In the previous post we started to look at the question of whether or not the Bible supports the belief commonly held among today’s Christians that all people, prior to being saved, possess a God-given “free will.” Before we could have a hope of answering that question, we had to ask, “What exactly could the will be free from?” Our options were narrowed down to our sinful nature, the devil with his demonic host, and finally God. We then found that God’s Word tells us that we, unregenerate wills and all, were most definitely not free from the corrupting, controlling influence of either our own sinful inclinations or Satan. Scripture clearly reveals us to be slaves to both cruel masters, able to be set free only if and when God should grant us repentance and faith.
Most often, however, when a Calvinist mentions his disbelief in the sinner’s ability to come to Christ of his own free will and the winds of protest begin to howl around him, it is neither the sinful flesh nor Satan who is assumed to be in the Calvinist’s view as controlling the sinner’s will. It is God Himself. The “free will” defender is usually seeking to declare the will free of God’s determining influence in its acceptance or rejection of the gospel.
It appears to me that those who argue in favour of a “free will” response to the gospel are seeking to establish at least one of two concepts they feel are vital to a proper (in their view) understanding of God. First, that if, when a sinner responds positively to the gospel, it is due solely to God’s effecting a radical change in his rebellious heart rather than his free-will decision to accept salvation, then he is essentially reduced to a puppet or robot with no real ability to love or be loved by God. Second, if the difference between those who accept the gospel and those who reject it is ultimately to be found in God’s working (or not working) in the heart, then it must follow that God does not treat all men equally, since, obviously, some individuals do repent and believe the gospel while some do not. This second concept that the “free will” defender is seeking to establish–that God is always “fair” in His interactions with people, and treats all men equally–is more fundamentally an objection to God’s sovereign election, not man’s total depravity, so I’ll leave that one alone for today. The first idea, that God either created men with an autonomous free will or He created living puppets, is most definitely relevant to our question so we better take a look at it.
On more than one occasion I’ve heard free will advocates comparing the relationship between God and the individual Christian to the relationship between a man and woman in a marriage. The argument goes as follows: just as a man’s and woman’s free choice of one another is an indispensable part of their loving relationship, so also God’s desire to have a relationship with each of us only takes Him halfway to His goal: He wants us, of our own free will, to desire that same relationship with Him. Any love from us to God that does not come from our own free will must be a forced love, which is, of course, no real love at all–so the argument goes.
Scripture does speak of marriage as a powerful picture of Christ and the church, His Bride (see Ephesians 5:22-33). But it certainly does not follow that therefore every single element of the husband/wife relationship corresponds directly to some aspect of Christ’s relationship with the individual Christian. Mutual love is present in both relationships, to be sure, but how these comparable relationships come into being bear very little similarity.
In the human pre-marriage relationship, the man and the woman are on equal footing, morally speaking. Neither is more holy or righteous than the other. There is no ground for either one of them to look at the other with a sense of moral superiority. When it comes to the unsaved sinner and the Lord, this is obviously not the case. Christ is the holy and divine Son of God, perfect in all His ways; the sinner is opposed to the Lord and His sovereignty. God is merciful and loving; the sinner is unforgiving and selfish. Men’s sins are offensive to God, and God is obviously not in any way unjust to condemn men’s sin and exalt His own holiness. More to the point, though, proper romantic relationships are based on mutual attraction of each towards the other’s virtuous qualities, whereas in the God/sinner relationship there is no attraction within the sinner towards God’s holiness (see Romans 3:10-18). This is because God’s perfections shine a holy light on the sinner’s wickedness (see John 3:19-20). Furthermore, it should go without saying that we do not naturally possess any virtuous qualities for God to be attracted to.
