 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 5:30 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message Go To Page 2 3 >>
writerdad
01/19/01 12:04 PM
On God's Sovereignty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The nature of God's sovereignty, to me, will always be one of constant debate throughout the Christian church. While many Christians bemoan the openness position (Piper, for instance, says in a review of Ware's God's Lesser Glory that, "open theism...dishonors God, distorts scripture, damages faith, and would, if left unchecked, destroy churches and lives..." which to me says much more about Piper than the book he is endorsing), I find the whole debate good for Christianity, as I think it challendges people to read and think through scripture instead of taking any theologians word for what scripture says. Regardless, I think it is important to realize that none of the major creeds says anything about God's sovereignty, nor does the Bible state that it is a requirement for salvation. I think it should be recognized that God, for his own reasons, gave a history book, not a doctrinal manual. The Bible is not a book of beliefs or doctrines, but rather a book of God's dealings with us. As such God reveals himself where he thought appropriate, but seldom does he ever give a complete revelation of himself in any one passage. Therefore while God is Trinity, it is a belief gathered from several passages rather than stated completely in one. God reveals as he will...
Which brings me to the issue of his sovereignty. We should all admit that we have wrong concepts of God somewhere down the line. I was thinking this through after a disagreement with my wife of now seven years. I was sure she liked something yet was surprised to find out I was wrong. So I was wrong in an area with someone I love. I have heard several reformed believers say that the issue of God's sovereignty is so central to God that one has to be right to be saved. But I disagree. We will be wrong about many things about God, but I still love my wife even though I am wrong on that one issue and I still love God even if I am wrong on this issue. Knowing who God is is requirement for salvation, not knowing every characteristic of God. Anyway, I've been thinking about that a lot lately.
I thought I would end with a quote from Greg Boyd's book "God At War," which gives a good summary of how I view God's sovereignty:
In a footnote he says: "it should be noted that the argument that angelic and human freewill undermines divine sovereignty works only on the assumption that "sovereignty" and "exhaustive control" are synonymous and that this is the model of rule that is most praiseworthy (worthy of God). To some free will theists, however, this type of rule seems least worthy of God. It strikes some of us as reflecting an insecure, petty and impersonal deity rather than the gloriously sovereign God of the Bible who is secure enough in his transcendance to grant personhood and self-determination to his creatures. True divine sovereignty, in the thinking of free will theists, is only affirmed when it is construed in relational, interpersonal terms. Against MacGregor (who wrote, "No Place For Sovereignty," my words)and other reformed thinkers, then, this view argues that it is the Calvinist perspective, not the free will theist perspective, that in truth leaves "no place for sovereignty."
John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/19/01 1:09 PM
Mephis's Brief Musings On God's Sovereignty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm...I guess it's like this for me, man. I understand that faith in Jesus as Lord is a non-negotiable. Being an open theist or not is not a non-negotiable. However, I feel like this. We ARE all wrong in our theologies somewhere...necessarily so. (This coheres quite well with my beliefs of divine revelation) But I believe that God has given us the essentials upon which we need to work to live and be. I, for one, think that many theological enterprises are nothing more than sleight-of-hand idolatry instead of faith. As I've said before, I'm willing to take God as He is and for what He's done. I realize that I may well be wrong in a significant amount of my theology. However, I believe God, however he may be, is my creator and that makes me His property. That's his sovereignty. To do with me as He sees fit. Moreover, I place faith in Christ and the Scriptures that bear testimony to Christ. This second thing fills out, but does NOT negate, the first thing.
I seriously wonder what we mean by sovereignty sometimes. Many of the dictionaries that I read give something like this: supreme power or authority. Hmmm...do we really believe this? That God can do anything he wants with his creations, whether grace them with good things or "allow" bad things to happen to them? One day, I wrote a little treatise called "The Biblical Worldview As Divine Autocracy" and I got to discuss it with some of my peers in a forum. Basically my line of thinking was this: Even though the history of God's people Israel shows evidences of feudalism and theocracy (Mosaic Law and priestly authority based on that Law), the overall scheme of God's rule of creation appears to be a divine autocracy. [I was going to use the term "dictatorship", but because of Stalin, Hitler, Castro and other "greats", that term is plagued by negative connotation] Oh, my! The response! Sheesh. You'd have thought that I said that God WAS Hitler. Oh, the remarks about choice, freedom, and relationship. The God I presented seemed "tyrannical" and not worthy of worship...yada, yada, yada... It was here that I began to notice something that I now call "The Melioristic Spirit" or "Spirit of Meliorism"in Western evangelical theological circles As I see it, there is a wrestling for divine authority going on (sometimes not only in Christian worldviews either). I think the "humans-as-colaborers-with-God" thinking is taking broader wings then many realize. And it always comes sharply into focus when you speak of divine sovereignty.
