Can God be sovereign while men have free will?

[Winman]

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.

Tempting means to appeal to one's desires. Satan did tempt Jesus, because he was very hungry. He did want food. God had not commanded Jesus to turn those stones to bread, Jesus would have been acting independently of God's will if he turned the stones to bread. He would have been obeying Satan.

Jesus had his own will. In the garden he said it was not his will to go to the cross. As a man he did not look forward to his crucifixion.

Matt 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

I find this to be one of the most incredible verses in all of scripture. Jesus was not looking forward to his crucifixion. He actually asked if there were some way it could be avoided. Jesus had his own independent free will. But he submitted to his Father's will.

But again, temptation appeals to our natural desires.

James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

I may be a little different here, but I believe Adam and Eve were made flesh, and with that flesh came desires and lust. They were good, they were sinless and pure, but they had fleshly desires. And this is what Satan appealed to.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil appealed to Eve's flesh. The fruit was beautiful to look at and appeared delicious and nutricious. It appealed to her fleshly desires in that she thought it would make her wise.

I do not see a fall in the garden. Man was created flesh, he was never equal to God. He was good, he was sinless, but his flesh was weak. Man had the ability to sin or else he could not have done so.

I see this weakness of the flesh all through the scriptures.

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Matt 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Rom 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

I do believe that once a person gives in to the flesh and sins, that it becomes easier to sin the next time.

This is why our sinful bodies must be changed. Our new bodies will not have sinful desires.

 

[webdog]

No that's not true.

How can it be not true? It's exactly what Scripture states..Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Sin and temptation are two different things

I agree.

Christ does not desire sin. Satan tempted Jesus with food (food is not a sin and he was hungry)

So Jesus didn't desire the food Satan tempted Him with? If He didn't, He wasn't tempted. That goes against Scripture.

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.

Agreed.

Jesus did not desire to do the method or what was promoted as the means of obtaining those nonsinful items.

...then He wasn't tempted?!?

He instead relied on a method which was obedience to the father.

Agreed...but that is not the issue, the issue is if He was tempted in every way we are, and if He suffered through the temptation. Scripture says yes to both.

So he did not suffer any less because he did not desire to accomplish the procedure satan layed out.

This is heresy since it goes squarely against what Scripture says.

I find it odd that you concede to the point that God cannot die, yet Christ did...but can so adamantly maintain God cannot sin, yet Christ was tempted to sin.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How can it be not true? It's exactly what Scripture states..Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted

I never said he wasn't tempted by something he desired. I was disagreeing with your supposition that Jesus desired sin. He did not. He desired food, validation, and all those things he created to begin with. Not one of those things are sinful. What was sinful was the method of obtaining those things. I'm basing my argument on your stated premise. You seem to be changing your premise. You stated that God cannot do anything he wants because he cannot sin. I stated your supposition is off because this is an intrinsic impossibility. You derived (and I don't know how) that I somehow am saying Jesus wasn't tempted. I've stated that being tempted is different than desireing sin. My initial statemtent was

To desire to sin is not with in his nature

Then you replied

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.

indicating that Jesus desired to sin. To that I said it was not true.

I agree.

I'm glad you do because that is the point of what I was saying to begin with.

So Jesus didn't desire the food Satan tempted Him with? If He didn't, He wasn't tempted. That goes against Scripture.

Of course Jesus desired food. But food doesn't equate to sin. I said Jesus did not desire sin. However, he could desire food. Jesus did not want to disobey God and tell the rock to turn into bread. Jesus sufficiency was in God.

...then He wasn't tempted?!?

Of course he was tempted to obtain a good thing by an evil means. Its the means that is the sin. Jesus did not desire to do the means but did desire the object for his desire.

This is heresy since it goes squarely against what Scripture says.

This is not Heresy. Jesus was tempted by the things he desired which was the food. Jesus didn't desire the means that satan wanted him to use to obtain that food. There is a distinction you miss here. What is more important the food (Adam would say yes) or obedience to God (Jesus would say yes). Was Jesus any less tempted than Adam? No. But thats not saying that the desire to sin tempted Jesus but food was being used to tempt Jesus to sin. I think its this distinction you miss.
BTW you claim heretic very easily even before you know what it is someone is saying.

