We've been discussing man's will on a previous thread, and it's reminded me of how many humanistic assumptions have crept into Evangelicalism. Man's autonomy is simply assumed by many, and then made the starting point for all subsequent thought on matters salvific. For some reason, Adam's "free will" is the portion of Scripture most commonly referenced. But how much sense does this make?
I have a friend here in Kiev, a former professional footballist footballer soccer player. He was able to play at that level. He had that freedom. Then he suffered a crippling accident that left him an invalid. While still "free" to play football professionally, he completely lost the ability to do so.
Pointing to Adam as an example of man's free will is about as sensical as me pointing to my friend's pre-accident state as evidence of his current ability to be a professional footballer. Except that the analogy is flawed. My friend would have needed to be struck stone dead by the accident for the analogy to work.
Because that's exactly what the Fall did to us. It didn't cripple us; it killed us. So when we speak of man's will, we should look to see what the Scripture says about man's nature post-Fall. It's remarkable how many Christians who claim to believe in the primacy and suffciency of Scripture completely fail to do this, and instead rely on statements that begin with "it's only logical that. . ." They then skip merrily off into semi-Pelagianism, positing a Fall that somehow managed to affect every aspect of man except his will.
As a starting point for tonight, here are a few insights the Word gives us about the nature of man:
He is spiritually DEAD. -- "And you did He make alive, when you were dead in your trespasses and sins. . ." Ephesians 2:1
He is in SLAVERY to sin. -- "Most assuredly I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave to sin." John 8:34
He has the DEVIL for a father. -- "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do." John 8:44
He drinks iniquity like water. -- "How much less man, who is abominable and filthy, and drinks inquity like water!" Job 15:16
His mind is in HATRED of God -- "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, nor indeed can it be." Romans 8:7
He doesn't seek God -- "There is none who seeks after God. . . There is none who does good, no, not one." Romans 3:11,12
The Gospel itself is FOOLISH to him -- "For the message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. . ." 1 Cor. 1:18 "The natural man receives not the things of God, because they are foolishto him, nor can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14
His mind is BLINDED against the Gospel -- "But even if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe lest the light of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. . ." 2 Cor. 4:3
His very nature is as a child of WRATH -- ". . .fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath." Ephesians 2:3
To read these verses and then still talk blithely about man's 'free' will is to invert Orwell's 1984 slogan to read "Slavery is freedom." Because that's what you have to believe to still hold to "free" will.
Does this mean man lacks a will entirely? Not at all. Like everything, he is "free" to choose within the limits of his nature. So he has all the spiritual freedom of a being that is dead in sin, in slavery to sin, in slavery to Satan, a child of the devil, a child of wrath, who drinks iniquity like water, whose mind is in enmity against God, who doesn't seek God, whose eyes are blinded to the very Gospel that can save him and whose mind finds this Gospel utter foolishness.
As one man put it, it's unwise to believe that water can flow uphill, simply because it has the ability to flow downhill.
Posted by Discoshaman at juin 1, 2004 01:11 AM | TrackBack
Another analogy I like is to Lazarus (brother of Mary and Martha). He could no more decide to get up and come out of the grave, than one dead in sin can decide to follow Christ. But when Lazarus heard Jesus call....
Posted by: FLGrandma at juin 1, 2004 04:51 AMLazarus is an interesting example. Dead men can't hear anything.
The unregenerate are free in the sense that they freely choose to do evil over and over again. They are not dragged against their own will into sinning. It's a voluntary and free choice. We always freely act in accordance with our natures, an an unregenerate man acts in accordance with his unregenerate nature as a child of Satan.
In my theology class at church I run down a list of what the Bible says about an unregenerate man; it looks a lot like your list. Then I run through a list of what the Bible says about a saved man. That sets the framework for the discussion about regeneration, when it happens, how it happens, what it means.
I think understanding total depravity is the key to understanding a lot of the faith. Pelagianism seems to be everywhere.
Since I agree with the content, I'll just point out that "footballist" isn't a word in real English. A hearty welcome to the ranks of those who have spent far too much time in eastern Europe!
Posted by: The Liberal Media at juin 1, 2004 11:30 AMIn response to a personal comment from FLG'ma, I just want to point out that I'm not being a nitpickist here - I just find it genuinely amusing, since I do it all the time.
Gotta head home now; I'll stop at the bankomat along the way.
Posted by: The Liberal Media at juin 1, 2004 05:50 PM*LOL*
Posted by: The Duchess at juin 1, 2004 06:30 PMCorrection to my analogy. It would be better to have phrased it: a person dead in sin can no more decide.... than Lazarus could decide to....
