Sovereignty of God and Moral Responsibility of Man
- Thread starter Elin
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
Does a synergist live his life consistantly?
If so im of the opinion they must believe it is God's will for them to be cooperating with Him to quarrel over doctrine.
even though quarelling over doctrine has nothing to do with How God regenerates a sinner.
thank you dear.
for involving me in your hatred for Calvinism the way you do
surely this what God intended your free will and cooperation to be for.
i guess.
i don't know why you don't believe God is in absolute control of everything and nothing happens that He hasn't decreed.
from the beginning to the end.
i'll throw out the corridors of time cliche - you said you were making a list of patterns and isms, so hopefully you have two lists.
to be fair.
If so im of the opinion they must believe it is God's will for them to be cooperating with Him to quarrel over doctrine.
even though quarelling over doctrine has nothing to do with How God regenerates a sinner.
thank you dear.
for involving me in your hatred for Calvinism the way you do
surely this what God intended your free will and cooperation to be for.
i guess.
i don't know why you don't believe God is in absolute control of everything and nothing happens that He hasn't decreed.
from the beginning to the end.
i'll throw out the corridors of time cliche - you said you were making a list of patterns and isms, so hopefully you have two lists.
to be fair.
Is monergism calvinism?
Also i do believe God is Sovereign over all His creation.
I do believe all things will work out to His good will and pleasure.
Do i believe life is just a product of Gods arbitrary will? Nope!
But that being said, His greater purpose is done.
If youd like me to not communicate with you and take u off my friends list..just sayso.
The things that go against Him He works with in His wisdom. Thos who think God get all
the glory by controlling all things simply rob Him of the greater Glory in His wisdom.
They also rob people of seeing many other of His glorious attributes. Sure i dont like that.
Theres not a thing in my theology that gives man any glory, but that God created him to be
sheep in His pasture.
A
Kath you may not see where i am. But since i can see where you are ill ask one of my curious questions.
If God wanted all men to be saved. But in that He wanted all men to be willing.
Why should He force the man, or zap him with willingness, if that ISNT what was in His will?
Therefore their damnation will be also part of His will.
If God wanted all men to be saved. But in that He wanted all men to be willing.
Why should He force the man, or zap him with willingness, if that ISNT what was in His will?
Therefore their damnation will be also part of His will.
Paul did his share of quarreling over doctrine with the Christian Judaizers.
You're taking such delight in mocking that I'm trying to decide if I should reply with clarification and rob you of your perverse delight.
What the heck. . .I'm goin' for it. . .
You asked about Jesus' warning/prophecy on the Wednesday before he died regarding the destruction of Jerusalem (Mt 23:37-39).
My response, that Jesus was expressing human sentiments, was based on his weeping when he had previously on Palm Sunday also warned/prophesied Jerusalem's destruction (Lk 19:40-44).
You may not see his weeping as an expression of his sentiments regarding destruction of his Jewish brethren, about which Paul also expressed deep sentiments, but there is no reason it was not his personal sentiments also.
And I would have preferred less delight in what your misunderstanding perceived as dubious.
Or your misunderstanding of it causes the trouble.
Perhaps my explanation above will clarify it for you.
Is there any reason Jesus should not identify his feelings with what is in Scripture?
He also did it on the cross (Mt 27:46).
That doesn't mean it is only human sentiment.
I understand it as he meant it, in his public ministry as teacher and preacher, he spoke only what the Father told him.
But I don't think he was talking about asking for a second bun at breakfast.
You don't recall me pointing out that he came to do the Father's will and not his own?
Perhaps my clarification above will remove the absurdity for you.
I think I've learned more than I care to know.
However, considering the physiology, it's consistent.
You're taking such delight in mocking that I'm trying to decide if I should reply with clarification and rob you of your perverse delight.
What the heck. . .I'm goin' for it. . .
You asked about Jesus' warning/prophecy on the Wednesday before he died regarding the destruction of Jerusalem (Mt 23:37-39).
My response, that Jesus was expressing human sentiments, was based on his weeping when he had previously on Palm Sunday also warned/prophesied Jerusalem's destruction (Lk 19:40-44).
