The debate continues. Does Man have "free will" or doesn't he? Now, to be fair, I know of almost no one that argues that Man has no free will. The only ones I know arguing for that are the hardcore evolutionists who say that all of our decisions are products of our biochemical construction. Fine. The rest argue for free will, but define it in different ways. One says, "We have the ability to make uncoerced decisions" and another says, "If we don't have absolute Free Will, it's not free will." You see, if Man has no free will, then he is not culpable for sin, and all Christians believe that Man is culpable for sin. Still, there are nuances, and they tend to get pushed aside in the broader question. For many, the only allowable definition of "free will" is autonomy. Humans can choose anything at all and no one and nothing can interfere. Anything less doesn't qualify.
We don't often stop and ask ourselves, "Just how free is free will?" So let's do an experiment to find out. If you want to believe that humans have true autonomy, try this out. Tomorrow, choose not to sin. I'm not asking you to choose to be perfect. I'm not asking you to never sin again. I'm just asking for a single day. If you find that you are not capable of making such a simple choice, where are you going to stand on the argument that Human Free Will is as ultimate as you seem to think?
The perception of human beings is that we have the ultimate free will. The language of Scripture is not so inclusive. It includes terms like "No man can ...", "cannot", and even "slaves". (If you need references, I can provide them.) Both in my experience and from what I read in the Bible, I don't find the concept of the ultimate autonomy of Man. Maybe you do. Maybe you can even avoid sinning for an entire day. But be careful. One person I talked to about this assured me that he didn't sin anymore; he just "made mistakes". Rewording it won't help.
35 comments:
I've always believed that the concept applied mostly, if not entirely, on our ability to choose God or to NOT choose God. That we are compelled by our fallen natures is a different matter, though I believe we indeed CAN choose not to sin for a day (a tough task to be sure---I'll not take that challenge as I've already chosen Jesus).
However, having just finished CS Lewis' Mere Christianity, I would add his explanation that we are to become Sons of God as Jesus is by focussing more on Him in our day to day lives. Eventually, he says, we will be more Christ like by "infection" and the ability to get through a day without sinning would go up, I would say, even if that can't be guaranteed. Or can it?
Beyond all that, I think our free will is in our daily choice to put Him first, His Way over ours.
The challenge -- the problem -- to our free wills is that we are limited by our natures. Natural Man has a nature hostile to God, inclined only to evil, unable to understand. (References available on request.) The New Man, the one with a new nature, has the capacity to choose not to sin. We are still prisoners in this flesh (Romans 7), but we do have a more "free will" than Natural Man.
So when we say that fallen man "cannot" choose Christ, it isn't because something is stopping him. It is because his own nature prevents him. A new nature is required to enable such a choice.
But does not that new nature have to be freely chosen? It IS said that God calls us to Him, but does that me we cannot resist or that we have the free will to accept Him or not?
From what I see in Scripture, that new nature cannot be "freely chosen". The Bible references faith as a gift, not a request. John writes "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" (1 John 5:1). Notice the phrasing. Those who currently believe were previously "born of God". From the biblical description of Natural Man, this is the only possibility. If Man is naturally hostile to God, inclined only to evil, not seeking God, unable to do good, unable to understand spiritual things, and dead in sin, an "offer" or "calling" from God would be pointless. God must first give this person a new nature and then he can exercise the faith provided and make the choice required. (Of course, their choice is "free" -- uncoerced -- but equally certain.)
That's what I see in the Bible. (I'm far from alone in that.)
Marshall Art said:
"But does not that new nature have to be freely chosen?"
Stan correctly says that it cannot be "freely chosen." For further reading, try Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus in John 3 (unless you are born again you cannot see the kingdom of God).
Or what about Lazarus being raised from the dead? Lazarus had to be regenerated (born again) in order for him to hear and obey the call of God to come forth from the tomb. If you take this picture of our salvation and jump into the debate, this would be the point where people suggest that God doesn't pull people kicking and screaming into heaven; He doesn't do this against their will. Jumping back to the Lazarus analogy, one would have to suggest Lazarus was raised against his will and that it really would have been plausible for him respond to Jesus at that point by saying, "No thanks, I'd prefer stay dead in here?" That's effectual (irresistible) grace.
I love the story of Lazarus...it's exactly the picture of what happens spiritually in our salvation.
But an offer or call from God is an appeal to their reason. At some point, on some level, the offer is considered. There is the choice to hear the offer to begin with and listen to it so that the call can be heard. Even in Scripture, we see that the Good News is spread to the non-Jewish world and some are attracted and some not. Of those who are attracted, were they all actively seeking God or something like Him, or were they turned on by the message enough to hear more until their reason was convinced and convicted?
I believe some won't ever take the time to listen. Their sinful natures are so strong that they don't see the need or are content. But others are open-minded while still being sinners.
Then, there is the rejoicing that a lost sheep has been found. Rejoicing seems unnecessary when the finding is certain?
I pose these because this issue has always seemed a bit like a "chicken or the egg" scenario. No doubt some people will never hear the call, but I think that is more a matter of not wanting to take the time to listen for or to it. The willingness to listen and hear would then lead to the faith being given to the person.
I pose this because I can't think of an occasion where someone did not first hear the Good News before becoming a believer. That is, can someone just be sitting around doing his thing when BAM! they believe? I know this is possible for God, but is it commonplace in the chronology of events leading to faith and salvation?
A conundrum for me.
