Free Will III
How can it be that we are free to do what we want, yet God remains in control?
There are several example of how this works – how a man can do the very thing God intends him to do, yet the same man is condemned for it.
First, it is easy to see that we are condemned for our sins. Malachi 3:5 is one of literally hundreds of instances of declaration of future judgment for people’s sins.
Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts.
How does this apply when the person is explicitly doing what God intends? In the previous posts Robert mentioned Joseph and his suffering prior to gaining high office in
So Joseph said to his brothers, “Come near to me, please.” And they came near. And he said, “I am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into
Here, in the quote Robert selected, we see that God is the author of Joseph’s life story. Robert mentioned that this excludes the culpability of the brothers, because, “it was not you who sent me here, but God.” Yet Joseph’s testimony about the situation doesn’t end in chapter 45.
But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Gen 50:19-20)
What is seen in Joseph’s clarification is the crux of my position – that we do what we intend out of our desires. Here, Joseph’s brother’s, out of their own evil desires, wish to get rid of their brother and sell him into slavery. Yet, this very act, which they meant for evil, is exactly what God wills for good. The result of the divergent desires is the same – Joseph goes to
Another prime example is Assyria’s destruction of
Ah,
But he does not so intend, and his heart does not so think; but it is in his heart to destroy, and to cut off nations not a few;…When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, he will punish the speech of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the boastful look in his eyes. For he says: “By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, for I have understanding; I remove the boundaries of peoples, and plunder their treasures; like a bull I bring down those who sit on thrones. (Is 10:7, 12-13)
Assyria executes God’s righteous judgment upon
So, it can be easily seen that a man’s desires are different from God’s desires, yet the very acts taken will be God’s desires. How can this be? In a previous post, John mentioned that I painted all Arminians with the same brush (and I do), yet there is a small group of Arminians who have figured it out – Molinists.
God has complete and exhaustive divine foreknowledge. Let’s call that a given, to avoid a lengthy proof. He not only knows everything that has and will happen, but he also knows everything that can possibly happen (example: Matt 11:21-22), which is called middle knowledge. While we are responsible for our own desires, God knows how we will react in any given situation and can manipulate the environment, experience and just about anything else such that our desires lead to the choice he wants us to make. I believe (thought I don’t have a Scriptural specific detail, just inference) that God can even make us consider something in our minds before we make the decision.
Look at the confrontation between Moses (God) and Pharaoh. Initially, Pharaoh hard heart tended to be self-driven. However, after six plagues, God hardens Pharaoh’s heart. How he does this we do not know, but it is not God directly creating the desire for Pharaoh. Pharaoh was not a repentant or graceful man, and his natural pride, arrogance and hubris was used against him. Perhaps God encouraged advisers to whisper about what the people would think if Pharaoh caved in, or perhaps God gave Pharaoh that kind of concern directly. God manipulated the environment, internal and external, to glorify His name.
What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.” But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just. (Rom 3:3-8)
There are none righteous, no, not one. Our condemnation is just, because God is just. We cannot claim we are not culpable because if we were not culpable, it would be unjust for us to be punished. We cannot appeal to “Who can resist his will?”, because we are responsible for our evil intents.
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’ ” “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”(Rom 9:14-26)
posted by Hammertime at
6/20/2007 10:28:00 PM
16 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Robert, at 6/27/2007 12:01:00 AM
Hammer,
When you say that "a man can do the very thing God intends him to do, yet the same man is condemned for it."…and that…"it is easy to see that we are condemned for our sins."…I'm right there with you. In fact, your post concludes with a powerful passage, but your commentary that precedes it is…incongruous.
Basically, you're arguing that one is what one was created to be (i.e., a vessel of honor or a vessel of dishonor; sheep or goat; wheat or chaff, etc.)...yet, one is also somehow responsible for having been created that way.
While I certainly agree that a sinner is, in fact, a sinner (as your final quotation shows), I reject the implication that a sinner chooses (in the sense that you'd have us believe) to continue in sin. That is to say, they're/our sinful nature is initially imputed, and sustained by a distinct lack of knowledge (e.g., if they had known that Jesus was the Messiah, they would not have crucified Him...and it's a huge IF).
