Arminian sovereignty: In charge vs. in control

[robustheologian]

I have seen that in arguments of Calvinism vs Arminianism that both sides agree (most of the time) to God's sovereignty. The issue comes to our definitions of the God's sovereignty. So to my Calvinist AND Arminian brothers, what does God being sovereign mean to you? God is in charge or/and God is in control? And how in charge or in control is He?

 

[The American Dream]

I have seen that in arguments of Calvinism vs Arminianism that both sides agree (most of the time) to God's sovereignty. The issue comes to our definitions of the God's sovereignty. So to my Calvinist AND Arminian brothers, what does God being sovereign mean to you? God is in charge or/and God is in control? And how in charge or in control is He?

God is the Creator. Everything else is the created. He is in charge and control totally. He allows free will in man bounded by his fallen state. He puts limits on Satan. As the Lord says in Job "I hung the stars, can you?" That pretty well sums up man's stance in front of a Holy God. There is no such thing as terms like luck, chance, or coincidence. Being sovereign to me means God acts according to His perfect purposes. He is the driving force behind the affairs of men and nations. He is working His purpose out so as to bring about the perfect timing of the return of Christ. He did the same in the OT to bring about the Incarnation.

God numbers the hairs on our head. Why would anyone think He is not involved in every aspect of the universe?

 

[Revmitchell]

I am neither an arminian nor a cal but I believe that it means God is in control no matter what our actions or responses are and therefore He gets the credit solely even when He requires a response from us.

 

[steaver]

God is the Creator. Everything else is the created. He is in charge and control totally. He allows free will in man bounded by his fallen state. He puts limits on Satan. As the Lord says in Job "I hung the stars, can you?" That pretty well sums up man's stance in front of a Holy God. There is no such thing as terms like luck, chance, or coincidence. Being sovereign to me means God acts according to His perfect purposes. He is the driving force behind the affairs of men and nations. He is working His purpose out so as to bring about the perfect timing of the return of Christ. He did the same in the OT to bring about the Incarnation.

God numbers the hairs on our head. Why would anyone think He is not involved in every aspect of the universe?

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[steaver]

I have seen that in arguments of Calvinism vs Arminianism that both sides agree (most of the time) to God's sovereignty. The issue comes to our definitions of the God's sovereignty. So to my Calvinist AND Arminian brothers, what does God being sovereign mean to you? God is in charge or/and God is in control? And how in charge or in control is He?

I believe Calvinism places God in a box when it comes to His own sovereignty. Prime example would be Calvinism declaring that God in His sovereignty is forbidden to give His created a free will choice to believe or not to believe.

 

[robustheologian]

I believe Calvinism places God in a box when it comes to His own sovereignty. Prime example would be Calvinism declaring that God in His sovereignty is forbidden to give His created a free will choice to believe or not to believe.

Maybe hyper-Calvinism but traditional Calvinism acknowledges the compatibilistic/concurrent nature of moral agency and God's sovereignty.

 

[steaver]

Maybe hyper-Calvinism but traditional Calvinism acknowledges the compatibilistic/concurrent nature of moral agency and God's sovereignty.

I don't think so. Calvinism only gives "lip" service to man's freewill. Calvinism's version of freewill to make a choice is no freewill choice at all, for Calvinism declares un-regenerated man can only choose unbelief, that is not having a "God given" freewill to choose one way or the other, but rather is a "Calvinism given" freewill to choose only one way.

 

[robustheologian]

I don't think so. Calvinism only gives "lip" service to man's freewill. Calvinism's version of freewill to make a choice is no freewill choice at all, for Calvinism declares un-regenerated man can only choose unbelief, that is not having a "God given" freewill to choose one way or the other, but rather is a "Calvinism given" freewill to choose only one way.

Good theology reconciles this antinomy (or paradox) by looking at the duality in the nature of man's will. Man has the constitutional ability to choose the gospel if he desired. The issue is that man doesn't have the moral ability to desire the gospel (Rom. 3:11) unless God grants it to him (John 6:44).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Maybe hyper-Calvinism but traditional Calvinism acknowledges the compatibilistic/concurrent nature of moral agency and God's sovereignty.