Yes, a conundrum. I won't deny it. However, here's what I have to deal with in Scripture.
Paul says, "You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:1-2). He says, "The 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" (1 Cor 2:14). He says, "For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom 8:6-7). Jesus said, "The flesh profits nothing" (John 6:63) (and Luther quipped "That's not a little something"). The Bible, in fact, is full of these descriptions. This one is quite comprehensive: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:10-12). So I'm stuck with a dilemma. Either these are accurate descriptions or they are not. If they are accurate, there is no sense in which a person can simply "hear the call" or have a proper appeal to reason or anything short of a change of nature can produce a positive result. Now, the point is not that they are prevented (by some external force or something) or even incapable (lacking intelligence or power) of responding. It is that they, by their very nature, prevent themselves. To respond to that call would violate their nature. It would, then, not be "free will" because it would not be of their choosing.
On "Why rejoice if the finding of the lost sheep is certain?", seems normal to me. I knew that my children would certainly learn to walk, but when they did I rejoiced. I knew that my sons would graduate from high school, but when they did I rejoiced.
None of this precludes things like the idea that the offer is made freely to all ... because it is. And part of your question is about means. To achieve the salvation of individuals (ends), how does God go about it (means)? He has ordained that the normal method is the preaching of the gospel. Can someone just be sitting there and -- BAM -- they believe? I suppose. But, given the biblical condition of Natural Man and the biblical references I've offered, it seems necessary that the current standard equation of "Faith => Regeneration and Salvation" is not possible. It must be "Regeneration => Faith and Salvation" (you know, like Jesus and John said).
It seems to me that the Bible is more clear about other doctrines regarding salvation and damnation, than it is about whether or not free will contributes anything to the matter.
The Bible is clearer, for instance, that not everyone will be saved, and, intuitively, God appears to behave arbitrarily if He saves some but not all and the individual's free will had nothing to do with it.
Nevertheless, I trust that God is perfectly wise, just, and merciful, even if I don't see the wisdom, justice, or mercy of such an arrangement.
--
Stan, even apart from comparisons to counterfeit claims of reverence to the Bible, I really do appreciate your obviously genuine deference to Scripture, but I'm not sure I agree with every conclusion that you draw.
One must be careful not to draw from parables more than what's there, but I can't help but think that the parable of the sower and the seeds in Mark 4 (and Luke 8) confounds your position.
In that parable, what made the difference? It wasn't that the sower sowed seeds in one field but not the other, or that he tilled one field but not the other: he scattered seeds everywhere, and the difference was in the type of ground on which the seed landed.
"And these are the ones sown on the good soil: they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty and sixty and a hundredfold." Mk 4:20
This parable at least doesn't preclude the possibility that there are those who are, by nature, capable of responding to the word.
To me the parable of the sower agrees with what I've been saying. Surely the ground didn't choose to produce fruit.
But, setting that aside, assuming that there are "those who are, by nature, capable of responding to the word", what shall I do with the pile of Scripture that says that they cannot? How does the mind, set on the flesh, succeed in pleasing God (by properly responding to the word)? How are the dead capable of coming to life on their own? In what real sense is it true that "No one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one"? If the flesh is capable of at least making the right choice, in what sense could it be said that it profits nothing? How do slaves of sin escape by simple choice? When Paul said that 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", if there are those perfectly capable of responding, in what sense was he accurately describing Natural Man?
Back to the parable, is it the ground that is capable of engaging the seed, or is it the farmer who properly prepares the ground?
Stan,
I dunno. As I look over the verses you've presented, it seems more to be speaking in terms of the condition of the person who has yet to accept Christ, that such a person is still dead in their sinful natures. But that "deadness" is a result of their sinful natures, and to then accept Christ is to be born again. Of course anyone who has NOT accepted Christ would be dead in their sins. They would not be righteous, they would not understand about God and what is right, and that they cannot do good because they are not yet Christian or born again.
What difference is there between one who is a natural man and one who is spiritual? The latter has accepted Christ and thus is born again and his sinful nature, which was a curse on him previously, is forgiven and he is now righteous. Yet, that same man still sins and is not perfect as Christ was. He is only perfect in the spiritual sense for having made the choice freely to accept Christ.
This seems kinda circular and really moot since I've accepted Him. But I like the discussion.
Regarding rejoicing, there is rejoicing and there is rejoicing. You "knew" your kid would walk but rejoiced anyway. You "knew" he would graduate but rejoiced anyway. What if you felt sure the opposite was going to happen, that the kid wouldn't walk or wouldn't graduate but then did both. THAT would be true rejoicing! And free will, particularly when a fallen creature has that free will, surely will bring about REAL rejoicing by making the right choice. I liken it more to having two kids with one being a black sheep, or better yet, the story of the prodigal son. His brother always did the right thing. He was a jerk. He returned and his father rejoiced like there was no tomorrow.
Anyway, like I said, I think the point is moot since I've accepted Christ as my Savior. But it's a great discussion.
Would you suggest that the rejoicing I did when my children did what I knew they would do was not rejoicing? (I don't think that's what you were saying.) So you're talking about levels of rejoicing. Since the parable of the lost sheep doesn't say, "He rejoiced to the maximum level, not some downstream level", I still don't see the difference (or, rather, the violation of "rejoicing" when a lost sheep that He knew He would find was found). In fact, if God is omniscient, then He cannot be surprised at who gets saved, can He?
And you're right. It is indeed a discussion of principle, not something that will change your salvation status.
