Pope: Everyone, Even Atheists, Want to See the Face of God

Asia News ^ | 1/16/13

[Dutchboy88]

"How so? If we don’t have free will, then I guess using that logic I might as well not make the choice to get up in the morning to go work."

I believe that you are using the term "free will" in a way that is more plastic than I am. At least in the above sentence. Let's first understand what it is you mean by this term. Ordinarily, the term "free will" is intended to mean, "the capacity of man to choose from among several possibilities (actions/thoughts/beliefs) completely free from God's influence."

The way you used it, it means something akin to, "man deciding to do something." This is not necessarily "free will" because it allows for God to cause men to decide all kinds of things. The Scriptures refer to this kind of management of men's decisions by God all over the place. I'll give you some cites if you wish.

The reason the ordinarily accepted definition of free will must include the absence of God's influence is it must leave man alone to decide on his own whether to trust Christ or not. He must be the captain of his fate, the master of his destiny. As you intimated in another post, free will is inextricably embedded in God's grace being resistable. He may want you, call you, woo you, but you can say "no thanks".

Do you,

1.agree with my definition of free will?

2.hold this view?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Clearly a lot of this argument (all of it, maybe) hangs on how you define "free will." Here's an article by Alvin Plantinga disputing with atheist Sam Harris, who has, in practice, two different definitions of "free will" and slips these definitions back and forth in a kind of "bait and switch" tactic.

He brings Jonathan Edwards and Jean Calvin into the argument, too. I find it fascinating how much Edwards and Harris have in common, arriving at like conclusions though coming from different directions. You might find it interesting:

http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2013/janfeb/bait-and-switch.html?paging=off

[Mrs. Don-o]

Clearly a lot of this argument (all of it, maybe) hangs on how you define "free will." Here's an article by Alvin Plantinga disputing with atheist Sam Harris, who has, in practice, two different definitions of "free will" and slips these definitions back and forth in a kind of "bait and switch" tactic.

He brings Jonathan Edwards and Jean Calvin into the argument, too. I find it fascinating how much Edwards and Harris have in common, arriving at like conclusions though coming from different directions. You might find it interesting:

http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2013/janfeb/bait-and-switch.html?paging=off

[Dutchboy88]

I did enjoy the article and you certainly hit the thumb on the nail with this:

”Clearly a lot of this argument (all of it, maybe) hangs on how you define "free will."”

While Plantinga writes with a gentle, light wit, he actually confuses the issue. There are at least four definitions used of “free will” in his article, muddling the real questions. I’ll see if I can set them out (and their proponent), then isolate the real questions:

1. Harris

Free will means the capacity to identify and control all factors in the universe which might impact a person’s decisions. There is no God so these are undirected factors caused by an unthinking universe governed only by chance, time and partially understood random inputs. Free will requires “maximal autonomy”.

2. Plantinga

Free will means the capacity to recognize that in most situations a man intentionally selects a given path of behavior. The man does not need to know exactly what inputs brought the selection about; he only needs to be aware that he contributed to the selection. In the event physical maladies exist, the person may not be free.

3. Ascribed to Calvin

Free will means the capacity to choose between good and evil, or specifically the capacity to select a given path of performing good acts in either a sinful manner or performing them in an utterly good (righteous) manner. It does NOT mean one is not completely free to select Merlot over Cabernet Sauvignon.

4. Ascribed to Edwards

Free will means the capacity to believe/think/act entirely without influence by God. God could not be the real cause of everything if free will is to exist.

Mrs. Don-O, you have rightly implied that unless two (or more) agree on what “free will” actually is, the discussion is fruitless. My point to Pope Pius XII was that the only really valuable definition is Edwards’. The others, whether they represent enjoyable discussions or not, simply do not get to crux of the matter.

I can dismiss Harris’ definition out of hand as the product of an athiest. I find Plantinga’s definition missing the mark, also. The red sox, green sox definition does not get behind the “choosing”. I have read Calvin’s Institutes and find both Plantinga’s & Muller’s remarks too abbreviated to be seriously considered representative. As Plantinga said, however, “…much ink has been spilt on this topic,…” so I won’t go there.

