Okay, let's see if we can break this down. Synergy is defined as the interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual. The word comes from a combination of two Greek words -- sun (with) and ergon. Today we use "erg" as a measure of work. "Synergy", then, is work in combination -- to "work with". In contrast, "monergy" would substitute "mono" for "syn" ... "one" for "with". Synergy is two or more forces working together; monergy is one force at work.
But remember ... we're talking theology here. There is a specific concept in view: Regeneration. The question being asked is this. Does regeneration occur by the combined efforts of God and Man, or does God unilaterally regenerate? The predominant perspective is, of course, synergistic regeneration. "What? No! No, we don't say that!" Well, yes, most do. God does most of the work, but, well, that final trigger action is Man's. God makes salvation available, but Man is the ultimate chooser.
What is disturbing to me is ramifications of this position. There are a few serious conclusions if this synergistic regeneration concept is, in fact, true. First, what, exactly is God doing? You see, if God has only made salvation available, then He isn't actually in the business of saving anybody. He's just making them savable. When they concur, then together God and Man can produce something of value, but until they concur, God is stuck with a great plan and nowhere to go. Second, is salvation truly solely a work of God? Everyone would likely shout, "Yes!", but if God's work of salvation is dependent on ... well, anything at all ... then salvation is not solely a work of God. In fact, it is ... synergistic -- God and Man working together to produce something that God alone could not. Indeed, although God did all the work (almost), in the final analysis the final responsibility for salvation is ... you. God's work makes salvation possible; your choice makes it real.
Truly, the idea that it is my choice in the matter that determines whether or not I am saved has stark ramifications for God. He wants to save everyone ... but can't. He claims to be all-sufficient ... but isn't. He is called "Sovereign" ... but really isn't. If, on the other hand, God saves by regenerating people unilaterally who then are enabled to choose Him, then salvation becomes a work of God solely, not dependent upon Human Will. Interestingly, this is exactly what both John and Paul wrote.
But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13).So ... monergistic regeneration would be both a logical fact and a biblical one. How convenient!
It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy (Rom 9:16).
21 comments:
The problem here is that you assume the opposing argument is that God CAN'T save without our choosing Him. This isn't MY position at least, and I don't see how it is common. My position is that God does indeed make salvation available and can save us if we want to be saved or not. He's God after all. He can do anything. But the free will He gave us is that we have to choose Him or ourselves. Him or the world. (Whichever---Him or anything else for that matter.) If we choose Him, we are still not saved BECAUSE of our choice. That is, it's not the choice that saves but HE who saves. But He saves because we made the right choice. He wants us to choose Him and He withholds salvation from those who don't choose Him. In fact, He withholds salvation from everyone until those who choose Him, uh, choose Him. It's still HE who saves.
I liken it to the average relationship. Which makes you more happy: a wife who loves you by force, or by choice? I think we have free will for the same reason. What logic is there in creating a soul to worship you if that soul has no choice but to worship you?
Cannot. Does not. However you want to word it, God stops short of saving anyone until that person gives permission. That is synergism. And, indeed, as I've said multiple times (and still wait for someone to explain), if that person has given permission given his natural condition, that is something to really boast about.
I understand the standard argument. "It's not love if it's not by choice. Love can't be forced." But to me it's like calling me to love calamari (or whatever other horrendous food you might despise). No amount of urging will make that happen if I hate it so much. And "hate" for God is the description of Natural Man.
It's not a matter of man giving permission. It's a matter of man choosing between two options that God has offered. Choice 1--God, choice 2--anything but God. And unlike calamari, there is a comparison between how either choice benefits or harms the chooser. OR, if you like this better, anything is an aquired taste. I used to hate coffee as a wee lad. I grew to enjoy it. I used to hate broccoli, but, I grew to only prefer other vegetables, but I no longer hate it. If God is "distasteful" to Natural Man, it is because of the desire and longing for the things of this world. It's "distasteful" to give up whoring about, or drinking heavily, or cheating others out of their possessions, or a hundred other things that being a Christian requires we give up. That life of self-denial for His sake is a taste not easily aquired by everyone, even when the benefits have become incredibly clear and obvious.
The path is narrow. The statement denotes a warning, that to accept Christ isn't easy. That suggests a choice being made. It plays out in everyday life. We consciously accept Him but being imperfect humans, we cannot be what we must be in order to please God. Thus, we have Christ so that our imperfections are not held against us.
That's HIM doing everything. He's the Almighty Monty Hall and we are offered doors numbered 1 or 2, except that we know what's behind each. If we choose the right door, then He saves. Yet, He could save whether we choose properly or not, or whether we even decide to choose or not, or even if we don't know we even have the choice. What's more, He can deny us no matter what we do, no matter what choice we make. It's all in His power. But He gives us the choice as He gave Adam the choice.
It's like a train ride. The train is goin' whether we buy a ticket or not. Our choice does not have anything to do with the movement of the train, it's power to haul hundreds of people and tons of cargo, or anything else regarding the train. But the conductor offers us the choice of riding and being allowed to arrive at the destination we want, or, we can try and get there ourselves except that we can't get there without that train. Is it really something to boast about that we took up the conductor on his offer, as if another means to that heavenly destination is possible? I don't see that.
I chose calamari because of one, single description of Natural Man from Scripture. "The mind set on the flesh is hostile to God." That does not/cannot equate to "God is an acquired taste." It would have to be "Natural Man kinda doesn't like God much, but that could change if he thinks about it awhile." "Hostile" means "not gonna try it to acquire a taste for it ever".
You've danced around this over three or four different post comment sequences. I'm still hoping you can offer an answer ... any answer. How does Natural Man overcome all that the Bible says about him to choose in a positive way God's offer? The Bible uses phrases like "cannot", "will not", and then describes Man as hostile, inclined only to evil, dead, and on and on. How does this Natural Man overcome all that to do that one right thing? Still no answer to that question.
And even if we go with your train analogy, if I choose to buy a ticket and board the train to heaven, that is something to boast about, given the numbers of others who do not.
But I still don't get these dodges.
Question: Does God save everyone?
Answer: No!
Question: Does He want to?
Answer: Yes!
Question: What prevents God from accomplishing what He wants?
Any answer to that last question that includes my choice is synergism -- an outcome (my salvation) that wasn't possible without God's input (big time) and my choice (little bit).
Stan,
I don't dance. Haven't even grooved to this tune. I'm not prepared to offer Scripture as yet as I am still in the process. However, I still look at your blog and if you are making another go at the point, you'll have to forgive me if a new post provokes a new thought or response. Though you're waiting for a Scriptural backing for my position, I still don't see that I need one to feel your understanding is not necessarily on the money. What you've presented hasn't demonstrated a divide that can't be crossed by free will. I don't disagree with what you present about Natural man and the accompanying descriptions. I just don't see where it precludes a free will choice after being drawn by God in any number of ways, including just a guy being smart enough to know a good deal when he sees one. You see it as a reason to boast. But when someone comes to realize the downside of a choice, versus the upside of the opposite choice, there's really little about which one can justifiably boast. All the plus points are on the God side of the equation. Is it a boast one can take pride in to say, "Hey look at me! I'm not a complete moron because I chose the only real choice!" Indeed, to realize what is in store is humbling when ya really think on it. I have but to accept Christ and my completely unworthy self is saved.
As to Natural man and what ability he lacks, if he is hostile to God, unable to discern the spiritual, how can he be drawn at all? It seems your understanding suggests two types of man, one born natural and the other spiritual. That gets back to the justice issue and though I don't pretend to know the mind of God, every instance of justice in the Bible seems to align with the common understanding of the word. I can't think of any story that suggests a justice that is beyond explanation by that common understanding.
I may have to beg off the topic until I can get something more solid on which you can chew.
In the meantime, word verification for today is "bitte", which is German for "please" and is also used as a response to "Thank you" as we would say "your welcome". Totally trivial, but it's mildly neat to see the word verification actually be a word.
Okay, Marshall, fair enough. Let's try it from this direction. It appears that your answer is in this statement: "What you've presented hasn't demonstrated a divide that can't be crossed by free will." Now, to me this presents two things regarding free will. First, it is apparently a form of superpower that can violate core values in a human being to leap across mighty chasms and produce, quite literally, miraculous results. Second (and most importantly), I would have to guess that you define "free will" as something that I don't, and perhaps therein lies the difficulty.
Free will is not merely the ability to choose. Free will is the ability to choose what you want. This will be a poor example, but I could ask you, "Do you want me to shoot you in the head or in the heart?" and your "free will" would say "Neither" because you want neither. I'd be asking you to make a choice, but neither would be your will. As such, your will would not be free. So when you suggest that free will can overcome the objections that Scripture makes, you're saying that the will of the Man -- that which he desires -- can overcome his intrinsic hostility toward God, his condition of being dead, his inability to comprehend, his slavery to sin ... well, you see, that is really something if free will can choose against what his nature would want him to choose to accomplish all that. So I suspect you are defining "free will" different than I am. Maybe if we can figure that out we can move in one direction or another.
Hi, Stan. Like Marshall Art and, I would guess, many others, I am finding these posts related to free will very interesting. Reading the discussion between you, him, and Bubba on July 8th and those between you and him since then.... now THAT is my idea of a good time! (Seriously. Whee!)
Marshall, I think you are doing a very good job of articulating the things a lot (well, some? hardly any?) of Stan's readers might also believe and are posing many of the very same questions they would (if they thought they wanted to try to debate with the likes of Stan), so thank you for that!
Stan, I don't know about anyone else but I just have a really hard time believing that NO unregenerate, natural man EVER seeks God, ALL are hostile toward God, and none do ANYthing good, all are inclined only to evil. Yes I know what the Bible says (or think I do), but haven't lots of men throughout human history tried to get to know who God is? And yet it says no man.
That has never made sense to me. I know it's not written anywhere that we little humans need to have things make sense to us but, I'll ask anyway, what am I not understanding here?
(Part II) Before I knew Him personally and only knew of Him, I certainly never felt hostile toward God, but then I .... uh...... uh oh. I was going to say I DECIDED to call Him my Heavenly Father when I was still only a child, 12 years old. I guess (according to monergistic beliefs) I can't use the word "decided" or say that I chose to believe in and follow this God over any others I might have heard were out there, huh?
Well, what I mean is... I guess I was just blessed to not have had many years during which to develop that supposed hostility toward God. Maybe if I had endured some very tragic events before age 12 (like watching both of my parents die in a house fire for example) I could have become hostile toward a god I thought supposedly loved us and could have prevented that but didn't, but I had a good childhood and had no reasons to feel hostile toward Him. Instead, from the time I was sentient enough to grasp that there was someone "big" overseeing us Earthlings, it seemed to me that, whoever He was, He was to be feared and revered and express thankfulness to for all the good things in life. (I spent a lot of nights sleeping outside under skies full of stars while growing up. Who can do that without contemplating the universe even at as early an age as 4-5 years old?)
When all those scriptures about unregenerate, natural man are laid out together before us like you've been doing, we humans sound like nothing but a despicable bunch of sin-encrusted scumbag creeps who are incapable of ever doing anything good.
Geez. What a nice story THAT is! And to think that we can't even help it, but that we were just fresh-out-of-the-womb born that way! Instead of being born with clean slates we can then begin to fill with selfish junk, we come already pre-packed with the sins of our fathers clear out to the 3rd and 4th generations.
So, if this is true, no young mother in her "natural" and unregenerate state can ever lovingly care for her sweet little baby with unselfish love? C'mon. Nobody ever has any natural urges to help others in need without some selfish, sinful motive? Is that what God's word says?
I know about our righteousness being like filthy rags but, now here I am, all these years later hearing that almost as though I was someone outside of the Christian faith being told how horribly rotten people are. We're really that bad? We sound like monsters! (Of course, if you look at the broken mess we've made of life on Planet Earth, it's not so inconceivable! It's just so... unpleasant a thing to swallow.) And yet we were created in the image of God?
This, among other things, does not compute. So man is never capable of softening his heart toward God and the things of God before he comes to Him? Hearts are only softened AFTER God chooses SOME people, and all the rest go to Hell and never had an opportunity to go anywhere but there? And that's good news? I'm sorry, but I'm just not getting some of this.
You are doing a great job of scripturally backing what you're saying though, Stan. It's just a matter of accepting it, for all those who believe otherwise. And right here, I guess I'll throw in my typical lament about all such dividing issues as this: I fail to see of what possible BENEFIT it is to anyone that the Bible wasn't written more clearly so that there is not this confusion. It says God is not the author of confusion and yet, all these centuries later, people are still trying to figure things out in His word!
I don't understand how you (hope to) make it sound like "good news" to those who know little about the Christian religion and who REALLY like to have a say in matters as important as their personal relationships?
(Still a bit more coming.)
(I don't know how coherent this is going to come across, partly because I had a long interuption between my 3 comments.)
Stam, you keep mentioning arrogance on the part of those who think they have some part in determining their eternal destiny. The potential for arrogance seems possible under monergism also, if believers are able to walk around telling others that WE are the chosen ones, the people God chose over all the rest. And all of the rest of you never had a chance because God had it all decided who He was going to have in His family before all of us humans were even born. Sorry, but God has His purposes and only SOME of us get to be in His plans to fulfill them.
Can't the potential for arrogance be on that side of this as well? I can't imagine any true follower of our God ever being arrogant, no matter how they believe they ended up being reborn with a new nature by the power of God, getting a new start, and ending up in the family and Kingdom of God. It is a transformation only in which to rejoice and be amazed, and something so wonderful that you then want all others to enter into as well.
I think I probably have about 30 more questions I could throw out, but I like Marshall Art's to-the-point and far, far less verbose style, so I hope you two are able to find the time to carry on.
Looking forward to more good times!
Marshall, you sound like you are holding contradictory views. "It's not the choice that saves but HE who saves. But He saves because we made the right choice." These 2 sentences contradict each other (and you have several others in your comments to this post). This isn't a both/and situation. It can't be that both are right, that the choice doesn't save, but you can't be saved without making the choice. Yes, you made it clear that God has done the work necessary to make salvation available, but according to you, making that choice is the final determiner of salvation, and thus, choice saves. And no matter how you slice it, your view is synergistic, salvation requires an act on your part in order to be effectual. Stan has pointed out in several posts (and I wrote one here for him too) about how "free-will" isn't really so free, since it can only choose what it is capable of, not what it is incapable of. In this case, ALL humans are spiritually dead. God is spirit. The dead CANNOT interact with the living. Thus, the dead cannot make any choice toward God. All mankind HATES God. We oppose God in everything we do, unless God had changed our heart, and only God can do that. We can't develop a taste for Him (and comparing the hate we have for God to the hate we have for food hyper-super abundantly FAILS at a correlation. The gap between the 2 levels of hate is not trivial). Monergism says that, because we hate God so passionately, God must change our heart in order for us to even consider choosing Him, and that changing of heart is salvation which He does in spite of our choices, not because of. And your assertion that an intelligent person can just simply see the upside to salvation in Christ is better than the downside to damnation holds no ground in rational thinking or in Scripture. If all it took was a real, honest reading of Scripture and seeing the truth, then that person would have room to boast because he was able to see what noone else could. ANY work done by us, even the small action of making a choice, is room to boast, because that then makes you better, or smarter, or more sensitive, or what ever you have that makes you make that choice, than everyone else that didn't make that choice.
Sherry,
1. I would say that a lot of my readers have the same concerns/ideas as Marshall.
2. The reason I believe that no unregenerate people ever seek God is because the Bible is so abundantly clear on the question. "No one seeks for God." So what do I do with the people about whom I've heard who were "seeking"? I would agree with Jonathan Edwards. It was not God they were seeking. It was the benefits that God could confer. They spoke as if they were seeking God, but I am left with only one of two possibilities. Either the Bible's repeated and undeniable claims regarding Natural Man are in error in some way, or they were mistaken. And since I conclude "Let God be true though every man a liar", I conclude the former.
3. "I certainly never felt hostile toward God." I would assume that the hostility that Paul writes about isn't necessarily a seething hatred, but an inner hatred, a complete disinclination toward God. We know that the basic sin nature of Man claims "I will be like the Most High." On one hand, that doesn't sound entirely hostile, does it? I mean, "I don't dislike Him if I simply want to replace Him, right?" On the other hand, the desire to place myself as god in my life instead of letting Him be God is certainly hostility, even if there is no felt hatred.
4. "So, if this is true, no young mother in her 'natural' and unregenerate state can ever lovingly care for her sweet little baby with unselfish love?" And, of course, I see your objection there (as in I can agree with it). But surely you can see that there are varieties of "love". Loving pizza and loving my wife are not the same thing. Loving my wife and loving God are not the same thing. Even unsaved philosophers will tell you that the best we humans can muster is enlightened self-interest. That young mother certainly loves her little baby, but it is not "unselfish". It is predicated on self-fulfillment, how good it makes her feel, the hope for returned love, even familial affection. Or, when the Bible says, "Love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God" would have to be understood as "everyone is born of God because everyone loves in some sense or another."
(To be continued)
(Finishing up ...)
5. "Hearts are only softened AFTER God chooses SOME people, and all the rest go to Hell and never had an opportunity to go anywhere but there? And that's good news? I'm sorry, but I'm just not getting some of this." I'm certainly willing to reconsider. But I am bounded by certain limitations. I presume that the Bible is accurate and that it is entirely possible that my feelings and experiences can mislead. If you (as I've asked several others) can offer an alternative explanation of the Scriptures that say so, I'd be more than happy to alter my view. Seriously, it does paint Natural Man in the worst possible light. That having been said, no one goes to Hell by accident. They choose it. There is nothing outside of them preventing them from making the right choice. They have every opportunity to choose otherwise.
6. "The potential for arrogance seems possible under monergism also, if believers are able to walk around telling others that WE are the chosen ones." My brother-in-law puts it this way: "If that stuff is true, I'm joining the KKK, because they think the same thing." I know what you're saying. But it is a serious misunderstanding of the point. If I was chosen because of something particularly special in me, you'd be right. If I'm chosen completely apart from anything in me that causes God to do it, where can I go? I have an illustration I like to use. Superman is walking around with a bag of coal. Someone says, "Hey, what's with the coal? You know that's useless, right?" "Yes," He answers, "but what I can do with it is turn it into diamonds." Nothing special about the chosen; it's the Chooser.
But I'm sure there are lots more concerns and questions, and I'm always happy to engage friends like you and Marshall in conversation.
Sherry,
Thanks for your kind sentiments. However, I don't see this as a debate per se. As Dennis Prager would say, I'm seeking clarity here, and if possible, a better understanding of Scripture. I like Stan's take on most things, but here I'm not sure (I can only say "most" because of this discussion--maybe "all" will be more appropriate at some later point in time).
But indeed, "WHEE!" It IS a good time as well. I'm used to more contentious discussions over far more certain doctrines.
David,
I guess you can label my view any way you like. These terms are new to me, and even if someone asked me whether I consider myself more of a Calvinist or a pedestrian, I'd likely say, "Uh....." I only know what I read in the Bible and how things I hear and read elsewhere compare with my understanding. Sorta like what Stan said a few posts ago.
However, if the word applies in your opinion, so be it. I guess calling my opinion something other than simply my opinion isn't disagreeable. Just don't call it "progressive".
The food analogy might be weak (Stan started it) but I think we can indeed develop "a taste for God" as it were, through continued study or exposure to what it means to be Christian and to constant fellowship with believers. It would be akin to a paradigm shift. There are any number of things that a person can't believe or stomach or tolerate, and then for any number of reasons, his opinion changes, and he can't believe he ever felt any other way in the past. Why is that impossible for the worst person to experience as regards God and His message of salvation?
And as regards boasting, I could boast about my height, but I didn't do a damned thing to be the height I am. I could boast about my race, but I didn't do anything about that, either. ("Say it loud, I'm pastey-white and I'm proud!") It's empty and meaningless, indicating I actually did something when I didn't. So why would I? Similarly, why would I boast about being saved, as if being saved was something I actually did myself? I'm well aware of the source of my salvation and that there's nothing I can do without accepting Christ. But accepting Christ is no choice to one who has weighed the cost/benefits at the worst, or, has been drawn beyond one's ability to resist the obvious attraction of God's love and promise, or, had the stereotypical epiphany, otherwise known as a paradigm shift.
Frankly, it might actually BE a both/and situation after all. I don't believe that I can understand absolutely everything about God and His plan, so when an area seems tricky, I gotta believe it's my fault it seems so. But what seems illogical to us, such as a both/and situation, might actually be a fact. This is part of what I'm hoping to resolve for myself with this discussion, though I don't think my salvation hangs on its resolution one way or the other.
Stan,
Beginning with your 8/12 6:46AM comment:
What are you doing blogging so early in the morning? Shouldn't you be at work?
I think perhaps our ideas of "free will" might indeed be a bit different. However, I don't think you are presenting a good analogy of the situation. A gun shot is not desirable at all. I'll use the following to describe how I see it:
A child likes ice cream and wants ice cream. He is given the choice of ice cream or no ice cream. He chooses ice cream but doesn't like the terms his mother sets before him. I think this is a better description of free will in that the desire for something pleasing is put before us. Overall, ice cream stands for the what's best for the self. The terms are God's way or our own.
Another (and likely better) way of thinking of it is that in our Natural state, we are only thinking of ourselves and the gratifications that are immediate. Like all mature people, delaying gratification is more often the better choice. Before we attain maturity, we don't see any value in delaying gratification. But once we take the opportunity to weigh the options, we may see that the gratification we receive down the road is well worth giving up the more immediate gratifications.
Natural man is immature. He thinks only of himself and only in the now. It's easy to see such a person rejecting God because we see this on a daily basis all the time. But the saved man, the Spiritual man is still attracted to that which can give him immediate gratification, he simply (not really simply---it's rhetorical) rejects the immediate in favor of the eternal because he can see the eternal as more gratifying than even his previously most passionate earthly desire. In a way, it's still deferring to his nature, which is personal gain, but of the greatest kind, to be in the presence of God.
I know this all sounds very self-serving when the point is to serve God. But there is a reciprocal advantage that can't be dismissed. This would have appeal to the most self-serving individual that would (or could) lead to a real relationship with the Almighty. Plus, I don't think there is anything wrong in considering "what's in it for me", since that is definitely part of the equation.
I'm typing all this furiously as I have other things to do, but want to get some of this down before getting on with it. Bear with me and I'll clarify whatever is confusing, if it doesn't seem confusing to me as well later.
I'm still working my way through things, but one Scriptural piece that came to mind is John 3:16. Does this not imply to you a free will decision? Add to that Romans 1, particulary verses 19-20. That suggests that EVERYONE knows about God and that what is left is but to choose Him or ourselves.
I gotta leave it there for now.
"I don't see this as a debate."
To debate: "To deliberate on; consider"
To argue: "To put forth reasons for or against; debate"
We are debating ... arguing. We're just putting out our reasons on a friendly level. It's all good.
"I guess you can label my view any way you like."
I looked (multiple times), but don't see where he labeled your view. What did he label it? (I'm just asking because I don't see it.)
"A gun shot is not desirable at all."
That's exactly why I chose that example. The biblical description indicates that there is nothing in the human being that finds God desirable. You picked ice cream, something that everyone likes. That's the problem. We're not being given ambivalent choices. We're being asked to choose against our nature, to choose against our inclinations, to choose for what we would classify as "the enemy". Not ice cream. We all scream for ice cream.
About John 3:16 and Romans 1. Yes, Romans 1 says all humans have the necessary knowledge of God. That's never been the problem. (Well, actually, it is. We are without excuse. But that's not the problem of which I speak.) We know about God, but we refuse to have a relationship with Him.
I know that John 3:16 is a popular refutation of what I've been saying, but if you will look at it for a moment, perhaps you'll see why I answer, "Huh??" The phrase is "whosoever believes". It doesn't say "anyone can". It simply says "those who do A receive B". One of my favorite illustrations of how this works is one I made up. Meet Mr. Blythington. He's rich, and he loves long-distance swimmers. So he announces to the world, "Whosoever will swim the English channel will receive their own house in France." Now, tell me, does this announcement, to be considered a true statement, require that everyone can swim the English Channel? Or does it simply say what will happen if someone does?
John 3:16 can be read to imply "anybody can", but here's the problem. There are a host of other Scriptures that explicitly deny that "anybody can". A primary rule of interpreting Scripture is you always interpret in favor of the explicit over the implicit. That is, if something implies A and other passages explicitly deny A, then A cannot be true and the implication must, therefore, be inaccurate.
You know what might be an interesting exercise? See if you can find a Scripture -- any Scripture -- that actually says that we must choose Christ. I haven't done this exercise (and, mind you, it won't change the outcome), but I suspect that no such explicit text exists, which would only confirm further what I've been saying. (Note: I'm not saying that we don't choose Christ. I'm simply saying that something fundamental has to change in Natural Man before he can.)
Stan, thank you for your responses to some of my questions and comments and I'm sorry it took so long to get back to you. Thank you for taking the time.
Unfortunately I guess you're correct when you say that a mother loving her sweet little baby is probably based on how good her baby makes her feel. If that baby were to turn green with red eyes, begin growling, scratching, and spitting in her face, I would imagine those feelings of unselfish love would become hard to hold onto for very long.
At the end of your point #5 you say that people choose to go to Hell. They can choose Hell but they can't choose Heaven? Hmmm...
I had to grin while reading about you and Marshall talking about debating and arguing. My husband and I will sometimes be having these wonderfully interesting discussions when he will rather suddenly say, "Well, I don't feel like arguing anymore," and put an end to them. I will typically be surprised and say, "Huh? We weren't arguing. We were just having a nice discussion," THEN we'll sometimes begin arguing, but it will be about definitions. Ha.
Okay, so technically he's correct... but when it's calm and friendly, the words "argument" and "debate" just don't SOUND very friendly. They sound contentious to some of us, but that's our problem. We need to focus on correct definitions, then, the next time I want to discuss something with him, I should probably say, "Hey, Hon, wanna argue for a while?!"
Doesn't that sound nice? :o)
"They can choose Hell but they can't choose Heaven?"
It is my deep suspicion that the confusion on this point comes from a failure to understand what I mean when I say "can't". The perception seems to always be "lacks the ability", as if something external is blocking that option. That isn't what I mean in the least.
Here, let's see if I can clear this up. Let's say that I wanted to be a bird. What's preventing me? I want to be a bird. I "can't". Why? Because it is not in my nature. I am human, and human nature is different than bird nature. Still, that's not quite the idea. This will get a little stickier, I suppose, but let's try another illustration. Let's say that I despise lima beans. I've tried 'em; I hate 'em. They make me sick to even look at. And, so, you offer me a plate of lima beans. What must I decide? I must decide not to eat them. Why? Did you prevent me? No. Is there something physically preventing me? No. It is my ... nature. It is my ... free will. You see, my will is not to eat them, so if I eat lima beans, it would be against my will. I mean, you could possibly point a gun at me and force me to eat them, but that wouldn't be free will, would it? Nothing is preventing me. But I cannot choose lima beans and retain free will.
The Bible says we are opposed to God, hostile, hateful, dead. It isn't that something external is preventing it. It's not that it is an impossible choice. It is that violating that choice would be against my own nature, against my own will. Nothing external is preventing me; I am. This is why I "can't" choose Christ and this is why there needs to be a fundamental change in my nature to alter that ability to choose.
Does that help?
Yes, that helps.
Thank you, again. The Fable of the Lima Beans. The Parable of Superman and the Bag of Coal.
Helpful analogies indeed.
Oh, wait a minute. Speaking of using the correct definitions... I guess in this day and age that generally wouldn't be referred to as a fable, unless the lima beans came to life and taught you a lesson. That could be a horror story, too, though, I suppose.
Wikipedia says of fables: "An author of fables is termed a "fabulist," and the word "fabulous," strictly speaking, "pertains to a fable or fables." In recent decades, however, "fabulous" has come frequently to be used in the quite different meaning of "excellent" or "outstanding".
So... some pretty "fabulous" analogies you come up with there, Stan.
Post a Comment