To some Christian folks, people who speak of God as complete sovereign of an autocratic system instead of God the divine egalitarian socialist are anathema. They are a dying breed of traditional thinking that will pass like the dodo. Heh. We'll see. At any rate, I like having fun with these people. I ask them (if they believe in an afterlife), "Say, at the end of this thing, what do you think that the afterlife in heaven and hell will be like? Will it be like a democracy? A feudal state? Socialist state? What?" I'm often surprised at how many say that God will reign supreme at that time and all will be subject to Him. I find this particularly interesting. I ask them two things. First of all, don't they realize that what they've just said would constitute an autocracy? Secondly, only when all good and evil has been eternally separated and judgement has come does God reign supreme? It strikes me like this:
Autocracy is cool WHEN the autocrat meets human needs, lavishes desires upon his citizens, and provides nothing but good. Autocracy is NOT cool when both good AND evil are under the distributive capability of that ruler.
Maybe all this is due to a misinterpretation of the idea of the Kingdom of God. I don't know. But I have a sneaking suspicion that it's little more than humanistic thinking infiltrating the Christian worldview. Unless we genuinely have some sort of divine authority to work WITH God, not just under God with God working through us, than we have problems. Perhaps this is influencing present-day theologizing as well...hmmm...
Gotta go. More on this later...
Peace out,
Mephi2K aka the Theistic Bootlicker
PS:
G-D-G,
SAY! Have you read the the Marvel comic series "Earth X"? If so, I want to talk to you about it. It is a surprisingly good thing to read, especially considering matters of teleology and submission to "divine will" Oh, and yes, I've read "Ronin" It rocked. But hey, Frank Miller rocks.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
01/19/01 4:28 PM
Humanistic or ancient Hebrew view of sovereignty?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi, before commenting on your idea of God's sovereignty, I would like to include a couple comments you and Lion-Lamb made in your "Study Break" thread:
LL: "I gave up arguing with God a long time ago. The Lord silenced my objections years ago. I humbly bow before him and acknowledge his Creator rights and Lordship over all things, including me. I worship him, for he is absolutely sovereign!"
Mephi: "As for me, I will continue using Jesus as MY "magnifying glass" and confessing God as Master of all he has made, no matter what I think of what He's done or HOW He's done it."
GDG's response: Your comments here imply that questioning God's ways (even if we learned that God really did ordain the Holocaust according to his will) is inconsistent with recognizing him as creator and sovereign Lord.
Although you suggest that objections to an autocratic understanding of divine sovereignty may be due to the "'Spirit of Meliorism' in Western evangelical theological circles" and "humanistic thinking infiltrating the Christian worldview," there is biblical precedence for questioning God's actions and his treatment of his creatures.
For example, Abraham questions God's justice in Gen. 18. Moses challenged God's decision to destroy the Israelites in Exodus 32. Similar responses to God are expressed in the lament psalms, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, and Job. Jacob even took God (in the form of an angelic theophany) on in a wrestling match, and wouldn't let go of him without a blessing. The nerve!
Of course, some of those who question God never receive an explanation (Job), or fail to persuade God to amend his decree (Saul in 1 Sam. 15). But they are never chastised for posing the challenge. Elie Wiesel says, "the Jew knows that he may oppose God as long as it is in defense of God's creation." God seems to be OK with this--he even asks for it--lots of it (see the very interesting parable of the widow and the unjust judge).
However we define God's sovereignty, it should incorporate rather than exclude God's solicitation of feedback from his creatures (i.e. prayer) and his delegation of authority to them in Gen. 1:28, however you interpret this theologically. The biblical examples I cited suggest that these notions are compatible with worshiping God as our sovereign Lord and creator. In fact, many of the psalms that were/are used in worship contain quite poignant and provocative questions concerning God's ways.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
01/19/01 6:19 PM
RE: On God's Sovereignty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of things I thought were relevant to God's sovereignty. One, God cannot do whatever he wants with his creatures, unless one is willing to jetison the Bible describing God as just, loving, caring, etc. God is not defined simply as power. He has several attributes and he is limited by the nature of his attributes. What he does with his creatures would have to be in love and would have to be just, therefore he cannot simply do something to his creatures out of power. Second, it is important for those who believe as reformed believers believe to prove that their beliefs are central to the Bible as far as God's sovereignty is concerned.To simply say that an opposing viewpoint is humanistic doesn't cut it. I think, reformed believers get frustrated because God's sovereignty is not as easy to prove as they would like. I do not look up what the dictionary says on sovereignty, I try to see what the Bible delares to be God's sovereignty. It should also be noted that God never calls us to not question him. The essense of becoming a Christian is questioning. If we didn't question God, his existance, etc., most would never become a Christian. Read through the Psalms. Most of David's psalms consist of "what are you doing God?" It is important that even in Job, where God says, basically, that Job doesn't know what he is talking about, God never condemns the fact that he questioned. I believe there are many things we will never understand about God. But I do not believe (for me, anyway) that God would have me bow before him in ignorance. God gave me a mind to use; it seems many times when people say something to that effect, they simply don't want to deal with the hard answers. John 17:3 Harold Oh, God's character is non-negotiable. To him. But we will always be wrong in some aspect of it.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/19/01 7:34 PM
RE: Humanistic or ancient Hebrew view of sovereignty?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-D-G,
You said:
"Your comments here imply that questioning God's ways (even if we learned that God really did ordain the Holocaust according to his will) is inconsistent with recognizing him as creator and sovereign Lord."