Also, in this and previous posts, your repeated out-of-context usage of "Who can resist his will?" is misleading in that it suggests that one could possibly resist, if only one would desire to resist...His will (I realize, of course, that this language is Paul's—so to speak—from Romans 9:19; and that you finally quoted the whole context at the end of the post, albeit w/o further comment; but if you juxtapose verse 19 w/ verse 20—and indeed the rest of chapter 9, not to mention the rest of Scripture—it's clear that "Who can resist his will?" is a rhetorical question...a fact that you well know). Ironically though, the very passage that you site (Romans 9:14-26) argues against your point: it demonstrates that, in sci-fi jargon, 'resistance is futile'.
The same can be said about Joseph's brothers, Pharaoh, and the King of Assyria (among others); but nevertheless, you perpetuate a fallacy that's not unlike a paraphrase of the cliché: 'When humans give Him lemons, God has to make lemonade' (which, incidentally, is an awful interpretation of Romans 8:28). For example, you say: "Yet, this very act, which they meant for evil, is exactly what God wills for good."…and…"Pharaoh was not a repentant or graceful man, and his natural pride, arrogance and hubris was used against him." You would have us believe that God—with the benefit of foreknowledge—simply reacts to the inevitable actions of His creatures. You go on to say:
"While we are responsible for our own desires, God knows how we will react in any given situation and can manipulate the environment, experience and just about anything else such that our desires lead to the choice he wants us to make."
Putting aside the obvious question: "how is that substantially different from an outright manipulation of the human will?", I'll mention what I think is the crux of the so-called 'free will' debate': God's omniscience. You say that "God has complete and exhaustive divine foreknowledge. Let's call that a given, to avoid a lengthy proof." Agreed. Actually, in a recent post, I suggested that most people believe the following:
"God knows what I'll do tomorrow and what I'll do tomorrow is wholly dependent upon a series of free choices that I've yet to make."
You might replace "free choices…" with "desires that I've yet to desire" or "wants that I've yet to want".
So, we're left with two possibilities: either (i) God is forced to make lemonade from the lemons that He created (with foreknowledge, no less), in which case He's not the author and finisher of...anything; but, rather counter intuitively, He's merely a spectator with a unique view of pre-history. God would be relegated to the status of Supreme Psychic, who is eternally forced to react to a series of events that—although they've not yet occurred—are nonetheless inevitable because they're foreknown…or…(ii) God simply isn't omniscient. Neither of those two propositions is compatible with the Bible.
Therefore, as I argue in my essay, if God knows of (indeed, has predetermined) future events (as the Bible clearly teaches), then the possibility of one freely choosing not A when God has foreknown A is simply a hypothetical impossibility because A can never be not A at the same time and in the same relationship.
By
Robert, at 7/01/2007 05:15:00 PM
Hammer,
In my latest entry, I linked to a comment-thread discussion that you and I had quite a while ago, which is remarkable reminiscent of the ones inspired by your current series.
By
Robert, at 7/02/2007 09:04:00 PM
Robert,
You seem to forget what I’m actually proposing! Because you are so accustomed to arguing against non-determinists, you argue as if I am one of them – but I am not.
This is why your posts on free will are altogether irrelevant to this series – you make a very cogent case for an absence of free will, but only when that free will is defined as freedom of indifference. Of course ‘A’ can never be ‘Not A’, and vice-versa. That is why hyper-Calvinism and open theism are entirely intellectually honest systems, quite unlike Arminianism. Yet what all three hold central is freedom of indifference.
What I argue here is that given your nature, experiences, and the detail of the situation, you will always choose the same thing. You are always free to choose exactly what you most want to do, yet what you most want to do, given your nature, experiences and situation, will always be the same.
Thus, when I say we choose to continue in sin, I do not imply that we could choose otherwise, because we will choose what we are most inclined to do. I simply assert that we do choose to do what we most want, and that it is sin, and thus we are responsible for it.
Remember, as a man who actually believes that God in is control, that the five Solas and the five points are all correct, I necessarily am a determinist. The difference between you and I is not determinism, but culpability. You claim we are less than culpable, and I hold otherwise. I hold otherwise because the scriptures are explicit that we are culpable, and because they are infallible and inerrant, I must find a logical way to, if not understand completely, understand somewhat in context of the Scriptural account.
As for my ‘out-of-context’ usage of “Who can resist his will?”, I in no way imply that we can – merely that we do not desire to, and thus we are culpable. What you seem to miss in the account is that the phrase is spoken by the ungodly to attempt to justify their sin, and in your arguments you have done the same. We do not desire to resist because we desire to sin.
