Ongoing Sovereignty Theology Podcast

Michael Mathis

Join the Ongoing Sovereignty Theology Podcast as we explore a unique perspective on Time as a Measure, resolving tensions in traditional theology. Discover how our created purpose—to Glorify God and Enjoy a relationship with Him forever—is possible. New episodes weekly, blending faith, insight, and visual slides.

Episodes

  1. Statement of Faith

    04/25/2025 ·  Video

    Statement of Faith

    Ongoing Sovereignty Theology Statement of Faith Our faith exalts the living God—sovereign, present, and relational—who defines the singular present with His name, “I AM,” engaging dynamically with His creation in the stream of moments as “God with us,” inviting us into eternal fellowship for His glory and our everlasting joy. We affirm the following beliefs, grounded in the supreme authority of Scripture, interpreted in its historical and contextual intent, as the foundation of Ongoing Sovereignty Theology (OST). 1. The Authority of Scripture We believe the Holy Scriptures, comprising the Old and New Testaments, are the inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God. They reveal God’s character, will, and redemptive purposes, serving as the ultimate standard for faith, theology, science, and practical living. All doctrines must align with Scripture’s clear teaching, interpreted with respect to its original author, audience, context, and divine intent (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21). 2. The Triune God We believe in one God, eternally existing in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—coequal in perfect glory, each with distinct roles in creation and salvation. The Father decrees with all authority the frame on which all creation exists and specific future events He has promised. The Son creates and sustains all creation. The Holy Spirit facilitates communion between creation and the Godhead. All three persons exist within a singular present with us. God (the sum of all three persons) is infinite in holiness, wisdom, love, justice, and mercy, actively thinking thoughts higher than ours and engaging creation with relational intimacy. As Creator and Sustainer, He is sovereign in the present, worthy of all worship and obedience (Deuteronomy 6:4; Matthew 28:19; Ephesians 1:4; John 1:3; Romans 8:26; Isaiah 55:8-9; Psalm 139:17-18; Colossians 1:16-17). 3. God’s Relationship with Time We believe God, existing before creation in an eternal sequence of moments, is the “I AM,” the very definition of the singular present, the sole locus of existence. He created time as a measure to order events for created beings, using the sun, moon, stars, and earth, remaining Himself the unchanging present in which He brought us to exist with Him, not in some dimension apart from Him. One day, He will replace this universe along with its measure of time with a new heaven and earth, where a newly created time will measure dynamic fellowship (Revelation 22:2). God interacts dynamically with His creatures in the stream of moments, responding to human actions. Neither God nor any created thing exists in the future, which, apart from God’s decrees, remains open and not fully actualized until it becomes the present, known perfectly by His omniscience (Exodus 3:14; Revelation 1:8; John 17:5; Genesis 1:1-5, 14-19; Psalm 90:2; Revelation 21:1; 22:2; Jeremiah 18:7-10; Exodus 32:7-14; Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:4). 4. God’s Omniscience We believe God is omniscient, knowing all knowable things—past, present, and all possible outcomes—in the singular present. To know all things is not the same as having felt or experienced all things. The totality of knowledge expands infinitely as new moments unfold through human choices and divine acts, yet God’s perfect knowledge remains complete, encompassing every actuality and possibility in the present. His perfect omniscience is placed in a new light with the emotion of experiential dimensions, such as empathy gained through the incarnation and through His relational interactions with creation, experiencing joy and grief, enriching His relational engagement without implying prior ignorance (Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 46:10; Hebrews 4:15; Ephesians 1:4; Genesis 6:6; Zephaniah 3:17). 5. God’s Ongoing Sovereignty We believe God exercises ongoing sovereignty in the singular present, actively ruling as the “I AM” who does all He pleases. In every moment, He has the power and authority to decree specific outcomes, such as redemption through Christ and the new creation, while granting humanity autonomy in non-decreed events. God responds to prayers, choices, and circumstances in the stream of moments, weaving all things together for the good of those who love Him, demonstrating His relational freedom and sovereign love (Psalm 115:3; Romans 8:28; Exodus 32:7-14; Jonah 3:10; Ephesians 1:3-5). 6. Humanity and the Fall We believe God created humanity in His image to exist with Him in the present, giving us genuine autonomy to make meaningful choices that shape non-decreed events. Through Adam’s sin, humanity fell, inheriting a sinful nature and total inability to earn salvation. God’s grace calls us to repentance and faith, honoring our responsibility to respond while sovereignly guiding history. Yet no one will turn from sin apart from being born again by the work of the Holy Spirit after being called by God in response to the prayers of the saints or God’s decree, because no one seeks God and all have gone astray. (Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 3:6-7; John 3:3; Romans 3:10-12, 3:23; Deuteronomy 30:19-20; Acts 17:30). 7. Jesus Christ and the Incarnation We believe Jesus Christ, the eternal Son, is fully God and fully man, born of a virgin, sinless in life, and the only Savior. In His incarnation, He experienced human temptation, suffering, and limitation, gaining experiential empathy to sympathize as our High Priest, enriching the Trinity’s relational engagement within His omniscient nature. His atoning death, bodily resurrection, ascension, and promised return, decreed in the present, secure salvation for all who believe (John 1:1, 14; Luke 1:34-35; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). 8. The Holy Spirit We believe the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, convicts the world of sin, regenerates believers, indwells them, and empowers them for holiness, service, and mission. The Holy Spirit also bestows spiritual gifts upon believers for the edification of the church and the advancement of God’s mission. He illuminates Scripture, guides into truth, and fosters communion with God, enabling believers to participate in His ongoing work (John 16:8, 13; Titus 3:5; Romans 8:26-27; Ephesians 5:18; 1 Corinthians 12:4-11). 9. Salvation by Grace We believe salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, accomplished through the unified work of all three persons of the Trinity, not by human works. The Father sovereignly predestinates, calls, and elects. The Holy Spirit draws and regenerates sinners, transforming hearts of stone to flesh and granting faith as a gift. Jesus Christ atones for sin through His finished work on the cross and intercedes as our High Priest, applying salvation to believers. God desires all to be saved, yet elects some, and believers, as bearers of the gospel, intercede like Moses to seek God’s call for others, spreading the good news to all nations. Believers are justified, adopted, and assured of eternal life, called to live in gratitude and obedience (John 6:44; Ephesians 1:4; Ezekiel 36:26; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; Hebrews 7:25; John 3:16; Romans 5:1; 1 Timothy 2:1-4; Matthew 28:19-20). 10. The Church Christ is the head and ultimate authority of the local and universal church. We believe the Local Church is part of the universal body of Christ, comprising all believers, and is expressed in local communities called to worship, make disciples, serve, and proclaim the gospel. The Local Church must be led by qualified men who are shepherds to the people under the authority of Christ, leading the body to participate in God’s ongoing work through prayer, love, observing baptism, communion, conflict resolution, and mission, reflecting His glory. (Matthew 16:18; Acts 1:8; Ephesians 4:11-16; John 13:34-35). 11. Prayer and Intercession We believe prayer is a vital act of partnership with God, influencing outcomes within His sovereign will. As exemplified by Moses and Christ, intercession shapes history’s non-decreed events, amplifying God’s grace and glory in the stream of moments. This includes corporate prayer in the church, where believers gather to intercede for one another and the world. Believers are called to pray persistently, trusting God’s responses to work all things for His purposes (Exodus 32:7-14; Deuteronomy 9:13-29; Hebrews 7:25; 1 Timothy 2:1-4; Acts 12:5; James 5:16). 12. The Christian Life We believe Christians are called to live holy, obedient lives, loving God and others, and serving in humility. Empowered by the Holy Spirit, believers grow in faith, bear fruit, and engage in God’s mission, trusting His ongoing sovereignty to guide their steps in the stream of moments (Romans 12:1-2; John 13:34-35; Galatians 5:22-23; Matthew 5:16). 13. Eschatology and Eternal Fellowship We believe (with an open hand for the sake of our brothers who do not) in a literal rapture and a coming tribulation, followed by Christ’s return to establish His literal 1,000-year reign, fulfilling God’s decreed promises. At the end of the 1,000 years, a final judgment will occur, after which the current heavens and earth will pass away, replaced by a new heaven and new earth where a newly created time continues to measure dynamic fellowship. Human actions influence non-decreed outcomes within God’s will, while His sovereignty ensures eternal communion with His people, filled with unending possibilities (Daniel 12:1; Matthew 24:21; Revelation 20:4-6, 11-15; Revelation 21:1-5; Revelation 22:2; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). 14. The Purpose of Creation We believe God created all things for His glory and the mutual enjoyment of eternal relationships with His people. God is with us in a singular stream of moments. He rejoices, griev

