Do you believe Christ was truly tempted as the Bible says? It's not an intrinsic impossibility, it's a fact God cannot sin...Scripture state so.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Can God be sovereign while men have free will?
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
enough said.
Looking through all these Calvinism/Arminian/Elect/Whosoever debates I see that the problem seems to be how to rightly divide the word, thus resulting in a. failure, at best, to recognize, or refusal, at worst, l to acknowledge that when the Bible speaks of salvation, or speaks about any of its various forms or shapes in grammar, these do not necessarily always refer to eternal salvation (I have argued this here before, so I think it is a refusal to unlearn something which have been learned).
For example, when Paul writes that a woman is to be saved by childbirth, does that have anything to do with her soul and with her eternal standing before God in Christ ? When Peter cried out "save yourselves from this untoward generation", the Apostle which saw Christ with his own eyes on that cross and dead in the tomb and later risen and ascended did not really mean that was all for nothing after all and sinners are able to "save themselves", did he ?
When the Apostle Paul speaks of the gospel having power to save, this Apostle, who stood strong and agressively on the side of grace, and confronted the other Apostle to his face for fearing traditionalists, , could not have been contradicting himself on what he wrote about Christ alone as our sufficiency, could he ?
Here we have the Arminians trying to back the Calvinists into a corner painting them as soteriological scalawags who are propagating a false and heretical doctrine and there we have the Calvinists hard put at answering many questions when the issue can be settled simply by looking at Christ and to Christ and answering basic questions.
Did Christ finish His work of redemption ? Was it complete ? Did He need the help of anyone else among His creation ? Is His blood sufficient for the atonement that needed to be done ? Is the work of salvation, unto the Father, done, complete, and lacking nothing ? Is His work, both in fulfilling the law and living the law more than enough ? Or besides His having lived and fulfilled the law is it necessary for sinners to also add their own works, obedience, and righteousness ?
There can only be one of two answers.
These are (1) yes, the work of redemption and salvation of sinners is complete, nothing to be added and Christ alone hogs all the glory, or;
(2) no, Christ did not really achieve anything, and besides His work, the sinner must also add obedience, faith, repentance, and choose Him to be their Savior.
Simple as 1 + 1.
If the answer is number one, yes, then most of the mention of salvation in the New Testament, and of choice, has to mean something other than the eternal sense.
If the answer is number 2, no, then how do we reconcile that with the teaching that salvation is all of grace, and all of the Lord ?
For example, when Paul writes that a woman is to be saved by childbirth, does that have anything to do with her soul and with her eternal standing before God in Christ ? When Peter cried out "save yourselves from this untoward generation", the Apostle which saw Christ with his own eyes on that cross and dead in the tomb and later risen and ascended did not really mean that was all for nothing after all and sinners are able to "save themselves", did he ?
When the Apostle Paul speaks of the gospel having power to save, this Apostle, who stood strong and agressively on the side of grace, and confronted the other Apostle to his face for fearing traditionalists, , could not have been contradicting himself on what he wrote about Christ alone as our sufficiency, could he ?
Here we have the Arminians trying to back the Calvinists into a corner painting them as soteriological scalawags who are propagating a false and heretical doctrine and there we have the Calvinists hard put at answering many questions when the issue can be settled simply by looking at Christ and to Christ and answering basic questions.
Did Christ finish His work of redemption ? Was it complete ? Did He need the help of anyone else among His creation ? Is His blood sufficient for the atonement that needed to be done ? Is the work of salvation, unto the Father, done, complete, and lacking nothing ? Is His work, both in fulfilling the law and living the law more than enough ? Or besides His having lived and fulfilled the law is it necessary for sinners to also add their own works, obedience, and righteousness ?
There can only be one of two answers.
These are (1) yes, the work of redemption and salvation of sinners is complete, nothing to be added and Christ alone hogs all the glory, or;
(2) no, Christ did not really achieve anything, and besides His work, the sinner must also add obedience, faith, repentance, and choose Him to be their Savior.
Simple as 1 + 1.
If the answer is number one, yes, then most of the mention of salvation in the New Testament, and of choice, has to mean something other than the eternal sense.
