Over at Wintery Knight (a blog I read regularly and regularly enjoy) recently there have been a series of assaults on Reformed Theology, predestination, and Calvinism. He has offered various debates and I've been listening to them because knowing the truth is more important than holding my own position.
I'm struck with the conflict. It boils down -- almost always seems to boil down -- to this. Either God is Sovereign or Man's Free Will is Sovereign. The majority of the debates between Arminians and Calvinists appear to be over this singular point. Either Man has Libertarian Free Will or God is Sovereign.
In case you missed it earlier, Libertarian Free Will is the opposite of Compatibilism. Compatibilism ("soft determinism") is the belief that God determines all things and yet allows humans the freedom to choose. The human freedom of choice, however, is limited by our own natures. We must choose according to our own desires. Libertarian Free Will, then, is the position that our free choices are made without any determination or constraints of human nature or God.
This conflict has its obvious spillover. If Libertarian Free Will is necessary (as the proponents argue) for God to be just and for Man to be accountable for his actions, then God cannot interfere in Man's choices. Look, here's the basic premise of Libertarian Free Will. By definition, a person must be able to choose A without coercion (with which Compatibilism agrees), but it must also be true that the person could choose not-A. And we're already up against a wall.
The wall we've hit here is God's Omniscience. Philosophical Christians of both Calvinist and Arminian stripes will argue that God is Omniscient with a capital "O". That is, He knows all things, past, present and future, and knows them all perfectly. But if He knows all things, then your choices are already known. And if your choices are already known, then you cannot make different choices, not because you have been coerced, but because they are already known and known perfectly. God can't be wrong. Of course, the Open Theist comes up here and helps us out. "No," he assures us, "you're mistaken about 'Omniscience' with a capital 'O'. God only knows what has happened. He cannot know what will happen because it doesn't exist yet." Open Theism is the current theological structure erected to solve the Libertarian Free Will dilemma of how God can be Omniscient and Man can make or not make the choices God knows. To be clear, it can't happen. Either God knows or He doesn't. If Libertarian Free Will is necessary, then God doesn't know ... and God is not Omniscient.
The Arminian and the Calvinist both rise up and say, "Nay!" Both point to the Open Theist and cry, "Heretic!" Well, sort of. But you get the idea. No, neither will accept that God is not Omniscient. How the Libertarian Free Will folk get around this problem is not clear to me, but they (in general) won't accept Open Theism.
It's not as if this is where the problem ends, though. In my view, this is what the conflict between Compatibilism and Libertarian Free Will always comes down to. Is God actually Sovereign? To be fair, both sides always say, "Yes!" without equivocation. Still, there's a problem on one of those sides. The biblical version of God's Sovereignty (with a capital "S") is expressed most simply in the phrase, "Whatever the Lord pleases, He does" (Psa 135:6; Eccl 8:3). Paul says God "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11). The Libertarian Free Willer ( just made that term up) would agree ... except that God is limited by Man's Free Will. Some don't choose God because Man has Libertarian Free Will. God wills that Man would choose Him and God wills that all would choose Him and God desperately desires to save everyone, but, well, He just cannot do that because Man's Libertarian Free Will prevents Him from accomplishing what He pleases.
There are a variety of steps taken at this point. Maybe God is "sovereign" in the sense that He does mostly what He wants except, of course, for what Man won't let Him. Maybe is is "sovereign" in what they consider the "ultimate sense" in that He sovereignly surrenders some portion of His Sovereignty to Man's Free Will, making Him all the more sovereign somehow. (I'm sorry. Absolute Sovereignty minus some sovereignty does not equal Absolute Sovereignty. It equals Less Than Absolute Sovereignty.)
So here's my problem. I define God's Sovereignty from what I read in Scripture. I could define Man's Free Will from what I read in Scripture, but I don't find any such definition there. I do find biblical descriptions of God's Sovereignty (1 Chron 29:11-12; Psa 115:3; Prov 16:9; Job 42:2; Isa 46:9-10; Psa 103:19; Lam 3:37; Prov 19:21; Rom 9:21; Eph 1:11; Psa 135:6; Job 23:13; Eccl 7:13-14; Dan 4:35; Isa 14:27; 2 Chron 20:6; 1 Tim 6:15; Gen 50:20; Phil 2:13; Prov 16:33; Prov 16:4; Jer 32:27 ...) (I guess there are a lot of references, eh?). So my version of "the Sovereignty of God" must fall within the biblical descriptions, and "limited by Man's Free Will" doesn't seem to be a factor.