Mephi:
Uh, oh. I think there's been a mixup. I don't think that I said that questioning God was inconsistent with recognizing him as creator and sovereign Lord. And from what I've said in the past, I don't think I ever would have said something like that. I am going to post of my posts from the "Have I Been Defending Open View Theism From the Wrong Corner" thread. This was waaaaaay back in December. On that thread, we were talking about Job, sovereignty, and theodicy...
"You can ask all the questions to God that you like. Is God obligated to answer them? Nope."
"One of the OTHER reasons why I said that we need more people like Job is the fact that he was HONEST with his feelings. He gave vent to them, instead of trying to hide them behind some false piety. He said exactly what he felt."
and...
" I am NOT advocating pious resignation to all events in a believer's life. This was not my intent of using Job. What I was advocating was the fact that he gave glory to God in ALL things, even though he recognized a theological quandary that would plague him later. Moreover, he didn't charge God with wrongdoing. He didn't even do this later. He made explicit statements about how he felt that God was nearly his enemy, but he NEVER made a statement stating that God had NO RIGHT to do whatever he was doing. These are the qualities that I saw as admirable in that particular verse I quoted, in the context of the entire book of Job. So, what did Mephi actually mean? He meant this: "A person of faith deals with existential struggles with honesty, but NEVER in a manner where God is accountable to humanity."
Mephi:
As you can see, I would NEVER have said that questioning God per se was wrong and tantamount to defying God's sovereign authority. Remember, Habakkuk and the Psalms are two one of my favorite books. (Job also) We can question, ask, and dialogue with God all we like as long as we remember our place as His creations. Isn't that part of what prayer is about? What I have a problem with is making God ACCOUNTABLE to humanity and an "I-have-my-stinkin'-rights" attitude such that God's reign is treated like a democracy where our say is JUST AS IMPORTANT as God's say. It is this trend that I see far too much of. Again, this is why I worry about the "Co-laborers with God" type thinking when it's taken to far. It lends itself to this type of egalitarian dialogue between God and humanity, which to me, is nothing short of a kind of humanism.
You said:
However we define God's sovereignty, it should incorporate rather than exclude God's solicitation of feedback from his creatures (i.e. prayer) and his delegation of authority to them in Gen. 1:28, however you interpret this theologically. The biblical examples I cited suggest that these notions are compatible with worshiping God as our sovereign Lord and creator. In fact, many of the psalms that were/are used in worship contain quite poignant and provocative questions concerning God's ways.
Mephi:
I hope that you see that I would agree with the incorporation of feedback with God with the correct attitude. As far as the delegation of authority, we must be careful about how we deal with that. I could talk all day about how Reconstructionists like Gary North and the late Greg Bahnsen and Kingdom Now people like Earl Paulk and Pat Robertson take this "dominion" type thinking to unheard of extremes. To be sure, delegation of authority is completely compatible with an autocratic system. I believe it is just our Americanized mindsets that may tell us otherwise.
Check ya later,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/19/01 7:37 PM
Response to Writerdad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Writerdad,
hmmm....how shall I approach this?
Writerdad:
"One, God cannot do whatever he wants with his creatures, unless one is willing to jetison the Bible describing God as just, loving, caring, etc. God is not defined simply as power. He has several attributes and he is limited by the nature of his attributes. What he does with his creatures would have to be in love and would have to be just, therefore he cannot simply do something to his creatures out of power"
Mephi:
I have some problems with this. First, I don't think that people really try to analyze their ideas of God's justice, love, and care from what is seen in the biblical text. Many times, people have a standard of love, justice, and care and what is MUST look like in order to be considered those things, and THEN they infuse those into their theology. It ends up working like this:
1)They read "God is love" and "God is just"
2) They conceptualize THEIR knowledge of love and justice
3) They give boundaries to what God's love and justice must look like based on their conceptions.
Be honest. This happens more often then not. Marcion was the CROWNING example of this type of thinking that helped to lead him to separate the idea of YHVH from the Father that Jesus spoke for. Think of this. Lion's thing about his friend against corporeal punishment would fit well here. His friend said this:
"Let me ask you this; Do you think Jesus would spank His children? Or, would He use another method? The word Christian does mean CHRIST-LIKE. It is my opinion that Jesus would NOT strike a child. [direct quote]"
Mephi:
Now of course this was a speculative question because Jesus never had children. But when we look deeper, what was really being said? I would wager something like this:
"I believe that Jesus was a man of goodness. I believe a good man would NOT strike a child. Therefore, I believe Jesus would not strike a child. The implication is that it's not Christ-like to strike a child."