You may not see his weeping as an expression of his sentiments regarding destruction of his Jewish brethren, about which Paul also expressed deep sentiments, but there is no reason it was not his personal sentiments also.
And I would have preferred less delight in what your misunderstanding perceived as dubious.
Or your misunderstanding of it causes the trouble.
Perhaps my explanation above will clarify it for you.
Is there any reason Jesus should not identify his feelings with what is in Scripture?
He also did it on the cross (Mt 27:46).
That doesn't mean it is only human sentiment.
I understand it as he meant it, in his public ministry as teacher and preacher, he spoke only what the Father told him.
But I don't think he was talking about asking for a second bun at breakfast.
You don't recall me pointing out that he came to do the Father's will and not his own?
And notice Matt 23 gave the reason and the event of 70ad occurred. So the
"Human sentiment" answer is obsurd. But i understand you cant see God not having His way, unless all He would prefer He makes come to pass.....too bad for you
"Human sentiment" answer is obsurd. But i understand you cant see God not having His way, unless all He would prefer He makes come to pass.....too bad for you
I think I've learned more than I care to know.
However, considering the physiology, it's consistent.
Last edited:
so you have Him damning people because they are not willing, damning them being part of His will.
and i have said some are saved and some are not. the ones not saved are because of unbelief.
and i have said i don't know who will believe and who won't.
i say PreachChrist Crucified...constantly....to everyone.
i've never said the jews are blind and can't hear.
i've never gentiles are blind and can't hear.
i've said some ppl i share the Gospel can not, or will not (and that is exactly how i have worded it - can not or will not) hear.
they are in unbelief. they don't believe.
i have said that i understand man's responsibility.
i said i know men owe God for our sins against Him.
i said i know God loved the world in this way - He gave His Only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish.
Jesus said all the Father gives Him will come to Him and He won't lose any.
i said Jesus made Atonement for sins, and that that payment was sufficient to do exactly that - satisfy God's Justice for sin.
i have said The Atonement will clearly have been of no effect for those who have to go to hell and pay the price for their own sin.
~ is there really a whole lot of difference? honestly Mike?:
i think i do, maybe.
can you? are you certain?
force? zap? i thought you called it wooing for your purposes.
??
i wasn't willing.
now i am.
and i speak to untold numbers who weren't raised the faith, who say the same.
they weren't willing.
then suddenly they were.
i didn't believe
and now i do.
can you tell me what happened to make me willing?
did God force or zap me?
can you show me where i ever said anything about My God like "He arbitrarily causes all things" (in the derogatory way you say it)?
because if i have ever said that about Him, or suggested that is part of His Character i want to repent of it.
which definition of arbitrarily did you mean - #1?:
ar·bi·trar·y (ärb-trr)
adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference:
or #2?
because, if you want me to play along with this, i'll pick #2 for everything God wants and wills to do (whether i understand it or not): "Based on or subject to [HIS] individual judgment or preference"
do you live your life consistently?
okay...yesterday you were upset i think, that you thought i wasn't taking your posts seriously.
if you're not taking it seriously, i can see how that might be true.
wait...why is mans freewill an oxymoron?
you said it is at the core of the (my) error.
so God does something for man to make him willing, even though you said freewill is an oxymoron.
but to be fair you did say:
so i guess i would have like to see the technical part you`re talking about because i dont see you explain it well here (i guess thats the problem i have...you not getting technical about you are saying:
it doesnt matter...why doesnt it.
does it matter any more or less than this comment i made to Bookends *question mark*
isnt that exactly what i said all along.
that in the end it doesnt matter...people who believe get saved.
people who dont believe dont get saved.
and God is Sovereign.
the people who do not choose him and go against Him after he offered salvation i guess you mean..or no.
i believe God controls all things.
i believe God controls all things
i believe God is Wise beyond my understanding.
i believe God gets all the Glory for all His Attributes.
some of which...many of which were not the scope of this particular thread (OP).
though they were discussed
i believe God gets all the Glory for everything He does and everything He will do.
and everything He planned from the beginning.
