Decrees of God

[ITS]

In light of Nicole's teachings on the Decrees of God (lessons 3-5), state a prominent area of tension, and how would you respond.

[RyanBareng]

In light of Nicole's teachings on the Decrees of God (lessons 3-5), state a prominent area of tension, and how would you respond.

There is no doubt as to the tension that has arisen among the lapsarian perspectives recently. At Talbot, there are a large amount of infralapsarians and a few supralapsarians. Furthermore, there is a girl in my Historical Theology class that said, ?I don?t believe we have a sin nature.? Later on I found out that her theology was Pelagian! I don?t think she knew it at the time. The prominent area of tension in all of the above is the problem of whether or not we are free to choose God. It seems to be the hardest thing to accept as a human being. A lot of people cannot accept God?s sovereignty so they part ways with the lapsarians.

[Tony]

In light of Nicole's teachings on the Decrees of God (lessons 3-5), state a prominent area of tension, and how would you respond.
I think one of the most prominent issues arising today is the issue of open theism (Clarke Pinnock is a foremost spokesman) and how this argument will impact the evangelical world in response to it. Pinnock seems to be trying to balance naturalism and Evangelicalism, but seems to lose himself to naturalism without realizing it. My response to this problem of a man-centered theism in which God is "able" to intermingle with the will of man is to start talking more about God's Supra-rationale perfections and emphasizing that We are but very limited refelctions of all His perfections. As such it would serve us well to think through how these limited reflections impact how far we can go when talking about the will of God concerning His thought processes and Decrees. Then we would be more guarded against thinkers like Pinnock when they propose theologies with very limited man-centered perspectives.

[Tony]

In light of Nicole's teachings on the Decrees of God (lessons 3-5), state a prominent area of tension, and how would you respond.

There is no doubt as to the tension that has arisen among the lapsarian perspectives recently. At Talbot, there are a large amount of infralapsarians and a few supralapsarians. Furthermore, there is a girl in my Historical Theology class that said, ?I don?t believe we have a sin nature.? Later on I found out that her theology was Pelagian! I don?t think she knew it at the time. The prominent area of tension in all of the above is the problem of whether or not we are free to choose God. It seems to be the hardest thing to accept as a human being. A lot of people cannot accept God?s sovereignty so they part ways with the lapsarians.
Since I seem to be the only one in this class at the moment, I don't know quite what to say except that I think Ryan was missing the point. I don't think that too many people doubt the soveiriegnty of God; it is a matter of them not wanting to submit to it. This is the nature of what we are discussing with regards to true liberty and freedom. The person who claims to not believe in God's sovereignty will turn around in the same conversation and in their theological stance and blame Him for the injustice of the world. How can you blame somebody that you don't see as in control? The nature of the problem is people being resistant to His control because they do not understand that if they do submit, they will no longer be slaves to their own reprobate activity and thinking. How can they, they are lost.

[EvelynT]

In light of Nicole's teachings on the Decrees of God (lessons 3-5), state a prominent area of tension, and how would you respond.

I find that with regard to the Decrees of God, when comparing a naturalistic view to a supernaturalistic, it is similar or is like comparing the Calvinist view to the Arminian. The point of tension I find concerning this topic is also that of my research paper. That is, the different views and beliefs regarding predestination and/or the election of God of those who would be saved or elected to salvation in connection with the overall perspective of each the Calvinist and the Arminian view. Nevertheless, this has helped to fine tune and sharpen my beliefs about God’s approach to the elect. However, I have found it a topic demanding further study. In fact, I have interviewed a fellow Christian on the different views as well as testing myself and have found that both of us share views from both perspectives leaving us to stand in the midway of both belief systems. I also realize however, that each point expressed in each view is a product of varied interpretations concerning the Word and that in itself is upsetting. Why? well because it indicates that these perspectives were studied and ultimately determined by man’s interpretation of each further proving that the Word must truly be dissected to assure its true meaning.

[EvelynT]

Seeing that I am now the only one left taking this course, I can only respond without expecting a comment in return. With regards to Ryan's remark concerning the outcome of Infralapsarians vs. Supralapsarians perspectives arising lately? Well, I am not aware of what he is speaking, unless he means to refer to some movement that is happening that I am not aware of that is surfacing just recently? unlikely. But it is interesting however, how we constantly bump into people with more than one view of God's sovereignty, God's all together nature or that of election. This is one controversial topic among many Christians that tends to weave a web of questions concerning God's justice, goodness, love and his relation to sin (or not). But, more importantly does he or does he not create with a redemptive plan in mind as priority? or did he create knowing some would be his and others not, so how they return to him is not as important? I don't know but it sure is an interesting topic. As for the young lady whose comment leads to believe that we do not have a sin nature, well its not based on a specific view its a fact, (doctrine of original sin) whether we like it or not we are a fallen humanity and with that come certain engraved condition which we owe to our ancestors, Adam and Eve.



In light of Nicole's teachings on the Decrees of God (lessons 3-5), state a prominent area of tension, and how would you respond.

There is no doubt as to the tension that has arisen among the lapsarian perspectives recently. At Talbot, there are a large amount of infralapsarians and a few supralapsarians. Furthermore, there is a girl in my Historical Theology class that said, ?I don?t believe we have a sin nature.? Later on I found out that her theology was Pelagian! I don?t think she knew it at the time. The prominent area of tension in all of the above is the problem of whether or not we are free to choose God. It seems to be the hardest thing to accept as a human being. A lot of people cannot accept God?s sovereignty so they part ways with the lapsarians.

[Nathan Venton]

In light of Nicole's teachings on the Decrees of God (lessons 3-5), state a prominent area of tension, and how would you respond.

A prominent area of tension for me would be that of the relationship between God choosing and humans having free will. Some how God chooses those who are saved, yet at the same time, humans are commanded to respond to God and find salvation in Christ and are held accountable if they do not. I would resolve this (in a sense) by saying that the two views are not incompatible. We cannot understand God and cannot fathom how he does things. Thus I would say that the two views are indeed compatible in some way and that they cannot be separated from each other. I don’t believe there is any need to separate them into two camps that are opposite.

[cmoore]

A prominant area of tension in the decrees of God could be the superlapsarian view, says that God decided to create humanity and permit the fall, then sent Christ to provide a substitute for those whom He had elected, then applied to the elect the blessings that were secured by Christ. This could be an area of tension becasue the question could come, "Why did God create human kind and have to send Jesus to do all of that suffering if He knew that we sould fall?" My answer would rest in God's Word. We were created for His benefit and His glory. When God created us, He has plans of prosperity and not of evil for our lives. Although He knew that we would fall, that did not stop Him from creating us. He is not the author of sin. He is not even a co-signer to sin. He made a way for us to be right with Him through the cross fo Jesus Christ.

[cmoore]

I agree with this person that an area of tension could be that God gave us free will and yet choose those who are saved. This area would solely depend on how you view free will and the doctrine of election. If you believe that God chooses some and not others, then you may have a problem. However, if you believe that God chose those who He knew would chose Him, then you may have one issue resolved, but it may bring about more questions. This is why we cannot exhaust God. My thing is, make sure that you are right with God.