Today I want to step into dangerous territory and discuss free will. This is a massive topic with implications that stretch to almost every part of the Christian faith. I want to look at just one small part of it. I want to deal with a statement I’ve heard and read time and again. I came across this most recently when reading C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. “Free will,” he says, “though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.” If God had not given us free will, such people say, we could not truly have loved him. Our love would be the love of robots, of automatons, love that would be neither genuine nor sincere. It would be a meaningless, forced love which in reality would be no love at all. This is what we are told. I want to suggest today that the Bible does not tell us one way or another. This may be a valid inference, but it is one that is not explicit in Scripture and, hence, one we should be hesitant to declare with great confidence.
I am writing today knowing that I could be wrong and inviting you to show me if that is, indeed, the case.
My line of reasoning will go like this. If this statement is true, it casts doubt on the manner and sincerity of the Christian’s love of God in heaven. Therefore, if this statement is untrue of the heavenly man, it may also be untrue of the earthly man.
It was Augustine of Hippo who first described the four states of man. They are most easily understood when put into the form of a table like this one:
Adam and Eve were in what Thomas Boston calls a state of “primitive integrity,” able to choose whether they would sin or not sin. They were able to sin but were also able to not sin. The choice lay before them and we know which path they chose. Adam’s decision cast man into a state of “entire depravity” in which people can no longer make such a choice. Man is now able to sin and unable to not sin. There is not a person on earth who can go a lifetime without sinning; neither is there one who would wish to. Our very natures have become sinful. However, those who are born again, who are regenerated by the Spirit of God, are in a state of “begun recovery” (again, according to Boston) and every moment of every day face a choice. They are able to sin but are also able not to sin. Experience and observation shows that Christians sometimes make one choice and sometimes make another. Their new natures give them the ability to choose to not sin, but the old man constantly fights back, pushing to choose what is sinful. But all the while Christians look forward to the day of “consummate happiness” in heaven when they will be able to not sin and unable to sin. God will grant them the ability to not sin and will remove any vestige of desire to sin. This is one of the great promises of heaven, that “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away (Revelation 21:4).”
It is this final part of the grid that causes me to wonder if our love truly had to be entirely free for it to be genuine. After all, as Christians we look with great anticipation to the day when our sin will be taken away and we will no longer even be able to sin. At this time will our love for God be more genuine or less genuine? Will we love God more or less than we love him now? When we read Scripture and, with great anticipation look to the passages that describe heaven, we can only conclude that our love for God today is only a shadow of the love we will have for him in that day. And yet it will be a love that is restricted by our sinless natures—a love that will not allow us to ever sin or even consider sin.
As I understand it, Augustine would agree with me here. He would say that the ability to sin is not essential to free will. After all, God is free but without the ability to sin. The angels are free but without any ability to sin. And, as we’ve established, we will be free in heaven, but not free to sin.
All of this to say that I simply do not find that we need to believe that the only love worth having is a love that can choose not to love.
But feel free to tell me if and how I’m wrong here…
Comments (83) »
1. Julian Freeman
January 5, 2009
10:01 AM
Hey Tim,
While I agree with your conclusion that genuine love does not necessitate the ability to do otherwise, I’d probably take a bit of a different tack in answering the objection.
The perfection of love is in God and the perfect love-relationship is intra-trinitarian. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father and they both love the Spirit who exists as the perfection of love and unity between them. God cannot do otherwise than to love himself… does that make his love less than genuine? Clearly not.
The question that I think may be tougher to answer (although I think your line of reasoning probably tackles this one better) is whether the ability to do otherwise is part of what it means to be human. But again, I think you answered that indirectly by pointing out that we will not have the ability to sin in glory.
2. J. P. Hession
January 5, 2009
10:09 AM
Very insightful Tim! I’ve never seen Augustine’s diagram of Man before. I might add a couple of notes for mutual benefit…
1. We could perhaps turn around this objection that only freely-choosing humans can have a “real” relationship of love with God and argue the opposite, that we cannot have such a relationship unless God has overcome our rebellious wills and given us a new heart that loves him.
2. John Frame, in his excellent book “The Doctrine of God”, reflects on this issue. He says,
[quote]What if it turns out that we are robots, after all-clay fashioned into marvelous robots, rather than being left as mere clay? Should we complain to God about that? Or should we rather feel honored that our bodies and minds are fashioned so completely to fulfill our assigned roles in God’s great drama? Some creatures are born as rabbits, some as cockroaches, and some as bacteria. By comparison, would it not be a privilege to be born as an intelligent robot? Indeed, what remarkable robots we would be-capable of love and intimacy with God, and assigned to rule over all the creatures. Is it not a wonderful blessing of grace that, when we sinned in Adam, God did not simply discard us, as a potter might very well do with his clay, and as a robot operator might well do with his malfunctioning machine, but sent his only Son to die for us? Risen with him to new life, believers enjoy unimaginably wonderful fellowship with him forever. As we meditate upon these dignities and blessings, the image of the robot becomes less and less appropriate, not because God’s control over us appears less complete, but because one doesn’t treat robots with such love and honor.[/quote]
Frame, John M. (2002). The Doctrine of God: A Theology of Lordship. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing. Pp 146 - 147.
3. ChrisB
January 5, 2009
10:45 AM
Is there scriptural support for the notion that in heaven we’ll be unable to sin? I can’t think of any. Perhaps it will be that we’ll be able to not sin and unwilling to sin — we will, afterall, be in the presence of our redeemer and will have seen first hand the final consequence of sin.
I’m not sure we’re really “able to not sin” now.
Angels can’t sin? How, then, do we explain the rebellion of Satan and his angels?
4. Preston G. Scrape
January 5, 2009
10:48 AM
“But Heaven”, the free-willer responds, “consists of a state in which we freely surrender all sin, even our moral capacity to sin, so as to be in the most intimate love possible with God.”
Not that I necessarily believe that. It is only a thought I have thought before.
5. Ryan
January 5, 2009
10:49 AM
Not that I am capable in any way of arguing with Augustine…but is there a logic flaw? Or does the simplification of his “four states of man” into a table give the appearance of a logic flaw?
Is an Atheist “able to not sin”? (For example: They are tempted to tell a lie, or steal something, but then “decide” not to. Thereby, not committing a sin.)
Then by the table definition, are they “reborn”?
6. Mike Young
January 5, 2009
10:53 AM
I was taught a while ago that there is often more value in the question than in the answer. The conversations between free-will or no free-will often seem moot. As Christians, we are provided a variety of revelations about ourselves:
1) He is the potter and we are the clay
2) Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us…
3) The natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them for they are spiritually discerned
In these verses, I see know real mention of our free-will coming into play. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t there. We are clearly told that we are the ones who sin against God and that he does not tempt us to sin or cause us to sin.
So, is it really our free-will that chooses to love God? Or is God, out of his love for us, able to override our nature and give us the ability to finally love him?
If our nature is truly depraved as a result of the fall, then we are incapable of choosing him. We’re incapable of doing a good thing. We’re incapable of understanding him. We’re incapable of following him. We’re incapable of loving him.
So our will may indeed be free, but only to act according to our nature. It’s not free to overcome our nature, which is depraved. It requires regeneration from above to supplant our nature with a new one that can now freely love God. But guess what? Even with our new nature, we’re still capable of sin, thanklessness, lack of prayer and so forth.
Finally, Phil 2:12-13 reminds us to workout our salvation with fear and trembling for it is God who works in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
That’s a fairly sobering thought. But I think these things should make us all the more thankful that he takes the time with us.
7. Pastor Chad
January 5, 2009
10:55 AM
I agree with ChrisB. I have often wondered where the understanding that in heaven we will be UNABLE to sin came from. I certainly agree that there will be no more pain, no more suffering, no more death, and since the wages of sin is death, there will be no more sin.
But where does it say that we will not be ABLE to sin?
The same questions comes up for me when we think about Jesus. As a man was he unable to sin? When the devil tempted him, was he not able to bow before him and rebel against the Father?
I often wonder if it is not that he was unable, but unwilling. His will was perfect and so he only wanted to do things that pleased the Father, thus willing/choosing not to sin.
I suppose the question is, how far down does rebellion go?
