How Much Do You Have to Hate Someone Not to Proselytize?

Francis Schaeffer on the Origins of Relativism in the Church

One of My Favorite Songs

An Inspiring Song

Labels

Friday, January 29, 2010

The Bondage of the Will Online

I have been going to Southern Baptist churches for about twenty years or so, and in all that time, I've heard the topics of predestination, election, free will, and so forth, addressed perhaps three or four times. I do not think I have ever heard them addressed from the pulpit. Most modern Baptists seem, if they ever consider the subject at all, satisfied with statements like, "The Bible teaches both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man," and leave it at that. That is kind of weird, to my mind. Certainly C.H. Spurgeon, regarded by many as "the prince of preachers" and doubted by few to be among the greatest preachers ever to have lived, was not shy about talking about them. And, too, as Dr. Thomas Nettles has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt (in my opinion) in his By His Grace and For His Glory, Calvinistic soteriology was once overwhelmingly dominant in the Southern Baptist Convention, and it was certainly preached from the pulpit. More than a few people, as well, have said that Calvinism is very, very popular among more recent graduates of Southern Baptist seminaries, and at least one of those seminaries is led by an unabashed Calvinist, Al Mohler.

Saying that it is rare to hear those subjects discussed within Southern Baptist churches is not to say that there is no interest in them, but it seems to me that most of the people who are interested enough to discuss them do so in e-mails and blogposts.

This isn't going to be one of them, even though the subject has recently been brought to my attention again. My mind on the subject was made up long ago, and the process of doing the reading was also a process of discovering yet again that Dr. Francis Schaeffer was right: when it comes to the big questions, there are really very few available answers. The major arguments have been made, over and over, so often that discussion of the subject of predestination very often falls into a fairly predictable pattern. I do not propose to spend a substantial chunk of my time over the next few months reviewing the arguments from Paul, Augustine, Pelagius, Arminius, Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, White, and Piper, not here, at least not at this time.

What I do propose to do is point the way to a splendid resource, the existence of which I was unaware of until this morning: Martin Luther's The Bondage of the Will online. The Bondage of the Will is an absolutely fascinating book, written as a response to Erasmus's Diatribe on Free Will (which, sadly, I was unable to find on its own, either online or in a dead-tree edition). You can pretty much tell where Luther comes down on the subject from the title. Luther does not believe in free will. Luther believes in free choice, but not in free will, holding that the will is chained, either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ. But I would recommend the book for anyone interested in the subject, whether he believes in free will or not, whether he believes in predestination or not. I say that because, simply, Luther is, in my opinion, one of the most entertaining authors in history. I do not think he is given sufficient credit for this. Your time in reading the book will not be wasted, no matter what your position. And now you can do it for free! Here, as a sample, is the introduction:
THAT I have been so long answering your DIATRIBE on FREE-WILL, venerable Erasmus, has happened contrary to the expectation of all, and contrary to my own custom also. For hitherto, I have not only appeared to embrace willingly opportunities of this kind for writing, but even to seek them of my own accord. Some one may, perhaps, wonder at this new and unusual thing, this forbearance or fear, in Luther, who could not be roused up by so many boasting taunts, and letters of adversaries, congratulating Erasmus on his victory and singing to him the song of Triumph—What that Maccabee, that obstinate assertor, then, has at last found an Antagonist a match for him, against whom he dares not open his mouth!

But so far from accusing them, I myself openly concede that to you, which I never did to any one before:—that you not only by far surpass me in the powers of eloquence, and in genius, (which we all concede to you as your desert, and the more so, as I am but a barbarian and do all things barbarously,) but that you have damped my spirit and impetus, and rendered me languid before the battle; and that by two means. First, by art: because, that is, you conduct this discussion with a most specious and uniform modesty; by which you have met and prevented me from being incensed against you. And next, because, on so great a subject, you say nothing but what has been said before: therefore, you say less about, and attribute more unto "Free-will," than the Sophists have hitherto said and attributed: (of which I shall speak more fully hereafter.) So that it seems even superfluous to reply to these your arguments, which have been indeed often refuted by me; but trodden down, and trampled under foot, by the incontrovertible Book of Philip Melancthon "Concerning Theological Questions:" a book, in my judgment, worthy not only of being immortalized, but of being included in the ecclesiastical canon: in comparison of which, your Book is, in my estimation, so mean and vile, that I greatly feel for you for having defiled your most beautiful and ingenious language with such vile trash; and I feel an indignation against the matter also, that such unworthy stuff should be borne about in ornaments of eloquence so rare; which is as if rubbish, or dung, should he carried in vessels of gold and silver. And this you yourself seem to have felt, who were so unwilling to undertake this work of writing; because your
conscience told you, that you would of necessity have to try the point with all the powers of eloquence; and that, after all, you would not be able so to blind me by your colouring, but that I should, having torn off the deceptions of language, discover the real dregs beneath. For, although I am rude in speech, yet, by the grace of God, I am not rude in understanding. And, with Paul, I dare arrogate tomyself understanding and with confidence derogate it from you; although I willingly, and deservedly, arrogate eloquence and genius to you, and derogate it from myself.