All the Glory.
i would never ever say otherwise.
who robs people of seeing many of His other Glorious Attributes.
you mean i do *question mark - my keyboard isnt doing punctuation and i would have to restart to fix it*
`They also rob people of seeing many other of His glorious attributes.`
okay....i`ll take your word for it and think about that, for a long time.
maybe you are right.
it has typological overtones.
i studied it a few years back. in depth.
it is not enough to apply to God and say that explains His Own Counsel and Wisdom in all things.
any more than any other shadow or type or anthropormorphism
is that your proposol...that we base everything God has willed and purposed based on that *question mark*
and i have said some are saved and some are not. the ones not saved are because of unbelief.
and i have said i don't know who will believe and who won't.
i say PreachChrist Crucified...constantly....to everyone.
i've never said the jews are blind and can't hear.
i've never gentiles are blind and can't hear.
i've said some ppl i share the Gospel can not, or will not (and that is exactly how i have worded it - can not or will not) hear.
they are in unbelief. they don't believe.
i have said that i understand man's responsibility.
i said i know men owe God for our sins against Him.
i said i know God loved the world in this way - He gave His Only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish.
Jesus said all the Father gives Him will come to Him and He won't lose any.
i said Jesus made Atonement for sins, and that that payment was sufficient to do exactly that - satisfy God's Justice for sin.
i have said The Atonement will clearly have been of no effect for those who have to go to hell and pay the price for their own sin.
~ is there really a whole lot of difference? honestly Mike?:
i think i do, maybe.
can you? are you certain?
force? zap? i thought you called it wooing for your purposes.
??
i wasn't willing.
now i am.
and i speak to untold numbers who weren't raised the faith, who say the same.
they weren't willing.
then suddenly they were.
i didn't believe
and now i do.
can you tell me what happened to make me willing?
did God force or zap me?
can you show me where i ever said anything about My God like "He arbitrarily causes all things" (in the derogatory way you say it)?
because if i have ever said that about Him, or suggested that is part of His Character i want to repent of it.
which definition of arbitrarily did you mean - #1?:
ar·bi·trar·y (ärb-trr)
adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference:
or #2?
because, if you want me to play along with this, i'll pick #2 for everything God wants and wills to do (whether i understand it or not): "Based on or subject to [HIS] individual judgment or preference"
do you live your life consistently?
okay...yesterday you were upset i think, that you thought i wasn't taking your posts seriously.
if you're not taking it seriously, i can see how that might be true.
wait...why is mans freewill an oxymoron?
you said it is at the core of the (my) error.
so God does something for man to make him willing, even though you said freewill is an oxymoron.
but to be fair you did say:
so i guess i would have like to see the technical part you`re talking about because i dont see you explain it well here (i guess thats the problem i have...you not getting technical about you are saying:
it doesnt matter...why doesnt it.
does it matter any more or less than this comment i made to Bookends *question mark*
isnt that exactly what i said all along.
that in the end it doesnt matter...people who believe get saved.
people who dont believe dont get saved.
and God is Sovereign.
the people who do not choose him and go against Him after he offered salvation i guess you mean..or no.
i believe God controls all things.
i believe God controls all things
i believe God is Wise beyond my understanding.
i believe God gets all the Glory for all His Attributes.
some of which...many of which were not the scope of this particular thread (OP).
though they were discussed
i believe God gets all the Glory for everything He does and everything He will do.
and everything He planned from the beginning.
All the Glory.
i would never ever say otherwise.
who robs people of seeing many of His other Glorious Attributes.
you mean i do *question mark - my keyboard isnt doing punctuation and i would have to restart to fix it*
`They also rob people of seeing many other of His glorious attributes.`
okay....i`ll take your word for it and think about that, for a long time.
maybe you are right.
it has typological overtones.
i studied it a few years back. in depth.
it is not enough to apply to God and say that explains His Own Counsel and Wisdom in all things.
any more than any other shadow or type or anthropormorphism
is that your proposol...that we base everything God has willed and purposed based on that *question mark*
oh i don't know Bookends.
i believe God's foreknowledge means He knew the end from the beginning and decree it would be so.
nothing happened or will happen except He decreed it, and willed it or we wouldn't be here at all.
i've had enough of this thread for a while anyways.
take care,
God Bless In Christ our Lord.
i believe God's foreknowledge means He knew the end from the beginning and decree it would be so.
nothing happened or will happen except He decreed it, and willed it or we wouldn't be here at all.
i've had enough of this thread for a while anyways.
take care,
God Bless In Christ our Lord.