8. Casper
January 5, 2009
11:06 AM
Like that table from Augustine. And I also don’t buy Lewis’ argument about the robots for similar reasons as JP quoted Frame on. I think people who don’t want to be robots shouldn’t want to be Christians since we’re aspiring to be transformed into Christ who is actively transforming us to his will, which is being able to love perfectly.
I’m just a little interested in your line on Sin. You seem to connect sin to being something that is primarily about choice whether this was Pre-Fall or Reborn man.
From what I understand evil and sin is rooted in disbelief of God. It flows out of our heart. So in the circumstance of Adam and Eve their sin was disbelieving God and thinking that they had the supremacy to choose between good and evil. Thus humanity has been doomed to sin ever since because we are of the belief we can discern good from evil according to our own perceptions. Essentially we can’t do it alone, God must reveal himself to us so that we can see good as good and evil as evil. God Himself in the person of Jesus is the root of the truth that cuts good from evil. Thus without seeing Christ for who he is we are doomed to the confusion between good and evil, essentially the pursuit of “good” away from God.
Now if sin is so much about choice then why does the Serpent, Adam and Eve get punished. It should only be the “choosers” where as it’s all of them for disbelief. Often you’ll hear of “free-will” proponents making the argument that choice is part of our Imago Dei, our high level of creation. Yet how come the Serpent gets punished? I just don’t believe free-will (the ability to make decisions separate from God) is a part of our Imago Dei for that.
I think God authors things to happen for His good and that of those who love Him, even though we ourselves may actively will for evil in that same circumstance, yet this is not outside of God’s will.
9. Scott Warren
January 5, 2009
11:36 AM
“Is there scriptural support for the notion that in heaven we’ll be unable to sin?”
My understanding and interpretation is in Revelation 21:4 it says
“for the former things have passed away.” and in 21:1 we have a new Heaven and a new Earth. In 21:27 referring to the new Jerusalem it says “But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”
So looking at these verses in the context of the book of Revelation. I think when we are called up (1 Thessalonians 4:17-18) our bodies will be changed (1 Corinthians 15:51-53) into something new, where the sin nature is completely gone. I believe these scriptures support being unable to sin in Heaven.
10. Scott C
January 5, 2009
12:03 PM
I am seeking some clarification on the matrix. Did you put this together yourself or did you borrow it from somewhere? It seem to me the first category speaks to man’s propensity to sin whereas the second category speaks to man’s ability to resist sin. If that is so, should not the categories in the last case (i.e. glorified man) be reversed? It seems “able to not sin” speaks of one’s resistance to sin and “unable to sin” speaks to the propensity to sin. In my mind that fits the pattern better but perhaps I’m missing something.
11. jessica mell
January 5, 2009
12:08 PM
On a related note: If I’m remembering correctly from a course I took 3 or 4 years ago, Anselm considers freedom as distinct from the ability to sin; freedom is the ability to maintain righteousness/a righteous will because doing so is right and good (not for other motives).
After consulting the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm/#FreSinRed), seems like I’m pretty close.
Not that Anselm is Truth. But, he presents a point of view that doesn’t think the ability to sin is a fundamental aspect of freedom. Which connects to the idea you point out, Tim, that God is most certainly free, and He cannot sin (which would mean contradicting His nature).
12. Paul Adams
January 5, 2009
12:18 PM
Hey Tim,
Well said. If interested browse to my essay Augustine and Freedom: Some Tentative Philosophical Reflections where I have written similarly on your entry here.
13. Brance
January 5, 2009
12:36 PM
Ryan said,
But Scripture tells us that “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23)
Therefore the atheist with his lack of faith in God, sins in every way. Having no faith in Christ, he does nothing from faith, therefore everything he does is sin, even if it appears to be a good thing. He is unable to not sin. Until his heart is regenerate, at which time he is given faith and the ability to walk by faith, which is not to sin.
14. Pastor Chad
January 5, 2009
12:36 PM
Scott Warren, you say “our bodies will be changed (1 Corinthians 15:51-53) into something new, where the sin nature is completely gone.” I see that our bodies will be changed, but where does it say that the sin nature will be completely gone?
I understand that the Bible states that there will be no sin in heaven, and that we will be perfect. But does perfection mean not having the ability to sin, or does perfection mean not having the DESIRE to sin?
This may be somewhat pedantic, but I do think that it speaks to our present day. If we are simply living our Christian lives, hoping for the day when we will no longer be able to sin, then we are not living the lives God is calling us to live today. We are not to wait for sometime in the future when we can no longer sin, we are to put to death our sinful nature and raise to life the new nature given to us in Christ.
Now.
Today.
15. Jon Anderson
January 5, 2009
12:44 PM
I agree with your logic and I think it is scripturally sound and an important point to be made. however I think we often get pulled off coarse by the arminians when we allow them to make our free love for God into the main issue. though it is an important issue and one worth discussing in detail its not the MAIN issue. if we make it the main issue we end up painting God as this love sick puppy that desperately needs our freely chosen love, the idea is repulsive. the main issue is God’s glory, and He certainly can display His greatest glory through robots and automatons if He so chooses. Its just not as nice to the pride of the pots.
16. Richard Jones
January 5, 2009
12:50 PM
Ryan,
What motivation would the atheist have for telling the truth? By definition he has no fear of God or desire to honor Him. Therefore the atheist tells the truth only for selfish motivations. Why would he not tell a lie if that better suited his purposes? Doing the “right” thing for sinful reasons is still sin. The atheist is unable to do otherwise.
17. luke
January 5, 2009
1:13 PM
Ryan:
To your comment. “Is an Atheist “able to not sin”? (For example: They are tempted to tell a lie, or steal something, but then “decide” not to. Thereby, not committing a sin.)”
Unbelief is a sin in itself so an atheist can do nothing but sin constantly. Atheists never even try to obey the first or second commandments.
We must remember that all sin is the same so just because an unbeliever is not murdering or stealing or lieing doesn’t mean that he is not in constant sin. In fact he is. No glory is ever given to God and the truth is supressed every second of every day. Unbelief in Christ as Savior is ultimately the sin that will damn someone to Hell forever. Without the Grace of God being poured into the heart of an unbeliever they will never even think about loving God with all their heart mind and soul. An unbeliever is dead in trespasses and sins making submission to Christ and obeying HIm impossible. God must intervene with spiritual resurrection (regeneration) or there is absolutely no hope.
I feel that Augustine hit the nail on the head with his chart
18. Dave Bissett
January 5, 2009
1:17 PM
Hey Tim,
Loved the historical recap of your work, etc. (and Thabiti’s brick through the window comment!).
You’ve mentioned Thomas Boston today — have you plugged his work THE FOURFOLD STATE yet? it is one of my favorite books; a real spiritual gem.
19. Megan
January 5, 2009
1:25 PM
Thank you for your thoughts, Tim and your comment, Pastor Chad. At the end of the day, this life is about bringing glory to God as is the eternal life. Dying to our sin now and perfectly no longer desiring sin later is quite logical and Biblical. I’ll let God explain to me later exactly the relationship between our will and his sovereignty. But for now the knowledge that he is sovereign suffices plenty.
20. Ryan
January 5, 2009
1:30 PM
Brance and Richard,
Thanks for the feedback on my question.
While I believe that nobody (both Christians and Atheists) can do good without the grace of God (Romans 3:12, Ecclesiastes 7:20), I could see somebody looking at that table and saying “but I don’t do all the evil I think of, so I am able to not sin”.
This same type of logic was used by Daniel Goleman in his book Social Intelligence to argue that people were basically good. I scribbled “monkey math” in the margin of that book.
Thanks for the Romans 14:23 scripture reference.
21. Scott Warren
January 5, 2009
1:31 PM
Pastor Chad, scripture does not state in exact words and I do not know that we will not be able to sin. It does state that the wolf and lamb will feed together and the lion will eat straw. (Isaiah 65:25) and in Isaiah 11:8-9 the child will reach into the snakes den and no one will hurt or destroy for all shall have full knowledge of the LORD. (my paraphrase) Is the lamb safe from the wolf because it no longer desires to eat it. or is it because God removed it’s natural desire. I don’t know.