Wherefore, I thought thus—If there be any who have not drank more deeply into, and more firmly held my doctrines, which are supported by such weighty Scriptures, than to be moved by these light and trivial arguments of Erasmus, though so highly ornamented, they are not worthy of being healed by my answer. Because, for such men, nothing could be spoken or written of enough, even though it should be in many
thousands of volumes a thousands times repeated: for it is as if one should plough the seashore, and sow seed in the sand, or attempt to fill a cask, full of holes, with water. For, as to those who have drank into the teaching of the Spirit in my books, to them, enough and an abundance has been administered, and they at once contemn your writings. But, as to those who read without the Spirit, it is no wonder if they be driven to and fro, like a reed, with every wind. To such, God would not have said enough, even if all his creatures should be converted into tongues. Therefore it would, perhaps, have been wisdom, to have left these offended at your book, along with those who glory in you and decree to you the triumph.

Hence, it was not from a multitude of engagements, nor from the difficulty of the undertaking, nor from the greatness of your eloquence, nor from a fear of yourself; but from mere irksomeness, indignation, and contempt, or (so to speak) from my judgment of your Diatribe, that my impetus to answer you was damped. Not to observe, in the mean time, that, being ever like yourself, you take the most diligent care to be on every occasion slippery and pliant of speech; and while you wish to appear to assert nothing, and yet, at the same time, to assert something, more cautious than Ulysses, you seem to be steering your course between Scylla and Charybdis. To meet men of such a sort, what, I would ask, can be brought forward or composed, unless any one knew how to catch Proteus himself? But what I may be able to do in this matter, and what profit your art will be to you, I will, Christ cooperating with me, hereafter shew.

This my reply to you, therefore, is not wholly without cause. My brethren in Christ press me to it, setting before me the expectation of all; seeing that the authority of Erasmus is not to be despised, and the truth of the Christian doctrine is endangered in the hearts of many. And indeed, I felt a persuasion in my own mind, that my silence would not be altogether right, and that I was deceived by the prudence or malice of the flesh, and not sufficiently mindful of my office, in which I am a debtor, both to the wise and to the unwise; and especially, since I was called to it by the entreaties of so many brethren.

For although our cause is such, that it requires more than the external teacher, and, beside him that planteth and him that watereth outwardly, has need of the Spirit of God to give the increase, and, as a living Teacher, to teach us inwardly living things, (all which I was led to consider;) yet, since that Spirit is free, and bloweth, not where we will, but where He willeth, it was needful to observe that rule of Paul, "Be instant in season, and out of season." (2 Tim. iv. 2.) For we know not at what hour the Lord cometh. Be it, therefore, that those who have not yet felt the teaching of the Spirit in my writings, have been overthrown by that Diatribe—perhaps their hour was not yet come.

And who knows but that God may even condescend to visit you, my friend Erasmus, by me His poor weak vessel; and that I may (which from my heart I desire of the Father of mercies through Jesus Christ our Lord) come unto you by this Book in a happy hour, and gain over a dearest brother. For although you think and write wrong concerning "Free-will," yet no small thanks are due unto you from me, in that you have rendered my own sentiments far more strongly confirmed, from my seeing the cause of "Free-will" handled by all the powers of such and so great talents, and so far from being bettered, left worse than it was before which leaves an evident proof, that "Free-will" is a downright lie; and that, like the woman in the gospel, the more it is taken in hand by physicians, the worse it is made. Therefore the greater thanks will be rendered to you by me, if you by me gain more information, as I have gained by you more confirmation. But each is the gift of God, and not the work of our own endeavours. Wherefore, prayer must be made unto God, that He would open the mouth in me, and the heart in you and in all; that He would be the Teacher in the midst of us, who may in us speak and hear.

But from you, my friend Erasmus, suffer me to obtain the grant of this request; that, as I in these matters bear with your ignorance, so you in return, would bear with my want of eloquent utterance. God giveth not all things to each; nor can we each do all things. Or, as Paul saith, "there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit." (1 Cor. xii. 4.) It remains, therefore, that these gifts render a mutual service; that the one, with his gift, sustain the burden and what is lacking in the other; so shall we fulfill the law of Christ (Gal. vi. 2.)

