Sovereignty of God and Moral Responsibility of Man

[zone]

Yes, I'd like the summary but will keep in mind this, "Research on the origins of the Anabaptists has been tainted both by the attempts of their enemies to slander them and the attempts of their supporters to vindicate them" Anabaptist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My comment about not having enough time to read stuff wasn't a dig against you or anyone who has time, sorry if you took it that, my point was all this extracurricular reading should never come before our desire for the bible and we always need keep in mind that nothing equal to or greater then Bible, even Luther. And that preconceived notions will always get in the way true biblical interpretation.

Peace Zone, love yah too dear.

i'm aware nothing is greater or equal to the Bible.
have i ever suggested anything otherwise?

what's Luther got to do with it?
which do i discuss more here - Luther or the Bible?

i know about preconceived notions.
we see them everyday here.

who here has true biblical interpretation?

 

[zone]

It was clear enough to understand?

A lot of underlying Biblical doctrine is contained in each one of these, and so to keep each one from being a book, they really have to be concise, which can make them difficult to understand.

SUMMATION:

The Biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God was presented in five parts:

I. Introduction - God's foreknowledge, Biblically God's foreknowledge is determinative (here).
Scripture's presentation of events occurring because God's foreknowledge is determinative (Ac 4:28, 2:23) necessarily means that, because his foreknowledge of is all things, then his foreknowledge of all things is determinative.

Then four objections to the sovereignty of God in the actions of men were Biblically addressed and removed:

II. God's sovereignty violates man's free will (here).

III. It is unjust to hold unregenerate mankind responsible for sin when he is unable to obey God (here).

IV. It is unjust to hold unregenerate mankind guilty of Adam's sin when they did not incure that sin (here).

V. It is unjust to hold unregenerate mankind responsible for their sin when, because of God's operation within their dispositions (hearts), they voluntarily do as God determines (here).

i surely understood it, and it was clear enough to understand.
now i do the work of checking to see if these things are so.

and i have the added bonus of not having ever been a calvinist.
so i have nothing to defend, or refute in that regard.

it's going to says what it says, or something else.
and i'm a lot closer to understanding how man OWES GOD GLORY.

ty Elin for your hard work.

 

[Bookends]

i'm aware nothing is greater or equal to the Bible.
have i ever suggested anything otherwise?

what's Luther got to do with it?
which do i discuss more here - Luther or the Bible?

i know about preconceived notions.
we see them everyday here.

who here has true biblical interpretation?

Ok, my bad, I perceived you as interpreting things through Luther's writings because you hold him with high esteem.

How's the research going on the Anabaptist? I'm eagerly waiting for that

 

[zone]

OH WOW INDEED

What I see: it is more important for God to damn souls to show that He was sinned against then to have mercy towards those who come to Him. It is more important to show creation He is a God of revenge instead of pointing gracefully to Jesus.

OH WOW INDEED

this thread never said anything of the sort.
it said He has purposes for BOTH. and He will be GLORIFIED by both.
anyone who can deny that has the problem.
God Himself said He did.

 

[Elin]

quoting Rom8:7&8 to try and prove the Christians free will not to sin is limited is pretty basic error really

The error is your inadequate understanding of the terms of the discussion.

I suspect you wouldn't regard it as someone trying to enlighten if it were in agreement with you.

I suspect you see it as departing from the basics, because it departs from what you agree with.

 

[zone]

Ok, my bad, I perceived you as interpreting things through Luther's writings because you hold him with high esteem.

How's the research going on the Anabaptist? I'm eagerly waiting for that

i have been on other threads, and i didn't know you actually wanted it.
i see you do okay though. so you don't need me.

"Research on the origins of the Anabaptists has been tainted both by the attempts of their enemies to slander them and the attempts of their supporters to vindicate them" Anabaptist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i'd suggest going back a little further

and simply looking at their core beliefs...not their "utopian practices"

in any case, i don't really care about the Anabaptists others than to know it's not for me.

lol...nah...i don't interpet anything through Luther's writings.
i've only been a Lutheran for about a year and a half.

i started out in a Pentecostal church

 

[Elin]

Noone has a problem seeing the humanity of Jesus. But its a big problem when you say Matt23 is just Jesus
human feelings. Can that be said in other texts? Whats the rule on that? cop-out

The context is Jesus pronouncing the greatest judgement in Israels history...and you contend
his human feelings leaked into the Word of God?

I dunno'. That third one sorta' gives the error to what you say.

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

Mt 24:36 - "No one knows the day or the hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

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

 

[zone]

Amen, He still got his plan going, He wanted Israel to do it, but they were not willing, so he gave it to the gentiles.

