Human reason in defense of free will

npetreley · Jan 18, 2003

I was rereading Bondage of the Will when I came across this passage. IMO it describes very accurately the problem with the arguments one sees so often here that are offered in favor of free will. Keep in mind that Luther was responding to a Diatribe by Erasmus on free will. Emphasis and text in [] brackets are mine.

BUT let us now inquire into the reason why this trope was invented in this passage. - "It appears absurd (says the Diatribe) that God, who is not only just but also good, should be said to have hardened the heart of a man, in order that, by his iniquity, He might shew forth His own power. The same also occurred to Origen; who confesses, that the occasion of becoming hardened was given of God, but throws all the fault upon Pharaoh. He has, moreover, made a remark upon that which the Lord saith, "For this very purpose have I raised thee up." He does not say, (he observes) For this very purpose have I made thee: otherwise, Pharaoh could not have been wicked, if God had made him such an one as he was, for God beheld all His works, and they were "very good" - thus the Diatribe.

It appears then, that one of the principal causes why the words of Moses and of Paul are not received, is their absurdity. But against what article of faith does that absurdity militate? Or, who is offended at it? It is human Reason that is offended; who, being blind, deaf, impious, and sacrilegious in all the words and works of God, is, in the case of this passage, introduced as a judge of the words and works of God. According to the same argument of absurdity, you will deny all the Articles of Faith: because, it is of all things the most absurd, and as Paul saith, foolishness to the Gentiles, and a stumbling-block to the Jews, that God should be man, the son of a virgin, crucified, and sitting at the right hand of His Father: it is, I say, absurd to believe such things. Therefore, let us invent some tropes with the Arians, and say, that Christ is not truly God. Let us invent some tropes with the Manichees, and say, that He is not truly man, but a phantom introduced by means of a virgin; or a reflection conveyed by glass, which fell, and was crucified. And in this way, we shall handle the Scriptures to excellent purpose indeed!

After all, then, the tropes amount to nothing; nor is the absurdity avoided. For it still remains absurd, (according to the judgment of reason,) that that God, who is just and good, should exact of "Free-will" impossibilities and that, when "Freewill" cannot will good and of necessity serves sin [a principle that Erasmus admitted in his diatribe], that sin should yet be laid to its charge and that, moreover, when He does not give the Spirit, He should, nevertheless, act so severely and unmercifully, as to harden, or permit to become hardened: these things, Reason will still say, are not becoming a God good and merciful. Thus, they too far exceed her capacity; nor can she so bring herself into subjection as to believe, and judge, that the God who does such things, is good; but setting aside faith, she wants, to feel out, and see, and comprehend how He can be good, and not cruel. But she will comprehend that, when this shall be said of God: - He hardens no one, He damns no one; but He has mercy upon all, He saves all; and He has so utterly destroyed hell, that no future punishment need be dreaded. It is thus that Reason blusters and contends, in attempting to clear God, and to defend Him as just and good.

But faith and the Spirit judge otherwise; who believe, that God would be good, even though he should destroy all men. And to what profit is it, to weary ourselves with all these reasonings, in order that we might throw the fault of hardening upon "Free-will"! Let all the "Free-will" in the world, do all it can with all its powers, and yet, it never will give one proof, either that it can avoid being hardened where God gives not His Spirit, or merit mercy where it is left to its own powers. And what does it signify whether it be hardened, or deserve being hardened, if the hardening be of necessity, as long as it remains in that impotency, in which, according to the testimony of the Diatribe, it cannot will good? Since, therefore, the absurdity is not taken out of the way by these tropes; or, if it be taken out of the way, greater absurdities still are introduced in their stead, and all things are ascribed unto "Free-will"; away with such useless and seducing tropes, and let us cleave close to the pure and simple Word of God!
Click to expand...

