You correctly state my position. If God is truly Omnipotent how can His purpose fail just because men don't comply? Does God administrate His creation Personally? Or does He just let it run through serendipity as though He were away on vacation?

Surely the Sovereign God does not set aside His governance in the affairs of men just because men created so-called democracy. He Who in His Own time through revolution raised up Nebuchadrezzar to chastise unfaithful Judah, and then again in His Own time through a coup d'état raised up Cyrus in grace to restore the faithful remnant certainly remains able raise up numbers necessary to affect His will in a so-called free election.

Further, God is not obligated to achive anything through "faithful voters" however well intended. Just because we pray for a certain result, does not we understand God's intention. He also can affect His purpose among men through means besides the political.


If not literally, then how else should we understand the Apostle's imperative according grammar and context? Otherwise, interpreters construe the chosen Apostle's intent according to their own purposes, thus making the authority of the Apostle subservient to the inferrior thoughts of diverse men. That happens a lot is seems.

μιχαηλ η συστρατιωτης

Who said anything about His purpose failing? That is a strawman you are attacking. You presuppose that God directly chooses each leader, and based on this supposition, you infer that if He did not, then he would therefore not be omnipotent. This is a faulty line of thinking, because it ignores the free will that He has given us. I think what you are trying to say is that this free will is a gift from God and is not of itself a virtue of mankind, however you confuse this with God's purpose, which is supreme despite, not instead of, our free will.

Further, is it just the primary leaders of nation-states that God chooses? (You still haven't explained how it is He does this through a popular election of constituents whom He has given free will). Or entire houses of congress? State government? Does it also apply to leaders of local governments? City leaders? Policemen? Where do you draw the distinction?

I believe you are missing the forest for the trees.



Surely He does not. How do you correlate the two?



More than you realize, if Paul himself was put to death by these authorities. Tell me, was he killed because he was obeying Roman law?

I'm not attacking anybody. It isn't really a strawman either. If man can choose rulers apart from God's choice through exercise of his free will vote then man creates a logical paradox by defeating the choice of the Sovereign God - if it so be Daniel is correct that God estabishes and removes rulers.


It isn't my presupposition. There is a wealth of scripture estabishing the doctrine that God adminstrates the governance of men according to His purpose and scripture does not circmscribe any level where God ceases to be Sovereign so that man can be.


Ah! I said nothing about men's "free will". How do I distinguish my personal will from the assumption of some fuzzy free will that pleases God? I entirely deny it. Therefore I say, sin is a man having his own way in opposition to God's will. It was so in the original garden. It is the same all through scripture. I know I draw not one breath without sin, because I still live in this body of sin. So then where is this "free will" virtue of man expressed? Neither do I hold any so-called "doctrine of the permissive will of God". Because He is perfect, God's will is His perfect will. When I assume my free will before God's perfect will, I am again found in sinful rebellion against God (Romans 7:14-24). Thus, I must each day depend alone upon God's infinite grace and salvation got for me at Golgotha where the Son of God died for sin. (Romans 7:25)

Κυριε ελεησον ημας


But Jesus having called them to Him, said, Ye know that the rulers of the nations exercise lordship over them, and the great exercise authority over them. It shall not be thus amongst you, but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your servant; Matt 20:25-26

I ask myself why should I be concerned about men electing men? If in the Body of Christ men should not exercise lordship over one another, why should I be concerned with what men do outside? That is why I don't vote. But surely I've already answered your question, God is able to affect the vote as pleases Himself and must answer no man for doing it. Our times are not in our own hands. The Sovereign God also rules in the kingdom of men (Dan.4:17).


I think you miss the point. Paul was judged by Nero to whom he had appealed (Act.25:11). He was not judged by the laws of Rome, but by the caprice of its absolute ruler - who was indeed placed there by God and Paul certanly knew that. Paul was martyred for his Testimony of Christ not regarding any Roman law.

Incidentally, in the Greek the word for "martyr" and the word for "testimony" are the same. If we would really be a testimony for God among men, then we should be prepared to be the same kind of testimony the Apostle Paul was. Paul wasn't concerned about his own free will, but doing the will of the Lord Whom he served.

Tell me, do you think your own decease is matter some assumed free will you own? Or is the very second of your decease already predetermined according to the design and purpose of the Sovereign God Whom you depend upon for ultimate salvation?

μιχαηλ της συστρατιωτης

They could have been punished with Obama.

Sorry, but you are tripping all over your presuppositions. Here, you state that God chooses a ruler and that free will would interfere in this choice, should it be granted. The presupposition is that God has not granted us the free will to choose our own rulers. You further presuppose that, if this were the case, it would de facto *not* be a part of His sovereign plan by virtue of the free will He has afforded us, which is an error in my opinion.



