Related answered questions: [Chalcedonianism is a moderate between Nestorianism and Monophysitism?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19867/is-it-proper-to-state-that-chalcedonianism-is-a-moderate-position-in-between-nes) , [What does it mean that the two natures of Christ cannot be separated?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/31552/what-does-it-mean-that-the-two-natures-of-christ-cannot-be-separated?rq=1) , and [Does the Chalcedonian definition mean Christ has two minds? ](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66264/does-the-chalcedonian-definition-mean-christ-has-two-minds) Related unanswered question: [How would miaphysites approach monothelitism versus dyothelitism?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/64416/how-would-miaphysites-approach-the-question-of-monothelitism-versus-dyothelitism) I know the Sixth Ecumenical Council affirms the orthodox position of the two wills of Jesus and rejects monothelitism. And the Chalcedonian definition states >One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in **Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably**; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather **the properties of each Nature being preserved**, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; **not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons**, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ. My understanding is that the indivisbility of the two natures means we can't attribute particular adjectives or actions that apply to the Person of Christ to the individual nature, though that may be its source. Such as, it would be incorrect to say that "Jesus' human nature died on the cross, but his divine nature did not." Or even "Jesus' divine nature is omnipotent, but his human nature is not." Though we may know that the source or origin of his omnipotence from his divinity, we cannot attribute omnipotence to Jesus' divine nature but the person as a whole. It seems the Chalcedonian definition supports this, unless "the properties of each Nature being preserved" implies the opposite of that. By "attributing" a property, or perhaps "identifying" a property to be of one nature, I am referring to the accuracy of statements such as "Jesus' human nature slept, but Jesus' divine nature was always awake" (because "God never sleeps", Psalm 121:4). If we can't attribute a property to a particular nature, then we must stop at saying "Jesus slept" (the person of Christ) and cannot say anything in particular about what each individual nature experienced, though we perhaps could say that the origin of Jesus' ability to sleep is from his human nature. The same applies with Jesus' omnipotence. Perhaps we could say that the origin of Jesus' omnipotence is his divine nature, but we can only say that Jesus is omnipotent (not saying 1/2 of his natures is omnipotent). The communication of properties between Jesus and God seem to come into play here, as well. If we can say that Jesus slept, then that means God slept. But, if only His human nature slept while His divine nature was awake, then perhaps we could escape concluding that God slept? Except that the Bible seems to be denote the person of Jesus with actions or adjectives, rather than an individual nature. It seems like this being the case, we could only attribute the will of Jesus to the person of Jesus, and not either individual nature when the two are inseparable. It seems like the same arguments apply for His wills as for various adjectives. "Jesus wouldn't be 'fully' human if he didn't have a human will." "Well, Jesus wouldn't be 'fully' human if he wasn't limited in knowledge, and yet he possesses omnipotence." Or something like that. Take the claim "Jesus can't be fully human without a human will;" why can't Jesus be fully human because He has a will as a person? As in, a will that is attributed to the person of Christ rather than to his individual human nature. I don't get how that wouldn't fulfill the "fully human" requirement. It seems that to say otherwise is just based on how we define what "human" is (which of course would be important). **If we can't attribute adjectives or actions to either individual nature, why can we attribute wills to the individual nature? How is that not separating the two natures that should be indivisible?** From a typical orthodox Trinitarian view, I want to know how this doctrine is properly formulated in light of these concerns, whether through Church creeds or early church fathers or theologians of the day or through someone's explanation. Edit: suggested from comments below, **how do do we know it is acceptable to attribute a property to one nature and not the other given that the two natures are inseparable? What does it mean for them to be inseparable if you can identify properties of each individual nature rather than the Person?**

> I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and **create evil**: I the LORD do all these things. ([Isaiah 45:7](https://www.biblehub.com/kjv/isaiah/45.htm)) [emphasis mine] This is consistent with God being called "all-mighty" and "omnipotent". However, it seems to be grossly *incompatible* with God being called "good". If he truly is all these things, why would he create evil, which is the opposite of what is good, which He is claimed to be?