I should stop there with this quote because IMO it has made the point, but I hate to leave the part about Genesis unaddressed, so here's the rest of the passage:

AS to the other point - 'that those things which God has made, are very good: and that God did not say, for this purpose have I made thee, but "For this purpose have I raised thee up."' -

I observe, first of all, that this, Gen. i., concerning the works of God being very good, was said before the fall of man. But it is recorded directly after, in Gen. iii. how man became evil, - when God departed from him and left him to himself. And from this one man thus corrupt, all the wicked were born, and Pharaoh also: as Paul saith, "We were all by nature the children of wrath even as others." (Eph. ii. 8). Therefore God made Pharaoh wicked; that is, from a wicked and corrupt seed: as He saith in the Proverbs of Solomon, xvi. 4, "God hath made all things for Himself, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil:" that is, not by creating evil in them, but fly forming them out of a corrupt seed, and ruling over them. This therefore is not a just conclusion - God made man wicked: therefore, he is not wicked. For how can he not be wicked from a wicked seed? As Ps. li. 5, saith, "Behold I was conceived in sin." And Job xiv. 4, "Who can make that clean which is conceived from unclean seed?" For although God did not make sin, yet, He ceases not to form and multiply that nature, which, from the Spirit being withdrawn, is defiled by sin. And as it is, when a carpenter makes statues of corrupt wood; so such as the nature is, such are the men made, when God creates and forms them out of that nature. Again: If you understand the words, "They were very good," as referring to the works of God after the fall, you will be pleased to observe, that this was said, not with reference to us, but with reference to God. For it is not said, Man saw all the things that God had made, and behold they were very good. Many things seem very good unto God, and are very good, which seem unto us very evil, and are considered to be very evil. Thus, afflictions, evils, errors, hell, nay, all the very best works of God, are, in the sight of the world, very evil, and even damnable. What is better than Christ and the Gospel? But what is more execrated by the world? And therefore, how those things are good in the sight of God, which are evil in our sight, is known only unto God and unto those who see with the eyes of God; that is, who have the Spirit. But there is no need of argumentation so close as this, the preceding answer is sufficient.
Click to expand...

Ray Berrian · Jan 19, 2003

Acts 13:46 is the perfect Scripture to portray 'the freedom of the will' and counter-distinction to 'the bondage of the will.' The Jews as a nation had turned aside Jesus so the Gospel was opened to the rest of the world, namely the Gentile. Alford, the Greek scholar suggests that verse 46 indicates 'human agency' meaning the Jews as a nation turned aside Jesus Christ. Our Lord did not turn them down.

Acts 13:48 in my KJV says, ' . . . and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.' I love the KJV but in isolated places it comes up wanting. This error has been handed down to us Protestants and other Christians from the Latin Vulgate which was the Bible of choice for St. Augustine. Augustine never studied one semester of Greek but was versed in Latin. The RCC passed down his high handed view of theology. Most English versions including the RSV still perpetuate the RCC errors.

One of the reasons why seminarians have to study Greek is so they can penetrate the error and teach the Word of God correctly to their congregations. Greek scholars like Robertson, Meyer, Rotherham, and Alford indicate that the verse actually reads like this. 'and as many as were disposed to eternal life, believed.'

Chrysostom suggests that the Greek word does not speak of necessity or compulsion. God in His sovereignty has allowed people to decide their fate, if you will, especially after hearing the saving message of the Gospel.

Bloomfield asserts, as do other scholars, that {tasso} often conveys the 'middle sense and should be thought of as being in the passive voice.' This simply means that no outer person or thing has determined the choice of these people. In other words, God did not intervene and choose or ordain these people to everlasting life.

Again, ' . . . as many as were disposed to eternal life, believed.'

npetreley · Jan 19, 2003

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Chrysostom suggests that the Greek word does not speak of necessity or compulsion.
Click to expand...

Chrysostom was also an author of the abominable ideas that became replacement theology. So this was not his only massive error.

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Bloomfield asserts, as do other scholars, that {tasso} often conveys the 'middle sense and should be thought of as being in the passive voice.' This simply means that no outer person or thing has determined the choice of these people. In other words, God did not intervene and choose or ordain these people to everlasting life.
Click to expand...

Bloomfield and the other scholars to which you refer are providing a classic example of the above argument by Luther. They feel justified in twisting the plain meaning of a passage because their human reason drives them to come to a different conclusion. Yet they think nothing of the fact that their conclusion contradicts other scripture.

