Thread: Are Romans 10:11 & 10:13 false scriptures?

Bookie

When you say predetermined will are you agreeing with FunOz that the rape of children are actually ordained by God and there is a lesson to learn

Do you agree or reject the concept that God can limit himself due to his own sovereign act and in those areas only work through the agency of man to bring about his will.

And in certain circumstances the will of God can be thwarted, hindered or even stopped

Remember I previously said his ultimate plan will still prevail due to his ability to still work through enough people who will submit and obey God.

Originally Posted by Cardinal TT

Bookie

When you say predetermined will are you agreeing with FunOz that the rape of children are actually ordained by God and there is a lesson to learn

If by "ordained" you mean "sanctioned" by God, I'd say no. God cannot be charged with evil. But because of Satan's present position, evil happens. But when it happens, God redeems it (by our faith) and causes it to be incorporated into His plan. It's usually only in looking back that we can see how this happens. Corrie ten Boom is an example. God redeemed her horrible Satan-inspired experience and, in my opinion, looking back we can see that where Satan meant for an evil outcome, God planned it for a good outcome. This is our heritage as believers.

There is a problem here related to Traducianism. The adherant has to sort of accept every evil act that contributed to the fact that they came about. Change even one and the result would have been a different person and the adherant wouldn't have existed at all. So if God planned that any of us were to exist then he consequently planned it through everything that has ever happened. Or our individual existence becomes pure happenstance.

Originally Posted by Bookman

If by "ordained" you mean "sanctioned" by God, I'd say no. God cannot be charged with evil.

The concept that God cannot be charged with evil is Biblical and should make sense within a Biblical theology but it makes no sense within Calvinism which merely demonstrates that Calvinism is unbiblical.

Originally Posted by Bookman

If by "ordained" you mean "sanctioned" by God, I'd say no. God cannot be charged with evil. But because of Satan's present position, evil happens. But when it happens, God redeems it (by our faith) and causes it to be incorporated into His plan. It's usually only in looking back that we can see how this happens. Corrie ten Boom is an example. God redeemed her horrible Satan-inspired experience and, in my opinion, looking back we can see that where Satan meant for an evil outcome, God planned it for a good outcome. This is our heritage as believers.

Does he plan all our sins for the good too ? A believer goes to rob a bank and God plans it for the believer's own good ?

Originally Posted by Bookman

Cardinal, there are MANY instances in the Bible where God's sovereignty trumped man's "wrong" decisions.

What you mean to say is that God decided to employ his sovereignty in such a way that that happened. It does not follow from the fact that he is sovereign, in and of itself. As if he cannot but do all that. If he cannot but then he per definition is no longer sovereign, he would be externally limited by an inability not to employ his sovereignty in a different way.

Originally Posted by Bookman

http://www.christianity.com/theology...-11555729.html

The article begins with definitions from a dictionary which all relate unlimited ability and then the author defines what the sovereign in question (God) must do with his ability (be in control, whatever that actually boils down to). This can or can not be argued to be Biblical and according to a revelation of what God has in fact chosen to employ his sovereignty for but it does in no way follow from the definition of the term. It's basically a misuse of the term because it lumps notions of what the sovereign is to do together with what sovereignty basically implies, creating a new meaning for the term. The new, broader term is then employed to claim that anyone who doesn't accept the entirety of what the term is now supposed to mean, doesn't believe that God is sovereign. All it really means is that one isn't a Calvinist and doesn't use English terms as if they suddenly take on a different meaning when used in a religious context.