain meaning of, without any messing with

before either one had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand--not by works but by him who calls

It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy

God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Then who can resist his will? Who are you, O man to talk back to God?

What if God
choosing to make his wrath and power known did this
to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy?

Synergism does not reckon with the plain meaning of these Scriptures.

I am not saying that God takes pleasure in condemning sinful men, but that his justice requires that sin be punished.

Well honestly that was not at all how it read in your outline. I agree His justice for sin is Holy and im not finding fault in that. In fact i Love Holy God, even when im being chastised. But what you contended was that for no other reason than to show His character He purposely created people and chose them for damnation

Actually, I presented that as endemic to all theology.

because it glorified a part in Him that was more important than a mans salvation.

Are you saying God's justice is not glorified in the damnation of his enemies (Ro 5:10)?

Now that causes alot of implications that goes against His Omnipotence and other attributes. And makes Him into a God that isnt Holy complete in Himself. If that were true it effects His Love.....what a mess!

Yeah, those are the false implications and objections of the mind of man which the OP addresses in five parts (here, here, here, here and here).

So what did you think about the excerpts from the prince of preachers?

For the most part, I love Spurgeon, but he is not totally consistent.