The conflict is indeed between Man's Free Will and God's Sovereignty. Either Man has Libertarian Free Will with which he can either agree with God or not agree with God and God cannot or will not interfere, or Man does not have Libertarian Free Will in which case God would be Sovereign but we have to understand Man's free will in a different sense than the Libertarian Free Will folk would require. One or the other. What cannot remain is both Libertarian Free Will and God's Sovereignty (or Omniscience). Something has to give.
Addendum:
So, is Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason reading my blog? No, of course not, but it's interesting that he comes out with "Do Humans Really Have Free Will?" right after I discuss something of it here.
20 comments:
I don't normally get involved in this type of discussion (I find the whole Calvinist/non-Calvinist debate to be fruitless), but your "either/or" claim is problematic because God is Sovereign AND man has been given free will.
God is sovereign, and in his sovereignty he allows man to make his own free-will choices. The fact that God can intervene in man's choices demonstrates that he is indeed sovereign.
What Calvinists (and, no, I'M NOT AN ARMINIAN!) always overlook is that God is outside of time and sees the end at the beginning, and therefore knows every thought of man, knows what every man will chose. Knowing what man will choose is not the same as making the choice for him.
It's no more difficult to get one's head around than the doctrine of the trinity. :oD
The question occurs here, Glenn, when you try to define "free will". We all (okay, nearly all) agree that Man has free will ... until you start defining exactly what that means. I'm saying here that I agree with you that both are true, that God is Sovereign and Man has free will.
Having agreed, then, the "either/or" problem occurs when one side or the other attempts to determine which of the two overrides the other. In the inevitable collision between God's Sovereign Will and Man's Free Will, which one wins? "Both" is not a possible answer.
Your explanation of God knowing all choices is Middle Knowledge at its core. It affirms, however, that God's Sovereignty is limited to the choices He sees Man will make. And I have a hard time with that limitation to God's Sovereignty, Omnipotence, and, of course, the violation of what appears to me to be a host of biblical references.
I offer none of this to argue with you. I simply offer it to point out the thinking. Is this stuff hard to understand? Oh, yeah, I'm with you there. In fact, I wrote yesterday's and today's because I'm hoping someone that disagrees with me can offer a rational response that includes the biblical position on God's Sovereignty and this argument from the Sovereignty of Man's Free Will.
Seems to me you two appear to be agreeing passed each other. Stan doesn't believe that man has no free will, he merely believes that that free will is limited by our ability to choose. And I don't see Middle Knowledge in Glenn's reference to God being outside time, based on the paragraph before that he says he believes that God intervenes in man's choices.
I don't see it as "middle knowledge" because God sees everything as it happens and as it ends all at the same time - how else can one describe omniscient?
Also, an example of free will choices that God doesn't over-ride is the ability to choose to follow Christ. Calvinists say God chooses someone regardless of what they think, regenerates them so they will think they are voluntarily choosing to follow Christ. Non-calvinists say that man is regenerated only AFTER he makes his free will choice.
No where in Scripture will you find God forcing people to follow him, In fact, He continually, throughout Scripture, tells people to seek him, yet Calvinists say that man can't seek God unless God regenerates him, meaning that God is lying when He tells people to seek Him knowing that they can't.
THAT is what free will is all about. The ability to choose or reject God.
Okay, I was wrong about agreeing.
Stan,
As I've said in the past, this "debate" fascinates me while not moving me one way or the other. Somewhat like Glenn, I don't know that it isn't a fruitless debate while still being drawn to it. I sort of sit on the sidelines watching each side make its argument.
As to sovereignty, I still don't see how one loses sovereignty, or any portion of it, simply by allowing subordinates to act on their own volition. I let my kids make all sorts of choices for themselves, but do not abdicate my ultimate authority as their parent. This isn't quite the same, as I do not have the type and level of authority over them as God has over us. But they do get a sense of what it means to have total liberty.
We have total liberty. But just as in our nation (as I believe liberty was intended by our founders to play out), we are still limited by standards of morality. We can do what we want to the limitations of right vs wrong. We can choose wrong, but we will pay for it at some point.
God's morality still exists regardless of our response to it and how we use or abuse the liberty He gives us. He allows us the complete liberty to choose His way or the highway.
