I can't give a thorough response here, but, I should note that the word "sovereignty" needs to be given definition by the person using it (whether reformed or other). Your statement: "So it makes sense to me that God might suspend or choose not to exercise some of his sovereignty so that He will be even more greatly glorified went he accomplishes His will in our world" is an idea that falls somewhat in line with the Open Theism camp, but I'm pleased to see you qualified it by saying that you're "wrestling with the feeling that this model doesn't really completely account for God either." Actually, Open Theism relates more to God's omniscience/knowing the future, but his sovereignty and character are wrapped up in the idea.

(Not only am I not going to give a thorough response, but perhaps not a linear one either).

One thing I'd like to respond to is the idea that reformed theologians seem to have an obsession with God's sovereignty. I think that it's true that reformed theologians use God's sovereignty as a "trump card" of sorts in order to avoid doing good Biblical theology in contrast to Systematic theology (though the two can't truly be separated). In other words, as a "reformed theologian," I am not comfortable with pulling out the "sovereignty trump card" (am I using enough quotation marks), though I am guilty of doing it. I think what is lakcing in some reformed circles and/or in the arguments of individual reformed theolgians is the emphasis on man's responsibility - even if it's difficult to "logically" qualify with an affirmation of God's sovereignty.
I think what many non-reformed (and even some reformed folks - myself included) people are frustrated with is the ridculously prideful manner in which many "reformed theologians" present their view. Anyway, my lunch is over, but I think we should take the discussion (or conversation if we're going to be emergent about all this;)) toward a biblical/systematic definition of sovereignty (if it's possible for reformed and non-reformed to agree on such a definition). By the way, as a reformed theologian, I must qualify that I probably am a bit prideful about my view ... just as Arminians are a bit prideful about their own views ... and the undecided are prideful about their indecision. In other words, I don't want any of us (myself included) off the hook.

In response to the last comment, a further investigation needs to take place. First, it's important to define systematic theology. In this day in age, one's definition of systematic can be varied from person to person. Also when you say, "Anyway, my lunch is over" I wonder if you are really making metaphorical statements concerning your limited view of God's omnitience and power.

I think we need to have a serious conversation about this conversation. You see, I go to seminary and I know a lot of thing things that you are talking about whereas you might not have a clue.

God Bless

My friend, Aaron (a friend from church here in Illinois) made the last post to make fun of my seminariesque language (carefully definining everything before talking about anything of any substance and qualifying every statement). I'll have you know that even though Aaron is down on the Seminary lingo, he actually goes to seminary, too. So the pot is calling the kettle black.

Hey, I just updated our blogspot ... just to let you know ... and P.S. I have two books to recommend that I've never read (well ... the first one I've never read):
1.) "Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility" by D.A. Carson.
2.) "The Hermeneutical Spiral" by my Arminian Seminary professor/advisor Grant Osborne. It's a good and detailed book on Hermeneutics that brings into question how we ought to read narrative (e.g. can we derive theology from narrative or other Biblical literary). He argues - I think persuasively that we can derive theology from narrative agains Fee/Stuart ("How to Read the Bible for All it's Worth"), though Fee/Stuart book is good ... anyway, gotta run ...

What is open theology? Why is it that I've been conditioned to be suspicious of anything with words like "open" in their title? Anywho, I guess the meaning of sovereignty in my mind is complete control, power, and exclusive decision-making force of will. And I should give some idea of what I mean be reformed also. When I think of reformed I immediately think of the Church of the Good Shepard and the 5 pillars of Cavinism (ha!), although I do know that there's more to it. To me, this view of the reformed church revolves around the idea that God is the sole determinate actor in our salvation. This would not bother me if I didn't have to accept the other side of the coin as well--that by this reasoning, God is the sole determinate factor in a person's damnation as well. This puts the responsibility of our sin on God's shoulders, which I'm uncomfortable with. In order for us to be responsible for our sin, it would seem like we would have to have some (very limited)partnership with God, and some determinate power of our own. The only explanation for this power would be that it is universal and God-given, that God chooses not to exercise complete control, although he could. For instance, God did not cause Adam to sin in the garden (if so God would be a source of evil), but he chose to relinquish control by establishing the possibility that adam could sin by creating the tree, giving a command, and then "departing" the scene (lets not argue about how God really was present at the first temptation). Got to go. Please continue this thread and Burly, get Karl Bath's friend to post again. I like having people I don't know take part.

Two quick (end of lunch) comments:

Open Theism is a heretical (to many evangelicals ... myself included) position that holds that God is not omniscient. This view hopes to account for why evil happens when God sees it. What they say is that God doesn't see it coming. Logically it doesn't yet answer the question as to why God doesn't stop evil once it starts. That's the basics on Open Theism. For more on it from its proponents, look to the writings/ministries of Greg Boyd and John Sanders.

As fo the 5 pillars of Calvinism ... Calvin didn't come up with them (in that form anyway). Though I may logically ascribe to 3-5 of them (depending on my thoughts that day), I fear that these pillars (even if true) end up bypassing the discussion of man's responsibility.