  2. Why Does God Allow Evil? Augustine, Jonathan Edwards, and Michael Mathis

    04/19/2025 ·  Video

    Why Does God Allow Evil? Augustine, Jonathan Edwards, and Michael Mathis

    A note on this dialogue: This is a constructed, imaginative conversation created with AI assistance. The historical figures depicted here did not meet, and in some cases did not live in the same era. This exchange never took place — no statement here should be taken as a real quotation or a record of an actual event. It is a teaching device for exploring ideas. For the actual positions of Ongoing Sovereignty Theology, see the eight doctrines and the book. Michael MathisThe news hits like a gut punch: a teenage girl, full of life, raped and murdered, her body found in a desolate alley. Her family stands at a candlelit vigil, their faces etched with grief, voices cracking as they whisper, “Why, God? If You’re good, how could You let this happen?” This is the problem of evil, not a textbook debate but a raw, bleeding wound. Welcome to this week’s podcast, where we’re wrestling for hope in the face of such darkness. My theology, Ongoing Sovereignty Theology, sees God as the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14, alive in this moment alone. Time isn’t His chain; it’s His creation, a stream of moments measuring His eternal now. Before creation, He was; when He spoke in Genesis 1, time began. He knows every possible path every choice that murderer made, every tear that family sheds but doesn’t fix most outcomes, honoring our freedom. Evil, like this horror, isn’t His script; it’s the fracture of a free world, yet He weaves it toward good, shaping us into Christ’s image, as Romans 8:28–29 promises. I’m joined by Augustine of Hippo, whose insights on evil echo through history, and Jonathan Edwards, whose fire for God’s glory burns bright. Augustine, kick us off: how do you explain this family’s pain and God’s role in such evil? Augustine of HippoMike, the anguish of that family stirs my soul, as I mourned human brokenness in Confessions. Evil is not God’s creation, for Genesis 1:31 declares all He made was very good. It is a privation, a turning from the good, like a tear in a radiant tapestry. The murderer’s act, born of corrupted desire, echoes the fall in Genesis 3, where free will, God’s gift, was twisted. This freedom lets us love God truly, but its misuse births such atrocities. God’s eternal now sees all time at once, as Psalm 145:9 sings of His mercy over all. His foreknowledge of this crime didn’t cause it; He permitted it, weaving it into His redemptive plan. How do you account for this evil, Mike, if God is bound to the present? Michael MathisThat’s a fair question, Augustine. I see God as present, not bound, engaging each moment with perfect knowledge of possibilities, not a fixed future, so He can respond to human choices without scripting them. But let’s unpack your view first your tapestry image is vivid, and I want to hear more. How does God’s eternal perspective comfort that family, knowing their daughter’s death was foreseen? What do you think, Augustine? Augustine of HippoMike, your present God intrigues me, and I’ll return to it. For that family, God’s eternal now offers hope, not despair. In City of God, I teach that foreknowledge doesn’t cause evil God sees the murderer’s act as a poet knows a poem’s end, yet the words are ours. Psalm 139:4 says He knows our speech before we speak, yet we choose. Their daughter’s death, though foreseen, flows from human sin, not God’s will, as Romans 8:20–21 speaks of creation’s groan. God permits it, like Job’s trials (Job 42:12), for ends we can’t fully grasp perhaps refining faith or revealing justice. Their pain finds meaning in His eternal plan, where even evil serves redemption. Edwards, your view of God’s decree is bolder. How do you see this tragedy? Jonathan EdwardsAugustine, Mike, this murder kindles holy indignation, yet it serves God’s sovereign purpose. In Freedom of the Will, I teach that God’s absolute sovereignty ordains all for His glory, as Isaiah 46:10 declares He works all according to His purpose. This crime, though heinous, is within His decree, displaying His justice and mercy, as Romans 9:14–18 shows His power over vessels of wrath and honor. Human freedom exists, but it’s subordinate to God’s will, directing even sin to His ends. That family’s pain glorifies God, perhaps awakening souls to eternity. Mike, your present-only view seems to limit His dominion. Augustine, foreknowledge lacks decree’s certainty. How do you see God governing this evil? Michael MathisEdwards, your passion for God’s glory is powerful; Augustine, your poet analogy paints a picture. But let me clarify why my view doesn’t limit God, especially on time and freedom, since it’s central to this. When God created time in Genesis 1, He didn’t step into a future or fix a script. Time measures His eternal now, like a river of