Let me suggest a different relationship situation that I believe would be a more accurate analogy of a sinner with a fallen will and Christ lovingly saving him. I know every analogy falls apart when it’s pushed too far, but I think this one will make my point. The sinner is represented by a drug addict. The Savior is represented by a sovereign ruler. The drug addict hates the ruler and daily breaks the ruler’s laws, seeking to undermine the ruler’s rightful authority whenever possible. Although he may fear the long-term, devastating effects of his drug use and law-breaking, he foolishly pursues his vices. He couldn’t stop even if he did wish to. To make a long analogy short, the ruler has been watching this addict for some time. He knows the addict deserves the death penalty for his violent crimes and traitorous activity. He knows the addict’s desire for illegal substances blinds him to the beauty of the ruler’s wisdom and commitment to upholding justice. Yet the ruler chooses to condescend to visit this addict personally. When he shows up in the slum the addict calls home, the criminal is passed out on the sidewalk. The ruler lovingly bends down and administers a medicine that removes the addict’s dependance on the drugs and restores clarity of mind, producing in the addict a proper appreciation for all that is truly praiseworthy–including all the virtuous qualities that the good ruler himself possesses. The addict feels like a new man; he is free–he feels peace and joy. And when he realizes that the man who just administered this life-changing medicine was the very ruler whom he spent so long defying, and who could have justly condemned him, a wretched lawbreaker, to death rather than save him, he cannot help but love the ruler. Throughout the rest of the addict’s life, the ruler ensures that the addict is given the needed and effective medication each time the addict goes to sleep at night. The end.
This is, I’m sure, a massively flawed analogy, full of holes if taken much further. But as far as the picture it gives of the converted sinner’s free will, I believe it’s fairly accurate. Did the addict respond to the ruler with real love? Of course he did. Could he have responded otherwise? No; once he’d been given a nature that recognized and appreciated true virtue, true virtue is what he would willingly pursue. Was his decision to love the ruler a true “free will” decision? Yes and no. Yes because he freely chose to love the ruler. He did not love the ruler “against his will”; that is, there was no part of him that somehow wished he didn’t love the ruler so much. And yet, the ruler also determined that the action he took to save this man would inevitably result in the man’s thankful love. As I said, it’s not a perfect analogy, but I think it paints a much clearer picture of the condescension of God in saving sinners than the “betrothed lovers” story does.
I believe we’re missing something if we’re narrowing our choices down to either “autonomous human” or “robot/puppet.” After hearing the above story, would any thoughtful person pity the thankful former addict as a victim of an overbearing puppet master? Could any reasonable argument be made that the ruler is controlling the addict as one might control a robot because his actions ensured the wonderful result? Do you think that if the ruler explained to the former addict at some point that he (the addict) had really no choice after the medicine was administered but to turn to the ruler in love and thankfulness, that the rebel-turned-joyful-subject would be upset at the ruler for determining the outcome ahead of time without consulting the then-wicked man? Lastly, would anyone dare to argue that the ruler, in determining this outcome that pardons and blesses an undeserving criminal beyond measure, acted inappropriately? The answer to each of these questions is, it seems to me, an easy “no.”
Having (hopefully) done away with this notion that God’s gracious overriding and reorienting of our sinful wills makes Him out to be a divine puppet master, let’s look at some of what the Word of God tells us regarding the extent of His sovereign control over men’s wills and hearts. Proverbs 21:1 tells us that “the king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water; He turns it wherever he wishes.” On a similar note, Romans 9:18 says that “He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.” Regarding the hardening mentioned here and in other places in Scripture (see Exodus 11:10; Deuteronomy 2:30; Deuteronomy 29:2-4; I Samuel 2:22-25), we can be sure that God does not take individuals who would otherwise be receptive to His authority and turn them against Him; rather, He takes people who have rejected what they understand of God and His authority and, as a judgement on them, “gives them over” to their wicked desires (See Romans 1:26-32).
God’s righteous hardening of sinners shouldn’t surprise us, though it likely does. What we should find difficult to grasp is that the Lord would have compassion and mercy on any of us by sovereignly turning our hearts towards Himself and His gospel. Yet the Bible is clear: when a person repents and believes the gospel, it is only because God has granted faith and repentance to the sinner. Acts 5:31 speaks of the Lord giving “repentance to Israel” along with the forgiveness of sins. When the church heard Peter retelling his experience of preaching of the gospel in the home of Cornelius and witnessing the Holy Spirit falling on the new converts, their response was, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life” (Acts 11:18). Acts 18:27 speaks of “those who had believed through grace,” and Paul tells the Philippians that “to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ...to believe in Him” (Philippians 1:29).
Truly, as Paul declares in Romans 9:16, “it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” The Lord God of Scripture is indeed sovereign over the wills of men. The salvation of His people is ultimately due to their being “predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11). To what end? What is the ultimate goal behind a holy God’s redeeming of unworthy sinners at the high cost of His own Son’s death in their place? It is “that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory” (v. 12). May we devote our earthly lives and eternity to glorifying Him!
No comments:
Post a Comment