Our God is an awesome God.

right. He was taken by surprise at Calvary, stopped Plan A and implemented Plan B.
soon we'll go back to what He really wanted all along - Plan A

 

[mark54]

The error is your inadequate understanding of the terms of the discussion.

I suspect you wouldn't regard it as someone trying to enlighten if it were in agreement with you.

I suspect you see it as departing from the basics, because it departs from what you agree with.

[SUP]6 [/SUP]The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. [SUP]7 [/SUP]The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. [SUP]8 [/SUP]Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. [SUP]9 [/SUP]You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.


You believe the highlighted verses can be used to support the notion that the Christians will/free will not to sin is limited, you are wrong

 

[zone]

He not only allows it He uses it. That why Pharaoh was used. It doesnt just say He hardened his heart.
It records Pharaoh hardened his own heart. He was raised up for that purpose. Just like Israel.

You get a different story and outcome depending on your hermeneutics. To seek the bible for answers
is not wrong. To glean answers by cherrypicking out of unrelated passages is not cool.

are not all men condemned already, at enmity with God, and God has the right to do as He will?
this objection i don't get

 

[zone]

but we have to make our beliefs be true.. we can;t admit we MAY be wrong now can we??:p

can we?
see you on the other threads.

 

[zone]

TR
hese ^^^^are pretty harsh claim's against your prescribed doctrine, nile.

Do you know that a nurse giving a dose of medicine can be only a bit off of the "millimeters" dosage prescribed for the patient, and, thus, kill the patient?

What I thought about Hitler (you brought him up to eg, sister, I'm just going with it )

who is nile?
is that your new name for zone?
because i'm the one who brought up hitler.

why are you so careless?

 

[zone]

Thats not true at all. But its what youve done taking a small statement
from Romans 9 then applied it to a different context...naughty naughty

hi abiding.
i wanted to see where the correct interpretation of Romans 9 was dealt with.
but there are lots of threads and lots of posts.
have you posted on what it really means?
sorry i missed it, i was doing other things.

 

[mark54]

The error is your inadequate understanding of the terms of the discussion.

I suspect you wouldn't regard it as someone trying to enlighten if it were in agreement with you.

I suspect you see it as departing from the basics, because it departs from what you agree with.

You see so far, you have not brought the Holy Spirit into your discussion, if you don't you can't proceed much further IMO, and if you don't include Him, you are left with a very weak message to put it mildly

 

[zone]

Actually I have never once heard your theology preached from the pulpit, and I would be suprised if you have heard more sermons than me
I started listening to sermons before you were born

and you still make a point of denying Jesus is God?
that's a lot of sermons.

 

[zone]

delimma. If i dont say that faith is given "after" regeneration i lose credibility
with my peers and limited atonement loses its foundation.

but if i say regeneration comes before faith then Romans 9 where
I took verses out of context will come back to haunt me later in the chapter.

not necessarily.
is faith a gift?

maybe things are moving too quickly and we haven't agreed on how just how dead in sins and trespasses man is.

all men are condemned already and The Lord said why:

John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

 

[Elin]

[SUP]6 [/SUP]The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. [SUP]7 [/SUP]The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. [SUP]8 [/SUP]Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. [SUP]9 [/SUP]You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.


You believe the highlighted verses can be used to support the notion that the Christians will/free will not to sin is limited, you are wrong

In addition to the believer's fallen nature and the meaning of orthodox, you also have an inadequate understanding of the nature of sin.

 

[mark54]

In addition to the believer's fallen nature and the meaning of orthodox, you also have an inadequate understanding of the nature of sin.

I notice in this thread you are deflecting a lot from the points put to you, I am not the only one to notice this.
You seem to me to be skirting round the meat, nothing you have written so far, that I can see is of much benefit to the Christian in their walk, I hope you may rectify that soon.

I am not discussing here the nature of sin, but your comment that Rom8:7&8 can be used to support the belief that mans will/free will is limited to not sin. A point you continully deflect from

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Noone has a problem seeing the humanity of Jesus. But its a big problem when you say Matt23 is just Jesus
human feelings. Can that be said in other texts? Whats the rule on that? cop-out

The context is Jesus pronouncing the greatest judgement in Israels history...and you contend his witto human feelings leaked
into the Word of God?

Amen, How many times in the OT did the God of Israel say basically the exact same thing? although not in the same words.

Jesus said How often I wanted to. He did not say I want to now, A huge difference. He was speaking from an eternal perspective, not a human one.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Salvation is not regeneration.

Salvation is forgiveness of sin, which saves from the wrath of God due on sin.

Agree.. However, the salvation must come to be, before regeneration can take place.

Regenration is made alive, We can not be made alive in God while still dead in sin.

in other words, regeneration takes place as a result of salvation. not the other way around.