Furthermore, I in no way claim God ‘reacts’. God plans, prepares and executes. He knows exactly what we would do in every circumstance, and thus, he creates the circumstance. He created us, and thus he is best positioned to author and finish us. Think of an author who creates a mystery. He made the actors, he knows their dispositions, and knows how on with such a disposition would react in such a situation. That is why a well written story doesn’t have characters who do things that seem utterly unreasonable – they act in accordance with their dispositions…as do we.
If you want to accuse me of claiming God ‘manipulates’ us to do his will, I actually don’t have a problem with that. I don’t like the term because it is pejorative, but the definition of it is perfect. He hardens whom he will harden, but he doesn’t stick his hand in Pharaoh’s head and make him say the words. Given the impetus, Pharaoh will do it himself. God is 100% determining in time, space and outside of both – but we have a level of responsibility for our sinful desires.
Your analogies of my position are poorly applied. They apply well to non-determinists. God made man. Let me go well outside of the comfort zone I have to say what I honestly believe – God ordained sin, but God is not the author of sin. He does not tempt men, he has never been tempted. Yet he constructed the universe knowing that its composition would lead to sin, and to even greater glory for him.
Ecclesiastes 7:29 states: “Truly, this only I have found: that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.” Thus the scriptures declare that Adam did not have a sin nature like we do. As stated in Romans 5, “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” It seems, contrary to what we can logically deduce, that Adam had a level of freedom closer to your freedom of indifference than we did – at least, he was not corrupted by the sin nature. Did God set him up for failure? No, because in the grand scheme of things, God is glorified. But did God set him up to sin? Of course. But just as Adam, without sin nature is without excuse, we are without excuse (Romans 1:20).
I hold this – that if they had known that Christ was the Son of God, they would still have crucified him, because they still would desire evil. What would have prevented them from doing it? Understanding what we still do not – the things which God has prepared for them that love him. The natural person does not accept the things of God, as 1 Corinthians 2 continues. Being told them would change nothing. The works of Christ attested to his deity, yet he was rejected and despised. We prefer the darkness to the light because our deeds are evil.
Our condemnation is just because we desire our sin. The fact that it takes supernatural intervention to save us is not justification for our sin. I am concerned about your position, that you hold to this freedom of indifference (and its lack of availability) to justify your deeds. “Who can resist his will?” is not the cry of the man seeking to obey, but the attempted excuse of the disobedient. But what do the Scriptures say the elect respond with? 1 John 3:4-10 declares that the elect strive to obey the commandments of God. To make excuse, to claim that our disobedience is a function of God’s will, to not even attempt to live righteously in Christ – that should be very frightening, indeed.
Would it make us any less ordained by God? No – but perhaps some are not ordained as they suspect. “You believe in God? You do well, even the demons believe and tremble! Do you need to be shown that good doctrine does not save?” James 2:19-20.
By
Hammertime, at 7/02/2007 11:06:00 PM
Whoah, you commented between when I started my response and finished it.
Was that predetermined? Of course.
By
Hammertime, at 7/02/2007 11:07:00 PM
Robert,
I stopped by the thread, tossed in a grenade, and dodged out the door.
Probably the biggest difference between my position then and now is that while I do agree that we are made free to obey, it is only a freedom given by the presence of the Holy Spirit, and isn't a freedom of indifference. The Holy Spirit makes us desiring of obedience, thus making us obey. When the will of God is that we do not obey, he does not move us through his spirit, and our sinful desires lead us to sin. Thus, we are culpable for our sin, but not for our obedience! The obedience is merely a reflection of the Spirit of God within us, which is why faith without works is dead - because faith begets works. A failure to obey is a reflection of our sinful desires, which we embrace and are condemned justly for, were it not for Christ and his redemption of his people.
By
Hammertime, at 7/02/2007 11:26:00 PM
Hammer,
I realize that you’re a (type of) determinist, which is why I so enjoy discussing this topic with you—and because you understand the Scriptural complexities attendant to this issue in a way that rank-and-file believers do not. That said though, you’re so close…yet so far away! For example, you wrote:
“He hardens whom he will harden, but he doesn’t stick his hand in Pharaoh’s head and make him say the words. Given the impetus, Pharaoh will do it himself. God is 100% determining in time, space and outside of both – but we have a level of responsibility for our sinful desires.”
You’re simply trying to have it both ways: God hardens, but Pharaoh hardened himself; He’s 100% determining, but somehow there’s X% of determination left for us. A is not A after all. Does this mean that I actually can “have my cake and eat it, too”?