As I see it, when you break down the reasoning of the statement, you clearly see that it's not really Jesus's actual teaching or deeds that guide his thinking for Jesus never had children. It's not even the fact that Jesus apparently loved children that counts. It's his ideas of "GOOD" with respect to an adult's treatment of a child that determines his thinking. Not incorporated Scriptural induction. In like manner, this is done many times in discussions I've had on theodicy. One person even came out and said it one time. "Well, God has to be at LEAST as moral as I am...and I wouldn't do that" [and some of you wonder why I had the problem with that "moral wiring" stuff on my study break question?]
********************************
You said:
Second, it is important for those who believe as reformed believers believe to prove that their beliefs are central to the Bible as far as God's sovereignty is concerned.
Mephi:
I would say that ALL believers should prove that their beliefs are central to the Bible...the whole Bible. This would include the conquests of Joshua, the annihilation of Jericho, the deaths of Ananias and Sapphiras, etc. All the nice and not-so-nice parts of it. I think that, on both sides, there operates a "canon within a canon" with respect to Scripture. I think that both sides are wrong in that.
***************************
You say:
"It should also be noted that God never calls us to not question him."
Mephi:
From reading my response to G-D-G, I figure that you will see that I would agree with you there. I hope that mistake has been cleared up. But you said something else that I found interesting...
"I believe there are many things we will never understand about God. But I do not believe (for me, anyway) that God would have me bow before him in ignorance."
Mephi:
I wonder about this. I look at the motto of Christus Victor: Promoting Faith that SATIFIES THE MIND and inspires the heart. I look at Revival Theology's posted website and it's motto: Christianity that Makes Sense. I look at the growing popularity of apologetics websites like that of R.C. Sproul, Ravi Zacharias, and others. I can't help but wonder if Christianity is just now making a concerted effort to get away from the shadow of being dubbed an "irrational, blind faith" type thing. To be sure, I'm not saying we should go back to the Dark Ages of superstitious credulity. It just strikes me as interesting how many Christians want to call themselves "freethinkers" now. This was just thinking out loud.
Later,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
01/19/01 11:31 PM
I hear ya
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph--Ok, got it. The quotes from the "Wrong Corner" thread (which I didn't follow very closely) helped clear up my conclusion about the compatibility of your view of sovereignty and honest questioning of God.
This statement helped me understand your gripe: "What I have a problem with is making God ACCOUNTABLE to humanity and an "I-have-my-stinkin'-rights" attitude such that God's reign is treated like a democracy where our say is JUST AS IMPORTANT as God's say." I agree!
Thanks! GDG
p.s. Drat, I haven't read "Earth X"--I'll have to check that one out.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
trosie
01/19/01 11:52 PM
RE: Mephis's Brief Musings On God's Sovereignty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Memphi or anyone else in the room:
I want to ask a question. My view of God is one in which He is the ultimate ruler over the heavens and the earth. I am thinking, (although I am not 100% sold out to this view), that Satan cannot do ANYTHING to us unless God allows it. He doesn't orchestrate evil, but He does allow it, for various reasons, because He works within the reality of our fallen world. Here is where the open view of God is so increble to me. God knows all the possible ways that Satan might attack us, God decides how much He will permit Satan to do, and God also gives each of us freedom to chose continually; yet this is all done within the parameters He has decided permissible for every possibility that might occur. WOW! Just think of how incredible that is. God is indeed AWESOME!
Now, my question is this: Does this view that I hold mean that I take the autocratic view about God? I am just curious to find out what to "label" myself if anyone should ask (although personally I DO NOT like labels)
In Christ,
trosie
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/20/01 1:02 AM
Reply to Trosie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Trosie:
You said:
"I am thinking, (although I am not 100% sold out to this view), that Satan cannot do ANYTHING to us unless God allows it. He doesn't orchestrate evil, but He does allow it, for various reasons, because He works within the reality of our fallen world. Here is where the open view of God is so increble to me. God knows all the possible ways that Satan might attack us, God decides how much He will permit Satan to do, and God also gives each of us freedom to chose continually; yet this is all done within the parameters He has decided permissible for every possibility that might occur"
Mephi:
Now this is an interesting paradigm, so let's go with it. The thought Satan can do NOTHING (nada, zip, no-thing) without God's explicit or IMplicit go-ahead. Think about the implications of this. To me, the allow/ordain thing is merely semantical. If any being ALLOWS something to happen for a certain purpose, this is nothing more that WANTING it to happen to meet those purposes. No ifs, ands, or buts about that. Also, we can't cheat and say that God says "Well, since Satanic evil act X is going to happen ANYWAY, I'll just use it to my benefit" First of all, given open view supps, God can't know for certain that Satanic evil act X WOULD take place (unless that's part of the "settled" future, which would cause more problems). Furthermore, given that Satan can't do anything unless God allows it, that means that God has the power to direct Satan to do what He (God) wills, and that could include NOT doing Satanic evil act X. Placed together with God's knowledge of all possible events, as you said, God creates the boundaries of how much chaos Satan can create.