Here's my problem. There is a division made in Scripture between the saved and the unsaved, between the "dead in sin" and the "born again". The question at hand is how that division is breached. Is it accomplished because the "dead in sin" manages in some way to actually accomplish the single thing required to get to "born again"? Or is it because God transports him over that line? By what means does a "dead in sin" person ... accept Christ? It would violate his nature. It would be like asking a dead person in the cemetery to come out of his grave for an altar call. You may present the best possible call, offer the best possible results, give the most moving of sermons, but ... he's dead. Something has to change that single problem before he can respond. And he doesn't have it in him to do it himself.
I've always viewed "dead in sin" as a condition of one's future. That is to say "good as dead". Our spiritual self is dead because we have yet to accept Jesus and the life He is. When we accept Him, His eternal life is given to us and at that point we are "born again" or "resurrected". I think this was the point of the Lazarus story. Christ literally gave him life as well as spiritually. He gives us life spiritually and eternally when we accept Him as Lord and Savior. In this way all the verses you presented still apply. And I think it still also suggests that one can't save one's self without Christ. With Lazarus, however, it was a symbol of that gift only He has the power to give, but not a symbol that He does so without our asking for it.
Regarding rejoicing, I simply think that the word is used in Scripture to indicate a different degree BECAUSE the expectation is different. The lost sheep analogy suggests that the sheep MIGHT NOT be found, and the father expected that he MIGHT NOT see his prodigal son again. This implication is present in the stories in a manner I think is intended. That's what I've always inferred, anyway.
Marshall,
On the sheep thing, I'm a little confused. In your view, do you believe that God does not actually know if a lost sheep may or may not be found? If He does, to whom do you think the parable refers as rejoicing?
As to the "dead in sin" issue ... in the Lazarus story, what was Lazarus's contribution to his "born again" experience? What "proper choice" did he make? If "dead in sin" is only a "condition of one's future", in what sense can Paul say "you were dead in sin"? Assuming that Natural Man possesses all the necessary natural ability and intrinsic nature to choose Christ, in what possible sense does Paul say that Natural Man cannot understand spiritual things? Is it not required that a person, in order to receive Christ, must first "see" Christ? If so, what did Christ say when He told Nicodemus that you must be born again before you can see the kingdom of God? (Or is it your view that "the kingdom of God" is some future-tense thing that doesn't exist yet?) Assuming a spiritually dead, Natural Man who is hostile to God, inclined only to evil, not seeking God, incapable of good, and unwilling to heed the things of God, how do you understand those things to include, "Yes, but, he can surely turn his heart over to Christ"? None of that seems to apply if Natural Man possesses all the necessary natural ability and intrinsic nature to choose Christ. I mean, in the flesh, he has all he really needs, doesn't he? And that's not a small profit.
Stan, you ask, "is it the ground that is capable of engaging the seed, or is it the farmer who properly prepares the ground?"
Is a tiller mentioned in the parable?
You ask whether the dead in sin "manages in some way to actually accomplish the single thing required to get to 'born again'?"
But faith isn't something that a person accomplishes: it's not a work on our part, but merely accepting the work that God has already done on our behalf.
For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." (Rom 4:3)
It doesn't say that God made Abraham believe God.
It's possible that the question of God's sovereignty and man's free will can be easily answered from the timeless perspective of omniscience.
It's certainly not the case that the Bible clearly empahsizes one to the exclusion of the other, at least not to the degree that it teaches that we're justified by faith and not by works.
In the absence of a clear teaching, I think it's safer not to insist that God, who loves all, chooses only to save some and that the difference doesn't come down to our decision.
We have clearer teachings to proclaim.
Bubba: "Is a tiller mentioned in the parable?"
Hey, I thought it was fair. I mean, is the point of the parable that the ground chose to receive the word? If you're going to pull funny things out of parables, why can't I?
Bubba: "It doesn't say that God made Abraham believe God."
You're clearly saying, "I don't want to debate this" and I respect that, but I really need to address this comment. No one anywhere I've ever heard has ever suggested that God makes anyone believe. I've never seen a hint of it in Scripture anywhere. I've never heard it from the Confessions or from preachers or from teachers. I've never heard that suggestion anywhere ... except, of course, from those who disagree with the idea that God must first bring about a new nature before a spiritually dead human can respond.
I won't debate it further. I haven't seen a reconciling of Scripture to the overarching common perception that Human Free Will is the final deciding factor in human salvation, but to those of us who are saved it is mostly moot. (Well, to me it is absolutely stunning to be among those who are called "the chosen" ... apart from anything in me, but, hey, that's just me.) My point was (and continues to be) that human free will isn't as free as most humans think.
Just to be clear, Stan, I don't mind discussing this particular issue. I just don't think Scripture is clear enough to support intransigence for one side OR the other: it's possible that God's sovereignty and human free will can be reconciled from an eternal and timeless point of view.
You write:
"No one anywhere I've ever heard has ever suggested that God makes anyone believe. I've never seen a hint of it in Scripture anywhere.... except, of course, from those who disagree with the idea that God must first bring about a new nature before a spiritually dead human can respond."
Maybe you should make it a little more clear what you believe occurs.
After God regenerates a person so that he "can" respond, does he ALWAYS respond, or is it sometimes the case that a regenerated man still chooses not to respond, at least on occasion?
