The popular perception is that humans are endowed with "free will", an apparently unlimited capacity to make whatever choice he or she pleases. Of course, a simple examination of that concept will tell you that it just doesn't make sense. You cannot choose to climb to the top of your roof, flap your arms, and fly. You do not have the option to choose to live underwater. These, of course, are silly examples, but the main point is that we cannot freely choose to do things that are outside of our nature. That should pose no problem. It should simply provide some clarity to the concept of "free will".
Enter the biblical pronouncements. The Bible is full of references to making choices. Of that there is no doubt. Perhaps the most famous is Joshua's "Choose this day whom you will serve", followed by the glorious, "But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." We are beings with the capacity of volition. But can we choose anything? No, not those things outside of our nature. So what does the Bible have to say about limits to our choices?
Well, from the famous heights of the "Hallelujah Chorus" taken right out of Revelation -- "The Lord God Omnipotent reigneth" -- to the depths of Lamentations -- "Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?" -- the Bible is full of the Sovereignty of God. In the midst of his worst nightmare, Job asks his tormenters, "Who among all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this?" Jeremiah records the prayer of Baruch: "Ah, Lord GOD! It is You who have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and by Your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for You." More than once the psalmists tell us, "Whatever the LORD pleases, He does." Paul tells Timothy that God is the "only Sovereign". We like to say, "Your freedom ends at my nose." The truth is that our freedom to choose ends at God's Divine Will. We cannot choose to do those things that violate God's Ultimate Will.
What else limits our choices? The primary inhibitor to our freedom to choose is ... ourselves -- our nature. We would like to think that any human is fully capable of freely choosing to do good, but God says, "No one does good, not even one." We would like to think that Natural Man has the full ability to choose not to sin, but God says of sinful Man, "Every intention of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually." Paul describes believers as slaves of righteousness and unbelievers as slaves of sin. We want to believe that Man can choose to come to Christ, but Jesus said, "No man can come to Me unless the Father draws him." We'd like to believe that Man is fully capable of understanding spiritual matters but Paul warns, "Natural Man 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." We'd love to think that unregenerate human beings can freely choose to love God, but the Bible assures us, "The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" and "The flesh profits nothing." How free is that? And there are a number of passages that go something like this:
God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by Him to do His will (2 Tim 2:25-26)."Yeah, yeah," we are tempted to say, "God grants everyone repentance." This claim denies the amazingly tentative nature of the passage. Do you see that? Paul writes with words like "may" and "perhaps" stuck together. The unavoidable conclusion is that God may not grant them repentance. Further, there are two things required here. First, God must grant it; it's not a certainty. Second, the only means of escape from Satan is ... captivity. Yep! These people who may be granted repentance (or may not) can only escape from the snare of the devil after being captured by God.
From a biblical perspective, how free is free will? Well, we're free to operate within the realm of our nature as long as God allows it. That nature, for unbelievers, is a sin nature, so the available choices are to sin a lot or sin a little, but never not to sin. No one does good by God's standards of good. And no one has the capacity to override God's will. In the Garden of Eden, Adam had the capacity not to sin. In the wake of Adam's sin, Natural Man lacks the capacity to not sin. Believers, given a new nature, have the capacity to sin or not sin, to operate in their own strength (sin) or in God's strength (not sin). It is only when we get to heaven that we will lose the capacity to sin. In other words, your free will, while certainly present, isn't nearly as free as you might like to think. That is ... if you believe the biblical version. I do.
41 comments:
Some problems, from my perspective. And I won't dwell on it today, just raise the problems/questions and you can answer or ignore it. If you have questions for me, I'll be glad to answer them and I may correct any misrepresentations of what I have
said. Otherwise, this is it.
1. I am going to offer the biblical account and you, the reader, can decide what you believe.
You are, in fact, offering YOUR PARTICULAR view of what the Bible says. Anabaptists and others would disagree and say OUR account reflects what we believe the Bible says. We run into troubles when we say "I have THE biblical... or THE one God-endorsed view..." We anabaptists and progressives ALSO believe the Bible and we find your ideas not biblically sound at all. We would disagree that your opinion is THE biblical account. We would point out, rightly, that it is your view of what the Bible says and God bless you for being concerned and trying to think it through, but it remains YOUR view. As our opinion is OUR view of what the Bible says.
Just to be clear.
2. The popular perception is that humans are endowed with "free will"
Not only is it the popular perception, it is one that you have said you agree with (if I'm not mistaken). We ALL agree that we make decisions for ourselves. The difference is not whether or not there is free will, but how free is it and why we have our opinions about those limitations.
For instance, no one is arguing that we have the free will to do what we can't physically do. No one is arguing, "I have free will, therefore, I shall fly." Yes, we all agree we have free will and that that free will is limited by our abilities. Just to be clear.
3. We all agree that God is sovereign. We disagree on whether or not people having free will to decide NOT to accept God's grace somehow limits God's sovereignty. You seem to be unable to see it as anything but a limitation of God's sovereignty, I see it as wholly unrelated to God's sovereignty, or even an endorsement of God's sovereignty, since it was God's good pleasure to make us with free will. It is God's "ultimate will" that we make good choices.
And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove
what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. ~Romans 12:2
4. We would like to think that any human is fully capable of freely choosing to do good, but God says, "No one does good, not even one."
I'm not sure I understand, you have said that we all have free will, but now it seems you're limiting that free will to sin a little or sin a lot, at least for non-Christians ("the available choices are to sin a lot or sin a little, but never not to sin.")