But, with Edwards I believe we can extract a definition that is sufficiently distinctive to begin a discussion. I am not asking Pope Pius XII to agree that there is no such thing as free will, only to recognize that Edwards’ definition gets to the heart of the matter. And, if we limited our discussion temporarily to just “salvation”, the picture sharpens:

Are we free from God enough that it is entirely up to us to determine whether we alone decide to trust Jesus Christ, the Rescuer from Israel? Is each man/woman the captain of his ship, the master of his/her destiny? Or is each person who trusts Him guided/managed to that place by God’s active work in that specific person’s life? This second option implies that the person would not have faith were it not for this active work by God, and not all people are given this active work.

Here is where the real sparks fly.

[CynicalBear]

Free will as it relates to salvation is that we have a “free will” to resist the calling of the Holy Spirit.

[Dutchboy88]

"Free will as it relates to salvation is that we have a “free will” to resist the calling of the Holy Spirit."

Perhaps it feels as this is the case. Fortunately, the Scriptures tell us that every person the Father has given to the Son WILL be rescued. I find nothing in the text which grants the targeted human an opportunity to override this determination. Can you? Even when Jesus said that He wanted to gather Israel like a hen gathers her chicks, but they would not have it, there is no indication that this was not actually the work of God leaving them blinded the way He did the Pharisees. Those who are appointed unto eternal life believe (Acts 13).

[CynicalBear]

>> I find nothing in the text which grants the targeted human an opportunity to override this determination. Can you?<<

Well, let’s take the Acts 13 reference you made.

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained (tassó) to eternal life believed.

The Greek word tasso means: (a) I assign, arrange, (b) I determine; mid: I appoint.

I find no indication there that there was an indication of “predestination” (which I must say is a whole other discussion) or that man cannot resist the calling of the Holy Spirit.

Can we resist the Holy Spirit?

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist (antipiptó) the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Antipiptó: I resist, oppose, fall against or upon.

That passage would indicate that we can resist the Holy Spirit. We can also extinguish, quench, suppress, or thwart the Holy Spirit.

1 Thessalonians 5: 19 Quench (sbennumi) not the Spirit.

sbennumi: (a) I extinguish, quench, (b) I suppress, thwart.

So in answer to your question. Yes, I do think that scripture indicates that we have a free will to not only resist but to also suppress or thwart the working of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

[Dutchboy88]

Your original claim was men resisting the Spirit enough to thwart salvation, not that believers could "quench" or quiet the work of the Spirit. This word amounts to dampening effects in a believer.

John 6 is very clear, you will get rescued if you have been given to the Son by the Father. If you are not among the elect, you cannot get to God. Perhaps tragic, but true.

Even your citation of Acts 13:48 still tells us that if one in the audience was "ordained" or appointed to eternal life, they believed. Do you imagine that there were some appointed to eternal life that did not believe? Does God wait, wondering who will and who will not believe? Do you find God in the Scriptures turning the hearts of kings like little channels of rainwater, where the outcome of the dice roll is determined by Him, where the words coming out of your mouth are the results of His decisions, yet He is not controlling every man/woman who believes?

This is Paul is getting at in Eph. 1, Rom. 9. God is managing every person to belief or unbelief.

[HarleyD]

I would agree with you Dutchboy that Edwards definition of "free will" has to be correct; that it "...means the capacity to choose between good and evil" apart from God. Cynicalbear was also correct. I find that people often uses this in the context of salvation and/or in the context of being a Christian.

As far as free will is concerned prior to be saved, this view was determined to be heretical by the early church. One simply cannot make a free choice to save themselves. No matter how one slices that cookie, it still comes out that we would be the savior of our souls. One can readily see how blasphamous that is.

Many Protestants believe that once a person is saved this "free will" is restored by God. Once restored they are free to make choices of things for God. This is what Calvin believed (not that we are free to choose God). I personally believe this view also is heretical. Rather scripture is very clear that Christians are led by the Holy Spirit for good works. Thus Jonah was not free to go to Tarish but to Nineveh. One is either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. As Augustine put it,

When, therefore, the apostle says," Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works," [Eph. 2.9,10.] it is grace; but what follows—"which God hath prepared that we should walk in them"

All Christians do some amount of good works. It's the preacher's responsibility to give us a good swift kick in the pants to do so.

IMO it is prideful to think we "freely" do good works or that good works are the results of our "free will". I suspect what we consider a "good work" is really not so and those things we wouldn't even consider, those are things wroth by the Spirit. As scripture tells us before the judgment throne we'll all be saying, "Eh??? When did we do this???"

There is no such thing as "free will". There is either God's will or man's will. I am absolutely convinced that Adam fell in the garden simply because God needed to show Adam that he and his descendants do have a will. And that will is bent to not do the things that God wants. His taking of the fruit proved that point very clearly.