If you believe the regenerated man always responds to God's call -- and must always respond; he couldn't have chosen otherwise -- then I don't think it's unfair to characterize your position as the belief that God makes a person believe. Your position suggests that God's prior act of regeneration removes man's ability to choose not to believe.
Bubba: "If you believe the regenerated man always responds to God's call -- and must always respond; he couldn't have chosen otherwise -- then I don't think it's unfair to characterize your position as the belief that God makes a person believe."
This example is something I've used on another topic, but it fits here. Imagine that I'm rich (requires a huge imagination) and I buy a mountain and, at the top, build a house. Of course, to get to that house, I have to build a road from the bottom to the top. Unfortunately, that road sometimes winds along some very steep drops. Now, I don't want any of my visitors to fall off the road, so, at the bottom, I put up a big warning sign: "Danger! Winding road! To avoid falling off the road, drive carefully!" In the years that follow, not one of those who use that road ever falls off the road. Everyone always makes it safely.
What do you conclude? "The sign was a lie. Since no one ever fell off the road, it was not possible to do so." Or do you conclude, "Very effective sign"? Because everyone who is regenerated and gifted with faith exercises that faith and new nature to choose correctly does not require that it was coerced -- that they "couldn't have chosen otherwise". It simply means that the regeneration and gifting are perfectly effective.
On human free will prior to regeneration. There is a sequence of clear, biblical conditions that must be examined. First, what is the condition of Natural Man? Second, what is required for that Natural Man to arrive at salvation? I've listed many clear passages that explain the condition of Natural Man. For some reason, they are regarded by some as "not clear enough" or insufficient to make the point. No one has told me why, so it is my suspicion that the "why" is because it goes against a prior commitment to Human Free Will. So what is required to arrive at salvation? Well, one must receive the call. One must understand the call sufficiently to choose. One must choose to heed the call by coming in faith. (Keeping it as simple as possible.) It is clear from Scripture that the call (the seed in the parable you spoke about) is given to everyone. Check off that one. But on the second step, the Bible says that Natural Man "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God" because "he is not able to understand them." Given Natural Man's intrinsic hatred for God, his spiritual deadness, and all the rest, how does he cross that hurdle? Jesus said that to see the truth you must first be born again. John said that those who believe (present tense) were born again (past tense). The advocates of "Natural Man makes the proper choice first to become born again second" are not offering any explanation of how that is remotely possible in light of the clear condition of Natural Man. I'm willing to hear it, but it is that monumental, unequivocal description of Man that prevents me from agreeing with the Billy Graham concept that "God did 99.9% and we do the last 0.1% in choosing Him" because it seems as if the Bible completely disallows it.
Stan, if you go that far, I don't see why you don't deny free will -- to deny its significance entirely when it comes to salvation, even if you don't deny its existence in an absolute sense.
What makes you so sure a regenerate man COULD freely choose not to accept salvation if no regenerate man actually DOES so choose?
There's the belief that human free will does play a role in salvation, and there's the belief that it doesn't. It seems to me that the former does one thing that the latter cannot do: it reconciles two Christian doctrines, that God's love is universal but His salvation is not.
Our side's position is that God loves everyone universally, and that He calls all of us to accept salvation: we each have the freedom to accept or reject that invitation, and those who don't are judged, because God loves us so much that He honors our free-will decisions.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that your side's position is that God loves everyone universally, and that He calls all of us to accept salvation, but He only works to change SOME of us to enable us to answer that call.
Why didn't He enable everyone to accept His call to salvation? God's sovereignty isn't an answer enough, because His sovereignty cannot contradict His character; it's just not clear how that act of limited regeneration is compatible with His universal love.
Suppose a high school student had an upcoming party, and she wrote out invitations to literally her entire class.
Half the invitations, she actually mailed. The other half, she sealed in a box and hid in the top of her closet until the week after the party.
In a sense, the girl invited everyone, but she only enabled her friends to receive the invitation. Should any of those who were snubbed feel better because they DID have invitations written out to them, sitting in the girl's closet?
Of course not, and everyone could see that those extra invitations were a farce and a mockery of the act of truly inviting everyone.
The same logic applies to the Savior: it's hard for me to see how He displays universal love by sending everyone the call to be saved, if doesn't actually enable everyone to hear that call.
Stan, it does seem from an earlier post in April that you deny God's universal love.
"The demand seems to be that God is obligated to have mercy and compassion on all. God appears to disagree."
I think your position is difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of God's universal love.
You seem to agree, but you deny the doctrine.
Looking through your older posts on the subject has given me a lot to think about, but I think it's important to be on the same page about the logical consequences of your position.
I suppose I'm going to have to ask you to explain what you mean by "God's universal love". I believe that God gives rain to the just and the unjust, and that is "universal love" for mankind. I believe that the Church is the Bride of Christ and, as such, is loved in a way different than the rest of mankind. That's not "universal love". In the Gospel of John we read (I believe Jesus said) that God loves the world in a particular way: He gave His Son so that whoever believes in Him receives eternal life. That's not "universal love"; that's limited to "whoever believes". I believe, then, that God loves everyone, but that it isn't an equal love. So I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "universal love" or by my denial of it.