In the book of Jonah, the prophet is commanded by God to go to Nineveh, but he chooses to flee in the opposite direction. As a result, he faces a storm at sea and is swallowed by a great fish, symbolizing a form of divine intervention or correction. Eventually, he fulfills his mission. Can some of the difficulties or losses that believers experience in life be attributed to them having strayed from the specific purpose or calling God has placed on their lives, similar to Jonah’s situation? - Are there theological or denominational views that support or reject this idea? - How does the New Testament handle this concept, especially in the context of grace and free will? - Are there examples besides Jonah where people faced hardship because of ignoring God’s will?

If Jesus was merely a man, then God would seem unjust for punishing the innocent Jesus in place of the guilty due to violating the following: 1. Man is to be put to death for his own sin and not for the sin of another (Ez 18:20; Dt 24:16) 2. No man can ransom another or give to God the price of his life (Ps 49:7-9) Moreover, God seems unjust for WANTING to crush the innocent man that is Jesus (Is 53:10; Lk 22:42), regardless of Jesus' willingness to follow the Father's will and lay His life down as a sacrifice. That God could desire and plan to punish/sacrifice an innocent man, His Son no less, for the sins of others would go against His character. The only way I see God being just would be that Jesus is God. Thus, God's plan would not be the unjust sacrifice of an innocent third party but rather the just, noble sacrifice of the self. But if you can show that God is just in sacrificing Jesus even if Jesus isn't God, then please leave an answer down below.

Me and a friend have been debating this topic and I'm a little stumped I must say. My friend believes in Hard Determinism where desires control us and our desires come from what he calls "life path". I tried refuting this by saying free will and desires are distinct but he simply brought up that our strongest desires determine our free will. So if you use your free will to go against your strongest desire, then you are still using a stronger desire to over come another stronger desire if that makes sense. So after doing some research I stumbled upon libertarianism and it seems like that is the view point I gave to him about free will and desires being distinct. But I'm not sure if libertarianism is the Biblical explanation. So how does God explain free will and desires being distinct? Can we really choose to not follow our stronger desire without a stronger desire causing us to do so? If so, then why would we choose to do something we do not want to do unless the desire to do that thing is stronger than the desire to not do it?

I would like to express some questions and points here regarding why God made this world as it is and not a world where humans could simply fly away at will. So, my main question to be brief is: Why did God create or willed reality in this way? That He allowed gravity in this level and not like other Mars, or why He didn’t allow us to be underwater creatures or flying ones. The thing that I’m struggling about here is the idea that God allowed us to have a choice; free will. Now what I have thought about is this: Do we really have free will if there are things that are naturally impossible for us to choose, therefore limiting our choices? Like you cannot choose between “flying” or “not flying”. You can only “not fly”. So can you really say “well, I still have free will” The answer that I have thought is “well, God has to set up some form of reality or limits. Otherwise, free will without limitations can include illogical conclusions such as existing and not existing at the same time” So okay, God creates a reality for us to live in: why this reality and not other realities? I apologize in advance if you think this is way too simple, lacking or so and so. But I hope you get the point.

If you suddenly suffer from a serious illness, become disabled, or experience a drastic decline in your quality of life, or if someone close to you is killed, murdered, or tortured, should you blame God for it? Certainly, the answer cannot be that it is God's will. Nobody should have to endure suffering like that. How can we still believe in God who allows this to go on in our lives? How does "the entire book of Job" and every other Psalm of David contribute to the answering of this dilemma about the doctrinal topics of Providence and the Attributes of God?

