rwrf
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by rwrf on Jul 22, 2008 15:44:42 GMT -5
I found this message board after listening to the Two Reformed Brothers podcast a week ago. 2 guys called in and soundly refuted the first point of calvinism (Total Depravity) that was the topic of the show. I almost felt sorry for the hosts of the show. They spent the first half of the show teaching original sin and then Pelagius calls in and starts quoting scripture left and right, and the reformed guys are basically stunned with almost no response.
Then the kicker was when the next caller (Kerrigan, I think) called in and one reformed guy said original sin had to be true b/c babies cry to get their way. I almost fell on the floor!
I've listened to lots of reformed shows and sermons in the past, but most never take callers. Now I know why.
I love evangelists that preach the gospel, calvinists or not, but I think those guys are going to have to stop taking callers if they want to convert people to calvinism. They might even have some calvinist listeners backslide if they are not careful.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Jul 22, 2008 16:10:36 GMT -5
Yowser! This gives me a chuckle, mostly because all parties involved are dear brothers of mine and our debating goes way back. Welcome to the board rwrf.
Blessings,
Miles
|
|
|
Post by logic on Jul 22, 2008 16:25:37 GMT -5
I found this message board after listening to the Two Reformed Brothers podcast a week ago. Could you give a link to what you were listening to? I'd like to hear it too. AND A BIG WELCOME!!!
|
|
|
Post by joeldad on Jul 22, 2008 16:38:43 GMT -5
Is this for real? If so, I've got to hear it! Welcome to the boards!
|
|
rwrf
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by rwrf on Jul 22, 2008 16:52:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jul 22, 2008 18:24:46 GMT -5
Yes, this is for real. You can download the show from here: CLICK HERE. I am uploading it now, so give it about 5-10 min. or so. I think that we joined in at about the 1 hour and 1 min. mark. Enjoy!
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jul 22, 2008 19:17:33 GMT -5
It's all uploaded now. Oh, and by the way, welcome to the boards rwrf!
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 22, 2008 19:38:44 GMT -5
I thought it was a good and interesting recording. Thanks for mentioning it.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jul 22, 2008 20:12:08 GMT -5
Praise God! I'm glad that LibraryofTheology.com was mentioned by the host of the show. That has a link to this message board.
I am very glad that you enjoyed this show! The issue of total depravity vs. free will is a very important issue. And honestly, I think total depravity / original sin is the weakest point of Calvinism, which I find to be the easiest to refute.
All throughout the Bible we see God commanding men to obey Him, being disappointed when men do not, and severely punishing their disobedience.
Amen! I took the name "Pelagius" because I thought it would be funny. Besides, Pelagius really did have a lot of good things to say in his writings.
The call really did take the host by surprise. I sort of felt bad too because I know the host and believe him to be a dear brother in the Lord. I didn't want to offend him or anything. It was really supposed to be a light-hearted chat.
An issue like this is very important and needs to be discussed and debated. The Bible does not teach that sin, like homosexuality for example, is human nature. In fact, it says that homosexuality is contrary to our human nature. Sin is a choice. Sin is a choice to abuse your human nature.
I think that the discussion went very well so long as we stayed on the topic. It got a little off topic with the conditional security & holiness issue. It would have been better if we simply could have stayed on the original sin/total depravity issue.
HAHA. Yea. Babies crying is completely normal and natural. It is their only form of communication. And it was GOD who gave them this ability.
Yea, free discussion and debate can be a dangerous thing..... unless you have the truth.
Praise God! I sure hope that this show at least got some brethren rethinking these issues. We can't just be sheep lead astray by every popular Shepherd that comes along. We need to rightly divide the word of truth.
Yes it is for real. I called into a Calvinist radio show as "Pelagius" to ask some challenging questions. Then Kerrigan joined the discussion. It was a pretty good time.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jul 22, 2008 20:18:09 GMT -5
One part I thought was very interesting in the radio show:
Pelagius: Is homosexuality human nature?
Host: No. Homosexuality is not human nature.
