Kay

To affirm God’s sovereignty is to affirm that God could sovereignly create *ANY* kind of world God wished, even one in which he would leave it to humans to exercise free libertarian choices. Less control is not the same as less sovereignty IF God *chooses* to have less control.

Why should we limit God of this possibility? Just because Calvin or someone said so?

It all hinges on your view of the character of God. Does divine compassion and love for his creatures serve as the primary template through which all the Divine attributes operate? Or does a notion that God somehow needs to protect His sovereignty serve that function?

The basic issue here is which theological paradigm does a better job of representing the biblical picture of God’s character: which theological system gives a more adequate account of the biblical God whose nature is holy love? Why should His sovereignty need to be put above His love? Who decided that?

What do we make of an offer that *cannot* be accepted even though the one making the offer knows this is the case or—to make matters worse—could in sovereignty make the receiver able to accept but does not? To say that God presents a bona fide offer of salvation to all but that He grants only to some the ability to respond to that offer is not a “mystery,” it is a logical inconsistency that no pious appeals to “God’s ways are above our ways” will mitigate.

Again, to affirm God’s sovereignty is to affirm that God is very able to sovereignly create ANY kind of world God wished, even one in which He would leave it to humans to exercise free choices.

Less control is not the same as less sovereignty IF God *chooses* to have less control. And who are we to decide that is not an option for Him? Hmm?