If the answer is number 2, no, then how do we reconcile that with the teaching that salvation is all of grace, and all of the Lord ?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
How can you say that Jesus didn't achieve anything simply because He requires a response? That is an unfair and inaccurate representation of our view, and I think you know it.
Truth is, even if you believe in TULIP, you still have man's need to respond for a person to be saved. Just because God effectually regenerates the nature of man doesn't negate the fact that man still has to "add obedience, faith, repentance, and choose Him to be their Savior." And and in either system Jesus accomplished the atonement for all those who do believe.
The problem with this, is that this would doom those who believe, but save those who don't.
If believing is a work that adds to what Christ did, then all of us who say we believe on Christ are adding to his work and are therefore lost.
And all athiests who do not even believe in God or Christ would be saved, because they are not adding to his work.
==First, we are not Adam and Eve, and we are not in the same situation they were. So trying to compare us to Adam and Eve is not moving the conversation forward or making any valuable point.
Second, man does have a choice. A choice between life and death, heaven and hell, sin or life. However the Bible makes it clear that men are born dead in sin, children of wrath, enslaved to wrong (Eph 2:1-3, Jn 3:18-21, Rom 6:17-18). Man naturally does not choose the true and living God (Rom 3:9-18). Lost men are like pigs. If they have a choice to live clean in a nice house or go into the mud they will always choose the mud. Why? Because it is their nature to do so.
Third, the Bible NEVER speaks of man having free-will. The only person Scripture ascribes freewill to is God (Ps 115:3, 135:6, Is 46:10, Dan 4:35, etc). Even then we are told there are certain things God cannot do (Jms 1:13, Titus 1:2, etc). Man is enslaved to his sinful nature. Once freed of that, once saved, he is enslaved to Christ (1Cor 6:18-20, etc).
==Any choices God allows us to make must fall within certain parameters (Gal 5:16-18). God does not leave His children to do whatever they wish. After all, we are His purchased possession. He owns us.
saturneptune
New Member
That gets into the realm of the questions I have heard all my life, such as "Can God create a rock so big He cannot lift it?" or "Can God commit suicide?" It is not in His nature or will to do it, so He does not. As to the subject of this thread, yes, He can do anything He wants.
First off, because nowhere in Scripture is there anything written down where God and Jesus requires a response from anyone in order for him to redeem that person. Nowhere. Titus 3:5 plainly says: Not by works of righteousnesses which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.
Paul taught election, and this is speaking of those whom God elected unto salvation in Christ, and you are putting a requirement for eternal salvation which is nowhere to be found in Scripture.
skandelon said:
And you did not, or maybe you refuse to rightly divide the word of God and put salvation in its proper context, the eternal one in the context of God doing all the work with no pre-conditions other than His mercy (Titus 3:5, already quoted), and the timely one with pre-conditions which you mentioned and is for the spiritual benefits of those in this time world.
saturneptune
New Member
I have to agree for a change. 90% of those engaged in this debate take position A or B. There is no thinking outside the box. It reminds me of the political forum, always arguing about Democrats and Republicans, choice A or B.
No, the problem with this is that it takes away all glory, all semblance of self-righteousness, all self-worth, all honor, from any man, and puts these all squarely at the foot of the Savior, which is how it should be, if proper honor and glory is to be accorded to the one whom we all will meet in glory one day, no thanks to any of us.
And atheists are not adding to his work, because they do not believe in God, a god, any god, or Jesus at all, until they are subjected to the Spirit's power and regeneration is given to whomever is the atheist who is a son of the Living God in Christ is who may be walking the earth today.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
One thing is certain, man cannot undermine the Sovereignty of GOD no matter how hard he tries. And, repeating myself, that is a fact.
Repetition of: "The moon is made of green cheese." "The moon is made of green cheese," etc., will not make it true no matter how many times it is repeated. The same is true with your above mantra. Vain repetitions without Scriptural support are just that: vain, emptiness, or meaningless statements.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
So, you don't believe men must repent and believe in order to be saved?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
What is an intrinsic imposibility is that God sins. To desire to sin is not with in his nature. Does this lessen Christ's temptation? Is Adam's temptation any less because Adam did not initially create the desire in and of himself to sin? No in both instances. Therefore your statement that "God cannot do whatever he wants because he cannot sin" is a false premise and an intrinsic imposibility.
