[Chaguito]

“Finally, the free will of man can never trump the Sovereignty of God.”

But then God wouldn’t truly be sovereign, would He? So, that’s a statement that a Calvinist should only see as self-evident and unworthy of re-stating. :)

Thanks for the (partial) thumbs-up.

By the way, how about this: The most basic theme of the Bible is the idea that God makes covenants with man, from beginning to end. The term most often used in Scripture to define the character of God is chesed - one who honors his covenants. The very act of making a covenant means that God by definition limits His sovereignty, because he makes promises (many of them conditional) to man as far as man loves and honors the covenant (chesed). If He purposely limits His sovereignty, is He really less sovereign?

My point is that Calvinists tend to view God through Greek lenses, while the whole of scripture describes Him through Hebrew lenses. Thus, “omnipotent” is a Greek concept which the Bible eschews in favor of “King of kings who bows to meet His people.” (through covenant).

[kosciusko51]

“Finally, the free will of man can never trump the Sovereignty of God.” But then God wouldn’t truly be sovereign, would He? So, that’s a statement that a Calvinist should only see as self-evident and unworthy of re-stating. :)

But there are some who sacrifice that Sovereignty for the free will of man. Sometimes you have to re-state the obvious.

My point is that Calvinists tend to view God through Greek lenses, while the whole of scripture describes Him through Hebrew lenses.

Paul described God both through the Hebrew and Greek lenses. And many Calvinist I know tend view the covenants through the Hebrew lens.

For instance, the OT describes the kinsman-redeemer. Jesus is mankind's kinsman-redeemer. He emptied of himself to meet His people and be their sacrifice. Who are his people? If all men, then all would be saved by the kinsman-redeemer. But we know all will not be saved. So who are saved? Those that the Father chose for the Son.

[what's up]

Post #74:

The Old Covenant was conditional.

The New Covenant is unconditional.

[HarleyD]

The very act of making a covenant means that God by definition limits His sovereignty, because he makes promises (many of them conditional) to man as far as man loves and honors the covenant (chesed). If He purposely limits His sovereignty, is He really less sovereign?

Isn't "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved?" a promise? Is God less sovereign for making such a promise? I'm not sure what you're driving at here.

My point is that Calvinists tend to view God through Greek lenses, while the whole of scripture describes Him through Hebrew lenses. Thus, “omnipotent” is a Greek concept which the Bible eschews in favor of “King of kings who bows to meet His people.”

This is rather an odd statement. Could you please provide examples for I find it to be exactly the opposite. For example in Ruth we find the blessed Naomi state:

Rth 1:13 Would ye tarry for them till they were grown? would ye stay for them from having husbands? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes that the hand of the LORD is gone out against me.

In Proverbs we find:

Pro 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

In Amos we find:

Amo 4:6 And I also have given you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and want of bread in all your places: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.

Amo 4:7 And also I have withholden the rain from you, when there were yet three months to the harvest: and I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city: one piece was rained upon, and the piece whereupon it rained not withered.

In Daniel we find the confession of Neb to state:

Dan 4:35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

Dan 4:36 At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me.

Dan 4:37 Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.

And even in the New Testament, we find the sovereignty of the Lord declared:

Jas 4:14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

Jas 4:15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.

Jas 4:16 But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.

The scriptures (and Reformed Theology) teaches one sovereign God all knowing, in complete control. All of these verses agree with that believe. All one has to do is look back at some of the comments here and see those who question this sovereign control.

Greek idea is not an omnipotent, all sovereign God. Rather Greek theology was one where gods strive with men, other gods and demons. This is reflected in some denominations in which their eschatology states one big battle in which God and Satan duke it out. It is reflected in God pleading with men to accept Him. It is reflected in people believing a loving God would not inflict punishment or judgment on us. This is not only Greek thought but it is Renaissance thought where man is the center and God is somewhere else.

Now if you have specific examples it would be interesting to review.