But you've explained why you think I'm wrong. You haven't explained why you think you're right. I've explained my problem -- Scripture. I've explained that the Bible seems abundantly clear on the condition of Man without regeneration. I've offered lots of references and rationale. Assuming that I'm completely wrong on this, what is right? It would seem that the argument is that the final arbiter of salvation is the individual. God has made it all ready, like a grand host at a hotel, and the feast is set and the beds are made and the rooms are prepared. All that is lacking is for the guests to choose to arrive and take Him up on it. He's hoping that they do just that, but He won't interfere. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's that Human Free Will is too precious to violate. I'm not entirely clear on that. But I have yet to have explained to me how any of this is supposed to work. It is claimed that it is so, but no one tells me how. How does the spiritually dead human respond to the spiritual? How does the hostile-to-God Man set aside his hostilities before God changes His nature? How does the slave to sin free himself before God does it? If Natural Man cannot understand the things of God as Paul says, how does Natural Man do just that?
I'm perfectly willing to accept that I can be wrong on all this. I just haven't seen a single answer to the objections I've offered from Scripture that limit human capability. Someone, please, tell me how it works! I don't see it. Tell me how spiritual Lazaruses choose to be raised from the dead before we are. And while you're at it, can someone please tell me how, assuming a genuine "universal love" of God, Paul could write something as contrary as "[God] has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Rom 9:18)? Indeed, if I were to count myself a loving father with all the necessary capabilities and failed to intervene, even against their wills, to save my children from death, I'd find myself a complete failure at love. Telling myself "I had to let them choose their own way" as I let them perish would be pitiable consolation and perhaps criminal "love". So I'm just asking someone to help me understand how all this works at all with the Scriptures I've offered.
Stan,
"On the sheep thing, I'm a little confused. In your view, do you believe that God does not actually know if a lost sheep may or may not be found?"
I don't think so. Maybe. My point was that the lost sheep anaology assumes the ficticious shepherd wasn't sure. That much seems obvious to me from the parable. There is also an implied (or maybe I just infer it) distinction between the shepherd's feelings about the lost sheep as compared to the sheep still in his immediate care. I think it compares somewhat with Jesus' analogy of the doctor coming to heal the sick, not the healthy. That is, what of the rest of the flock? There's no mention of the feelings for them, but that lost one's recovery is different.
"...in the Lazarus story, what was Lazarus's contribution to his "born again" experience?"
I don't believe he needed one. That is, I don't think that was the point of the reanimation of his body. I believe it was merely to demonstrate that Jesus is life and that power to be reborn comes through him. It's what's in store for everyone eventually (should they accept Him), but first, he merely demonstrated that He is indeed life and life giving. Now, from this point, those who have seen this event, and those who believe when told know that Christ is life and what follows it the preaching that one must accept Him in order to be born again like Lazarus. In other words, the Lazarus episode is the first indication Jesus gives that He has power over death. Also, I believe Lazarus was a friend or relation (I'll confirm or refute on my own later), so he already was "into" Jesus on some level. I'm not sure of the chronology, but I think it's after this that he resurrect's the little girl ("She's only asleep."). The parent came to Him believing He was capable of healing her (not realizing she had died). So that dude had faith in Jesus.
And that kinda shows that he had come to learn about Jesus and had chosen to believe in His capabilities.
continued----
The thing about the verses you're using is that they don't seem to me to be a chronology so much as merely a description of the differences between the Natural and the Spiritual Man. It doesn't seem to point to the steps of going from one to the other. So, while one has yet to learn of Christ, or be attracted to the Message, one is still in the "Natural" state. I believe that until one chooses to "cut the crap" and sit down and listen, one can never be born again. For most, (I was raised in a Catholic home and went to Catholic school and never really rejected God, though I kind ignored Him for a few years---thus, I always (mostly)believed) nothing sinks in until one allows it to sink in. Some simply never do.
"If "dead in sin" is only a "condition of one's future", in what sense can Paul say "you were dead in sin"?"
I took it to mean that before you accepted Jesus, your future was death because sin is death. It's always a reference to after one is physically dead, or in other words, it's always meant in the spiritual sense. He was telling the people that death is where they WERE headed, but now the destination is eternal life.
"Assuming that Natural Man possesses all the necessary natural ability and intrinsic nature to choose Christ, in what possible sense does Paul say that Natural Man cannot understand spiritual things?"
Again, I think this is a reference to what is possible (or not possible) for those who have not accepted Christ. I used to bowl with a guy who, for some reason, when I first met him, felt compelled to tell me he was an atheist. I don't know why. I had barely said, "How d'ya do?" and he just said it. Anyway, he, like many atheists, would like to say occasionally, as he did on this first meeting, that he's never seen any more evidence for God than he did the Easter Bunny. My response came to be, "Who are you kidding? When have you actually looked for any?" And he never would give me an answer because obviously, he simply never chose to look. He maintained a "What's the point?" attitude. I challenged him to give me a serious opportunity and then decide, and he never would because all he could think of was losing the right to drink and toke a lot, to gamble, and to bag any chick he could get to sleep with him. (Believe me, I mean ANYONE!) He seemed to me (so did his brother, come to think of it) to be perfect examples of the Natural man who can't understand spiritual things. He clearly has the choice to learn of them since I offered. There's nothing he needs to do in his spare time that he can't continue doing later. But he chooses not to.
Though I know of people who claim to have been believers and no longer are (I think they lie to themselves), of those I've known who never were, few actually take the time to really seek. I'm thinking of two I grew up with who claim to have sought and chosen against, but I'm not sure of where they were looking. Smart guys, not chuckleheads.
So here are two sets. Two brothers who won't look at all and just insist there is no God, and two who have done at least some reading and don't believe. Two extremes. They all made the decision to reject Him.
