Posted on 02/24/2003 9:12:32 AM PST by Frumanchu
PREDESTINATION seems to cast a shadow on the very heart of human freedom. If God has decided our destinies from all eternity, that strongly suggests that our free choices are but charades, empty exercises in predetermined playacting. It is as though God wrote the script for us in concrete and we are merely carrying out his scenario.
To get a handle on the puzzling relationship between predestination and free will, we must first define free will. That definition itself is a matter of great debate. Probably the most common definition says free will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. For the will to be free it must act from a posture of neutrality, with absolutely no bias.
On the surface this is very appealing. There are no elements of coercion, either internal or external, to be found in it. Below the surface, however, lurk two serious problems. On the one hand, if we make our choices strictly from a neutral posture, with no prior inclination, then we make choices for no reason. If we have no reason for our choices, if our choices are utterly spontaneous, then our choices have no moral significance. If a choice just happens—it just pops out, with no rhyme or reason for it—then it cannot be judged good or bad. When God evaluates our choices, he is concerned about our motives.
Consider the case of Joseph and his brothers. When Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, God’s providence was at work. Years later, when Joseph was reunited with his brothers in Egypt, he declared to them, “You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20). Here the motive was the decisive factor determining whether the act was good or evil. God’s involvement in Joseph’s dilemma was good; the brothers’ involvement was evil. There was a reason why Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery. They had an evil motivation. Their decision was neither spontaneous nor neutral. They were jealous of their brother. Their choice to sell him was prompted by their evil desires.
The second problem this popular view faces is not so much moral as it is rational. If there is no prior inclination, desire, or bent, no prior motivation or reason for a choice, how can a choice even be made? If the will is totally neutral, why would it choose the right or the left? It is something like the problem encountered by Alice in Wonderland when she came to a fork in the road. She did not know which way to turn. She saw the grinning Cheshire cat in the tree. She asked the cat, “Which way should I turn?” The cat replied, “Where are you going?” Alice answered, “I don’t know.” “Then,” replied the Cheshire cat, “it doesn’t matter.”
Consider Alice’s dilemma. Actually she had four options from which to choose. She could have taken the left fork or the right fork. She also could have chosen to return the way she had come. Or she could have stood fixed at the spot of indecision until she died there. For her to take a step in any direction, she would need some motivation or inclination to do so. Without any motivation, any prior inclination, her only real option would be to stand there and perish.
Another famous illustration of the same problem is found in the story of the neutral-willed mule. The mule had no prior desires, or equal desires in two directions. His owner put a basket of oats to his left and a basket of wheat on his right. If the mule had no desire whatsoever for either oats or wheat he would choose neither and starve. If he had an exactly equal disposition toward oats as he had toward wheat he would still starve. His equal disposition would leave him paralyzed. There would be no motive. Without motive there would be no choice. Without choice there would be no food. Without food soon there would be no mule.
We must reject the neutral-will theory not only because it is irrational but because, as we shall see, it is radically unbiblical.
Christian thinkers have given us two very important definitions of free will. We will consider first the definition offered by Jonathan Edwards in his classic work, On the Freedom of the Will.
Edwards defined the will as “the mind choosing.” Before we ever can make moral choices we must first have some idea of what it is we are choosing. Our selection is then based upon what the mind approves or rejects. Our understanding of values has a crucial role to play in our decision-making. My inclinations and motives as well as my actual choices are shaped by my mind. Again, if the mind is not involved, then the choice is made for no reason and with no reason. It is then an arbitrary and morally meaningless act. Instinct and choice are two different things.
A second definition of free will is “the ability to choose what we want.” This rests on the important foundation of human desire. To have free will is to be able to choose according to our desires. Here desire plays the vital role of providing a motivation or a reason for making a choice.
Now for the tricky part. According to Edwards a human being is not only free to choose what he desires but he must choose what he desires to be able to choose at all. What I call Edwards Law of Choice is this: “The will always chooses according to its strongest inclination at the moment.” This means that every choice is free and every choice is determined.
I said it was tricky. This sounds like a blatant contradiction to say that every choice is free and yet every choice is determined. But “determined” here does not mean that some external force coerces the will. Rather it refers to one’s internal motivation or desire. In shorthand the law is this: Our choices are determined by our desires. They remain our choices because they are motivated by our own desires. This is what we call self-determination, which is the essence of freedom.
