- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 100
- Points
- 48
God is Holy, God is Sovereign....That's absurd. Your definition of Sovereignty is negative penal brute judgment?
God is Holy, God is Sovereign....That's absurd. Your definition of Sovereignty is negative penal brute judgment?
He allows the damned to experience good in this life. This is mercy.You said that in his love for the vessels of wrath, he suspends His sovereignty. I'm saying that's not love.
I am very interested in this debate^^^^That's absurd. Your definition of Sovereignty is negative penal brute judgment?
Get real! I said no such thing about SCRIPTURE! You, sir, are a prevaricator of the worst order. You know good and well that this was directed toward your comments, not the reference.All I did is quote Colossians 1 and Average Joe says that is my interpretation and you say it's presupositional and philosophical.
Reread Colossians 1 and tell us why God's Sovereignty doesnt relate to our salvation and a radical change of our wills.
Haven't I rightly dubbed thee, Braying Ass??? Say hello to Balaam for us.LOL. Haven't I rightly dubbed thee, Witless Joe?
Haven't I rightly dubbed thee, Braying Ass??? Say hello to Balaam for us.
You asserted that God, in love, suspends His Soveignty in salvation.He allows the damned to experience good in this life. This is mercy.
I don't know how you infer "love from: "under His wrath"?!?
Did Witless Joe just employ polysyllabic jargon?prevaricator
So there are times when "all" doesn't mean all, then?That’s not an exegetical basis for your interpretation, it’s presuppositional and philosophical.ONLY a Sovereign God who is over ALL things has the authority/ability to reconcile you and make your hostile minds love Him!
Good oneSo there are times when "all" doesn't mean all, then?
Twice you have mischaracterized my statements. What's your angle?You asserted that God, in love, suspends His Soveignty in salvation.
Simple.I am very interested in this debate^^^^
I dont need a stronger text. This is quite clear. The very argument that Paul makes is about God's Sovereignty over all things including reconciling those who are hostile to Him.Good one
I think context is king, and if FSSL wants to choose a different (stronger) text to argue his point I’m good with that
Perhaps if you were more clear...Twice you have mischaracterized my statements. What's your angle?
I'm just here for open debate on the topic.
God is The Sovereign.
But He, willing to demonstrate His glory, love, mercy, all that He is...does not yet enforce that Sovereignty fully.
Well, first, the exclusion of other passages is an invalid exclusion. Jussayin'.LOL, flesh that out if it’s so clear from verse 16. How does Christ’s sovereignty over the whole universe, kingdoms, and the earth supply the concept of sovereignty over man’s will (and don’t bring philosophic weight of other passages into the immediate text in doing so).
In the Millennium, God will enforce His Sovereignty to a much higher degree, than He does pre-Mil. Yet, He will still allow rebellion, all along, judging the Nations with drought, when they do so.Perhaps if you were more clear...
What do you mean by the following, if you don't mean that God demonstrates love in suspending His sovereignty in salvation?
God never gave up one iota of His Sovereignty. Paul says all things exist because of Him.In the Millennium, God will enforce His Sovereignty to a much higher degree, than He does pre-Mil. Yet, He will still allow rebellion, all along, judging the Nations with drought, when they do so.
A final rebellion, will be allowed, and Satan loosed, to recruit the last generation of the damned.
After that, a new Earth, with The New Jerusalem as Capitol, will be under His fully enforced Sovereignty, and so...Perfect!
That's what I mean.
He chose that progression, and revealed it to us.
And whom am I to question Him for that?
Read this link consisting of tens of thousands of words by notable preachers and theologians, a great many of whom are Calvinists, and other than the hyper-Calvinist JC Philpot please show me from these voluminous writings/commentaries where your concept of dealing with the matter of freewill is referenced. You won’t find it, but what you will find is reams of content dealing with allusion to Christ’s supremacy, deity proclaimed, head of the church, creator and sustainer of the material world, etc (things I said the passage deals with regarding sovereignty).I dont need a stronger text. This is quite clear. The very argument that Paul makes is about God's Sovereignty over all things including reconciling those who are hostile to Him.
You're as funny as a heart attack and as intelligent as a road apple.Did Witless Joe just employ polysyllabic jargon?
I may have to rethink Evolution.