Perhaps there's that instant that separates those like my four unfortunate associates and other like them who came to Christ. Maybe it's that instant when they decided to really listen. Maybe it's that exact point that could be where God steps in. But still, why isn't He doing that with the other four I mentioned?
one last thing---
I don't know if my last posted or not. Something wacky happened so I'm not sure. I was able to copy and paste to a document to retrieve later if it doesn't show up. This will mark the third in a series of hopefully not too boring a set of comments, just to keep track.
Continuing:
Sometimes I think it compares to Network Marketing, also known as Multi-level Marketing, Viral Marketing and a host of other names intended to keep people from associating it with Amway. The uninitiated will run screaming from the first mention of a business opportunity. They don't want to hear about it because they're afraid it's like the dreaded AMWAY!
But all network marketing is is a different way of marketing products. Companies move products the traditional way, spending millions and millions on advertising, and other companies spend millions one people who simply tell other people about their products in the same way one tells another about a good movie they saw or a good place to eat. The difference is that one form pays you for the word of mouth and the other doesn't. Those who want to tell a lot of people will make a lot of money.
I know this system works, though I was never much good at it. I've looked at a number of companies and in each I've met people who make loads of money, with most of the truly successful often making LOTS more than the guy who got them in the business. Almost everyone who makes huge money in the industry at one time thought ill of it. They didn't believe until one day they made the choice to listen. To REALLY listen, and they understood. For some they were nagged into listening. For others they were in need of some way to make money because their debts were growing faster than their jobs could cover. But they chose to finally really listen and they were, in a sense, born again.
In the same way, the Natural Man doesn't get how he profits by accepting the Message. He only sees that he has to annoy his friends and neighbors. It seems like annoyance because he doesn't understand and he doesn't understand because he chooses not to REALLY listen. When he finally does, God comes into his life and changes him. He now sees how he can profit. He now sees that despite the hardships, everything he REALLY needs can be his.
(Strangely enough, when the Natural Man chooses to learn and then comes to understand, his friends and neighbors think he's nuts. Just like the guy who gets into network marketing.)
On the sheep thing, you think that the point of the story of Lazarus was not the choice that Lazarus (obviously couldn't have) made. You do think that the primary point of the parable of the lost sheep is that the shepherd didn't actually know if he'd find the sheep. Nothing in the story requires or even suggests a "did not know". It simply says he went and found the sheep and rejoiced. For all we know, he knew exactly where that sheep had been lost and was rejoicing that he was just where he expected to find him. My point is that the point was not that the shepherd didn't know. You're pulling that point out of a story that doesn't require it. If that is the primary point, then we have something of a problem because it would seem to require that the omniscient God of the Universe doesn't actually know if He'll find any sheep ... and, boy, is He surprised and happy when He finds one!
Marshall Art: "The thing about the verses you're using is that they don't seem to me to be a chronology so much as merely a description of the differences between the Natural and the Spiritual Man."
Assuming no chronology at all -- assuming that the passages I've listed do indeed simply describe Natural Man -- how, in your view, does this Natural Man overcome his own flesh, surmount his hostility toward God, understand the necessary spiritual things that it says he cannot, and so on? I'm asking you what I asked Bubba. Assuming that the Bible is true and, therefore, the description of Natural Man is accurate, what is your scenario for how Natural Man overcomes all that he is to arrive at the point of making this right choice? My problem is the piles of Scriptures that make this a problem, so if you could offer some Scriptures that support your answer, it would be helpful. At this juncture, all I have is "I don't think that God works that way" and no Scripture to say why and no Scripture to say how it does work. I'm perfectly willing to look at an alternative. Up until now, no one has offered one.
If the shepherd knows where the sheep is, the sheep isn't lost. Even if the shepherd had expectations, without certainty the sheep is lost. It isn't lost if he KNOWS where the sheep is and expectations doesn't equal certainty.
Again, the verses you've presented don't go from Natural Man to Spiritual Man. They speak of one and his condition and then the other and HIS condition. That was my point regarding chronology. They seem to me to only describe each and the limitations of the Natural Man as if before he chooses God. Once he chooses, he can begin to understand. But the verses don't speak of the transition at all (unless I'm forgetting something---I don't keep going back to review them for every response) of going from one to the other. Despite my lack of Scripture to support my belief, I'm not sure I agree that the verses you present support yours as well as you think they do. Perhaps an example that demonstrates how the transition works would be helpful. At this point, there still seems a problem of why God wouldn't choose to bring all to Him if it all relied on Him. What determines which ground is fertile enough for the seed to take root? Why is one man fertile ground and not all men if it depends on God's willing it so? The question touches on His sense of Justice (vs our understanding of just what justice truly is). Mind you, I'm not one who believes that while He may wish that none will perish that He needs everyone to survive and be with Him. And Scripture is clear that not all will see Paradise. I also know I'm not entitled to understand absolutely everything about how He works His plan. But I just don't see that those verses show that Natural Man can't make the choice given the right circumstances. I'm sincerely interested in trying to resolve this in my feeble mind and I appreciate your patience thus far.
"If the shepherd knows where the sheep is, the sheep isn't lost."
If the sheep is not in the fold, he is lost and has to be found (recovered). But it would seem that you are indeed arguing that God doesn't really know who will and won't be saved and is hoping to recover as many as possible ... without actually knowing who that is.
"They speak of one and his condition and then the other and HIS condition."