Posted by: FLGrandma at juin 1, 2004 08:55 PMAll me to use this opportunity to promote:
www.tulipedia.org
"The following is a working set of online documents, initially to be written for the student-hosted TULIP seminar at Wright State University. Every link is a working draft, and will be updated as the weeks go on. This site will subsequently function as a resource for learning about Calvinism. If you're a Calvinist, feel free to chip in and add/modify documents. Please create for yourself a user account and log in so that we can better keep track of changes. "
Posted by: Aaron Shafovaloff at juin 1, 2004 09:58 PMFLGrandma-
Hi there! Thanks for the additional thoughts. I like the point about Lazarus. The process of salvation is somewhat abstract, and difficult for some to visualize. In his resurrection we see a visual image of what it means to be called from death to life, and the cause and effect relationship of God's Call and our response in faith and obedience. . .
Robert-
"That sets the framework for the discussion about regeneration, when it happens, how it happens, what it means."
This is a discussion sorely needed in Evangelicalism. It seems to me that many give short shrift to the Word's teaching on regeneration. Because they water down man's depravity before salvation, their view of man's new nature is correspondingly weakened. And so the starkness of the change is lost to them. Regeneration and conversion are reduced in some circles almost to a mere change in loyalties, rather than a change in one's nature.
Lib-
I've lost track of the number of Russian words that have invaded our everyday English. Bankomat is a perfect example. Among others, how about "baton", "obshat", "gulyat", and "v printsipi". . . We also make up our own neologisms, including "po-hang-out-ovat" (the perfective form) and "boogievat."
My English is getting so mixed that I'll eventually end up sounding like the brochure Why Come to Slaka? -- "We have girded our loins for the purpose of pleasuring you."
Posted by: Discoshaman at juin 2, 2004 12:09 AMAaron-
Please take every chance you can to promote it. I think it's GREAT. I'll do a write-up of it soon on Le Sabot. :)
Posted by: Discoshaman at juin 2, 2004 12:10 AMI've been grappling with this issue in the last few months or so. I heard an analogy that has really helped me. I'm new to this kind of stuff, so forgive me if I completely butcher it...A tiger, when offered raw meat or oats, will always choose the meat, even though he has a "free will" to eat whatever he wants. He is by nature, a carnivore, so he will freely choose meat. It would require him being given a new "nature" before he would have any desire to eat oats.
Posted by: Missy at juin 2, 2004 05:02 AMMissy-
That is a VERY cool analogy. Too often we use lackluster examples like various flavors of ice cream and the like. But a roaring tiger is exactly what our sin nature is like. . . And the oats of righteousness are totally unpalatable and unsatisfying to this nature. Great stuff. :)
Posted by: Discoshaman at juin 4, 2004 01:10 AMOK, you asked in the place where I originally posted my response to reply to these verses. Here's my harried and distracted attempt:
All the verses you listed, with the possible exception of 2 Cor. 4:3, are taken out of context. They are not addressing the extent of man's free will, but rather his nature, his depravity, his godlessness before redemption. This you stated in your post, but you can't take from that that man cannot overcome (through Christ) his nature. If we could not overcome our spiritual death, into life, none of us would be saved. Therefore being born into sin does not preclude us from choosing to "marry into" God's family.
It is because our will is contrary to God's that our will is so important. If you compare it (our nature) to slavery (John 8:34) then you must think of slaves whose will to be free of bondage was great enough to escape their owners.
If you speak of man being a child of wrath, how much more strong willed must a man be to overcome those sinful tendencies, desires, to choose to live Christ's way? I don't know about you, but every day I struggle with something my sinful nature wants to do, but I choose, by an act of my will to turn away from it, to act as Christ would want me to act. Every day I use my will to shun evil, just as I chose one day 25 years ago to belong to Jesus. I knew I didn't have to follow him, but I wanted to. If we are predestined to become Christians, then the first time we exercise our wills to obey Christ is the first time we are confronted with a sinful vs right choice and we must then make the right choice - without having had any experience choosing Christ over evil?
As for Romans 3:11,12, this is Paul quoting a Psalm and a passage of Ecclesiastes, both of which utilize forms of speech/writing not meant for direct instruction, rather these are laments that God's people have forgotten him. If you take the verse literally that would mean there are no seekers. And of course there are people seeking God. Some find their way into false religions, sadly enough, but they are there because they were seeking God and someone claimed his presence was where it is not. Many more find their way into the Church not because Christians are so good at evangelizing but because they hungered for a sense of the divine, to know what more there is to life, and they walked into the nearest church because that seemed like a good place to find God.
As for whether or not water can flow uphill, on a molecular level, it can. In capillary action in plants, water molecules are attracted to one another and are pulled up to the top of the plant.
But it is here that I am going to break with this argument. I've said before that I feel that infighting over non-salvation issues can appear very ugly to the unbeliever who may read our words and I just worry that someone could read our words and use it to justify continued rebellion to God's will, because they will say, "Look they can't even agree among themselves!" I don't want my need to be right to turn someone away from our God and his Church. To that end I will say that I believe the doctrine of predestination carries with the risk of some finding the act of evangelism unnecessary because, after all, if they are predestined, God will make sure they get there. But clearly you are not in that camp, so I won't debate the issue any further.
Romans 14:5-10
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convince in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he give thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For his very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.
I guess we just believe differently. :)