Pelagius: So is sin contrary to our sinful nature?
|
|
|
Post by HDmatt on Jul 22, 2008 21:34:54 GMT -5
Praise God~I heard al ot of nervous laughter on the calvin end of things.............how come they attack personally and try to ask what your last sin was, which was something forgiven God has put away? Is that some type of self justification? Why attak the messenger...........
|
|
|
Post by prespilot68 on Jul 23, 2008 7:32:36 GMT -5
Can I just compliment Jesse for having such a Christ like Spirit through out that debate. Never once did I hear Jesse speak in a harsh or angry tone. Jesse - you kept your cool and made your points. Your truly a good example for us all in how one should handle themselves in a heated discussion such as this. I wish I could say the same for the other guys, as I listened to them I couldn't help but think how much of bullies they sounded like. No where did I get the sense they were being patient or exhibiting gentleness - instead I heard a bunch of angry and enraged guys who wanted to maintain control of THEIR show. As Gordon Olson once said when we debate someone about doctrine or the gospel, it is not a contest to see who wins - its about who has the truth!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jul 23, 2008 8:19:27 GMT -5
It would be good if we could arrange an official debate. It would be very edifying to publicly discuss and debate these issues.
I would personally like to talk about this sinful nature / original sin / total depravity issue again. Understanding the true nature of the flesh, and free will, is very important for sound doctrine.
There is so much more that would be discussed on this issue which we weren't able to discuss during this call. It was an unexpected phone call, so of course it wasn't the best.
But if we could get an official debate, when both parties come prepared, that would be very beneficial to the body of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jul 23, 2008 9:24:01 GMT -5
I thought this was pretty funny. I have to say that Paul did a pretty good job too. I think he hit both Jesse and Kerrigan with some tough questions as well. I think it would be better if there were less questions and more explanation of what each other is talking about with Scripture brought in to back it up. I think part of the problem is that the Calvinist does not take people like Jesse and Kerrigan seriously. They view them so far out of bounds theologically that they don't really listen to what they're saying. I think Jesse and Kerrigan make some good points and ask some penetrating questions even though I don't agree with them at this time on original sin. Anyway, maybe I'll give Paul and Jeff a call soon too! It seems they could use some non-Calvinists to liven up the show Steve
|
|
kenm
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by kenm on Jul 23, 2008 10:25:35 GMT -5
I would like to knowhow you would defend this passage. I have been studying original sin in the Bible and I would like to know how you explain this passage.
Thanks
Psalms 58:1-4
1 Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men? 2 Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth. 3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. 4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
In verse 3 the wicked ( rasha -morally wrong,condemned, bad, guilty) are estranged (zur -turn aside, be a foreigner, separated from God) from the womb; they go astray (taah - stray, err, stagger, be out of the way) as soon as they be born speaking lies.
Then in verse 4 the reference to poison in a snake is made and that poison is in the snake at birth. Isn't it saying that from these verses that we are estranged from birth because of what is in us at birth?
I do not agree with Calvinism but in studying original sin I would like to hear what your response is.
Ken
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jul 23, 2008 10:56:29 GMT -5
I would like to knowhow you would defend this passage. I have been studying original sin in the Bible and I would like to know how you explain this passage. Thanks Psalms 58:1-4 1 Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men? 2 Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth. 3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. 4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear; In verse 3 the wicked ( rasha -morally wrong,condemned, bad, guilty) are estranged (zur -turn aside, be a foreigner, separated from God) from the womb; they go astray (taah - stray, err, stagger, be out of the way) as soon as they be born speaking lies. Then in verse 4 the reference to poison in a snake is made and that poison is in the snake at birth. Isn't it saying that from these verses that we are estranged from birth because of what is in us at birth? I do not agree with Calvinism but in studying original sin I would like to hear what your response is. Ken Hello Ken. That's a good Scripture to bring up. Psalm 58:3 is one that is often used by Calvinists to "prove" the doctrine of Original Sin. I don't have time to type too much right now, but I believe that I do have some answers for you. I will try to get to that later on tonight. I would like to ask you a quick question though: can babies speak as soon as they are born? I have three children and I have been there for all three of their births. I think that 1 or 2 screamed when they were born, but none of them spoke. And the only one that has told a lie so far is my 5 year old boy Malachi. My three year old and one year old still haven't told lies yet. I assume this to be true of every baby. If this is true, then how can this verse of Scripture be taken literally? I look forward to your answers and answering this more in-depth later (unless Jesse gets to it first ;D)...