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Again, ' . . . as many as were disposed to eternal life, believed.'
Click to expand...

tasso: New Testament Greek for 'ordained'

5021 tasso {tas'-so}
a prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); TDNT - 8:27,1156; v

AV - appoint 3, ordain 2, set 1, determine 1, addict 1; 8 1) to put in order, to station
(strong's number 5021)

Here's another example of tasso (tetagmenoi in Acts 13:48, tetagmenai in Rom 13:1):

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Click to expand...

And in case you're tempted to point to the suffix as indicative of the difference in tense, here is the word again as taxamenoi:

28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
Click to expand...

Finally, can you name one person on earth in their right mind who is not "disposed" to eternal life? What manner of blindness would cause anyone to suggest that the verse is saying, "As many as felt like eternal life would be a good thing were saved, but those who thought dying was a better idea weren't saved."

Yelsew · Jan 19, 2003

One of the reasons why seminarians have to study Greek is so they can penetrate the error and teach the Word of God correctly to their congregations. Greek scholars like Robertson, Meyer, Rotherham, and Alford indicate that the verse actually reads like this. 'and as many as were disposed to eternal life, believed.'
Click to expand...

I don't know Greek at all, but in context this passage says to me what Robertson, Meyer, Rotherham, and Alford indicated it says. To Wit: "Those who hear the word, and are thusly exposed to eternal life, and Believe in the author of life, are those who are disposed to receive eternal life. No one is forced to, and no one is pre-marked, for Eternal life. All must come to Jesus in the same manner...through belief! Who can believe but those who hear? And how can they hear lest they have a messenger? That pastors is your mission, but not you alone; all who hear and believe, "the Grass Roots Missionaries", must tell others!

If everything is pre-ordained, there is no reason for a Church! God simply does not need a stumbling, disorganized, monolithic organization to tell those who are for-ordained. All God needs do is "quicken the spirits of the elect".

That, by the way, is the purpose of the Word, except the Word is not limited to some unidentified "elect". It is for all who have an ear to hear. Those who hear the Word and believe are just as saved as any who are elect. Virtually any human can be "of the elect" by responding to the Word of God!

If "fore-ordained", or "elect" persons exist, God already placed in them the mechanism by which God calls them at their appointed time. There is no reason for a Church or a Bible or Pastors, missionaries, etc., and certainly no reason for seminaries.

By believing that there is a core group called the elect, one negates all rationale for Jesus to become incarnate, live among men, and sacrifice himself on a cruel Roman cross. That simply was not needed for "the Elect", because if they are elected, they are already sanctified (set apart) from the non elect. God does not neglect those he separates!

It also negates "building a church". It laughs in the face of seminaries around the world. After all, what value are they if the fore-ordained exists? All they do is perpetuate a myth, that of teaching people how to build churches, and how to control a huge segment of the population of the world through mind games.

On the other hand, if there is no elect, God's call is for any who will (human choice) come to Him through faith (sustained belief). We are all equal in God's eyes. We are all equal in that we are all in the image of God. An image, by the way, does not have all the attributes of the original thing or person being reflected as an image. We humans cannot be God, but we certainly can use those attributes God gave to us in the Creation. None of our God given attributes were lost in "the fall" except the virtue of sinlessness (holiness). In fact, in "the fall" man gained the knowledge of good and evil before he lost His sinlessness because that knowledge revealed to man that he had indeed sinned before God! So in addition to all that God willingly gave to man, knowledge of good and evil was added at the expense of innocence and holiness.

npetreley · Jan 19, 2003

Originally posted by Yelsew:
If everything is pre-ordained, there is no reason for a Church! God simply does not need a stumbling, disorganized, monolithic organization to tell those who are for-ordained.

[...]

If "fore-ordained", or "elect" persons exist, God already placed in them the mechanism by which God calls them at their appointed time. There is no reason for a Church or a Bible or Pastors, missionaries, etc., and certainly no reason for seminaries.

By believing that there is a core group called the elect, one negates all rationale for Jesus to become incarnate, live among men, and sacrifice himself on a cruel Roman cross.
Click to expand...

Once again, a clear example of precisely the error referred to by Luther. One wonders why the possibility does not occur to you that Churches, Bibles, Pastors and missionaries are the very foreordained mechanisms by which God accomplishes some plan that is either in place of or in addition to what you've personally decided they must be for?