An analogy is in order. I have a maze with walls that can move wherever I wish them to move. A man is in the maze. The man wants to leave the maze and he walks to get out. By shifting the walls and ceilings at my whim, I can completely 1) make him go where I want him to go and 2) keep him from the areas that I don't want him to trespress into. No matter HOW he turns, in the end analysis, I can always get him to go ONLY where I wish. It is the same thing here with the implicit direction of God. Satan would be the man. The walls would respresent God's boundaries. And the open pathways created by those walls would be the possible evil acts that Satan can do. (Yo, is it just me or do I always use analogies? LOL I certainly hope they help )
Taking all this into consideration, it would seem that God implicitly directs a large portion (if not ALL) of Satanic evil to his DIRECT purposes. But there's some questions here:
1) Doesn't this mean that all the bad things that are in some way relatable to satanic activity (for example, Satanic evil act X) are directed , though not initiated by God? Doesn't this direction make him in SOME way responsible for the evil act?
2) Doesn't this mean that God may "want" bad things to happen for his own "good" purposes? Does the ends justify the means for God? (I'm thinking about the lying spirit sent by God to someone or other...)
3) Doesn't this cause a problem with theodicy (the justification of God)?
Let's bring it home. The Holocaust. You can't TELL me that the Devil wasn't mixed up in that atrocity somewhere. Given what we've said, any and all satanic and demonic actions in that bloody mess were directed by God through the INDIRECT means of prohibitions. (Remember the maze analogy) Are we really going to say that all the satanic evil that was in the Holocaust was really necessary to get any and all points accross for any redeemable good? Hmmm...what if the Zosia thing had a satanic motivation? Hmmm...what implications! You would be right. That is one incredible AWESOME view of God.
I think The easier thing to say (for open view theists, at least) would be the following:
God places parameters on Satan, but their are some things that Satan can do without God's permission OR PRIOR KNOWLEDGE. (We have to add the last part, because we go by the assumption that if God KNEW of Satanic activity that wasn't under the rubric of his plan or useful to it in any way, he would automatically foil it)
Going back to the maze thing, it would be like saying that I could only control half of the walls of the maze. But of course we lose something. I could get the man to go in the GENERAL direction I want him to go into, MAYBE. But there's no guarantee. In the same way, God could form boundaries for satanic action to a point but there would be a significantly large margin for error.
But then this whole schema would be problematic too. Because without the proper constraints on Satan's activities, the idea of a "settled" future would NEVER be a possibility, because of the large margin of error. Seems we are at a rock and a hard place with this one...
What's the bottom line of all this: Complete sovereignty of God over Satan necessarily implies orchestration of Satanic evil, though indirectly. To escape this, one has to say that Satan is not under God's complete authority and can act outside of that authority on a significant scales, which is tacitly stating that God is not sovereign.
************************************
You ask:
"Does this view that I hold mean that I take the autocratic view about God?"
Mephi:
In my opinion, it may lean in that direction, yes...
Thanks for joining in the convo, Trosie
In Christ,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
01/20/01 1:09 AM
RE: On God's Sovereignty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi2K: to be quite honest, I am not sure at all what you meant in your take on my statement, unless you are saying that I am using my version of what God's love, caring, etc., is to justify what God does. I am not. I am simply saying that God cannot do anything to his creatures because he is more than just a God of power, he is also a God of love and, as such, his power is limited by his love, justice, and other such things. I am not saying what God can or cannot do to us, but one could suspect that God would not create us simply to torture us forever, since he is a God of love...
I do not understand your point of Jesus spanking children (as a parent I do not believe in spanking, but that is another issue altogether).
I do believe we should take the whole canon of scripture, but I also believe the New Testament interprets the Old Testament and that Jesus is God's example to us, so we should interpret the Old through the New because we are in the New Covenant, not the Old (hence we do not do sacrifices, etc.). John 17:3 Hal
Finally, it should be pointed out that throughout church history (until very recently), Christians always were intelligent, studied, etc. This is nothing new. A good book on this is "Love The Lord With All Your Mind," by JP Moreland. I truly believe we give great glory to God when we exercise our minds in all ways...God is not afraid of a little questioning from his creatures...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
01/20/01 1:19 AM
RE: Reply to Trosie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, Mephi2K (I am replying to your reply to Trosie), it depends on how you define God's sovereignty. I do not believe God has to control every creature's action to be sovereign. I believe God's sovereignty considers of defining the parameters of his creatures and accomplishing the ultimate purposes he has stated he would. I do not believe controling everything is the way to define God's sovereignty. I mean, really, what is so hard for God to do but control everything, him being all powerful? That would seem much easier than accomplishing his purposes through creatures he allows total free will in. That seems to me to be much much harder...John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/20/01 3:15 AM
Defining Sovereignty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writerdad says:
"I believe God's sovereignty considers of defining the parameters of his creatures and accomplishing the ultimate purposes he has stated he would. I do not believe controling everything is the way to define God's sovereignty."
