Why Do Calvinists Think They Have Superior Theology?

So, a perfect summary of the OPs question has been illustrated well in this thread: "

Why Do Calvinists Think They Have Superior Theology?​


Because they believe in a God that is fully Sovereign and Omniscient 100% of the time, unlike some of those posting here
 
FSSL said:
So, a perfect summary of the OPs question has been illustrated well in this thread: "

Why Do Calvinists Think They Have Superior Theology?​


Because they believe in a God that is fully Sovereign and Omniscient 100% of the time, unlike some of those posting here
Click to expand...
So why do Non-Calvinists think they have a superior theology?

Because they believe God releases his omnipotence (his all powerful ability) in any way he sees fit and he doesn't allow Calvinists to push him around demanding he must do so in the measure they insist.

eg. We observe a full grown man being challenged by a child, "Fight with me, fight with me or you're not much of a man. If you don't release your 100% ability you're not much of a man!" The man walks away. He revealed he's a man. A real grown up shows restraint. Maybe some people don't understand that?
 
You have it backwards...

Calvinists on this forum are debating those who say that God is not 100% Sovereign right now.

This discussion reveals guys who undermine (ie "push around") God.
 
prophet doesn't think God is exercising His Sovereignty 100% right now: "In the Millennium, God will enforce His Sovereignty to a much higher degree, than He does pre-Mil."

... and he said: "He does not enforce His Sovereignty, or there would be no sin."

Alayman seems to be allowing legitimacy for prophet's thinking that God is not 100% Sovereign when he says: "It is the extent and definition of sovereignty that is disputed here, not that there is any claim that God is not sovereign from non-Calvinists."
 
FSSL said:
prophet doesn't think God is exercising His Sovereignty 100% right now: "In the Millennium, God will enforce His Sovereignty to a much higher degree, than He does pre-Mil."

... and he said: "He does not enforce His Sovereignty, or there would be no sin."

Alayman seems to be allowing legitimacy for prophet's thinking that God is not 100% Sovereign when he says: "It is the extent and definition of sovereignty that is disputed here, not that there is any claim that God is not sovereign from non-Calvinists."
Click to expand...
You either misunderstand what’s been said or misrepresent it, either way it fairly portrays much of what occurs in these conversations and it’s not stimulating nor is it productive IMHO.
 
ALAYMAN said:
You either misunderstand what’s been said or misrepresent it, either way it fairly portrays much of what occurs in these conversations and it’s not stimulating nor is it productive IMHO.
Click to expand...
Your lack of clarity and your positioning against God's ultimate Sovereignty against the so called free will of man is confusing.
 
FSSL said:
Your lack of clarity and your positioning against God's ultimate Sovereignty against the so called free will of man is confusing.
Click to expand...
You accuse me of a lack of clarity but in that very accusation you throw out an ambiguous (at best) term such as “ultimate sovereignty” which lacks explicit explanation and has no defined technical theological referent. Ummm, okay.
 
The phrase IS a combination of English words. Certainly, when the two words are placed together, there shouldnt be much problem... unless you are one of those who believe God is not 100% Sovereign (or suspends/limits it to allow for the mythical free will of man).
 
Is God's sovereignty limited by man's free will?

If not does that not mean that God is ultimately sovereign over all?

If so, does this not make man sovereign over God?
 
Baptist Renegade said:
Is God's sovereignty limited by man's free will?
Click to expand...
I would say you're trying to limit God's sovereignty. Sorry but you're trying to say God can't do whatever he wants. If God so chose not to micro manage every aspect of what men do and allows them to make choices against his will for potentially a variety of reasons....who are you to say he limited his sovereignty by making his choices. Maybe you should just allow God to be God?

 
FSSL said:
So, a perfect summary of the OPs question has been illustrated well in this thread: "

Why Do Calvinists Think They Have Superior Theology?​


Because they believe in a God that is fully Sovereign and Omniscient 100% of the time, unlike some of those posting here
Click to expand...
They're not the only ones, so stop trying to "toot your horn!" It comes out sounding like this.....
 
Baptist Renegade said:
Is God's sovereignty limited by man's free will?
Click to expand...
Not at all...and who, pray tell, is stating that it is? GEESH!
Baptist Renegade said:
If not does that not mean that God is ultimately sovereign over all?
Click to expand...
GOD is always Sovereign over all...Those who hold to free will don't deny that.
Baptist Renegade said:
If so, does this not make man sovereign over God?
Click to expand...
That's the most idiotic question I've ever heard....and coming from you...you otta be 'shamed of yourself, dude! ;) LOL
 
FSSL said:
The phrase IS a combination of English words. Certainly, when the two words are placed together, there shouldnt be much problem... unless you are one of those who believe God is not 100% Sovereign (or suspends/limits it to allow for the mythical free will of man).
Click to expand...
My point should have been clear, you want to rephrase other people and pigeon-hole their beliefs, then you want to use sloppy theological language in describing your own beliefs. "ultimate" sovereignty, it seems as you want to define it, doesn't allow for God to have the prerogative of being able to surrender his choices. Yet He clearly does that, as the point of my Theodicy (part 2) thread demonstrates. He allowed choice in the garden, and by Lucifer in situations where everything was created good. He will use His sovereignty in heaven at the consummation of human history for those who are glorified with Him to ensure there will be no option to choose to sin. Those scenarios represent different "extents" (does that word sound familiar in this thread?)of how "ultimate sovereignty" is demonstrated by the God of the Bible.
 
ALAYMAN said:
My point should have been clear, you want to rephrase other people and pigeon-hole their beliefs, then you want to use sloppy theological language in describing your own beliefs. "ultimate" sovereignty, it seems as you want to define it, doesn't allow for God to have the prerogative of being able to surrender his choices. Yet He clearly does that, as the point of my Theodicy (part 2) thread demonstrates. He allowed choice in the garden, and by Lucifer in situations where everything was created good. He will use His sovereignty in heaven at the consummation of human history for those who are glorified with Him to ensure there will be no option to choose to sin. Those scenarios represent different "extents" (does that word sound familiar in this thread?)of how "ultimate sovereignty" is demonstrated by the God of the Bible.
Click to expand...
I find his attitudes that of the typical "fundy" that I encountered growing up, always adding his own interpretation to what people have said, and then using sloppy hermeneutics. UGH! He may be intelligent, but he's really dumb in some respects.
 
AverageJoe said:
I find his attitudes that of the typical "fundy" that I encountered growing up, always adding his own interpretation to what people have said, and then using sloppy hermeneutics. UGH! He may be intelligent, but he's really dumb in some respects.
Click to expand...

My guess (charitably speaking 😋) is that he just likes dropping a few bombs to cloud the air, stirring and spicing up the FFF pot if you will. 😁
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top