Posted on 06/01/2013 2:52:41 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
Rather than admit that both truths are taught in Scripture, far too many churches and individual Christians insist upon the primacy of their own ability to "reason" - and thus (because human reason is invariably insufficient to comprehend such truths) unavoidably veer to one extreme or the other. Spurgeon has made a powerful case for truly affirming both, even though they defy rational categorization - but oh how we pride ourselves in our ability to organize the Bible into neat little categories!
Full disclosure: I have a terminal degree in theology, and have taught on the college-level, and am the author of numerous books on the Bible and theological topics. Oh were it so that our nation had the benefit of a thousand Spurgeons preaching solid, scripture-based messages from the pulpit!
Thanks for this post, Greetings,
Just as the citizens of Illinois in 1858 had attention spans that allowed them to sit through the Lincoln-Douglas debates, it is likely, among those who were literate, that they could also wade through the language, the long sentences, and the minimal paragraphing to read Spurgeon’s message. For the modern mind it is a difficult read, even for those who are predisposed. And that may be a clue to why the issue continues to confound us. We are hard pressed to concentrate long enough to hold one thought in mind, much less two, seemingly opposing, ideas.
You are right, tjd, Spurgeon recognizes that both truths are taught in Scripture, but rather than making God out to be a Hegelian, he recognizes that there is a reconciliation “somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God.” I would locate that reconciliation in the person of Jesus, through whom all things are reconciled. Just as Jesus, in himself, is the locus of the reconciliation between justice and mercy, I expect it is reasonable to assume that he is also the point of reconciliation between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.
Spurgeon does affirm both. Ironically perhaps, as you say “even though they defy rational categorization,” that position is not irrational. Instead it is of a higher order, somehow capturing the intent of John 1:1, where true “reason” is indistinguishable from the Word.
The tension between man’s free will and God’s sovereignty— you can’t resolved one way or the other—and still have Christianity. Why not? Because that that tension is embodied in the person of Jesus Christ who is both fully man and fully God.
I have argued in recent years that the basis for the dynamism of western civilization is the tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will as embodied in the person of Jesus Christ. (However, I say that without being able to map God’s sovereignty and man’s freewill over on to competing institutions in the USA for example.)
Anyhow, do you guys buy that argument?
Any doctrine, my brethren, which stands in opposition to this truth—”I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” provokes God’s jealousy. I often tremble in this pulpit lest I should utter anything which should oppose the sovereignty of my God; and though you know I am not ashamed to preach the responsibility of man to God—if God be a sovereign, man must be bound to obey him—on the other hand, I am equally bold to preach that God has a right to do what he wills with his own, that he giveth no account of his matters and none may stay his hand, or say unto him, “What doest thou?” I believe that the free-will heresy assails the sovereignty of God, and mars the glory of his dominion. In all faithfulness, mingled with sorrow, I persuade you who have been deluded by it, to see well to your ways and receive the truth which sets God on high, and lays the creature in the dust.” — C. H. Spurgeon
Our Lord Jesus did not follow His will. He followed the will of the Father (”Thine will be done.”, “Not my will by thine”, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
etc.)
There are only two wills, following what is the will of the Lord and following our own corrupt wills. “Free will” implies that we can freely choose to live a life like Christ on our own volition. This is heresy. If one has the power to freely choose to follow Christ, 100% of the time, why don’t they? The answer to that question alone should tell one that free will does not exist.
‘
Well if you define ““Free will” implies that we can freely choose to live a life like Christ on our own volition.
........
I defined “free will” as the choice to sin or not to sin.
My understanding is that before Jesus people had to sin.
After Jesus believers can choose—and have to ability to choose— to sin or not to sin.
That’s why Jesus is considered to be the new Adam.
I’m sure TJD can clarify for himself, but he wrote that he meant “moderate” in its “proper sense.” That’s likely the Spurgeon sense, whom he was praising, so he most likely did not misinterpret him.
Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem;
Creatorem caeli et terrae.
Et in Jesum Christum,
Filium eius unicum, Dominum nostrum;
qui conceptus est
de Spiritu Sancto,
natus ex Maria virgine;
passus sub Pontio Pilato,
crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus;
descendit ad inferos;
tertia die resurrexit a mortuis;
ascendit ad caelos;
sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis;
inde venturus est
iudicare vivos et mortuos.
Credo in Spiritum Sanctum;
sanctam ecclesiam catholicam;
sanctorum communionem;
remissionem peccatorum;
carnis resurrectionem;
vitam aeternam. Amen.
In English:
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ,
his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived
by the power of the Holy Spirit,
and born of the Virgin Mary,
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
he will come again
to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “
“I defined “free will” as the choice to sin or not to sin.
My understanding is that before Jesus people had to sin.
After Jesus believers can choose—and have to ability to choose— to sin or not to sin.”
I’d becareful with a conclusion like this. Paul himself suffered greatly from the sin nature still present in his members (as do we all):
Rom 7:14-15 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. (15) For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
There is also no sense in this (just to clarify) that we can choose to commit the sin of unbelief, as Christ is quite clear that all those who belong to Him “will come” to Him.
