I’m still at work on Paul Helm’s defense in the book “Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views.” For those of you that may not have read the other posts on Paul Helm, Paul Helm represents one of four views in the book—the Classical Calvinist view of the Doctrine of God. There are three other views that stand in opposition to Helm’s: Modified Calvinist (Bruce Ware), Classical Arminian (Roger Olson), and the Open Theist view (John Sanders).
Helm quotes Aquinas:
“God does not act on the will in the manner of one necessitating; for HE DOES NOT FORCE THE WILL BUT MERELY MOVES IT, without taking away its own proper mode, which consists in being free with respect to opposites. Consequently, EVEN THOUGH NOTHING CAN RESIST THE DIVINE WILL, OUR WILL, LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, CARRIES OUT THE DIVINE WILL ACCORDING TO ITS OWN PROPER MODE. Indeed, the divine will has given things their mode of being in order that His will be fulfilled. Therefore, some things fulfill the divine will necessarily, other things, contingently; BUT THAT WHICH GOD WILLS ALWAYS TAKE PLACE” (Paul Helm quoting Aquinas, in “Perspectives on the Doctrine of God,” page 19).
Aquinas makes some interesting statements here: first, “He [God] does not force the will but merely moves it…” I agree with Aquinas: God does not override the human will.
But Aquinas’s further statements pose problems. Notice that he states, “Our will, like everything else, carries out the divine will according to its own proper mode.” Now our will is placed alongside of “everything else,” which is the rest of creation. But the problem with this is that mankind IS NOT LIKE THE REST OF CREATION. Bardesanes on the issue of freewill and predestination, writes,
“On the contrary, men are not governed like [the plants and animals]…in matters pertaining to their minds, THEY DO WHATEVER THEY CHOOSE—AS THOSE WHO ARE FREE, ENDOWED WITH POWER, and IN THE LIKENESS OF GOD” (Bardesanes, c. 222, E, 8.726, printed in “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs,” by David W. Bercot, Editor. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008, page 288).
The plants and animals do whatever God has laid out for them. As the Lord writes regarding creation in His speech to Job,
32 Can you bring out the constellations [i] in their season
and lead the Bear [j] and her cubs? (N)
33 Do you know the laws (O) of heaven?
Can you impose its [k] authority on earth?
34 Can you command [l] the clouds
so that a flood of water covers you? (P)
35 Can you send out lightning (Q) bolts, and they go?
Do they report to you: "Here we are"? (Job 38:32-35, HCSB)
And the Lord speaks further regarding animal life:
39 Can you hunt prey for a lioness
or satisfy the appetite of young lions (S)
40 when they crouch in their dens
and lie in wait within their lairs?
41 Who provides the raven's food (T)
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food? (Job 38:39-41, HCSB)
The Lord tells Job that He “leads the Bear and her cubs” and “hunts prey for a lioness” and “provides the raven’s food when its young cry out to God.”
But the Lord says something different about man:
36 Who put wisdom (R) in the heart [m]
or gave the mind understanding? (Job 38:36, HCSB)
What I find fascinating is that, in Job chapter 39, this is what God says of the female ostrich:
13 The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully,
but are her feathers and plumage like the stork's? (E) [d]
14 She abandons her eggs on the ground
and lets them be warmed in the sand.
15 She forgets that a foot may crush them
or that some wild animal may trample them.
16 She treats her young harshly, as if [they] were not her own,
with no fear that her labor may have been in vain.
17 For God has deprived her of wisdom;
He has not endowed her with understanding. (Job 39:13-17)
The ostrich takes risks because “He [God] has not endowed her with understanding.” The Lord gave wisdom and understanding to human life; but He did not give this capacity to animal life.
And, what about Psalm 8? Surely we find there that man was placed ABOVE all plant and animal life:
5 You made him little less than God [c] [d]
and crowned him with glory and honor.
6 You made him lord over the works of Your hands;
You put everything under his feet: (G) [e]
7 all the sheep and oxen,
as well as animals in the wild,
8 birds of the sky,
and fish of the sea
passing through the currents of the seas. (Psalm 8:5-8)
Man was created to be OVER the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, the fish of the sea, and everything that passes through the seas. Even in God’s endowment of blessing and responsibility upon man, God distinguished man from the rest of His creation. There is also the Genesis creation account, in which we find that, while God told the plant and animal life to bear seed and creature, what I call “The Great Council of God” came together when it was time to create man:
24 Then God said, "Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kinds:
livestock, creatures that crawl, and the wildlife of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25 So God made the wildlife of the earth according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and creatures that crawl on the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let Us (P) make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. (Q) They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the animals, all the earth, [f] and the creatures that crawl [g] on the earth." (R) 27 So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female. (S) 28 God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, (T) and subdue it. Rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls [h] on the earth." 29 God also said, "Look, I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the surface of the entire earth, and every tree whose fruit contains seed. This food will be for you, (U) 30 for all the wildlife of the earth, for every bird of the sky, and for every creature that crawls on the earth—everything having the breath of life in it. [I have given] every green plant for food." (V) And it was so. 31 God saw all that He had made, and it was very good. (Genesis 1:24-31, HCSB)
God’s announcement of making man in the image of God stands out from the rest of the creation account. Then notice that, in verse 28, God tells both male and female, “subdue it [earth]. RULE the fish of the sea…” In addition, God tells the human couple in verse 29, “I have given you EVER SEED BEARING PLANT ON THE SURFACE OF THE ENTIRE EARTH, and every tree whose fruit contain seed. THIS FOOD WILL BE FOR YOU.” God also gives the green plants to all of creation (including the animals), but He pronounces this to His human creation first.
And last but not least, as if it isn’t obvious, let’s not overlook the fact that God TALKS to Adam and Eve! They are so like God Himself that He engages in dialogue with them! Does He do that with the rest of creation? NO!
So, like everything else, we SHOULD obey Him; but the truth is, there are times when we go against His will and do that which is displeasing to Him. I read the section of “Irresistible Grace” in the book “The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented” by authors David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn. While reading this section, I was hoping to find ONE VERSE that would tell me that a person CANNOT resist the will of God: but I looked in vain. The section spans TWELVE PAGES LONG, and yet, I found NO VERSE including the words “can not resist” in regards to the will of God. There are no verses regarding “not resisting” the will of God. However, Jacob Arminius had a reference for his doctrine of “Resistable Grace” in Article Four of the Remonstrance:
“That this grace of God is the commencement, progression, and completion of all good, also in so far that regenerate man cannot, apart from this prevenient or assisting, awakening, consequent and cooperating grace, think, will or do the good or resist any temptation to evil; so that all good works or activities which can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE MODE OF THIS GRACE, IT IS NOT IRRESISTIBLE, since it is written concerning many that they resisted the Holy Spirit. Acts 7 and elsewhere in many places.”
Acts 7:51 says, 51 "You stiff-necked (AY) people with uncircumcised hearts and ears! (AZ) You are always resisting the Holy Spirit; as your forefathers did, so do you.” (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
So we see that Arminius had a reference; but I find that Calvinist theologies fail to give an example of where the grace of God CANNOT be resisted.
According to Aquinas, everything that God wills happens; but, as we see, what God wills is the choice of man, not man’s evil actions. This then, proves that every little event does not go as God intended it to; however, “all things work TOGETHER” (Rom. 8:28) for good for those who love God. All events, including the evil ones, lead to the end goal, which is GOOD for those who belong to the Lord. In this way, we see that truly, God is in control.
Showing posts with label Perspectives on the Doctrine of God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Perspectives on the Doctrine of God. Show all posts
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Helm's Defense, Part I-C: Augustine's Inconsistency on Predestination
“There are a number of references to reprobation in this work and others. For example, ‘He saved them [the elect] for nothing. But to the rest who were blinded, as is there plainly declared it, was done in recompense. ‘All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth.’ But His ways are unsearchable. Therefore the mercy by which He freely delivers, and the truth by which He righteously judges, are equally unsearchable. Such references are understandably muted, but for Augustine reprobation is not simply inferred from predestination but grounded in the biblical data, and THE GROUNDS FOR CONDEMNING THE REPROBATE DIFFER FROM THE GROUNDS FOR BLESSING THE ELECT. All events are under God’s providential control, but the term ‘predestination’ IS RESERVED BY AUGUSTINE FOR THE DESTINING OF MEN AND WOMEN TO SALVATION. God foreknows what he himself does not (and cannot do)—that is, acts of evil. HE DOES NOT PREDESTINE SUCH ACTS, BUT THEY ARE PART OF HIS PROVIDENCE” [Paul Helm, “Perspectives on the Doctrine of God,” edited by Bruce Ware. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2008, page 12.]