However, He does call us and calls us in a variety of ways. We cannot come to Him without being called, regardless of how that call manifests. It could be a nudge by the Spirit ("Hey Buddy. Put down that crack pipe for a moment and check this out."), or it could be a result of something more tangible, such as something life threatening. Or, of course, it could be by someone evangelizing.
I haven't read all of your links to the various tracts in support of your understanding (this time), but from past discussions, I still don't see how these two points conflict with any of them (and I'm really trying---and I don't mean your patience :D ).
By way of explanation, not argument ...
The Sovereignty argument isn't about whether or not God loses sovereignty. It's about what the Bible says. When the Bible says, "He does whatever He pleases" or "God works all things after the counsel of His will" and someone tells me, "Except, of course, if Man's Will supercedes His", then we have a problem, and it's not with degrees of sovereignty; it's with Scripture. Either He does work all things after the counsel of His will, or He does not.
That having been said, no one is saying Man doesn't have free will. (No one with any sense. I suppose there are a few fringe wackos ...) The "Free Will" advocates (as opposed to "free will" -- lowercase) argue that God cannot intrude in Man's Free Will if it is to be called "Free Will" because only Libertarian Free Will is real free will. Libertarian Free Will by definition supercedes "God works all things after the counsel of His will" and limits it to "all things except for those cases when Man chooses to violate what God ultimately wills." You said, "We have total liberty." That's Libertarian Free Will. So what happens when your "total liberty" violates "whatever He pleases"? Who wins? If you win, you've retained your "total liberty". If He does, then it isn't total, is it?
The second problem is that all of this ignores the rest of the Scriptures that speak of the problem of Natural Man. They say that we intend only evil from our youth, are dead in sin, are hostile to God, are blinded by the god of this world, and cannot (Paul's word, not mine) understand the things of God. (Need references?) If all of these are true, on what possible basis would Natural Man ever choose God? (That's a rhetorical question because I'm offering this by way of explanation, not argument.)
You and Glenn suspect it is a fruitless debate. For me it is important. If you are right then I have something to be very pleased with myself. He chose me, sure, but He chose me because I made the right choice. Essentially, I forced His hand. Not only that, but I chose Him against all those natural conditions of human beings. That's quite an obstacle to overcome. And I did it. I actually produced something in the flesh (when Jesus said, "The flesh profits nothing.") Producing the best possible choice of my life against all of my own nature in such a way that God chooses me for salvation is no small deal. When we get to heaven and the angels ask, "So, Stan, tell me, why did you get saved and your neighbor didn't?", I can tell them, "Apparently I was just a bit better than they were because I made that right choice against my very nature." Nothing to boast about? Not me. I'll have a lot to boast about. God's gift of salvation to me was predicated on that massive choice I made of my own Free Will.
It seems to me that those that believe in Free Will are doing so from a stance of trying to absolve God of some sort of perceived injustice. It is true that the Bible says we must choose, and that our choice is effectual. But it also says that we CANNOT choose the Spirit because we are dead (as Stan is forced to constantly repeat). It also seems that most people that believe in Free Will are conveniently forgetting Pharaoh and the High Priest (I forget his name at the moment). The Bible clearly says that God changed their minds, and specifically against their will. Those acts demonstrate God's willingness to interfere with Man's will without compunction and in order to accomplish His Will.
If you are right then I have something to be very pleased with myself.
Silly. That's like saying I have something to be very pleased with myself when I accept a gift from a friend. Or if I accept a lifesaver when drowning.
The main problem with Calvinism is that you can NEVER know if you are one of the elect. Even R.C. Sproul has said that. Yet Scripture says that we can KNOW that we are saved.
Accepting a gift is never a "work." The gift isn't initiated by the recipient, the recipient has nothing to do with the purchase of the gift. The recipient just accepts it. And the gift of salvation is the say. We have nothing to do with it except that we accept it. And all throughout Scripture it says we have that choice.
Oh, and the Bible never says we cannot choose, that we have an inability to choose the gift of salvation. That is one of the lies of Calvinism
Please note, Glenn. I was speaking from personal perspective. From my perspective, if the Bible is accurate describing Man as dead in sin, inclined only to evil, doing no good, hostile to God, blinded by the god of this world, unable to understand the things of God, and all that, then from my perspective it's quite a big deal that I would overcome all that to arrive at the right choice for Christ. If you are right and God chooses whom He will saved based on our choice of Him, then, from my perspective it is a big thing that God chose me based on my choice of Him ... and flesh did accomplish something. All from my perspective.