8 comments:

  1. It's okay that you don't believe people have free will--since you don't have the free will to believe otherwise. But if I don't have the free will to believe in free will, then you certainly can't blame me for believing in free will, can you? For I'm predestined to believe in free will if I do! What's the point arguing about any doctrine, since we are all predestined to believe what we believe, after all? :-)

    The problem isn't whether we have free will or not, it's the absolutes in the argument on either side. The choice isn't between God's sovereignty or man's soveriegnty. Either God is lying each and every time someone is told to have faith or make a choice, or there is some form of structured free will which interacts with God's Omnscience and Omnipotence.

    I agree Luther is entertaining, but ultimately, he's wrong, as was Calvin, and Mr. Piper, and Mr. McArthur, and many others. To believe that God predestines without foreknowledge of man's decisions is to deface one of God's attributes in favor of another.

    :-)

    Russ

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have not read the Martin Luther stuff yet so if the answer is there, please forgive me. What is the difference between free will and free choice? I’m having a bit of a hard time wrapping my head around this one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Russ--thanks for reading. But really, this is somewhat illustrative of what I mean: all this ground is so well trodden... You cannot, I hope, possibly think that this is the first time I've heard the very points you make, as well as the typical responses thereto? To my mind, it's almost as if you're channeling Geisler, with his "determinantly foreknowing," and the first thing that comes to mind in response is White's "The Potter's Freedom". The ensuing discussion plays out almost as if each party is following a script, or replaying one of the classic games of chess.

    Maybe another time.

    Dave: I am not surprised. Do bear in mind both the specific context--we are talking about Christian theology--and that my choice of words is my 2-second paraphrase of much of Luther's whole book, not a quote. Here is my 2-second, in-a-nutshell answer to your question, which some would agree with and some would not: The will is that part of you according to which your choice is made. Your choice is free in the sense that no one can put a gun to your head and determine what you, in your heart of hearts, choose to believe. But what you choose to believe will be determined by your will, which is a slave to sin, unless set free from it by God, in which case it is then a slave to Christ.

    Clear as mud? Perhaps. I have sometimes thought the difference may be clarifed by picturing a buffet table. On the table are saving belief in Christ and also damning unbelief; you may choose whichever one you want, no one is going to put a gun to your head and make you choose one or the other, but whether your will is chained to unbelief and sin or to Christ will determine what you want. The will is the "wanter," the choice is what the "wanter" does. According to this line of thinking, it is obvious that, since man is fallen, no man will ever choose Christ--unless his will is changed by God, at which instant he infallibly chooses saving belief.

    You may call it theological hair-splitting, but this issue, expressed in various ways, is at the heart of more theological discussion than you can possibly imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Then perhaps it is time to break out of the game of chess, look at what the Scriptures actually say, and then compare that to the real world around us.

    After having read every monergistic treatise, I'm always left with these two points:

    1. You can read any and every Scripture, on its own, that's "crucial" to the question, either way. It's easy to rip something out of context, surround it with a cloud of word studies, and end up making it say anything you want it to say. We've moved from proof verses to proof verbs--it's silly, unhealthy, and wrong. So, I'm not impressed on either side on this score, to be honest.

    2. But monergism, or complete determinism, doesn't explain the patterns in the Scriptures. Just read the Scriptures, with fresh eyes, from beginning to end, no commentaries, no other writings, and there's no way you could walk away believing men have no choice in their salvation. For instance, either God is lying in Genesis, or Cain has a choice between sinning and not sinning (and hence gaining the acceptance of God). Either God is lying when He talks to Abraham at the end of Genesis 19, or God and Abraham are actually having a discussion about the desctruction of the Cities on the Plain.

    In real life, we have structured free will. Once I'm married, I can't go back and be unmarried, no matter what I try to do. Even divorce doesn't undo the past. Most of the decisions in my life, I find, are that way. Since God structured the physical world in this way, why wouldn't He have structured the spiritual world in this way.

    The only explanation for Peter to call out, "Repent and be baptized," is to assume his listeners have a choice. If you say, "that's just the way men talk to each other, he really didn't understand that his audience didn't have a choice," then you've done just what the liberals do, you've spiritualized the Scriptures. And once they are spiritualized, they are of no use any longer. To say, "we are commanded to spread the word, even if the men we talk to has no choice," is to say, "God commands us to do silly things that make no sense."

    To say, "God commanded me to preach to this person because He knew this person would accept," is to say, "God appointed this man to salvation with foreknowledge," which destroys the entire case for determinism.

    The Calvinist and the Arminian both tell us to dive into words studies, and verb tenses, and detail work, while the whole lays before us undiscovered.

    Russ

    P.S. Your illustration above has a very significant logical fallacy embedded. I'll let you think about it some and find it on your own...

    ReplyDelete
  5. ...look at what the Scriptures actually say...

    You know, I have yet to discuss any theological point with a Christian without the both of us being convinced that we are each looking at what the Scriptures actually say. I wish you could "hear" how that "sounded" on this end. If you think I am wrong, that's fine. You are not the first and will certainly not be the last. The local Free Will Baptist churches are filled with people who think I am wrong, and will always think I am wrong, but I haven't yet run across any of them who would actually give any serious thought to the idea that I don't do my best to look at what the Scriptures actually say.

