A man is driving down the road. His car veers off of the road and crashes.
Basic Arminian position: the car stopped responding to the driver's attempts to steer it. It had a will that was free of the driver's control, and that's why it crashed. We blame the car.
Explanation 2: The driver deliberately drove the car off of the road. We blame the driver. That would be a Calvinistic answer, and probably a hyper-Calvinistic one. The car at no point became uncontrollable.
Explanation 3: The driver took his hands off of the wheel and let the car drift off of the road. We blame the driver. This would be a Calvinistic answer, and probably a moderate Calvinism. The car at no point became uncontrollable.
Explanation 4: The driver was drunk. Still the driver's fault and not the car's
Explanation 5: The driver sometimes held the wheel and sometimes let it go. Driver's fault.
Explanation 6: The driver closed his eyes or was blind. This one almost resembles a true third choice, but it still stands that the driver was in control of the vehicle, even if he didn't know what he was doing. The car had no free will.
Explanation 7: The driver intended to drive the car off of the road, and he thought he was driving it off of the road, but it really had a broken steering shaft and was going off of the road of its own accord. The car was at fault, though the driver would have done the same thing if he could have.
In every case, above, the answer still falls into one of two possible choices: either we blame the driver or we blame the car. Either the car was uncontrollable (had free will), or the driver was somehow to blame.
Explanation 8 to follow this quote:
6. Why would free will in creatures make anyone a Pantheist?
Explanation 8: The driver is bionically fused to his car and is one with the car. Therefore, the car is driving with a mind of its own
and the driver is driving it. Hence, both are to blame, because the driver and the car are both the same thing, and it is malfunctioning. This is pantheism, to say that we are god, and both are sovereign at the same time. The only way two things can both be sovereign in the same relationship at the same time is if they are both the same thing, like God the Father and God the Son. Otherwise, one is subject to the other.
I guess maybe I could say I don't think God has to relinquish sovereignty because He can do anything without being limited by His actions. If that doesn't help, I'm not going to be able to explain it.
Don't give up on me now. So far your position looks Calvinistic to me. I don't see it as a third choice. I am, honestly, just trying to nail down your perspective to see where you stand. The fundamental question is whether God has the power to turn a human will. If so, then no matter how often he turns that will, whether he's constantly steering it, or only intermittently steering it, or deliberately letting it drift and
not steering the human will, the decision is still his, and he is still in control. Free will doesn't exist unless we somehow have the ability to wrest from God the ability to turn our hearts. The existence of will is not contested, only
free will. The question is whether or not the car is going off of the road because the steering column broke and the driver is
unable to steer the car, or even if it is mostly broken. Either way, that accident happens by the will of the car being free from the driver. If the driver takes his hands off of the steering wheel and lets it drift, then that's his choice, just as much as if he grabs the steering wheel and makes it drift. It's only not his choice if he can't help what the car does. It's only then that the car operates on free will.
1. What makes you think that God "relinquishes" sovereignty in any of His decisions?
I never said that I thought that God relinquishes authority in any of his decisions. I only suggest that free will is, by its very definition, a thing that goes beyond God's sovereignty. That's what makes it free will, and not just will. I won't argue the existence or nonexistence of human will. That would be silly. Free will is the issue, here.
2. Why would giving His creatures free will be a "relinquishing" of His sovereignty?
Because otherwise it is not really free. It's like Henry Ford's famous quote, "You can have any colour as long as it's black."
3. Does sovereignty means absolute rule, not necessarily absolute control over absolutely every decision of every creature?
Sovereignty means that if God never loses the right to change your mind at any time. He is never helpless about your ultimate decision. He is never helpless in any other way, either. If you believe that he has the power to change your heart toward salvation at any time, then you are a Calvinist. We could argue what kind of Calvinist, but that's another matter.
4. Does any human sovereign make absolute control of his subjects the criterion for sovereignty?
Somewhat a false argument, because no human is both omnipotent and omniscient. However, any human king that loses control over his people ceases to be a king. If he wants them to build a road and they build a park, instead, then he has no sovereignty, at least in that circumstance and at that time.
5. Why would an exercise of free will automatically translate into "making us God"?
It wouldn't. You took me out of context. If we have free will and God has sovereignty at the same time and in the same relationship, then both are acting as the same being, which makes us God. It's the only third option to the question of free will versus predestination. It's either ultimately up to us, or it's ultimately up to God, or the two are synonymous because we are God.
Unless you can establish from Scripture that God planned to make every decision for every creature in every situation, you have no case.
Funny to talk about fallacious arguments, and then to wage a battle against a straw man. I hadn't even made a case when you posted that. All I was doing was asking for clarification. Actually, I still haven't made a case in this thread. Look, why don't you go have a good night's sleep and come back when you can respond to things I've actually said in this thread and not things you imagine I'm leading up to, okay?