Conner, it looks like your comment was directed at me so I will respond. I am not sure how you access this site but if you use a computer you can click on the magnifying glass next to my name to verify. In none of my comments did I reference the doctrine of sotetiology. I actually believe in particular redemption. The discussion on man and freewill was from Watcher not me. I said manâs will was in bondage to his nature. Although I did not cite Nebuchadnezzar, I did say Pharosh and Cyrus were examples of exceptions to Godâs normal dealing with men and freely acknowledge that He can deal with any person any way He wishes. I have never asserted that men control God. I have stated and shown from Scripture that God does not predestine all the actions of every man. Hope that clarifies things
alright then my last word will be God's Word, this admonition does not undermine nor take away from God's sovereignty it shows what your definition by necessity denies, the culpability and responsibility of man to act on God's commands. The command is worthless if you could not yield one way or the other and God is not the author of sin.
Rom 6:11Â Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.Â Rom 6:12Â Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.Â Rom 6:13Â Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. Rom 6:19Â I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
here is the dilemma; you define God being sovereign as Him predetermining every action of man. In your thinking if He is not the driving force then He is not sovereign. That is not what being sovereign means. God can do anything and none can stay His hand but controlling every action is not a proper definition of the sovereignty of God What you are experiencing is not a debate with someone who as you say wants to make God less sovereign. That can't even be done. You are experiencing someone saying your definition of what it means for God to be sovereign is inaccurate and using Scripture to back my assertions up.
Your wife can choose to wear a blue dress or a pink skirt with a white top to church. Her control of that choice does not diminish, undermine, or affect the fact that God is sovereign.
Hezekiah could have the shadow on the sun dial go backward or forward. His choice did not diminish, undermine, or affect the fact that God is sovereign.
David could choose 7 years famine, three months of fleeing before enemies or three days pestilence. His choice did not diminish, undermine, or affect the fact that God is sovereign.
Many more verses and examples could be said but will honor your wish to end the discussion.
Seeing you keep bringing up free will let us do a quick reference on it. John 8:44 tells us manâs will is in bondage to his nature. However, if the unregenerate only do things that God predetermined they would, then you have eliminated our Lirdâs clear teachings on degrees of punishment in hell
The phrase freewill , normally appearing before the word offering, as in Psalm 119:108, appears 17 times in the KJV Bible. Are you saying that a sovereign God who inspired the Scriptures made a mistake or had His sovereignty iimpugned by allowing, requesting and acknowledging such actions?
That is because âitâsâ logical conclusion is your logical conclusion not what is found in the Bible. You are generalizing a specific. So called free will has nothing to do with it do please leave it out of discussion, again only you are bringing it up
Will give a brief response here as I am still not where have time and resources. Been Watching please donât think I am trying to be argumentative or am unappreciative of your desire to exalt God. I simply saying you are either misdefining or misapplying the doctrine of the sovereignty of God. As I see it you are doing away with accountability per Romans 14:12. Why be told to make no provision for the flesh but put on the Lord Jesus if I have no capacity to make that conscious choice? Why be admonished to do all to the glory of God if I have no capability or culpability in the matter? Look st Romans 7 :15-20 and tell me it lines up with your explanation of how the sovereignty of God is manifested
Wow, whatever happened to asking for clarification? Who has read the passage and shown my conclusion to erroneous?
Certainly nothing Frank has asserted is true, be so kind to show where I said any such things? What Anne said never crossed my mind.
My point was that every action of man is not preordained by God which would make Him the author of sin. I believe what you see in Been Watching excellent references is the providential working of God in people's lives. If you have two ways to exit a store, right and left, God does not make us "forcibly" exit one set of the doors or the other. It does not say the Lord dictateth his steps. There are exceptions that can be cited like Pharaoh and Cyrus for example.
pennleope wrote: they all drink fluoride water (rat poison) and dip all the grains now in glyphosphate (hand cleaner). what's the difference?
those people don't end up in the emergency room for food poisoning and some even live past 100 years of age, there is no comparison. Same goes for vaccinated people the vast majority of which experience no ill effects because of it.