A
Elin
IF limited atonement stands then why would Jesus cry?
Shouldnt He rejoice over the destruction of Jerusalem?
Wouldnt that glorify His Father?
Was He unable and ill informed as a man to handle the "meat?"
No your response had little to it.
I totally disagree with what you statements infer. Thats it what was is dubious.
Maybe not so much of what you say, but the logical implications are that come from them.
Jesus said He who has seen me has seen the Father. When He cried over Jerusalem we saw the
Fathers heart in human form. When He told Jerusalem He would have gathered them "but they wouldnt"
that was the Father talking. Why this is important is to show Gods will and decree is not accomplished
by total control.
Oh yes your right, bringing up Paul also.
One especially who wrote Romans you would think also
would have understood limited atonement....a little inconsistant to
show his human sentiment in one verse then a few verses over write
"who are you oh man"
IF limited atonement stands then why would Jesus cry?
Shouldnt He rejoice over the destruction of Jerusalem?
Wouldnt that glorify His Father?
Was He unable and ill informed as a man to handle the "meat?"
No your response had little to it.
I totally disagree with what you statements infer. Thats it what was is dubious.
Maybe not so much of what you say, but the logical implications are that come from them.
Jesus said He who has seen me has seen the Father. When He cried over Jerusalem we saw the
Fathers heart in human form. When He told Jerusalem He would have gathered them "but they wouldnt"
that was the Father talking. Why this is important is to show Gods will and decree is not accomplished
by total control.
Oh yes your right, bringing up Paul also.
One especially who wrote Romans you would think also
would have understood limited atonement....a little inconsistant to
show his human sentiment in one verse then a few verses over write
"who are you oh man"
A
Kath, no need to explain. Your theology is very inconsistent.
Yes i think the bible in types and shadows, the stories with their content
Especially Abrahams life with all of scripture harmonize. Not just a few
contexts taken out of context.
I see why so many miss the amil view also. Its reformed doctrine that did
that by hyjacking the best proof of it by their use of Romans 9. Weird huh?
Yes i think the bible in types and shadows, the stories with their content
Especially Abrahams life with all of scripture harmonize. Not just a few
contexts taken out of context.
I see why so many miss the amil view also. Its reformed doctrine that did
that by hyjacking the best proof of it by their use of Romans 9. Weird huh?
i thought i understood amill.
i might be wrong about that also.
i'll think about it.
the types and shadows and God's Love for us was made bright and clear to me in Elin's Leviticus thread.
i guess she robbed God there of some other attribute.
mike, i appreciate your assessement of 'my theology', and i will take it under review.
what i do find unfortunate, though, is that even though you say you have it all down,
you haven't actually shared it with us.
maybe you're saving it?
isn't that robbery?
okay mike.
thank you.
i might be wrong about that also.
i'll think about it.
the types and shadows and God's Love for us was made bright and clear to me in Elin's Leviticus thread.
i guess she robbed God there of some other attribute.
mike, i appreciate your assessement of 'my theology', and i will take it under review.
what i do find unfortunate, though, is that even though you say you have it all down,
you haven't actually shared it with us.
maybe you're saving it?
isn't that robbery?
okay mike.
thank you.
Last edited:
A
Ive never said i had anything all down. Nope.
Actually i think your amil is correct.
When i said inconsistent. I was meaning between what you say you agree with theologically
and later on say. Possibly in your personal statements more often than not.
I didnt understand the Elin/lev reference. My point as you must know since its the
third or forth time ive mentioned it was that Abrahams servant was to find a wife
for isaac and the only requirement was that "she be willing".
If you dont see the implications of that detail then ok.
I know kath i should not have joined this thread. Ive made my points clear and
you say i havnt. Its Futile. Seen that days ago.
Ill prolly start a heretical anticalvinist thread soon so i can satisfy some
of the wants of me making myself more clear on what i believe.
Actually i think your amil is correct.
When i said inconsistent. I was meaning between what you say you agree with theologically
and later on say. Possibly in your personal statements more often than not.
