On Sovereignty

[rhutchin]

...

IN CALVINISM, sovereignty is so defined as to mean something akin to "all-controlling" or all-determinative in relation to divine providence...

Calvinism holds that God is omniscient and omnipotent. God knows all that is, past, present and future. God has the power to do anything He desires and nothing can prevent God from doing as He desires. From this, the Calvinist concludes that God is sovereign.

If God is not sovereign, it seems that God must not be omniscient (as OVT claims) or that He must not be omnipotent. Thus, we can conceive of several different gods, one who is both omniscient and omnipotent, one who is omniscient but not omnipotent, one who is omnipotent but not omniscient, and one who is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. The question becomes -- Who is the true and living God because to serve other than the true and living God is idolatry and the end thereof is destruction.

In Calvinism, God is sovereign being both omniscient and omnipotent. Non-calvinists claim that God is something and someone else. So, who is correct? Which of us serves God and which of us is an idolator?

What is the argument for God not being sovereign?

[Ormly]

In Calvinism, God is sovereign being both omniscient and omnipotent. Non-calvinists claim that God is something and someone else. So, who is correct? Which of us serves God and which of us is an idolator?

What is the argument for God not being sovereign?

#1. Non-Calvinist don't believe what you claim. YOU know that after all that has been posted on this forum. So already you get your thread off on the wrong foot only to engender strive.

Having said that and me not being a Calvinist, I believe God is sovereign only as His Nature permits. There. Hows that?

[Solly]

Apart from the fact you are imputing philosophical terms to God, you haven't actually proven that sovereignty requires things to be this way. Plus your charge of idlatry is just hysteria.

The charge of micro-manipulation (and thus the failure of a theodicy that relives God of the origin of evil) comes not merely from the fact that he is sovereign - all would agree with that - but that he is the First Cause of all things, that all things happened because God has directly caused them, or indirectly allowed them. The charge against calvinism is that it is a rigidly deterministic system that claims to hold to compatibility and a form of free moral action, but actually doesn't. It's smoke and mirrors.

We conclude that God is sovereign, because he tells us so, and demonstrates that fact, not from logical syllogisms. His sovereignty means that his plans will come about in the face of human and angelic rebellion. His sovereignty means that he is to be worshipped, not other gods, that we owe fealty to him. It doesn't have to mean that he is so insecure that he has to manage every detail of the universe from birth to death, any more than I have to manage every detail of my children's lives. His sovereignty means he is King, and I will serve him against all comers.

[The Remonstrant]

Calvinism holds that God is omniscient and omnipotent.

OVT does too.

God knows all that is, past, present and future.

This is easy to maintain if one believes God has already foreordained all things that come to pass. Most Calvinists believe, however, that if God did create a world where human beings possessed LFW, a world where he did not foreordain all things whatever that come to pass, God, under that set of circumstances could not infallibly foreknow future contingent events.

God has the power to do anything He desires and nothing can prevent God from doing as He desires.

OVTs maintain this as well, but they believe that God desired to create a world where humans possess significant (libertarian) freedom as opposed to one where he meticulously orchestrates all events. This, then, has nothing to do with God's power, but his choice and his character.

If God is not sovereign, it seems that God must not be omniscient (as OVT claims) or that He must not be omnipotent.

OVTs believe that God is omniscient (some OVTs, however, understand this in different ways). That means he knows all things that are logically possible of being known.

Thus, we can conceive of several different gods, one who is both omniscient and omnipotent, one who is omniscient but not omnipotent, one who is omnipotent but not omniscient, and one who is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. The question becomes -- Who is the true and living God because to serve other than the true and living God is idolatry and the end thereof is destruction.

In Calvinism, God is sovereign being both omniscient and omnipotent. Non-calvinists claim that God is something and someone else. So, who is correct? Which of us serves God and which of us is an idolator?

What is the argument for God not being sovereign?

First, OVTs believe that God is sovereign, omnipotent, and omniscient; that must be reiterated. The issue lies in the definition of these traits, and how God exercises them. OVTs believe that God is omnipotent, but they maintain he rarely uses his power coercively. OVTs view God as sovereign, also. They believe he desired to create a world with free agents, and this he did. He decided to create a world in which he does not exercise meticulous control. If God is "limited" in any sense, it is only because he sovereignly chose to limit himself (in whatever respect that might be in).

Second, it seems that a number of your assertions are based more off of natural theology (a theology that holds that knowledge of God can be acquired by human reason without the aid of divine revelation) or perfect being theology observations, than they are biblical revelation.

[Ormly]

First, OVTs believe that God is sovereign, omnipotent, and omniscient; that must be reiterated.