”The Holy Spirit makes us desiring of obedience, thus making us obey. When the will of God is that we do not obey, he does not move us through his spirit, and our sinful desires lead us to sin. Thus, we are culpable for our sin, but not for our obedience!”
I have a sneaking suspicion that this point is the lynch pin in your position; but it’s an odd variation on the “God, the cosmic watchmaker” meme, in that, left to our own devices, we can but sin…and “freely” so; but the Elect’s freedom of desire, on the other hand, is infringed upon, so that they/we will henceforth desire obedience. Therefore, one is punished for disobedience, but ironically not rewarded for obedience.
Again, close but no cigar! Look, if you think about it (dare I say: with an open mind?) you’ll see that, since none is righteous…no, not one, sinners are not punished/rewarded for what they/we do, but rather for what they/we are (i.e., sheep or goat, etc.). The particular actions (both virtuous and vicious) taken by individuals are mere tiles in the grand mosaic that is God’s plan. The distinction you make (along with Augustine and his innumerable disciples) between “freedom of desire” and what you’ve called a “freedom of indifference” is a false one: it suggests a type of freedom-light that simply stretches credulity.
Speaking of which, I’m curious why you so artfully dodged my main points, choosing instead to rehash your original arguments; and you continue to paint me with the “freedom of indifference” brush when I’ve argued no such thing. Why is that?
”What I argue here is that given your nature, experiences, and the detail of the situation, you will always choose the same thing. You are always free to choose exactly what you most want to do, yet what you most want to do, given your nature, experiences and situation, will always be the same.”
This would be perfectly logical if (and it’s a huge, impossible IF) God hadn’t already claimed responsibility for everything that has been, and will be done (not least, by virtue of His foreknowledge), which you insist is entirely attributable to one’s “nature, experiences, and the detail of the situation”. As I said before, either God sovereignly controls said nature, experiences, and details (as the Scriptures certainly intimate; and, in which case, those factors are nothing more than a means to God’s end) or God was forced to tailor His plan to an infinitely complex matrix of consequences that necessarily follow an equally complex matrix of choices (that, from God’s perspective at the time at which He devised His plan, would eventually and inevitably arise—not to mention the problem of infinite regress…). You pay lip-service to the former (although your view is sadly inconsistent, as I’ve shown) and you conspicuously ignore the implication of the latter. I’m sorry H, but you’ve said nothing thus far that counters this argument. Not to worry…you’re in good company.
Lastly, I’m not sure why you felt the need to make this personal (i.e., at my blog you wrote: “in essence, Robert says he won't go to church because God hasn't made him go to church, so it's not his fault.”) I’m only half kidding here…I take no offense, but your jab does seem to characterize your insistence upon “obedience” (in quotes because I think that you and I pour a slightly different meaning into that concept…or, at the very least, I’d say that we put the emphasis on a different syllable).
By
Robert, at 7/06/2007 12:20:00 AM
Hammer,
I want make one more point in response to the idea that "The Holy Spirit makes us desiring of obedience, thus making us obey." (a point with which, incidentally, I'm in complete agreement). But, inexplicably, you contradict yourself by concluding with this: "Thus, we are culpable for our sin, but not for our obedience!"
There are two major problems with your reasoning: one of which I demonstrated in my last comment, and the other implies an insidious works-based theology.
Now, I'm well aware of James 2:14-26, Matthew 7:15-20, and so on. I'm also well aware of what those passages are actually communicating: namely, that righteous behavior (good fruit) is solely attributable to the work of The Holy Spirit in the individual believer. The one being acted upon by The Holy Spirit gets zero percent of the credit…because that one had no part in either the planning or the execution of said behavior. So, the "works" that demonstrate genuine faith and revelatory "good fruit" are signs of regeneration…they're not merit badges of moral achievement. Even Christ, the Lord of all, claimed that it was not He, but His Father—through the Spirit—that worked the wonders.
Therefore, it's utterly misleading to suggest that obedience is one's moral responsibility! In other words, if one "obeys" the Scriptures by virtue of, say, regularly attending a Christian worship service (whatever the denomination), or perhaps dutifully spreading the Gospel, then, by implication that one has acted in a morally responsible manner…to the delight of his fellow worshipers. But what if one is not so inclined (i.e., not motivated by the Holy Spirit) to participate in the modern form of corporate worship? Similarly, what if one doesn't feel led to proactively evangelize (it's a stretch, I know, but one could imagine it).
