Can God be sovereign while men have free will?

[Skandelon]

I've heard numerous "Calvinists" here argue that those of us who believe men do have a free choice in salvation undermine the sovereignty of God. However, many of these same people believe that Adam and Eve had a free choice while in the Garden.

If mankind having a free choice in salvation undermines God's sovereignty, then why doesn't Adam and Eve's free choice likewise undermine his sovereignty?

In fact, if we have the ability as believers to freely choose between one option or another, how does that not also undermine God's sovereignty?

In other words, to acknowledge free choice of man in any circumstance while maintaining that God is Sovereign concedes the point that it IS possible for man to have a free choice in relation to his salvation while God maintains his sovereignty. So, why do some Calvinists insist we are undermining God's sovereignty in this way? Isn't that inconsistent?

 

[Mr. E]

I've heard numerous "Calvinists" here argue that those of us who believe men do have a free choice in salvation undermine the sovereignty of God. However, many of these same people believe that Adam and Eve had a free choice while in the Garden.

If mankind having a free choice in salvation undermines God's sovereignty, then why doesn't Adam and Eve's free choice likewise undermine his sovereignty?

In fact, if we have the ability as believers to freely choose between one option or another, how does that not also undermine God's sovereignty?

In other words, to acknowledge free choice of man in any circumstance while maintaining that God is Sovereign concedes the point that it IS possible for man to have a free choice in relation to his salvation while God maintains his sovereignty. So, why do some Calvinists insist we are undermining God's sovereignty in this way? Isn't that inconsistent?

Does man have the free will to deny God's sovereignty? If one can deny it, then God's sovereignty becomes relative and rests in one's perspective. If that's the case, then one could make the claim that God is not sovereign at all, and is dependent upon His creation for acceptance. Isn't the notion that the "sovereign" creator of all things is dependent on His creation for acceptance inconsistent, as well?

 

[Allan]

I've heard numerous "Calvinists" here argue that those of us who believe men do have a free choice in salvation undermine the sovereignty of God. However, many of these same people believe that Adam and Eve had a free choice while in the Garden.

If mankind having a free choice in salvation undermines God's sovereignty, then why doesn't Adam and Eve's free choice likewise undermine his sovereignty?

In fact, if we have the ability as believers to freely choose between one option or another, how does that not also undermine God's sovereignty?

In other words, to acknowledge free choice of man in any circumstance while maintaining that God is Sovereign concedes the point that it IS possible for man to have a free choice in relation to his salvation while God maintains his sovereignty. So, why do some Calvinists insist we are undermining God's sovereignty in this way? Isn't that inconsistent?

But according to Calvinism they DO believe that man has the freedom to choose (though the argument is framed -choosing according to once nature)
In fact, they agree God can not and will not save any man without mans permission. Thus even according to Calvinism/Reformed theology salvation is dependant upon mans choice because no man will be saved apart from it. So no matter how one wishes to soften up man part in the process of salvation the fact remains - there is a cooporation between man and God in the process of salvation.

 

[AresMan]

But according to Calvinism they DO believe that man has the freedom to choose (though the argument is framed -choosing according to once nature)
In fact, they agree God can not and will not save any man without mans permission. Thus even according to Calvinism/Reformed theology salvation is dependant upon mans choice because no man will be saved apart from it. So no matter how one wishes to soften up man part in the process of salvation the fact remains - there is a cooporation between man and God in the process of salvation.

The question is whether the "cooperation" of God and man is synergistic or monergistic. Yes, man "does something" in the "process" of salvation. Is man's "contribution" something that God Himself has to depend upon as an independent aspect and that He cannot get His way in saving someone without an autonomous aid from man in completing the pie, or is man's part something that boils down to a result of God's effectual working to guarantee that one whom God desires to be saved will respond appropriately?

 

[Allan]

The question is whether the "cooperation" of God and man is synergistic or monergistic. Yes, man "does something" in the "process" of salvation. Is man's "contribution" something that God Himself has to depend upon as an independent aspect and that He cannot get His way in saving someone without an autonomous aid from man in completing the pie, ..snip..

You own post shows exactly my point.

If God can not save man without man choosing to believe, does this not constitute an independant aspect (action) to which God can not skip or bypass to save someone? Is not man's choice an autononous aide (choosing to believe) in order for God to 'complete the pie' since it can not be done without it?

..snip..or is man's part something that boils down to a result of God's effectual working to guarantee that one whom God desires to be saved will respond appropriately?

And yet it still remains the truth - that in order for God to save man, that person must first choose to believe that God might save him for without it nothing can be done. No matter how much you wish to sofen it up (as I said) the truth still still remains unchanged - man must choose to believe so that God might save him. This by all accounts is synergism because mans salvation is still dependant upon his personal choice to believe even with God doing everything else.