I find Paul Helm’s words regarding Augustine’s view of predestination and providence to be fascinating. Augustine believes that the word “predestination” refers to God ordaining men and women to go to Heaven, but yet, God doesn’t ordain men and women to go to Hell? So, is Augustine saying that people go to Hell because they CHOOSE to do so?
But if people are allowed to CHOOSE Hell, but are PREDESTINED for Heaven, then we now have a problem: now, there are TWO WAYS to pick TWO WAYS to go to eternity!
I’ve heard this argument before. A good of friend of mine told me that his professor espouses Augustine’s belief. But this is how the professor reconciled these two interesting assessments of eternity: those who go to Hell already chose to—IN ADAM. But those who go to Heaven are elected by Christ.
Wait a minute! How is it that one group gets chosen AFTER the Crucifixion, but the other group GETS DESERTED? What does Romans 5 tell us?
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, (S) and death through sin, (T) in this way death spread to all men, (U) because all sinned. (Romans 5:12, Holman Christian Standard Bible)
Romans 5 tells us that ALL SINNED in Adam, and so, ALL received the penalty of death. So in the beginning, EVERYONE CHOSE HELL!
But then, the Lord came; and He reconciled us back to God:
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if by the one man's trespass the many died, how much more have the grace of God and the gift overflowed to the many by the grace of the one man, (Y) Jesus Christ. 16 And the gift is not like the one man's sin, because from one sin came the judgment, (Z) resulting in condemnation, but from many trespasses came the gift, resulting in justification. [d] 17 Since by the one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive the overflow of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life (AA) through the one man, Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:15-17, HCSB)
Verse 17 is our important verse here: since by the one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, how much will THOSE WHO RECEIVE THE OVERFLOW OF GRACE AND THE GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.”
Paul is showing us a parallel here between the first Adam (first human), and the “second Adam” (Christ). But what he states here is that “those who receive the overflow of grace and the gift of righteousness” will experience eternal life.
I wonder whether or not Augustine, Calvin, or even modern-day Calvinists have read this verse. It tells us here that only those who accept Christ will receive “the overflow of grace and the gift of righteousness.” This doesn’t sound like God “picking” one and abandoning another, does it?
Notice that Paul says those who receive “THE OVERFLOW OF GRACE.” If you read Calvinist interpretations of Romans 9, it seems as if God doesn’t have an overflow of grace, but an UNDERFLOW! God doesn’t have enough grace for everyone—only for a few people. But Paul tells us here that God’s grace is so ABUNDANT (that there is room for so many) that His grace overflows to all those who accept Him.
I now go back to Augustine. He tells us that those who go to Hell do so by choice (to prevent God’s name from being stained with evil). But, by so doing, Augustine, while getting rid of the problem of evil, faces another problem: how to reconcile some getting PICKED while others CHOOSE.
There can’t be two ways: either everyone chooses or everyone gets handpicked by God. No one can have it both ways. But the fact that Augustine holds this view (according to Paul Helm) just confirms what Arminians have always believed about Calvinists: when everything is exposed, Calvinists have many inconsistencies in their system. And the fact that God, in His providence, ALLOWS some to choose Hell makes a strong case for free will theism, especially when it comes from the words of someone who favors unconditional election.
I find Paul Helm’s words regarding Augustine’s view of predestination and providence to be fascinating. Augustine believes that the word “predestination” refers to God ordaining men and women to go to Heaven, but yet, God doesn’t ordain men and women to go to Hell? So, is Augustine saying that people go to Hell because they CHOOSE to do so?
But if people are allowed to CHOOSE Hell, but are PREDESTINED for Heaven, then we now have a problem: now, there are TWO WAYS to pick TWO WAYS to go to eternity!
I’ve heard this argument before. A good of friend of mine told me that his professor espouses Augustine’s belief. But this is how the professor reconciled these two interesting assessments of eternity: those who go to Hell already chose to—IN ADAM. But those who go to Heaven are elected by Christ.
Wait a minute! How is it that one group gets chosen AFTER the Crucifixion, but the other group GETS DESERTED? What does Romans 5 tell us?
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, (S) and death through sin, (T) in this way death spread to all men, (U) because all sinned. (Romans 5:12, Holman Christian Standard Bible)
Romans 5 tells us that ALL SINNED in Adam, and so, ALL received the penalty of death. So in the beginning, EVERYONE CHOSE HELL!
But then, the Lord came; and He reconciled us back to God:
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if by the one man's trespass the many died, how much more have the grace of God and the gift overflowed to the many by the grace of the one man, (Y) Jesus Christ. 16 And the gift is not like the one man's sin, because from one sin came the judgment, (Z) resulting in condemnation, but from many trespasses came the gift, resulting in justification. [d] 17 Since by the one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive the overflow of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life (AA) through the one man, Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:15-17, HCSB)
Verse 17 is our important verse here: since by the one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, how much will THOSE WHO RECEIVE THE OVERFLOW OF GRACE AND THE GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.”
Paul is showing us a parallel here between the first Adam (first human), and the “second Adam” (Christ). But what he states here is that “those who receive the overflow of grace and the gift of righteousness” will experience eternal life.
I wonder whether or not Augustine, Calvin, or even modern-day Calvinists have read this verse. It tells us here that only those who accept Christ will receive “the overflow of grace and the gift of righteousness.” This doesn’t sound like God “picking” one and abandoning another, does it?
Notice that Paul says those who receive “THE OVERFLOW OF GRACE.” If you read Calvinist interpretations of Romans 9, it seems as if God doesn’t have an overflow of grace, but an UNDERFLOW! God doesn’t have enough grace for everyone—only for a few people. But Paul tells us here that God’s grace is so ABUNDANT (that there is room for so many) that His grace overflows to all those who accept Him.
I now go back to Augustine. He tells us that those who go to Hell do so by choice (to prevent God’s name from being stained with evil). But, by so doing, Augustine, while getting rid of the problem of evil, faces another problem: how to reconcile some getting PICKED while others CHOOSE.
There can’t be two ways: either everyone chooses or everyone gets handpicked by God. No one can have it both ways. But the fact that Augustine holds this view (according to Paul Helm) just confirms what Arminians have always believed about Calvinists: when everything is exposed, Calvinists have many inconsistencies in their system. And the fact that God, in His providence, ALLOWS some to choose Hell makes a strong case for free will theism, especially when it comes from the words of someone who favors unconditional election.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Helm's Defense, Part I-B: Augustine and the "Merits of Faith"
I’m back to continue my evaluation of Paul Helm’s chapter on the “Classical Calvinist Doctrine of God” in the book, “Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views,” edited by Bruce Ware.
I will now pick up where I left off. In the last post, Augustine wrote to Simplicianus of Romans 9. He writes further:
“But the question is whether faith merits a man’s justification, whether the MERITS OF FAITH do not precede the mercy of God; OR WHETHER, in fact, FAITH ITSELF IS TO BE NUMBERED AMONG THE GIFTS OF GRACE. Notice that in this passage when he said, ‘Not of works,’ he [Paul] did not say, ‘but of FAITH it was said to her, the elder shall serve the younger.’ No, he said, ‘but of him that calleth.’ NO ONE BELIEVES WHO IS NOT CALLED. God calls in his mercy, and not as rewarding the MERITS OF FAITH. The merits of faith follow his calling rather than precede it. SO GRACE COMES BEFORE ALL MERITS. Christ died for the ungodly. The younger received the promise that the elder should serve him from him that calleth and not from any meritorious works of his own. The Scripture ‘Jacob have I loved’ is true, but it was of God who called and not of Jacob’s righteous works” (Augustine, in his letter to Simplician, from “Perspectives on the Doctrine of God,” page 10).