The problem with this is it rejects what the Bible says and it rejects what we can see in the real world. In the real world, the unsaved DO choose to do good. They clearly choose to not steal, not lie, not kill, etc, at times. Thus, they do good by not choosing to do bad. And they DO have that choice. Otherwise, they would be killing and stealing all the time. Further, they do good acts, like sacrificing their lives out of love for their fellow man.
Jesus tells us quite clearly that ...if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?
Pagans, according to Jesus, do acts of good. So clearly, they have the ability to choose right and wrong and to do good acts.
"BUT," Stan says, "That depends on how you define good!"
Let's look at that...
5. There is no one who does good, no not one...
What did Paul mean when he said this? Did he mean that literally NO ONE does good? Not pagans NOR Christians? Well, I believe Stan disagrees. I believe that you're saying, Stan, that once we're saved, we CAN choose to do good, right? You said specifically that the unsaved can't do what is not in their nature and doing good is not in their nature, right? So, does that mean that you think Christians CAN choose to do good? If so, are you rejecting the literal translation of this passage?
Since we can see that people of all sorts (pagan and Christian) CAN and DO choose to do good, as good is defined in the dictionary, Paul can't be suggesting that literally. Now at this point, Stan would say, I believe, that Paul is using a non-standard definition of "good." Paul does not mean, Stan has said, that people don't do acts of kindness, but rather, Paul is using "God's definition" of good.
Okay, maybe. So, what IS God's definition.
Without missing a beat, Stan says, "thou shalt have no other gods before me." So, you appear to think that God defines good as not having any gods before God.
But there are tens of thousands of verses in the Bible. Why would you select that one verse and say "THIS is God's definition of good?" The Bible does not make that claim. God has not made that claim. It seems that Stan has randomly grabbed a verse from the whole Bible and offered his own opinion (but speaking for God - careful, there) that this one verse IS GOD's DEFINITION.
Why should Christians who love the Bible presume that Stan correctly speaks for God on this point? Stan, why?
That IS a verse and I guess you could think about that as possibly being "God's definition," but could we not also say "The Bible says, 'greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for a friend,' and THAT is 'God's definition' of good..."? That seems like a more reasonable and biblically sound definition of "good," to me.
In truth, neither God nor Paul defined what Paul meant by good when he said, "no one does good." I would say, clearly Paul could not have meant "no one is able to choose to do any good acts," with the normal meaning of "good," since we can see that is not so. What makes most sense to me is that, in context, Paul was using hyperbole to demonstrate that both Jews and Gentiles share a common sinful nature.
Short of some authoritative source where you can provide God saying, "THIS is my definition of good," I will have to pass on your guess as to what this passage means. I'll side with centuries of mennonites, amish, hutterites and progressives over those who would follow Calvin's guesses on this idea.
6. Question: If the Bible mentions "the four corners of the Earth," does that mean that you take that passage literally? Why don't you, if there's no biblical reason NOT to take it literally? If the Bible says, "You will mount up on wings as eagles," does that mean you will take it literally and try to fly off a cliff? Why not? There's no biblical reason not to take it literally. If the Bible says, "they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all," does that mean you will be literally drinking poison and handling deadly snakes? Why not? There's no biblical reason not to do so.
We don't take these passages literally EVEN WITHOUT further biblical justification because they are obviously not to be taken literally given our own God-given senses. If some passage conflicts with obvious reality, we are obliged to give some serious reconsideration to our literal interpretation of that passage.
Or do you take these all literally?
Dan Trabue: "You are, in fact, offering YOUR PARTICULAR view of what the Bible says."
If you could, Dan, please tell me where I misrepresented the biblical account? I said (and you quoted) that you can decide what you believe, but you have not explained where I inaccurately quoted the Bible.
Dan Trabue: "I'm not sure I understand."
No, we've already established that. You don't understand. I am not limiting free will. Free will is limited to the nature of the one doing the choosing. If the one doing the choosing, for instance, is inclined only to evil, what choice will he make?
That you disagree with me has never been in question. That you disagree with this post is quite obvious. My goal was simply to explain what we've been discussing up until now to the rest of my readers and why. I offered the Scriptures without trying to modify them and told my readers, "You can decide what you believe." You have decided I'm wrong. Thank you for following my instructions. I will not be rehashing this with you ... again ... for the umpteenth time ... all over.
Dan, a couple notes from a third party who thinks you could probably demonstrate a little more good faith.
You quote Stan...
The popular perception is that humans are endowed with "free will"
...and then write in reply:
"Not only is it the popular perception, it is one that you have said you agree with (if I'm not mistaken). We ALL agree that we make decisions for ourselves. The difference is not whether or not there is free will, but how free is it and why we have our opinions about those limitations."
What you quoted didn't include the period at the end of that sentence, because the sentence didn't end there:
The popular perception is that humans are endowed with "free will", an apparently unlimited capacity to make whatever choice he or she pleases.
That last clause is probably important. Omitting it, you make your comment seem reasonable, but the comment makes no sense in light of the entire sentence, where Stan is critical, NOT of the idea "that we make decisions for ourselves," but of the far more contentious idea of "an apparently unlimited capacity to make whatever choice he or she pleases."
Context matters.
Context also matters when citing Scripture. When, in Romans 3, Paul taught that no one is righteous, the context is absolutely clear that he was talking about all who are not saved -- Jew and Gentile -- not Jews and Christians.