But you ought to be careful, Glenn. It is not "one of the lies of Calvinism" that we cannot choose Him. It is that silly pile of Scripture that makes us conclude it. Now, if someone could explain how none of that really means what it appears to say, I suppose we could move on.
For reference:
- Inclined only to evil (Gen 8:21)
- Dead in sin (Eph 2:1-3)
- Does no good (Rom 3:10-18)
- Hostile to God (Rom 8:5-8)
- Blinded by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4)
- Cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14)
- Does not seek God (Rom 3:11)
- Flesh profits nothing (John 6:63)
- Slaves to sin (Rom 6:19)
- Cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3)
- Children of the devil (1 John 3:10)
You disagree with what appears to be the absolutely clear presentation of these passages. I get that. But it isn't a "lie of Calvinism" when I read all of this (and more) and conclude that it means what it says. When Jesus said that the reason that people don't believe is that "you are not of My sheep" (and not the other way around -- "You are not of My sheep because you don't believe) (John 10:26) and when Jesus said that the reason people don't believe is because the Father has not granted it (John 6:64-65), you may understand that to mean something else, but I can't see it some other way and I believe it not because I'm a Calvinist but because it's what I read in my Bible. So by all means, disagree. But don't throw out stupid accusations like that. Simply explain how the Scriptures aren't saying what these seem to say. (Note: I said the accusation was stupid. I did not say that either you or your beliefs on the subject are.)
(Sadly, the reason I can never seem to get straight answers out of people on this subject is that it seems to produce serious emotional responses before I can ever get around to finding out their biblical thinking.)
Stan,
The passages still do NOT say many is unable to choose God. These passages say man IS able to choose:
Josh. 24:15: Choose to serve God or not to serve God
2 Chron. 15:2 – “If you seek him…but if you forsake him” indicates choice
Ezra 8:22 – “everyone who looks to him” vs “all who forsake him” indicates choice
Ps. 10:4 – “does not” indicates choice not to seek God.
Ps. 86:5 – one chooses whether to call on God
Jeremiah 29:13 – choice of seeking God
Mark 16:16 – “whoever believes” and “whoever will not believe” indicates choice between the two
Luke 8:12 - The devil must prevent them from believing
John 1:12 – choice to receive or not
John 3:16-18 – “whoever believes” vs “whoever does not believe” indicates choice
John 3:36 – “whoever believes” vs “whoever rejects” indicates choice
John 5:24 – “whoever…believes” is a choice
John 5:40 – “you refuse to come to me”; refusal is a choice
John 20:31 – “by believing” indicates choice
Acts 16:31 – “Believe…” is choice
Acts 17:30 – choice of repenting
Rom. 1:16 – “to everyone who believes” makes it a matter of choice
1 Cor. 15:1-2 – the Gospel was received and taken a stand for, i.e. choice
2 Cor. 4:4 – Unbelievers must be blinded so they can’t choose
1 Tim. 1:16 – “those who would believe” vs those who wouldn’t is choice
Heb. 11:6 – must believe God exists, which means he must have the ability to believe or not
1 Pet. 3:1 – the husband has a choice to become a believer
Rev. 22:17 – “whoever wishes” indicates choice
Can man seek God on his own? The Bible says he can:
Deut. 4:29 - "But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him,
if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul."
1 Chron. 16:11 – “seek his face”
1 Chron. 28:9 - “If you seek Him, He will be found by you”
2 Chron. 15:2 – “If you seek him…” Many more in 2 Chron.
Ps. 9:10 – “those who seek you”
Ps. 22:26 – “they who seek the Lord”
Ps. 34:10 – “those who seek the Lord”
Ps. 40:16 – “all who seek you”
Ps. 69:6 – “may those who seek you”
Ps. 119:10 – “I seek you with all my heart”
Is. 55:6 - “Seek the Lord while He may be found”
Jer. 29:13 - "And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me
with all your heart."
Hos. 10:12 – “it is time to seek the Lord”
Zeph. 2:3 - “Seek the Lord”
Acts 17:27 - “so that they should seek the Lord”
2 Cor. 3:12-18 - “Whoever turns to the Lord”
Heb. 11:6 - “He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him”
The doctrine of Total Depravity relies on the false idea that man has no ability to seek God or make moral choices about God. Scripture demonstrates over and over again that this is not true. Man is able, but he isn’t always willing. If man is unable, then all the commands by God that man seek Him are trickery by God; after all, how can God tell man to seek Him if He knows man is unable to do so? That is lying to the man. That’s like telling a man with no legs to get up and walk, knowing all the while that without legs he cannot do so, and then punishing him for his refusal! This is capriciousness at its worst.