I didnt understand the Elin/lev reference. My point as you must know since its the
third or forth time ive mentioned it was that Abrahams servant was to find a wife
for isaac and the only requirement was that "she be willing".
If you dont see the implications of that detail then ok.
I know kath i should not have joined this thread. Ive made my points clear and
you say i havnt. Its Futile. Seen that days ago.
Ill prolly start a heretical anticalvinist thread soon so i can satisfy some
of the wants of me making myself more clear on what i believe.
well ok, I was just gonna say if the Lord decreed that I'd live to 80, but then I took up smoking and some heavy drinking if that would effect that decree? Or better yet, what if I decided to kill myself, would God have fore-ordained that? Does God decree it that we should sin?
anyway, I could see why you're burned out on this thread, lol...Trying to understand God and how and why he does things if prolly futile.
Peace
anyway, I could see why you're burned out on this thread, lol...Trying to understand God and how and why he does things if prolly futile.
Peace
I have already told you why we cannot communicate, you refuse to explain why you are bringing forth scripture to back up your points that do not back them up at all.
To me you were doing ok(just my opinion obviously) until you got to mans limited free will not to sin, and you try and support that view with scripture, the problem is you don't have scripture that directly relates to that view for the convert/Christian. Why don't you? The answer to
that should be plain.
So thus far(though I have read hardly any posts the last two days) you have spoken of , mans lack of free will to cease all sin, predestination, limited atonement, we are all born with a sin nature. If that is as far as you go it is a pretty depressing picture to me.
I haven't seen any meat yet concerning a person who is a Christian, or for someone searching. So far it just seems like rationalisation of the fallen state of man, and there is no Gospel if you leave it at that.
To me you were doing ok(just my opinion obviously) until you got to mans limited free will not to sin, and you try and support that view with scripture, the problem is you don't have scripture that directly relates to that view for the convert/Christian. Why don't you? The answer to
that should be plain.
So thus far(though I have read hardly any posts the last two days) you have spoken of , mans lack of free will to cease all sin, predestination, limited atonement, we are all born with a sin nature. If that is as far as you go it is a pretty depressing picture to me.
I haven't seen any meat yet concerning a person who is a Christian, or for someone searching. So far it just seems like rationalisation of the fallen state of man, and there is no Gospel if you leave it at that.
Last edited:
The back drop MUST be depressing otherwise one can not truly understand what the cross means. Without that back drop the message of the cross becomes nothing more then a feel good story. The message of the cross MUST be presented against this backdrop. It must show us how much God HATES sin,how His justice against sin must be paid,how His wrath MUST be poured out against sin,and yet in the center of that it shows His love,that He would send His son to take our place,and it also shows His great mercy in that it was done while we were yet far away from Him. The message of the cross shines so much brighter against that back drop and without it one can not truly understand what that cross meant.
Is this a serious question?
I love the "meat," and everything about God's will and wisdom, but I am still sad about my reprobate brother.
Pardon me for saying so, but the "logical" implications which you draw from them are not the implications which Scripture presents from them.
Present a couple of your implications, and I will demonstrate.
You're gonna' end up bein' the reason I open an objectional thread on the secret will and the revealed will of God (Dt 29:29).
I love the "meat," and everything about God's will and wisdom, but I am still sad about my reprobate brother.
Pardon me for saying so, but the "logical" implications which you draw from them are not the implications which Scripture presents from them.
Present a couple of your implications, and I will demonstrate.
You're gonna' end up bein' the reason I open an objectional thread on the secret will and the revealed will of God (Dt 29:29).
hi Bookends:
if you took up smoking and some heavy drinking or if you decided to kill yourself, i believe God's foreknowledge means He knew the end from the beginning and decree it (the end from the beginning and all in it) would be so.
nothing happened or will happen except He decreed it (that it would all happen), and willed it or we wouldn't be here at all.
take care,
God Bless In Christ our Lord.
if you took up smoking and some heavy drinking or if you decided to kill yourself, i believe God's foreknowledge means He knew the end from the beginning and decree it (the end from the beginning and all in it) would be so.
nothing happened or will happen except He decreed it (that it would all happen), and willed it or we wouldn't be here at all.
take care,
God Bless In Christ our Lord.