There is one phrase that stands out to me in Augustine’s quote above: “THE MERITS OF FAITH.” With this phrase, Augustine makes the statement that modern Calvinists make—that faith is a work. Whether it is implied or stated, modern-day Calvinists, when the Arminian says that the call involves faith, will respond with the remark I was told by a Calvinist once: but the text says “before they were born, before they had done anything good or bad.” So whether or not Calvinists will own up to their problem, in their minds at least, they label faith as a work. I have written posts here at the Center for Theological Studies that testify to the fact that Scripture distinguishes between faith and work. The two are not the same…
But Augustine says something that I think is worth examining:
“No one believes who is not called. God calls in his mercy, and not as rewarding the merits of faith. The merits of faith follow his calling rather than precede it. SO GRACE COMES BEFORE ALL MERITS.”
I wouldn’t call faith a “merit,” but I do agree that grace must come before anything. This is, in fact, what the Bible teaches:
8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift— 9 not from works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9, Holman Christian Standard Bible)
It is “by grace” that we are saved; we must first have the grace of God before we can even approach the throne in faith. Without the UNMERITED FAVOR of God, our faith would do nothing.
But the next question becomes, what about grace? Is this grace given to everyone, or a select few? And this is where Calvinists and Arminians “draw the line in the sand” and take sides.
As a classical Arminian, I’m gonna say that God gives grace (as well as faith) to all.
For the grace of God has appeared, with salvation for all people… (Titus 2:11, HCSB)
Since the grace of God brings salvation, and salvation has come for “all people,” then the grace of God is for ALL PEOPLE! God’s unmerited favor has come to all people, because all people died in Adam (but can be made alive in Christ—Rom. 5).
And regarding faith, we have Romans 12:
Instead, think sensibly, as God has distributed a measure of faith (I) to each one. (Romans 12:3b, HCSB)
Everyone has a measure of faith; no one is left out. This means, that, everyone has both grace and faith. And all of salvation (both grace and faith) comes from God: “and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. Not of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Augustine is right when he says that “no one believes who is not called.” Well, the Lord extends the invitation to all:
28 "Come to Me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. (W) 29 All of you, take up My yoke and learn from Me, (X) because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for yourselves. (Y) 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-29, HCSB)
In the parable of the friend at the wedding banquet (Matthew 22), we find that “many” were chosen:
8 "Then he told his slaves, 'The banquet is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. (E) 9 Therefore, go to where the roads exit the city and invite everyone you find to the banquet. (F) ' 10 So those slaves went out on the roads and gathered everyone they found, both evil and good. The wedding banquet was filled with guests. (Matthew 22:8-10, HCSB)
Here, “the many” were “everyone you find,” everyone the servants could find. No one was excluded: “both evil and good” were invited to the banquet. The Lord calls EVERYONE, but not everyone responds in faith.
God does indeed call first; but there is no “merit of faith”; faith is not a work, as James 2 tells us. It is easy to see Augustine’s error: he, like modern-day Calvinists, equate faith and works. But I’ll tell you one thing: whether or not faith is a work can be debated by some; but if the Lord has told me in His Word that I HAVE TO BELIEVE, then whether faith is a work or not means nothing at all.
I will now pick up where I left off. In the last post, Augustine wrote to Simplicianus of Romans 9. He writes further:
“But the question is whether faith merits a man’s justification, whether the MERITS OF FAITH do not precede the mercy of God; OR WHETHER, in fact, FAITH ITSELF IS TO BE NUMBERED AMONG THE GIFTS OF GRACE. Notice that in this passage when he said, ‘Not of works,’ he [Paul] did not say, ‘but of FAITH it was said to her, the elder shall serve the younger.’ No, he said, ‘but of him that calleth.’ NO ONE BELIEVES WHO IS NOT CALLED. God calls in his mercy, and not as rewarding the MERITS OF FAITH. The merits of faith follow his calling rather than precede it. SO GRACE COMES BEFORE ALL MERITS. Christ died for the ungodly. The younger received the promise that the elder should serve him from him that calleth and not from any meritorious works of his own. The Scripture ‘Jacob have I loved’ is true, but it was of God who called and not of Jacob’s righteous works” (Augustine, in his letter to Simplician, from “Perspectives on the Doctrine of God,” page 10).
There is one phrase that stands out to me in Augustine’s quote above: “THE MERITS OF FAITH.” With this phrase, Augustine makes the statement that modern Calvinists make—that faith is a work. Whether it is implied or stated, modern-day Calvinists, when the Arminian says that the call involves faith, will respond with the remark I was told by a Calvinist once: but the text says “before they were born, before they had done anything good or bad.” So whether or not Calvinists will own up to their problem, in their minds at least, they label faith as a work. I have written posts here at the Center for Theological Studies that testify to the fact that Scripture distinguishes between faith and work. The two are not the same…
But Augustine says something that I think is worth examining:
“No one believes who is not called. God calls in his mercy, and not as rewarding the merits of faith. The merits of faith follow his calling rather than precede it. SO GRACE COMES BEFORE ALL MERITS.”
I wouldn’t call faith a “merit,” but I do agree that grace must come before anything. This is, in fact, what the Bible teaches:
8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift— 9 not from works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9, Holman Christian Standard Bible)
It is “by grace” that we are saved; we must first have the grace of God before we can even approach the throne in faith. Without the UNMERITED FAVOR of God, our faith would do nothing.
But the next question becomes, what about grace? Is this grace given to everyone, or a select few? And this is where Calvinists and Arminians “draw the line in the sand” and take sides.
As a classical Arminian, I’m gonna say that God gives grace (as well as faith) to all.
For the grace of God has appeared, with salvation for all people… (Titus 2:11, HCSB)
Since the grace of God brings salvation, and salvation has come for “all people,” then the grace of God is for ALL PEOPLE! God’s unmerited favor has come to all people, because all people died in Adam (but can be made alive in Christ—Rom. 5).
And regarding faith, we have Romans 12:
Instead, think sensibly, as God has distributed a measure of faith (I) to each one. (Romans 12:3b, HCSB)
Everyone has a measure of faith; no one is left out. This means, that, everyone has both grace and faith. And all of salvation (both grace and faith) comes from God: “and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. Not of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Augustine is right when he says that “no one believes who is not called.” Well, the Lord extends the invitation to all:
28 "Come to Me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. (W) 29 All of you, take up My yoke and learn from Me, (X) because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for yourselves. (Y) 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-29, HCSB)
In the parable of the friend at the wedding banquet (Matthew 22), we find that “many” were chosen:
8 "Then he told his slaves, 'The banquet is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. (E) 9 Therefore, go to where the roads exit the city and invite everyone you find to the banquet. (F) ' 10 So those slaves went out on the roads and gathered everyone they found, both evil and good. The wedding banquet was filled with guests. (Matthew 22:8-10, HCSB)
Here, “the many” were “everyone you find,” everyone the servants could find. No one was excluded: “both evil and good” were invited to the banquet. The Lord calls EVERYONE, but not everyone responds in faith.
God does indeed call first; but there is no “merit of faith”; faith is not a work, as James 2 tells us. It is easy to see Augustine’s error: he, like modern-day Calvinists, equate faith and works. But I’ll tell you one thing: whether or not faith is a work can be debated by some; but if the Lord has told me in His Word that I HAVE TO BELIEVE, then whether faith is a work or not means nothing at all.
Helm's Defense, Part I: On Augustine
About two days ago I finished reading the book “Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views,” Edited by Bruce Ware. I dreaded reading Paul Helm’s argument for the “Classical Calvinist” position, but after reading the other three views, I had no other direction in which to turn my attention. So I picked up Helm’s chapter and started reading. This post, then, will start a set of posts on Helm’s defense for the Classical Calvinist position.
