My friend John Hendryx (the man behind the amazing monergism.com theological website) has deep insight into the Scriptures and is particularly skilled when it comes to answering questions. John is gifted with a tender heart towards the Lord and His people, as well as a very sharp mind. I have had the privilege of serving with him for almost six years as a writer on the reformationtheology.com blog and am often amazed with the precision and care he shows in handling objections. Here’s two such recent cases:
(1) Someone recently declared to me (John Hendryx) that “God’s fulfills his plan without ever coercing our volition” – But is it an axiom that in order for there to be true love, God must never violate our so-called “free will?”
My response: First and foremost, it must be said that such an idea is nowhere to be found in the Bible. But in order to demonstrate that this idea does not even fly in everyday life, I have a simple story for you: Two parents see their disobedient toddlers run out into oncoming traffic. The first parent runs up to the curb to tell their toddler to use their will to get out of the way of traffic, but does NOTHING more because he does not want to interfere with the toddler’s will. The SECOND parent sees the cars coming and runs out into the street at the risk of their life to SCOOP up the child to MAKE CERTAIN their child is safe. WHICH parent loved their child ? We would all view this second parent as having GREAT love for their child and GET THIS, he was not concerned AT ALL about the child’s will because the parent knew better than the child what was good for him . AND How much more does God love his own? God’s love for us is not conditional as you believe. He does not first see how we use OUR WILL to determine whether he loves us, as you seem to believe. He loves us too much to leave us in our own hands. No, God saves us in spite of our rebellious will. The synergist’s idea of love then is flawed since they believe God’s love for us is CONDITIONAL. Rather, “we love God BECAUSE he first loved us.” Jesus does for us what we are unable and unwilling to do for ourselves.
Again, when you used the phrase “fulfilling God’s plan without coercing their volition” — this seems to be a “basic assumption” which is the driving force behind your theology. You guys have talked about this idea for so long that it has become axiomatic for you, even though it is nowhere found in the Bible. Your most precious doctrine, it seems, that drives everything else is, therefore, this false idea which is READ INTO the Scriptures. It is a logical deduction but, I would argue, is wrong.
Martin Luther once said, “I frankly confess that, for myself, even if it could be, I should not want ‘free-will’ to be given me, nor anything to be left in my own hands to enable me to endeavour after salvation; not merely because in face of so many dangers, and adversities and assaults of devils, I could not stand my ground …; but because even were there no dangers … I should still be forced to labour with no guarantee of success … But now that God has taken my salvation out of the control of my own will, and put it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I have the comfortable certainty that He is faithful and will not lie to me, and that He is also great and powerful, so that no devils or opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him. Furthermore, I have the comfortable certainty that I please God, not by reason of the merit of my works, but by reason of His merciful favour promised to me; so that, if I work too little, or badly, He does not impute it to me, but with fatherly compassion pardons me and makes me better. This is the glorying of all the saints in their God” – Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will (Grand Rapids: Revell, 1957), 313-314.
…. IN response to this a brother wrote to me and said, “At regeneration God gives a new heart with new desires, a new creation if you will, namely a love for God and neighbor that had not existed beforehand. In this we freely choose to follow Christ….even more, in fact it is our new hearts desire. After time in the chrysalis the butterfly breaks forth and flutters away, not because of coercion but because of a new desire that is accompanied with a new ability.”
To which I replied, “yes I agree with that. But prior to regeneration our will was hostile to it.. we did not want the new eyes or new heart … so in a sense, as unregeneate people it was really against our will for God to regenerate us. We did not want Him to do that. But when God DOES grant us a new heart, we willingly believe because we see the beauty and excellence of Christ that we previously did not see. And we are thankful that God “violated” our will.”
(2) from an ongoing conversation …
Me (John Hendryx): “…On the contrary, man is completely responsible to believe the gospel. To repent and believe is an imperative (a command) that man is completely responsible to obey. However, that does not mean he is morally able to do so.”
