What a Sovereign God Cannot Do. One of the most common expressions one hears in Christian circles, especially for reassurance when things aren't going well, is that ? Does God's being in control mean that all the rape, murder, war and multiplied evil is exactly what He planned and desires? Christ asks us to pray, . Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Why that prayer if we are already in God's kingdom with Satan bound, as John Calvin taught and Reconstructionists claim today? Could a world of rampant evil really be what God wills? Paul clearly says that God 'worketh all things after the counsel of his own will' (Eph: 1: 1. But the Bible itself contains many examples of men defying God's will and disobeying Him. The sacrifices they offer Him and their evil lives are obviously not according to His will. Definition of Sovereign nation in the Legal Dictionary - by Free online English dictionary and encyclopedia. Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing. The Channel Advantage Program’s primary objective is to foster joint success. Replace Microsoft Threat Management Gateway (TMG. Analyze & Mitigate; Investigate & Remediate; Replace Microsoft Threat Management Gateway. ISA Study Abroad - Reading, Reading, United Kingdom. ISA's first location in the UK, ISA Reading offers study abroad. ![]() ![]() Christ's statement in Matthew: 7: 2. God's will. That is implied also in Isaiah: 6. Thessalonians: 5: 1. ISA is an association of scholars and practitioners dedicated to the study. There's nothing on your schedule yet, browse our program and events to build your. Sovereignty’s Outsides: International. What a Sovereign God Cannot Do. Yet in his zeal to protect God's sovereignty from any challenge. Hebrews: 1. 0: 3. Peter: 2: 1. 5; 1 John: 2: 1. In fact, Ephesians: 1: 1. God's will, but according to . Clearly the counsel of God's will has given man freedom to disobey Him. There is no other explanation for sin. Yet in his zeal to protect God's sovereignty from any challenge, A. Pink argues earnestly, . He decides and causes all things to happen that do happen.. He has foreordained everything 'after the counsel of his will' (Eph: 1: 1. It is one thing for God, in His sovereignty and without diminishing that sovereignty, to give man the power to rebel against Him. This would open the door for sin as solely man's responsibility by a free choice. It is something entirely different for God to control everything to such an extent that He must effectively cause man to sin. It is a fallacy to imagine that for God to be in control of His universe He must therefore foreordain and initiate everything. Thus He causes sin, then punishes the sinner. To justify this view, it is argued that . There is neither logical nor biblical reason why a sovereign God by His own sovereign design could not allow creatures made in His image the freedom of genuine moral choice. And there are compelling reasons why He would do so. Many an atheist (or sincere seeker who is troubled by evil and suffering) throws in our faces, . Then why doesn't He stop evil and suffering? If He could and doesn't, He's a monster; if He can't, then He isn't all- powerful!! The very fact that He is infinite in power means He cannot fail. There is much else which finite beings do all the time but which the infinite, absolutely sovereign God cannot do because He is God: lie, cheat, steal, sin, be mistaken, etc. In fact, much else that God cannot do is vital for us to understand in meeting challenges from skeptics. Tragically, there are many sincere questions which most Christians can't answer. Few parents have taken the time to think through the many intellectual and theological challenges their children increasingly face, challenges for which today's youth find no answers from so many pulpits and Sunday- school lessons. As a result, growing numbers of those raised in evangelical homes and churches are abandoning the ? Many Christians superficially think so. Yet there is much for which sovereignty and power are irrelevant. God acts not only sovereignly, but in love, grace, mercy, kindness, justice and truth. His sovereignty is exercised only in perfect harmony with all of His other attributes. There is much that God cannot do, not in spite of who He is, but because of who He is. Even Augustine, described as the first of the early so- called Church Fathers who . But what about the many places in Scripture where it says God tempted someone or was tempted? The Hebrew word there and throughout the Old Testament is nacah, which means to test or prove, as in assaying the purity of a metal. It has nothing to do with tempting to sin. God was testing Abraham's faith and obedience. If God cannot be tempted, why is Israel warned, ? We are even told that at Massah, in demanding water, . Yea.. they provoked the most high. Instead of waiting upon Him obediently to meet their needs, His people were demanding that He use His power to give them what they wanted to satisfy their lusts. In other words, to put ourselves deliberately in a place where God must act to protect us is tempting Him. James goes on to say, . The man who could not possibly be . Eve was tempted by her own lust and selfish desire. Even in innocence man could be selfish and disobedient. We see this in young infants who as yet presumably don't know the difference between right and wrong. Additionally, there are a number of other things which God cannot do. God cannot deny Himself or contradict Himself. He cannot go back on His Word. Specifically in relationship to mankind, there are some things God cannot do which are very important to understand and to explain to others. One of the most fundamental concepts (and least understood by ? Exactly: He cannot, because He is also perfectly just. It is a denial of God's omnipotence and sovereignty if there is anything He desires but can't accomplish. Surely if it had been possible to provide salvation any other way, the Father would have allowed Christ to escape the excruciating physical sufferings of the cross and the infinite spiritual agony of enduring the penalty His perfect justice had pronounced upon sin. But even for the omnipotent God there was no other way. It is important that we clearly explain this biblical and logical