[CynicalBear]

>> This word amounts to dampening effects in a believer.<<

You took “quench” to be “dampening”? When you quench a fire are you just dampening the fire or are you putting it out?

>> Do you imagine that there were some appointed to eternal life that did not believe?<<

I’m simply saying that taking all of scripture into account there is evidence that man can resist the calling or quench the work of the Holy Spirit. I don’t think that it can be proven that all those who God calls will accept. We are not puppets.

>> Does God wait, wondering who will and who will not believe?<<

Oh come now. Let’s not go off in that direction. We all know that God sees all and knows all.

>>This is Paul is getting at in Eph. 1, Rom. 9. God is managing every person to belief or unbelief.<<

I do understand what you are saying. What I am trying to point out is that scripture isn’t totally clear, to me at least, on the concept of “predestination” at least with no resistance on the part of man. Whether someone believes in predestination with no resistance or not is something I would neither agree with nor disagree with. Your original question to me was whether or not I could find anything “in the text which grants the targeted human an opportunity to override this determination” and I showed scripture that to me does show that possibility.

[Dutchboy88]

"I do understand what you are saying. What I am trying to point out is that scripture isn’t totally clear, to me at least, on the concept of “predestination” at least with no resistance on the part of man."

As much as it might seem that we can isolate a single concept and examine its plausibility (free will) and as much as one might want the "common sense" of a concept to control the Scriptures, we are faced with harmonizing the entire testimony of the story. To do this, some things must subsume others.

For example, did God know where Adam was when He said, "Adam, where are you?" The person arguing for local context only might say, "Well, it's right there in black and white, God couldn't have known or He wouldn't have asked." But, we know as the story moves along, this is obviously not the case. Nevertheless, right here, right at this moment, it appears as though this is the case. Yet, it is subsumed by more information. Same with God managing all details of His universe, and especially salvation.

Thus, predestination, foreknowledge, foreordination, omniscience, and other concepts do impact the argument regarding "free will" and resisting the Holy Spirit. Don't let a single local statement become your entire doctrinal position. The argument for God's utter control reaches from Gen to Rev. He is unconditionally sovereign with no maverick molecule in creation.

[CynicalBear]

So you think we are just puppets? >> He is unconditionally sovereign with no maverick molecule in creation.<<

He did set rules in place but would you then say He also directs every storm to hit specific people?

[Dutchboy88]

"He did set rules in place but would you then say He also directs every storm to hit specific people?"

No, I would say that it is Scripture which tells us that this is precisely what God is doing.

Job 37 – 41

Job 42:2

Jer. 32:17

Prov. 16:9

Is. 45:1

Prov. 16:4

Eccl. 3:1-14

Prov. 21:1

Dan 4:35

Prov. 20:24

Job 14:5

Phil 3:12

Eph. 2:10

Ex 4:11

Ex. 35:35

James 4:13-15

Lam. 3:37-38 - Everything which happens is from God (good & evil).

Is. 53:10 - Christ's death was God's doing (pleased to bruise Him")

Acts 4:27-28 - Everything done to Jesus was what God's hand & purpose predestined

I Kings 22:19-23

I Sam 16:14-23,

I Sam 18:10

I Sam 19:9

II Sam 24:1

(1 Chronicles 21:1)

I Cor. 14:33

Ex 14:24

Ex 23:27

Deut 7:23

Deut 28:20

II Thess 2:11

Rom 11:8

II Chron 34:24

Is 37:26,

Amos 3:6

John 6:44

John 6:65

Isaiah 43:6-7

Rom 14:4

Jude 24, 25

Ephesians 1:11-12

Jeremiah 31:34ff

Phil 1:6

And, no, we are not "puppets". Puppets are inanimate objects which have no idea what is happening to them. We are alive, feeling, living creatures maneuvered by our Creator to do what He is managing in the universe. And, this is why foreknowledge, predestination, foreordination, omniscience, and all of the other characteristics of God make Him God, and you and I the clay in the potter's hands (Rom. 9).

Please look at these passages. The overarching message of the Bible is that there is a God who is executing His plan for His glory and is managing all of the players on the stage. This is why the earth should fear God...He actually is God. But, it is also the reason you are safe inside of Christ...if you are among the elect. Who could endanger your life if God is managing every detail?

[HarleyD]

He did set rules in place but would you then say He also directs every storm to hit specific people?