I'm curious as to your Hyper Calvinist comment.....just who do you list as Hyper Calvinists? Would you consider Arthur Pink a H C?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don't think so. Calvinism only gives "lip" service to man's freewill. Calvinism's version of freewill to make a choice is no freewill choice at all, for Calvinism declares un-regenerated man can only choose unbelief, that is not having a "God given" freewill to choose one way or the other, but rather is a "Calvinism given" freewill to choose only one way.

Thats cause you don't understand Calvinism. Only an "Absolute Predestination" group thinks that way and they are way in the minority.

 

[robustheologian]

I'm curious as to your Hyper Calvinist comment.....just who do you list as Hyper Calvinists? Would you consider Arthur Pink a H C?

I would consider him to be in the ballpark at least. It’s hard to tell at times. Some of his writings bash the universal offer of salvation but then a few of them defend that same offer. Personally, I love A.W. Pink’s writings though.

 

[steaver]

Thats cause you don't understand Calvinism. Only an "Absolute Predestination" group thinks that way and they are way in the minority.

Yeah, we always get that "you don't understand Calvinism" charge, but everything I understand about Calvinism I have gotten directly from debating with Calvinist. I believe all the Calvinist on this board would say un-regenerated man cannot choose to believe unto salvation, this is not having a freewill to make a choice between two paths.

 

[steaver]

Good theology reconciles this antinomy (or paradox) by looking at the duality in the nature of man's will. Man has the constitutional ability to choose the gospel if he desired. The issue is that man doesn't have the moral ability to desire the gospel (Rom. 3:11) unless God grants it to him (John 6:44).

Yeah see that's not a freewill to choose between two paths. Of course no one seeks God without God first seeking and doing the drawing. Jesus said He would draw all men unto Himself (John12:32) . Many are called, few are chosen (Matt 22:14) .

 

[robustheologian]

Yeah see that's not a freewill to choose between two paths. Of course no one seeks God without God first seeking and doing the drawing. Jesus said He would draw all men unto Himself (John12:32) . Many are called, few are chosen (Matt 22:14) .

Did you just use one of the most Calvinistic verses in the Bible to argue AGAINST Calvinism?? lol

At it's very core it's not really freewill so this is where most Calvinists tend to shout "NO SUCH THING AS FREEWILL!!!".

And in the case of John 12:32 have all men come to Christ? The word draw (helko transliterated in Greek) literally means to be dragged, or compelled externally (impelled) to come. This verse opens up a bigger can of worms for the Arminian because if the answer is to the above question is no, than they are forced to look at what "all men" mean in this context.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

It's simple. He guides our steps.

The "if" in that verse maybe throws some folks ?

"Men" is italicized which usually means the word was added later. Is this the case in this verse ?

 

[steaver]

And in the case of John 12:32 have all men come to Christ? The word draw (helko transliterated in Greek) literally means to be dragged, or compelled externally (impelled) to come. This verse opens up a bigger can of worms for the Arminian because if the answer is to the above question is no, than they are forced to look at what "all men" mean in this context.

So then Calvinist believe that whenever a person is impelled to do something, or believe something, then they automatically must do or believe such a thing?

 

[robustheologian]

So then Calvinist believe that whenever a person is impelled to do something, or believe something, then they automatically must do or believe such a thing?

Well the words compelled and impelled means "forced to" or "made to" and after all who can resist the will of God? (Rom. 9:19)

 

[PreachTony]

Well the words compelled and impelled means "forced to" or "made to" and after all who can resist the will of God? (Rom. 9:19)

True, but we are also told to quench not the spirit, which seems to me a fairly clear statement against resisting God. Seems to me this is not a scriptural case of black-and-white, but rather a case for discernment and just how resistible or irresistible God is.

 

[steaver]

Well the words compelled and impelled means "forced to" or "made to" and after all who can resist the will of God? (Rom. 9:19)

What is the subject matter of the verse? Don't you think what the verses is saying is that when Jesus be lifted up on that cross all men will be forced to....what? Believe in Him? I say no, but forced to deal with His life and testimony, and forced (spiritually) to MAKE A CHOICE!

 

[robustheologian]

What is the subject matter of the verse? Don't you think what the verses is saying is that when Jesus be lifted up on that cross all men will be forced to....what? Believe in Him? I say no, but forced to deal with His life and testimony, and forced (spiritually) to MAKE A CHOICE!

To amend the scripture in that way is doing the very thing you accuse Calvinists of doing which is altering scripture. The Bible literally says Christ will draw (drag) all men to himself PERIOD.