 

[webdog]

TS, I didn't claim you were a heretic...I claimed it was heresy to say he didn't suffer any less because he didn't desire to do what satan said. Scripture states He did suffer, as He did desire what satan offered.

I also never claimed He desired to sin...He desired what satan offered which taking it would have been sin.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

TS, I didn't claim you were a heretic...I claimed it was heresy to say he didn't suffer any less because he didn't desire to do what satan said. Scripture states He did suffer.

I also never claimed He desired to sin...He desired what satan offered which taking it would have been sin.

Well, we do agree there.

 

[Winman]

If God cannot be sovereign if man has free will, then how could Jesus have a different will than his Father?

Matt 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

This is an astouding verse, but it shows Jesus had his own free and independent will of his Father. Jesus did not desire to go to the cross, yet submitted to his Father's will.

Nevertheless, this shows man can have free will and yet God still be sovereign.

 

[DHK]

So Jesus didn't desire the food Satan tempted Him with? If He didn't, He wasn't tempted. That goes against Scripture.

Why would it go against Scripture. Perhaps it only goes against your perception or definition of the meaning of "temptation." For example, you can "tempt" me with a beer, but I will never succumb since I don't drink. Even if I was in the desert and thirsty I believe I could maintain my convictions, just as those who suffer in both Islamic and Communist lands maintain their convictions and never deny Christ. The temptation is there but their conviction is stronger than the temptation.
Would Jesus, as hungry as he was, take food from the devil? Never! His conviction about doing wrong was far greater than the temptation.

I could give you countless of examples how this is true in everyday practical life. Are we tempted on the computer to go to pornographic sites. We are bombarded with advertisements, especially in spam and junk mail. My conviction is stronger than the temptation to do so. I can faithfully say that I have never been to a pornographic site. The conviction to do right is stronger than the temptation to do wrong.

 

[webdog]

Why would it go against Scripture. Perhaps it only goes against your perception or definition of the meaning of "temptation." For example, you can "tempt" me with a beer, but I will never succumb since I don't drink. Even if I was in the desert and thirsty I believe I could maintain my convictions, just as those who suffer in both Islamic and Communist lands maintain their convictions and never deny Christ. The temptation is there but their conviction is stronger than the temptation.
Would Jesus, as hungry as he was, take food from the devil? Never! His conviction about doing wrong was far greater than the temptation.

I could give you countless of examples how this is true in everyday practical life. Are we tempted on the computer to go to pornographic sites. We are bombarded with advertisements, especially in spam and junk mail. My conviction is stronger than the temptation to do so. I can faithfully say that I have never been to a pornographic site. The conviction to do right is stronger than the temptation to do wrong.

You have completely redefined what temptation means...that is NOT what temptation is.

 

[Winman]

You have completely redefined what temptation means...that is NOT what temptation is.

Webdog, I am more in agreement with DHK here. Our bodies by nature have desires. Men enjoy looking at women as DHK said. But our convictions hopefully restrain us.

When Eve was tempted, it was her natural fleshly desires that Satan appealed to.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Whatever this fruit was, it was tempting. It was beautiful to look at, and appeared both delicious and nourishing. It also carried the temptation to be wise. This appealed to her flesh. We have natural desires built in, we cannot escape these desires. But hopefully we can restrain ourselves through conviction.

 

[webdog]

Webdog, I am more in agreement with DHK here. Our bodies by nature have desires. Men enjoy looking at women as DHK said. But our convictions hopefully restrain us.

When Eve was tempted, it was her natural fleshly desires that Satan appealed to.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Whatever this fruit was, it was tempting. It was beautiful to look at, and appeared both delicious and nourishing. It also carried the temptation to be wise. This appealed to her flesh. We have natural desires built in, we cannot escape these desires. But hopefully we can restrain ourselves through conviction.

I think on this subject, DHK, yourself and I are playing 3 way rock, paper and scissors I know we disagree on man's sin nature, and I don't think we will come to the conclusion needed on the topic of temptation.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I was at one point going to say that (before our regeneration) we would be just as tempted at the mode of the sin as the object of desire. I left it out because I haven't thought through it entirely. However, what I am saying is that in Jesus temptation you and I would have been just as tempted to speak to the rock as to obtain food, or jump from the temple mount to the rocks below, or bow down to satan as we would be tempted by the objects of our desires. I think in this respect we are different from our Lord. But like I said I haven't filled it out yet.