N.b.: I originally posted this question in the Philosophy stack, but then realized it was more appropriate, and might get more informed answers, here. In a famous article, Anscombe castigates "Modern Moral Philosophy" (including but not limited to consequentialism) as "quite incompatible with the Hebrew-Christian ethic. For **it has been characteristic of that ethic to teach that there are certain things forbidden whatever consequences threaten, such as: choosing to kill the innocent for any purpose, however good; vicarious punishment**...," which in contrast consequentialists can sometimes allow for sufficiently good consequences. (p.10) Many other Christian apologists make similar claims. Yet I have also seen many Christian apologists--and often the same ones--bend over backwards to defend, e.g., the drowning of babies in the Biblical flood, the slaughter of the Canaanite civilian population after a war victory, etc., as well as vicarious punishment: of the Egyptian first-born, of children "to the third and fourth generation" (Num 14:18), etc. Even Christians who do not take these stories literally at least generally say that they reveal something about the character of God and morality, and so have to excuse them away--giving special reasons (consequentialist or otherwise) for why these cases of innocent-killing and vicarious punishment are justified. So my question is, **is Anscombe's quoted claim simply and quite obviously wrong, or can something be said in its defense?** The only thing I sometimes see apologists say about this is that these moral obligations only apply to humans, not to God, though this is odd if God is supposed to be morally good. But even for God, these actions are often excused on account of being part of his "plan," i.e., because in some way (perhaps unknowable to us) these will lead to good consequences. I am not asking whether any of these arguments are plausible, but simply whether they /exist/ and fit Anscombe's description of what Christian ethics supposedly does not do. If so, then these are not innovations of "modern moral philosophy" but old hat strategies which Christian moralists have been using for centuries. So is she just the pot calling the kettle black? Or does she really have a point in saying that there is something novel about modern consequentialist morality which is not present in the history of Christian apologetics? Note that I am well aware that Christian moralists have not historically espoused consequentialism as a general theory, at least before William Paley. But espousing this theory is different from making occasional consequentialist arguments in specific cases. It is also possible that the modern apologists I read giving such arguments are in fact a novelty, and that historical theologians didn't do this, so that perhaps Anscombe's criticism should be extended to "Modern Moral Theology" insofar as she might think it has been infected by a consequentialist thinking anathema to Christian tradition. This is an interesting question; did Augustine, Aquinas, etc., *never* make consequentialist arguments for God's doing or commanding such things? But again, it's not my full question, for Anscombe is claiming that Christians *never* gave justifications for ever doing these things, consequentialist or otherwise. But this seems false, for "I am God," or "I have been commanded by God to do/allow these things" apparently *was* such a justification in some such cases.

Within Christian theology, particularly in the doctrine of the Trinity, are the three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—understood to possess distinct and independent faculties of freewill, or are their volitional acts considered to be unified, expressing a single divine will? Or is perhaps one a reflection of the other? Additionally, do various Christian denominations or theological traditions differ in how they address this question?

Do people who are Evangelicals, Catholics, Unitarian Universalists, and people of other denominations make decisions based on the Bible? Growing up as an Evangelical, I am familiar with several verses in the Bible that speak to how to make decisions. For example, James 1 speaks to asking for wisdom: > James 1:5 (ESV) > > ⁵If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. Proverbs 3 speaks to acknowledging God for a straight path: > Proverbs 3:5-6 (ESV) > > ⁵Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. ⁶In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Jesus speaks of the greatest commandments to love God and others in the gospels: > Mark 12:28-34 (ESV) > > The Great Commandment > > ²⁸And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” ²⁹Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. ³⁰And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ ³¹The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” ³²And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. ³³And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” ³⁴And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions. There are also verses about prayer: > Philippians 4:6 (ESV) > > ⁶do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. > 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 (ESV) > >¹⁶Rejoice always, ¹⁷pray without ceasing, ¹⁸give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Are these relevant passages? What other verses in the Bible speak to how to make decisions, and how does each denomination interpret them? Do many kinds of Christians rely on sources other than the Bible for wisdom in decision making? How does each denomination believe God reveals his will for us in how to make choices? What does each denomination believe are the best ways to interpret the verses I shared, as well as other ones that are relevant? For example, in Proverbs 3:5-6, what does each denomination believe the best way is to determine how to make a decision that "acknowledges God"?

### This question is addressed to Trinitarians If we have God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son (God the Trinity sharing the same essence and all of them being God), **why does the Bible insist that it is ONLY the Will of the Father that matters and should be done**? Not the will of the Trinity, not the will of the Son, nor of the Holy Spirit; and certainly not the will of "God" in the Triune sense? **Why is the will of *only one of the three* singled out as having preeminence over the other two yet they are equal? Why do the other two subject their wills to the one?** ### Bible references **On the primacy of the Father's will** - Matthew 7:21 – “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, **but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.”** - Matthew 12:50 – “**For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother**.” - Ephesians 6:6 – “Not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, **doing the will of God from the heart**.” **Jesus Does the Will of the Father** - John 4:34 – “Jesus said to them, ‘**My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work**.’” - John 5:30 – “I can do nothing on My own. As I hear, I judge, and My judgment is just, **because I seek not My own will but the will of Him who sent Me**.” - John 6:38-40 – “**For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me**. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day.” **In Heaven, Only the Will of the Father Is Done** - Matthew 6:10 – “Your kingdom come, **Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven**.” - Psalm 103:20-21 – “Bless the Lord, O you His angels, you mighty ones who do His word, obeying the voice of His word! **Bless the Lord, all His hosts, His ministers, who do His will**!”

