I recently decided to re-read A.W. Pink's The Sovereignty of God.  It is one of my favorite books that address the essential topic fundamental to theism in general and Reformed theology in particular.  It challenged me to ponder my presupposition and to think through my theology in order to determine if my conclusions were consistent with my ultimate starting point, i.e., the sovereignty of God.  Have you ever stopped to consider what God's sovereignty actually means?  Have you ever given consideration to the phrase and reflected upon all that which the former entails?  For many Christians, the answer would be a resounding, NO, or so their theology would lead one to believe.  I think it is safe to argue that no Christian would outright deny that God is sovereign, yet many deny the logical outworking of His sovereignty in the salvific process.  But what exactly does the phrase the sovereignty of God mean?  A.W. Pink explains:

"The Sovereignty of God.  What do we mean by this expression?  We mean the supremacy of God, the kingship of God the godhood of God.  To say that God is sovereign is to declare that God is God.  To say that God is sovereign is to declare the He is most High, doing according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, so that none can stay His hand or say unto Him what doest thou? (Dan. 4:35).  To say that God is sovereign is to declare that He is the Almighty, the Possessor of all power in heaven and earth, so that none can defeat His counsels, thwart His purpose, or resist His will (Ps. 115:3).  To say that God is sovereign is to declare that He is ?The Governor among the nations' (Ps. 22:28), setting up kingdoms, overthrowing empires, and determining the course of dynasties as pleaseth Him best. To say that God is sovereign is to declare that He is the ?Only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords' (1 Tim. 6:15).  Such is the God of the Bible."

            Yet, Arminians claim God grants man the opportunity to exercise his free will in order to determine his own destiny.  That is, God does not predestine certain individuals to eternal life according to the pleasure of His own will, but rather, God allows each man to become the final arbiter in his eternal destiny.  All of this is supposedly accomplished while God somehow maintains sovereignty of His creation.  The problem with that line of reasoning is that it repudiates the notion of sovereignty.  No matter how vociferously the Arminian might protest that God remains sovereign, it is not consistent with the statement.  If God is not in complete control over every facet of His creation (the decisions of humans included) God is not sovereign.  Powerful, He might still be, but the Arminian line of reasoning necessitates the denial of the Biblical definition of God's sovereignty.  The Bible is not concerned with humanistic objections that might be raised in opposition to this doctrine.  Rather, it unabashedly declares the Lord to be the Possessor of all power in heaven and earth so that none can defeat His will (Ps 115:3).  The Arminian tells us that God wants all of mankind to be saved, but yet, God is either unwilling or unable to save all of mankind.  This is in contradistinction to the former verse.  Imagine, a God who pleads with His creation to love Him and to choose Him, but yet, His will is subjugated to the desire and emotions of His own creation.  That is truly a sad predicament.  The one thing I can claim for certain is that whatever that might be - that is not the mark of a sovereign God.

            The second concern with the attempt to limit God's sovereignty over His creatures while maintaining His sovereignty (sounds absurd doesn't it?) is that it contradicts the very nature of God.  There are some things that God cannot do; He cannot act contrary to His nature.  To wit, God cannot sin, God cannot make an equal, God cannot make himself disappear, etc.  So, when the Arminian propounds that God grants man the ability to decide for himself whom he will choose apart from any divine intervention, he is essentially arguing that God is deliberately limiting Himself (His sovereignty) in this respect.  Since God does not have dominion over the final decision of the sinner, He is subject to man's will and final decision.  When viewed from this perspective, it demonstrates the inconsistency of the Arminian position.  It is an irrational improbability to think that God in any sense could limit His sovereignty by allowing His creation to have the ultimate decision.  Again, this sort of rhetoric is antithetical to Scriptures and removes power from God, which is a contradiction in terms.  Just as God cannot make a circle square and still maintain it is a circle, He cannot abrogate His power and still maintain He is omnipotent.  There is a reason the Bible claims that God is sovereign and that He never changes - because He is the mighty Fortress, the Rock of ages, the Alpha and Omega, the One complete and absolute Being that can never stop being sovereign, no matter how much we humans might object to the inevitable consequences of His sovereignty.  He remains supreme over His creation and nothing can or ever will change that.  God remains consistent with His own attributes, and to argue (implicitly or explicitly) that God gives man the final choice is to deny God's attributes. 

            And that is just one example of what's wrong with freewill theism.