    Just read the Scriptures, with fresh eyes, from beginning to end, no commentaries, no other writings...

    No commentaries or other writings? Presumably including yours on the subject? Russ, really. To take your ideas into consideration is to violate your advice! Every comment you make--which presumably, you intend me to read--makes it the more difficult to do the very thing you suggest!

    Your illustration above has a very significant logical fallacy embedded. I'll let you think about it some and find it on your own.

    Russ, I almost hesitate to say this, since I am sure I am sometimes guilty of the same sort of thing, and I am sure you didn't mean it to sound this way, but that really comes across as paternalistically condescending. As though I had not already "thought about it some!" If you want to explain your point to me, fine. If not, that is fine, too, though frankly, since I gave the illustration in answer to Dave's question, I think you, in good conscience, owe it to him to explain my error.

    I think that you make some errors in what you have to say. This is surely no surprise. If I did not think you made errors, we would not be in disagreement on this point. I am not going to suggest that you think about it and try to find them, as though you had not already given the matter significant thought. I did not pursue them in comments on your blog, neither did I address them in the body of this post, nor am I going to pursue them here. I am simply not interested in pursuing the argument, not because I think it is unimportant, but because, in my experience, hardly anyone ever changes their mind on the subject and I do not think that it is often of crucial importance. Most people I run across who hold to "free will" nevertheless do not think that they deserve any credit for their salvation, and since my only practical concern in the matter is that God get the glory, I just don't have that big an axe to grind. I would only hammer away on the subject with someone who thought that somehow they deserved to share credit with God. I can't honestly say that I've met very many people like that. Most Baptists I meet will affirm "free will," and then, in the next breath, if you ask them directly, "Do you think you deserve any part of the glory for your salvation?" answer "No!" How much of my time is it worth for me to say, "Brother, I think you have the right idea about where the glory goes, but I think your conclusions are inconsistent with your premises; please let me correct you"? How much of his time is that sort of thing worth? If he is really interested, he will seek it out on his own--and to point out a thought-provoking, entertaining, and free resource to such interested people was the only object I had in the post. Having accomplished that and added some light commentary in the process, I am satisfied.

    Now, having said all that, I hasten to add that if anything I have said sounds offensive, I did not mean it to sound so, just as I am convinced that you meant no offense by anything you have said. Rest assured that the fact that I disagree with you on this point doesn't mean that I esteem either your intellectual prowess or your faith any the less.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is it possible that the free will vs. free choice disagreement all boils down to an argument of semantics? Or would it be more accurate to parallel the free will vs. free choice relationship with the idea of the id vs. ego/super ego relationship?

    ReplyDelete
  7. It has been about 27 years since I took my nine hours of psychology, and I remember next to nothing about anything Freudian, so I am not going to take a swing at that part of your question. About whether the issue is one of semantics, well...

    It can be, or at least I can see how some people might see it that way. For instance, if I say that "choice" is free, but what you choose will be determined by your "will," which isn't free at all, you might say, "But a choioe which is determined isn't free," whereupon my next sentence would be something along the lines of, "Do you mean to tell me that you would only consider a choice "free" if it were made with no particular cause?" The difficulty at that point arises because I think of a choice as free if it is uncoerced, not determined by something outside of you, and what other people mean by free, apparently, is that a person makes that choice without it being influenced by their history, desires, and so forth. So, yes, I could see how some people might see the issue as semantic.

    More often, I see equivocation in this process, usually unintentional, that is, a person starts out in the argument defining "free will" in one way, and then, in mid-argument, starts using another definition. People do this all the time; most of the time, in my experience, they do not even realize that they have done it.

    Some people writing on this subject are more careful with their terms than others, taking a great deal of time to define precisely what they are talking about. Calvin and Luther both do this, and you will note, if you read Luther's book, that he takes Erasmus to task for slippery definitions.

    It can be a very frustrating subject, and one can easily be forgiven for wondering if it is worth one's time. It is probably fairly obvious that I have done enough reading on the subject to make up my mind, and yet it is probably also fairly obvious that it is not exactly my bete noire, something that I feel compelled to explain to people. And that is for reasons that commentators more able than I explain in the post I put up this morning.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Interesting. Thanks for the explanations. I did a post on this topic this morning. One thing for sure, I think that it is safe to say that I do not have any Calvinist tendencies in me. Not that being a Calvinist is a bad thing mind you. I know very little about the man or his teachings to be completely honest. Then again I grew up Episcopalian and have never really been exposed to a lot of the multitude of different Christian denominations.

    One of these days I'm going to take my kids on some field trips to different churches. I think that we could all use the exposure to the different ideas.

    ReplyDelete