 

[Cypress]

Hello, as you all can see this is my first post. As to Skans op, I would like to further ask why many feel that a Sovereign God is not perfectly free to limit His sovereignty regarding mans free will in order to obtain a relationship based on love, freely given with men who chose His grace and mercy. Choosing Christ gives no glory to men or serves mans pride. Quite the opposite is true!

 

[pinoybaptist]

Hello, as you all can see this is my first post. As to Skans op, I would like to further ask why many feel that a Sovereign God is not perfectly free to limit His sovereignty regarding mans free will in order to obtain a relationship based on love, freely given with men who chose His grace and mercy. Choosing Christ gives no glory to men or serves mans pride. Quite the opposite is true!

welcome to the BB, and to the melee.:laugh:

As to your question, because there is no Scripture that says God is willing to limit His Sovereignty regarding man's free will in order to obtain a relationship based on love, freely given with men who chose His grace and mercy.

On the other hand, there is at least one Scripture where God Himself says His glory will he not give to another, or something like that.

 

[Skandelon]

welcome to the BB, and to the melee.:laugh:

As to your question, because there is no Scripture that says God is willing to limit His Sovereignty regarding man's free will in order to obtain a relationship based on love, freely given with men who chose His grace and mercy.

On the other hand, there is at least one Scripture where God Himself says His glory will he not give to another, or something like that.

Yes, welcome friend.

I don't think its "limiting" God's sovereignty in order to give men free choice. It would only be limiting if it was beyond his control and its not. He has the ability to control anything and everything He chooses, just because He chooses to allow human's free agency doesn't mean He has limited anything in His own nature.

Pinoy, why do you assume God's Glory would be any more with an "irresistible" gift versus one that is not? In fact, I think the gift is much more valued by those who don't view the giver as being someone who is disingenuous in his call to most of humanity.

 

[Cypress]

That is how I understood your position to be,Skan. Was really looking to see what objections others have to God choosing to limit His sovereignty regarding freewill. Extra-scriptural (outside of) reasoning is okay with me as long as it's not against scripture. Thanks for the welcomes!

 

[pinoybaptist]

Yes, welcome friend.
...........Pinoy, why do you assume God's Glory would be any more with an "irresistible" gift versus one that is not? ......

I did not say that God's glory will be any more with an "irresistible" gift, skan.
That is your assumption about what I believe.
God's glory has always been His glory, with or without any creation, and there is none among creation who can take that away from Him, whether they "resist" His calling, or not.
What I am against is when someone says that unregenerate man is able, on his own, to choose or reject God.
(addendum)
This assumption robs God of His glory and elevates man to His level, not that it actually takes away from the glory of God because like I said, His glory will always be His, and the reason it elevates man to His glory is because it tells God to His face that he, man, is able to change the color of His skin, if the Ethiopian can't, and to remove his spots, if the leopard can't, even if he is accustomed to sin.
That is simply false.
Unregenerate man has only one nature, and that is, the Adamic nature, and I ask you, or our newcomer friend here, to show where the Bible, (which, by the way, if we are indeed Christians, is the only authoritative source acceptable on an "okay, that's it" basis) says that unregenerate man has two natures.
And that is the dead in trespasses and sin nature, the nature-al man that Paul speaks about.
This natural man is simply unspiritual and ignorant of the things of God and the way of Christ.
The one who has the ability to choose or reject to obey God is the regenerate man of Romans 7, and if you read the entire Old Testament, God's call to obedience is always directed to the people He created from the loins of one man, never to the tribes surrounding Israel which are a picture of the wicked and unregenerate.

Furthermore, as far as I am concerned, this whole Arminianism vs Calvinism/Doctrine of Grace discussion is pointless because every so often words are stated that seem to imply, from both sides, that the work of salvation and redemption is unfinished, and that is because both sides do not grasp, at the least, or at the most, refuse to grasp, that the Bible speaks of an eternal salvation as well as of a timely salvation and this discussion about whether man is able to resist or not then falls into the trap of dishonoring the finished work of Christ and Christ Himself since the salvation man is supposed to resist or not is always that of eternal salvation in these discussions.