When you carve out certain actions (debatable ones, I mean, such as premeditated evangelism and the current style of corporate fellowship and the like) that constitute "obedience", you're setting a trap for yourself: you insist upon obedience that originates in the Spirit, but then you reprimand those who "disobey". If obedience is the purview of The Holt Spirit, as you say, then shouldn't your criticism really be leveled at Him? After all, The Holy Spirit moves individuals to act (or refrain from action) according to the Will of God. Also, you seem to think that God commands ("the great commandment"?) and then judges us based upon how well we fulfill said "commandment". But I thought it was The Holy Spirit that "makes us obey".
You chastise those (me, to name just one) whom the Spirit has not moved to act in a particular way—for not bearing the fruit that you'd like to see—by branding us as disobedient, right after you say that obedience is the product (or fruit) of the Spirit. In other words, The Holy Spirit gives the grace to obey, but it's your fault if He withholds His grace. What gives? The logical conclusion of your argument—if indeed one is culpable for disobedience in the way that you say—is its reverse: that one is ultimately praiseworthy for obedience.
Think about it for a moment…you're suggesting that we are expected to obey and that "The Holy Spirit makes us desiring of obedience, thus making us obey."; these are conflicting propositions. Both cannot be the case simultaneously.
Lastly, I'll briefly share my view. I'm convinced that God's Will is perfect…and that He has predestined all things, including but not limited to: evangelism and fellowship. My "job" is to worship and adore Him, with the full confidence that He will lead me in the direction that He wants us to go…be it to share the Gospel, fellowship, or whatever else. Oddly enough, He's always right; whereas I—if left with the responsibility that you demand—would only muck things up…at best. I'm sure glad He's in the driver's seat instead of me!
By
Robert, at 7/09/2007 09:29:00 PM
Robert,
Just to note, I "made it personal" because you invited it! Your post, on your blog, essentially was "I don't go to church because I am a hard determinist". I just explained how I perceived that in light of my soft determinism.
Now, on to the discussion at hand. I think we would both be better served by abandoning our accusations of each other's motivations and focusing on our differences, instead of turning the existence of those differences into an appearance that we don't agree on as much as we do.
My contention with you is twofold, actually. The first is what the series is about - what "freedom" means. The second is your application of your definition.
I will be the first to admit that compatibilism has its difficulties. So why have I sought a form of compatibilism? It is because of the seeming antimony of the Scriptures, which clearly state that 1) God is sovereign, and 2) man is responsible for his sin.
No matter what my theory may be, I must acknowledge those points as entirely above dispute. My compatibilist theory is an attempt to lessen the antimony. While there are challenges, which you point out. Problems such as: 1) if God is sovereign, and he allows/creates my nature to be what it is, how am I responsible for my actions that derive, in part, from said nature?, or 2) if the Holy Spirit is necessary to cause obedience, why am I responsible for failure to obey?
Philosophically, these are difficult questions to answer. A soft determinism, while not perhaps as satisfying logically, gives an answer that at least somewhat eases the antimony. Your answers, as best I can tell, give a more satisfying logical structure, but emasculate the Scriptures.
Essentially, hard determinism, for reasons I cannot reconcile, hold to one Biblical precept, but not another. You dispense with responsibility to assuage the logical challenge. Yet, when we started, didn't you demand fidelity to the Biblical record? This is why open theism is as logical as hyper-Calvinism, but both deny a Scriptural truth!
In the end, your position may be more logically sound than mine. I'm willing to admit that - but I don't find it more Scripturally sound.
The application portion we have already introduced. I don't choose, as you say "premeditated evangelism" or "some style of worship service" - just as the Scriptures do not. We are commanded to evangelize. We are commanded to corporate fellowship for exhortation and accountability. What form either of those take is surely guided by the Spirit - yet to avoid them altogether, what does that say?
You seem to say that since the Spirit hasn't moved you to either that God doesn't will you to do either. I would agree! Yet, if we can agree that we are commanded to such fellowship and such evangelism, and failure to obey said commands is sin, why would a Spirit-filled believer be content in such a condition? Why must we "work out our own salvation" (Philippians 2) or "make certain your calling and your election" (2 Peter 1)? Not because we can work anything, but because the absence of such work should make us concerned.