We will start with the first mentioned in “the tradition” (the reference to Calvinism by Helm), Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430). In 429, Augustine wrote his “On the Predestination of the Saints” in which he references some things he wrote to Simplicianus. One of these things concerned the election of Romans 9:11. Augustine writes,
“If election is by foreknowledge, and God foreknew Jacob’s faith, how do you prove that he did not elect him FOR HIS WORKS? Neither Jacob nor Esau had yet believed, because they were not yet born and had as yet done neither good nor evil. But God foresaw that Jacob would believe? He could equally well have foreseen that he would do good works…the reason for its not being of works was THAT THEY WERE NOT YET BORN, THAT APPLIES ALSO TO FAITH; for before they were born they had neither faith nor works. The apostle, therefore, DID NOT WANT US TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF GOD’S FOREKNOWLEDGE THAT THE YOUNGER WAS ELECTED TO BE SERVED BY THE ELDER. He wanted to show that it was not of works, and he stressed that by saying, ‘When they were not yet born and had done neither good nor evil.’ He could have said, if he wished to, that God already knew what each was going to do. We have still to inquire why that election was made. It was not of works, because being not yet born they had done no works. BUT NEITHER WAS IT OF FAITH, because they had not faith either. What, then, was the reason for it?” [Augustine, “On the Predestination of the Saints (429), published in the book “Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views” by Paul Helm (Edited by Bruce Ware)].
Let me say first of all that in order to understand Jacob and Esau within Romans 9, we have to remind ourselves that the twins serves as SYMBOLS within Paul’s argument. Let’s go back to Genesis 25 to see what God says to Rebekah:
“But the children inside her [Rebekah] struggled with each other, and she said, ‘Why is this happening to me?’ So she went to inquire of the LORD. And the LORD said to her:
‘Two nations are in your womb; two people will [come] from you and be separated. One people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger’” (Genesis 25:22-23, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
All that Rebekah is told about Jacob and Esau is that the elder will serve the younger, that the oldest would bow down to the youngest. God doesn’t mention anything about seeing their faith, or their works, or anything else. Some have said that God foretells of what will happen because He sees the future. I would agree with that. I would say that, according to Psalm 139, among many, that God does know everything before it takes place (I am an advocate of exhaustive divine foreknowledge, that God knows everything before it happens). God knows what Jacob and Esau would do after their birth.
However, I would caution the reader here by saying that, while this is a very plausible commentary on the calling of Jacob, we must be careful to not read things into the text that are not there. The prophecy regarding Jacob is NOT a prophecy regarding salvation; it is NOT a prophecy of one child being saved and the other child being damned!
But if the prophecy of God regarding the twins is not one of salvation, then what is it? We are only told that Jacob inherited the blessings of the Jewish nation Israel. Esau was “no less able to be saved” than Jacob was: for God promised Abraham in His Covenant that “I will keep My covenant between Me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, as an everlasting covenant TO BE YOUR GOD AND THE GOD OF YOUR OFFSPRING AFTER YOU” (Genesis 17:7, HCSB). Esau, then, by virtue of being a descendant of Abraham, was just as entitled to being a worshipper of God as Jacob was. In that, neither was favored over the other.
When we return to Romans 9, then, we must understand that Paul uses the twins as SYMBOLS OF SALVATION, not as an example of salvation! As I said earlier, God said nothing about either of them being saved, or who would do great work, or anything of the sort. To read that into the text is to “add” things that aren’t there!
Jacob and Esau, however, are SYMBOLS OF SALVATION. What is a “symbol”? Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary tells us:
2 : something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance; especially : a visible sign of something invisible (the lion is a symbol of courage).
A symbol is related to something else, whether by relationship or association. What this tells us is that there is a connection, in Romans 9, between Jacob and Esau and the Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 9:30); but we have to discover how strong or weak that connection is. From what we know of Genesis 25, there is not a double-bonded strong connection—in fact, there is a link, but only a simple one.
Now, let’s look back at Romans 9. We see in verse 7, with Isaac, that the “seed of the promise” is called. We know the story with Isaac: that even though he and Hagar had conceived Ishmael, and Ishmael was his OLDEST son by blood, Isaac (although the second-born) was the promised seed. Abraham even pleaded with God for Ishmael to be blessed—but God reiterated that Isaac was the promised seed (Genesis 21:12). In verse 9, we are told the promise of God to Sarah: “At this time I will come, and Sarah will have a son.” God decided to give Sarah a son, and that son was born, as God had promised.
In verse 10, we get to Jacob and Esau. If we follow the context of the verses earlier (with Ishmael and Isaac), we will see that the emphasis is on GOD’S PROMISE, not foreseen faith, or works, or anything else. In verse 9, God PROMISES Abraham that Sarah would have a son; in verse 12, God PROMISES Rebekah that “the older will serve the younger.” Why does God do this?
“(for though they had not been born yet or done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to election might stand, NOT FROM WORKS BUT FROM THE ONE WHO CALLS)…” (Rom. 9:12, HCSB).
The emphasis of Paul’s writing is on GOD WHO CALLS, not people who act! Ishmael was the HUMAN ACT of Abraham and Hagar—but he was NOT the promised of God. Esau was to be the one who was served, but that was NOT the promised of God. Only the promise of God would serve in these situations.
So there is an election of God; God does ELECT some and not others.
Here, I can see the Calvinists smiling…but, before you get the impression that I’m turning Calvinist, let me say something else: Calvinists and Arminians believe there is an election—but we differ on the NATURE of election. The Calvinist will say that the election is done according to the arbitrary choice of God; I will disagree with them (as Classical Arminians will) and say that God’s election occurs ACCORDING TO FAITH!
Look at Romans 9:30-32—
“What should we say then? Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained righteousness—namely the righteousness that comes from faith. But Israel, pursuing the law for righteousness, has not achieved the law. Why is that? BECAUSE THEY DID NOT PURSUE IT BY FAITH, BUT AS IF IT WERE BY WORKS.”
Did you notice the question of Romans 9:30? The question “What should we say then?” of Romans 9:30 MATCHES EXACTLY the question of Romans 9:14—“What should we say then?” Paul’s matching questions in the same chapter tell us that Paul is connecting his argument. In other words, he’s telling us that in the same way Isaac was PROMISED over Ishmael and that Jacob was PROMISED over Esau, is the same way that the Gentiles, receiving the PROMISE, are saved, while the Jews, still trying to do it in some other way than God’s way, have not received salvation.
Paul tells us in Romans chapter 10 what God’s righteousness consists of (in case Romans 9:30 doesn’t convince):
“For Christ is THE END OF THE LAW for righteousness TO EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES.”
Now, I will discuss the nature of God’s election in my next post; however, someone reading this will say, “Well, if the Gentiles are elected by faith, then doesn’t this mean that God elected Jacob on the basis of foreseen faith? As I said earlier, we cannot read faith into the Genesis 25 text (or works for that matter), since neither are mentioned.
Jacob and Esau are a case where the call of God TRUMPS established tradition. Both twins are SYMBOLS of the Jewish and Gentile nations. While the Jews “by birthright,” were expected to inherit “the blessing” of salvation, they have failed to receive it; in their stead, God has CALLED the Gentiles, “the Jacob,” “the younger,” the one LEAST LIKELY to inherit “the blessing.” And why? because God CALLED, and the Gentiles have responded in faith (Rom. 9:30).
While Jacob and Esau are used as SYMBOLS of salvation, their issue in Genesis 25 is not one of salvation. Symbols can only go so far; and, in this case, the issue of salvation must stop with Romans 9. Genesis 25, in its proper context, has NOTHING to do with salvation.
I will post a Part II to this work and we will look at the nature of God’s election next time.
We will start with the first mentioned in “the tradition” (the reference to Calvinism by Helm), Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430). In 429, Augustine wrote his “On the Predestination of the Saints” in which he references some things he wrote to Simplicianus. One of these things concerned the election of Romans 9:11. Augustine writes,
“If election is by foreknowledge, and God foreknew Jacob’s faith, how do you prove that he did not elect him FOR HIS WORKS? Neither Jacob nor Esau had yet believed, because they were not yet born and had as yet done neither good nor evil. But God foresaw that Jacob would believe? He could equally well have foreseen that he would do good works…the reason for its not being of works was THAT THEY WERE NOT YET BORN, THAT APPLIES ALSO TO FAITH; for before they were born they had neither faith nor works. The apostle, therefore, DID NOT WANT US TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF GOD’S FOREKNOWLEDGE THAT THE YOUNGER WAS ELECTED TO BE SERVED BY THE ELDER. He wanted to show that it was not of works, and he stressed that by saying, ‘When they were not yet born and had done neither good nor evil.’ He could have said, if he wished to, that God already knew what each was going to do. We have still to inquire why that election was made. It was not of works, because being not yet born they had done no works. BUT NEITHER WAS IT OF FAITH, because they had not faith either. What, then, was the reason for it?” [Augustine, “On the Predestination of the Saints (429), published in the book “Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views” by Paul Helm (Edited by Bruce Ware)].