If you have to rip a passage out of context to argue, "I believe Stan disagrees" with a literal interpretation, then you're probably not arguing that claim in good faith.
(For that matter, if you can't see the difference between the straight-forward theological claims of Romans and the clearly figurative language of Isaiah, you're probably not arguing with good reasoning skills, either. And your position that a literal interpretation of Paul's claim of total depravity "conflicts with obvious reality" is question-begging, since -- again -- the observation of external behavior can prove nothing about internal motives, which are crucial to the morality of a given act.)
And, I don't think it's at all fair to write that, when Stan takes the first command of the DECALOGUE as at least part of the standard for what is truly good, it seems that he "has randomly grabbed a verse from the whole Bible and offered his own opinion."
If you don't understand his reasoning ask him, but you shouldn't presume random behavior on his part.
On that subject, you write:
"That IS a verse and I guess you could think about that as possibly being 'God's definition,' but could we not also say 'The Bible says, "greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for a friend," and THAT is "God's definition" of good...'? That seems like a more reasonable and biblically sound definition of 'good,' to me."
If you're going to berate Stan so thoroughly for offering his view on what the Bible must mean by "good" -- going so far as to suggest that he's close to sinning by "speaking for God" -- you probably shouldn't turn around and offer your own view on the very same issue. If it's off-limits, it's off-limits.
But I wonder why you think your alternative is "more reasonable and biblically sound."
After all, the Gospels record that Jesus Christ told us what the greatest commandment is, and it has nothing do with one's friends and neighbors: it has everything to do with God.
That greatest commandment, to love God with all one's heart, mind, and strength, seems not a million miles from some other verse, no doubt plucked at random from the Old Testament, about how we should have no other gods before Him.
Nice post, Stan.
The more and more I engage in debates like this, the more I see people arguing for "Free Will" are those who 1) Have little desire to submit to a sovereign, omniscient God who does not act like a human; 2) Have little desire to pay attention to biblical words like election, predestination, ordained, prepared, planned, etc; 3) Have little regard for the centrality of Christ in Christianity, but rather desire for man to be central.
These might be over-generalizations, but for the most part, I see this synthesis in the free will camp.
The bottom line is: who do you want to get all the credit for salvation, redemption, justification, forgiveness, etc? You or Jesus?
I know who I'm picking.
Bubba said...
That last clause is probably important. Omitting it, you make your comment seem reasonable, but the comment makes no sense in light of the entire sentence, where Stan is critical, NOT of the idea "that we make decisions for ourselves," but of the far more contentious idea of "an apparently unlimited capacity to make whatever choice he or she pleases."
Context matters.
1. I was pointing out that we AGREE that humanity has free will. I was pointing out that Stan parts company in that he thinks it is a "limited free will," whatever that means. When I said, "the difference is not whether or not there is free will, but how free it is..." which was Stan's position that you are pointing out.
2. In short, I was pointing out EXACTLY what you're pointing out, that Stan disagrees with the notion of "an apparently unlimited capacity to make whatever choice he or she pleases." So, if I am pointing out the same thing that you are pointing out, how am I omitting anything?
3. I HAVE asked repeatedly for a better understanding of what it means that we have a "limited" free will and have not received an answer that makes sense to me. The definition of free will is that we have the ability to choose right and wrong without outside influence or coercion. Stan appears to believe we HAVE free will, but not FULLY. From my position, it seems we either have the ability to choose right and wrong or we don't have the ability to choose right and wrong. I don't see how you can have it both ways. For instance, WHEN can't we choose between right and wrong? Stan seems to suggest that the unsaved can only choose to do one wrong or the other wrong or make choices with no moral relevance, but that they can't choose to do good (although he admits that they can do acts of kindness?) I'm just not at all sure how any of that makes sense.
4. For instance, a child who decides to do something nice for his mom out of love for her: How is that NOT choosing to do Good? That is the very essence of a human doing a selfless, Godly, good act.
5. So, rather than criticize me (for what, I'm not quite sure), why don't you offer your opinion on the topic. CAN the unsaved choose to do good? IF you think Stan has a point, perhaps you can explain WHAT limitations or on the unsaved? When can't they make the choice to do good? Why?
I'm just trying to understand a position that seems not to make any logical, moral or biblical sense to me.
Welcome, James.
I don't doubt that the factors you see play into much of this discussion. I wrote a post earlier this year on how we tend to view our world from an anthropocentric perspective -- making Man central rather than God -- even in the Church.
On your "bottom line", it's a funny thing. I write my posts a few days in advance typically and last night I wrote one essentially addressing that question: Who gets the credit? I'm with you there. Look for it coming soon to a blog near you (okay, this blog).
If you have to rip a passage out of context to argue, "I believe Stan disagrees" with a literal interpretation, then you're probably not arguing that claim in good faith.
1. I have not ripped a passage out of context. Stan has stated his position in such a way that I'm not clear what his position is. Certainly it can be largely my lack of understanding, not Stan's fault - I'm just stating that I'm not clear what Stan's position is. This is why I ask questions that I think would help clarify, but he often has not answered them - for instance, IF a child does a kindness for his mother out of love for his mother, IS that a choice to do a good act?
2. So, not understanding Stan's position, I am asking him if he thinks Paul is talking about EVERYONE when he says "No one does good," or just the lost or what. I'm not stating a position on Romans 3, I'm asking Stan's position. That is not ripping anything out of context.