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jul 23, 2008 11:10:22 GMT -5
Ps. 58:3: The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
A. This is a poetic book which verses can be taken figuratively or literally.
B. The context of this passage requires a figurative interpretation.
(1.) The entire chapter is figurative; the surrounding verses are all poetic. It talks of men being like serpents and deaf adders (vs. 4), of God breaking the teeth of the young lions (vs. 6), men melting away like running water (vs.7), God bending his bow to shoot arrows (vs. 7), men passing away as a snail which melts (vs. 8), and God destroying like a whirlwind (vs. 9).
(2.) It says that children speak lies from the womb.
(3.) Infants do not know how to speak as soon as they are born.
(4.) Therefore, this passage is poetic or figurative.
C. The obvious meaning of this passage is that individuals choose to sin at a very early age, from the dawn of their moral agency, and the first sin which children usually commit is lying.
=================================
WHAT A SINNER IS:
1. A sinner is someone who personally and deliberately chooses to sin (Gen. 6:12; Exo. 32:7; Deut. 9:12; 32:5; 1 Sam. 3:13; Jdg. 2:19; Isa. 66:3; Hos. 9:9; Ps. 14:2-3; Isa. 53:6; Ecc. 7:29; Zep. 3:7; Matt. 12:34-35; 15:17-20; Mk. 7:15, 21-22; Lk. 6:45; Rom. 3:23).
A. Sinners cannot be born that way, since infants have not made any choices yet (Rom. 9:11).
B. Morally, all men are born innocent (2 Kng. 21:16; 24:4; Jer. 13:26-27; Matt. 18:3). Then they choose to become filthy (Ps. 14:3; Rom. 3:12).
C. Individuals are innocent until the age of accountability, which is the age of reason, when they know right from wrong (Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15-16), and choose to do what they know is wrong (Jas. 4:17).
|
|
kenm
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by kenm on Jul 23, 2008 11:46:12 GMT -5
Thanks for both responses. Kerrigan, even though Jesse beat you to it please feel free to respond and add anything also. I will continue to study, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jul 23, 2008 12:19:51 GMT -5
Here are some other texts used to support original sin:
Ps. 51:5 "I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me".
A. This scripture is talking about David and his mother. It is not referencing all of humanity.
B. Taken literally, it is saying that David’s mother was in some sort of sin when she conceived him.
C. A strong case can be made that Ps. 51:5 is talking about the defilement of David’s mother, because of a previous marriage to another man – a heathen.
(1.) David had two half-sisters named Zeruiah and Abigail (1 Chron. 2:13-16).
(2.) The father of David’s half sisters was not Jesse but Nahash (2 Sam. 17:25).
(3.) Nahash was an Ammonite king (1 Sam. 11:1; 1 Sam. 12:12).
(4.) David’s father was Jesse, not Nahash. But the Father of David’s half sisters were daughts of Nahash. This could explain why Nahash showed kindness towards David (2 Sam. 10:2).
(5.) David’s mother was most likely the second wife of Jesse. The first wife of Jesse would have been considered superior to his second wife which had been either the concubine or wife of a heathen king.
(6.) This would explain why David’s half brothers viewed themselves as superior to David, and why David was considered prideful for thinking he was as good as them (1 Sam. 17:28-30).
(7.) This may explain why David was not called before Samuel the prophet amongst the other sons (1 Sam. 16:11).
(8.) David’s mother apparently had a good relationship with the Lord (Ps. 86:16; 116:16). But she would have been, in the eyes of Jewish law, considered defiled by her previous relationship with an Ammonite (Num. 25:1,2; Deut. 7:3,4; 1 Kings 11:2-4, Ezra 9:2; Neh. 13:23,25; 2 Cor. 6:14-17).