 

[pinoybaptist]

That is how I understood your position to be,Skan. Was really looking to see what objections others have to God choosing to limit His sovereignty regarding freewill. Extra-scriptural (outside of) reasoning is okay with me as long as it's not against scripture. Thanks for the welcomes!

I should think that among Christians reasoning must always proceed from Scripture and stay within the bounds of Scripture.

 

[Winman]

I should think that among Christians reasoning must always proceed from Scripture and stay within the bounds of Scripture.

I don't see how anybody could deny that God gives man free will. God hates sin, and yet the world is full of sin. Obviously God is allowing men to act independently of his will. To say otherwise is to make God responsible for sin.

And Jesus himself showed men could disobey God's will.

Matt 21:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Jesus said only those who do the will of the Father shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, so obviously all who perish are not doing the will of our Father. God is not striking every unbeliever dead on the spot, so obviously he is allowing men to do their own will.

And once again, God said Cain could have given an acceptable sacrifice and be accepted, so unregenerate man is not utterly enslaved to sin and can choose to do either good or bad.

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

You would have to throw away at least half the scriptures to believe Calvinism. There are multitudes of scripture where God is telling men to turn from sin. This would be absolutely unreasonable if man was enslaved to sin. God never speaks to man as though he did not have the ability to turn from sin, on the contrary, God says men can turn from sin and holds them accountable if they do not.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

Verse 20 shows that Adam's sin is not placed on us, all men are accountable for their own sins they commit. Verse 21 shows that wicked men have the ability and can turn from sin. Verse 22 shows that if men turn from evil and trust in God that their sins will be forgiven.

I could list literally dozens of scriptures where God tells men to turn from evil. Man is not utterly enslaved to sin as Calvinism teaches.

 

[Skandelon]

What I am against is when someone says that unregenerate man is able, on his own, to choose or reject God.

Oh good, so you are not talking about what I or most non-Calvinistic Baptists believe? For a second there I thought you were taking a shot at us, but apparently you are attacking those people who think man is able to be saved on his own. Who are these people? We need to make sure we call them out for their false teaching!

 

[pinoybaptist]

Oh good, so you are not talking about what I or most non-Calvinistic Baptists believe? For a second there I thought you were taking a shot at us, but apparently you are attacking those people who think man is able to be saved on his own. Who are these people? We need to make sure we call them out for their false teaching!

I'm sorry you're taking my resistance to your doctrine personally, Skan, I wish you didn't.
But please note the word "unregenerate".
It has been argued repeatedly that the unregenerate is dead in sin, and it has been counter-argued just as repeatedly that he is not really dead as in lifeless, and I don't know how something or someone described by Scripture itself to be dead in sin and trespasses can really be not dead but have some life in them.
A light bulb unplugged from the source of power is absolutely lightless, and a leaf separated from a tree which is its life giving source is dead and will soon wither, and the tree uprooted from the ground from which it gets its sustenance is nothing more than a dead trunk.
Lazarus was as dead as dead can be in that cave, and there was no way he could will himself out of it, nor scream for help, nor stop his body from rotting, and it took the voice of the Son of God calling his name specifically to bring him back to life.
Your buddy pointed out that the rich man was able to talk and to worry about his brothers in this life and points to that as proof that dead is not really dead, but that was his soul, and his body is still dead, and furthermore, his soul is dead because while it sees God and is able to reason with God that soul is still separate from the source of life who is God, while Abraham is in union with the source of life and is therefore a living soul, and that's what it is all about, this question of dead or alive: is the unregenerate in union with the source of life ?
And even in the same example which your buddy pointed to, the dead rich man is unable to come to terms with his need to repent and ask his God for mercy, like Judas who walked with Christ yet prevented by his pride to go to the One he has wronged and beg for forgiveness, like Jerusalem whom Christ declared "ye would not".
But to my mind, these discussions are moot and academic when we come to terms with the fact that Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus came to do what He was sent by God to do, and He did it, too, that is, redeem His people, and any discussion on whether one is able of His own, or by God's power, to come to Christ, presupposes that the task is not done, or is incomplete.