I wonder how many times that needs to be reiterated to rhutchin that he get the message.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Calvinism holds that God is omniscient and omnipotent.

The Remonstrant
OVT does too.

Calvinism holds that God has knowledge of all future events.

OVT holds that God does NOT have knowledge of all future events.

So we could say that Calvinism holds to classical omniscience and OVT to non-classical omniscience. As far as I understand, OVT appropriated the term, "omniscience," but attached a different meaning to it that used by the Calvinists. The OVTs seem to have done this to confuse people as to what they were saying.

Should a new thread be started to sort out the difference between the Calvinist and OVT position on omniscience?

[rhutchin]

God has the power to do anything He desires and nothing can prevent God from doing as He desires.

The Remonstrant
OVTs maintain this as well, but they believe that God desired to create a world where humans possess significant (libertarian) freedom as opposed to one where he meticulously orchestrates all events. This, then, has nothing to do with God's power, but his choice and his character.

OK. Let's agree that God is omnipotent and can do as He pleases. This would mean that for any event, God has the ability to decide whether to allow the event to reach its natural outcome or to intervene to change the event outcome. This is what Calvinism concludes is the case.

God's character may determine whether He chooses to intervene in any event but this still allows for God to have the final say on how the event plays out. This is nothing more than the meticulous orchestration that you object to.

I think OVT needs to physically limit God's power or it cannot get the results it seeks.

Should we start a new thread to sort out what the OVT position on God's omnipotence will need to be for OVT to work?

[rhutchin]

Apart from the fact you are imputing philosophical terms to God, you haven't actually proven that sovereignty requires things to be this way. Plus your charge of idolatry is just hysteria.

I described sovereignty to be the product of God's omnipotence and omniscience (as I understand the classical definitions of these terms to be). Do these philosophical terms accurately describe that which the Scriptures describe God to be?

What is a good definition of idolatry? Maybe I misunderstand what the term means.

The charge of micro-manipulation (and thus the failure of a theodicy that relieves God of the origin of evil) comes not merely from the fact that he is sovereign - all would agree with that - but that he is the First Cause of all things, that all things happened because God has directly caused them, or indirectly allowed them. The charge against calvinism is that it is a rigidly deterministic system that claims to hold to compatibility and a form of free moral action, but actually doesn't. It's smoke and mirrors.

Can we deal with the problem of evil separately? For now, let's nail down the implications of God being omniscient and omnipotent (as I understand the classical definitions of these terms to be).

If God is both omniscient and omnipotent, can we get anything other than a Calvinist system (and a rigidly deterministic system)? To avoid this outcome does a person have to follow the OVTs and limit both God's omnisicence and omnipotence?

We conclude that God is sovereign, because he tells us so, and demonstrates that fact, not from logical syllogisms. His sovereignty means that his plans will come about in the face of human and angelic rebellion. His sovereignty means that he is to be worshipped, not other gods, that we owe fealty to him. It doesn't have to mean that he is so insecure that he has to manage every detail of the universe from birth to death, any more than I have to manage every detail of my children's lives. His sovereignty means he is King, and I will serve him against all comers.

If God is sovereign, must He also be omniscient and omnipotent as a consequence. Can God be sovereign and not be either omniscient or omnipotent (as I understand the classical definitions of these terms to be)

Is there anything that can happen that can be identified as being outside God's plan?

Can anyone rebell against God without God knowing about it before it happens and having the power to prevent that rebellion if He chooses to do so?

[rhutchin]

First, OVTs believe that God is sovereign, omnipotent, and omniscient; that must be reiterated.

I wonder how many times that needs to be reiterated to rhutchin that he get the message.

As Remonstrant explained earlier.

He stated, "First, OVTs believe that God is sovereign, omnipotent, and omniscient; that must be reiterated. The issue lies in the definition of these traits,..." This means that we having different definitions of the same term which is probably what is confusing you.

Then he adds, "...and how God exercises them. OVTs believe that God is omnipotent, but they maintain he rarely uses his power coercively."

This means that God decides the final outcome of an event. It is His decision not to intervene coercively in some cases and to do so in other cases. This is not different than what Calvinism says.

So, OVT disavows Calvinism but then concedes a Calvinist system. No wonder you are confused.

[rhutchin]

Second, it seems that a number of your assertions are based more off of natural theology (a theology that holds that knowledge of God can be acquired by human reason without the aid of divine revelation) or perfect being theology observations, than they are biblical revelation.

My position is that we only know that which the Scriptures tell us. There is no additional knowledge of God other than that which can be gained from the Scriptures.