 

[saturneptune]

I've heard numerous "Calvinists" here argue that those of us who believe men do have a free choice in salvation undermine the sovereignty of God. However, many of these same people believe that Adam and Eve had a free choice while in the Garden.

If mankind having a free choice in salvation undermines God's sovereignty, then why doesn't Adam and Eve's free choice likewise undermine his sovereignty?

In fact, if we have the ability as believers to freely choose between one option or another, how does that not also undermine God's sovereignty?

In other words, to acknowledge free choice of man in any circumstance while maintaining that God is Sovereign concedes the point that it IS possible for man to have a free choice in relation to his salvation while God maintains his sovereignty. So, why do some Calvinists insist we are undermining God's sovereignty in this way? Isn't that inconsistent?

Wow, this is a record. The first two words of your title negate anything you might have said in the post. Did you really say "Can God" in the form of a question? Lets see. Wait, its coming to me. Yes, God can do anything He wants. He is God, the Creator. Now, whether He did or not is another question.

Maybe you should compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. Tell me, at the point Adam/and or Eve were being tempted, were they already in a fallen state? Was the free will they were exercising a matter of deciding about salvation? Were not they exercising free will in relation to the first sin? Do you not to this day have the free will to sin or not, every day?

So tell us, what does the story of Adam and Eve have to do with man in a fallen state having the ability to choose salvation?

 

[Winman]

Maybe you should compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. Tell me, at the point Adam/and or Eve were being tempted, were they already in a fallen state? Was the free will they were exercising a matter of deciding about salvation? Were not they exercising free will in relation to the first sin? Do you not to this day have the free will to sin or not, every day?

So tell us, what does the story of Adam and Eve have to do with man in a fallen state having the ability to choose salvation?

I would say the choice Adam and Eve made was deciding salvation. They were choosing whether to spiritually live or die. What did God tell them would happen if they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

They knew if they ate of this tree that they would die. So of course they were choosing salvation here.

Isn't that the same choice we make when we accept Christ or refuse him?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Allan is on target in representing the Calvinist position.

I know it may be frustrating to you skand, but the creeds do really aid in giving clarification on what "calvinists" believe on these things:

Chapter 9: Of Free Will
1._____ God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
( Matthew 17:12; James 1:14; Deuteronomy 30:19 )
2._____ Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it.
( Ecclesiastes 7:29; Genesis 3:6 )

3._____ Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
( Romans 5:6; Romans 8:7; Ephesians 2:1, 5; Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44 )

4._____ When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
( Colossians 1:13; John 8:36; Philippians 2:13; Romans 7:15, 18, 19, 21, 23 )

5._____ This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only.
( Ephesians 4:13 )

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Let me add, that I think the 1689 statement on man being "unstable, that he might fall from it" is poor wording in my opinion. The Westminster treats it much better using the term mutable...or able to change.

In other words, Adam was not created immutable in regards to his will, but mutable, having the ability to change, that the fall might occur.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

..................yes

 

[Johnv]

Can God be sovereign while men have free will?

Yes. Whether men have full free will, limited free will, or no free will, God is sovereign. God's sovereignty is not contingent upon how much or how little free will a person has.

 

[Skandelon]

But according to Calvinism they DO believe that man has the freedom to choose (though the argument is framed -choosing according to once nature)

Yes, I'm a aware of this approach, but that is not "free will." (when I say free I mean "contra-causal freedom...the ability to do otherwise). "Free" in the sense of one merely acting according to ones nature/desire means nothing if the nature/desires are divinely ordained to be what they are and thus could not be otherwise. Mere animal instinct meets the the requirement of "choosing according to ones nature," and certainly that could not be considered "free."

In fact, they agree God can not and will not save any man without mans permission. Thus even according to Calvinism/Reformed theology salvation is dependant upon mans choice because no man will be saved apart from it. So no matter how one wishes to soften up man part in the process of salvation the fact remains - there is a cooporation between man and God in the process of salvation.

True.
But for some reason Calvinists insists that their form of "cooperation" is necessary to maintain God's sovereignty.

 

[Skandelon]

Allan is on target in representing the Calvinist position.

I know it may be frustrating to you skand, but the creeds do really aid in giving clarification on what "calvinists" believe on these things:

I know what Calvinists believe on these things RB, below is post of mine from back in 2004 addressing this very subject. Because I don't define every nuace of your dogma in every one of my posts doesn't mean I don't understand or represent it correctly. I made the mistake of assuming that you would understand what I mean when we say "free will." (contra-causal freedom):

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=970232&postcount=19
Here is what I wrote on the subject in 2004:

That is the position you seem to be defending, called compatiblism. I believe in contra-casual freedom..[SIZE=-1]."A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)."