3. So, is it YOUR opinion that "no one does good," in Romans 3 means that the unsaved can't choose to do ANY good thing?
4. Note: I am not saying this IS your position, I'm asking a question to clarify your position (hence the question mark), just so you know I'm not making an argument in bad faith, as you have wrongly suggested I did with Stan.
Bubba also said...
(For that matter, if you can't see the difference between the straight-forward theological claims of Romans and the clearly figurative language of Isaiah, you're probably not arguing with good reasoning skills, either.
1. What makes you think I can't see a difference between the claims in Romans and the "clearly figurative" imagery in Isaiah?
2. I believe what I have done in bringing up the different passages is ASK the clarifying question: ON WHAT do you base your decisions that THIS passage is literal and THIS passage is figurative or hyperbole, etc?
3. So, how about you: On what do you base your decision that "four corners" is not literal, but "no one does good," IS literal (literal, that is, except that it's talking about NOT everyone, but only the unsaved) - or do you?
Bubba also said...
And your position that a literal interpretation of Paul's claim of total depravity "conflicts with obvious reality" is question-begging, since -- again -- the observation of external behavior can prove nothing about internal motives, which are crucial to the morality of a given act.
Bubba, I don't know if you're not reading everything that's been written or what, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
One of my questions has REPEATEDLY been, "WHEN I, DAN TRABUE, was a child, I sometimes did acts of kindness towards my parents for no other reason than love for them." In that case, BEING ME, I can authoritatively say that I DO know what my "internal motives" were. If you are reading what has been written and still repeating this misleading line, one would be inclined to think you are not arguing in good faith. However, as stated, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have missed this.
And so, YES, a literal interpretation of Paul's claim (NOT of utter depravity, since Paul did not make that claim) that "no one does good," does not make sense. We can see that this is not true in the real world.
And so I repeat the oft-unanswered question: On what do you base the decision to think "four corners" is "obviously" not literal and yet "no one does good," IS literal? Is it not evidence enough if you see something to be not factually correct in the real world, to conclude that the Bible can't be meaning something that is factually incorrect?
My point is that we ALL set aside some points in the Bible as obviously not to be taken literally based simply on real world observations. I'm still waiting to see if we all agree that we all do this. And, once we come to that agreement, then I have to wonder, on what basis would you conclude that "no one does good," is NOT supposed to be hyperbole or otherwise figurative?
James said...
The more and more I engage in debates like this, the more I see people arguing for "Free Will" are those who 1) Have little desire to submit to a sovereign, omniscient God who does not act like a human; 2) Have little desire to pay attention to biblical words like election, predestination, ordained, prepared, planned, etc; 3) Have little regard for the centrality of Christ in Christianity, but rather desire for man to be central.
I can't speak for everyone in the "free will camp," but speaking for myself,
1. my desire is to submit to God and God's will and walk in the steps of Jesus;
2. I strive to pay attention to ALL of Jesus' teachings and to take the Bible seriously;
3. I have TREMENDOUS regard for the centrality of Jesus in Christianity. So much so that at times, I am inclined to call myself a Jesusian, rather than a Christian, because so many Christians seem to teach so much that is not a teaching of Jesus.
For what it's worth.
So, while it may or may not be true in some instances, it's not in the instance of me or my church or my extended community of believers. It's not true of the whole of anabaptism, in general. You would find few people in general who take Jesus' teachings more seriously and literally than the Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, etc, etc. (which is not to say that we do so perfectly, we fail as badly as anyone in striving to follow in our savior's steps, but we do STRIVE to take it pretty danged seriously).
Also, we clearly give all credit to God for our salvation. We are saved by GOD's Grace, after all, through FAITH IN JESUS God's risen son, after all, and that, not of ourselves.
Dan,
Could you expound for me when you say the definition of being able to choose between right or wrong "without outside influence or coercion?" I don't want to make any assumptions, so if you wouldn't mind unpacking that a little, that'd be great. Thanks.
Stan, you asked a couple of questions of me...
If you could, Dan, please tell me where I misrepresented the biblical account?, for instance...
And I answered, but they have not appeared. Did they get lost or did you not really want to know my answers?
If they got lost, quickly I'll point out that I never said you misrepresented the biblical account. I said that you were offering YOUR view of the Biblical account. You were offering one side of the story. YES, there is a passage that says, "no one is good." but what does that mean?
You also asked me...
If the one doing the choosing, for instance, is inclined only to evil, what choice will he make?
And I answered, saying something like, IF one is "inclined only to do evil," is a leap. Who says we are inclined "ONLY" to do evil? Was it an instance of hyperbole or a serious statement of reality?
And even if you think we are INCLINED to do evil, are you suggesting that those inclined to behave one way CAN'T behave in other ways? Alcoholics are INCLINED to drink to excess. Does that mean they HAVE to? No, of course not.
In case the comment got lost.
If you just chose not to print my response, it's your call. But it would be friendlier not to ask questions if you don't really want them answered. After all, if you have gone to the trouble of asking a question, I assume you want it answered and will strive to do so, taking my precious time to thus engage with you. BUT, if I do take the time and you're not really wanting it, well, then, you've wasted my time.
Say what you mean to say, right?
What I said there was "Further comments to me on this subject, however, will be blocked because I'm finished. I've said it twice before and now I will finish it officially." Any questions included there were rhetorical. And since I promised to finish it officially, I dropped your last round of attacks on the topic.
Ryan asked me...
Could you expound for me when you say the definition of being able to choose between right or wrong "without outside influence or coercion?" I don't want to make any assumptions, so if you wouldn't mind unpacking that a little, that'd be great. Thanks.