I'm still baffled at the distinction. Let's try something simple. "Last week the house was blue. This week the house is red." The statement gives two conditions -- before and after. They say nothing of the transition. Now ... what do we know? We know that something occurred in the intervening week to change the color of the house. What is it? We're not sure.
So, we accept that Natural Man is hostile to God, inclined only to evil, unable to comprehend spiritual things, dead in sin, and so on. And we know that the one born again is no longer hostile to God, can avoid sin, understands spiritual things ... you get the point. Saying "One is before and one is after" is fine ... but what happened in between? The claim is that the Natural Man made the choice. But this violates the known condition of that Man. So what happened? You haven't said. Bubba hasn't said. I believe that Jesus said that you must be born again before you see the kingdom. John quite clearly said that those who now believe have already been born again. These are the only clues to what causes the change (at least, the only clues that don't violate the known conditions).
"If the sheep is not in the fold, he is lost and has to be found (recovered)."
If the sheep is not in the fold, it is merely outside the fold, but not necessarily lost. It might be "way over there", but within sight, thus not lost. "Lost" implies that it's location (and condition) is unknown.
" But it would seem that you are indeed arguing that God doesn't really know...etc."
Kinda. It's a problem inherent in the discussion as it involves something of God about which we aren't capable of fully grasping. It's what we're trying to work out here. If God knows all things, is that the same as affecting how things happen. CS Lewis speaks of God and time as seeing past, present and future all at once, not having to endure the flow of time as we do. So he knows the future because to Him it has happened. At the same time, does this mean that we then lack the ability to choose? I don't think so, but I lack the capacity to explain that which I can't fully know and understand, that being His perspective versus ours. (This is different than saying that He lacks the freedom and authority to do what He wants, but only that it doesn't mean He doesn't let things play out while still knowing how they will. I'm getting a headache.)
"I'm still baffled at the distinction. Let's try something simple."
This piece conforms with my position as far as it goes. For certain, I am saying that the transition isn't spelled out enough. Let's move on...
"Saying "One is before and one is after" is fine ... but what happened in between? The claim is that the Natural Man made the choice. But this violates the known condition of that Man."
I don't think it does because I don't think the condition as it is described addresses what happens at all, only that while one was a Natural Man he was one way and now after being born again he is another. The next part only restates that and confirms it:
"I believe that Jesus said that you must be born again before you see the kingdom. John quite clearly said that those who now believe have already been born again."
I don't disagree with the above, I'm only wondering about how one gets from one to the other and while I understand the condition of Natural Man, it doesn't suggest that he is incapable of making a choice if a choice is given him. It only seems to speak to his condition without the choice present before him. His paradign hasn't shifted because it was not provoked in any way to do so and while in that state can't understand the other way. But that does not suppose that he can't be lured toward listening to the benefits of the other way.
I guess another way to explain my POV is to ask if someone is still a Natural Man while studying Scripture. At some point, BING! the light goes on and he sees why God's way is the better way and he then believes. It all makes sense.
And it seems clear that between us, one of us understands better than the other. This alone is troubling in light of your point of view here. If it is me, am I too much the Natural Man because of what I DON'T understand? I'm not yet born again when I thought I was? How do I know I understand enough to qualify?
I've always felt I was called to God my whole life. As I say, I've only been able to ignore Him for a couple of years, perhaps, but never really deny Him.
I think what it is is that I'm still, and likely will always be (while on this earth), a "Natural Man", but because I accept Jesus, His spirit is mine and it compels me to be like Him even when I fail to do so. I think I understand what I NEED to understand which is that I need Him. Those who won't or haven't accepted Him don't understand that need and that might be the only understanding that defines the difference between natural and spiritual man.
I believe that we are now talking past each other. This typically occurs when we use the same words but mean something different. Let me try to slow this down a little and see if there is a disconnect somewhere.
First, if God knows everything and knows everything perfectly and He knows that you will choose x on the third Friday of July, 2010, it is then a foregone conclusion. You will choose x on that day like He knew you would. Does that, in your view, mean that you don't have the ability to choose? Does it negate one's ability to choose if someone knows in advance what you will choose?
Second, what do you mean by "incapable of making a choice"? When the phrase is laid out there that way, it suggests that someone who is "incapable of making a choice" lacks a particular faculty, like the will. It would be like saying, "He's incapable of seeing" and, of course, when you meet the guy, he's blind. That is, the faculty of sight is missing.
I haven't used the phrase "incapable of making a choice". I've been referencing limits to Free Will. Further, the limits I've been referencing are not external. They aren't due to a missing faculty. I can hold up an apple and a banana and tell Natural Man, "Choose!", and he can choose. The question goes to the basic functionality of the will. The way we choose to do things, if there is anything called "free will", is to choose what we want. If you choose what you don't want, it's not free will, is it? That's coercion. So the limitation to the free will of Natural Man is the nature of Natural Man. I'm saying he "cannot choose" Christ not because he lacks the capacity to choose or he is blocked in some way. I'm saying he cannot choose Christ because he doesn't want to. It would be abhorrent to him. It would be like offering a child broccoli or lima beans. "No, no, no!" Can a child who despises lima beans choose them? He has the capacity. He lacks the will. The hurdle that your Natural Man has to overcome is not some external force preventing him from choosing Christ or some incapacity to choose. It is his own nature that makes a choice for Christ a horrendous option. He hates God. He is only interested in evil. He cannot understand. What could possibly make this person choose Christ?