Going back to the OP, even Spurgeon taught that man must act independently and choose to believe.
I do not agree with everything Spurgeon says here, but he says man plays an active role in his own salvation, that man must cooperate with God.
This was from "The Soul's Awakening #3389". Further in the sermon Spurgeon exhorts unregenerate man to hear the scriptures at every opportunity possible that he might being dead hear the voice of Christ and be made alive. But as John 5:25 says, Spurgeon believed Jesus could speak to the spiritually dead, and that if the spritually dead actively listened would be made alive (which is what John 5:25 really says). This contradicts Calvinism that teaches the unregenerate have no ability to desire, hear (with comprehension), or believe the word of God. I have read quite a few of Spurgeon's sermons in the last few months, he seemed unstable in ways. At times he seemed Calvinistic in doctrine, but at many other times he preached doctrine contrary to Calvinism.
Notice Spurgeon said the "dead hear". You cannot be both dead and regenerated at the same time.
John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
Spurgeon says in this sermon that the "sinner" must hear and believe. That would be the spiritually dead hearing and believing which is what John 5:25 truly says. So at times he strays from Calvinism.
I do not agree with everything Spurgeon says here, but he says man plays an active role in his own salvation, that man must cooperate with God.
This was from "The Soul's Awakening #3389". Further in the sermon Spurgeon exhorts unregenerate man to hear the scriptures at every opportunity possible that he might being dead hear the voice of Christ and be made alive. But as John 5:25 says, Spurgeon believed Jesus could speak to the spiritually dead, and that if the spritually dead actively listened would be made alive (which is what John 5:25 really says). This contradicts Calvinism that teaches the unregenerate have no ability to desire, hear (with comprehension), or believe the word of God. I have read quite a few of Spurgeon's sermons in the last few months, he seemed unstable in ways. At times he seemed Calvinistic in doctrine, but at many other times he preached doctrine contrary to Calvinism.
Notice Spurgeon said the "dead hear". You cannot be both dead and regenerated at the same time.
John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
Spurgeon says in this sermon that the "sinner" must hear and believe. That would be the spiritually dead hearing and believing which is what John 5:25 truly says. So at times he strays from Calvinism.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, this is the point I was making.
God cannot die...yet Christ did. Scripture states Christ suffered through temptation...so if there was never a desire to do what He was being tempted of, there would have been no suffering through it.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
No that's not true. Sin and temptation are two different things. Christ does not desire sin. Satan tempted Jesus with food (food is not a sin and he was hungry). Satan offered Jesus validation (God himself validated Jesus at his baptism validation is not a sin). Satan offered Jesus the world and the powers of it (the world Jesus himself created so that isn't a sin either). What was a sin was the method of obtaining those things satan offered. Jesus did not desire to do the method or what was promoted as the means of obtaining those nonsinful items. He instead relied on a method which was obedience to the father. So he did not suffer any less because he did not desire to accomplish the procedure satan layed out.
As far as God dieing there is a mystery that cannot be fully explained. Did God stop being soveriegn over the universe when Jesus died? Was their a void of soveriegnty? No. The Father was still the father. Yet Jesus who is one with the father did die. This can only be understood in relationship to the trinity and even then poorly. So on one hand God did not die. On the other hand Jesus did die. Jesus is homoosious with the Father. So its a mystery.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Have any of the "Reformed/Calvinistic" folks addressed this point? I'd be interested to see how they deal with it.Yes, this is the point I was making.Originally Posted by Skandelon
I see the point of your argument. Are you saying that regardless of whether or not God effectually causes someone to "freely choose" Him or not, there still must be the choice and thus their is synergism?
I think that is a brilliant point. If a man chooses to follow Christ, even if done so according to the new nature that was rebirth within him (as Calvinism insists must be the case), how is that not synergistic?