moments He flows in, not a road stretching forward. He’s the “I AM,” present alone, with authority to control all but choosing to decree only some like Christ’s cross or Israel’s call leaving vast possibilities open. This gives created beings, like that murderer or us, real autonomy, as Romans 3:23 shows we all sin freely, none deserving His goodness. Yet God rules dynamically, weaving our choices for Christlikeness, per Romans 8:29, not our wants. That murderer’s act wasn’t decreed or foreseen as fixed; it was a free fracture God grieves, as Psalm 34:18 vows He’s near the brokenhearted. Edwards, doesn’t your decree make God the author of this evil? Augustine, doesn’t foreknowledge make it inevitable? What do you both think? Augustine of HippoMike, your river of moments is a fresh lens, and I’m struck by God choosing to leave possibilities open it honors freedom in a way my eternal now might obscure. In On Free Choice, I argue the will chooses freely, though foreknown, as Psalm 139:1–4 shows God searches our hearts, yet we act. The murderer’s sin wasn’t inevitable; it was permitted, redeemed by God’s plan, as Christ’s cross (Hebrews 12:2) turned pain to joy. Edwards, your decree feels heavy does it not risk God’s goodness? Mike, your God responding in each moment fascinates me. How does He weave such evil for good without seeing all time? Jonathan EdwardsMike, Augustine, your present God challenges me. I hold in The End for Which God Created the World that all, including evil, is ordained for God’s glory, as Ephesians 1:11 states He works all after His will. This murder manifests His justice, per Romans 9:22–23, revealing mercy to the elect. But Mike, your view God ruling in the now, leaving autonomy open stirs curiosity. If He decrees only some, like the cross, and weaves free choices, His sovereignty shines in responsiveness. Augustine, your foreknowledge seems passive next to this. Mike, how does God’s present rule comfort that family, ensuring their pain serves Christlikeness? Michael MathisGreat question, Edwards, and I love your curiosity, both of you. God’s present rule means He’s with that family, hearing their prayers, as James 5:16 urges, working their grief for Christ’s image, not just relief, per Romans 8:29. Romans 9:22–23 shows He permits evil to reveal His attributes, so we worship fully, knowing mercy through wrath. His ongoing reign, unbound by a fixed future, lets Him shape every choice like theirs to pray or forgive toward Revelation 21:4’s new creation. Let’s turn to Scripture’s first murder, Cain and Abel in Genesis 4, to see this in action. Cain’s envy killed Abel, but God warned, “Sin is crouching at the door” (Genesis 4:6–7). Augustine, how does my view of God’s present response to Cain compare to your eternal perspective? Augustine of HippoMike, I’m drawn to your vision of God engaging Cain in real time. In City of God, I see God’s warning as eternal mercy, foreknown yet free, with Cain’s sin permitted, as Romans 8:20–21 speaks of creation’s groan. But your view God as the “I AM,” responding moment by moment, like Jonah 3:10’s relenting casts new light. In Genesis 4:9, when God asks, “Where is Abel?” it’s not ignorance but a present invitation to confess, as Psalm 34:18 shows His nearness to the broken. The curse and mark (Genesis 4:10–15) tailor justice and mercy to Cain’s heart. The knowledge to do this for every soul, as Psalm 139:1–4 describes, is vast. Edwards, doesn’t this magnify God’s care beyond a decreed plan? Jonathan EdwardsAugustine, Mike, I’m stirred. In Freedom of the Will, I see Cain’s act ordained for God’s glory, as Isaiah 46:10 states. But Mike’s God, present in each moment, knowing all possibilities, as Psalm 139:1–4 details, responds with care that humbles me. Genesis 4:15’s mark on Cain shows mercy tailored to his sin, aiming for redemption, like Romans 8:29’s Christlikeness. The vastness of God’s knowledge, seeing every creature’s path, surpasses my decrees. Augustine, how does this present care, clearer than our own sight per Isaiah 55:8–9, deepen our view of that family’s grief? Augustine of HippoEdwards, Mike, I’m in awe. My eternal now feels distant compared to this God, present in every cry, as Genesis 4:10’s blood and that family’s tears show. Psalm 34:18’s nearness, with Psalm 139’s knowledge, paints a God who sees each need far beyond our limits, as Isaiah 55:8–9 humbles us. Mike, for that family, how does God’s vast knowledge shape their pain, knowing their needs better than they? Michael MathisAugustine, your awe captures it. God’s knowledge is personal He sees that family’s grief, their prayers, as James 5:16 urges, and knows their need for Christlikeness, per Romans 8:29, beyond their wish for relief. In Genesis 4, He engages Cain’s heart, warning, questioning, protecting, each act precise. Romans 3:23–25 shows none deserve His grace, yet He weaves their pain, like Cain’s, for His glory, per Romans 9