Romans 5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."
A. By Adam’s disobedience of eating from the tree, Adam provided all mankind with the opportunity of choosing to be sinners, since moral knowledge has been granted to all men.
B. By Christ’s obedience of hanging on the tree, Christ has provided all mankind with the opportunity of choosing to be saved, since remission of sin has been offered to all men.
C. The word “made” used in these passages is not referring to a constitutional change, but referring to a conditional position which requires the consent of the will. Being a sinner is conditional upon sinning just as being justified is conditional upon repentance and faith.
Ephesians 2:3 "By nature children of wrath...."
A. The word nature can describe a man’s God given constitution: (Rom 1:26; 1:31; 2:14; 2:27; 2 Tim 3:3). But this is just dirt and it is created by God. Therefore it cannot be sinful in and of itself.
B. The word nature can describe a man’s self chosen character, custom, habit, or manner of life: (Jer.13:23; Acts 26:4; 1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:2-3; Gal 2:14-15; 2 Tim 3:10; 2 Pet 1:4). This is voluntary and has to do with the heart. Therefore moral character, or sinfulness, can belong to this type of nature.
C. The context of this particular passage is talking about a former manner of life, addressing a previous lifestyle. "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world... among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind..." Eph. 2:2-3
D. A sinful nature is moral not metaphysical, it is a person’s self chosen character and not his God given constitution. A man’s heart (will) can be sinful, but a man’s body can only be an occasion of temptation. “For Paul, the ‘sinful nature’ has to do with conduct, habit, and developed character.” F. Lagard Smith (Troubling Questions for Calvinists, pg. 123).
|
|
|
Post by prespilot68 on Jul 23, 2008 12:42:42 GMT -5
It would be good if we could arrange an official debate. It would be very edifying to publicly discuss and debate these issues. Jesse - indeed a debate on this particular subject would be very valuable to the body of Christ. But what I have found over the years is getting Calvinist to agree on the rules of debate. Here is what I mean: I think the main problem with debates is that at least one party uses a different set of hermeneutics as the other. Calvinist are notorious for using verses out of context and often violate the Law of Non-Contradiction (this was very evident in yesterdays debate). What I would like to see before any debate, is to have both parties agree on a set of hermeneutics and if a person violates them, then that person can not use that verse or position to support their doctrine. I particularly liked Charles Finney Theological Tripod and that is: For any doctrine to be true it must be: 1. True to Scripture 2. True to Life 3. True to Reason (Right Reason, Law of Non-Contradiction) I find Calvinist so often violate rules #2 & 3. They put forth doctrines that horrifically violate True to Life and True to Reason. Consider this - Jesus taught through the use of parables. Why? Because he was appealing to peoples sense of right reason and life experiences (True to Life). This is why the Pharisees hated his teaching because they could never refute it - how could they! as it was appealing to peoples common sense or right logic. I truly believe that by using these principles for debate and for interpreting scripture one can show a Calvinist they are wrong in their presuppositions as most of their principles are based upon illogical assumptions and violate common sense.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Jul 23, 2008 13:33:29 GMT -5
When you tell them that they are not "True to Reason" (they don't make sence), they tell you that Gods ways are not our's & His way are highr than our's. They say that we can not understand God using "human reasoning"
When they ask you to proove something and you say that commone sence and reality proove it, they come back with, "Who's reality" or "who's commone sence"
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey Olver on Jul 23, 2008 15:53:48 GMT -5
Then we need to ask, "Why would God call us to reason with Him (rather than apart from) Him as per the book of Isaiah?" and when they say "Whose reality and whose common sense" we need to reply, the reality God created and deals with us in (without getting into Open Theism ) and the common sense that He gave us in His own image.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Jul 23, 2008 16:09:46 GMT -5
They just come back with the "fact" that we have been corupted from the fall and our commone sence is now corupt, along with that "our finite minds can not comprehend the reasons for God's actions"
Furtheromre, They say that what ever God does that we can not understand is a "mystry" which only He knows and chooses not to releal to us.
They are full of excuses they they become futile to debate with.