I do not desire to sin, yet i still get angry, I still feel envy. Jesus told us in the beatitudes to think of sin is to sin in God’s eyes.no man can is righteous and if they claim to be they are lying to themselves.
If we still have an unchanged sin nature man will sin in thought, if not in deed. Adam and Eve were in a perfect paradise without the knowledge of good and evil, yet they sinned.
Am I hoping for a day when I can no longer sin. No, I try to live as Christ would want me to everyday. As I lay down at night, I reflect on my day and realize I fall miserably short. I confess to God and try harder, yet man will inevitably fail.
22. Peter Lumpkins
January 5, 2009
1:31 PM
While there may be no explicit scriptural reference to the inability to sin in the New Heavens & New Earth, surely the Apostle Peter hints at such: “Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” (2Pet. 3:13, emphasis added).
Given the contextual matters of both judgment on “ungodly men” (2Pet. 3:7) through the elements “melt[ing] with fervent heat…the works that are therein shall be burned up” (2Pet. 3:10) as well as specific exhortation to believers to consider what “manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness” (2Pet. 3:11), it does not seem likely that our land of “many mansions” would specifically harbor even the possibility of unrighteousness dwelling there.
Add to the above John’s description of God’s coming city which needs no natural light since God’s Lamb illumines it (Rev. 21:23), nor temple since the Lord and His Lamb are its temple (Rev. 21:22). No wonder he then concludes:
Such texts—as well as others mentioned here (or could easily be marshaled)—leave little doubt, at least for me, Old Augustine was not incorrect to conclude the inability of Heaven’s dwellers to contemplate, as did Lucifer, a hopeless coup d’état.
As for Augustine’s little chart Tim posted, our good friend R.C. Sproul makes much use of this in his writings.
With that, I am…
Peter
23. Tim Irvin
January 5, 2009
1:34 PM
@Pastor Chad, who said, “we are to put to death our sinful nature and raise to life the new nature given to us in Christ.”
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point. Are you saying that our new nature lies dormant and it is our responsibility to raise it to life?
As to Augustine; I think I disagree with his “Reborn Man” thesis that he is “Able to NOT sin”. I always think of Peter’s denial of the Lord. It’s an interesting Paradox. The Lord foretold that Peter would deny him. So, even with this knowledge, was Peter “Free” to choose differently?
The Lord hid the Tree of Life from Adam and Eve so that they would not eat of it and live in an everlasting state of “Able to Sin”. Once glorified, I believe we will eat of the tree, drink from the everlasting fountain and live in an everlasting state of “Not Able to Sin.”
24. Woz
January 5, 2009
1:44 PM
A thought I had is that perhaps there is a connection between what Paul considers “flesh” and the fact that in heaven we will have new bodies? I dont have time to flesh it out, but I’m sure you might be able to run with that.
25. Phil Whittall
January 5, 2009
1:52 PM
A couple of points in defense of free will: firstly we’re in heaven both as a result of our choice and God’s choice - the response of faith (which is the gift of God), so we gain the consequences of that choice just as we would in hell. Secondly, if Christ is the bridegroom and the church is the bride, perhaps we will be united with him and so in some deeper way share in the heavenly nature which will mean we will be like Christ - able to sin but utterly unwilling to do so, unlike our present state.
26. therealdrag0
January 5, 2009
1:56 PM
Nice post Mr. Challies.
This (needing freewill to love) is one of those ideas that I have heard myself and without thinking about it re-spewed it onto other people.
27. Jim Brown
January 5, 2009
1:56 PM
Tim,
The angels can’t sin? What about Satan, he certainly has sinned.
I have to disagree, although my argument may seem a little disjointed. Love has to be by choice and without free will there is no choice. Also, it is our nature is to hate captivity. Compulsory love is not love at all, sorry but I’ll have to use a parable to explain; does the child who can do no wrong (in his parent’s eyes) grow to love his parents more or less than the child who is punished when he does wrong? In the end, the spoiled child despises his parents because he can never show his love for them. If we were unable to sin then we would see ourselves as equal to God it is only through our weakness that we see God’s strength.
The Heaven of continuous worship described in Revelation does sound like compulsory worship but there has to be more to this than we can understand as humans. No matter how much I enjoy worship, I certainly don’t feel like worshipping all the time but perhaps Heavenly worship is so much better that I will want to worship continually in Heaven.
As for debating Augustine, I wish to take nothing away from the man but he is a man, not God, and I don’t agree with everything he said.
In any event this debate is of secondary importance to the Gospel.
We are sinners and will go to hell because we can not pay the debt for our sin; Jesus died on the cross to pay the debt for us; He rose on the third day; all those who believe will be forgiven and go to Heaven.
God bless,
-jim
http://ke4juh.wordpress.com/
28. Mike
January 5, 2009
2:01 PM
To add something to this, I heard Piper say in reference to free will “We don’t need free will, we need wills made free” (my paraphrase from something I heard quite some time ago).
It hinted at the fact that fallen (unregenerated) man does not want to “not sin” and thus his will is bound to sin. Regenerated man wants to “not sin”. -> we are free in that we want to do what’s right, not necessarily that we can do what’s right.
29. Aaron
January 5, 2009
2:09 PM
Tim,
Regarding the first stage of man, Adam was “able to sin” and “able not to sin”, however, he was not truly free. This is what bugs me about the 1689 Confession’s (and WCF) statement about the “liberty of mutable will”… (Thankfully the next chapter says God “directed it all to his glory.”) Edwards’ The Freedom of the Will (and Concerning the Divine Decrees, etc.) helped me move beyond the notion that Adam was truly “free”. Edwards says that knowledge after-the-fact (if it is not a hallucination), makes an event necessary, that it actually happened. So it is with God: his foreknowledge makes an event just as necessary as if it were after-known by us. So if there is a necessity that it could not happen any other way, in what sense was the will truly free to do any other than what was foreknown? The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (or in other translations, before the foundation of the world, the names of the elect were written in the book of the Lamb who was slain). Therefore, the sovereignty of God governed Adam’s mutable will just as much as his sovereignty governed those who were gathered together against Jesus (Acts 4), and just as much as his sovereignty governs everything today. If Adam was truly free, then Jesus was a Plan B rescue mission. But no, the covenant of Grace was Plan A all along. When Lewis wrote Mere Christianity, he was doing it as an apologetic work to reason with unbelievers (e.g. it could be that his free will thing was merely milk and not meat to him, but I could be wrong). So Christians who use the “robots can’t love” argument are playing with mudpies when they could take the offer of a holiday at the beach.
I love C.S. Lewis, but Edwards would have none of that free will talk.
30. Matt
January 5, 2009
3:01 PM
Ryan- Is an Atheist “able to not sin”? (For example: They are tempted to tell a lie, or steal something, but then “decide” not to. Thereby, not committing a sin.)
Then by the table definition, are they “reborn”?
Romans 14:23 - For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
Romans 3:12 - All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.
Everything that unregenerate man does is marred by sin. Even when his external behaviour seems good, the motivation behind that behaviour is not the glory of God. It is selfishness (i.e. - I feel good when I do this). Just the other day, I was thinking about the inability of man to do anything pleasing to God, and then on the radio the old song “We Are the World” came on. On the surface, the song was done for a very good cause. But the lyrics struck me as incredibly self-serving (e.g. - “We’re saving our own lives”, “We are the ones who make a brighter day”, etc.). Even in doing ‘good’, man is ultimately selfish and self-serving.
31. Matt
January 5, 2009
3:08 PM
I started writing a response to Ryan and then had to leave for a bit. I just finished it up and posted it, and now going back to the thread, I see others have offered a similar answer to myself. Sorry to be redundant.
32. Matt
January 5, 2009
3:23 PM
NOT TO PUBLISH
Hi Tim, my comment #30 only makes sense if my first post is up. Would you either want to post that one as well, or else feel free to delete #30.
Blessings,
Matt
33. Dave
January 5, 2009
3:36 PM
Tim,
I really appreciate a man who is willing to tackle “dangerous teritory” and I believe they should handle it with love, grace, and understanding. Thanks for handling it well. I hope to see more on this subject even though it has been debated for centuries.
I think one of the issues here for many is that they can see there ability to choose different things in every day life and apply that to the issue of spiritual free will. Although we have free will to choose a Pepsi over a Coke we certainly do not have the ability to chose righteousness over sin prior to conversion.