Joh_6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
The work of God on our hearts, turning our stony hearts into a fleshy heart, is not an imperfect work on His part. It is not a choice on God’s part that can backfire really badly. This regeneration gives to us a heart that, by the infallible will of God, “shall come to [Him]” no matter what. And though we go through our fits, our losses, and our failures, yet God works in us “both to will and to do,” and so orders the events in our lives, that we are always brought back to His throne to confess “I did not choose you, you chose me, and ordained me, that I should bring froth fruit, and that my fruit should remain.” But this new regeneration does not imply that we are free of our sin nature, or that we are guaranteed perfection in knowledge, or perfection in even our good works. What it does guarantee is that:
Rom 8:28 ... all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
GPH-I’d becareful with a conclusion like this. Paul himself suffered greatly from the sin nature still present in his members (as do we all)
Exactly. Our wills, while they may be "free" from sin and death, are corrupt. We still will not follow God or, worst yet, we construct idols or false doctrine that we justify as following God. Peter warns us not to suffer as a murderer or gossiper. Non-Christians sees our hypocrisies and question whether Christianity is real, not understanding this foundational truth-that we are all corrupt. And this isn't helped by repeating that we have "free will" and Christians decide to follow Christ. The most obvious response is why don't we follow Him then? We are repeatedly warned as Christians that our hearts are deceitful. They cannot be trusted.
We must continue to reexamine if we are in the faith. Not that we lose our salvation but that we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling to ensure that we bring glory to the Father. We cannot bring glory to the Father by following our wills. We can only bring glory to the Father by doing the Father's will, abiding in Christ, and being led by the Spirit. The simple fact that we want to follow our wills is the dilemma of the Christian.
It isn't that we willfully do the things of God for which He is happy. He has put His Spirit in us to walk in His steps. So it is expected of us to walk as Christ walk-exactly as Christ walked. Yet we quench and grieve the Spirit constantly. We want to follow our wills which are against God's will. As you so rightfully pointed out, Paul states this when he tells us, "Wretched man, who will save me from this..."
But the bright note on this is that God understand this. As Paul finishes, "...thanks be to God through Jesus Christ...". All Christian take comfort in this verse:
Do you mean the mother of the Father or the mother of the Son?
According to our Lord Jesus:
The doctrine says that formally Mary, the wife of Joseph of Nazareth was the Theotokos, which is Greek for ‘God-bearer’. Does that help your unbelief. After all, this is a doctrine accepted by every Christian branch of my acquaintance, so I’m not sure where your correspondent’s heresy can be said to come from.
Mary was indeed blessed but no more than anyone else who walks in the ways of the Lord.
One would hope they could see this heresy.
This is a separate issue from what we just discussed. The angel Gabriel tells Mary she is blessed among women. The whole Church (that is, the Church before the Great Schism, not to mention Protestantism) agreed she is truly unique among humans. Romans go further and say she was immaculately conceived. This appears to strain the doctrine too far, but that she would have to be free from any sin at all seems necessary for her to bear the Son of God. Even Elijah and Elisha were not free from sin and they come perhaps closest to perfection in human life as can be accomplished without divine help.
So, it seems logically necessary that she be more blessed than any other human.
Two questions:
Was Jesus God?
Was Mary His Mother?
Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem;
Creatorem caeli et terrae.
Et in Jesum Christum,
Filium eius unicum, Dominum nostrum;
qui conceptus est
de Spiritu Sancto,
natus ex Maria virgine;
passus sub Pontio Pilato,
crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus;
descendit ad inferos;
tertia die resurrexit a mortuis;
ascendit ad caelos;
sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis;
inde venturus est
iudicare vivos et mortuos.
Credo in Spiritum Sanctum;
sanctam ecclesiam catholicam;
sanctorum communionem;
remissionem peccatorum;
carnis resurrectionem;
vitam aeternam. Amen.
In English:
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ,
his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived
by the power of the Holy Spirit,
and born of the Virgin Mary,
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
he will come again
to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen
I do buy that argument. It is a tension as old as the Fall, when Adam and Eve, having chosen to assert their own sovereignty over God's through disobedience. God allowed that for his own purposes and placed them, outside the garden, in a world where they (and we) could discover the ultimate results of asserting man's sovereignty over God's.
I suggest that all of human history, all our technologies, all our accomplishments, all our politics, cities, nations and institutions—as well-intended and relativistically good as they are—are the result of our efforts to establish our own kingdom on the earth.
But we are not without hope as Christ entered into history, took all of our sin and fallenness on himself, and gave us the hope of a future in which he will once again reign, both in the human heart and in all of the universe.
You might want to also take a look at Stanley L. Jaki's seminal book: Creation and Science. Jaki considers belief in the Creator God of the Bible as the unique factor which made modern science possible - and which in fact flourished only in the West. He substantiates this thesis with meticulous historical research. One can see manifold evidence of this historically in the East - the societal decay of India, for example, has been partially ameliorated by the reforms brought about by the British.
Islam is a special case: it affirms a Creator God but makes Him so remote and unknowable that true progress is almost impossible. In addition, the notion of fate relieves Muslims of genuine responsibility for their actions, without which personal and societal development cannot take place. I have lived in the Middle East and can attest to the abject inability to effect real progress - for many reasons that have unfortunately become nearly hereditary after centuries of living under Islam.
I'm afraid I'm too old to be interested in the kind of scholastic argumentation we used to bat around in grad school which bore little relation to the struggles of our lives, serving only as a vehicle to show that we were more clever and "had a better grasp of theology" than the other guy.
The one thing I will add is that one must not understand "free will" in the absolute, Greek sense of omnipotence. Obviously we do not have the ability to jump over the moon, regardless of whether we should "will it to be." The proper description, perhaps, is that we possess a genuine "freedom to choose."
It is, in my view, beyond arguing that, from Genesis to Revelation, we (the human race) are commanded to choose: e.g. "Choose this day whom ye will choose" and a myriad others. This ability to choose is not absolute, but it is real, and the choices we make will determine our eternal destiny.
Any school of theology which attempts to deny this fundamental truth of Scripture and of our existence is, again, in my view, false.
As rightly pointed out on this thread, there exists a paradox between Divine Sovereignty and "free will" (freedom to choose). I cannot pretend to understand how the two work together in the world and in our lives: for that understanding we must await the next world.
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.