Does God command us to obey specific individuals, or ideologies? Or does He instead command us to place ourselves under the jurisdiction of civil authorities? I argue for the latter.



Pardon me for asking, but are you Calvinist?



It sounds to me like you are not following the scripture you are quoting. (Assuming you live in a democracy, which I suppose I should not), you are a part of the civil authorities (in theory, at least). Voting is the election of representatives who are to represent your will and ideas. When you opt out of this process, you are violating the scripture that you endlessly quote. You are commanded to be subject to the civil authorities, and in the case of a democracy, YOU are a civil authority. When you decline to elect someone to represent you, you are negligent in this duty.



So, if everybody in the country you live in refused to vote as you do, on Election Day everybody would wake up and God would have somehow appointed the next set of representatives?



It depends, if I jump off a bridge, it's my own free will (to disobey God). Unless, that is, you believe that all those who have taken their own life actually had no power over those decisions. If I get hit by a meteor, we can debate about whether God predetermined this to happen, or if He foreknew it, what the difference may be, and how he incorporates our free will into His perfect plan.

What if Mary said "no"?

Its a moot question given the grammar of the text.

Luke 1:34-37 But Mary said to the angel, How shall this be, since I know not a man? And the angel answering said to her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and power of the Highest overshadow thee, wherefore the Holy One also which shall be born shall be called Son of God. And behold, Elizabeth, thy kinswoman, she also has conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month to her that was called barren: for nothing shall be impossible with God. (My translation)

The angel wasn't asking her permission. Considering the common understanding of the word "shall" as the angel employed it would seem all option was removed from her in the matter. Vocabulary and grammar are quite important. The acts of a Sovereign God do not require men's acquiescence.


No, I don't suscribe to any ecclesiology ending in "ism" - even the big ones. I just read the scripture where I find passages like Isaiah 64:6 that says the very best exercise of my "free will" really is "putrid rags" in God's sight. So how could one consider free will a virtue?

Nevertheless, I'm quite aware that you and I employ very different systems of hermeneutics. So, I frankly don't think it likely we can resolve anything on this question. I tend to intrepret and apply the words of scripture according to the meaning of vocabulary, grammar and context. There is an established principle inolved. Scriptue is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness - 2 Tim 3:16. The rationalizations of uninspired men are less so.

In the USA one has the right to vote, but there is no legal obligation. Your pretense of moral posturing is quite beside the point. If I choose not to vote, I also exercise a legal right. Scripture doesn't show Paul voting, even though as a Roman citizen he was entitled. Do you also impune him for negligence?

I AM subject to the civil authorities as God has established them and scripture enjoins me. I pay my taxes and obey the speed limit among many other things I am often less than happy to do. But there is no statute that requires anyone in the USA to vote.

As we seem to have begun a cycle of repetitive rhetoric, and personal indictment I shall leave the remainder of your elucidations politely without further comment. Ad hominem becomes neither of us.

As Pilate answered them: "ο γεγραφα γεγραφα" - "What I have written, I have written" - John 19:22. So say I in conclusion.

μιχαηλ της συστρατιωτης

Folks,

Keep the thread civil and charitable. It's a less than edifying read in several respects and, should that trend continue, it will be closed.

Many years,

Neil

The next verse is equally important as the grammar of the previous: "Then Mary said, 'Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.' And the angel departed from her."

You may say that Mary's acceptance and obedience to this encounter is irrelevant, as the will of God supersedes Mary's thoughts on the matter, but Tradition disagrees. In the icon of the Annunciation, her right hand is stretched forth in acceptance of the message.

This Melkite site highlights her "yes" with prominence as well:

http://www.mliles.com/melkite/theotokosannunciation.shtml

"Action of event: Future Theotokos' accepting Holy God's will saying yes to Holy God."

Mary's unquestioning obedience is significant because it is a model for us, a "yes" that is of the same free will as Eve's "no" to God, the former undoing the damage of the latter. We are not just spectators, God has privileged us with the awesome responsibility of being actors in His divine plan.

Those are two small examples, there are many others. That Mary said "yes" is very prominent in the Tradition of our faith.

Again, her free will, which is at the crux of our conversation and why I brought it up as an example, is what we disagree about here, whether it be the role of the Theotokos or Vladmir Putin.



You don't have to label yourself with an "ism" if you do not wish, but my original question still stands, wondering if you subscribe to that worldview (or, to put it another way, if you believe Holy Scripture does).



This sounds very sola scriptura to me. What import do you afford Holy Tradition in your system of hermeneutics?



Participating in the representative governance of the nation involves more than adhering to laws and making payments, it requires active participation by all in order for the process of governance to succeed. Because participation in representative governance is not legally mandated does not mean rejection of it is not negligent.

Again, I ask, if all believed as you do and did not participate, how would God establish a representative government?



As you wish.