Something to ponder though is that we are told in several places throughout the NT that we must confess with our mouth and believe in our hearts. Is that not free will? No! That is what is called human responsibility. When a sovereign God calls a fallen sinner he/she must respond or be condemned. This also sounds like free will but is it really? Did the fallen sinner force God to offer the call?
We get all tangled up in this and forget the real question regaurding free will. How could we ever be saved if it was not for God revealing His salvation to us? We couldn’t !
34. Nick Carter
January 5, 2009
3:52 PM
One word: Compatibalism.
The problem is not that some believe in free will and others don’t, it’s that some define free will out of a human-centric (sinful) mindset. Every intelligent calvinist would affirm that we do have free will, but not libertarian free will. This is indeed how we are able to live in Glory as “free will” agents without the ability to sin. God will construct the New Kingdom in such a way that we will be unable to sin simply for lack of the option and desire. “Man will do what man most desires.” That is free will in a nutshell.
35. Pastor Chad
January 5, 2009
3:54 PM
@ Tim Irvin
Paul says it quite often, actually, but the passage I was thinking of was Colossians 3 where he tells the believers to ‘put to death whatever belongs to your earthly nature’.
The reference to the resurrection of the new self is not a reference to something latent within us, but to the fact that we (through baptism) have been united in Christ’s death and resurrection; a once for all reality that Paul tells us to work to realise (Romans 6).
36. Paul Adams
January 5, 2009
4:03 PM
May I suggest to all that reading Augustine would be a tremendous help as well. Consider:
“God … works in us, without our cooperation, the power to will, but once we begin to will, and do so in a way that brings us to act, then it is that He cooperates with us. But if He does not work in us the power to will or does not cooperate in our act of willing, we are powerless to perform good works of a salutory nature.”
from Augustine’s “Grace and Free Will,” 14, 27; trans. Robert P. Russell, in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 59, ed. Roy Joscph Deferrari, 280.
37. Kyle Grant
January 5, 2009
4:15 PM
In response to Ryan, comment 5 above, I would quote wcf 16:7 - Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others: yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word;nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God: and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.
38. Brian Stock
January 5, 2009
4:54 PM
After reading a dozen or two post, I must say that arguing love at the level of ‘choice’ is shallow (lack of a better word). Augustine understood something so much deeper:
“Freedom [or love] cannot be reduced to a sense of choice: it is a freedom to act fully. Such freedom must involve the transcendence of a sense of choice. For a sense of choice is a symptom of the disintergration of the will: the final union of knowledge and feeling would involve a man in the object of his choice in a way that any other alternative would be inconceivable” (Augustine of Hippo, Peter Brown, p. 376)
He continues from Augustine commentary of John, “Give me a man in love: he knows what I mean. Give me one who yearns; give me one who is hungry; give me one for away in this desert, who is thirsty and sighs for the spring of the Eternal country. Give me that sort of man: he knows what I mean. But if I speak to a cold man, he just does not know what I am talking about…” (Ibid, p. 377)
I remember when I met my wife-to-be, I sought her with a passionate love. I pray I will forever lose that… and never make love a choice.
39. Laurie
January 5, 2009
4:57 PM
You’ve managed to express my own view much more concisely than I’ve ever been able to. Very well said. I also appreciate the comments above which included excerpts from Frame’s Doctrine of God and Edwards’ Freedom of the Will - both of which were very instructive for me when I dove headlong into this topic a couple of years back.
When I first began looking into this matter in those days, Lewis’ philosophy was exactly the one I held to. I didn’t even have a mental category for anything different, and struggled and struggled to think outside of that box, not sure it was possible. Interestingly enough, it was my teenage daughter who shocked me into realizing there is another way to see it. One day as I studied she asked me what I was doing. I told her I was puzzling over “free-will”. I gave her a brief overview of the problem that was giving me such a headache. When I was finished, she said very simply, “Mom, there’s no such thing as free will. If God knows the end from the beginning, then everything that is going to happen has to happen - it’s fixed. There was a bit more to the conversation, like how her ability to grasp this came from playing virtual reality games like the Sims. (Yes, I understand the world is not a computer game, but it helped me understand her point.)
Clearly the matter is not quite as simple as she stated it to be; but once I was able to see outside the box I was freed mentally to understand some alternate philosophies. This paved the way for me to understand Edwards’ view in Freedom of the Will, (which Aaron brings up in comment #29). I no longer accept free will philosophy in the form in which it is generally held. Certainly man has desires and volition. He owns them and is responsible for them. Certainly God does not incite man to sin. Certainly man fell and now lives in a state of perpetual sinfulness. Certainly God accomplishes all His purposes using nature, and the desires and volition of sinful man in such a way that men carry out their own desires while somehow, usually unwittingly, serving God’s ultimate purposes as well . These are truths that are clear from Scripture. How God accomplishes such a thing is a mystery, but He clearly accomplishes it.
40. Darrin
January 5, 2009
5:43 PM
Tim, you wrote:
“I want to suggest today that the Bible does not tell us one way or another. This may be a valid inference, but it is one that is not explicit in Scripture and, hence, one we should be hesitant to declare with great confidence. I am writing today knowing that I could be wrong and inviting you to show me if that is, indeed, the case.”
I do think you are wrong if you are not clearly stating that Lewis is completely off-base here, which he is. Scripture abundantly shows that our faith and love are products of God’s grace, but once possessing this love, as Peter says, “Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory.” Is this a fake, robotic love?
Once God gives us spiritual life and the ability to see His beauty, the response of love and faith is certainly genuine. To say that it must come from natural sinful man is to exalt what pitiful capability for love we have rather to exalt the very life and love of God as implanted in the souls of His children.
I do appreciate your open and honest presentation of this topic of free will. Though a contraversial one, it is very important to our view of salvation and just what Christ has done for us.
41. Joseph Grigoletti
January 5, 2009
5:49 PM
Question Tim: Where in the Bible does it say that Angels cannot sin? Satan was an Angel and did sin so clearly they have the potential. I think a more precise statement would be something like ”Angels have the ability to sin but by God’s providence they will not sin even though they have the ability to do so on their own”.
42. Deron
January 5, 2009
6:44 PM
I liked this post. Interesting thoughts. Going against my Arminian background, this stands in marked contrast to what I had been taught….but I guess I would tend to agree.
I wasn’t able to read all the comments so maybe this has already come up, but can we be sure based on the Bible that we will be unable to sin in heaven? Or are we just inferring it like some have inferred that we are given free will in order to show that we love God.
P.S. I do know about the verse in Revelation 21:4 that mentions that Jesus will wipe away our tears and their will be no more morning, etc. But it doesn’t specifically mention sin.
43. Ricky Acred
January 5, 2009
6:46 PM
I would like to offer up one question to everyone. Why would God send his Son to die a horrible death on a cross if all he intended to do is choose who would love him and who would not? What purpose does Jesus serve whatsoever if there is no free will? Okay that’s kinda like 2 questions… but anyway. Okay three questions… why would God go through this exercise of letting us live on his earth creation at all if not to give us the chance to choose him? Isn’t it all meaningless otherwise? (q4)
Okay I’m quitting before it gets to 20 questions…
44. Will Shin
January 5, 2009
8:48 PM
Thanks for conjuring up the box model of Augustine’s concept of the 4 states of man and the respective relationship sin has to them.
I agree with the Pre-Fall man, the Post-Fall man, and the Glorified man.
With the Reborn man, however, the “able to not sin,” I believe, needs to be differentiated from the “able to not sin” of the Pre-Fall man for at least 3 reasons:
1. Physical & Spiritual Nature of man. Pre-Fall man was born without sin in both his physical and his spiritual nature. Reborn man is reborn without sin spiritually (thus the spiritual rebirth) but not physically (e.g we’re stlll in our unglorified physical bodies).
2. Romans 7:20. For those who interpret this verse as Paul’s unconverted period of life, then the Reborn man is truly “able to not sin.” But for those (like me) who interpret this verse as Paul’s confession in his reborn life, it is clear that Paul confesses that sin still actively lives in him and causes him to sin.