Think for a minute about your own choices. How and why are they made? At this very instant you are reading the pages of this book. Why? Did you pick up this book because you have an interest in the subject of predestination, a desire to learn more about this complex subject? Perhaps. Maybe this book has been given to you to read as an assignment. Perhaps you are thinking, “I have no desire to read this whatsoever. I have to read it, and I am grimly wading through it to fulfill somebody else’s desire that I read it. All things being equal I would never choose to read this book.”
But all things are not equal, are they? If you are reading this out of some kind of duty or to fulfill a requirement, you still had to make a decision about fulfilling the requirement or not fulfilling the requirement. You obviously decided that it was better or more desirable for you to read this than to leave it unread. Of that much I am sure, or you would not be reading it right now.
Every decision you make is made for a reason. The next time you go into a public place and choose a seat (in a theater, a classroom, a church building), ask yourself why you are sitting where you are sitting. Perhaps it is the only seat available and you prefer to sit rather than to stand. Perhaps you discover that there is an almost unconscious pattern emerging in your seating decisions. Maybe you discover that whenever possible you sit toward the front of the room or toward the rear. Why? Maybe it has something to do with your eyesight. Perhaps you are shy or gregarious. You may think that you sit where you sit for no reason, but the seat that you choose will always be chosen by the strongest inclination you have at the moment of decision. That inclination may merely be that the seat closest to you is free and that you don’t like to walk long distances to find a place to sit down.
Decision-making is a complex matter because the options we encounter are often varied and many. Add to that that we are creatures with many and varied desires. We have different, often even conflicting, motivations.
Consider the matter of ice cream cones. Oh, do I have trouble with ice cream cones and ice cream sundaes. I love ice cream. If it is possible to be addicted to ice cream then I must be classified as an ice cream addict. I am at least fifteen pounds overweight, and I am sure that at least twenty of the pounds that make up my body are there because of ice cream. Ice cream proves the adage to me, “A second on the lips; a lifetime on the hips.” And, “Those who indulge bulge.” Because of ice cream I have to buy my shirts with a bump in them.
Now, all things being equal, I would like to have a slim, trim body. I don’t like squeezing into my suits and having little old ladies pat me on the tummy. Tummy-patting seems to be an irresistible temptation for some folks. I know what I have to do to get rid of those excess pounds. I have to stop eating ice cream. So I go on a diet. I go on the diet because I want to go on the diet. I want to lose weight. I desire to look better. Everything is fine until someone invites me to Swenson’s. Swenson’s makes the greatest “Super Sundaes” in the world. I know I shouldn’t go to Swenson’s. But I like to go to Swenson’s. When the moment of decision comes I am faced with conflicting desires. I have a desire to be thin and I have a desire for a Super Sundae. Whichever desire is greater at the time of decision is the desire I will choose. It’s that simple.
Now consider my wife. As we prepare to celebrate our silver wedding anniversary I am aware that she is exactly the same weight as she was the day we were married. Her wedding gown still fits her perfectly. She has no great problem with ice cream. Most eating establishments only carry vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry. Any of those make my mouth water, but they offer no enticement to my wife. Aha! But there is Baskin Robbins. They have pralines and cream ice cream. When we go to the mall and pass a Baskin Robbins my wife goes through a strange transformation. Her pace decelerates, her hands get clammy, and I can almost detect the beginning of salivation. (That’s salivation, not salvation.) Now she experiences the conflict of desires that assaults me daily.
We always choose according to our strongest inclination at the moment. Even external acts of coercion cannot totally take away our freedom. Coercion involves acting with some kind of force, imposing choices upon people that, if left to themselves, they would not choose. I certainly have no desire to pay the kind of income taxes that the government makes me pay. I can refuse to pay them, but the consequences are less desirable than paying them. By threatening me with jail the government is able to impose its will upon me to pay taxes.
Or consider the case of armed robbery. A gunman steps up to me and says, “Your money or your life.” He has just restricted my options to two. All things being equal I have no desire to donate my money to him. There are far more worthy charities than he. But suddenly my desires have changed as a result of his act of external coercion. He is using force to provoke certain desires within me. Now I must choose between my desire to live and my desire to give him my money. I might as well give him the money because if he kills me he will take my money anyway. Some people might choose to refuse, saying, “I would rather die than choose to hand this gunman my money. He’ll have to take it from my dead body.”
In either case, a choice is made. And it is made according to the strongest inclination at the moment. Think, if you can, of any choice you have ever made that was not according to the strongest inclination you had at the moment of decision. What about sin? Every Christian has some desire in his heart to obey Christ. We love Christ and we want to please him. Yet every Christian sins. The hard truth is that at the moment of our sin we desire the sin more strongly than we desire to obey Christ. If we always desired to obey Christ more than we desired to sin, we would never sin.