I'm just talking about the dictionary definition and common understanding of the term. That and nothing more.
Merriam Webster defines free will...
1 : voluntary choice or decision
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
Answer.com says...
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
According to the dictionary definition of the term and, I believe, just common usage, IF we don't have the liberty to make our own moral choices, either due to "Fate" or God or "the devil made me do it..." or any external choice, we don't have free will. I think according to common understanding of the word, either we do or don't have free will. I don't know of any definitions that talk about "partial" free will or "limited" free will.
It's like saying, "She has a partial life..." Either one is alive or they're not.
As you may have noted from my questions, I can't even imagine what a limited free will looks like. That we CAN'T choose to make some choices? Hence my many questions asking for specifics of what that even means.
Now, what I DON'T mean by it is that we have the "free will" to choose to do something we innately can't do. I can't "choose" to fly off my roof precisely because I don't have the ability to fly on my own. I can't "choose to walk on the bottom of the ocean with no breathing devices precisely because I don't have the anatomy to breathe underwater and withstand the pressure.
I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking rather specifically about the ability to choose right and wrong in a given situation. Moral free will.
I see nothing in the Bible to suggest that a child can't choose to do a wonderful loving thing for their mother. Jesus notes that even the "pagans" and sinners do good at least to those who they love (Matt 5).
And beyond the Bible, we can see in the real world, real world instances of "pagans" choosing to do good acts. I can testify myself to a time before I was a Christian when I did good actions merely because they were good things to do or out of love for someone.
Which is why I've asked repeatedly if we don't all agree that sometimes, IF we know something is true in the real world and IF we see something in the Bible that appears to contradict that reality, THEN don't we all agree that we're probably interpreting it incorrectly?
For instance, the Bible says These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages. They will pick up serpents (with their hands), and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them.
Do you take that literally? If not, why? If you are a Christian can you literally drink poison? Why would you not take that literally? OR, for a simpler one, ARE there actually four corners in the world? Why don't we take that literally?
It is my opinion that IF it is sufficiently evident that something is not true or factual in the real world, then we can fairly safely assume that the Bible passage that SEEMS to suggest it is true is not, in fact, intended to be taken literally.
What do you think?
Dan Trabue: "What did God's plan look like?"
You're kidding, right? Would you actually believe that God ran this one past me? "Hey, Stan, here's my plan. What do you think?" When I say that it was God's plan, I am basing that on Scripture and God's character. That doesn't mean that I can fill in all the details. Nay, if I could fill in all the details, I'd be God.
You are completely hung up on this idea of causation rather than permission. If I say it was God's plan, you assume God made them do it. The Bible is not unclear about the story of Joseph and his brothers. There isn't the slightest doubt that his brothers planned evil and carried it out. Neither is there the slightest doubt that God intended it for good. In this case, we know what good -- God saved Israel. Still, tell me how it happened. Did God tell Joseph's brothers "Hey, why don't you go sell your brother to slavers?" I wouldn't think so. Why would you?
Dan Trabue: "Tough question for my position AND for your position, seems to me."
Not for my position. Remember, my position is that God is in charge of all things and only allows that which is part of His plan. So I simply trust His heart. You, on the other hand, are stuck.
Since Man's Free Will is sovereign (deny it all you wish, but you keep asserting it), we have a severely limited God. Given the problem of evil, either He is not omnipotent or not loving. That is, either He is incapable of stopping evil or unwilling. You have no other options. Me? I believe He uses the evil that Man commits, and He does so for His good purposes.
Once again, it seems that we're on similar-looking but radically different planets. On yours, God's will is to give Man the ability to do whatever he wants to do. You reject out of hand any limitation to the concept of Man's Free Will and argue (in ways that I cannot fathom or begin to comprehend) that God surrendering His will to Man's will leaves God "sovereign". Different God than the one on my planet.
You are completely hung up on this idea of causation rather than permission. If I say it was God's plan, you assume God made them do it.
Here, I'm answering Ryan's questions and asking him some in return. I believe that's okay with you.
If you are addressing these comments to me, though, here's my response:
I'm not "hung up" on the idea of causation, I'm not seeing how your view of this "limited free will" idea is even possible.
You said, "If I say it was God's plan, you assume God made them do it."
You are mistaken. I am not assuming God made them do it. I'm ASKING (hence the question mark) HOW that is possible. How does God have and enact a plan if God can't/won't make people do things?
If you're not saying that God is making people do things, then we don't have a disagreement, as far as I can see. That's my position, too: God does NOT make people do things, that we have free will to choose to do right or wrong.
You were the one disagreeing with me saying that the lost don't have the free will to choose to do right.
But that was not my question or point. My point was to ask how God has a plan that God implements/makes happen if God does not make people do what God wants?
I'm not "assuming" anything, I'm asking HOW is that possible?
If you can't answer that, do you understand how I don't find much reason to accept the position on your reading of a few bible passages alone? That is, if you can't explain how your position is even possible, why it becomes unreasonable to accept it on faith that Stan is right?
Nothing personal, but I don't have that much faith in Stan, my faith is in God and God has not told me what Stan believes he's found in the bible.
Stan said...
Not for my position. Remember, my position is that God is in charge of all things and only allows that which is part of His plan. So I simply trust His heart. You, on the other hand, are stuck.
Ah, I see, you're answering a question from the other post, here.