3. Pelagian “Perfectionism.” The Pre-Fall man’s worship of God, lifestyle habits, thoughts, desires, etc. were truly free from sin. Reborn man’s worship of God, lifestyle habits, thoughts, desires, etc. are still far short of being in any degree near the perfect stage of “sinlessness” as Pelagius/Finley subscribes.
I think it is best to say for the Reborn man that he is both “unable to not sin” AND “able to not sin.” I also think that while the model above is truly helpful, it needs to be expanded to distinguish the two natures of man (body and spirit; physical and spiritual; flesh and soul).
45. Sean
January 5, 2009
9:35 PM
I like your thoughts here. I see all over scripture that God is the author of all things. Therefore He is also the author of love. I am always puzzled that the believer who so readily accepts that God has created all things, recoils at the notion that He would also create the love that we love Him with. Maybe this issue does not seem complex to me. Why is it offensive that God gives us the love that we love Him with? That does not make us robots, it makes us beings who are fulfilling our purpose. It seems prideful and heretic to think that we could create a love for God within ourselves that He is not a part of.
46. J.P.
January 5, 2009
9:38 PM
Tim,
I’ve heard the heaven/St. Augustine question a number of times and am still trying to figure out the best way to think about it. I do agree that the “love requires free will in order to exist” argument is not specifically found in Scripture. But neither is Augustine’s idea that we are “unable” instead of “unwilling” to sin in heaven. Scripture like 2 Peter 3:13, Rev. 21:4, 27, I Thess. 4:17-18, I Cor. 15:51-53 make it clear that there will be no sin or evil in heaven, but they do not answer the philosophical distinction between whether we are “unwilling to sin” or “unable to sin.”
Pastor Chad asked - “But does perfection mean not having the ability to sin, or does perfection mean not having the DESIRE to sin?”
Isn’t it impossible to be tempted to sin if you do not have the ability to sin? Jesus was tempted like we are (Heb. 4:15). I think that implies the ability to sin and being unwilling, not having the desire to sin like Pastor Chad asked. This is why I don’t see the logic behind the idea that we do not have free will in heaven.
If, by free will, you make the choice to accept or reject God, isn’t than a permanent decision? If there is such a thing as a permanent decision, or a choice that has permanent consequences (faith in Christ means you are now in the process of being sanctified - a permanent consequence).
The example of the angels is interesting because I’ve always wondered if some of the good angels can still fall? I don’t think so. Why? Because when Satan rebelled, each angel made a permanent choice (through free will) to obey or disobey God. The fact that they made the free choice doesn’t mean they don’t have free will anymore. It just means the choice has been made. It’s final.
I wonder if the same thing goes for heaven & hell - is it possible to make a final, ultimate free choice with lasting consequences? Placing your faith in Christ sure seems like a permanent decision. But does the fact that you’ve made a permanent free decision mean you don’t have free will? Not necessarily.
47. J.P.
January 5, 2009
9:40 PM
Also, even though I like St. Augustine, there are times when I’d have to part ways with him and go with St. Thomas Aquinas instead (and vice versa).
48. Brad
January 5, 2009
9:56 PM
Rick it seems u assume that life and creation is about us…but indeed and thankfully its about God…. why did he do it this way…b/c it pleased Him psm 115 1 Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to your name give glory,
for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness!
2Why should the nations say,
“Where is their God?”
3 Our God is in the heavens;
he does all that he pleases.
Why did Jesus die on the cross for the sins of the many?….for His joy and Gods glory!!!!!
heb12:2
looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.
Its all about Jesus and Him glorified!…if u have problems with us not haveing a hand in salvation read romans and stand in awe of Gods great plan 2 bring Him self the most Glory!
49. T.K.
January 5, 2009
10:20 PM
J.P.??? Is John Piper posting on Challies???
50. Matt
January 5, 2009
10:21 PM
Ricky - Jesus life, death, and resurrection most likely serves a greater purpose in the Reformed view. If all Jesus accomplished was to ‘make man savable’ by providing a plan, then it is entirely possible that nobody would accept His atoning work, and He could very well have died in vain. In fact, if man is truly dead in sin, this is exactly what would have happened.
If, on the other hand, Jesus died in the place of specific, individual sinners and secured their salvation perfectly, then He truly did accomplish all His purpose (Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:5).
In point of fact, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement only really makes sense if Christ perfectly secured the salvation of a particular people.
51. thefaithfulmind
January 5, 2009
10:39 PM
Ah-ha! You have chosen to tackle a most difficult subject, and I admire you for it.
It seems to me that we are neither completely free in our desires, nor are we completely restricted in our desires. Essentially, I am placing “Free will” and “Driven Will” at opposite poles and saying that I believe that we find ourselves somewhere in-between the two.
I, like you, could be wrong, but follow me on this: Some people point out that, with free will accepted as the ruling principle, God is incapacitated to do anything to influence our will beyond what other people can do. I cannot believe this because the Bible is very clear that God has the ability to harden hearts, to soften others, and to do things directly influencing a person’s free will. In addition to this, by accepting the “Free Will” doctrine wholly, we are placing the power of being saved completely in the hands of the individual, which is not consistent with the Book Acts, where it says, “God added to their number…”, not just “And more people chose to came to Christ…”
However, it is an equally problematic assumption that there is no free will. In that case, God could just “will” everyone on Earth into heaven, which begs the question, “Why doesn’t he?” since we know that God articulates repeatedly in the Old Testament and New that He does not desire for anyone to perish. In addition, that would invalidate the scriptural passages were God is asking people to turn to him, because that implies that they (the sinners God is talking to) have some power of their destiny.
I know that this is a complex answer, and perhaps by introducing this possibility, I am complicating the whole matter far more than need be. However, In my personal pondering, I find that absolute free will and absolute non-free will both have heavy theological and moral implications. The only alternative I see is that it is neither, or perhaps both (to an extent). As far as I know, this theory is not in conflict with any other major Biblical doctrine.
So, we do have free will (to an extent), but we are also subject to the guidance of God or Satan (to an extent). Like I said, it isn’t easy to consider, but it is the best thought I have to offer.
52. Mike F.
January 5, 2009
11:28 PM
I can’t think of anywhere where Scripture says we will be unable to
sin in explicit language, but it seems clear that those factors which contribute to it are no longer present. Satan, the great deceiver is no more, the “flesh” no longer wages war with the spirit, and we have been perfected, fully conformed to the image of the Perfect One (Man, I get excited just talking about this scenario!). If we are made perfect and all creation is “delivered from the bondage of corruption”, from where would the sinful impulse originate?
In regard to free will and the ability to love, I personally understand my love for God as being directly linked to my increasing degree of understanding Him and more accurately perceiving Him in His glory. As a new believer, twenty-five years ago, I was secretly ashamed and somewhat perplexed at what I felt to be a grossly inadequate “love level” in my life in regard to the God who had saved me from His wrath. But as the years have passed, and He has demonstrated His absolute faithfulness and unchanging nature, I have been blessed to better understand Him and discard so many wrong ideas and misperceptions. My love for Him is inseparable from my increasing knowledge of Him, and this in my opinion is yet another wonderful manifestation of His grace, not my choice.
53. Rick
January 5, 2009
11:36 PM
Brad… “if u have problems with us not haveing a hand in salvation read romans “.
What do you mean by us? Are you saying that you and all other Calvanists cause salvation? I have read Romans many times and I agree it is a beautiful book, but what is your point? In my reading of Romans and all the other beautiful books in the Bible I have not found that God finds it JOYFUL to kill his Son. Are you kidding me? Trying to get me going eh… By the way, there are 65 other books in the Bible not just Romans and I like them all. And in my reading of the Bible I find that freewill is writting all over most every page, such as John 3:16 “whosoever believeth”. Also on numerous occasions God inspires the writers to pen the words “all”. You all are geniuses and know if you trace the etymology of the work all back to the Greek or Hebrew you get a word that means ALL. Jesus died so all CAN be saved if they so believe (free will). What glory does God get from creating a creature that is made to love him. He hates sin, but gave humans the free will to choose whether they would have knowledge of it. Don’t you think he could have put a fence between Adam, Eve, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Of course he could, and I believe he could do anything he wants. Why didn’t he? He wanted to a creature to love Him of free will. But MAKE us love him? What motivations has He for that?