It is my understanding that compatiblists (Calvinists) attempt to maintain that men are free in the since that they are "doing what they desire." It is the indeterminists contention that this is an insufficient explaination to maintain true freedom considering that compatibilists believe that even the desires and thoughts of men are decreed by God.

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]This is an important circularity in the claim by Calvinists that humans can be considered genuinely free so long as their actions are in accordance with their desires. Given your belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire (the very thing that compatibilists claim allows human choices to be considered free) must itself also be decreed. But if so, then [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]there is nothing outside of or beyond God's decree on which human freedom might be based. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]really [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]God's [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]desire in the matter (i.e., God's desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the compatibilist scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God's decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices.

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist's argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When the compatibilist defines freedom in terms of [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]desire[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] (i.e., doing what one [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]wants[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] to do), this formulation initially appears plausible only because it tends to (subtly) evoke a sense of [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]independence[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] or [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]ownership [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]on the part of the human agent for his choices. That is, even though the compatibilist insists that God decisively conditions an agent's environment so as to guarantee the outcome of the agent's choices, we can nonetheless envision God's action in doing so as being compatible with human freedom so long as the human agent in question has the opportunity to interact with his conditioned environment as an independent agent, possessing his own desires and thus owning his choices in relation to that environment. But once we recognize (as we must within the larger deterministic framework encompassing compatibilism) that those very desires of the agent are equally part of the environment that God causally determines, then the line between environment and agent becomes blurred if not completely lost. The human agent no longer can be seen as owning his own choices, for the desires determining those choices are in no significant sense independent of God's decree. For this reason, human desire within the compatibilist framework forms an insufficient basis on which to establish the integrity of human freedom (and from this the legitimacy of human culpability for sin). [/SIZE]

 

[Skandelon]

You own post shows exactly my point.

If God can not save man without man choosing to believe, does this not constitute an independant aspect (action) to which God can not skip or bypass to save someone? Is not man's choice an autononous aide (choosing to believe) in order for God to 'complete the pie' since it can not be done without it?


And yet it still remains the truth - that in order for God to save man, that person must first choose to believe that God might save him for without it nothing can be done. No matter how much you wish to sofen it up (as I said) the truth still still remains unchanged - man must choose to believe so that God might save him. This by all accounts is synergism because mans salvation is still dependant upon his personal choice to believe even with God doing everything else.

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?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I know what Calvinists believe on these things RB, below is post of mine from back in 2004 addressing this very subject. Because I don't define every nuace of your dogma in every one of my posts doesn't mean I don't understand or represent it correctly. I made the mistake of assuming that you would understand what I mean when we say "free will." (contra-causal freedom):

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=970232&postcount=19
Here is what I wrote on the subject in 2004:

It's too much theology for me skand. The Scriptures are just not that difficult when it comes to these matters. In other words, I tend to shy away from discussions like this, or the lapsarian type discussions, et. I am not saying that for some people they are not enjoyable conversations, I just have not found them profitable.

 

[webdog]

Wow, this is a record. The first two words of your title negate anything you might have said in the post. Did you really say "Can God" in the form of a question? Lets see. Wait, its coming to me. Yes, God can do anything He wants. He is God, the Creator. Now, whether He did or not is another question.

Maybe you should compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. Tell me, at the point Adam/and or Eve were being tempted, were they already in a fallen state? Was the free will they were exercising a matter of deciding about salvation? Were not they exercising free will in relation to the first sin? Do you not to this day have the free will to sin or not, every day?

So tell us, what does the story of Adam and Eve have to do with man in a fallen state having the ability to choose salvation?

God cannot sin...hence God cannot do "anything He wants".

 

[Jim1999]

Everything in order and an order for everything. Trying to compare God's absolute sovereignty with man's freedom of choice is a relative matter. Consider man's so-called free will as a relative matter under God's absolute sovereignty, or what we term theologically as God's permissive will. Calvinists don't deny man's relative freedom of choice. We simply designate what God has permitted.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Thinkingstuff]

God cannot sin...hence God cannot do "anything He wants".

That assumes he wants to sin. Which is incompatable with the nature of God. He does indeed not want to sin therefore he does as he wills.

 

[webdog]

That assumes he wants to sin. Which is incompatable with the nature of God. He does indeed not want to sin therefore he does as he wills.

Agreed. He doesn't want to go against His own nature...something He cannot do

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Agreed. He doesn't want to go against His own nature...something He cannot do

Not really its called an intrinsic impossibility. Something that of and in of itself is an impossibility.