Mephi:
Let me attempt to coalesce your statement into a more thorough defintion:
Sovereignty: A person's ability to use self-created boundaries or parameters to orchestrate other free-willed beings and other objects such that a set goal or purpose is achieved as a result of the manipulation of the boundaries or parameters.
Ok. This is distinct from this:
Sovereignty: Total, absolute control (New Oxford Dictionary)
But this can be changed and all it takes is another phrase...
Sovereignty: A person's ability to use self-created boundaries or parameters to orchestrate other free-willed beings and other objects such that a set goal or purpose is achieved as a result of the manipulation of the boundaries or parameters TO THE EXTENT THAT 1) ALL OTHER FREE-WILLED BEINGS AND ALL OTHER OBJECTS ARE SUBJECT TO THAT PERSON'S ORCHESTRATION AND 2) ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CAN OCCUR OUTSIDE OF THAT PERSON'S ORCHESTRATION.
Now THIS sounds more like it! I think that your definition may be incomplete, Writerdad. What I'm trying to say is this: Sovereignty inherently has to deal with total, not partial influence. To say otherwise is to change the meaning of the word. The root word "sovereign" Look it up in any dictionary, remembering the context in which we are attempting to apply the word. It's a veritable synonym for "autocrat" or "dictator", both words which describe rulers with COMPLETE authority, influence and/or power. Supremacy. It is an issue of authority. To say that a person is sovereign is to say that said thing has UNIVERSAL authority over his/her citizens in all affairs. Otherwise, he/she is not a sovereign anymore.
If we use your definition of sovereignty, then we are saying these things, by implication:
1. Not all free-will beings are under the total influence of the person
2. Not all other objects are under the total influence of the person
3. At least one thing can happen outside of the person's sphere of control, either by free-will being or by even inanimate object.
I've elaborated all this so that I can make a claim. We should NOT use the word "sovereignty" if we are going to change the meaning of the word. [To me, it's the same wordplay that many evangelicals do with the term "inerrancy" It dies the death of a thousand qualifications ] Any being, including God, who operates by the first definition, all things considered, would NOT be sovereign under any circumstances. Unless we are going to play Ayn Rand and make up terms as we feel like it, we should say what we mean. I would suggest this:
"God is highly powerful and influential in existence and he orchestrates things in a mind-bogglingly complex manner, but He is NOT sovereign in this strictest sense of the term."
To me, open view theists would be more consistent in saying that God COULD have been sovereign, but chose instead to relinquish that sovereignty as to give his creations relative autonomy. (If I'm not mistaken, that's what some open view theists claim) Frankly, this is why I laugh my butt off when I hear an open view theist talking about serving a "sovereign" God. The idea of a "sovereign" God within consistent openness theology is as absurd a notion as a square circle with a pink elephant in the middle. [Please accept a little biting wit, ok? ] I hope that I've been able to demonstrate my reasoning to you.
Holla,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
01/20/01 8:20 AM
RE: Defining Sovereignty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi2K: First off, as I said before, I am not concerned with what the dictionary definition of the word sovereignty, I am concerned with how the Bible describes God's sovereignty, so I do not see any need to consult the dictionary in this area. Second, I never said God could not create a world that he had total control over his creatures (I believe Hasker makes this point in "The Openness Of God," but I am not sure it was him), rather I am interested in what world he has created here and what kind of sovereignty is described scripturally. To me, the Bible describes a God who has given his creatures much free will and works through that free will. We must remember that this is God's world and if he chooses to grant us that freedom it is his to do so. We must understand what he wants from us. How you define sovereignty must come from scripture, for I am sure many words differ scripturally from the dictionary. Look up grace in the dictionary. Does it talk about Christ at all...I am curious though. I am having a hard time getting an exact understanding of what you believe about God's sovereignty. Mind giving me a quick definition? John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
01/20/01 8:25 AM
RE: Defining Sovereignty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi2K: Actually, on retrospect I do not understand your reasoning at all. If God can create us, he can choose how to relate to us. That would be a part of his sovereignty as well. If he chooses not to exercise the totallity of his power over us, that would be exercising his sovereighty as well. Just because God may have the power to control us, doesn't mean he has to use it...I find the open view very consistant, but I do not believe any view is without problems. All views have some internal problems to deal with because, as finite beings, we do not have the total picture. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
01/20/01 8:36 AM
RE: Defining Sovereignty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Mephi2K, I disagree with your view that we should not use the word, unless, we are going to pour the "right" (I guess the dictionary meaning would be right to you) meaning into it. Considering this issue has been debated throughout church history, the "correct" meaning of the word has never been fully established, because Christians have always been pouring into what they believe the word to mean (just as people have with the word God, grace, santification, etc.) As long as one defines what one means, I think we all can get along. Plus, I think it would be safe to say that I believe God has the power to be (what I would call) strictly sovereign, or perhaps use the full power of his sovereignty (better, but not totally satisfied) if he chooses to. God, for instance, can intevene today, if he chooses to. In sovereignty, I am saying that God has the rights over his creatures. Whether he exercises them fully or not is up to him. We should not say he fully exercises his power over us if that is not what scripture indicates. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/20/01 9:37 AM
Biblical Treatment of the term "Sovereignty"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writerdad said:
"How you define sovereignty must come from scripture, for I am sure many words differ scripturally from the dictionary."