  3. Unpacking Deuteronomy 9 and Our Call to Pray

    04/12/2025 ·  Video

    Unpacking Deuteronomy 9 and Our Call to Pray

    Michael Mathis Welcome to the Ongoing Sovereignty Theology Podcast. I’m your host, Michael Mathis, and this is a journey into the heart of Christian theology, to reveal the ongoing sovereignty of God. Our mission is to wrestle with how God’s existence unfolds in the present moment. Today, I decided to share my personal Bible study time as I ended up deep in conversation with Grok 3. Grok, I am reading Deuteronomy 9, and in verse 13, as Moses reminds them of His dialogue with God the Father, it seems to be using language that suggests that God saw the actions of the people and responded in the moment. Grok 3 You’re diving into some fascinating theological territory with Deuteronomy 9! In verse 13, where Moses recounts God’s words about the Israelites, the language can indeed give the impression of a real-time reaction from God—like He’s observing their behavior and responding on the spot. The text says , “And the Lord said to me, ‘I have seen this people, and they are a stiff-necked people indeed!’” The phrasing, especially with “I have seen,” suggests a moment of divine assessment. This could reflect a couple of things. First, it might be the narrative style—Hebrew storytelling often uses vivid, present-tense-like language to make past events feel immediate and engaging. Second, it aligns with the idea of God’s omniscience interacting with human free will. Theologians have long debated how God’s foreknowledge and responsiveness coexist; here, it’s framed as if God is reacting to the Israelites’ stubbornness as it unfolds, even though He’s outside of time. The “stiff-necked” bit (a great old-school term!) points to their persistent rebellion, like at the golden calf incident, which Moses is reminding them of. What’s your take on it? Are you thinking this spontaneity is more about how God communicates with humans, or does it shift how you see His nature in the story? Michael Mathis Well before I tell you my position as I don’t want to bias your answer tell me from the perspective of the original language here and the other Biblical references to it did God make an assessment and conclusion in the moment that He could alter His plan using Moses family to start over and still fulfill His promise? Grok 3 Let’s dig into the original language and context of Deuteronomy 9:13, along with related biblical references, to explore whether God’s response suggests an in-the-moment assessment and a potential shift in His plan—specifically the idea of starting over with Moses’ family while still fulfilling His promise. Original Language in Deuteronomy 9:13 In the Hebrew text, Deuteronomy 9:13 reads:“Vayyomer YHWH elay lemor, ‘Ra’iti et-ha‘am hazzeh, v’hinneh ‘am-qesheh-‘oreph hu’”Translation: “And the Lord said to me, saying, ‘I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people.’” “Ra’iti” (I have seen): This is the perfect tense of the verb ra’ah (to see), indicating a completed action. It’s not necessarily “I am seeing right now” (which would be a participle, like ro’eh), but rather “I have observed and assessed.” This could imply a definitive judgment based on what God has already witnessed, not necessarily a spontaneous reaction in that exact instant. “Qesheh-‘oreph” (stiff-necked): Literally “hard of neck,” a metaphor for stubbornness or resistance to guidance (like an ox refusing the yoke). It’s a recurring description of Israel (e.g., Exodus 32:9, 33:3), signaling a consistent character trait rather than a one-off behavior. Timing: The context is Moses recounting God’s words after the golden calf incident (Exodus 32). The verb tense and narrative framing suggest God’s statement reflects an evaluation of their ongoing rebellion, not a snap decision tied to a single moment. The Plan to Start Over: Deuteronomy 9:14 and Exodus 32 In Deuteronomy 9:14, God continues:“Leave me alone, that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven, and I will make of you a nation mightier and more numerous than they.”This echoes Exodus 32:10, where, after the golden calf, God says to Moses:“Now let me alone, that my wrath may burn against them and I may consume them, and I will make of you a great nation.” Hebrew in Exodus 32:10: “Va’attah hanniḥah li” (“Now let me alone”) and “va‘aseh otkha legoy gadol” (“and I will make you a great nation”). The imperative “let me alone” implies God is poised to act but leaves room for Moses’ response. The verb ‘aseh (make) is in the cohortative form, suggesting intent rather than an unchangeable decree. Fulfillment of the Promise: The promise to Abraham (Genesis 12:2, 17:5-6) is to make his offspring a great nation. Here, God proposes redirecting that promise through Moses (a descendant of Abraham via Levi) instead of the broader Israelite population. Technically, this wouldn’t break the covenant—it would just redefine the lineage. Did God Assess and Conclude in the Moment? The language and cross-references suggest a nuanced picture: Assessment: The “I have seen” in Deuteronomy 9:13 and the parallel in Exodus 32:9 (“I have seen this people, and behold, how stiff-necked they are”) frame God’s statement as a conclusion drawn from observed behavior—specifically the idolatry of the golden calf. It’s less about a split-second reaction and more about a tipping point after repeated disobedience (e.g., complaining in Exodus 16-17, doubting at Sinai). In-the-Moment Flexibility: The proposal to destroy Israel and start over with Moses reads like a conditional pivot. God’s anger is real (Exodus 32:10 uses “burn hot”), but His phrasing—“let me alone”—invites Moses to intercede, which he does (Exodus 32:11-14; Deuteronomy 9:18-20). This aligns with other instances where God adjusts plans based on human response (e.g., Nineveh in Jonah 3:10). Alterable Plan: The idea of starting over with Moses’ family doesn’t contradict the Abrahamic promise—it shifts the “how” while preserving the “what.” Numbers 14:12 offers a similar moment post-spies’ rebellion, where God again suggests making Moses the new patriarch. Each time, Moses’ intercession sways the outcome, suggesting God’s judgment is responsive, not rigid. Biblical References and Theological Implications Exodus 33:3-5: God later calls Israel stiff-necked again, threatening not to go with them, yet He relents after Moses pleads. This pattern shows divine frustration paired with openness to mediation. Psalm 106:23: Reflecting on this event, it says God “would have destroyed them had not Moses… stood in the breach.” This reinforces that God’s plan could shift based on intercession. God’s Nature: The interplay of justice (destroying rebellion) and mercy (heeding Moses) is consistent across Scripture (e.g., Ezekiel 18:23, God not delighting in the death of the wicked). The “in-the-moment” feel may reflect God engaging humanity within time, even as He knows all outcomes. ConclusionFrom the original language and biblical parallels, God’s words in Deuteronomy 9:13 (and Exodus 32) present a decisive assessment of Israel’s character, rooted in their actions up to that point. The offer to start over with Moses suggests a real-time willingness to adapt the plan’s execution—destroying the current generation but fulfilling the promise through Moses’ line. Yet, the invitation for Moses to intervene implies this wasn’t a final conclusion but a moment of divine-human dialogue. The Hebrew tense and context lean toward a completed observation (“I have seen”) rather than a spontaneous snap judgment, though the narrative’s immediacy makes it feel dynamic. What do you think about this framework? I’m curious to hear your position now that we’ve unpacked the text! Michael MathisMy position I have outlined in my website ongoing sovereignty dot org forward slash theology of time is that God exists only in the present… and that this story is literally saying that God could and would have changed the path of history had Moses agreed with Him. Grok 3 Thanks for sharing your perspective from your website! I’ve taken a look at your theology of time at ongoing sovereignty dot org forward slash theology of time, and I see your core idea: God exists solely in the present, engaging with humanity moment by moment, and thus retains the ability to alter history’s path based on real-time interactions—like the one with Moses in Deuteronomy 9. Let’s explore how that aligns with the text we’ve been discussing and flesh it out a bit. Your Position Applied to Deuteronomy 9:13-14 Your view posits that God, existing only in the present, observes the Israelites’ rebellion (e.g., the golden calf) and, in that moment, makes a genuine offer to Moses: “Let me alone, that I may destroy them… and I will make of you a nation mightier and more numerous” (Deut. 9:14). If Moses had agreed instead of interceding, you’re suggesting God could and would have pivoted history—wiping out the current Israelites and rerouting the Abrahamic promise through Moses’ lineage. This hinges on God’s sovereignty being dynamic, responsive, and unbound by a predetermined future. From the text: God’s Present-Tense Engagement: The phrase “I have seen this people” (Hebrew ra’iti) could support your view if we read it as God’s real-time assessment—He’s not referencing a timeless foreknowledge but reacting to what’s unfolding now. The immediacy of “let me alone” (Hebrew hanniḥah li) feels like a live negotiation, reinforcing the idea of a God fully present, deciding in the moment. A Genuine Offer: Your position implies this wasn’t a rhetorical test but a legitimate possibility. If Mose