Let me say first of all that in order to understand Jacob and Esau within Romans 9, we have to remind ourselves that the twins serves as SYMBOLS within Paul’s argument. Let’s go back to Genesis 25 to see what God says to Rebekah:
“But the children inside her [Rebekah] struggled with each other, and she said, ‘Why is this happening to me?’ So she went to inquire of the LORD. And the LORD said to her:
‘Two nations are in your womb; two people will [come] from you and be separated. One people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger’” (Genesis 25:22-23, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
All that Rebekah is told about Jacob and Esau is that the elder will serve the younger, that the oldest would bow down to the youngest. God doesn’t mention anything about seeing their faith, or their works, or anything else. Some have said that God foretells of what will happen because He sees the future. I would agree with that. I would say that, according to Psalm 139, among many, that God does know everything before it takes place (I am an advocate of exhaustive divine foreknowledge, that God knows everything before it happens). God knows what Jacob and Esau would do after their birth.
However, I would caution the reader here by saying that, while this is a very plausible commentary on the calling of Jacob, we must be careful to not read things into the text that are not there. The prophecy regarding Jacob is NOT a prophecy regarding salvation; it is NOT a prophecy of one child being saved and the other child being damned!
But if the prophecy of God regarding the twins is not one of salvation, then what is it? We are only told that Jacob inherited the blessings of the Jewish nation Israel. Esau was “no less able to be saved” than Jacob was: for God promised Abraham in His Covenant that “I will keep My covenant between Me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, as an everlasting covenant TO BE YOUR GOD AND THE GOD OF YOUR OFFSPRING AFTER YOU” (Genesis 17:7, HCSB). Esau, then, by virtue of being a descendant of Abraham, was just as entitled to being a worshipper of God as Jacob was. In that, neither was favored over the other.
When we return to Romans 9, then, we must understand that Paul uses the twins as SYMBOLS OF SALVATION, not as an example of salvation! As I said earlier, God said nothing about either of them being saved, or who would do great work, or anything of the sort. To read that into the text is to “add” things that aren’t there!
Jacob and Esau, however, are SYMBOLS OF SALVATION. What is a “symbol”? Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary tells us:
2 : something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance; especially : a visible sign of something invisible (the lion is a symbol of courage).
A symbol is related to something else, whether by relationship or association. What this tells us is that there is a connection, in Romans 9, between Jacob and Esau and the Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 9:30); but we have to discover how strong or weak that connection is. From what we know of Genesis 25, there is not a double-bonded strong connection—in fact, there is a link, but only a simple one.
Now, let’s look back at Romans 9. We see in verse 7, with Isaac, that the “seed of the promise” is called. We know the story with Isaac: that even though he and Hagar had conceived Ishmael, and Ishmael was his OLDEST son by blood, Isaac (although the second-born) was the promised seed. Abraham even pleaded with God for Ishmael to be blessed—but God reiterated that Isaac was the promised seed (Genesis 21:12). In verse 9, we are told the promise of God to Sarah: “At this time I will come, and Sarah will have a son.” God decided to give Sarah a son, and that son was born, as God had promised.
In verse 10, we get to Jacob and Esau. If we follow the context of the verses earlier (with Ishmael and Isaac), we will see that the emphasis is on GOD’S PROMISE, not foreseen faith, or works, or anything else. In verse 9, God PROMISES Abraham that Sarah would have a son; in verse 12, God PROMISES Rebekah that “the older will serve the younger.” Why does God do this?
“(for though they had not been born yet or done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to election might stand, NOT FROM WORKS BUT FROM THE ONE WHO CALLS)…” (Rom. 9:12, HCSB).
The emphasis of Paul’s writing is on GOD WHO CALLS, not people who act! Ishmael was the HUMAN ACT of Abraham and Hagar—but he was NOT the promised of God. Esau was to be the one who was served, but that was NOT the promised of God. Only the promise of God would serve in these situations.
So there is an election of God; God does ELECT some and not others.
Here, I can see the Calvinists smiling…but, before you get the impression that I’m turning Calvinist, let me say something else: Calvinists and Arminians believe there is an election—but we differ on the NATURE of election. The Calvinist will say that the election is done according to the arbitrary choice of God; I will disagree with them (as Classical Arminians will) and say that God’s election occurs ACCORDING TO FAITH!
Look at Romans 9:30-32—
“What should we say then? Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained righteousness—namely the righteousness that comes from faith. But Israel, pursuing the law for righteousness, has not achieved the law. Why is that? BECAUSE THEY DID NOT PURSUE IT BY FAITH, BUT AS IF IT WERE BY WORKS.”
Did you notice the question of Romans 9:30? The question “What should we say then?” of Romans 9:30 MATCHES EXACTLY the question of Romans 9:14—“What should we say then?” Paul’s matching questions in the same chapter tell us that Paul is connecting his argument. In other words, he’s telling us that in the same way Isaac was PROMISED over Ishmael and that Jacob was PROMISED over Esau, is the same way that the Gentiles, receiving the PROMISE, are saved, while the Jews, still trying to do it in some other way than God’s way, have not received salvation.
Paul tells us in Romans chapter 10 what God’s righteousness consists of (in case Romans 9:30 doesn’t convince):
“For Christ is THE END OF THE LAW for righteousness TO EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES.”
Now, I will discuss the nature of God’s election in my next post; however, someone reading this will say, “Well, if the Gentiles are elected by faith, then doesn’t this mean that God elected Jacob on the basis of foreseen faith? As I said earlier, we cannot read faith into the Genesis 25 text (or works for that matter), since neither are mentioned.
Jacob and Esau are a case where the call of God TRUMPS established tradition. Both twins are SYMBOLS of the Jewish and Gentile nations. While the Jews “by birthright,” were expected to inherit “the blessing” of salvation, they have failed to receive it; in their stead, God has CALLED the Gentiles, “the Jacob,” “the younger,” the one LEAST LIKELY to inherit “the blessing.” And why? because God CALLED, and the Gentiles have responded in faith (Rom. 9:30).
While Jacob and Esau are used as SYMBOLS of salvation, their issue in Genesis 25 is not one of salvation. Symbols can only go so far; and, in this case, the issue of salvation must stop with Romans 9. Genesis 25, in its proper context, has NOTHING to do with salvation.
I will post a Part II to this work and we will look at the nature of God’s election next time.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Freedom of Inclination and the Likeness of God
In my last post on Ware’s response to Roger Olson in “Perspectives on the Doctrine of God,” I showed that to have the “freedom of inclination” is to have no freedom at all—for, if we can only do that which our flesh wants us to do (that being evil and sin according to the Word), then we can NEVER choose to do that which is right. However, the Scriptures constantly exhort God’s children to do right and to shun the evil; therefore, with the Spirit of God inside of us, we now have a power to please the Lord that our flesh could not produce on its own. But the problem with Bruce Ware’s beliefs regarding salvation is that, EVEN AFTER SALVATION, a person STILL can’t choose to do what is right. If Ware had it his way, salvation wouldn’t have accomplished ANYTHING!!!
Ware writes in his attack on Olson’s chapter,
“Interestingly enough, Olson seems actually to sense that FREEDOM IS A MATTER OF CHOOSING WHAT WE MOST WANT, despite his formal rejection of this concept. In the paragraph following my previous quotation of Olson, he proposes that God was free—in the libertarian or noncompatibilist sense—when he created the world. But in describing God’s freedom in creation, Olson writes, ‘Nothing within God or external to God caused him to create the world. SOMETHING INCLINED HIM TO DO IT and he chose to do it, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM HAVING TO DO IT.’ My interest is in Olson’s comment that ‘something inclined’ God to create. If God has an inclination (he is more strongly inclined this way than another) to create, and he chooses to create according to this inclination, doesn’t it make sense to say that his freedom is precisely his ability instead to have done otherwise? In this case, would we not be saying (trying to keep libertarian freedom intact) that GOD COULD HAVE FOLLOWED A LESSER INCLINATION OR GONE AGAINST HIS TRUE INCLINATION IN CHOOSING INSTEAD NOT TO CREATE? How does it make sense to think of freedom as our ability to choose what we are not inclined to do, or to choose contrary to our strongest inclination? Indeed, it makes no sense. Here, as with all decisions, VARIOUS FACTORS ARE AT WORK GIVING RISE TO A STRONGEST INCLINATION, and freedom is constituted precisely not with the ability to choose contrary to that inclination but rather to choose in accordance with it. In short, when God created, he did what he most wanted, and in this he was free” (“Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views,” page 192).