Originally posted by Yelsew:
If "fore-ordained", or "elect" persons exist,
Click to expand...

If? If?

Matthew 24:22
If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.

Matthew 24:24
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect, if that were possible.

Mark 13:27
And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

Romans 11:7
What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened

Titus 1:1
Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God's elect

1 Peter 1:1
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect

Romans 8:30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Click to expand...

If the elect do not exist, then Jesus is misquoted or lying (and if the latter, therefore not who He says he is), Paul and Peter are deceived, and Yelsew's reasoning is the light to guide our paths. On the other hand, if the scripture is right and Yelsew wrong, then the elect do exist and predestination does exist. AND yet there are Bibles, pastors, churches, missions and Jesus did come and die on a cross.

In the latter case, one can only conclude that there is a reason why in God's plan, predestination, election, the Bible, pastors, churches, missions, and the finished work of Jesus somehow coexist, a reason that does not occur to Yelsew! Is such a thing possible?

[ January 19, 2003, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

Ray Berrian · Jan 19, 2003

Yelsew,

I enjoyed your sermonette. You understand the thrust of Biblical teaching and God's mission for a lost people.

I'm always amazed how angry Calvinists become when they realize their theological mind set comes out of Roman Catholicism and that they bought the message, 'hook, line and sinker.' They are too sure their views are right without checking out the influence of the Latin Vulgate on their present understanding of the Word of God. Acts 13:48 in the R.SV. and KJV still has the thoughts of Augustine and John Calvin's teachings. The Greek text says, ' . . . and as many as were disposed to eternal life, believed.' Get used to the facts.

In Acts 13:46 God did not turn the Jews away from His Gospel truth, the rebellious hears of the Israelites accomplished it all by themselves. Don't blame a predestinarian God.

My wife used to believe Catholic theology having been brought up in a Catholic family. What I am saying is I am not against people who are involved in this branch of the church, but do, of course, disagree with much of their views.

Yelsew · Jan 19, 2003

It seems the burden of proof regarding the existence of some mysterious group called "the elect" is on you sir.

I know that scripture speaks of them but there is no agreement among the learned clergy on who they are, or what they may be.

Scripure verses having nothing to do with the elect are used to confirm an opinion that they exist.

So if they exist produce the evidence.

Yelsew · Jan 19, 2003

A search for the word "elect" resulted in this scriptures.
King James Version
Word or phrase: ELECT

(Isaiah 42:1)
1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
(Isaiah 45:4)
4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
(Isaiah 65:9)
9 And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.
(Isaiah 65:22)
22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
(Matthew 24:22)
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
(Matthew 24:24)
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
(Matthew 24:31)
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
(Mark 13:20)
20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.
(Mark 13:22)
22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
(Mark 13:27)
27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.
(Luke 18:7)
7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?
(Romans 8:33)
33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
(Colossians 3:12)
12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;
(1 Timothy 5:21)
21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
(2 Timothy 2:10)
10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
(Titus 1:1)
1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
(1 Peter 1:2)
2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
(1 Peter 2:6)
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
(2 John 1:1)
1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;
(2 John 1:13)
13 The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen.

npetreley · Jan 19, 2003

Originally posted by Yelsew:
It seems the burden of proof regarding the existence of some mysterious group called "the elect" is on you sir.

I know that scripture speaks of them but there is no agreement among the learned clergy on who they are, or what they may be.

Scripure verses having nothing to do with the elect are used to confirm an opinion that they exist.

So if they exist produce the evidence.
Click to expand...

I'm speechless. How does one respond to such self-contradictory and confused statements?

Yelsew · Jan 19, 2003

In the old testament, the Elect is clearly defined as certain individuals, and the family of Israel. In the New Testament it is not clear who the elect could be, and that is the reason for so very much confusion among men today.

So do you have proof of who the elect are? OR that they even Exist?

TomMann · Jan 19, 2003

Originally posted by Yelsew:
[QB] In the New Testament it is not clear who the elect could be, and that is the reason for so very much confusion among men today.
QB]
Click to expand...

It is very clear to the elect.....

Yelsew · Jan 20, 2003

How can you be sure?