  4. The Council of Nicaea: Athanasius vs Arius

    04/05/2025 ·  Video

    The Council of Nicaea: Athanasius vs Arius

    A note on this dialogue: This is a constructed, imaginative conversation created with AI assistance. The historical figures depicted here did not meet, and in some cases did not live in the same era. This exchange never took place — no statement here should be taken as a real quotation or a record of an actual event. It is a teaching device for exploring ideas. For the actual positions of Ongoing Sovereignty Theology, see the eight doctrines and the book. Welcome to the Ongoing Sovereignty Theology Podcast. I’m your host, Michael Mathis, and this is a journey into the heart of Christian theology, where the past meets the now, and the debates of old reveal the ongoing sovereignty of God. Our mission is to wrestle with how God’s existence unfolds in the present moment, but today, we set that aside as we tackle something far more important, the deity of Christ. Using the research and creative power of AI, we will do our best to relive a story that is all but erased from History books. The Council of Nicaea, in the year three hundred twenty five AD, a gathering that shook the church, shaped the faith, and birthed the Nicene Creed. This clash, over a month-long full of conviction, scripture, and power yet painstakingly slow with translations. Expect no polished rules here just raw, human voices wrestling with eternity. We start with Part 1: The Gathering Storm, where the stage is set, the players emerge, and a crisis brews that only Nicaea could face. Let’s go back to the 4th century and see how it all began. Michael Mathis (Narrator) It’s the early 4th century, and the Roman Empire is a sprawling giant stretching from Britain to Egypt, a mosaic of cultures under one ruler: Constantine. Just a decade ago, in 313, he signed the Edict of Milan, ending centuries of persecution for Christians. The cross, once a symbol of shame, now glimmers in the sun as churches rise from the shadows. Constantine’s victory over Licinius in 324 has made him sole emperor, and he dreams of an empire united not just by roads and legions, but by one faith. Christianity is spreading fast, its message of a risen Savior captivating slaves and senators alike. But beneath this growth, a crack is forming a theological rift that threatens to split the church and, with it, Constantine’s vision. In Alexandria, Egypt a bustling hub of learning and faith a priest named Arius steps into the spotlight. He’s tall, sharp-eyed, with a voice that carries over crowds. Around 318, he begins teaching something radical: Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is not eternal like the Father. “There was a time when He was not,” Arius declares, leaning on Proverbs: “The Lord created me at the beginning of His work.” To Arius, it’s simple logic the Father alone is unbegotten, the source of all; the Son is begotten, the first of creation, exalted but not equal. His words spread like wildfire, winning followers who see monotheism preserved in his view no risk of two Gods here. Arius – Founder of Arianism Heresy Brothers, sisters, hear me: the Father is supreme, timeless, alone without beginning. The Son is His creation mighty, yes, the firstborn through whom all else was made, as Colossians says. But to call Him eternal alongside the Father? That’s to blur the truth, to make a second God. I speak for clarity, for the one true Sovereign. Michael Mathis (Narrator) Arius’ teaching isn’t just a sermon it’s a spark. Across Alexandria, congregations hum with debate. Some nod in agreement, drawn to his reasoning; others recoil, sensing danger. Enter Bishop Alexander, the shepherd of Alexandria’s church. He’s older, weathered, with a quiet authority rooted in the apostles’ tradition. To him, Arius’ words aren’t just novel they’re heresy. If the Son isn’t fully divine, eternal with the Father, what becomes of salvation? Alexander calls a synod in 321, and over a hundred bishops gather. Arius defends his case, but the verdict lands hard: excommunication. He’s cast out, branded a false teacher. But Arius doesn’t fade. He flees to Nicomedia, finding an ally in Bishop Eusebius a powerful figure with the emperor’s ear. Letters fly between them, and Arius writes, “We are persecuted because we say the Son has a beginning, but God is without beginning.” His ideas spread further Antioch, Jerusalem, the eastern provinces. Songs praising the created Son echo in marketplaces, and riots flare as believers clash. Alexander fires back, sending warnings to bishops empire-wide: this is no small error; it strikes at Christ’s very nature. Athanasius – Deacon to Bishop Alexander I am Athanasius, deacon to Bishop Alexander, and I say this with a heavy heart: Arius’ teaching dims the light of our Savior. Scripture sings, “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God, and the Word became flesh.” If the Son is a creature, how can He bridge us to the Father? He must be eternal, divine, or our hope is dust. I stand with my bishop we must guard the faith. Michael Mathis (Narrator) Athanasius is young barely thirty, sharp-minded, and fierce in his loyalty to Alexander. He’s not at the forefront yet, but his voice is rising, a preview of the champion he’ll become. By 324, the empire feels the strain. Bishops take sides, councils splinter, and Constantine’s dream of unity wavers. He’s no theologian, but he knows division breeds weakness. From his court, he hears of riots in Alexandria, schisms in the east, and a church tearing itself apart over the Son. He summons Eusebius of Caesarea, a historian and bishop, to explain the chaos. Eusebius of Caesarea – Historian and Bishop Emperor, I’ve seen it myself Arius’ words stir the masses, while Alexander’s men call it blasphemy. The church is a house divided, and your empire suffers with it. They argue over the Son’s nature created or eternal. It’s beyond my judgment, but it must be settled. This cannot stand. I’ve fought for one empire, one God, one peace. If the church fractures, my work unravels. Let the bishops gather all of them. We’ll meet at Nicaea, where the air is clear and the palace stands ready. They’ll speak, they’ll reason, and we’ll find a truth to bind us. Send the word to gather, this spring three hundred twenty five AD. This ends. Michael Mathis (Narrator) Constantine’s call goes out: an ecumenical council, the first of its kind. Nearly 1,800 bishops are invited, from Britain to Persia, though tradition will later tally 318 a number echoing Abraham’s servants, a symbol of God’s covenant. They’ll converge on Nicaea, a quiet city in Bithynia, modern-day Turkey, with an imperial palace and a view of the lake. It’s May three hundred twenty five AD, and the stage is set. Arius, unbowed, prepares to defend his vision. Athanasius, at Alexander’s side, sharpens his arguments. Constantine, draped in purple, seeks a creed to heal his realm. The storm is gathering, and what happens next will echo for centuries. Michael Mathis (Narrator) It’s spring in Bithynia, modern-day Turkey, and the city of Nicaea hums with anticipation. The imperial palace, perched near a shimmering lake, opens its doors. Bishops stream in over 300, though some say 318, a number heavy with biblical echo. They’ve traveled from every corner of the empire: Rome’s western hills, Persia’s eastern plains, the sun-scorched sands of Egypt. Some bear scars from persecution under Diocletian, their eyes hollow but resolute. Others, younger, clutch scrolls of scripture, ready to argue. The air smells of dust and incense as they gather in a vast hall marble floors, high ceilings, and a throne of gold at the center, waiting for Constantine. Eusebius of Caesarea – Historian and Bishop I, Eusebius of Caesarea, stand among them, my pen ready to record. The sight is unlike any I’ve seen bishops in rough robes, some limping, others whispering prayers. The hall buzzes with Greek, Latin, a dozen tongues. They eye each other warily word of Arius’ ideas has spread, and loyalties are unclear. Then, silence falls. The doors swing wide, and he enters. Michael Mathis (Narrator) Constantine steps in, and the room holds its breath. He’s not the warrior of Milvian Bridge now, but an emperor in splendor purple robes, a diadem glinting, his presence a mix of power and purpose. He’s no bishop, yet he’s called this council, the first of its kind, to heal a church he sees as the empire’s soul. He takes the throne, and after a moment, he rises to speak, his Latin translated into Greek for the crowd. Constantine the Great – Roman Emperor Bishops of the church, servants of the God I’ve come to know, I greet you in peace. You are the pillars of this faith, and I’ve brought you here to mend what’s broken. Division plagues us riots in the streets, brothers against brothers, all over the Son of God. I am no scholar of your sacred texts, but I know this: an empire divided falls, and a church divided weakens us all. Speak your hearts, weigh your words, and find a truth we can stand on together. This council begins now not for my glory, but for the one God’s. Let us reason as one. Michael Mathis (Narrator) The bishops murmur, some nodding, others tense. Constantine sits, signaling the floor is open. Eyes turn to Arius tall, composed, his exile from Alexandria a badge of defiance. He’s been invited back, his voice demanded by supporters like Eusebius of Nicomedia, who sits nearby, watching keenly. Arius steps forward, his tone steady and earnest, weaving scripture into a reasoned plea. Arius – Founder of Arianism Heresy Emperor, honored fathers, I stand to exalt the Father’s singular eternity, the one unbegotten God. The Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, is begotten His glory vast, the firstborn of all creation, as Colossians decla