Let’s look at the statement made by Olson that Ware can’t seem to shake out of his mind: “Nothing within God or external to God caused him to create the world. Something INCLINED HIM TO DO IT and he chose to do it, which is different from having to do it.”
I have a problem with Ware’s response. First, how dare he actually believe that God was FORCED to do something by the thought of an inclination? I mean, after all, this IS God we’re talking about. And God is not obligated to do anything except EXIST! So ANYTHING God does in His existence is TOTALLY VOLUNTARY!
Here, I noticed, while reading Bruce Ware, that he seems to argue for a “necessity” of choice as an effect of inclination, which is similar to what process theists John Cobb, Jr, and David Ray Griffin argue about man NEEDING free will. Like process theists, Ware argues that there is some other necessity in God; but David didn’t think so. Let’s read his words:
3 When I observe Your heavens,
the work of Your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which You set in place, (E)
4 what is man that You remember him,
the son of man that You look after him? (F)
5 You made him little less than God [c] [d]
and crowned him with glory and honor.
6 You made him lord over the works of Your hands;
You put everything under his feet: (G) [e]
7 all the sheep and oxen,
as well as animals in the wild,
8 birds of the sky,
and fish of the sea
passing through the currents of the seas. (H)
9 LORD, our Lord, how magnificent is Your name throughout the earth! (Psalm 8:1-9, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
David praises God in Psalm 8 because the Lord wasn’t bound by necessity to do these things. He says, “WHAT IS MAN that you remember him…?” What is man? That is a good question. Who are WE to think that God was bound to do something that He did? He didn’t have to. Because He is God, He invents the rules—and He had every right NOT TO CREATE US! According to Bruce Ware, God had “freedom of inclination,” that being “freedom to create us”; but as I’ve said countless times, IF freedom exists, then doesn’t freedom give me MORE THAN ONE OPTION? When Calvinists such as Bruce Ware attempt to REDEFINE freedom as a single option, we see that Calvinist freedom is little more than necessity and obligation. And I don’t think either of those words fit an Almighty God who didn’t need humanity then and doesn’t need humanity now!
The church father Irenaeus responded to Ware’s idea of “freedom of inclination” hundreds of years before Bruce Ware even redefined freedom:
“If, then, it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason did the apostle have, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to DO some things, and to ABSTAIN from others? But BECAUSE MAN IS POSSESSED OF FREE WILL FROM THE BEGINNING, and God is possessed of free will (IN WHOSE LIKENESS MAN WAS CREATED), advice is always given to him to hold fast to the good, which is done through obedience to God. God has preserved the will of man free and under his own control. This is not merely in works, BUT ALSO IN FAITH” (Irenaeus, c. 180, E/W, 1.519; from “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs” by David W. Bercot, editor. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008, page 287).
God has always had free will—He’s always been able to do whatever pleased Him. But Bruce Ware doesn’t understand that when a person chooses to do what they want, they also make a choice—to REFUSE TO DO THAT WHICH THEY DON’T WANT TO DO! The act of deciding itself involves more than one alternative. So in every action made, we choose one thing but REFUSE countless others! This is what free will, choice, is all about…
Man possesses free will, the right to choose whatever he wants to, because God possesses free will—and He chose to create the world because He wanted to. There is, however, a phrase Irenaeus gives us that I think is ingenious to his entire argument:
“man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will (IN WHOSE LIKENESS MAN WAS CREATED)…”
Man has received free will as part of his being made “after His likeness,” the likeness of God. To deny this is to demonstrate little knowledge of what we know about the Creator.
God had reasons for why He did what He did—but He wasn’t OBLIGATED to do what He did. Like the Lord, we too, have reasons for why we do things—but we don’t HAVE to do those things; the choices we made DID NOT have to turn out the way they did! Having free will, then, is an aspect of sharing the Lord’s likeness. To remove “free will” then, is to make us more like the animal kingdom—and less like the Creator. But Scripture tells us that man was made “a little less than God” (Psalm 8:5, HCSB).
Ware writes in his attack on Olson’s chapter,
“Interestingly enough, Olson seems actually to sense that FREEDOM IS A MATTER OF CHOOSING WHAT WE MOST WANT, despite his formal rejection of this concept. In the paragraph following my previous quotation of Olson, he proposes that God was free—in the libertarian or noncompatibilist sense—when he created the world. But in describing God’s freedom in creation, Olson writes, ‘Nothing within God or external to God caused him to create the world. SOMETHING INCLINED HIM TO DO IT and he chose to do it, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM HAVING TO DO IT.’ My interest is in Olson’s comment that ‘something inclined’ God to create. If God has an inclination (he is more strongly inclined this way than another) to create, and he chooses to create according to this inclination, doesn’t it make sense to say that his freedom is precisely his ability instead to have done otherwise? In this case, would we not be saying (trying to keep libertarian freedom intact) that GOD COULD HAVE FOLLOWED A LESSER INCLINATION OR GONE AGAINST HIS TRUE INCLINATION IN CHOOSING INSTEAD NOT TO CREATE? How does it make sense to think of freedom as our ability to choose what we are not inclined to do, or to choose contrary to our strongest inclination? Indeed, it makes no sense. Here, as with all decisions, VARIOUS FACTORS ARE AT WORK GIVING RISE TO A STRONGEST INCLINATION, and freedom is constituted precisely not with the ability to choose contrary to that inclination but rather to choose in accordance with it. In short, when God created, he did what he most wanted, and in this he was free” (“Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views,” page 192).
Let’s look at the statement made by Olson that Ware can’t seem to shake out of his mind: “Nothing within God or external to God caused him to create the world. Something INCLINED HIM TO DO IT and he chose to do it, which is different from having to do it.”
I have a problem with Ware’s response. First, how dare he actually believe that God was FORCED to do something by the thought of an inclination? I mean, after all, this IS God we’re talking about. And God is not obligated to do anything except EXIST! So ANYTHING God does in His existence is TOTALLY VOLUNTARY!
Here, I noticed, while reading Bruce Ware, that he seems to argue for a “necessity” of choice as an effect of inclination, which is similar to what process theists John Cobb, Jr, and David Ray Griffin argue about man NEEDING free will. Like process theists, Ware argues that there is some other necessity in God; but David didn’t think so. Let’s read his words:
3 When I observe Your heavens,
the work of Your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which You set in place, (E)
4 what is man that You remember him,
the son of man that You look after him? (F)
5 You made him little less than God [c] [d]
and crowned him with glory and honor.
6 You made him lord over the works of Your hands;
You put everything under his feet: (G) [e]
7 all the sheep and oxen,
as well as animals in the wild,
8 birds of the sky,
and fish of the sea
passing through the currents of the seas. (H)
9 LORD, our Lord, how magnificent is Your name throughout the earth! (Psalm 8:1-9, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
David praises God in Psalm 8 because the Lord wasn’t bound by necessity to do these things. He says, “WHAT IS MAN that you remember him…?” What is man? That is a good question. Who are WE to think that God was bound to do something that He did? He didn’t have to. Because He is God, He invents the rules—and He had every right NOT TO CREATE US! According to Bruce Ware, God had “freedom of inclination,” that being “freedom to create us”; but as I’ve said countless times, IF freedom exists, then doesn’t freedom give me MORE THAN ONE OPTION? When Calvinists such as Bruce Ware attempt to REDEFINE freedom as a single option, we see that Calvinist freedom is little more than necessity and obligation. And I don’t think either of those words fit an Almighty God who didn’t need humanity then and doesn’t need humanity now!