The eventual conclusion of your argument, to remain logically consistent, is that I can avoid all attempts at holiness or godliness, and still claim I am elect. Of course, it is God who chooses, not us, and our own assertions mean nothing eternally! Despite that, relegating Biblical mandate to "I appreciate that passage" and therefore something we may discard is an act that denies God's authority in our lives - not embraces it.
By
Hammertime, at 7/09/2007 11:31:00 PM
Hammer,
I "made it personal" because you invited it!
Of course I did…although I was being facetious. I apologize if it sounded confrontational. I meant it as a joke…at my own expense.
We are commanded to evangelize. We are commanded to corporate fellowship for exhortation and accountability. What form either of those take is surely guided by the Spirit - yet to avoid them altogether, what does that say?
It says exactly what I’ve been claiming all along: that our actions are “surely guided by the Spirit” (see Romans 7 and 8). In light of that, “to avoid them altogether” is impossible! That is, if in fact said actions (specific instances, which is ultimately what we’re talking about) conform to the Will of God.
You seem to say that since the Spirit hasn't moved you to either that God doesn't will you to do either. I would agree! Yet, if we can agree that we are commanded to such fellowship and such evangelism, and failure to obey said commands is sin, why would a Spirit-filled believer be content in such a condition?
Again, I would refer you to Romans 7:13-25, which reveals that, regardless of what we might will to do, we actually do what God wills for us to do (reiterated in Romans 8:26-20). So you see, “He who searches the heats knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the Will of God” (Romans 8:27). Notice how He (God) searches the hearts (of men) and knows the mind of the Spirit (God) who in turn intercedes on our behalf according to God’s Will. In other words, He makes us want what we want, because He knows His Will perfectly, whereas we know His Will imperfectly…at best.
In fact, the Scriptures make my point better than I ever could: “…for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:13). That really couldn’t be any clearer! Now, I’ll put a similar question to you: how could a Spirit-filled believer possibly be discontent in such a condition? Just sayin’…
The eventual conclusion of your argument, to remain logically consistent, is that I can avoid all attempts at holiness or godliness, and still claim I am elect. Of course, it is God who chooses, not us, and our own assertions mean nothing eternally! Despite that, relegating Biblical mandate to "I appreciate that passage" and therefore something we may discard is an act that denies God's authority in our lives - not embraces it.
Putting aside, for the moment, the fact that you’ve contradicted yourself…yet again, I think it’s most unfortunate that you not only put words in my mouth (by suggesting that I think the Scriptures are “something we may discard”), but you—if only by implication—question my salvation. Ouch…now I know how Ruth must have felt! (Gotcha…I’m not that thin-skinned). Seriously though, you totally contradicted yourself; and beyond that, you completely misrepresented (misinterpreted?) the Scriptures in the process. You (in fairness, along with the “mainstream” of Reformed theologians) insist upon “all attempts at holiness or godliness” as though such attempts—in and of them selves—could actually be fruitful. Do you really think that God judges us based upon our attempts at holiness? Surely you’re familiar with Isaiah 64:6, which unambiguously states that “…all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags…”. Also, consider Romans 8:29…”He predestined us to be conformed to the image of His Son…”. If one is predestined to conform, nonconformity is simply outside the realm of the possible.
Now, about your assertion (or rather, your characterization) that my position “denies God's authority in our lives - not embraces it”. Huh? I’m the one that's been arguing that God’s authority is all-encompassing! Oh yeah…you define God’s authority as: a divine decree to which one is expected to conform (or at least one ought to give it “the old college try”). I’m sure you’ll correct me.
Webster, on the other hand, defines “authority” as “the “power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior”. This is, of course, one of several entries; but nevertheless, it certainly captures the essence of my view. And by the way, “soft determinism” is not unlike being “a little pregnant”, which is the same thing as “inconsistent with reality”.
I would be remiss if I failed to state the obvious: that I love you in Christ; and that, while we may each contend for the faith in a slightly different way, we’re on the same team. Iron sharpens iron…
p.s. I wouldn’t have thrown it out like if I didn’t think you could take it. ;-)
By
Robert, at 7/11/2007 01:19:00 AM
One more thing: bear in mind that God commanded Adam and Eve to refrain from eating the forbidden fruit; and He commanded Pharaoh to “let my people go”; and Jesus commanded Judas to resist the urge to betray Him…oh, wait…No, Jesus actually commanded Judas thusly: “What you do, do it quickly” (John 13:27). How can it be that Jesus commanded Judas to sin?