  5. Virtual Debate, John Calvin vs. Jacobus Arminius

    03/29/2025 ·  Video

    Virtual Debate, John Calvin vs. Jacobus Arminius

    A note on this dialogue: This is a constructed, imaginative conversation created with AI assistance. The historical figures depicted here did not meet, and in some cases did not live in the same era. This exchange never took place — no statement here should be taken as a real quotation or a record of an actual event. It is a teaching device for exploring ideas. For the actual positions of Ongoing Sovereignty Theology, see the eight doctrines and the book. Welcome, everyone, to this special episode of our theological podcast, brought to you by Ongoing Sovereignty Theology at ongoingsovereignty.org. Today, we’re plunging into a virtual debate featuring two towering figures of Christian history: John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius. No, we haven’t invented a time machine these men aren’t joining us from the 16th and 17th centuries but through the power of AI and text-to-speech technology, we’re reviving their voices and ideas as faithfully as we can. Their clash over predestination, free will, and God’s sovereignty ignited a firestorm that still burns in churches, seminaries, and late-night faith talks. And today, we’re not just replaying that showdown; we’re pushing it into uncharted territory. Let’s meet our debaters. First, John Calvin, the French theologian and pastor whose work in the Protestant Reformation birthed Calvinism. His masterpiece, the Institutes of the Christian Religion, champions God’s absolute sovereignty, predestination, and a view of grace that leaves no room for human boasting. On the other side, Jacobus Arminius, the Dutch theologian who dared to challenge Calvin’s framework. His Declaration of Sentiments argues for human free will and a grace that reaches all, laying the groundwork for Arminianism. Their ideas collided most famously at the Synod of Dort in 1618-1619, long after they’d left the stage, shaping Protestant theology for centuries. Here’s how this will unfold. We’ll kick off with their historical positions Calvin defending unconditional election, irresistible grace, and a limited atonement for the totally depraved; Arminius countering with conditional election, resistible grace, and a universal atonement that respects human choice. Each will deliver a compelling opening statement, followed by two rounds of rebuttals where they’ll dig deeper into their differences, from depravity to the scope of Christ’s sacrifice. I’ll step in with a cross-examination, asking the tough questions to stoke the tension. Then, we’ll pivot. Both will wrestle with their views through the lens of Ongoing Sovereignty Theology a perspective where God exists as the Great ‘I AM,’ ever-present, knowing all possibilities yet leaving the future open through human autonomy, with some decrees set but not every detail fixed. We hope for our virtual guests and the audience listening to begin a dialog that might resolve tensions as these men grapple with a different presupposition of time (that it is simply a measure), possibly finding unity where division once reigned. The rules are straightforward: bring the passion, honor your core convictions, and be ready to stretch your thinking when we explore this fresh perspective on Time. We’re aiming for deep conversation packed with insight that uncovers the tension. Listeners, buckle up this isn’t just a debate; it’s history meeting the presupposition of God as the very definition of the present “I AM.” rather than some distant “I WAS” John Calvin, the floor is yours for your opening statement. John Calvin Greetings, all who seek the truth of God’s Word! I, John Calvin, stand before you not by my own merit but by the sovereign decree of the Almighty, whose glory alone reigns supreme. My opponent, Jacobus Arminius, dares to challenge the clear testimony of Scripture with notions that exalt man’s feeble will above God’s eternal purpose. I shall proclaim what God has revealed: His sovereignty is absolute, His grace irresistible, His atonement limited to the elect, and man’s depravity total. Let no one mistake this salvation is God’s work, not ours, and I will defend this truth with the fire of His Word! First, consider the majesty of God’s unconditional election. Before the foundations of the earth were laid, He chose a people for Himself, not because of their works for what could sinful man offer? but according to His own good pleasure. Ephesians 1:4-5 declares, “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us for adoption.” Who are we to question this decree? Romans 9:15-16 thunders, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” Look to Jacob and Esau before they were born, before they had done good or evil, God loved one and hated the other, that His purpose of election might stand (Romans 9:11-13). Arminius would have you believe God waits on man’s choice, but Scripture cries out: God elects, and His will is sure! Next, the irresistibility of His grace. When God calls His chosen, they come not by their own power, but by His. John 6:44 is unmistakable: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” This drawing is no mere invitation it is the sovereign act of God Almighty, pulling dead sinners from the grave of sin into the light of life. Ephesians 2:4-5 proclaims, “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ by grace you have been saved.” Dead men do not choose; they are raised! Arminius’s resistible grace turns God into a beggar, pleading at the door of man’s stony heart. I say nay when God wills to save, no power in heaven or earth can thwart Him! Now, the atonement limited, precious, and effectual. Christ did not die to make salvation possible for all, leaving its outcome to human whim; He died to secure it for His elect. John 10:11, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep,” not for the goats, not for the world at large, but for His own. Again, John 17:9 Christ prays, “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.” If He died for all, why pray only for some? Because His blood was shed with purpose, redeeming a definite people. Arminius’s universal atonement robs the cross of its power, making it a gamble rather than a triumph. I stand with Scripture: Christ’s death saves, not merely offers! Finally, total depravity the root of all. Man is not merely wounded; he is dead in sin, incapable of seeking God apart from divine intervention. Romans 3:10-11 states, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.” Genesis 6:5 echoes, “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Arminius would paint man as a noble creature, reaching for God with a spark of good. I say, look to the flood, to Sodom, to our own hearts apart from God’s grace, we are lost, enslaved to sin, utterly undone. Only His sovereign hand can lift us from this mire! Let me close with this: God’s sovereignty is no cold doctrine it is the comfort of the saints! To know that our salvation rests not on our frail wills but on His unchanging decree is peace beyond measure. Psalm 115:3 declares, “Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases.” Arminius would strip this assurance, leaving us to teeter on the edge of our own efforts. I will not yield God reigns, elects, saves, and keeps His own, from eternity past to eternity future. His glory demands it, His Word confirms it, and I proclaim it with all my strength. Let the debate begin! MichaelThanks John, now we move to Jacobus to hear his opening statement. Jacobus the floor is yours for your opening statement. Jacobus Arminius Greetings, seekers of God’s truth! I, Jacobus Arminius, stand before you not to diminish the Almighty’s glory, but to proclaim His boundless love and the dignity He bestows upon His creatures. John Calvin has thundered his doctrine of a sovereign decree that binds man in chains, stripping him of choice and painting God as a distant tyrant. I reject this grim vision! Scripture reveals a God who desires all to be saved, who offers grace that can be embraced or refused, whose Son died for every soul, and who calls us, though fallen, to respond in faith. I will defend these truths with the fervor they deserve, for they honor both God’s mercy and man’s responsibility! First, let us speak of election conditional, not arbitrary. God’s choice is not a blind decree etched before time, but a gracious act rooted in His foreknowledge of faith. 1 Peter 1:1-2 declares we are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,” and Romans 8:29 affirms, “For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.” God sees who will believe and elects them not by their merit, but their response to His call! Calvin’s unconditional election shuts the door on God’s universal love, as if He delights in damning most. I say nay 2 Peter 3:9 cries out, “The Lord is not slow to fulfill His promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” Election flows from love, not caprice! Next, the grace of God resistible, yet wondrous. Calvin claims it forces the elect, as if God drags men kicking and screaming into His kingdom. Scripture tells a different tale! Acts 7:51 Stephen rebukes, “You stiff-necked people… you always resist the Holy Spirit.” Men can refuse, for Go