54. John from Down Under
January 6, 2009
12:44 AM
Hope I’m not too late with this post as it’s late night in your neck of the woods. I feel a little ‘handicapped’ from the analysis paralysis of this topic and I marvel at our remarkable prowess to complicate the simple and this put me in the mood to rant!
Tim, pardon my antipodean density (the heat & humidity down here has slowed us down a bit) but I’m not entirely sure on your take on this. Why the dichotomy between earthly and heavenly man? If our love for God in heaven will be ‘superior’ to the one on earth, why would that make our choice to love God on earth less relevant?
There are some distinctions between earthly and heavenly life that are worth remembering:
Now I’M DYING to ask some questions to those anti-choice folk and I’m relying on some ‘kind Calvinists’ (still trying to convince myself that it’s not an oxymoron) or robotically controlled humanoids, for a CIVIL answer without confrontational polemics. I know some of you may endanger having an aneurism when you read this but please restrain yourself, keep your fluids up and breathe at all times! Also resist the temptation to ‘classify’ me as I am neither an Arminian, Calvinist or semi-Pelagian. I don’t like the entire package from either of them. Here we go:
Furthermore, many have commented that ‘sinners’ are incapable of doing anything good on their own accord and ALL their deeds are sinful. I am tempted to say that you folks need to get out more and mix with some unbelievers, but I fear this may offend so I will refrain. Can a volunteer respondent please comment:
To conclude my rant…
God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit but the choice is ours to love or not to love, obey or disobey etc?
I hope my tongue-in-cheek did not offend. Peace to all!
55. Dave
January 6, 2009
1:49 AM
John from Down Under,
It is late here but I found myself reading your comments anyway.
As a calvanist I would like to say thanks! I’m truly sick and tired of calvanists who lack grace and love in their responses to such difficult topics such as this. We preach grace all the time but often forget to practice it.
I would love to deal with some of your comments right know but as I said earlier, it’s late. Suffice it to say that I believe God is big enough for man to have “free will”, or whatever else you want to label it to be comfortable in your theological camp, and still be completely sovereign. He is after all the God of all creation.
In Christ,
Dave
56. Danny Turner
January 6, 2009
3:21 AM
Great stuff Tim!
I loved the chart from Augustine about the stages of man. Really good concept and a great way of presenting it.
Concerning this philosophical idea that in order to have true and real love there must be the ability to love, independent of any force or change upon one’s will. This is the most common objection I recieve during theological conversations and like you I attempt to argue that the Bible makes no such claim that we are even able or willing to love God without him changing our wills and giving us a renewed heart.
In fact the Bible makes the very claim that, apart from the grace of God, no one wants to love God and know him. The Bible even uses stronger words to describe the sinner in such a position: hostile to God (Rom. 8:7), dead in tresspasses (Eph. 2:1) and 1 Corinthians 2:14 says that, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”
I thank you for your post and the ministry that God has given you of informing the reformed. God Bless and stand strong!
57. John from Down Under
January 6, 2009
5:10 AM
Dave…… an insomniac Clavinist :) [kidding]
If you were to write more I would have felt guilty for keeping you up! You’re obviously not one of the Extreme Theology bloggers, or if you were you must have detoxed!
Seriously though, thank YOU for your gracious response. I don’t and can’t disagree with your reply one iota! That’s exactly where I’m at.
To deny God’s sovereignty OR our right to choose are both theological nonsense! I can’t explain the mystery but there are solid reasons in the Bible to believe both.
There are far too many warnings, commandments & appeals in the NT aimed at our will (put off the old man……love one another……think on these things etc.etc) to deny the notion that God’s going to do it all and we are just spectators. While God’s Spirit stimulates our will and empowers us to do good, when given a choice between good and evil we still have to tick a box. Otherwise it makes no sense for the Bible to call us God’s co-workers (1 Cor 3:9), and ‘to appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive what is due for what we did in the body [that he programmed us to do??] whether good or evil’ (2 Cor 5:10)
Gathering by the number of comments, this is a HOT topic.
Blessings!
58. Cindy
January 6, 2009
6:51 AM
Salvation is from our side a choice; from the divine side it is a seizing upon, an apprehending, a conquest by the Most High God. Our accepting and willing are reactions rather than actions.
Tozer, A. W.
59. underdogtheology
January 6, 2009
8:03 AM
The issue of FREE WILL is really quite simple. It is all a matter of ABSTRACTION. God has so designed REALITY that every figment of His creation is FREE to be, is FREE to choose and act, in accordance with its ABSTRACTION; that is to say, its NATURE. The dog is FREE to bark but is not FREE to meow.
In the same way, pre-Fall man had a different ABSTRACTION from his post-Fall counterpart. Post-Fall, the saved and unsaved have different ABSTRACTIONS, much as glorified man will have its own ABSTRACTION.
http://underdogtheology.blogspot.com/
60. underdogtheology
January 6, 2009
8:19 AM
The SOVEREIGNTY of God and the FREE WILL of man are not at odds at all.
God creates human beings each with his/her own propensities, inclinations, desires, tendencies—-that is, his/her own ABSTRACTION. Every human that comes into existence has a part to play in God’s plan and God sustains him and enables him to choose and act according to how he was created, according to his ABSTRACTION. He is totally FREE to choose and act within the bounds of his ABSTRACTION.
http://underdogtheology.blogspot.com/
61. Mike F.
January 6, 2009
10:03 AM
John from Down Under,
While reading comments from and to you this morning,
I couldn’t help but think of Charles Spurgeon’s often quoted reply,
apparently uttered when he was once questioned about reconciling the seemingly incompatible doctrines of God’s sovereignty in salvation and man’s responsibility to believe. His response, of course, was to say, “I’m not in the habit of reconciling friends.” Spurgeon was a Calvinist, but he felt no need to apologize for what the Scriptures say. God is sovereign AND man is responsible to believe. Blessings to you.
62. Brad
January 6, 2009
1:06 PM
Rick…i am sorry no i am not trying 2 get u going…maybe i should work on how i respond 2 people i dont do it very often…..I say that God was pleased 2 kill His son b?c God says so through the profit Isaiah…Isa 43:10 NASB But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
…my point in reading Romans is that it is the best book at describing salvation..though God choice in election is in just about every book…Rom9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. Rom 9:18 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
I agree that God could have put a fence between Adam and Eve and kept them from sinning…b/c He did not and he allowed there sin that means he planed it…if God is all powerful and he is and he chooses not 2 stop something He has then planed its outcome…and He did so for our good and his glory!!!!!!!
Blessings in Christ…..P.S…i am not sure what post etiquette is…are we only supposed 2 comment on Tims words am i wrong in turning this in 2 a discussion board…if so i am sorry Tim
63. Thomas Twitchell
January 6, 2009
1:18 PM
“God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit but the choice is ours to love or not to love, obey or disobey etc?”
Really? So the Love of God can hate God?
64. Robert West
January 6, 2009
2:45 PM
Walter J. Chantry’s little booklet, Man’s Will - Free Yet Bound (may still be available through The Banner of Truth Trust) has the best explanation of Free Will - in a nutshell, we have “free will” from birth, but our will is completely governed by our nature, which is fallen in sin. God must change our nature, through regeneration, before we can ever choose “that which brings glory to God (do all to the glory of God)…” And as Paul points out, we will do battle with the old man / nature the remainder of our days, but we are new creatures in Christ Jesus and we “now have a choice.” Praise be to God
65. SteveE
January 6, 2009
3:16 PM
Tim, I read your article and the following comments. I find myself breathing a deep sigh. Not because there aren’t many good and useful comments, but because I hesitate to chime in….wondering if anything I say could possibly make a difference. I suppose I would first say that in any question that relates to a foundational aspect of Calvinism, or Reformed beliefs - such as free will - any answer that actually changes it must ineveitably alter all the other under pinnings of those same beliefs, since they rely upon one another. Although it must be noted that they support one another only if various aspects of scripture are bascially ignored.
I don’t say this as a slight, merely a truth, as your question would seem to point out.
To completely boil all this down, I would say - as others have said - that God’s soverignty and our ability to choose do not lessen God in any fashion. Indeed, I would say that allowing His creation the ability to choose would make Him far more and His salvation that much more intricate, than the notion that He simply flips the switch of our regenerated mode and now we can see but not really choose what is before us.