Does not the Apostle Paul teach otherwise? Does he not recount for us a situation in which he acts against his desires? He says in Romans, “The good that I would, I do not, and that which I would not, that I do” (Rom. 7:19, KJV). Here it sounds as if, under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, Paul is teaching clearly that there are times in which he acts against his strongest inclination.
It is extremely unlikely that the apostle is here giving us a revelation about the technical operation of the will. Rather, he is stating plainly what every one of us has experienced. We all have a desire to flee from sin. The “all things being equal” syndrome is in view here. All things being equal, I would like to be perfect. I would like to be rid of sin, just as I would like to be rid of my excess weight. But my desires do not remain constant. They fluctuate. When my stomach is full it is easy to go on a diet. When my stomach is empty my desire level changes. Temptations arise with the changing of my desires and appetites. Then I do things that, all things being equal, I would not want to do.
Paul sets before us the very real conflict of human desires, desires that yield evil choices. The Christian lives within a battlefield of conflicting desires. Christian growth involves the strengthening of desires to please Christ accompanied by the weakening of desires to sin. Paul called it the warfare between the flesh and the Spirit.
To say that we always choose according to our strongest inclination at the moment is to say that we always choose what we want. At every point of choice we are free and self-determined. To be self-determined is not the same thing as determinism. Determinism means that we are forced or coerced to do things by external forces. External forces can, as we have seen, severely limit our options, but they cannot destroy choice altogether. They cannot impose delight in things we hate. When that happens, when hatred turns to delight, it is a matter of persuasion, not coercion. I cannot be forced to do what I take delight in doing already.
The neutral view of free will is impossible. It involves choice without desire. That is like having an effect without a cause. It is something from nothing, which is irrational. The Bible makes it clear that we choose out of our desires. A wicked desire produces wicked choices and wicked actions. A godly desire produces godly deeds. Jesus spoke in terms of corrupt trees producing corrupt fruit. A fig tree does not yield apples and an apple tree produces no figs. So righteous desires produce righteous choices and evil desires produce evil choices.
Sproul, R. (. C. 1986. Chosen by God. Tyndale House Publishers: Wheaton, IL
So, if God can give back that ability to choose, then why doesn't He?
What is all this bluster about inability of man, when it is God who is not choosing to give man that ability.
Let me make it very clear, I did not EVER say that God in unable to give back the ability to choose that man lost at the Fall. What I DID say was that God gives that ability to those whom He chooses. If He doesn't, the man dies in his sin. That's Bible, and you know it. I do not limit God in any way, as it is He who makes the choice, not me.
Well, then what is all this talk about sinful man, when according to Calvinism it is simply the will of God to let those perish He could save, this despite clear scriptures to the contrary (1Tim 2:4, 4:10, 2Pet.3:9)
It is you who keeps talking about the inability of sinful of man to do anything, but the real is God's choice of those who He will save and won't (not can't)
What you fail to understand is that when God grants that Grace to the sinner, the sinner will choose God every time.
Scripture please?
That is the truth of Election and Irresistable Grace.
Scripture please?
In fact, I read in Hebrews 10:38,
Now the just shall live by faith; and if any man draw back, my soul will have no pleasure in him.
Now, how can someone 'draw back' from God's irresitable grace unless it is resistable?
At that point, choosing God is the only rational choice man can make. But you want to have man be able to, after having been enlightened and the recipient of God's Grace, look at God and say, "thanks, but I think I'll pass". Thus, you make man God's equal, being able to reject the Grace of God.
How does rejecting a free gift make man's God's equal?
It just means that man does not want to obey God.
Do you always obey God (1Jn.1:8)
It is you who limits God's Omnipotence, by saying that man can reject God once God has granted His Grace and enlightenment concerning his condition and sure end. Your feeble protest is that God would be unfair if He didn't allow that. Proves you understand nothing about God's true nature and purpose.
Not feeble at all, based on clear scripture that God wants all men saved and died for all men so they could be saved (1Jn.2:2, Heb.2:9, Jn.3:16, Rom.10:13, Rom.5:18)
So, you have given me three posts of Calvinist rhetoric, and nothing more.
said: You say that is because they didn't choose to be saved, but there are many instances where it could be shown that they neither had the choice nor the opportunity. You said: There are? Could you name me some? The proverbial savage in the deepest jungle comes to mind, as well as the millions in China who died never having heard of Jesus Christ, or even knowing that there is one True God, but having believed in Buddha, or Lao Tse, or Confucious, or some other mere mortal as divine. or are you going to try to tell me that god has a "contingency plan" for them, so they get an extra shot. Talk about your "secret counsels"!