  6. Jacobus Arminius, Discusses Ongoing Sovereignty

    03/21/2025 ·  Video

    Jacobus Arminius, Discusses Ongoing Sovereignty

    A note on this dialogue: This is a constructed, imaginative conversation created with AI assistance. The historical figures depicted here did not meet, and in some cases did not live in the same era. This exchange never took place — no statement here should be taken as a real quotation or a record of an actual event. It is a teaching device for exploring ideas. For the actual positions of Ongoing Sovereignty Theology, see the eight doctrines and the book. Welcome to another episode of our virtual podcast! I’m Michael Mathis, your host, and today we’re digging into Ongoing Sovereignty Theology. It’s a framework where God’s sovereignty is active, playing out moment by moment, balancing His total control with real freedom for us as creatures. We’ve already had John Calvin on, and he seemed like he was mostly convinced of its truth. Now, I’ve got three incredible guests to explore this tension anew: the Apostle Paul, whose letters shape Christian theology; Jacobus Arminius, the Dutch thinker who questioned strict predestination; and Dr. J. Vernon McGee, the plain-spoken Bible teacher from Thru the Bible. I want your real takes Paul from Scripture, Jacobus from your theology, Dr. McGee from your teaching as we wrestle with this. Let’s start with introductions and your first thoughts on what Ongoing Sovereignty might mean. Paul, you’re up. The Apostle Paul Grace to you and peace, Mike, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I’m Paul, an apostle called to proclaim the gospel. This Ongoing Sovereignty idea, as I hear it, suggests God rules all things His will is certain yet He works through time, and we respond. I wrote in Ephesians 1:11 that we’re “predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things after the counsel of His will.” But I also said, “I strived to preach the gospel where Christ was not named” (Romans 15:20), and “If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart God raised Him, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). God’s purpose holds, like the cross “by the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23) but I lived as if our choices matter. Maybe this view captures that tension. Michael Mathis Paul, that’s a powerful start God’s plan and our response woven together. Jacobus, I’m new to your ideas, but I know you challenged some heavy predestination views. What do you think of this concept? Jacobus Arminius Peace be with you, Mike. I’m Jacobus Arminius, a minister from Holland, seeking truth in God’s Word. Ongoing Sovereignty Theology feels familiar to me. I’ve long held that God is sovereign His power and knowledge are boundless but He doesn’t force our wills. In my Declaration, I argued that God foreknows all things, yet His grace offers freedom. Take 1 Timothy 2:4, “God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” I see His love in John 3:16, “Whoever believes in Him should not perish.” Salvation’s offered to all, not just a few decreed. This idea of God ruling in time, engaging us, not dictating every step it matches my heart. Grace can be resisted; faith is our part. Michael Mathis Jacobus, that’s intriguing God’s sovereignty with room for us to choose. I’ll need to unpack terms like “resisted grace” as we go. Dr. McGee, you’ve taught the Bible to millions. What’s your first take? Dr. J. Vernon McGee Howdy, Mike! I’m J. Vernon McGee, just a fella who loves God’s Word. This Ongoing Sovereignty notion sounds like it’s wrestling with something I’ve preached on plenty God’s in charge, but we’re not robots. Romans 8:28 says, “All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose.” That’s sovereignty. But James 4:7, “Submit yourselves therefore to God,” means we’ve got a role. I’ve said it before: God draws the map, but we walk the road. If this view means He’s running things while we decide to follow, it’s worth chewing on. Michael Mathis Dr. McGee, I love that God draws the map, we walk. So, Paul’s got purpose and participation, Jacobus leans on freedom with grace, and you bring a practical angle. Let’s dive into this tension: how does God’s sovereignty coexist with our responsibility? I’m still working a few things out here, so bear with me. Paul, how do you see it in your writings? The Apostle Paul Mike, it’s the reality I preached. Romans 9:16 says, “It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” His will prevails. Yet in Philippians 2:12-13, I urged, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to, will and to work for His good pleasure.” God’s mercy saved me on the Damascus road (Acts 9), but I chose to “press on toward the goal” (Philippians 3:14). The cross was God’s plan, yet men acted freely in it (Acts 2:23). His sovereignty unfolds, and we’re in it called to faith, not dragged. Michael Mathis Paul, that’s deep God’s will driving, but us pressing on. Jacobus, you mentioned grace we can resist. How does that fit with God being sovereign? Jacobus Arminius A fair question, Mike. I believe God’s sovereignty is so great He can grant us freedom without losing control. In my view, His foreknowledge sees all every choice we’ll make yet He doesn’t compel it. Hebrews 4:2 says the gospel “did not benefit them, because it was not mixed with faith in those who heard.” God’s grace comes to all Titus 2:11, “The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people” but we must receive it. I reject a decree that damns some before birth; it’s against His character. Ongoing Sovereignty could mean He reigns by offering, not enforcing, relationship in time. Michael Mathis Okay, Jacobus, I think I’m tracking “resistible grace” means we can say no, but God’s still in charge somehow. That’s new to me. Dr. McGee, you’ve taught both sides God’s control and our choice. How do you square it? Dr. J. Vernon McGee Mike, it’s like two rails on a train track God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility run side by side. Ephesians 1:4, “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world,” shows He’s got the reins. But Revelation 22:17, “Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely,” means the door’s open. I’ve said, “God votes for you, Satan votes against you, and you cast the deciding vote.” Maybe this Ongoing Sovereignty says He’s moving history along, but we’ve got to step into His plan. It’s not Calvin’s tight grip or loose chaos it’s both truths held together. Michael Mathis Dr. McGee, those rails make sense two truths running together. Paul’s got God working in us as we work, Jacobus sees sovereignty giving us freedom, and you say it’s both. I’m starting to see how Ongoing Sovereignty might solve this God’s power unfolding in time, meeting our real choices. We’ve started unpacking how God’s sovereignty works with our responsibility Paul blending God’s plan with our response, Jacobus emphasizing freedom through grace, and Dr. McGee seeing it as two rails on a track. I’m still wrapping my head around some of this, especially your terms, Jacobus, so bear with me. Here’s where I’m at now: Jacobus, it feels like your push against a decree that damns some before birth is a reaction to scriptural tensions. I don’t think you’re getting God’s decrees quite right. Damnation before birth isn’t God’s decree it’s sin’s consequence entering the world. The Bible shows God’s decrees are good, yet He preserves our autonomy, a vast but bounded freedom, for genuine relationships. This ties to my view: God’s in the present, seeing all possible good and evil we might do, intervening only for His decrees, prayer, or to work all things for the good of those who love Him, per Romans 8:28. How do you see this? Jacobus Arminius Mike, I’m grateful for your thoughtful push it lets me clarify what’s dear to my heart. You’re right that damnation isn’t God’s decree but sin’s fruit, and I’ve never said otherwise. Scripture’s clear: “Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). My stand isn’t a reaction it’s a defense of God’s goodness. I reject the idea that He, before time, decrees some to eternal death without regard to faith, as that risks painting Him as sin’s author, which He isn’t: “God cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempts no one” (James 1:13). You say God’s decrees are good I agree! Ephesians 1:5, “He predestined us for adoption… according to the purpose of His will,” is a decree of love. Your ‘vast but bounded autonomy’ fits my view: love demands freedom “We love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). I see His decrees with foreknowledge: “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Peter 1:2). He knows who’ll believe, offering grace to all “The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people” (Titus 2:11) and we respond. Your lens God in the present, seeing possibilities, intervening for decrees or prayer intrigues me. It echoes my thought: His will unfolds in time, like the cross: “He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times” (1 Peter 1:20). Romans 8:28, “All things work together for good,” shows He weaves our choices into His plan. I’m not far off salvation’s His gift, faith’s our part, sin’s the foe, not His decree. We’re near, Mike, if we both hold His sovereignty enables, not enforces, relationship. Michael Mathis Jacobus, that’s a solid clarification sin’s the culprit, not God’s