I understand that FOR YOU, you don't think your question is troubling for your position. It is for me. Your question is troubling for both of our positions, TO ME, but moreso yours, as it sinks your position, in my mind.
I understand you disagree with my thinking on this. I hope you understand that I disagree with yours.
Dan,
I won't be debating this further because, as I said, I was finished with it. However, I think you deserve clarification.
Having seen the definition of "free will" that you gave Ryan and, in particular, the fundamental demand that it be defined as unlimited and uninterrupted (Dan: "I don't know of any definitions that talk about 'partial' free will or 'limited' free will."), I perceive that you and I are speaking of different things when we speak of "free will". Mine is the ability to make choices -- an ability that may or may not be limited -- and yours is best described as autonomy -- self-directed. I don't believe in that form of "free will" at all, so it would appear that much of the confusion has been because you believe in Free Will (meaning complete and total self-determination) and I believe in free will (meaning the ability at times to make choices without external coercion). You cannot accept my definition and I deny the existence of your concept (except, of course, in the case of God).
Again, not by way of discussion or argument. Just for the sake of clarification. You're right. We are totally opposed to each other's views on this topic.
I'm sorry, Dan...I was asking for more clarification on the "outside influence or coercion" aspect of the definition you gave...sorry if that wasn't clear.
I personally think that we have an issue with the word "sovereign." I believe that you, Dan, are attributing a definition to God that is what we would consider "common" use of the term, especially when using the terminology with regards to human sovereignty. The problem is, as humans, we can't actually be sovereign, because we're not all-powerful. So when we speak of the term with regards to humans, nation-states, or whatever, I believe we have to look at it differently than we look at God and His sovereignty.
The reason the following verses aren't hyperbole is because God is all-powerful. If we were saying these things about ourselves, they would have to be hyperbole or blatantly false, because we can't do these things in our own power, whether we're the most powerful person/nation in the world or not. But since God is omniscient, these verses are not a stretch in any sense. In fact, this first verse speaks directly to that point...
Job 42:2 "I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted."
Psalm 33:11 "The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart from generation to generation."
Psalm 115:3 "But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases."
Psalm 135:6 "Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps."
Proverbs 16:4 "The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil."
Proverbs 16:33 "The lot is cast in to the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord."
Proverbs 19:21 "Many plans are in a man's heart, but the counsel of the Lord will stand."
Proverbs 21:1 "The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes."
Isaiah 14:24 "The Lord of hosts has sworn saying, "Surely, just as I have intended so it has happened, and just as I have planned so it will stand,"
Isaiah 43:13 "Even from eternity I am He, and there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?"
Isaiah 45:6-7 "...that men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these."
Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure;'"
Daniel 4:35 “All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, `What have You done?'”
Lamentations 3:37-38 “Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, Unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High That both good and ill go forth?”
Amos 3:6 “Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, Unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High That both good and ill go forth?”
Ephesians 1:11 “…also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,”
Romans 8:28 “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”
Romans 9
Revelation 17:17 “For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled.”
I hope it is understood that I'm not typing out all these verses in an attempt to overwhelm. I'm trying to point out that these thoughts aren't just in a verse here or there that could rather easily be tossed aside as hyperbole. (Just so you know, I'm still working on formatting a good response to your question about determining what is hyperbole and what isn't.)
It is many of these verses that allows us to know God's attribute of omnipotence. (I think I said omniscience in the last post...sorry) And I'm sorry, but it seems disingenuous to suggest that God could possibly give ultimate freedom of choice to humans and still retain complete control. Let's look at one example. If God planned that Jesus would die on the cross, and you are suggesting that there are no outside influences or coercion upon human choice, then those who eventually were responsible for crucifying Jesus could have just as equally chosen to let him go. What would God have done then? Would he have been caught off guard? You see, by suggesting that God gave humans completely free choice, you have to get rid of God's omnipotence (God can't make what he want to happen happen because He gave that power up to humans) and His omniscience (God didn't know what was going to happen).
Stan, even though you're finished talking with me on this topic, I would hope that you would add this clarification, since you have (mistakenly, I'm sure) misrepresented/bore false witness as to my position.
You said...
so it would appear that much of the confusion has been because you believe in Free Will (meaning complete and total self-determination) and I believe in free will (meaning the ability at times to make choices without external coercion).
I have consistently said that I define free will JUST as the dictionary does - the ability to make choices without external coercion or force. THAT is the definition of free will I am using. I'm not sure that I would agree with your OTHER interpretation of what I have said ("complete and total self-determination") and would prefer that you stick to what I have ACTUALLY told you I believed than making up other words. It would be a safer route to make sure you are correctly interpreting what I have said.
That you are defining "free will" in some other way than standard English, I would hope you recognize, is confusing unless you clarify what you mean by that.
I'm sure after all this time that you won't (I know that you have tried, but I still can't see how you mean what you mean and have some very specific questions that would help clarify), but just for future reference: If you are using some non-standard definition of words, it would help to define them in an understandable way.
I understand now that you are defining free will as "at times to make choices without external coercion" but you have not explained what that means. WHAT TIMES are people not able to make their choices without external coercion and WHAT does that coercion look like?
Since you're finished, perhaps someone else here would like to clarify that.
Thanks.
Ryan, more later...
Dan Trabue: "I have consistently said that I define free will JUST as the dictionary does - the ability to make choices without external coercion or force."
Actually, Dan, no. You add a requirement that the dictionary does not have:
"I don't know of any definitions that talk about 'partial' free will or 'limited' free will."