Now, I have no connections there, and no one there (as far as I know) is reading my blog, but "coincidentally" the folks at Pyromaniacs posted this entry over the weekend.
Checking in late, but I'd like to comment on a small chunk of the last bit:
"First, if God knows everything and knows everything perfectly and He knows that you will choose x on the third Friday of July, 2010, it is then a foregone conclusion. You will choose x on that day like He knew you would. Does that, in your view, mean that you don't have the ability to choose? Does it negate one's ability to choose if someone knows in advance what you will choose?"
This goes to the point about God and time. One possibility that some posit is that it's not a matter of God knowing in advance; at least not in the sense we understand it. If, as Lewis supposes, He sees past, present and future "at the same time" (tough to speak about something out of time without using the same terms relating to time as we undestand it), then He sees not so much "into" the future, but sees the future at the same time as the present. (This is hard) This would meant that He doesn't see an event "in advance" of it happening, but that He sees "that it happened".
We think of fortune tellers telling us the future and think of it as something that might happen if we continue proceeding as we are. This isn't the same as God knowing our future. For us it hasn't yet happened, but for Him it has. In both cases, we're still here in the present. If I'm not making sense here, it's not my fault. I think understanding God's perspective of time is beyond us and this has only been speculation that has been offered by other people as possibilities. Other people such as CS Lewis. I've read it elsewhere, but can't recall where.
The rest I'll get to later. I think I'll read the link first, though.
Does God know now (in our time) who will receive Him then (in our time)? I don't see that God outside of time answers the question. The question is "Does God, the Shepherd, know which sheep will be saved?" Whether He knows all things outside of time doesn't seem relevant to the question. Basically, the question is, "Can God be surprised?" Your take on the lost sheep parable would require a "Yes" answer.
I don't think that's the right question. I think it's more simply, Is God more joyful over those who strayed and returned (or were found) than those who never left (or rejected Him)? I think that's more to the point of the parable. The time aspect is simply speculation about what He knows about the future and how. That speculation doesn't really have that much relevance to the story.
As to the issue of free will, I don't think the lost sheep story deals with that at all.
By the way, as much as I'm enjoying this exercise, we can move on any time you want.
I always enjoy a friendly chat. We can stop whenever you want.
Is it your view that there are those who never rejected Christ?
But the question I asked ("Can God be surprised?") was based simply on your claim that God was not sure of where to find that lost sheep and was overjoyed to be able to do it. Your claim was that it was the uncertainty involved that made Him rejoice.
My question, still, is how it is that Natural Man can provide the necessary "free will" to choose Christ given the biblical descriptions of Natural Man. And I thought a little about this to try to clarify. For humans to be able to do anything at all, you have to have two things. You have to have the will and you have to have the ability. When Paul says God is at work in us (Phil 2:13), He is enabling us "to will and to do" -- the will and the ability. We know that you have to be "willing and able". As an example, I am perfectly willing to be able to step out the front door, leap into the air, and fly to work. So cool! But, of course, I lack the ability, so I won't be flying to work any time soon. On the other hand, I am absolutely able to beat my wife -- I have the necessary arms, strength, etc. -- but have no will to do so, so I won't be beating my wife. So when I say that Natural Man is unable to choose Christ, what am I saying? I'm not saying he is incapable. I am not saying that he lacks the ability. He is perfectly capable of doing so. It is the will he lacks because he is spiritually dead, hostile to God, a slave of sin, inclined only to evil, unable to understand, and so on. To come to Christ he must be willing and able, but the sinful nature of Natural Man, while leaving him able, makes him unwilling. That's the "can't" I'm talking about.
"Is it your view that there are those who never rejected Christ?"
Yes. Even your humble commenter would be an example. I was raised in a Catholic home, went to Catholic school and though in my later teens and early twenties I tried to ignore Him, I could never really bring myself to reject Him---at least not in a conscious manner. He always seemed to be right there reminding me of His presence. Some would say it's just conscience. Perhaps, but it manifested in my mind (and still does) as God existing, being real and watching.
"Your claim was that it was the uncertainty involved that made Him rejoice."
Actually, I was trying to distinguish between God and the character of the shepherd in the parable of the lost sheep. The shepherd was uncertain of finding the lost sheep. My position is that God's joy for a repentant sinner is akin to a shepherd who has uncertainty over the location of the sheep, and then finds it. I think the story is meant to illustrate God's rejoicing only, not whether He has uncertainty. That's what I was trying to say. I think. (Now I'm not sure.) I don't think the parables of Jesus were meant as exact representations of God or Heaven, but only a means by which He could impart a notion that should be understandable to the listener.
I think I'll need to study more deeply the verses you've offered in order to re-gather my thoughts on them. I may also hit on BibleGateway.com to get different looks from different Bibles. I still tend to think that the descriptions of Natural Man do not exclude the possibility of choice, but another perusal might either change my mind or provoke another way to explain myself. One thing that has been popping up is Paul's statement regarding no one having an excuse as regards God's existence, that God has revealed Himself to all through His Creation. This would put everyone in the position to HAVE to make a choice whether or not to accept or deny God and what HE offers. He exists as His Creation has revealed to us that He does, so what are we gonna do about it?
As if I wasn't busy enough! :)
Perhaps we're using "reject Christ" in different ways. Since "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", I read that to mean "all reject Christ" and the "trick" is to get Natural Man to accept Christ.
But I'll be interested in what you come up with in reexamining the Scriptures on the subject.
Post a Comment