I'm convinced there is no one more misunderstood than God. We neither understand the depths of our sinfulness nor the glory of God. God only does what is loving and just to exact His plan. That sometimes includes raining fire on peoples head as in Sodom or flooding the world and drowning just about everyone. It certainly doesn't appear to be "loving" but God does everything BIG and He has the BIG picture.

According to Amos, which dutchboy refers to, God states the following:

Amo 4:6 "I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and lack of bread in all your places, yet you did not return to me," declares the LORD.

Amo 4:7 "I also withheld the rain from you when there were yet three months to the harvest; I would send rain on one city, and send no rain on another city; one field would have rain, and the field on which it did not rain would wither;

Amo 4:8 so two or three cities would wander to another city to drink water, and would not be satisfied; yet you did not return to me," declares the LORD.

Amo 4:9 "I struck you with blight and mildew; your many gardens and your vineyards, your fig trees and your olive trees the locust devoured; yet you did not return to me," declares the LORD.

Amo 4:10 "I sent among you a pestilence after the manner of Egypt; I killed your young men with the sword, and carried away your horses, and I made the stench of your camp go up into your nostrils; yet you did not return to me," declares the LORD.

Amo 4:11 "I overthrew some of you, as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and you were as a brand plucked out of the burning; yet you did not return to me," declares the LORD.

One certainly cannot say that God did not try to get their attention.

Yes God creates storm to hit specific people. But just like the tower of Siloam falling and killing a number of people, it's not because these people were more "evil" or "bad". Rather it is God is acting out His plan. It's like Gandalf telling Frodo about Gollum that we simply don't know all ends.

People have completely lost the understanding of the providence of God. I think of the blessed Naomi from Ruth who when things were at their worst stated:

Rth 1:20 She said to them, "Do not call me Naomi; call me Mara, for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me.

Naomi understood that all things come from God-even our calamities. In the end God granted Naomi Ruth to take care of her and a husband for the blessed Ruth.

Here is a good article that I was reading last night on the providence of God. I'm sure it wasn't by accident.

The Strong Hands of the Potter: A Scriptural Case for Divine Omnicausality

[Dutchboy88]

Great stuff, HarleyD.

Also, note Amos 3:6...God causing calamity in a city.

I have saved the link for more careful reading later, but this fellow has really identified the shift in thinking from the “unlimited Providence” of the Reformation to the more genteel, politically correct views of today’s so-called “evangelicalism”. Man is now too big; God is way too small...even in the typical thinking of many folks calling themselves Christians.

This may be, however, part of the “deluding influence” referred to by Paul (IIThess. 2:11) that God will be sending in as we move to the end of times. Just saying...

And, (me smiling) :>) , you are right, it was no “accident” you happened upon that aritcle!

[HarleyD]

Note in the article that it states:

that God “cannot meticulously control what [an agent with free will] does,”

Some have complained that I'm always harping on "free will". This is one of the reason. It leads to open theist and the heretical belief that God is not in total and absolute control. In fact, there isn't a heretical doctrine that I have not been able to trace back the idea of "free will".

[Dutchboy88]

"Note in the article that it states:

that God “cannot meticulously control what [an agent with free will] does,”

Some have complained that I'm always harping on "free will". This is one of the reason. It leads to open theist and the heretical belief that God is not in total and absolute control. In fact, there isn't a heretical doctrine that I have not been able to trace back the idea of "free will".

Now this really nails it. Every inter-related doctrine of God's nature and capacities (foreknowledge, foreordination, etc. & omniscience, omnipotence, etc.) is impugned by this one rogue (and unbiblical) concept of man's "free will". Thank you for the terrific input.

[CynicalBear]

You may have missed the premise of the beginning of this conversation. It started with the question of whether or not people can “refuse” the calling of God. In other words, where does predestination fit in. The passages you quoted from Amos would indicate that the people had a choice to listen to the warnings of God and did not. Wouldn’t that clearly indicate that people do have a choice as to whether to listen and obey or not?

[CynicalBear]

>> would you then say He also directs every storm to hit specific people?<<

Note the “every” in that sentence. There are laws of nature that have been set in place. Note the sun moon and stars.

[Dutchboy88]

Get back to me when you read all the passages.

The roll of the dice, the hearts of the kings, every word which comes from man’s mouth, those given to the Son...He is managing each detail. And read the article posted by HarleyD about the “Omnicausality of God”. It is comforting to find that nothing is occurring in the universe that He is not behind.