No, that's not what they have done. They have just assumed you would be on the same page about the other attributes of God.
No sir. It was/is an intentional redefinition of the term. The proof is the fact that there's hardly a term of any importance in the whole of the Christian lexicon that the Augustinian (Calvinism in particular) hasn't redefined. Sovereign, Love, Justice, Righteousness, and several other words all have different "theological meanings" when applied to God.
Sovereign = control freak
Love = impassible
Justice = arbitrary
Righteous = do anything whatsoever
If you're naive enough to believe otherwise then I really can't help you.
If God is the supreme ruler, and if he is all knowing, then his rule will look different than a sovereign human monarch who may be uninformed or even a fool.
I reject the premise and this single sentence proves my point!
You redefine the word to suit your doctrine. I mean you can't deny it because you just did it!
You believe that God is all knowing (in the Calvinist sense of the term) for the same reason you believe that God is a control freak. That reason being that Augustine of Hippo, who practically worshiped Aristotle and Plato, imported Greek ideas like immutability and omniscience, etc into the Christian faith. These ideas are pagan in their origin and are not taught in scripture.
Playing with the word meanings is useless.
Oh, no its not!
If you can control the language, you can control ideas. Ideas have enormous consequences!
Not in the Calvinistic sense, no.
Biblically, God knows what He wants to know of that which is knowable and is able to find out any knowable fact that He doesn't already know.
Again, not in the way the Calvinists believe, no.
First, there is more than one kind of power and so this requires more than one answer....
Biblically, God is the source of all power but has delegated both power and authority to others as well as the ability to act on that ability and authority. He, therefore, does NOT always get what He wants and people are all the time doing things He rather they not do. The payoff for this, however, is that some choose to love Him. He has the power and right to recall any delegated power or authority at any time and is thus fully invincible.
Biblically, God's omnipotence does not extend to anything that one can imagine. God cannot - I repeat - God CANNOT make anyone love anyone else, including Him. Nor can God make anyone do anything else that is moral in nature. Moral action is either chosen or the action isn't moral, by definition. This same logic applies to any other inherently self-contradictory idea. God, for example, cannot make perfect spheres with flat edges and sharp corners. God cannot go to a place that does not exist. Etc.
In short, God can do anything He wants to do that is doable. God cannot do the rationally absurd.
That's two of the three "omni" doctrines. Let's go ahead and address the third even though you didn't mention it directly. That third doctrine being omnipresense, of course.
Once again, the Calvinist teaching is incorrect.
Biblically, God is capable of being in all places at once but it only actually where He wants to be. God, for example, is not required to be a first person witness to every vile act that takes place in the back rooms of every gay bar. God is not required to hang out in the space between someone's back side and the toilet paper they're using. And it isn't just evil or gross things that God isn't required to be present for. God isn't required to be present while people are having spousal relations and is perfectly capable of giving people privacy.
Also, the same logic applies to omnipresence as applies to omnipotence. God cannot do the rationally absurd, thus God cannot be in a place that does not exist.
Then his sovereignty will extend to every single molecule.
Again, you're proving my point!
In actually fact, your own logic doesn't hold up under real scrutiny but I'm not going to get into that. The point is that the word sovereign simply does not mean "meticulous control of all that comes to pass" and the reason you think otherwise has nothing to do with the word itself but is ENTIRELY because of your doctrine.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could get away with adding and subtracting important concepts to whatever words we needed to! That way, we could believe nearly anything we want and we'd never have to lose a debate with anyone!
Forgive the sarcasm, but if you think the issue is less trivial than that, you're simply wrong.
I don't see the purpose of interjecting the fact that you can still claim to be a sovereign ruler and have a lot going on without your knowledge.
Yes, you do.
If you're communicating that there isn't any one in a position of authority over you and that all will eventually answer to you then the word sovereign is THE perfect word to use!
Are you applying that case to God? If so then we should discuss those issues. They are more important than the definition of sovereignty.
If they exist at all, it proves that the Augustinian definition of the term is false - not to mention most of rest of his doctrine!
There are, of course, several biblical examples but addressing those occurrences directly would be a waste of time if you're not even willing to acknowledge the conceptual issues involved. So, one step at a time.