And that is the end of the discussion from my end.
"And that is the end of the discussion from my end."
Yes, I understand. As I said, it's very difficult for the two sides of this discussion to keep it at the level of "dialog" without taking it to the level of "conflict". Best to avoid conflict.
For other readers who read what you said and say, "So, Stan, what about that?", I feel I should at least respond a little. Not for your benefit, Glenn. For theirs.
One danger I see is pitting Scripture against Scripture. If, as a fictional example, Bob finds 10 verses that tell us that you can lose your salvation and Ted finds 10 that tell us you can't, they will likely not put the two together; they will throw them at the other. "Your view can't be true because of these verses." The goal (again, this isn't aimed at Glenn -- this is for readers) is to align Scripture with Scripture.
Another danger is the "strawman". An example of this would be "You Christians believe that you should force your religion down our throats." No, no we don't. But now we're going to be dealing with that argument in which, by the way, we agree with our opponents who say, "You shouldn't shove your religion down our throats!" No, we shouldn't. Our call is to live Christ in front of people and share the Gospel. It is not our call to make anyone accept it and, in fact, don't believe we can. But we're agreeing with them and arguing that we are not disagreeing with them and the real issues are ignored.
So, as I've said before, I will point out for the benefit of readers who wonder. My understanding of Scripture as in the last comment I listed does not mean that humans have no capability of making choices. Indeed, I do not believe there is anything outside of Natural Man that is preventing him from choosing God. But if you hate, say, lima beans -- they make you gag and throw up -- and someone tells you, "In order to be healthy you must eat lima beans", it is not going to be of your own free will that you eat them. So, yes, we must choose Christ, we must believe, we must repent, but if I'm going to align Scripture with Scripture, I have to hold that God must act first. A new nature will be required that enables me to like lima beans or, in the case at hand, to choose Christ, believe, and repent.
On the other hand, telling us that "You must choose to serve the Lord" means you can under your own power without intervention from God, then you're going to have to tell us how that aligns with all the other Scriptures on the topic. If you're going to tell us "Man surely seeks God on his own", you're going to have to tell us how Paul didn't lie when he said otherwise.
For the reader, one final note. I'm certainly happy to entertain other perspectives on this. All I need from you is 1) the biblical reason why I should and 2) an explanation of how all those other passages do not mean what they say (or, at least, appear to say). Since no one has offered that to me yet, I'm kind of stuck with what I have right now. To go against Scripture is neither safe nor wise.
Stan,
Just responding to your comment that followed mine:
I don't think man's will ever trumps God's. I don't see how it could given that God is the Supreme Being and all.
But I also don't think that Scripture's description of what Natural Man can or can't do refers to anything more than what he can or can't do before he hears the call of God, however that call might manifest. One must consider that God has unlimited means by which He might call one to come to Him. But until that call, one is just another "Natural Man" who can't understand squat about spiritual matters. This is what I think all those verses are saying when it speaks of the limitations of Natural Man.
It's a point I've addressed in the past and haven't heard an explanation for the bridge between one who hasn't yet responded to God's call and one who has. What separates the two and what led one to God and the other to carry on as before? To some extent, it seems impossible, at least in the western world, to not be exposed to some method of calling by God. Some real dirtbags have heard that call and repented and followed. Others don't and some never will.
Indeed, every major Christian holy day/holiday is a means of calling. At least twice a year the western world is reminded of God/Jesus.
I've always seen the argument that merely receiving a gift is not a work is a failure to understand just how far the gap between God and Man is. It isn't like my wife giving me a gift and me happily accepting it. It is like my mom giving a gift to her dead mother. Her mother CANNOT accept that gift because she is dead. Scripture says we are dead to the things of the Spirit in our natural state. We are born as sinners, destined for condemnation. God has offered the gift of salvation to everyone in His Son. But in order for anyone to accept that gift, something must be done in order to make their dead spirit capable of accepting the gift. If we were all spiritually alive, then yes, we could merely accept the gift and be grateful. To me, those passages that speak of seeking God are either a) instructions that we constantly break, or b) instructions to those that God has called. I often think of it as akin to James. James says that we must work for our salvation. But the rest of Scripture says that salvation is a free gift. Both MUST be true, so how do we bring the two into agreement? The same is true of "choice". Yes, Scripture says that we must choose Christ. However, Scripture also says we cannot. Both MUST be true. Now me have to adjust our understanding to make the two agree, instead of ignoring one or the other.