So they never knew about the one true God?
Read Romans 1 and Psa 19 and see about how God reveals himself.
Are you telling me that of all those millions of heathen God elected none of them?
My, God must really like Americans since He seems to elect alot of them but let all those poor Chinese and Africans go to hell!
Once again, God knows who will respond to the Gospel and who will not (Jonah, Acts 16) and sends missionaries to them.
You really do think God is very weak don't you, to think He could not get someone the Gospel! LOL!
God could save all, but chooses not to, even though all deserve to go to hell and this glorifies Him how? In your puny little mind, I guess you don't understand that God receives Glory from His Justice in dealing with sin.
But it was God who put man into sin in the first place! (see Calvin)
Moreover, why can't God deal with 'sin' by saving everybody like He did you?
You want to say that God could save all, that is implicit in your statement, but that is an argument for universalism. If God saved all men, then He would violate His Justice, and God cannot violate His own Character and attributes. His Justice demands that sin be punished. That is inviolable. Just because YOU don't see how He is glorified in His Justice doesn't negate the fact that He is.
Talk about heresies!
God's Justice was satisfied by what Christ did on the Cross.(Isa.53)
So, God is 'Just' to elect you but not everyone, even though He could have paid for all the sins on the Cross? (which He did)
I said: Unregenerate man cannot make a for-or-against choice regarding God.
So we have come full circle, as I said your arguments are circular.
You are back to what unregenerate man cannot do, but you admitted that if God wanted, He could have unregenerate make a choice, but God doesn't want to that, so what unregenerate man is capable of is irrevelant, since it is (according to Calvinism) what God is going to do or not do that is the issue.
You said: If God wants to they can, and He want them to so He gives them to ability to believe once they receive the light of the Gospel (Rom.10:17)(emphasis mine) Go back and read your statement again, very slowly, and see if you can spot the inconsistency in it. You have just shot your own argument full of holes. Nice going!
I have? I see no inconsistency at all.
Man receives the light of the Gospel and thus, faces a decision, just like he faces a decision when he deals with natural theology (Psa.19).
Oh, I handle the truth very well. When (you) actually have some, let me know. I just gave you some...don't choke!
What you gave me is more Calvinsitic double-talk and rhetoric.
When you get Romans 5:18 figured out let me know. Ofcourse, I will not be holding my breath.
Amen!
Go back and read your statement again, very slowly, and see if you can spot the inconsistency in it. You have just shot your own argument full of holes. Nice going!
Not at all. You equate receiving the light of the Gospel as being "regenerate" or "born again" or "saved." We simply to not believe man is regenerate, born again or saved until he accepts the Gospel.
ftd's argument is quite sound.
I wouldn't want you to pass out from lack of oxygen. The key word in this passage that I believe you want to dwell on is the greek word "pas", translated as "all". In looking at the context of the passage, Paul is speaking primarily of those who are saved by Jesus Christ, i.e. those who have already received salvation. He is drawing an important parallel between Adam and Christ, building his case for Christ being the Second Adam. It is interesting to note that the greek word "pas", translated "all" is used frequently in the NT, but not always with the same overall meaning, which is tempered not only by the subject of the passage in which it appears, but as any good Bible scholar knows, must also be tempered byt the whole of biblical revelation concerning the subject. Here is the information and commentary I found:
Greek: pas
1) individually a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything 2) collectively a) some of all types ++++ ... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts -- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ...
It should be obvious from the context that the word is being used in a collective sense in this passage, which carries the meaning of "all sorts", and is not intended to say "every last one". Also, Paul shows in the whole passage that while some aspects are universal, the remedy is applied particularly, that is, selectively. This provides support for the doctrine of Election, and is further supported by this verse in Acts 13. Verse 48 states "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." This clearly shows that not all the Gentiles responded to the preaching of the Gospel, but those that did were ordained to believe, which is another way of saying chosen, or elected by God. Jesus Himslef in Matt. 20:28 says: "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." Notice He didn't say "all". He also said in verses 15 and 16: "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."