Visitor: He either is morally able or he is not commanded. For the record, I am a raging Calvarminan.
Response: As an everyday example … If you borrowed $100 million from a bank to establish a new venture but then squandered it an a week of wild living in Vegas, does your inability to repay the bank alleviate you of the responsibility to do so? No of course not. So if in an every day example this proves inability does not undo our responsibility, how much more so with God, to whom we have a debt we cannot repay. Therefore his commands to obey do not mean man is morally able. After the fall God does not change his standard simply because we are sinful…. but thanks be to God, in Christ Jesus He pays our debts in FULL.
The imperatives or commands of God were not given to show our ability, but our inability. In Rom 3:20 Paul says this very thing: “…through the law comes knowledge of sin.” The law, in other words does not reveal ability but our impotence. …the commandments are not given pointlessly; but FOR THE PURPOSE that through them the proud, blind man may learn the plague of his impotence, if he tries to do as he is commanded. Does it follow from the command: ‘turn”‘ that therefore you CAN turn? Does it follow from “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart’ (Deut 6.5) that therefore you can love with all your heart? it does not follow. … …
Just for the record, there is no such thing as a Calvarminan, you are EITHER a monergist or a synergist. There is no middle ground. Either you believe the work of regeneration is Christ alone (Monergism) or you believe it is Christ PLUS your UNREGNERATE will (synergism) . But the Bible declares that faith is not the product of our unregenerated human nature.
John 6:37 says >>”ALL THAT THE FATHER GIVES TO ME WILL COME TO ME”. Let me ask … according to this verse how many people will come to Jesus who the Father gives to Him? Some? No the Text unambiguously says “ALL” that the Father gives the Son will believe the gospel. ALL … not some.
“(1) Someone recently declared to me (John Hendryx) that “God’s fulfills his plan without ever coercing our volition” – But is it an axiom that in order for there to be true love, God must never violate our so-called “free will?” My response: First and foremost, it must be said that such an idea is nowhere to be found in the Bible.”
Oh really? When I read the simple story of the two parents and their behavior toward their disobedient children that ran out into traffic the first thought that came to my mind was the Garden of Eden and God’s dealings with Adam and Eve. Would it not be correct to say God acted more like the first parent than the second? The first parent called out to the children and warned them of the danger but did nothing to prevent their choice to stay in the street and in harm’s way. God certainly warned Adam and Eve of the danger from eating the fruit of Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. But God did not swoop down and scoop up Adam and Eve, just before they ate from the forbidden tree, taking them away from death’s door which the second parent did for his children. And if we are to conclude that the second parent acted with a greater love than the first then should we not also conclude that God acted with a lesser love than he could have with Adam and Eve? I certainly believe we can learn lessons about the Lord from everyday life but need to be careful with statements like “such an idea is nowhere found in the Bible.”
I believe we have limited free will. Adam and Eve had true free will. We suffer the consequences of their original sin. We do not choose sickness, our circumstances or trials.
We are either slaves to sin or slaves to Christ.
I think a more accurate label than “free will” would be “volitional”
Free will implys we are free when there is no such thing, our choices are always based on something.
volitional implys we can make choices with in our self and have the appearance of free will but are not free.
We see through out the Bible God using and working around our volition, for example when David sinned with Bathsheba God used this even after it was sinful and the Christ was born through it.
What if David did not do this sin? and stayed with his numerous other wifes?
I think God lets us have volition up to the point that HIS WILL is concerned then He manipulates the situation according to His Will, Like how He used one of His angles to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all of Ahad’s prophets in 1 Kings 22:22
Moses is also an example, he was stubborn and insecure about his speaking ability to the point where God had to use Arron instead to speak to Pharaoh.
Do you think God really cares whether I drink Coke or Pepsi? I think He lets us make these little choices on our own, then manipulates the situation if His will is involved.
Excellent analogies. Remember the ‘good book’…God only helps those who help themselves 🙂