I disagree with Sproul's outlook on this one. Did God really involve Himself and His holiness in determining the outcome of the roll of dice in my grand-niece's game of "Chutes-And-Ladders?"
Was it the will of God that I had two eggs at breakfast, or did I choose that? Did God guide my hand so that I chose just the "right" eggs from the carton in the fridge, or did it really matter? Those eggs that remain, were they spared by God? Why were these eggs unfertilized while other eggs are fertilized and produce chicks?
For that matter... apply these questions to human fertilization. That month before we became pregnant with my first born son, did God choose that ova to die unfertilized despite all of my best efforts?
Are the molecules which constitute the good Rev. Sproul's keyboard with which he typed out this article ordained of God to be there and NOT, say, in the Vibram soles of his footwear?
God is remote and apparently "uninvolved" in our petty lives; yet, simultaneously, He is also very much involved, even when we may not be concerned about His involvement (Acts 14:17 and Acts 17:27-29).
It's paradoxical, so a lot of folks reject the idea. Others, will assert that this God must exist as multiple "Persons" in order to achieve this complexity within His nature. For my part, I can live with a God Who is difficult to understand - One whose nature I may never fully understand, at least in this life.
you sound a lot smarter when you say it than I do.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I am an Open Theist for the most part, my good friend continually leans more towards Calvinistic Predestination. We argue about this issue quite often. I think God is sovereign and could control every aspect of our life, but that such would render "free will" a fairy tale. He thinks God absolutely writes our every path and decision, yet we are allowed "free will" to operate within what God has already predestined for us.
In the end, I think God has a plan for us, and that if we will surrender to His will He will lead us in it. If we refuse to follow His will, we have the freedom to do so. Our lives IMO are not some script where no matter what we do, we have to arrive at some predestined outcome. We choose what we will do and where we will end up. God knows everything we oculd do, and every possible outcome of every possibel choice we could make, and I believe He nudges us in the right direction. I don't believe He controls our actions or "knows" exactly what choices we will make however.
Since God is already at the end of all things, and knws how it will turn out, if He "knows' our every decision...then there is no way to change them. That means that from the very beginning we have in actuality had no real choice but to dfo what we have already done. It was already "written". If this is true, then we have not had freedom, "free will", to do anything. It was already determined what we would do before we were even a thought in our parents heads.
I prefer the Open Theist view. I could be dead wrong in the end thogh and I admit that. It isn't salvific in nature.
God is remote and apparently "uninvolved" in our petty lives; yet, simultaneously, He is also very much involved, even when we may not be concerned about His involvement (Acts 14:17 and Acts 17:27-29).
It's paradoxical, so a lot of folks reject the idea. Others, will assert that this God must exist as multiple "Persons" in order to achieve this complexity within His nature. For my part, I can live with a God Who is difficult to understand - One whose nature I may never fully understand, at least in this life.
It is a lot like the rabbit with the poison in the closed box. Is the rabbit alive or is it dead? In fact, the case can be made that it is both.
"As for the incident with the dragon, I was barely involved. All I did was give your uncle a little nudge out of the door."
I found this Bible verse using 'Identity in Christ' for Android phones, and thought you might like it:
"You knew and loved me before I was even born!":
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them. (Psalm 139 : 16 - ESV)
Of course I would argue that the verse mentioned Aquila is in Psalms. The intention of the Psalms was to be poetic praise, not necessarily doctrinal teaching. Did David intend to literally express doctrine regarding God and man's predestination? Or was this simply poetic language used to encourage that God indeed has our lives in HIs hands and we can find comfort in trusting Him?
Further, these are the assertions of the writer. He isn't saying that God told him He had written all his days. Rather the writer is saying he believes God had written all his days. It is man's assertion here, not God's statement.
Of course I would argue that the verse mentioned Aquila is in Psalms. The intention of the Psalms was to be poetic praise, not necessarily doctrinal teaching. Did David intend to literally express doctrine regarding God and man's predestination? Or was this simply poetic language used to encourage that God indeed has our lives in HIs hands and we can find comfort in trusting Him?
Further, these are the assertions of the writer. He isn't saying that God told him He had written all his days. Rather the writer is saying he believes God had written all his days. It is man's assertion here, not God's statement.
How much of the Bible is direct quotations of God? Acts 2:38 is Peter's opinion, too, isn't it?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Linear Mode