Nothing in the dictionary says or requires "complete" or "unlimited". A person who makes a single uncoerced choice exercised free will. You demand a continuity. If someone can choose freely now and not later, it is not "free will" by your definition. No such time constraint exists in the dictionary.
Ryan said...
So when we speak of the term with regards to humans, nation-states, or whatever, I believe we have to look at it differently than we look at God and His sovereignty.
Okay, so you ARE using a special definition - a theological definition, if you will - of the specific "Sovereignty of God," as opposed to just the standard dictionary definition, as it is normally used. Nothing wrong with creating new terms, as long as everyone in the conversation is aware of the distinction.
So, that being the case, can you offer up YOUR definition of "the Sovereignty of God" and explain how it is different that "mere sovereignty?"
The Holman Bible Dictionary defines it thusly:
The biblical teaching that God is the source of all creation and that all things come from and depend upon God (Psalms 24:1). Sovereignty means that God is in all and over all.
The Holman further sub-categorizes different types of God's Sovereignty, including...
Purposeful Sovereignty God's sovereignty moves toward a particular end, a specific purpose (Philippians 2:13). God's purpose is to bring His creation—His whole creation—to fullness and completion, to fellowship with Him.
Are these how you are defining God's Sovereignty? Or some other definition?
Ryan, you then listed some verses, beginning with...
Job 42:2 "I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted."
Psalm 33:11 "The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart from generation to generation."
Psalm 115:3 "But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases."
I'm not sure of the point, though. I AGREE that the "plans of God's heart stand from generation to generation." That God "does whatever God pleases."
It is just my belief that the Bible nor common sense evidence from looking at the world around us don't argue that God does not allow people to choose to do good or evil. God pleases for us to have free will, which is why God created us that way, so that we may freely choose to embrace and adore our Glorious God. But as a result of God's desiring for things to be that way, God has allowed us to choose NOT to embrace God's Way.
I'm not seeing that any of these verses suggest otherwise. What is it you see in these verses that you think would disagree with anything I've said (that is, mainly, that we have free will to choose to do good or evil - even the unsaved - and that we choose to embrace or reject Jesus' grace)?
Ryan said...
And I'm sorry, but it seems disingenuous to suggest that God could possibly give ultimate freedom of choice to humans and still retain complete control.
I don't see why not. I guess this is where we differ.
And I STILL want to know what you all mean by "ultimate freedom of choice?" I mean, either we have free choice or we don't. We either choose to do good or we choose to do something neutral or we choose to do wrong, but I don't see how it isn't our choice?
I believe at least some of you have rejected the notion that God forces us to do wrong, so then, what else do we have? If a lost person chooses to do a good act, have they not chosen to do good? If a lost person chooses NOT to engage in a known sin, hasn't that person chosen the good?
I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way and I have not heard from anyone anything that has made me go, "oh, NOW I see..." Do you have any explanation?
Ryan said...
You see, by suggesting that God gave humans completely free choice, you have to get rid of God's omnipotence (God can't make what he want to happen happen because He gave that power up to humans) and His omniscience (God didn't know what was going to happen).
As I noted elsewhere, "Omniscience" is not a biblical term or thought as far as I know, so I don't know that God would describe God's Self as omniscient. Perhaps God would, I tend to think of God that way, but again, you're getting in over my head with knowledge beyond what I can know.
As to having to "get rid of God's omnipotence," again, I don't see how? IF it is God's will that humanity has free will (and I think all the biblical and logical evidence supports this), then people using that free will is NOT beyond God's omnipotence, but part of God's omnipotence.
Ryan also said...
I'm still working on formatting a good response to your question about determining what is hyperbole and what isn't.
Thanks! I appreciate it. I think answering some of the specific questions that I have asked will help me understand your position and where you're coming from.
To answer that question myself (ie, determining what is hyperbole and what isn't), I have answered before how I interpret the Bible in general and that would cover the question of literal vs figurative language in the Bible. Stan has heard me say this before, but in case you weren't around for that, it goes something like this (and I'll note that this is fairly standard orthodox exegesis, I believe)...
1. Interpret individual passages through the whole of the Bible;
2. Interpret the whole of the Bible through Jesus' specific teachings;
3. Strive to understand context, language, idioms, writing styles, etc;
4. Interpret obscure passages through clear teachings (ie, if a passage teaches something that SEEMS at odds with more clear and consistent biblical teaching, it probably is - when Jesus tells us that, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters... he cannot be my disciple." - that is a rather disturbing passage, can it possibly mean literally what it is saying, given all that the Bible has to say about loving others and especially our parents? No, it can't mean that literally...);
5. Use our common sense and logical reasoning (if a passage tells us that there are four corners of the earth or that we are to gouge out our eyes, it probably is employing hyperbole) - if you can observe something in the real world that contradicts what you THINK a passage is saying, it's probably not intended to be taken literally - are there REALLY dragons in the world, as the Bible says?
6. Look for the Big Truths being taught and don't get too caught up in what might rightly be termed "minor details." In Jonah and the whale, the Truths being taught might include that no one can run from God, that we are to love our neighbors, even the bad ones, etc - to concentrate too much on whether or not Jonah was ACTUALLY swallowed by a "great fish" would be missing the points of the story;
For instance. Using these sorts of biblical study criteria would be a large part of how I decide what is and isn't most likely to be taken literally or figuratively.
Stan said...
You add a requirement that the dictionary does not have:
"I don't know of any definitions that talk about 'partial' free will or 'limited' free will."