Does the idea of "secondary causes" imply that God reveals Himself by His creation, or that He does not at all? *Wikipedia* provides this definition of "secondary causation " where there seems to be a very strong autonomy of world realities relative to God: > Secondary causation[3] is the philosophical proposition that all material and corporeal objects, having been created by God with their own intrinsic potentialities, are subsequently empowered to evolve independently in accordance with natural law. The definition provided here seems to still insist that there is a link between world's realities (humans, nature, etc.), although they are separate: > The theologians speaking of those forces truly operating in the world as "secondary causes". God is the first cause, but the forces of nature and free actions of personal beings whom God has created are second causes; and it is extremely important, if we would be true to the bible, that the existence of secondary causes should not be denied. > >Only, it is important to observe that the two causes are not on the same plane. They are not coordinate, but one is completely subordinate to another. In every event in the natural world God has completely accomplished what he willed to accomplish. He is not limited in any way by the forces of nature or by the free actions of his creatures. They act truly; but they truly act only as he has determined they shall act. The correct way, therefore, expressing the relation between secondary causes and God, the great First Cause, is to say that God makes use of second causes to accomplish what is accordance with his eternal purpose. > >Second causes are not independent forces whose cooperation He needs, but they are means that He employs exactly as He will. This picture illustrates the idea of "secondary causation": So **what is the idea behind "secondary causation"**? Is it that we can interpret natural things as revealing something about God (e.g. God's will, God's perfection, God's goodness), or is it that by studying nature, we should not think about God's presence behind those natural things? Or is it the idea that it allows to be agnostic on that matter, allowing us to see God's presence if we will, nor not if we prefer not to. **Response to comments**: From discussion with users in the comments, I get the impression that the “secondary causation” principle can itself be object of various interpretations.

Sometimes Christians will doubt their faith and I was wondering is the doubt come from God or Satan? Is there evidence to back up your answer?

Dual wills of Jesus, as human and as God, are on full display in the Synoptic gospels' account of Jesus's suffering and temptation at Gethsemane. Let's first review how each gospel recounts the story: - **Matthew 26:38-39**: > Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. And he went a little farther, 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. (KJV) > Then he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me.” And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” (ESV) - **Mark 14:34-36**: > And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. (KJV) > And he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death. Remain here and watch.” And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” (ESV) - **Luke 22:42-45**: > Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow, (KJV) > saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And when he rose from prayer, he came to the disciples and found them sleeping for sorrow, (ESV) Reading between the lines, it's obvious there is temptation, sorrow, fear, and surrender within the human soul of Jesus and we (who are called to take up our cross) can relate. Luke also added that an angel appeared to strengthen Jesus and how the disciples were *also* sorrowful. Next, let's review several obvious doctrinal implications applicable to this episode to limit allowed interpretations: - **As God** Jesus never ceases to want to save us by being the Passover Lamb to "take away the sins of the world" (John 1:29). - Chalcedonian definition allows us to reconcile this apparent ambivalence of wills at Gethsemane by interpreting the above passages that **as Man** Jesus is struggling to align his human will with his own Trinitarian will while remaining sinless since Jesus managed to overcome all his natural feelings to *not* deviate from the Trinitarian mission to go through with the Divine plan. - Jesus who is also fully God must have continually loves Himself *immanently* in Jesus, never ceasing to do so during the whole Passion, even at the cross when Jesus cried "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (!) We can safely assume that Jesus **as Man** could do perfectly the commandment "love your neighbor as yourself" partly because in his human consciousness he feels and trusts that he is so fully loved by God. So far so good. My question has to do with characterizing what's going on in Jesus's human mind and will so that it can help us to be more like Jesus. For example, in our own walk of discipleship, it's common to distinguish "surrender" from "submission" which for the purpose of this question, I'm defining the two terms as follows: - "submission" as **negation of will** like a soldier doing something that he may not agree personally; this has been characterized by obedience out of **slavish** mentality or out of **fear**. Colloquially we say: "I do it simply because you told me to". At best, although it is done like a robot, I am still open to doing it with better motivation in the future. - "surrender" implies **aligning one's will with another's** thus with some level of agreement; this can be characterized by obedience out of **trust** mentality (like children) and by **love**. Colloquially we say: "I do it as you asked me to, although I need help in uniting my will with your perfect loving will because of .... (you name it)". So even though we don't feel like forgiving enemies, surrendering our selfishness to love difficult people, or dying as a martyr, because we always want to be yoked with Jesus (i.e. tagging along) we then rely on his Holy Spirit (Love) to strengthen us in uniting **in love** our will with Jesus's will. It is obvious that as children of God we are asked to "surrender", not to "submit" (per definitions above). Because Jesus is our model, I think **conceiving Jesus's struggle at Gethsemane as a "submission" (negating will) rather than as a "surrendering" (uniting in love) is out of bound**. Is this true? The difficulty seems to be **textual**: those who insist on literal meaning may interpret Jesus's "not as I will, but as you will" and the language "deny himself/ lose his life" (Matt 16:24-25) as a "submission", negating his human will. **But I think this is abhorrent, since there is no virtue in mere submission without love.** Rather, we should see Jesus's sinless internal struggle episode at Gethsemane as a revelation of how hard it is to love, that even Jesus, **while operating in his human nature**, had to struggle to align his human will with His own revealed divine will, as a model for us to unite **in love** our own will with our Father's will that is revealed to us in graced discernment. This is in contrast to acting as a slave / soldier who simply executes what Scriptures command us to do. How can the Trinity doctrine and Chalcedonian definition help us here? **My question is very specific**: Formally & philosophically, **what kinds of interaction of the 2 wills are allowed within the Chalcedonian orthodoxy?** **What are some examples of interaction that are out of bound?**