I believe that it is simply a misinterpretation of the mechinism of salvation that has eluded many folks. The components on both sides of the argument are still there, only the understanding of ‘how’ is misunderstood.
66. John from Down Under
January 6, 2009
5:22 PM
No 54 calling No 63 (Thomas Twitchell)
You said: Really? So the Love of God can hate God?
I NEVER said to hate God I said hate in general. The love of God never hates, it is us!!! I’m afraid I might offend someone’s intelligence if I state the obvious, but I think I have to.
In the planet where I live I have come across plenty of bitter Christians (for whatever reason). But then again that could be a unique phenomenon in my country!
Let’s follow this to its logical conclusion if we can. Are some Christians bitter because;
I am really simplistic when it comes to the choice of words in the Bible, namely, since they’re inspired by God they can’t be random. Therefore in the context of Gal 5:22 (the fruit of the Spirit), fruit does not appear instantaneously, it grows slowly with nutrients fed up from the roots and ‘love’ is the first fruit characteristic to be mentioned on the list.
The whole context of Gal 5:16-26 is the ‘two sides’ being the works of the flesh and fruit of the Spirit. Paul prefaces this section by saying But I say, WALK BY [you choose] the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. [cause-and-effect, sowing-and-reaping order of things] Having listed both the works of the flesh and fruit of the Spirit he concludes with this: IF we live by the Spirit [we may not], LET US [we choose] also walk by the Spirit. LET US NOT BECOME [we choose] conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
That sounds to me like we can still display works of the flesh EVEN THOUGH God poured His love into our hearts.
Apologies if I’ve overstated my case.
PS TIM if you’re still reading this…I think you were on the money, except I don’t think the earthly vs heavenly love to God is comparing apples with apples. I don’t know if heavenly man’s love will more ‘genuine’ but heavenly man/woman will be able to express their love free from all the distractions of our fallen universe. Interesting perspective nonetheless.
67. Paul Wilkinson
January 6, 2009
10:38 PM
I keep thinking as I scroll the comments about the idea I’ve heard recently that the father in the parable we know as “the prodigal son,” allows his son to go off to a far country because it’s the only way that his son will “choose” the father’s house and the father himself.
Not sure if that helps, but I think it’s by the “whole” of scripture we learn the ways of God. Each piece of the puzzle is significant, but perhaps each piece also contains the DNA of the whole.
Appreciate topics like this one, and your apparent personal vulnerability in jumping into it.
68. Thomas Twitchell
January 6, 2009
11:15 PM
JDU- #66
“The love of God never hates, it is us!!! “
False, hate is not the opposite of love. Arminius believed that and that it was not always in God. But that is not true. Hate is an attribute of love. Love perfectly hates sin, always has, and God who is love, perfectly hates. He even goes so far as to say in Psalms 31 and 139, that hatred is the righteous action of a righteous man. And when considered that the Psalms are dualistic, where the writer’s voice and the Lord’s are intermingled when speaking in the first person, then hate becomes so common to the attribute of true love as to never be without it. Tied together with Romans 9’s declaration of love for Jacob and hate for Esau and we have a picture that from the very beginning, in the decrees, hatred is not God in response to externality, but is his own attribute expressed from the nature of love.
You also said: “But I say, WALK BY [you choose] the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.” It is interesting that you had to insert the parenthetical. Why? Haven’t you read Ezekial? Do you not know that it is by a new heart (a.k.a. the love of God spread abroad), and a new spirit, and His Holy Spirit, by which he CAUSES us to walk in his statutes according to his commandments?
So, the question out of Galatians is founded in the context of the book. Paul was wondering what had bewitched the Galatians to think that they could walk in the flesh. You see, if you believe you can, then you must be one of the judaizer’s who say that it is by the deeds of the flesh that one completes the works of God. It is without regard to works, either good or bad, that faith reigns, however, as Paul explains. If you have begun in the Spirit, how then can you say that you must choose by the flesh tocomplete these things by your choices? Paul was worried that that kind of attitude was a sign that they were not born of God. This work was begun by His Spirit, and He who has begun a good work in you will be faithful to complete it. Well, is He or is He is not? If the Galatians did not think he was, then Paul said that by their own efforts they made Christ of no effect.
Do you doubt him? I think you do. I think that you believe that God has given you an incompleted love, only half a heart, one that you must circumcise to make it whole. That is what makes the difference between the DoG and the doctrines of the Arminians. The Arminians simply do not trust God to do what he has promised he will do, so they must add their own works, good or bad to the qualifications for inheritance. How contrary to the teaching of Christ that how one enters is through regeneration by the Spirit, not by generation though the means of the will.
Check out John 1:13, and see for your self. The will is excluded from the qualification that makes one to be born again so that he might receive the Lord.
Then go back and read. The flesh wars against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh so that you do not do as you will (thelo). You see, you are either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ. And it is he who works in you the willing and the doing of his good pleasure, not yours. If it is yours it is sin, and a work of the flesh.
Can you sin? Yes. But, that is entirely different than saying one can walk in the flesh. For how shall we, seeing that we have died to it? Unless of course you have not, unless you think that you still have your own will. In which case, you do not have His but that which is opposed to it.
The question is, who will you trust for your salvation, his will that you are saved, or yours?
Come visit my blog, A Rose By Any Other Name
69. John from Down Under
January 7, 2009
12:27 AM
Thomas # 68 you said:
So your sin has nothing to do with the flesh??? What is it then, a product of the Spirit? I’m a little…confused.
I’m curious. Have you ever sinned since you got saved?
70. Sean B
January 8, 2009
1:08 AM
Good day, i was referred to your page by a friend who frequents your blog, and i’m glad he did! I am currently working on a series on my own blog on the sovereignty of God which addresses this, as well as many peripheral points that come about because of it (check it out at templeh.blogspot.com)
Basically i’m arguing that many Christians today elevate ‘free will’ so highly that they make doctrines that revolve around the fact that we have free will, therefore we must be able to choose to follow and love God, at the expense of God’s will. We do have the ability to choose, but we need to remember a) that because of our sinful nature, our will is tainted, evil. Who desires to do good? and who can do good all the time, if at all?
And that b) God is sovereign, even over our ‘free will’. I don’t understand how anyone can say that God spoke the universe into creation with infinite power, yet is unable to intervene in people’s wills. Especially when the bible provides us with clear example after example of when a person’s free will is shelved so that God can do a work.
Take, of course, pharaoh as an example. One would think that, given the fact that he had free will, that once the plagues began to become more severe that he would have been quick to let the Israelites go to prevent further loss to his belongings and people. Yet time and time again, we read God saying, “I will harden his heart, and he will not let the people go”, and Paul in Romans 9 referring to this very story, saying of God that “He has mercy on whom He has mercy, and He hardens whom He hardens.”
If God is hardening who He pleases and havning mercy on others who He pleases, can we honestly say (if we agree that the bible is the infallable word of God) that our will is truly ‘free’? Coincidentally, the term “free will” does not show up in any of the major translations of the bible, except in Philemon, where it talks only about a free will offering.
I believe that our elevation of free will has hindered us from truly honoring that which is most important - God’s will, and understanding that God is sovereign, and He will do whatever He wants to do, even if that means turning off our ability to choose.
For we know that salvation is by God’s grace alone (John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him - pretty clear, right?) and it has to be that way, otherwise who is getting all the glory? If I in my free will choose to follow Jesus, am i not the one receiving the glory? whereas if God steps in, and causes me to believe then He is the one that gets the glory.
I believe that we have free will in order to choose who we want to be a slave to - a slave to sin, or a slave to righteousness. 1 John points this out fantastically, saying that unless we, by faith, walk in righteousness then we are liars when we say that we are Christians.
So when someone says “I choose to believe,” then it should be apparant by their lives that they are choosing to obey God’s will, and His commands.
I hope all of that made sense… i’m trying to condense some 13 odd pages of my series into this little space. If you want to better understand what i’m trying to say, then check out my blog.
Great post! thanks for it!
71. Darrin
January 8, 2009
12:05 PM
Sean, a hearty Amen to most of what you’ve written here. (I haven’t gotten to your blog yet - feel free to check out ours also.) Your emphasis on grace alone and the problem with elevating natural man is right on target.