Think real hard about what would have transpired if indeed these infamous characters had attempted, with just a modicum of success, to achieve the type holiness or godliness that you insist upon.
Face it Hammer, everything from apathy to unadulterated evil is incorporated into God’s overall plan (think of Job, specifically the first chapter). To suggest that we—as regenerates—can in any way approach holiness (on our own steam, which is the logical conclusion of you view) is the height of arrogance. The extent to which our lives do reflect His holiness is entirely the work of The Holy Spirit…as I’ve consistently said, because it’s what the Scriptures consistently teach. The idea that we can somehow get ahead of The Spirit by attempting to conform ourselves, and indeed that we are expected to make such attempts, is foo-lish-ness!
By
Robert, at 7/11/2007 02:00:00 AM
Robert,
I do thoroughly enjoy this! A few quick clarifications seem to be in order:
I agree that my sin is ordained. I even agree that my content or discontent with my sin is ordained. And thus, with it being ordained, it is completely unavoidable.
Second, I "question" your salvation not for any gain of my own, but to encourage you to "work out" and "make sure" your election.
Why would I think this necessary? in your words, "Now, I'm well aware of James 2:14-26, Matthew 7:15-20, and so on. I'm also well aware of what those passages are actually communicating: namely, that righteous behavior (good fruit) is solely attributable to the work of The Holy Spirit in the individual believer. The one being acted upon by The Holy Spirit gets zero percent of the credit…because that one had no part in either the planning or the execution of said behavior. So, the "works" that demonstrate genuine faith and revelatory "good fruit" are signs of regeneration…they're not merit badges of moral achievement.
As John record, "whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil" and "He who loves me will obey my commandments", and as Jude records, telling us how to know who are the goats in our assemblies, "It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage."
Thus, according to the Scriptures, we are responsible for our unbelief, our disobedience, and our sinful desires.
When Christ tells us in John 14 & 15 that those who love Him and are loved by Him will obey Him, he is not stating that we cause that love on our own. What branch grafts itself into the vine? No, he tells us that said fruit will come from those who are in Him, and it will not from those who are not, who are cast into the fire and burned.
"By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples." Who is it proven to? Surely not to God, he already knows. Instead, it proves it to us - the person in question and the saints who know him.
Finally, please tell me what prevents your interpretation from logically progressing to antinomianism?
Bless you, brother.
By
Hammertime, at 7/15/2007 08:47:00 PM
Hammer,
Hmm...this thread has taken an unexpected turn:
I "question" your salvation not for any gain of my own, but to encourage you to "work out" and "make sure" your election.
I wonder if you would be willing to satisfy my curiosity by expounding upon that statement? (Simply claiming that "it's in the Word" won't cut it.)
When Christ tells us in John 14 & 15 that those who love Him and are loved by Him will obey Him, he is not stating that we cause that love on our own. What branch grafts itself into the vine? No, he tells us that said fruit will come from those who are in Him, and it will not from those who are not, who are cast into the fire and burned.
I'm pretty sure that I've been arguing the very same point! The Fruit of the Spirit is an inexorable consequence of regeneration; and it's absence is conspicuous. Furthermore, I've consistently said that my/our love of the Truth is the gift of God, the result of His Grace; and we most certainly cannot "cause that love on our own".
At this point, it's fairly obvious that you and I simply differ on whether or not evangelism and religious church attendance constitute "fruit"; and whether or not the aforementioned are "commandments", in the sense of amounting to a inflexible requirement or immutable moral obligation. However, your conviction notwithstanding, it strikes me as oddly reminiscent of the earliest 'believers' at Jerusalem (the James Gang?) who insisted that the Gentiles must be circumcised in order to be considered authentic believers. But Paul put that notion to bed in short order (actually, Paul was merely a vessel through which the Spirit worked).
Now, I must admit that I was heretofore unfamiliar with with phrase antinomianism. Tell me...which of the following two senses did you have in mind? After all, I think I deserve to know what I'm being accused of. ;-) Webster's defines it as:
1 : one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation
2 : one who rejects a socially established morality
Forgive the anticipatory response... The latter is a no-brainer: I don't trust "society" as far as I could throw it (them?). If, as I suspect, you had (1) in mind, allow me to defend myself. First of all, labels are mostly rubbish! Beyond that, the definition sounds rather sweeping, in that it's use of the term "moral law" is ambiguous. Aside from that minor quibble, do you, Hammer, think that salvation is dependant upon something other than faith, which is given to God's elect, i.e., adherence to some "moral law"? (That was a rhetorical question...I hope.)