In responding to the Question "Is it good because God wills it, or does God will it because it is good?" Someone said and I quote: > The foundation of Goodness is God. God's will is everything concerning Him, which eventually is Good. God wills it, to show himself, that He is Good; and it is good because it is of God. My question is based on this supposition: "God's will is everything concerning Him, which eventually is good. Does this have biblical basis ?

1 Timothy 2:4 states that God wants everyone to be saved: > This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and > to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator > between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for > all people. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles. Furthermore Timothy possibly implies that Jesus also saves those who don't believe: > That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the > living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those > who believe. In Ezekiel 18:23 we read: > Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the > Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their > ways and live? Ezekiel 18:32 > For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign > LORD. Repent and live! Ezekiel 33:11 > Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take > no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from > their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, > people of Israel?' Here is my question: it is obvious that lots of people in the world have never heard the gospel. This includes pretty much everyone living in East Asia, Australia and the Americas in the year 50 AD. These people had NO CHANCE to hear the gospel. Yet the above verses all show that God desires all to be saved. Doesn't that logically imply that people can be saved without coming to believe in the Gospel? After all, you can't have all three statements being true: 1. God desires all people to be saved 2. The only way to get saved is hearing the gospel and accepting Jesus 3. Many people never heard the gospel. One of these must not be correct and I think it's #2.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light -Genesis 1:3 KJV The almighty God gets what he desires and what he wants is good indeed. I believe there's a ultimate goal for humanity (as a whole) to achieve and humanity will reach that point eventually. It's just the road and (not the destination) that bothers me. The unbearable amount of suffering and grief that one experiences during his life **is not fair**, for example; when Gaza war started I saw a video clip of a dad taking his little daughter's severed body parts which was in a plastic bag to a ruined hospital, desperate, maybe he was hoping he can get his daughter back? Humanity doesn't have a clue what he's doing, no one is born with a PhD, we all do terrible terrible mistakes and not many have the chance to learn why they should turn the other cheek. So this thoughts always left me with this question; - Was it necessary to let humans go down this path? What important part are we going to play in this "scenario" of God's creation that made our poor souls worthy of suffering? And no we did not choose the path of destruction and death, we went that way because we did not knew the ultimate consequences of our actions, If Adam TRULY knew that he's going to cast out of heaven or what not being in heaven is like, would he still have done it? David, the God chosen prophet committed adultery, he had **everything** and yet the lust got him. How can one resist sin when David couldn't?

**John 6:38** >For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me Surely this implies they have separate wills?

As a Calvinist can a person reject the will of God?

I've tried several search engines... Is there a verse that says we all end up doing God's will either as sons like [John or James] or as slaves like [rebellious people/demons]?