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey Olver on Jul 23, 2008 16:49:10 GMT -5
Agreed. Excuses are impossible to debate with. But we do need to be diligent to point out the sinking ships, and call them out when they jump to another ship.
I would probably reply "But God is making His call to us to reason together with Him long after the fall. Additionally, why would God call us to reason with Him when according to you, we cannot. To prove His sovreign reasoning? God is powerful enough that He doesn't need to force us into anything to prove His power."
But that's just my thoughts... an invisible debate between two people who most likely agree would be funny to watch,m but I don't want to exercise that brain power right now. ;D
|
|
rwrf
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by rwrf on Jul 23, 2008 16:59:16 GMT -5
I've been involved in debates like this too. Basically, God operates under different laws of logic and reasoning that us and he doesn't reveal these to us.
The bottom line is (and one guy admitted this outright), you can't understand Calvinism from the Bible alone, you have to have it revealed to you by God providentially.
|
|
djpray
Junior Member
"Filipino" Preacher Man!
Posts: 86
|
Post by djpray on Jul 23, 2008 18:07:47 GMT -5
Friends, Maybe the following would be a good summary of the Calvinistic position on logic. This summary is quoted from the following source: "God's Riches - A Work-Book On The Doctrines of Grace" by John Benton and John Peet. I would especially encourage you to note the little section below...called the "The Logical Necessity of Both." Anyway, I hope this is food for thought Derek From this short survey, it begins to emerge that the Bible teaches both God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. They are separate things and yet they are coincident realities. This may appear illogical to us, with our finite understanding. If God is totally in control, we tend to think that would lead to a determinism which leaves man as a non-responsible puppet. On the other hand, if we start with man’s responsibility before God, we tend to think that he must have free will in such a way that God can only do so much and no more. But the Bible does not teach either. It teaches man’s total responsibility and God’s complete sovereignty at the same time, without compromising either. THE LOGICAL NECESSITY OF BOTH God’s sovereignty is necessary to His being and holiness. If there is something over which God cannot rule, then He is not truly God. Further, it would be immoral of God either to choose not to control or to have made a universe which He could not control. B.B. Warfield write: “A God who could or would make a creature whom He could not or would not control, is no God….He would have ceased to be a moral being. It is an immoral act to make a thing that we cannot or will not control. The only justification for making anything is that we both can and will control it. If a man should manufacture a quantity of an unstable high-explosive in the corridors of an orphanage and when the stuff went off should seek to excuse himself by saying that he could not control it, no one would count his excuse as valid. What right had he to manufacture it, we would say, unless he could control it? He relieves himself of none of the responsibility for the havoc wrought by pleading inability to control his creation. To suppose that God has made a universe….or even a single being….the control of which he renounces, is to accuse him of similar immorality.” There is a similar logical necessity of real human responsibility and freedom. The whole of Christianity presupposes human responsibility. Unless there is a voluntary element in love, for example, love is not love and God is not truly loved by his people. Read Matthew 22:37 and note that our love is active and is the response of our whole being. For a human being to say sincerely, “I love you” is one thing, but the same words coming from the mouth of a robot which has been programmed to repeat the phrase are completely different. Thus we see that both God’s total sovereignty and man’s real responsibility are logically necessary and taught by Scriptures, although we cannot fathom how they ultimately fit together. We have to be content to realize that God, and the relationship which He bears to the world, are greater than we can understand. The great theologian Augustine of Hippo, put it succinctly. He said, ‘Dogma is but the fence around the mystery.’ In other words, the Scriptures keep us from wandering into error, but although they give us the truth, they cannot give us the full truth, for God is greater than our limited understanding can comprehend. There are certain things which we believe although we cannot fully understand or explain them. The relationship between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility is one of those things.
|
|
|
Post by prespilot68 on Jul 23, 2008 22:19:15 GMT -5
LOGIC OF NECESSITY BOTH? ? Derek I hope you realize that this is the same logical position that Pantheism takes (Hinduism/Buddhism). They will deny the Law of Non-Contradiction on the basis that something can be "True", "False" and "Both". Of course this is turning truth from being an absolute into being realitive (ie Post-Modernism). Calvninist have a useful expression to help explain this concept further. The author of the article just happens to use it right on que. He says: " There are certain things which we believe although we cannot fully understand or explain them. The relationship between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility is one of those things." I call this "Post-Mortem" theology - or also known as "We won't understand until we are dead". This is a Calvinist catch all phrase. Whenever a Calvinist gets themselves in a corner they usually pull this out as a diversion tactic.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jul 23, 2008 22:24:52 GMT -5
There is a difference between a mystery and a contradiction.