Nothing in the dictionary says or requires "complete" or "unlimited".
And I did not SAY that. I said, "I don't know of any definitions that talk about 'partial' free will or 'limited' free will."
THAT is what I have said. I have added NO "requirements" to the definition.
Please don't misquote me, okay?
Do you know of any definitions that describe free will as being limited or partial?
Dan Trabue: "Please don't misquote me, okay?"
I copied and pasted your words. How did I misquote you?
Dan Trabue: "Do you know of any definitions that describe free will as being limited or partial?"
I know of no definitions that include either time limitations or any other limitations. That is, a single choice without being forced to make it is an act of free will. If a person is never allowed another choice (and I'm not suggesting that's the case), that choice still fell within the definition.
Wow...there's so much to say...I'll get to it as soon as I can. Please keep checking back.
How did I misquote you?
You said, and I quote, "You add a requirement that the dictionary does not have."
I did not add any requirement. I have consistently said that free will is the ability to make choices without outside coercion. Period. I have added no requirements. The definition is what it is.
You have some other definition than the standard English one, not me. Having "free will" on one choice but not on any others is not free will.
It would really help if you could offer some idea of what in the world a "limited" free will would look like. When does God NOT allow someone to make the choice between good and evil?
Let me try to offer a couple of examples from the Bible about free will in light of exegetical criteria I mentioned earlier.
1. Jonah is a good example of how God woos us, chastises us, calls us to do God's will BUT does not force us to do anything. Jonah always had the free will to say yes or no to God's will.
2. Pharoah "hardening his heart."
Here would be a PERFECT example of an obscure phrase from the Bible. What does "God hardened his heart" even mean?
a. Obviously, (I'd hope we can agree), it does not mean that God literally "hardened" Pharoah's beating heart, until it was like concrete.
b. In context, it seems fairly obvious that it is speaking metaphorically somehow about Pharoah's sense of right and wrong are stiffened against doing the right thing, but what does that mean exactly? How does that work?
We don't know specifically from the text. We don't have a text-directed answer on that point. I don't believe original Hebrew offers any great illumination on this point, either, nor does what historical evidence we have help contextually.
c. What we DO know in the real world is that when people repeatedly get in bad habits, choosing wrong, it becomes increasingly hard to do the right. For the smoker (small example), it becomes increasingly difficult to give up the habit. For the adulterer, it becomes increasingly easy to do it a second, third, fifth time and to give it up. Sin has an addictive nature. I believe we all have experienced this in one way or the other.
In the real world, we also know that we DO have the ability to make choices, so it seems unlikely that "harden his heart" could mean that God "took away" Pharoah's ability to make right choices.
d. So, given what we know and don't know and our biblical exegetical criteria, the most logical explanation (although almost certainly not the only one) seems TO ME to be that "God hardened his heart" is a metaphor for the reality that sinful habits are increasingly hard to get out of.
Is there any reason to assume otherwise?
Ryan said...
Wow...there's so much to say...I'll get to it as soon as I can. Please keep checking back.
Ryan, I might suggest we might ought to take this to your or my blog, since I believe Stan has had enough of this conversation. Or, Stan, let me know if I'm mistaken - I'm not trying to speak for you, just trying to be considerate.
I'm fine posting the conversation between Ryan and Dan.
Stan: "How did I misquote you?"
Dan Trabue: "You said, and I quote, 'You add a requirement that the dictionary does not have.'"
Just for reference, a "quote" is a repeat of another's words. Since "You add a requirement ..." is not a repeat of your words, it is not a misquote. You clearly disagree with my analysis, but it is not a misquote. What you want to say is something like "Please don't misunderstand me, okay?" (which, despite both of our best efforts, is a dream at best).
Fair enough.
Please don't misrepresent me.
Please do not say that I have added a requirement when I have not done so. You would be mistaken if you think this and wrong to suggest I have done so.
Dan, you're really big on "We must use our reason" and "We all figure out what an author means", yet when I feed back what I understood you to mean, you call it "misrepresenting" as if I know that's not what you really meant and I'm some malicious liar intentionally misrepresenting you. I am simply stating what I understood you to say. Please stop casting accusations.
Wow...I never went to debates in high school...I don't know why. Hmmm, maybe there were other things going on. Now I'm watching some real "All Conference" debaters in action. Impressive.
The first time I correct someone who has mistakenly misrepresented me, I tend to assume it is a mistake. When it keeps happening, it seems to be more appropriate to simply refer to it as a misrepresentation. There is no angry accusation in saying "misrepresentation."
"Joe said that I am blue, but that would be a misrepresentation of my actual color..." It indicates a mistake, and does not presume that the mistake is intentional or accidental.
You said of me, "You add a requirement that the dictionary does not have." but I'm letting you know that this is a mistake, a misrepresentation of what I have said. No harm, no foul. Just quit saying it, since it is inaccurate, that's all.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
I understand, Dan. You have made a career of misrepresenting what I believe, despite my repeated and sometimes lengthy attempts at explaining that you are not accurately expressing what I believe. I conclude that you don't understand.
You have made a career of misrepresenting what I believe, despite my repeated and sometimes lengthy attempts at explaining that you are not accurately expressing what I believe.
Which is why I ask questions and, when they don't get answered, sometimes I probably DO draw incorrect conclusions. The answering of questions asked is how I think we can better understand one another.
Although, I think when I ASK you a question, "Does that mean you really think...?" that is not actually a misrepresentation. It is a question.
Post a Comment