Gotta run ...
Burly

Um, what up Buerhle. THe part of Miles' post I didn't understand was the Caedmon's call line that he posted about I'm thankful that I'm incapable. I was unable to make the jump to how that particular line related to sovreignty, because I thought it more dealt with man's depravity. I am not necessarily "down" with all of reformed theology, but I would agree that only Christ in us enables us to love and to do good.

Hi Marshall ... and Miles ... is it possible that Miles takes that line to relate to anything good we are able to do and not just salvation ... which is total depravity? I don't know. I take the Psalmists statement "there is none who does good, not even one" to be a statement about both salvation and anything on our own ... which points to my view of what is in God's eyes good. So, if that makes me a reformed fanatic, so be it. As a Jesus illustration of what isn't good, but appears good to most people, look at Mary in the book of John who pours pure nard on Jesus' feet that could have been sold to feed the poor (Judas' "good" suggestion ... that proceeded out of a wicked heart). I believe I can do that which appears "good" without the help of the Spirit - without the help of Christ in me, but can I do "good." That's the question. A starting question, though, is this to Miles (not as an accusation, but as a "good" first question): Do you hold to the 1st point of Calvinism? (Total Depravity)

I'm not sure about the whole depravity thing. I think people are sinful, but I where I get tripped up is that I believe that God delights in our response to Him. So maybe I would describe my understanding as this: Christ enables us to do good (and I would say he empowers the saved and unsaved alike as fits his plans), but I think we can choose to respond by actually doing the good Christ has made a possibility, or we can choose not to do good. A positive response is honoring to God, and this independent choice is man's contribution to the relationship (much like the bride who accepts the wooing of the groom, one of images that impresses me most in the scriptures). Is this decision in itself "good" and is it truely independent, or is God's enabling work irresistible and only available to those he means to save? I think I lean toward the more independent interpretation (more unreformed?). But my jury is still out--I think I enjoy thinking through the gray areas, even when I just go in circles.

I think I understand. I don't mean to stereotype you (but I will, of course ... because stereotyping is easier than listening;)), but I think you subscribe to the Wesleyan notion of prevenient grace (a certain type of grace that enables, but doesn't force). From your response, one could say, "oh, you're really reformed, but you just want to make sure that man's responsibility is included in it all." I don't think that's the case for you, though, is it? You see God's grace as "resistable" on one level. As one who is reformed (because, for various other reasons, I subscribe to irresistable grace), I like to avoid the TULIP, because I think that you're right - our responsibility is totally neglected in the acronym. I think from your response that you would subscribe to the notion of man's "depravity," but not to a "total depravity."

I have a question for you, though regarding the verse in Colossians (2:13, ESV): "And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses." If you think the question that follows is unfair (e.g. prooftexting), then call me on it. My question is this: if a person is "dead" in their sins, how do they make a response? What I guess I'm getting at is, how would you define your model of "prevenient grace" in light of the fact that we are "dead" in our trespasses?

Having given this question, I would like to affirm your implicit challenge to the reformed people. I believe that man's responsibility must be highlighted in a presentation of the gospel (either a theological discussion, or an invitation to come to faith, or an exhortation to persevere). I'd also like to affirm the biblical notion of God the groom wooing his bride. For me, however, I would say that the God-groom's wooing power is stronger than my own (just ask Naomi:)).

Glad to see you two got back safely!

I think the verse you've pointed out reaffirms the fact that God's act of salvation redeems us, not our response to him, but I don't really see it as conflicting with my understanding. I think God dispenses his salvation as He chooses and He's not bound to save anyone, even those who might worship and obey him. But even though He is not bound by any metaphysical law, He decided to make a covenant with the people that he will povide a means of salvation that will be available to all, but only given to those that trust/rely on/place faith in/respond to/etc. this means of redemption from God (Christ). So I see there being two acts of grace--God's enabling us to respond in faith to Him, and His actual redemption of a person from damnation. The first act is universal, making salvation possible and available to all, but the second is conditional and dependent on our response to Him. Because it would be impossible for us to respond to God in our sinful state without His initial act of grace, we cannot claim any power in our own salvation and even in the second instance of grace, God's salvation is a gift only given to the faithful by God's own perogative to honor his convenant. Still, even though our response to God has no power to save usapart from God's redeeming action, because God chooses to honor his convenant, we bare the responsibility for our own death when we are empowered to rely on His redemption and reject his offer. Both the first and second variations of grace that I have described could be called "making us alive" as in the verse, but since the passage is aimed at Christians, I think it refers generally to the combined work of both acts of grace. On a side note, I don't know what proof texting is.

I'm going to look at your response more thoroughly later, but for now I'll answer the proof-texting question ... proof-texting is taking a verse to prove your own point, but ignoring the context. It's sort of like taking a verse as a trump card while ignoring verses that might contradict your point. It's sadly a very common technique in preaching ... in the words of Derek Zoolander, "I'd really like to continue talking about this conversation when I get back."

Where did Marshall go?