  7. 03/11/2025 ·  Video

    Dr. McGee, John Calvin and the Apostle Paul Discuss Ongoing Sovereignty Theology

    A note on this dialogue: This is a constructed, imaginative conversation created with AI assistance. The historical figures depicted here did not meet, and in some cases did not live in the same era. This exchange never took place — no statement here should be taken as a real quotation or a record of an actual event. It is a teaching device for exploring ideas. For the actual positions of Ongoing Sovereignty Theology, see the eight doctrines and the book. Note about this interaction produced using Grok 3: I began to explorer this ability of AI to extract the thoughts and opinions of great men who we will not get a chance to speak with until we arrive in heaven. However it must be said that even though it likely does a great job capturing the essence of what they might have said… they did not have this conversation. So please to not reference or quote this material as if these men did say these things but rater that they likely might have. [mike] Hey everyone, welcome to this virtual podcast! I am your host Mike Mathis, and I’m thrilled to be joined by some incredible voices from across history to talk about Ongoing Sovereignty Theology through the amazing technology of Grok 3. With me are Dr. J. Vernon McGee, John Calvin, and the Apostle Paul. Guys, thanks for being here or, well, for letting me imagine you here! Today, we’re exploring this idea that God’s sovereignty is a living, ongoing process, not just a fixed plan set before time. Dr. McGee, you’ve preached on God’s sovereignty a lot what’s your first take on this? [dr] Well, Mike, I’m glad to be here with you folks! You know, I’ve always said the Bible is clear: God’s in control of everything Psalm 103:19, “The Lord hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all.” This Ongoing Sovereignty idea you’re talkin’ about it’s got a ring of truth if it means God’s actively ruling right now, not just sittin’ back after windin’ up the clock. But I’d wanna know: does it leave room for God’s eternal plan? I mean, Ephesians 1:11 says He “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” How do you square that with this “ongoing” business? [john] Allow me to weigh in, Michael. I am John Calvin, and I must say this concept intrigues me, yet it raises questions. In my Institutes, I argued that God’s providence governs all events nothing occurs by chance, for His decree is eternal and unchangeable. If this Ongoing Sovereignty suggests that God’s rule unfolds dynamically, as you say, with human participation, does it not risk implying that God’s will is contingent upon man? That would be a perilous departure from the divine majesty I see in Scripture, such as Romans 9:21, where the potter has power over the clay. [paul] Greetings, brothers! I am Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God. I rejoice to hear you wrestling with the sovereignty of our Lord. Mike, this “ongoing” theology you speak of, I see echoes of it in my own words. In Philippians 2:12 13, I wrote, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” God’s sovereignty is active, alive in us, not merely a decree from afar. Yet, I also proclaimed in Ephesians 1:4 that He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. How does your view hold these together? [mike] Great points, all of you! Let me clarify what I mean by Ongoing Sovereignty Theology, based on some thinking I’ve been doing. It’s not that God’s will changes or depends on us, but that His sovereignty is expressed dynamically like a story unfolding. God’s ultimate purpose is set, but the details, the “how” of it, involve real time interaction with us. Think of it like a master artist painting a masterpiece: the final image is in His mind, but each brushstroke happens in the moment. Dr. McGee, does that fit with your view of God working all things out? [dr] Hmm, I like that picture, Mike the master artist. It’s folksy, and it kinda fits! You’re sayin’ God’s got the endgame settled, but He’s workin’ it out day by day with us in the mix. I can see that in Romans 8:28, “All things work together for good to them that love God.” It’s active, not just a blueprint collectin’ dust. Still, I’d be careful not to make it sound like God’s improvisin’. He’s not surprised by anything He’s omniscient, after all! [john] I concur with Dr. McGee on God’s omniscience. Yet, Michael, your analogy troubles me somewhat. A painter may adjust his strokes, but God’s decree is perfect from eternity. If this “ongoing” aspect means His sovereignty engages with human freedom, I might see it as His ordained means to His ordained ends provided we affirm, as I did, that even our wills are under His governance. In Book III of my Institutes, I wrote that God’s providence directs all things, even the actions of the wicked, to His glory. Could your theology be a way of describing this divine orchestration? [paul] Yes, John, and Mike, I think you’re both touching on something vital. When I wrote in 1 Corinthians 3:9 that we are “God’s fellow workers,” I meant we’re part of His ongoing work in the world. His sovereignty isn’t a cold machine it’s personal, relational. In Romans 11:33 36, I marveled at the depth of His wisdom: “From him and through him and to him are all things.” This “ongoing” idea might just be how we experience His eternal purpose in time, as He draws all nations to Himself through the Gospel. [mike] I love that, Paul relational sovereignty! That’s the heart of it. It’s not about God being indecisive or us running the show; it’s about His active presence with us, shaping history as we go. Dr. McGee, you’ve talked about God’s sovereignty in everyday life does this feel like a practical way to see it? [dr] You bet, Mike! I’ve always said God’s not just up there in the clouds He’s down here with us. If Ongoing Sovereignty means He’s rulership is alive and kickin’ in our daily walk, I’m all for it. Take Daniel 4:35 “He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth.” That’s not static; it’s God movin’ and shakin’ things right now! [john] I remain cautious, yet I see merit in this emphasis on God’s living rule. Provided we do not diminish His eternal decree, I could interpret this as the outworking of His providence in time. Still, I insist: human participation must be subordinate to His will, as I argued in my commentary on Psalm 115:3 “Our God is in the heavens; he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.” [paul] And I’d add, brothers, that this ongoing sovereignty shines brightest in Christ. Colossians 1:17 says, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” His reign is active now, sustaining and redeeming creation. Mike, your theology seems to celebrate that ongoing victory am I right? [mike] Exactly, Paul! It’s about Christ’s reign unfolding, not just in the future, but today. Okay, let’s move on to the next topic, so let’s wrap up. Dr. McGee, final thought? [dr] I’d say it’s a fresh way to see an old truth God’s runnin’ the show, and we’re in it with Him. Just keep it biblical, Mike! [john] I’d urge precision: God’s sovereignty is eternal, but if “ongoing” means His active governance, I can assent so long as His decree stands firm. [paul] I rejoice in this: God’s sovereignty is a mystery we live in, not just ponder. To Him be glory forever! [mike] Thanks, everyone! This has been amazing. Now let’s discuss how this theological position works out in the context of prayer. [dr] Glad to, Mike! Prayer’s one of my favorite subjects it’s just talkin’ to the Lord, plain and simple. Now, if this Ongoing Sovereignty means God’s actively workin’ in the world right now, not just followin’ some dusty old script, then prayer gets real exciting! It’s like James 5:16 says, “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” I’ve always taught that prayer’s powerful because God’s listenin’ and movin’. This theology of yours might say He’s not just hearin’ us but actually respondin’ in the moment like He did with Elijah, callin’ down fire from heaven. What do you think, Mike? [mike] I love that, Dr. McGee! That’s exactly what I’m getting at. If God’s sovereignty is unfolding dynamically, prayer isn’t just us reciting requests to a fixed plan it’s us joining Him in what He’s doing right now. It’s a real conversation. John, you’ve written about prayer and God’s providence how do you see this fitting in? [john] Michael, I approach this with care, as always. In my Institutes, Book III, Chapter 20, I teach that prayer is ordained by God as a means whereby we receive what He has decreed to give us. God’s sovereignty is eternal His will is immutable, as I see in Matthew 6:10, “Thy will be done.” Yet, this “ongoing” notion you propose if it means His providence engages us in time could align with my view. Prayer does not change God’s mind, for He is unchanging; rather, it changes us and brings us into His active governance. When we pray, we participate in His sovereign will, as He has appointed. But I caution: we must not imagine our prayers dictate to Him. [paul] Brothers, I greet you again in Christ’s name! Mike, this question stirs my heart. When I wrote in Philippians 4:6, “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God,” I saw prayer as a living connection to the sovereign Lord. This Ongoing Sovereignty you speak of it reminds me of how I urged the churches to pray without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:17). If God’s rul

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
3 Ratings

About

Join the Ongoing Sovereignty Theology Podcast as we explore a unique perspective on Time as a Measure, resolving tensions in traditional theology. Discover how our created purpose—to Glorify God and Enjoy a relationship with Him forever—is possible. New episodes weekly, blending faith, insight, and visual slides.