Marshall Art, it sounds like you're saying, "Natural Man cannot understand the things of God ... unless, of course, someone tells him." Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." This means that "born again" must preceded "see the kingdom of God", not follow. Additionally, the Bible speaks of faith and repentance as gifts rather than something we muster up (see, for instance, Heb 12:2, Rom 12:3, and John 10:26 for faith and the unavoidable 2 Tim 2:25 for repentance).
Trying to keep Scripture in line with Scripture, I conclude that Man must choose Christ, repent, and come in faith ... and that God works these in a person by giving them a new heart to enable it. That would be the bridge between the one who hasn't and the one who has.
Like I said, as I see it while trying to keep Scripture in line with Scripture.
But how does one become "born again". Must not one be enticed in some manner to actually listen? What compels a man to listen? We say God calls him, and I don't dispute that. My point is in how that person is tangibly called. Is it the constant prodding of a person of faith? Is it the person's own despair at constant suffering compelling a search for something, anything that gives him peace? Is it the Christmas holiday making him say to himself, "OK. Let's just see what this is all about."
Lee Strobel was an atheist who set out to prove that God didn't exist. He is not an apologist for the faith. Was he not a natural man until he began his pursuit of what he thought would validate his unbelief?
My point is that all this is indeed in line with what Scripture is saying. These were "Natural Men" who, while in that state, could not understand the spiritual, but came to understand by one means or another that I would insist were various methods God used to call each one of them. In each case, each person must decide if what he hears makes sense enough to choose for or against. God gave them that liberty to decide.
That certainly is a common view. God "woos" us, entices us, urges us ... but it's still up to us. The reason I can't go with that (besides the fact that you won't find it in Scripture) is that I can't figure out how wooing, enticing, or urging makes a dead man make the right choice. While the populist view is faith -> regeneration -> justification, the Bible seems instead to require regeneration -> faith -> justification.
Jesus said that prior to you being able to even recognize the kingdom of God, you must first be born again (John 3:3). First you must be "born of the Spirit" (John 3:6, 8) and then you will have faith. Peter says that God caused us to be born again (1 Peter 1:3). John says, "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" (1 John 5:1). Notice the sequence: 1) Born of God ... 2) Believe. And, look, we know this if we're paying attention. It says of Lydia, "The Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul" (Acts 16:14). God did a miracle in her heart, then she responded. Isn't that even how we pray? "Lord, open their hearts."
If the Scriptures are right in their characterization of Natural Man (dead, hostile, evil, blind, etc.), then telling us a story about Lee Strobel or observing the phenomenon we see around conversion would first need to be filtered through those Scriptures. If, on the other hand, Strobel did indeed as a blind, dead, hostile sinner seek God, then Paul's characterization (Rom 3:11) is false and the psalmist's contention that there is not a single one that does good (Psa 14:1, 3) is inaccurate (because, honestly, who would say that coming to Christ in faith and repentance is not good?) and "dead", "hostile", and "blind" are all overstatements.
Understand, I'm only coming at this from the Scriptures. Others come at it from experience. There are even those (I think you might even know some) who argue that experience trumps Scripture. I tend to think that if I see something in experience (you know, like the Lee Strobel story) that seems to contradict Scripture, then it is likely that my understanding of the experience is faulty, not the Scriptures. Nothing I've seen yet in Scripture tells me that the popular "God woos us" is correct.
I'm lost as to Marshall's point. People come to Christ for a plethora of reasons by a plethora of means. One grows up with Christ taught their entire lives, another only hears once. But the means by which it starts isn't Stan's point. The means by which it ends is. What causes the child that grows up with Christ or the woman that hears Christ taught once to believe? The Calvanist view would say God causes them to believe. What brought them to that point is not relevant to the question. If there were steps that were needed to bring someone to Christ, then those steps would have been discovered or taught, and Christians would be popping up all over the place easily. The fact that there is no one way to come to Christ doesn't have anything to do with the "Free Will/free will" argument.
Post a Comment