truth when we present the gospel. Suppose a judge has before him a son, a daughter or other loved one found guilty of multiple murders by the jury. In spite of his love, the judge must uphold the penalty demanded by the law. Love cannot nullify justice. The only way God could forgive sinners and remain just would be for Christ to pay the penalty for sin (Rom: 3: 2. There are two other matters of vital importance in relation to man's salvation which God cannot do: He cannot force anyone to love Him; and He cannot force anyone to accept a gift. By the very nature of love and giving, man must have the power to choose. The reception of God's love and of the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ can only be by an act of man's free will. Some argue that if it were God's will for all men to be saved, the fact that all are not saved would mean that God's will would be frustrated and His sovereignty overturned by men. It is also argued that if man can say yes or no to Christ, he has the final say in his salvation and his will is stronger than God's will: . Being omnipotent and omniscient, God certainly could so arrange circumstances as to keep man's rebellion from frustrating His purposes. In fact, God could even use man's free will to help fulfill His own plans and thereby be even more glorified. God's grand design from the foundation of the world to bestow upon man the Gift of His love precludes any ability to force that Gift upon any of His creatures. Both love and gifts of any kind must be received. Force perverts the transaction. The fact that God cannot fail, lie, sin, change or deny Himself does not in the least diminish His sovereignty. Nor is He any the less sovereign because He cannot force anyone to love Him or to receive the gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ. And from man's side, the reverse limitation prevails: there is nothing anyone can do to merit or earn either love or a gift. They must be given freely from God's heart without any reason other than love, mercy and grace. Wonderfully, in His sovereign grace, God has so constituted man and has so designed a gift that man may receive it voluntarily by an act of his will and respond in love to God's love. Without a free will man could not receive the gift of eternal life, thus God could not give it to him. Pusey points out that . Freedom is a condition of love. It is impossible that the power of choice could challenge God's sovereignty since it is God's sovereignty which has bestowed this gift upon man and set the conditions for both loving and giving. Suggesting that God would be lacking in . Power and love do not belong in the same discussion. In fact, of the many things which we have seen that God cannot do, a lack of . TBC Endnotes. Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Baker Book House, 1. Palmer, the five points of Calvinism (Baker Books, 1. Norman Sellers, Election and Perseverance (Schoettle Publishing Co., 1. Best, Free Grace Versus Free Will (W. Best Books Missionary Trust, 1. Reimensnyder, Doom Eternal (N. S. Quiney, 1. 88. Samuel Fisk, Calvinistic Paths Retraced (Biblical Evangelism Press, 1. Pusey, What Is Of Faith As To Everlasting Punishment? Territories of the United States. Territory of the United States. It has, for example, been applied to both states and territories. When used in connection with areas under U. S. These territories are classified by whether they are incorporated (part of the United States proper) and whether they have an organized government through an Organic Act passed by the U. S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. They are classified as unincorporated territories. They are organised, self- governing territories with locally elected governors and territorial legislatures. Each also elects a non- voting member (or resident commissioner) to the U. S. House of Representatives. These are Palmyra Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Bajo Nuevo Bank, Navassa Island, Serranilla Bank and Wake Island, which are claimed by the United States under the Guano Islands Act of 1. The status of some are disputed by Colombia, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, and the Marshall Islands. Palmyra Atoll is the only territory classified as incorporated. Historically, territories were created to govern newly acquired land while the borders of the United States were still evolving. Most territories eventually attained statehood. Other territories administered by the United States went on to become independent countries, such as the Philippines, Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau. Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau gained independence under the Compact of Free Association (COFA), which allows the U. S. In the process of organizing and promoting territories to statehood, some areas of a territory demographically lacking sufficient development and population densities were temporarily orphaned from parts of a larger territory at the time a vote was taken petitioning Congress for statehood rights. For example, when a portion of the Missouri Territory became the state of Missouri, the remaining portion of the territory, consisting of the present states of Iowa, Nebraska and the Dakotas, most of Kansas, Wyoming, and Montana, and parts of Colorado and Minnesota, effectively became an unorganized territory. Currently, the United States has sixteen territories, five of which are permanently inhabited: Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, United States Virgin Islands and American Samoa. The 1. 