Anyway, regarding the Joseph story, Dr Brown said the following.
“They had one thing in mind (evil) and God had another thing in mind (good). If you want to claim that the text states that God ordered these events in detail and moved on the brothers to act in hate and malice, be my guest, but what it actually states is that God had different purposes to accomplish through these events.
Once again, it appears that I hold to a higher view of sovereignty that do my Calvinist friends. He does not have to decree events in order to accomplish His purposes. (emphasis mine)
In any case, if the text stated that God moved on the brothers to do evil, so be it. I would bow down to God and His Word without hesitation. It simply doesn’t state that.”
How is this a higher view of Sovereignty? If there is no decree, then logically, God is and must be acting in response to the actions of men. How is this a higher view of sovereignty?
It is no secret that Arminians and Calvinists have different ideas about the term “sovereignty”.
At the end of the day, I am reasonably sure that thinking Arminians like Dr Brown, are attempting to protect what they perceive is a slight upon the very nature of God. For them, the whole matter is about defending their own limited, and I use that word deliberately, understanding of the God of scripture.
If these Arminians could simply allow that God regenerates men prior to the act of faith, and reigns with definite plan and purpose, then just about every argument they offer against Calvinism, the free will issue etc is actually answered.
The problem lies in their presuppositions, and even though we all have them, presuppositions have to be biblical too.
One quick observation. This whole mantra of “Hundreds of verses” which refute Calvinism is exactly that. An empty mantra no better than anything a “new ager” may recite in his spirituality.
Let us bring all verses to the table and exegete them in context and see where it leads, but please Mr Arminian, test your presuppositions also by that standard of scripture, and if you do so, then the whole charge of being “man centred” would disappear, and monergism would triumph over synergism as it should.