The church father Irenaeus responded to Ware’s idea of “freedom of inclination” hundreds of years before Bruce Ware even redefined freedom:
“If, then, it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason did the apostle have, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to DO some things, and to ABSTAIN from others? But BECAUSE MAN IS POSSESSED OF FREE WILL FROM THE BEGINNING, and God is possessed of free will (IN WHOSE LIKENESS MAN WAS CREATED), advice is always given to him to hold fast to the good, which is done through obedience to God. God has preserved the will of man free and under his own control. This is not merely in works, BUT ALSO IN FAITH” (Irenaeus, c. 180, E/W, 1.519; from “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs” by David W. Bercot, editor. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008, page 287).
God has always had free will—He’s always been able to do whatever pleased Him. But Bruce Ware doesn’t understand that when a person chooses to do what they want, they also make a choice—to REFUSE TO DO THAT WHICH THEY DON’T WANT TO DO! The act of deciding itself involves more than one alternative. So in every action made, we choose one thing but REFUSE countless others! This is what free will, choice, is all about…
Man possesses free will, the right to choose whatever he wants to, because God possesses free will—and He chose to create the world because He wanted to. There is, however, a phrase Irenaeus gives us that I think is ingenious to his entire argument:
“man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will (IN WHOSE LIKENESS MAN WAS CREATED)…”
Man has received free will as part of his being made “after His likeness,” the likeness of God. To deny this is to demonstrate little knowledge of what we know about the Creator.
God had reasons for why He did what He did—but He wasn’t OBLIGATED to do what He did. Like the Lord, we too, have reasons for why we do things—but we don’t HAVE to do those things; the choices we made DID NOT have to turn out the way they did! Having free will, then, is an aspect of sharing the Lord’s likeness. To remove “free will” then, is to make us more like the animal kingdom—and less like the Creator. But Scripture tells us that man was made “a little less than God” (Psalm 8:5, HCSB).
Monday, August 3, 2009
Calvinist Freedom
This morning, I began to read Roger Olson’s perspective on the Doctrine of God in the titled book, “Perspectives on the Doctrine of God” by four writers: Paul Helm, Bruce Ware, Roger Olson, and John Sanders. Olson’s chapter, titled “The Classical Free Will Theist Model of God,” presents a very commendable view of Arminianism and its evangelical nature in the face of attacks upon its theological system. Olson’s chapter, as all the others, faced attacks by the other writers, notably among them, Bruce Ware. In his response, Ware writes the following:
“In response, I put forward this claim: libertarian freedom possesses an initial advantageous prima facie philosophical and intuitive legitimacy, yet under examination this legitimacy soon vanishes such that the Calvinist view of freedom—which I prefer calling “FREEDOM OF INCLINATION”—alone can sustain careful and probing scrutiny…for example, if we are considering the menu at a restaurant and eventually order the deluxe pizza, it seems clear to us that as we requested what we did, we surely could instead have selected a hamburger or the French dip. In other words, it seems intuitive that we could have chosen otherwise, and in fact, if we could not have chosen otherwise, we wouldn’t have been free. But what this surface analysis fails to notice is a definition of libertarian freedom that is sometimes hidden or implied. Not only is it the case that when we choose X, we could have chosen Y; it is also more precisely the case that at the moment we choose X, ALL THINGS BEING EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE WHEN WE MAKE THE CHOICE OF X, we could instead have chosen Y. Now, as one analyzes libertarian freedom more fully exposed, as it were, we can begin to detect a real problem…if all of the factors leading to my choosing X are identical to the reason that, instead, I might choose Y, then THERE IS NO EXPLANATION FOR THE CHOICE OF X OVER Y OR Y OVER X. Libertarian freedom, then, reduces to what Calvinists have long called a ‘freedom of indifference.’ If this libertarian view of freedom is correct…libertarian freedom accounts for human free choice such that no explanation is forthcoming for why one made the specific choice one did and, hence, one must be quite literally ‘indifferent’ to X or Y when one chooses X instead of Y or Y instead of X” (Bruce Ware, from “Perspectives on the Doctrine of God.” Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2008, pages 190-191).
Bruce Ware presents what he believes to be a problem for Arminians; yet, he has the wrong idea of what choice is. A choice is only a choice if a person has two or more alternatives. But what Ware seems to do is present one possibility as having a stronger inclination or preference over another.
But how does this eliminate choice? While people do make choices everyday that their inclination exhibits strong tendency towards, similarly, they also make choices that their inclinations GO AGAINST, ARE OPPOSED TO! For example, if I’m at the car dealership buying a new car and I want a BMW but can only afford a Honda, I’m gonna choose a Honda—ALTHOUGH IT GOES AGAINST MY INCLINATION—because I can only afford a Honda! To buy a BMW when I can’t afford it might be a nice at first, but it won’t be nice when the BMW gets repossessed and taken back to the car lot! Mind you, my reasons for the BMW might be more and might be stronger, but to choose what my inclination wants would be to go against all sense of reason. I must take into account the financial issue if I plan to get a car I can keep. The financial reason, then, while maybe not as strong as my desire for the car, is gonna win the day.
Ware labels the Arminian freedom as a “freedom of inclination”—but then, this isn’t a FREEDOM at all! This is what James has to say about the inner inclinations of man’s heart:
“No one undergoing a trial should say, ‘I am being tempted by God.’ For God is not tempted by evil, and He Himself doesn’t tempt anyone. But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desires. Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death” (James 1:13-15, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
Notice that man has “evil” desires. This matches the words of Genesis 6 regarding God’s decision to destroy man:
“When the Lord saw that man’s wickedness was WIDESPREAD ON THE EARTH AND THAT EVERY SCHEME HIS MIND THOUGHT OF WAS NOTHING BUT EVIL ALL THE TIME, the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart” (Genesis 6:5-6, HCSB).
Jesus Himself tells us of the corruptness of man’s hearts:
“For from the heart come EVIL THOUGHTS, MURDERS, ADULTERIES, SEXUAL IMMORALITIES, THEFTS, FALSE TESTIMONIES, BLASPHEMIES. These are the things that defile a man…” (Matthew 15:19-20a, HCSB).
Scripture clearly shows us man’s inclinations—if all man does is go towards his “inclinations,” then evil is not only all he CAN do; it is all he WILL DO!
And if this is all Scripture told us, then we’d have every reason to believe that we could NEVER come to be convicted of our sin. However, Scripture not only TELLS us of our nature, but shows us how to FIGHT our nature:
“BLESSED IS A MAN WHO ENDURES TRIALS, because when he passes the test he will receive THE CROWN OF LIFE that He has promised to those who love Him” (James 1:12, HCSB).
“Be sober! Be on the alert! Your adversary the Devil is prowling around like a roaring lion, looking for anyone he can devour. RESIST HIM, FIRM IN THE FAITH, knowing that the same sufferings are being experienced by your brothers in the world” (1 Peter 5:8-9).
“For His divine power has given us EVERYTHING REQUIRED FOR LIFE AND GODLINESS…by these He has given us very great and precious promises, so that through them you may share in the divine nature, ESCAPING THE CORRUPTION THAT IS IN THE WORLD BECAUSE OF EVIL DESIRES” (2 Peter 1:3-4).
And, last but not least, the favored passage of 1 Corinthians 10:
“Therefore, whoever thinks he stands must be careful not to fall! No temptation has overtaken you except WHAT IS COMMON TO HUMANITY. God is faithful and HE WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO BE TEMPTED BEYOND WHAT YOU ARE ABLE, but with the temptation He will also provide a way of escape, so that YOU ARE ABLE TO BEAR IT” (1 Cor. 10:12-13).
Man’s inclination lies in temptation, evil, and sin. This is what the heart of man desires most; and yet, Scripture tells us that we can “resist” these inclinations, these evil desires, that we can choose THE OTHER PATH, the alternative! We are also told (from the 2 Peter 1 verses above) that God gives us everything we need to live a godly life. So, despite Ware’s statement of the “freedom of inclination,” Scripture attests that, not only are we free to do what our flesh desires—but that we are also free in Christ to lean on His power and His strength and CHOOSE to do that which is pleasing to Him. However, for one to agree with me in the last statement I said means that, contra Bruce Ware, we CAN go against our inclinations! We are not “bound” in our “freedom” to do only sin. We are truly free to choose from either two or more options in every decision.