A mystery is something we do not comprehend. For example, the fact that God lives in endless time, with no beginning or end, this is a mystery. We cannot comprehend eternity.
A contradiction is something that we do comprehend, and it is incompatible with another truth. We comrpehend it, and it is a contradiction. For example the teaching that God is the author of sin, yet man is responsible for sin. This we can comprehend and it is a contradiction.
We cannot call a contradiction a mystery any more than we can call a mystery a contradiction. When something is a mystery, we must not call it a contradiction. And when something is a contradiction, we must not call is a mystery.
|
|
rwrf
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by rwrf on Jul 24, 2008 10:08:27 GMT -5
"it would be immoral of God... to choose not to control"
This quote in Derek's post shows the philosophical beliefs that inform the calvinist view of scripture. This idea that it is immoral not to control everything you have the power to control, is not found anywhere in scripture and can easily be refuted from intuition. So the calvinist goes to the Bible with this pagan idea in hand, and interprets scripture through that lens.
I have the physical power to force my wife to do all kings of things. I could decide what she will cook for dinner every night and I could schedule every activity with the kids. The calvinist says, because I don't do that, I am sinning.
Henry Ford mass-produced the automobile. He created these automobiles and then did a wicked thing, by selling them to other people to control. The right thing to do would be to control every action of that thing you created.
It's an absurd idea that cannot be backed up by either reason or scripture, yet it's a philosophical backbone of the calvinist hermeneutic.
Try it. Ask a mature calvinist. "Would it be possible for God to choose not to meticulously control something he created." The answer is always "NO."
|
|
|
Post by logic on Jul 24, 2008 10:34:53 GMT -5
This is too juicy to leave alone. Furthermore, if anyone does not see the error in this, I would like to reveal them for any Calvinist on this Forum.
God does not need sovereignty to remain holy. This is the first thing that must be noted. All that God’s sovereignty means is: Keeping His absolute authority which means continuing to be the only one to whom His creation must give account an having the final word on everything.
According to their definition of sovereignty & "ruling over", then HE has faild being God from before Adam & Eve, with Lucifer. They compensate this by saying that God wanted Lucifer to fall and Adam for tha matter.
This is the main problem. Calvinists think that God controls everything as dominating over every single aspect of creation and there is nothing that happens which He dos not want to happen.
For Calvinists, if there is one thing that He hasn't wanted to happen but has happened, that means He has not controlled it, because God always gets what he wants; if He does not want it to happen, then it will not happen.
This wipes out childbirth altogether.
This is a bad analogy. First, If a man would manufacture a quantity of an unstable high-explosive in the corridors of an orphanage, His intent would only be criminal. God's intent was to create moral, sentient beings, to worship Him. Second, the unstable high-explosive has no moral code & has no alternative but to do that for which it is purposed, God's sentient beings do.
This would be a lie on the bomb makers part, for he had all control, making it, placing it, & setting it off. This is also an error on the accusation of God. God relinquishes His "control" to His moral, sentient beings with expectation that they are able to obey. All the while God stays sovereign.
It is not a presupposition, but a fact. This is a subtle error in semantics.
They cannot fathom how because they have the wrong definitions and ideas of sovereignty and the control which God has.
If there is anything that would be seen as contradictory, God would be sure for us to understand, that we may give a reason for what we believe & explain to the unbelievers. 1 Peter 3:15
God will & has given us all that we need for us to understand with out leaving us with so called “mysteries” See Reply #27 per Jesse Morrell
This is not, there is nothing that contradicts reality.
|
|