There are several meanings for "the elect" in the new testament, including that the elect is the 144 thousand out of the tribes of Israel. I know I'm not part of that "elect". I do however know that I am a part of the Bride of Christ. That is truth that I rely on.

Eric B · Jan 20, 2003

Many things seem very good unto God, and are very good, which seem unto us very evil, and are considered to be very evil. Thus, afflictions, evils, errors, hell, nay, all the very best works of God, are, in the sight of the world, very evil, and even damnable. What is better than Christ and the Gospel? But what is more execrated by the world? And therefore, how those things are good in the sight of God, which are evil in our sight, is known only unto God and unto those who see with the eyes of God; that is, who have the Spirit.
Click to expand...

So Hell, evil, error even, etc. are just as much "the works of God" ("the very best", at that) execrated by the world as Christ and the Gospel. This is the error I have mentioned elsewhere of making Hell a desired goal of God rather than simply reaction to sin (originally for angels, not man). And of course the old standby of "known only to God".
But the Bible does not say those things. God allows evil, and sometimes may do things that may seem evil to us, especially if we did it (killing a man, for instance), and yes, for His own reasons. This would be the "evil" (Heb. "adversity", "affliction") that He "creates" (Is.45:7), but not on the universal scale Luther is referring to, which would make God the author of sin (in order to have someone to damn, because His "glory" is incomplete without that).

[ January 20, 2003, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

npetreley · Jan 21, 2003

Originally posted by Eric B:
This is the error I have mentioned elsewhere of making Hell a desired goal of God rather than simply reaction to sin (originally for angels, not man). And of course the old standby of "known only to God".
Click to expand...

You are the one making the error of assigning it the status of "a desired goal" as if you know what God's motivation must be under the circumstances. It could certainly be a desired goal. It could also be an undesired but inevitable consequence of some of God's other desired goals. Either way, it is a work of God. Now who are we to say that it's an inferior work of God or a great one?

Eric B · Jan 21, 2003

We may be nobody, but the God's own Word never calls Hell a "great work of God", and to place it next to Christ Himself...
This "who are we" business can only go but so far when ridiculous hypotheses are ascribed to God or read into the scriptures. (Who are we to add such speculation to God's revelation?)

npetreley · Jan 21, 2003

Originally posted by Eric B:
We may be nobody, but the God's own Word never calls Hell a "great work of God", and to place it next to Christ Himself...
Click to expand...

Well, you'll have to complain to Luther about that if that's what you think he was doing.

Originally posted by Eric B:
(Who are we to add such speculation to God's revelation?)
Click to expand...

I think you're finally getting it!! It is a grievous error to add speculation to scripture such as, "Why would Jesus/God command something unless we had the ability to comply?" Or "A loving God would never do this or that..."

Eric B · Jan 22, 2003

"Why would Jesus/God command something unless we had the ability to comply?"
Click to expand...

But that's not scripture (as it pertains to blocking people from repenting unto salvation ever in their lives. yes, I know that He commanded the Law and people couldn't keep it, but then He provided a way for people to be redeemed despite that, so that's different)
Moving that line of reasoning over to eternal preterition is people's interpretation, and this we can challenge.

Human reason in defense of free will

npetreley New Member

Ray Berrian New Member

npetreley New Member

Yelsew Guest

npetreley New Member

Ray Berrian New Member

Yelsew Guest

Yelsew Guest

npetreley New Member

Yelsew Guest

TomMann New Member

Yelsew Guest

Eric B Active Member
Site Supporter

npetreley New Member

Eric B Active Member
Site Supporter

npetreley New Member

Eric B Active Member
Site Supporter

Useful Searches

Human reason in defense of free will

npetreley New Member

Ray Berrian New Member

npetreley New Member

Yelsew Guest

npetreley New Member

Ray Berrian New Member

Yelsew Guest

Yelsew Guest

npetreley New Member

Yelsew Guest

TomMann New Member

Yelsew Guest

Eric B Active Member Site Supporter

npetreley New Member

Eric B Active Member Site Supporter

npetreley New Member

Eric B Active Member Site Supporter

Eric B Active Member
Site Supporter

Eric B Active Member
Site Supporter

Eric B Active Member
Site Supporter