Mephi:
Ok. I figure that since "sovereignty" obviously wasn't the word used in any of the original text, I would check out the translations. Lo and behold, the New International Version uses the words "sovereign" and "sovereignty" So I decided that looking at these words carefully and their usage would do the most to get me closest to what the Bible says about God's sovereignty, textually speaking.
The "Sovereign Lord":
In the NIV, the word "Sovereign" is used in the OT, but, and I say this emphatic, outside of Daniel (to be discussed later), the word is always a translation of the Hebrew word "adonav", the proper noun of "lord" Why a proper noun? Because the times that it is used is in speaking of the "Lord God" (The other phrase for "Lord God" was "YHVH Elohim")
The Septuagint backs this up, as well as the New Testament greek. The "adonav" is translated "kurios" by the Septuagint. The word "sovereign" in the NIV corresponds to "Lord" or "Master" in Koine greek. Most of the time is by "kurios" alone meaning "lord. Sometimes it's "kuriou tou Theou" which means "the Lord God" A few other times in the text, it's "despota" (where we get the word DESPOT from. A despot in our terminology is an undisputed ruler)
The word "sovereignty"
The NIV uses this word 2 times. Both times in Daniel, one time in chapter 5 and again in chapter 7. In chapter 5, it's "malkutah" from the root verb "malak" which means to rule. The words "king" and "queen" in Hebrew are derived from this. In chapter 7, the same word is used.
The Greek kurios:
From my reading of certain lexicons here, kurios that vast majority of the time deals with ownership and rulership.
The Hebrew Adonav from Adon:
My reading here shows that "adon" is about the same as "kurios" in terms of ownership and rulership, especially in terms of God. And there may be overtones of kingship as well.
The Greek despotas:
I want to deal with this a bit more, cause I believe that this is the clincher. See, even given what I've said above, it would be in the realm of possibility for someone to say this:
"Well, rulership and ownership doesn't necessarily entail TOTAL rulership and authority"
I would find that statement peculiar, but whatever....Anyways, The Louw-Nida lexicon says this about it...One who holds complete power or authority over another. Very intensive in its meaning. COMPLETE control. Now this word is actually uses in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) In the overwhelming majority in the number of times despotas or its derivatives are used, to whom do you think it refers? That's right, baby. God himself! Evidently, the 70 translators found the references to God worthy of the term despotas. Hmmmm...
Summing Up:
Now let's put ALL of this together. If we want to have a BIBLICAL view of what sovereignty is on strictly EXEGETICAL grounds, then from what I see, my defintion that I proposed above is closer to the biblical view than yours is. Has my point been made yet, Writerdad?
By the way, Writerdad, thanks for this. This is good stuff your having me do
In Christ,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
trosie
01/20/01 4:37 PM
RE: RE: Reply to Trosie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writerdad, Memphi, and everyone else in the room:
Can I ask you guys a further question because I really would like to get a grip on this topic of God's sovereignty? What I believe right now is that God has ultimate say in everything (including evil). I don't know why He allows evil at all (I can't figure why he allows Satan to roam around like a roaring lion looking for whom he may devour...) I don't know why God doesn't just end the war right now and end to all the suffering in the world... In fact, I don't know why He ever allowed the serpent to tempt Adam and Eve in the garden in the first place. This all perplexes me! God knew that the serpent might tempt Adam and Eve in the garden, thus it was God who allowed the serpent to throw out the first test which led to the fall. God could have destroyed the serpent right there and then but HE CHOSE not to. I don't know the why's to what I have just said BUT I do know that God is in ultimate control (sovereign)over all of heaven and earth. I believe that He has full knowledge of every possibility of the future. I am confident that even in the midst of evil He is there working to bring about some kind of good because that's what the bible tells us in (Romans 8:28) I put my faith and confidence in this. God allowed all the testing that Satan threw at Job and it was God who set the boundaries in which Satan could do the testing. I believe that God is a sovereign God who has the ultimate authority over everything.
