Redefining Sovereignty & The Battle For Language

Eric and Drew prepare for an upcoming debate on The Gospel Truth by discussing the alleged immutable pre-creation divine decree(s) in Scripture and the same vocabulary, different dictionary issues that are often encountered in these controversies.

Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
2:30 Kingship of God
23:00 The WCF & Its "Proofs"
24:20 Romans 9v15,18
25:52 Romans 11,33
28:50 Hebrews 6,17
32:16 Ephesians 1,11
50:45 Persuasion & Assurance
59:09 Jeremiah 19,5
1:01:21 Conclusion

#DivineDecree #Sovereignty #ReformedTheology

Connect with us on the socials! 👇👇

Become a Patron, Support the channel, and get cool perks! 👇👇

[lionoffireministries]

I’m from Australia 🇦🇺
This was a top-shelf stream!
Logical and so clearly articulated 👍🏼
Your channel deserves way more subscribers and views! (and I have no doubt they will come)
A great channel to watch in conjunction with Leighton Flowers.
Bless you guys!

Ps. I was not predestined from eternity past to write this comment 😂

[jeremythompson]

Another common word is election
I often hear calvinists say: “the bible teaches election, you are just resisting what the bible says”
Presupposing of course that no other view on election exists. Just their philosophy jammed into one random greek word

[TKK]

I heard you guys mention "deductive arguments" that very often calvinists will appeal to in order to keep their system coherent. One thing that should always be remembered that I feel is often overlooked is that a deductive argument can be valid without being sound. Soundness needs to be demonstrated. If your deductive argument isn't sound, you cannot use ad hoc justifications that are themselves established no where in scripture, such as creating 2 wills that God has that go directly against each other but for some reason it's OK because one is temporal and the other eternal. Crazy pills abound.

[Apollos.]

I really like that "Kingship" idea! Using a word that is more intuitively understood in our time, as opposed to the misunderstood and misused word "Sovereignty "

Oh yea, is there a link to the debate?

[cluny]

Lord of Lord
King of King's
Determiner of Determiners

[TimothyFish]

We've said that Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords for a long time but that hasn't prevented people from importing determinism.

[athbhu]

Queen Elizabeth II was crowned in 1953, Brit here. Edward abdicated in 1936, next king was George VI.

[jeffreybailey]

Drew, in Hebrews 6:18 it states "...that by 'TWO' immutable things." Key word being "two, " which itself is overlooked and overshadowed by the systematizer keying in on the word "immutable" only. Which anyone not influenced by a systematic would understand that two things are a done deal like the passage clearly states, not everything. However, if everything "was" and "is" immutably determined by God, then this verse would be somewhat confusing to the reader who understood everything to be immutable, especially when the author used just the word "two."

[ravissary]

Also the Greek in "works all things together" puts the emphasis on the together... it's Synergeo (sp?), which is where we get synchronization and synergy.
It's not together incidentally... like saying God does both A things and B things, it's saying the things themselves are DONE TOGETHER, meaning synergistically, or cooperatively... meaning some people do good things, some people do bad things, God works the results of both parties synergistically such that it all works out for our good whether the actual events are done as good or evil by others regardless.

It's not saying God DOES both good and evil TO us THROUGH agents, but he's working Synergeo with different agents, and because he's God, he is in control of the end and he can render an eventual just outcome.

That's what alpha and omega means.
He doesn't say alpha through to omega, but alpha AND omega. He started all of this, we ruined it, but he's going to finish it, and the beginning snd end are both good.

[kitthorton]

I don't quite understand what the objection is here from the Reformed camp.

Provisionist: "We believe God is sovereign. Sovereignty does not necessarily entail determinism. We have actual examples of kings and sovereigns."
Calvinist: "But God isn't like earthly kings."

There seems to be some hidden premise here that if God is different from earthly kings and sovereigns, it necessarily follows that sovereignty equals determinism? How is such a leap made? I don't even understand how to respond to such an assertion.

[chrisharris]

But.... with what I said below as to the difference in an earthly king’s sovereignty and that of God’s, there is a difference in how that fleshed out whether we are speaking of God as He is essentially or God in His condescension. The Scriptures do give us passages that say God has repented of making man, or that He tests a patriarch like Abraham with Isaac and “now knows” that Abraham is faithful. The standard Reformed interpretation of these texts are that they are anthropomorphic or anthropopathic. I don’t think that does justice to the text. God condescends to His creation in Covenant, and in that God has taken to Himself created (non-essential) properties. It is through this condescension in Covenant that God relates to His creation in Covenant, and through these non-essential properties that we should understand passages such as God repented that He made mankind. This is also how we can understand passages that seem to tell us that God’s rule is flexible, rather than assume this is speaking of God in His essential being.

[troymulberry]

I think you may have blitzed over Romans 11:33 too quickly in dismissal as it being pious. I don't know the two reformed you will be debating, but, as you know, many use Romans 11:33 and other verses like it to say that we can't ultimately understand the decree. It just is. In which case, you should consider brushing up on @idolkiller's "under-cutting defeater argument". I know you guys know it, but it is worth just rethinking it so you can present it if necessary.

Edit: Ahhh you went there later with the revelatory power of scripture. Nicely done.

[lindajohnson]

To get an idea of what God's kingship/lordship/sovereignty means to Him, start with His word, which the Bible says He has put before His own name.

Ah, no: God does not get that privilege. "Reason" won't let His word be true, because greater intellects, like Augustine's or Calvin's, have spoken.

[chrisharris]

Think about it. Eric, it seems you hold to at least some of what Classical Theism affirms, and of course you would agree with the Scriptures that tells us God is other than we are, then we simply cannot look to an earthly king and his rule to inform you of exactly how God is King and rules. Earthly kings have counselors, earthly kings learn new information, sure they may make choices that are there choices, but those choices always have their basis in information gained. God has no counselors, He takes in no new information, His decisions have no basis on new information, so, the analogy of an earthly king and God as King finds its parallel in that they rule, but it stops there, the how of their rule is utterly different, therefore although both earthly kings and God are considered sovereign, the term has utterly different understandings according to who its applied to.