Wikipedia, on the other hand, offers the following:
"Antinomianism (from the Greek αντι, "against" + νομος, "law"), or lawlessness (in the Greek Bible: ανομια) in theology, is the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities. Antinomianism is the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for salvation.
The term has become a point of contention among opposed religious authorities. Few groups or sects explicitly call themselves "antinomian", but the charge is often levelled by some sects against competing sects."
Am I a "legalist"? Not hardly...and from what I know of your theology, I'd say that you aren't either. Do I think that we "are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities"? Well, suffice it to say: the only authority that I'm subject to (in this context) is my Lord, who orders my steps! And as I've tried to communicate, "morals and ethics" constitute broad categories, the minutia of which are, and have been for ions, the subject of debate. But again, a fact to which you've assented is that our actions (sin included) are foreordained by God. Speaking of Sin, I get the distinct impression that you're under the impression that, not only am I sinning by abstaining from "corporate worship" and "evangelism" (aka proselytization), but you seem to think that I agree with your assessment! Not so. What I've said is that, like Paul et al, my inner man desires the ideal: a pure, sinless existence; but my flesh wages war with my spirit, so that I do that which I will not to do, and vise-versa. Guess what...you're no different, despite your implicit, inexplicable, insistence upon absolute righteousness! Look, the Spirit is effecting the Father's Will despite our fallenness (indeed, incorporating our fallen nature into His Plan), which is but one of the innumerable reasons to praise His holy name...forever and ever.
By
Robert, at 7/16/2007 10:28:00 PM
Robert,
This exchange has helped me to narrow down what our difference is - but I guess I should answer the two questions first!
Let me make this abundantly clear - I do not personally question your eternal salvation. Yet, if my premise is that those elected are also regenerated and thus seek the things of Christ, and I claim you are not, it certainly appears that I question it. Is that the logical progression of the supposition? Perhaps, but I refuse to move to that conclusion, because I don't think it is the case. When Peter writes to make your calling and election sure, he describes that (preceding that verse) by saying what that looks like. It isn't "make sure you are saved" as much as it is "this is what saved looks like - you should be doing it". I like to think that is what I am communicating.
Second, by antinomian I meant the first definition - those who claim that grace eliminates any moral guidelines, including Scriptural. While I know you are not such a person, I still want to know why your philosophy that removes personal evangelism and the assembly of the saints from the commands cannot be extended to any command?
The crux of our disagreement is what you've identified - we disagree that intentional abstention from evangelism and the assembly are sins. If we are going to stand jointly on Sola Scriptura, you must demonstrate from Scripture that you may discard the commands to "go ye therefore" and "forsake not the assembling of ourselves".
Your previous posts / comments on the assembly have been unfulfilling, primarily because the was nothing of Scripture in the justification, just a logical style that I think can be used to justify antinomianism.
As an interesting related aside, John Wesley once decided that he would only witness to someone when "he felt like it". Thus, he did not for five weeks. At that point he realized that he must be obedient to the command regardless of whether he felt like it or not.
I do insist upon absolute righteousness. So does Christ, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven in perfect". Yet, because "I have not yet attained perfection" I know that I will not, and thank Him for His grace. Yet, I still "press on toward the mark of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus". May my sin be that I attempted and failed, rather than not attempted at all.
By
Hammertime, at 7/22/2007 12:23:00 AM
“We make the God of knowledge guilty of twofold ignorance—of not knowing what he has made, and not knowing what he has commanded. As if in forgetfulness of human frailty, which he made, he laid upon men commandments which they could not bear…so that God seems to have been seeking not so much our salvation as our punishment…No one knows better the measure of our strength than he who gave us our strength; and no one has a better understanding of what is within our power than he who endowed us with the very resources of our power. He has not willed to command anything impossible, for he is righteous; and he will not condemn a man for what he could not help, for he is holy.”
This gem was penned by your friend and mine: Pelagius. Who knew that you agreed with him on this particular theological question?!? ;-)
By
Robert, at 7/26/2007 09:19:00 PM
Silly Robert, tricks are for kids!
My response to Pelagius would simply be to God: "Give what thou commandest and command what thou wilt".
By
Hammertime, at 7/27/2007 11:16:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home