I am a bit confused about your statement near the end though:
“I believe that we have free will in order to choose who we want to be a slave to - a slave to sin, or a slave to righteousness.” This does not appear to be consistent with the rest of your words (nor scripture), so perhaps I’m misreading it.
Would you agree that our will is compatible with our nature, such that its freedom is bounded by that? With our natural will, at enmity toward God, we have many choices, but not the ability to choose to change our will toward Him. God is required to do that Himself. We all begin as slaves to sin, and willingly so, and thus we do not choose to change masters of our own ability. We are spiritually dead, blind to the things of God, until God gives us life and sight. Amen?
John, as I expect Thomas would attest, we believers still stumble in many ways. I think he was simply showing that, since we have been given new hearts and wills by God, we do not consistently walk after the things of the flesh. We are new creatures, all because of grace.
72. Sean B
January 8, 2009
12:50 PM
Darrin,
Thanks for your response :) Allow me to clarify - the notion that i have that we choose either to be slaves to sin or to righteousness comes from Romans 6:16 - Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
And yes, you are right. As you mentioned, and was mentioned early on in the comment thread, we are unable to understand spiritual things until God comes and opens our eyes. But with the opening of our eyes begins the great battle of the Christian faith. Now we know the truth, but we are still saddled with these bodies that are selfish and demand their own way.
This is the point where the choices must be made - when the body desires sin, do you like a slave to sin obey temptation and give in to the desire of the flesh, or do you like a slave to obedience obey God?
That is the essence of my argument of our choice to be slaves, which i spell out in my blog. i’m trying to say that our ‘freedom’ is really limited to choosing a master whom we make ourselves slave to. Society has skewed the concept of freedom in such a way that it makes everything all about ‘YOU’. The true Christian should know, however, that it’s really all about GOD.
73. NiftyDrewFifty
January 8, 2009
5:29 PM
In summary :
We have been “created sick and commanded to be well.”
What is free (or fair) about that?
74. Matt
January 8, 2009
10:19 PM
Sean B: That is the essence of my argument of our choice to be slaves, which i spell out in my blog. i’m trying to say that our ‘freedom’ is really limited to choosing a master whom we make ourselves slave to.
But even that choice isn’t really our own, agreed? (John 6:37, 44)
NiftyDrewFifty:We have been “created sick and commanded to be well.”
What is free (or fair) about that?
The freedom belongs to God, as does the fairness. (Rom. 9). Is it not fair that a perfect God expects perfect righteousness from those who will enter His presence? Our filthiness should devastate us when compared to a glorious, majestic, holy God. In that sense, we could ask “how is it fair that such a God would humble Himself and save any?”
75. NiftyDrewFifty
January 9, 2009
12:37 AM
“The freedom belongs to God, as does the fairness. (Rom. 9).”
So its means we really don’t have freedom, do we. “For Jacob I loved and Esau I hated.”
So how could we be anything but filthy, and so why are we still condemned?
76. Darrin
January 9, 2009
2:22 PM
Nifty,
Interesting - that’s exactly the expected response as shown in Romans 9:19. Consider Paul’s answer in the verses following it.
77. Matt
January 9, 2009
7:36 PM
“Who are you, O NiftyDrewFifty, to answer back to God?”
Okay, so that’s a bit of a paraphrase, but keep reading after v.19.
Romans 9:20-24: 20 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?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 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, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
78. NiftyDrewFifty
January 9, 2009
9:36 PM
Hey, I agree, who am I but a filthy originally sinful human being.
And yet where is my joy in the Lord come from in this ? God seems so callous and capricious.
Here is a poem that captures my sentiments about God after reading Romans 9. This is from Kingsley Amis’ novel The Anti-Death League. In the story, the poem is sent anonymously to an Army chaplain, Major Ayscue. (The misspellings and bad punctuation are deliberate, put in by the fictional poet to mask his identity.) But the poem’s speaker is God.
TO A BABY BORN WITHOUT LIMBS
This is just to show you whose boss around here.
It’ll keep you on your toes, so to speak,
Make you put your best foot forward, so to speak,
And give you something to turn your hand to, so to speak.
You can face up to it like a man,
Or snivvle and blubber like a baby.
That’s up to you. Nothing to do with Me.
If you take it in the right spirit,
You can have a bloody marvelous life,
With the great rewards courage brings,
And the beauty of accepting your LOT.
And think how much good it’ll do your Mum and Dad,
And your Grans and Gramps and the rest of the shower,
To be stopped being complacent.
Make sure they baptise you, though,
In case some murdering bastard
Decides to put you away quick,
Which would send you straight to LIMB-O, ha ha ha.
But just a word in your ear, if you’ve got one.
Mind you DO take this in the right spirit,
And keep a civil tongue in your head about Me.
Because if you DON’T,
I’ve got plenty of other stuff up My sleeve,
Such as Leukemia and polio,
(Which incidentally your welcome to any time,
Whatever spirit you take this in.)
I’ve given you one love-pat, right?
You don’t want another.
So watch it, Jack.
79. Matt
January 10, 2009
12:05 PM
NiftyFiftyDrew - you seem to want to grant us people what you deny to God - freedom. The problem is (with giving man freedom and with your poem) that we are not all wise, all knowing, or holy. We can’t ensure that the promise of Romans 8:28 will happen. Only God can do that.
Our worms eye view might lead us to write a bitter, cynical poem like the one you shared, but as we are able to see God progressively out His good decree, we are able to glorify Him, not shake our tiny little fists at Him. Think of John 9 or John 11. It’s possible that at first the blind man or the family of Lazarus might have felt how you do, but do you think either could honestly have stomached your poem by the time the story ends?
80. NiftyDrewFifty
January 10, 2009
3:22 PM
Matt
“you seem to want to grant us people what you deny to God - freedom. The problem is (with giving man freedom and with your poem) that we are not all wise, all knowing, or holy. We can’t ensure that the promise of Romans 8:28 will happen. Only God can do that. “
So in essence God is sovereign and humans are not free correct? I would definitely agree with you. Us humans are originally sinful.
And thus where is the joy in the Lord? That is the whole point of the poem.
81. Darrin
January 11, 2009
1:21 PM
If I could just chime in with this, our joy in the Lord is exactly that, “in the Lord”. As His children, now set free by Him, we rejoice in His sovereignty, His will, His grace, His power, His glory. Thus our joy is not based on man nor man’s callous and capricious attitudes, and thus our joy is solid.
82. NiftyDrewFifty
January 11, 2009
2:13 PM
But Darrin people are burning eternally in a lake of fire in hell because they were “born sick” with sin and God did not choose to save them.
You find joy in that?
83. Darrin
January 12, 2009
10:28 AM
Thanks for your response, Nifty.
No, I don’t (find joy in that), except in that it displays God’s righteous judgment, in which we rejoice. (See Psalm 58, for example, especially the last two verses.)
This is tough stuff, and the words jostle our sensibilities, but indeed the scriptures call for a complete “paradigm shift” from our natural way of thinking.
I still struggle with this shift often - I am still being sanctified - but He has given me the conviction that His word is true and I must submit my mental inclinations to it.
The real joy is surely in the grace that God has shown to His children, knowing that we deserve the same punishment as them, being no better in ourselves. This great joy in Him is strongly expressed in 1 Peter 1. I think we really need to focus on that.
Yes, the fact that not all are included in that grace of salvation is sobering, and does not mean that we do not seek to witness and pray for them here. But ultimately we need to come to grips that He is God and we are not, and submit to His expressed will and purposes, even though we do not entirely understand them. Back to Romans 9, verses 22-23 tell me that God will be glorified both in His righteous judgment of sinners as well as in His gracious pardon of sinners. One “makes known” His power and wrath in judgment, the other His power in grace. And though hard for my fleshly mind, that’s sufficient reason for me.
PS - According to the scriptures, I don’t believe people are born sick, but born dead, spiritually. (See Ephesians 2, for example.) And if we’re sick, we just need a doctor; but if dead, a Creator.
Remember God’s warning to Adam - in the day you eat of it, you will die. (Gen 2:17) And we then were brought forth in Adam’s image (Gen 5:3).