Any verse that seems to indicate that God has provided salvation for all men must be considered with the obvious fact that not all men are saved, or will be. I personally believe that Christ's work was sufficient for all to be saved, in that it's application is not diluted by the number of people who receive it, but it is only efficacious for those who do receive it. Our argument seems to revolve around whether or not man is able to make that choice, and when he is able to make it, and is he able to reject it once he knows the truth of his condition. We agree that man is unable to choose God apart from God enabling him to do so. I believe we agree that man in his unregenerate state is unable and unwilling to choose God. We disagree that man can reject the offer once it is made. I think the root of that disagreement is misunderstanding of the role that man's will plays in God's Plan. I believe that you want to give too much power to man's own will, believing that it would be unjust of God to do otherwise.
For me, I realize that within the bounds of what God has granted to man, he is free to choose, but only within those bounds. God, being Omniscient, can know every choice that it is possible for a man to make, every choice that a man can make, every choice that a man is likely to make, and therefore every choice that a man will make. He knew before the man knows what choice the man will make. That does not limit man's choice, it is the means by which God exercises Sovereignty over His creation, and can implement His plan with certainty, knowing it will unfold exactly as He foreknew. God already knows every choice you will make from this moment foreward, before you make it or even know that you will make it. But that places no limit on your ability to choose, within the parameters of what you are able to choose. You freely choose, but God already knows what that choice will be, has taken it into account, and has incorporated it into His plan for you, and that Plan into His overall Plan for all men.
Ok, I can accept what you said above. In fact,it sounds like something I would say!
Scripture refers to God as the potter, and man as the clay, and makes the strong point that God can do as He wills with the clay, and no one can ask "what are you doing?" or "Why did you make me this way?" God makes of the clay some vessels for honor and some for dishonor. It is not in our authority to pass judgement on His "fairness" in doing so, for in Romans 9:21-26 Paul says:
"Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God."
There is clear scripture concerning the fact that not all men are called unto salvation, but only those whom God has chosen. Your proof texts for your view must be seen in light of this clear scriptural teaching. They do not stand against this teaching, they show the Justice of God in His judgment against sin, because all men could be saved, but not all will be saved. Not because they didn't choose God, but because He didn't choose them, while they stand in the position of having rejected God in Adam, in order that His Righteousness would be glorified in His salvation of those whom He has called unto salvation, and that His Righteousness would be glorified in His Judgement of sin.
In other words, man has already rejected God. Therefore, if God chooses to reverse that decision in some by His Grace, while not doing so in others, there is no fault with God in doing so. We are not talking about a choice that man has yet to make, we are talking about a choice he has already made, in Adam. Therefore, God is wholly justified in saving only those whom He has chosen, while allowing others to receive the just reward of their sin of rejection of Him. Every man is born in the position of already having rejected God, and the judgment of that rejection has already been passed in the Garden, only awaiting the carrying out of the sentence. Man's choice has already been made, and his end is certain, and the only thing that changes that is the Election of God of those whom He has chosen. The sentence and judgment against sin is Righteous and True, and the Election of God is Righteous and True. There is no inconsistency or unfairness in His Judgment, Counsel, and Will.
That is a cheap shot Corin..and you know it..We are totally responsible for the wrong we do. Judas was foreordained the instrument of God..yet he was also completely responsible for his choice...Joseph's brothers were the foreordained instruments of God..yet they were totally responsible for thier choices..
Act 3:18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?
Sorry Rn. I've heard some of your brethren expressly say they find comfort in knowing that God contols everything, and that they aren't in control of anything they do.
That translates to "I ain't responsible."
If they are elcect of God He will see to them hearing the gospel..are you saying that God just looked at them and said "sorry guys..but the circumstances of your birth are out of my control so I can not find a way to save you?"
Can a man ever choose against his will?
Do you accept the scripture Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose. ?
That is the point...Just as the sin of Josephs brother were an abomination. God used it to preserve the seed of Abraham ..He used the sin for the good..
There is a real comfort in knowing the world is not spinning out of control..that every King, every President ..every war is part of Gods divine plan..they world is not chaos ...
.It is rerassuring to know that I can not stop the plan of God..and that you can not stop the plan of God..
Have you ever read this? I first heard it from a Pentacostal friend shortly after I was saved..then a copy of it was given to me by a Nazarene Pastor
What you asked was: Can a man ever choose against his will?
I choose to get up and go to work every morning. I can promise you, that's against my will.
Huh?
That is what we are saying!
How come God can get people saved if they are the 'Elect' but not if they can make a choice?
There we go, strip Calvinism down to the nutshell and that is its verse!
We are not replying to God, we are 'replying' to Augustine and Calvin (they just thought they were God)
Why don't we stop at that and both agree to it.
We can disagree on those bounds.
If it was really against your will you would not do it Corin..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.