1 uninhabited territories administered by the Interior Department are Palmyra Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, and Midway Islands. While claimed by the US, Navassa Island, Wake Island, Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank are disputed. State Department documents. House of Representatives. They popularly elect . Depending on the congress, they may also vote on the floor in the House Committee of the Whole. President. An incorporated territory of the United States is a specific area under the jurisdiction of the United States, over which the United States Congress has determined that the United States Constitution is to be applied to the territory's local government and inhabitants in its entirety (e. U. S. Incorporated territories are considered an integral part of the United States, as opposed to being merely possessions. Supreme Court in a series of opinions known as the Insular Cases held that the Constitution extended ex proprio vigore (by its own force) to the territories. However, the Court in these cases also established the doctrine of territorial incorporation, under which the Constitution applies fully only in incorporated territories such as the then Territory of Alaska and Territory of Hawaii, and applies only partially in the new unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines. Congress enacted the Guano Islands Act, which authorised the President to take possession of unclaimed islands for the purpose of mining guano. By virtue of this law, over the years the U. S. The constitutional position of these unincorporated territories was considered by the Supreme Court in Balzac v. People of Porto Rico, 2. U. S. 2. 98, 3. 12 (1. Court used, as an argument of non- incorporated territory, the following statement regarding the U. S. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court. Zdanok, 3. 70. U. S. 5. 30 (1. 96. 2) the court cited Balzac and made the following statement regarding courts in unincorporated territories: Upon like considerations, Article III has been viewed as inapplicable to courts created in unincorporated territories outside the mainland, Downes v. Balzac v. United States, 1. U. S. 1. 38, 1. 45 , 1. In re Ross, 1. 40 U. S. Supreme Court offers two ways in which incorporation could be made: . Before the question became acute at the close of the Spanish War, the distinction between acquisition and incorporation was not regarded as important, or at least it was not fully understood and had not aroused great controversy. Before that, the purpose of Congress might well be a matter of mere inference from various legislative acts; but in these latter days, incorporation is not to be assumed without express declaration, or an implication so strong as to exclude any other view. Incorporated territories U. S. Supreme Court declarations. Edit. In Rassmussen v. U S, 1. 97. U. S. Article III of the 1. Alaska. This declaration, although somewhat changed in phraseology, is the equivalent, as pointed out in Downes v. Bidwell, of the formula, employed from the beginning to express the purpose to incorporate acquired territory into the United States, especially in the absence of other provisions showing an intention to the contrary. Supreme Court statements follow: Alaska Territory. Edit. Congress express declaration: Rassmussen v. Alaska by a jury composed of six persons pursuant to a federal statute allowing such a procedure in Alaska. In a decision written by Justice White, a majority of the Court concluded that Alaska had been incorporated into the United States because the treaty of cession with Russia specifically declared that . July 2. 7, 1. 86. United States relating to customs, commerce, and navigation over Alaska, and establishing a collection district therein. And this is fortified by subsequent action of Congress, which it is unnecessary to refer to. Certain other acts are cited, notably the judiciary act of March 3, 1. It is unnecessary to inquire whether this is not their condition, independent of stipulation. They do not, however, participate in political power; they do not share in the government till Florida shall become a state. In the meantime Florida continues to be a territory of the United States, governed by virtue of that clause in the Constitution which empowers Congress 'to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. Justice Brown says. Union of the United States, as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution; Southwest Territory. Edit. In Downes v. Subsequently, the territory now embraced in the state of Tennessee was ceded to the United States by the state of North Carolina. In order to insure the rights of the native inhabitants, it was expressly stipulated that the inhabitants of the ceded territory should enjoy all the rights, privileges, benefits, and advantages set forth in the ordinance 'of the late Congress for the government of the western territory of the United States. Louisiana Territory. Edit. First U. S. Bidwell supra at 2. Livingston took the responsibility of disobeying his (Mr. Jefferson's) instructions, and, probably owing to the insistence of Bonaparte, consented to the 3d article of the treaty (with France to acquire the territory of Louisiana), which provided that 'the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the meantime they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess.' . The net effect of incorporation is that the territory becomes an integral part of the geographical boundaries of the United States and cannot, from then on, be separated. Constitution is extended to the inhabitants of that territory, except for those provisions that relate to its federal character. More so, the needful rules and regulations of the territorial clause must yield to the Constitution and the inherent constraints imposed on it in dealing with the privileges and immunites of the inhabitants of the incorporated territory. Notice must be taken that incorporation of a territory takes place through the incorporation of its inhabitants, not of the territory per se. As such, those inhabitants receive the full impact of the U. S. Constitution, except for those provisions that deal specifically with the federal character of the Union. In the contemporary sense, the term . There is currently only one incorporated territory, Palmyra Atoll, which is not an organized territory. Conversely, a territory can be organized without being an incorporated territory, a contemporary example being Puerto Rico. See organized incorporated territories of the United States and unincorporated territories of the United States for timelines. Lands under the sovereignty of the federal government (but not part of any state) that were given a measure of self- rule by the Congress through an Organic Act subject to the Congress' plenary powers under the territorial clause of Article IV, sec.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |