Instead, there is something very interesting in the text that is typically overlooked. I've never heard a message on it, never seen a commentary about it. No one has ever pointed it out as particularly significant. It's pretty much ignored. See if you see it:
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity.Yeah, yeah, we all know that there is a progression here. Fine. We might even see that the second event is a response to the first, that the "dishonorable passions" of the second event is a sort of judgment that results from the first. Fine. But there is an interesting premise lurking in the background of both of these statements and, therefore, in Scripture -- "God gave them up ..."
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.
On the one hand, the Calvinist claims "Total Depravity"! In this condition, humans are rotten to the core. On the other hand, there is the cry for "Free Will!" We are as bad or as good as we choose to be. The final determining factor is our own choice. This passage has something to say to both sides.
You see, it is apparent that God is holding us in check. By "us" I mean "all human beings". From the text it would seem that before God "gave them up" to a particular condition, they weren't going there. They couldn't get there. They arrived, in the first instance, at exchanging the glory of God for images. They did so against God's work of making Himself evident to them. They got there all on their own. But before they could progress from idolaters to perverts, it required God giving them up to it. And having sunk into "dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, they arrived at serving the creature rather than the Creator, of exchanging the truth for the lie. Only then were they able to sink to the condition of "dishonorable passions."
Now, clearly, someone might argue that it's one event. It's entirely possible that the worship of images and the worship of the creature are the same thing, and that the lusts of their hearts and the dishonorable passions are the same thing. Not my point. My point is that human beings were not allowed to get there until God let them get there.
Lots of us look around today and think, "It just gets worse and worse." The economy is bad. The morality is rotten. The church itself is in trouble. It just gets worse and worse. Is there any hope? There is a principle here that we need to keep in mind. The world around us can never get any worse than God, in His wisdom, allows it to get. It is for His purposes. It is never as bad as it could be. It will never be out of His control. Thus, "Total Depravity" is not total (as bad as we can be) and "Free Will" is not absolute. It's all about God, not us.
I was wondering if, after the post, Reading Yourself as Others Read You, if anyone saw this title -- "Giving Up" -- and thought, "Uh, oh, Stan's throwing in the towel." For those of you who thought that and were glad, too bad. For those of you who thought it and weren't glad, rejoice!)
11 comments:
It never crossed my mind.
Gotta disagree here. With other of your posts, I'm still working it out, but this, not so much.
If God is holding us back, the whole "free will" thing is just hooey. There is no such thing. I think the verses simply suggest that God is letting their sin run its course as an act of judgment. They made their choice and He lets them have their way. Now their judgment is confirmed.
If anything, the context suggests free will. They had the knowledge of God but had forsaken it for their own pleasures. God let them do so. He gave them over and let them be as bad as they wanna be.
Now, I DO believe that God has His limits as to how bad He'd let the world get. That's called Judgment Day or the End of Times or, perhaps, the Second Coming of Christ. According to Revelations, it'll get really bad before then.
Well, Marshall, you're certainly free to disagree (and I would expect you to), but you're ignoring the text, aren't you? Your idea is "Free Will", but the text explicitly speaks of limitations (or, to put it another way, not free will). Now, I would agree that God's giving them up was giving them up to their own "free will", their own desires. He didn't make them desire to go in that direction. But the "give them up" phrase demands that He limited their free will to prevent them from going farther. If this is not the case, then it is a meaningless phrase. God didn't "give them up" to anything.
In Genesis 20 there is an account of Abimelech who took Abraham's wife, Sarah, to be his own (because Abraham lied about her being his wife). In verse 6 we read this: God said to him in the dream, 'Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her.'" This suggests, no, demands the very same thing. Abimelech would have gone into that particular sin, but he didn't. From his perspective it was because he chose not to. From God's perspective it was because "I kept you from sinning against Me."
This, in fact, is a big problem for me with the "Free Will" advocates. It demands that God have no means or ability to affect Man's choices. It would be wrong for Him to do so. This is contrary to His Sovereignty, His Divine Will (as in the case of Abimelech), to the entire "Potter and pottery" concept. It is a product, I believe, of the basic human problem of sin: "I will be like the Most High."
His sovereignty means, to me anyway, that even though He gives us free will, He is not precluded from asserting Himself if He sees fit to do so. And it seems He does see fit to do so every now and then.
I don't think I'm ignoring the text at all. Verse 19 speaks of God having made Himself known to them. To me it is saying (from God's perspective), "I've given you all the evidence you need to make the right choice, but you choose otherwise. OK. Have it your way."
Then, look at 32. They know they face death but continue to not only do evil, but approve of others doing it as well. The whole chapter from 18 to the end screams choice and free will.
His sovereignty means, in biblical terms, that He "works all things after the counsel of His will."
But it is my deep and abiding suspicion that we are talking past each other here. You seem to think that I am saying, "There's no such thing as 'free will'." I'm not. I'm simply defining it more carefully.
If "Free Will" is what is called "libertarian free will", then I'd say no such thing does or even can exist. "Free Will" cannot be "the ability to choose anything and everything without any influences whatsoever." Doesn't exist. If "free will" is defined as "the ability to make choices without coercion", then I'd agree wholeheartedly that it exists.
The text in question isn't about the existence of "free will"; it's about the limitations God puts on that freedom. It isn't absolutely free. It isn't "libertarian". God says, "I'll allow you to be this evil and only this evil despite your inclination to be worse."
The text isn't about the complete absence of "free will". It's about the fact that "Free Will" isn't absolute. Even in our "freedom" God has placed limits.
"God says, "I'll allow you to be this evil and only this evil despite your inclination to be worse.""
This is what I'm questioning (not "disputing", necessarily). I have seen these verses used in many a blog discussion. I've never considered them in the way you're interpreting them. And I say "interpret", because I'm not sure I agree with your belief that it is saying what you think it is saying.
In my "yoot", I had allowed myself to be somewhat swayed by reading "The Jesus Scrolls", a book I now reject as crapola. But one thing stuck with me. In this book it says that when Jesus said, "One of you will betray me.", it wasn't a prediction but an order. What stuck with me about that wasn't whether or not it was one or the other, but that the statement itself can easily be interpreted as either a prediction or an order (I'm referring to the structure of the sentence, rather than the meaning of this particular sentence in particular). That made a difference in how I interpreted verses from that point on. I think this situation is similar.
I believe that what you say about God limiting us is true and there are all sorts of OT examples of that to be sure. But in the sense of these verses is not an example of that. That is, He does not do it in such a micro-managing manner. To me it simply reads as God providing no more to draw them away from their lusts and to Him; a kind of washing of His Holy Hands and letting their own actions, their own choice to act in that way, condemn them.
Okay, so maybe we aren't talking past each other. Maybe you do believe in Libertarian Free Will (a manifest impossibility). Be that as it may, do me a favor. Twice Paul wrote that God "gave them up" to deeper sin. I said that this means that they were at a particular sin level and couldn't go further until God allowed it. You say ... what?
You see, to me, if you're simply saying that they went on with whatever they wanted without God having anything to do with it, then the phrase is meaningless. "God gave them up" to nothing. He wasn't involved. It's a misleading phrase. He simply did nothing at all. He wasn't involved. He didn't stop them at some point and then allow them to proceed. It's not an accurate statement.
There is, of course, the conclusion I come to. God doesn't allow more sin than He's willing to allow. All of us who are concerned about things getting worse and worse don't need to be because God doesn't allow more sin than He is willing to allow. You would necessarily have to disagree with that, as well.
So if you could explain in what sense God "gave them up" if He didn't actually give anything up and if there is any reason to hope that things won't get worse than God allows (because if you admit that things can't get worse than God allows, you're agreeing that God limits sin ... my premise), I would appreciate it. At present it seems as if Paul was not speaking the truth.
I believe I stated that God DOES and HAS limited sin. The Flood is one example, and Revelations provides another. There are other examples in both Testaments. But these are limiting sins by putting a stop to it when He's had enough, so to speak, whereas you're saying He's only letting us sin just to a point in the every day and in the case of the verses you've offered, allows the sinners to sin more??? God hates sin. Why would He do that?
"I said that this means that they were at a particular sin level and couldn't go further until God allowed it. You say ... what?"
I say that their level of sin didn't change, but that by "Giving them over" He has merely passed judgment on them and said, "Fine. Sinners you wish to be, then sinners you are. Rebels you wish to be, then rebels you are." The text states that the people in question knew of God, but chose their lifestyles anyway. Paul is putting their knowledge of God against their actions, showing them to be unrepentant, even fully supportive of bad behavior. "Giving them over" is, to me, simply a way of saying that they've made their bed and now must sleep in it. Paul still speaks the truth and the phrase still has meaning. Just one that differs from what you think.
Okay, so in your view I'm completely wrong in offering hope that it can't get worse than God intends it to get. Indeed, God simply lets people get as bad as they want to get. The only time that will stop is when He terminates it.
Libertarian Free Will.
This doesn't work for me in any sort of "sovereignty" thing, but I think that's what you're saying.
So when God told Abimelech, "I kept you from sinning against Me," how does that work into your Libertarian Free Will concept?
(By the way, your question about God allowing/limiting sin -- "God hates sin. Why would He do that?" -- is a huge problem for you. Not so much for me. I believe that God works all things after the counsel of His will ... which would include sin. He hates it but allows it for His good purposes. Your view, however, would say that God hates sin ... and it is happening totally and completely against His will. "Too bad, God. Perhaps you shouldn't have surrendered to your creation." Now, how that fits with any sort of Sovereign God completely baffles me.)
OK, mocker (I use the term for humor), try THIS out for size:
"Okay, so in your view I'm completely wrong in offering hope that it can't get worse than God intends it to get. Indeed, God simply lets people get as bad as they want to get.."
I believe I said the God has and will limit just how bad things will get, so you're contradicting me. When He chooses to do so is up to Him and I won't presume to know when that will be or has been, other than what is mentioned in the Bible as regards His intercessions.
But consider just how bad it can, does and has gotten throughout human history. A few names: Hitler, Amin, Hussein, Stalin...things get pretty bad and I'm guessing, with the abundance of islamic chuckleheads beating the crap out of people for evangelizing, converting, drawing cartoons, not being muslim, not to mention hacking off heads, things can get worse. At what point has He held them back only to let them have at it? (A rhetorical question---I don't really think you could know such a thing)
But you also refuse to allow for whatever God decides to do when you speak of sovereignty. This is troubling to me. He is sovereign no matter what He allows, tolerates or whatever. If He set up the system under which we operate, choosing or not choosing Him, being drawn but rejecting, being drawn by any means one could possibly conceive and likely more one couldn't, He could stop the whole thing right now and start over. THAT is sovereignty that never fades. He always has THAT if He so chooses to act. There simply is no loss of sovereignty just because He allows us to choose. What's more, as He will judge everyone in the end, where's the "surrendering" to anyone, much less His creation?
Regarding God hating sin, my point was that as you explain it (it seems to me---unless I'm missing your point), God is holding people back and then letting them sin, allowing them to sin, almost approving of it. My perspective says that He is not tolerating it, but acknowledging the choices being made and letting their choices be their judgment. It's kinda like when "progressives" accuse me of condemning people when I insist that I don't need to because their sinful behavior does the condemning (and I'm just pointing out the sinful behavior).
In the meantime, I, too "believe that God works all things after the counsel of His will ... which would include sin. He hates it but allows it for His good purposes."
I also agree with this:
"Your view, however, would say that God hates sin ... and it is happening totally and completely against His will."
To sin IS to act totally and completely against His will. When doesn't it? We can't know when sinful behavior works as part of His Grand Scheme, so for our parts, to sin is ALWAYS acting against His will.
The primary difference between your view and mine is that in your view God is a passive sovereign and in mine He is active. In your view He is "along for the ride" and in my view He is the driver. In your view He sovereignly surrenders His sovereignty and in my view He does no such thing. In your view His will is violated but He still retains His sovereignty and in my view His will is not violated. Absolutely fundamental to your view is the inviolable Human Will; I have no such base.
Sin is the violation of God's will, sure, but I don't believe it's as simple as that. God has a will that He has decreed (e.g., "Thou shalt ...; thou shalt not ..."). We get that. We violate that. God has a will that He would like (e.g., "God desires that all should be saved", "He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked."). Okay. And we know that that, too, is violated. So if there is a will of God to which He works all things, it must be a different will than either His decretive will or His permissive will. That would be His absolute will. Whatever is in that will always happens and whatever is not in that will never happens. From this we can make some easy-though-difficult conclusions. First, God is sovereign, working all things after the counsel of His will. "All things" would include "each and every detail" rather than just some broad spectrum, some background notions, that kind of thing. We can also conclude that God's absolute will includes things that violate His decretive will and His permissive will. That is, if sin exists, although it violates His decrees, it is part of His absolute will. If the wicked do die, it is part of His absolute will even though it violates His permissive will. As such, sin is a violation of God's decretive will, but not His absolute will. He has decided that sin will occur and has decided to use it to His glory. As such, sin occurs within the narrow scope of God's absolute will, going only as far as He allows.
I don't offer a limit line. I don't know where God allows and where He stops it. What I do know is that He will not allow sin to occur that is outside of His absolute will. We know, for instance, that He shortens the days of the Tribulation: "for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short" (Matt 24:22). We know that He prevented Abimelech from sinning against Him. And we know that He determined that Judas would betray Jesus. He has a plan for sin, allows it within the limits of His will, uses it for His purposes, holds those responsible who commit it, and only allows that which He wills.
Or you can't really call Him "sovereign".
Post a Comment