Man goes against his nature every day when, for example, a husband REFUSES to cheat on his wife with a single woman; when a Christian who struggles with homosexuality refuses to give in to his struggle and, instead, maintains his purity for Christ’s service; when a believer chooses not to deal drugs when he gets laid off of work, and so forth. We make choices everyday that go against what we want. But when we make these decisions, we do so because there are also STRONG REASONS for choosing the alternative (just like our inclinations come with STRONG REASONS). This doesn’t produce a “freedom of indifference,” but rather, a true deliberation of the mind regarding what to do.
In every decision, ONE OPTION will stand out from all the rest; but the option that stands out might not match our inclination.
Bruce Ware and other Calvinists have their own idea of “Calvinist freedom,” where a choice isn’t a choice. But the truth is that Calvinist Freedom isn’t freedom at all—if all man could do was what lay in his heart, then God’s strength and power for the believer would be of none effect. Calvinist freedom fails to deliver in the way Bruce Ware believes it does: for, it not only goes against Scripture…it also nullifies the work of Christ on the Cross.
“In response, I put forward this claim: libertarian freedom possesses an initial advantageous prima facie philosophical and intuitive legitimacy, yet under examination this legitimacy soon vanishes such that the Calvinist view of freedom—which I prefer calling “FREEDOM OF INCLINATION”—alone can sustain careful and probing scrutiny…for example, if we are considering the menu at a restaurant and eventually order the deluxe pizza, it seems clear to us that as we requested what we did, we surely could instead have selected a hamburger or the French dip. In other words, it seems intuitive that we could have chosen otherwise, and in fact, if we could not have chosen otherwise, we wouldn’t have been free. But what this surface analysis fails to notice is a definition of libertarian freedom that is sometimes hidden or implied. Not only is it the case that when we choose X, we could have chosen Y; it is also more precisely the case that at the moment we choose X, ALL THINGS BEING EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE WHEN WE MAKE THE CHOICE OF X, we could instead have chosen Y. Now, as one analyzes libertarian freedom more fully exposed, as it were, we can begin to detect a real problem…if all of the factors leading to my choosing X are identical to the reason that, instead, I might choose Y, then THERE IS NO EXPLANATION FOR THE CHOICE OF X OVER Y OR Y OVER X. Libertarian freedom, then, reduces to what Calvinists have long called a ‘freedom of indifference.’ If this libertarian view of freedom is correct…libertarian freedom accounts for human free choice such that no explanation is forthcoming for why one made the specific choice one did and, hence, one must be quite literally ‘indifferent’ to X or Y when one chooses X instead of Y or Y instead of X” (Bruce Ware, from “Perspectives on the Doctrine of God.” Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2008, pages 190-191).
Bruce Ware presents what he believes to be a problem for Arminians; yet, he has the wrong idea of what choice is. A choice is only a choice if a person has two or more alternatives. But what Ware seems to do is present one possibility as having a stronger inclination or preference over another.
But how does this eliminate choice? While people do make choices everyday that their inclination exhibits strong tendency towards, similarly, they also make choices that their inclinations GO AGAINST, ARE OPPOSED TO! For example, if I’m at the car dealership buying a new car and I want a BMW but can only afford a Honda, I’m gonna choose a Honda—ALTHOUGH IT GOES AGAINST MY INCLINATION—because I can only afford a Honda! To buy a BMW when I can’t afford it might be a nice at first, but it won’t be nice when the BMW gets repossessed and taken back to the car lot! Mind you, my reasons for the BMW might be more and might be stronger, but to choose what my inclination wants would be to go against all sense of reason. I must take into account the financial issue if I plan to get a car I can keep. The financial reason, then, while maybe not as strong as my desire for the car, is gonna win the day.
Ware labels the Arminian freedom as a “freedom of inclination”—but then, this isn’t a FREEDOM at all! This is what James has to say about the inner inclinations of man’s heart:
“No one undergoing a trial should say, ‘I am being tempted by God.’ For God is not tempted by evil, and He Himself doesn’t tempt anyone. But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desires. Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death” (James 1:13-15, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
Notice that man has “evil” desires. This matches the words of Genesis 6 regarding God’s decision to destroy man:
“When the Lord saw that man’s wickedness was WIDESPREAD ON THE EARTH AND THAT EVERY SCHEME HIS MIND THOUGHT OF WAS NOTHING BUT EVIL ALL THE TIME, the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart” (Genesis 6:5-6, HCSB).
Jesus Himself tells us of the corruptness of man’s hearts:
“For from the heart come EVIL THOUGHTS, MURDERS, ADULTERIES, SEXUAL IMMORALITIES, THEFTS, FALSE TESTIMONIES, BLASPHEMIES. These are the things that defile a man…” (Matthew 15:19-20a, HCSB).
Scripture clearly shows us man’s inclinations—if all man does is go towards his “inclinations,” then evil is not only all he CAN do; it is all he WILL DO!
And if this is all Scripture told us, then we’d have every reason to believe that we could NEVER come to be convicted of our sin. However, Scripture not only TELLS us of our nature, but shows us how to FIGHT our nature:
“BLESSED IS A MAN WHO ENDURES TRIALS, because when he passes the test he will receive THE CROWN OF LIFE that He has promised to those who love Him” (James 1:12, HCSB).
“Be sober! Be on the alert! Your adversary the Devil is prowling around like a roaring lion, looking for anyone he can devour. RESIST HIM, FIRM IN THE FAITH, knowing that the same sufferings are being experienced by your brothers in the world” (1 Peter 5:8-9).
“For His divine power has given us EVERYTHING REQUIRED FOR LIFE AND GODLINESS…by these He has given us very great and precious promises, so that through them you may share in the divine nature, ESCAPING THE CORRUPTION THAT IS IN THE WORLD BECAUSE OF EVIL DESIRES” (2 Peter 1:3-4).
And, last but not least, the favored passage of 1 Corinthians 10:
“Therefore, whoever thinks he stands must be careful not to fall! No temptation has overtaken you except WHAT IS COMMON TO HUMANITY. God is faithful and HE WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO BE TEMPTED BEYOND WHAT YOU ARE ABLE, but with the temptation He will also provide a way of escape, so that YOU ARE ABLE TO BEAR IT” (1 Cor. 10:12-13).
Man’s inclination lies in temptation, evil, and sin. This is what the heart of man desires most; and yet, Scripture tells us that we can “resist” these inclinations, these evil desires, that we can choose THE OTHER PATH, the alternative! We are also told (from the 2 Peter 1 verses above) that God gives us everything we need to live a godly life. So, despite Ware’s statement of the “freedom of inclination,” Scripture attests that, not only are we free to do what our flesh desires—but that we are also free in Christ to lean on His power and His strength and CHOOSE to do that which is pleasing to Him. However, for one to agree with me in the last statement I said means that, contra Bruce Ware, we CAN go against our inclinations! We are not “bound” in our “freedom” to do only sin. We are truly free to choose from either two or more options in every decision.
Man goes against his nature every day when, for example, a husband REFUSES to cheat on his wife with a single woman; when a Christian who struggles with homosexuality refuses to give in to his struggle and, instead, maintains his purity for Christ’s service; when a believer chooses not to deal drugs when he gets laid off of work, and so forth. We make choices everyday that go against what we want. But when we make these decisions, we do so because there are also STRONG REASONS for choosing the alternative (just like our inclinations come with STRONG REASONS). This doesn’t produce a “freedom of indifference,” but rather, a true deliberation of the mind regarding what to do.
In every decision, ONE OPTION will stand out from all the rest; but the option that stands out might not match our inclination.
Bruce Ware and other Calvinists have their own idea of “Calvinist freedom,” where a choice isn’t a choice. But the truth is that Calvinist Freedom isn’t freedom at all—if all man could do was what lay in his heart, then God’s strength and power for the believer would be of none effect. Calvinist freedom fails to deliver in the way Bruce Ware believes it does: for, it not only goes against Scripture…it also nullifies the work of Christ on the Cross.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)