Of course, that all sounds well and good ... unless you hold it up against the Scriptures.
In Genesis we read of Abraham going to Gerar where, fearing for his life, he told his wife to tell people she was his sister. Abimelech, the king, liked that and took her for his own. Soon thereafter God visited Abimelech in a dream, threatening to kill him for taking Abraham's wife. "I didn't!" he assured God. And here's what God told him. "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." (Gen 20:6). God claims that the underlying reason that Abimelech didn't have relations with Sarah was that God stopped him. Interesting, isn't it, that Abimelech thought he did it himself? But there is no room for question. God intervened in Abimelech's will.
It's not like he was the only one. In Exodus God commands that the people of Israel go to Jerusalem to worship three times a year. Then He says, "No man shall covet your land when you go up three times a year to appear before the LORD your God." (Exo 34:24). See that? "Look," He told them, "don't worry about your property while you're away. I'll see it that no one around has any desire for your things while you're coming to worship Me." That is divine intervention in human choices.
Take Pharaoh. Before Moses even started the work of freeing God's people, God told him, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go." (Exo 4:21). "I will harden his heart." And He did ... over and over. "Oh, no," you will assure me, "that just means that He pushed Pharaoh in the direction he already was going." Well, okay, if you want to think that, but He pushed Pharaoh. That's intervention in human choices.
Take the story of Joseph. His brothers sold him into slavery where "the LORD caused all that he did to succeed in his hands" (Gen 39:3). Not Joseph; the Lord. Joseph was imprisoned on false charges and we read, "The LORD ... gave him favor in the eyes of the chief jailer." Not Joseph; the Lord. When it was all said and done, Joseph assured his brothers, "God sent me before you to preserve life." (Gen 45:5). Not them; God.
Or how about when Israel moved out of Egypt? Did you know they went away rich? Why? Because "The LORD gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians." (Exo 11:3). That's intervention in human choices.
Some of the clear passages are in the New Testament. We read without batting an eye of Lydia in Acts, "The Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul." (Acts 16:14). There was no permission granted on her part. It simply says He did it. He opened her heart. One of the more disturbing passages is in John's gospel. Lazarus has been raised (John 11) and this is causing a stir (read "making the Pharisees really, really mad"). Jesus comes into town and receives a victor's welcome (John 12:12-19), angering the Pharisees further. And then we read, "Though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him." (John 12:37). Odd. But John doesn't fail to explain why. He says,
Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them." (John 12:39-40).Look, I didn't write that. It's not some odd translation. John wrote both "They could not believe" (a failure of ability) and gave the reason that "He [God] has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart." Why? "Lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them." John says that God blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts specifically to prevent them from repenting.
Now, we can do a variety of dances to try to mitigate that. "It was their choice" or "Like Pharaoh, they were already blinded and He just reinforced it" or whatever. But no matter what we do with it, the fact remains that God claims to have intervened in their lives in a way that affected their choices ... as He has in so many others.
Still not convinced? One last passage. You know, if you are a Christian, that you seek to please God, that you try to obey, right? So, how do you do that? "By my will," you might say. Here's what Paul says.
It is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. (Phil 2:23).According to Paul, you do indeed "work out your own salvation", but you do it by means of God working in you to will and to do. However you choose to see that, it is undeniably true that God is affecting your will.
There is no shortage of passages in Scripture where God explicitly and directly intervenes in human free will. By no means is it every time. But it is undeniable that He does it. We may like that "God is a gentleman" concept and hang our hats on the whole "God doesn't want robots" thing, quite confident that God does not intervene in human free will, but it's not a safe place to stand when it is in direct opposition to the explicit teaching of Scripture. Do we have free will? Yes, certainly, but not as free as you might think. Not if the Bible is to be trusted.
9 comments:
"How deeply do men err who conceive of God as subject to our human will or as standing respectfully to wait upon our human pleasure." - A. W. Tozer
The collective number of Scriptures thoroughly dispels the notion that God is somehow a "gentleman" that is either unable or unwilling to turn the hearts and wills of human to accomplish His own purpose.
Psalm 33:10; 99:1; Jeremiah 10:23; Isaiah 25:1; Proverbs 21:1; Genesis 39:20-21; Exodus 34:24; Deut. 2:30; Joshua 11:20; Judges 14:4; 2 Samuel 17:14; 1 Kings 12:15; 1 Kings 22:20; 2 Kings 3:13; John 1:13; Acts 2:23; 4:28; 2 Thes.2:11-12; James 1:18; Rev. 17:17; many many more.
It is a deep error, indeed, and yet such a common one, it seems.
Let's both admit that God intervenes at times, and humans have free will. Is God's intervention the rule or the exception? Does God intervene as a last resort at crucial points in history, or is this the way he runs the world? I would argue that none of the texts, nor the Bible as a whole demonstrate a micro-managing deity. It demonstrates a God that gives his creation a great deal of freedom.
Define "micro-managing". If by "micro-managing" you mean "God directs little things" (and, of course, you don't think He does), then it would suggest a deist point of view rather than a theist point of view.
Next, define "freedom". If by freedom you mean "the ability to do anything whatever", I'd have to say, like your "Libertarian Free Will", I don't believe in it.
I believe that God works with power through faithful people who channel the Holy Spirit, therefore I disagree with your assessment that this thought process leads to deism.
When you step back from the view that God micro-manages everything, doesn't it inevitably paint God as the cosmic kid in the sandbox moving his toys from here to there? What is the point of it all?
I'm unclear as to the problem of God being intimately involved with His creation. He doesn't need our approval or to be vindicated by us. He is the master of all.
Josh,
No, you believe that God works without power (that is, does not work) in people who don't agree to be used by Him. A "hands off" approach from the Creator is called deism.
"What is the point of it all? "
That is the question, isn't it? What is the point of everything? If it is us, then God will need to remove His hand (deism) and let us have our way. If it is Him, then God will need to do what the Bible says He does -- works all things after the counsel of His will; whatever He pleases. But, then, that would mean that Man isn't the primary object or the current sovereign ... and his free will is limited.
Deism
1.
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation.
2.
belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
I disagree on both counts. So, no I don't argue for this. I argue for a God that works all things after the council of His will and as He pleases. I just believe that working things after the council of His will and always accomplishing His will are two different things. Every work that God does aligns with his will. I also believe that God can do as he pleases. This means that it may please Him to create beings with the ability to choose to further his will or thwart it.
It takes greater wisdom to work out His plan using the free choices of people than it would if he were pulling the strings. I choose the view of God that demonstrates superior wisdom.
A practical atheist is a person who expresses belief in God but lives as if He isn't there. A practical deist, then, would be one who professes that God is very present but acts as if He takes a "hands off" approach. That's all I meant by the term.
And, yes, I know, you (in the plural, not merely "Josh") would argue that God is more sovereign by surrendering sovereignty to His creation and more powerful by giving up power to His creatures. He more fully accomplishes His will by allowing His will to be thwarted by His creation. All well and good ... except that it is as rational as "the sound of one hand clapping". Seems really deep ... except it doesn't actually make sense. More to the point, it doesn't actually align with Scripture.
More to the point, however, is the fact that "God is a gentleman who doesn't intervene in Man's Free Will" isn't biblically supportable. You've asked for clarification, but haven't offered a disagreement. I can assume, then, that you agree that Man does not possess ultimately free free will?
Post a Comment