So here's my question: I believe in the open view theory that God doesn't know every detail about the future until it has happened (although He knows every possibility that might happen) and I believe that in the midst of all the ways in which we may choose to respond, (freewill), God has the ultimate CONTROL over the parameters -- Why does this not seem to work? God doesn't orchestrate evil but He evidently allows it repeatably throughout the scriptures. Why do some people seem to think that by making the statement that God is in ultimate control it takes away from the act of freewill or that it makes God the one who indirectly did the evil act? I really want to get a grip on this whole thing so even if this is a redundant question I would appreciate getting clarity and feedback.
Seeking after His truth,
trosie
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/20/01 5:15 PM
Reply to Trosie 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Trosie,
I loved your first paragraph. Basically the theme, as I saw it, was the following:
"God has ultimate say and authority over EVERYTHING. I don't know WHY God allows all the evil that he does, but I do know THAT it is HIM that ultimately allows it. I trust that in the midst of the worst evil that God is working within that evil for good."
I agree wholeheartedly! :::applauds::: I couldn't have said it better. The bottom line is that we don't NEED to know the whys...at all! We just need to know that God knows what He is doing, WHATEVER that may entail, and that we can only trust him regardless.
You also said:
"I believe in the open view theory that God doesn't know every detail about the future until it has happened (although He knows every possibility that might happen) and I believe that in the midst of all the ways in which we may choose to respond, (freewill), God has the ultimate CONTROL over the parameters -- Why does this not seem to work?"
Mephi:
It's not that it doesn't "work" It's that it ends up being pragmatically speaking that God is ultimately behind everything. That's all I'm saying. Saying that God knows ALL the potential choices and guides ALL the parameters around which choices can be made has HUGE implications. I'm just taking those implications to what I feel is the logical conclusion.
You said:
Why do some people seem to think that by making the statement that God is in ultimate control it takes away from the act of freewill or that it makes God the one who indirectly did the evil act?
Mephi:
I believe that there is a necessary dynamic tension between human agency and divine sovereignty. Again,with my analogy:
"No matter HOW he turns, in the end analysis, I can always get him to go ONLY where I wish."
I'll restate it to emphasize my point:
"No matter how he CHOOSES to turn, in the end analysis, I can always get him to go ONLY where I wish"
Mephi:
I think that the analogy is very good at showing what I'm trying to say. Operation of the will and the power of volition are not being negated per se. But bottom line: God, by setting the parameters as he chooses implicitly guides things to go EXACTLY as he feel they should go. I submit that if we hold to what you've said above about not trying to hold the WHYs of what God does in lieu of just unending FAITH and trust in God regardless of circumstances, there would be no problem with the schema that I am talking about.
"Because He lives, I can face tomorrow,
Because He lives, all fear is gone,
Because I know who holds the future,
And life is worth the living
Just becase He lives!"
--Chorus from one of my favorite hymns, "Because He Lives"
Blessings Be,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
01/21/01 1:47 AM
RE: On God's Sovereignty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi2K: actually, no, your point isn't taken because the following: no matter the word used, many times it is how it is used in a certain sentense and situation that dictates the meaning that is poured into the word. In fact, as translators know, many times the sentense itself dictates what the meaning of the word is ultimately to be. So sovereignty in one sentense, may strongly suggest that God is a strong king, another that he has kingly authority, another that he is a benevolant ruler. That is why the debate over God's sovereignty has gone on throughout church history. If it were as easy as picking up a dictionary and quoting the root meaning of the translated words, don't you think it would have happened by now...John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
01/21/01 2:01 AM
RE: RE: RE: Reply to Trosie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trosie: I will do my best to answer your question I will be honest and tell you right up front that the whole issue many times perplexes me and I doubt it will ever stop perplexing me (Oh, Greg Boyd's God At War book is good in this area).
A simple start on why I do not believe God controlling everything (I believe this illustration is from God At War but I am not sure): God is love, as scripture declares, in order for a loving God to preordain and plan the Holocaust two things must occur: one, that more evil would come out of the Holocaust than good, and two, that that good could not have come any other way...just one of the questions that convinced me that God does not preordained all things.
The open view (or shall I say my view on the open view) is that God has ordained that certain things will come to past and he will bring them to pass through his power, yet, at the same time, he allows us significant freedom. God cannot interfere (John Hick in his book God of Love makes this point) continously in this world without ruining the intergity of this world. For instance, if he stopped tragedy from happening, there would be no heros, no courageous people, and no one would learn to truly look after one another. We would not learn that this is our planet as well (a great chapter on this issue is in Lee Strobel's book a Case For Faith). Sad as it is to say, much of what we learn that is good is from suffering. But beyond that the only thing we would truly learn is an unhealthy dependance on God. Why would God create us if we could not be creatures that love him freely? The issue, to me, comes down to this, are we truly his creatures or merely an extension of him? I hope this helps...I am not sure how well I have explained this, because its late and my kids have kept me up the last two nights...but the issue of God's sovereignty is vast and I try to remember the God's grace many times fills in the blanks of the things we don't understand. John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:22 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|