|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 18, 2009 0:19:42 GMT -5
This is a new chapter that I added to the book I hope to have finished this month.
CHAPTER TWO
THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THIS DEBATE
It seems proper that in our discussion of the doctrine of free will vs. the doctrine of inability, a historical understanding of this debate should be considered. Understanding the historical background of these doctrines is helpful in making up our own mind. Many try to say that the doctrine of man’s total inability has been the historic position of the Church but that is simply not true. Many take for granted that the Church has always held to the doctrine of total inability but a study of history reveals that the doctrine of free will was universally taught by the Early Church without exception for the first three hundred years. The Early Church was continually defending the doctrine of free will and refuting the Gnostic’s who held to the doctrine of total inability.
There are those today who make the doctrine of inability an essential doctrine of the Christian faith and are quick to condemn anyone who would dare question or challenge it. But in the times of early Christianity, the doctrine of free will was considered orthodox and the doctrine of total inability was heretical. The Early Church said that only Gnostic’s deny the freedom of the will.
The Early Church once debated the Gnostic leader Mani who was the founder of the Gnostic sect known as Manichaeism. Archelaus, a bishop in the Early Church, represented their doctrine of free will and Mani took the Gnostic position of inability. This debate of free will vs. inability was at the very core of early Christianity vs. Gnosticism.
What the Early Church thought is by no means the final authority in the matter. The Scriptures are the ultimate authority on doctrinal matters. But what the Early Church believed and what the Gnostic’s believed should be brought to our consideration in this discussion. An understanding of the origin of doctrines is very helpful. The Gnostic’s held to the doctrine of man’s total inability and this doctrine did not find any acceptance at all by the Church until Augustine converted from Manichaean Gnosticism. He had been in Manichaeism for many years. When he first joined the Church he began teaching the freedom of the will but unfortunately he eventually went back to the doctrine of total inability. He began to influence the rest of the Church with the idea of natural inability which the Church did not previously believe.
Episcopius said, “What is plainer than that the ancient divines, for three hundred years after Christ, those at least who flourished before St. Augustine, maintained the liberty of our will, or an indifference to two contrary things, free from all internal and external necessity!”1 One would think that if a doctrine was truly derived from the Scriptures that we would find that the Early Church believed it, especially during it’s years when it was the most faithful to God, when men were shedding their blood in martyrdom in the Roman Coliseum.
John Calvin even admitted and recognized that “The Greek fathers above others” have taught “the power of the human will.”2 And Calvin also said, “The Latin fathers have always retained the word free will…”3 It is a fact that cannot be denied that the doctrine of free will, not inability, was held by the Early Church.
Dr Wiggers said, “All the fathers…agreed with the Pelagians, in attributing freedom of will to man in his present state.”4 Whenever a person today holds to the believe that all men have the natural ability to obey God or not, or that man’s nature still retains the faculty of free will, he is almost immediately accused of being a heretical Pelagian by the Calvinists. This accusation is being unfair to the position since all of the Early Church Fathers held to this view long before the Pelagians did.
Asa Mahan said that free will “was the doctrine of the primitive church for the first four or five centuries after the Bible was written, the church which received the ‘lively oracles’ directly from the hands of some of those by whom they were written, to wit: the writers of the New Testament. It should be borne in mind here, that at the time the sacred canon was completed, the doctrine of Necessity was held by the leading sects in the Jewish Church. It was also the fundamental article of the creed of all the sects in philosophy throughout the world, as well as of all the forms of heathenism then extant. If the doctrine of Necessity, as its advocates maintain, is the doctrine taught the church by inspired apostles and the writers of the New Testament, we should not fail to find, under such circumstances, the churches planted by them, rooted and grounded in this doctrine.”5 Rather, we find that absolutely all of the Early Church affirmed free will.
David Bercot said, “The Early Christians didn’t believe that man is totally depraved [totally unable] and incapable of doing any good. They taught that humans are capable of obeying and loving God.”6 He went on to say, “There was a religious group, labeled as heretics by the early Christians… they taught that man is totally depraved [totally unable]… the group I’m referring to are the Gnostic’s.”7 It should cause no small concern for those who hold to the doctrine of inability that there is no support from the Early Church for their doctrine but actually only have the Gnostic’s who agree with them. At the very least this should at make them reconsider their doctrine in light of Scripture.
It was not until 417A.D. that Gnostic and Manichean influence started to infiltrate the Christian Church, polluting it with their doctrines. Some of the Church began to embrace and teach the doctrine of natural inability. The doctrine of free will that the Early Church taught was soon replaced with the Gnostic teaching of a corrupted nature and a necessitated will because of a corrupted and ruined nature.
It is worth noting that Augustine came out of Manichean Gnosticism and both Martin Luther and John Calvin, who denied man’s free will, were students of Augustine’s writings. Other doctrines such as predestination, a sinful flesh, and once saved always saved seem to have originated in Gnosticism as well and brought to the Church through Augustine, but no doctrine has spread so widely throughout the Church as the doctrine of man’s natural inability to obey God. The bondage of the will or the doctrine of natural inability has survived the centuries through Augustinian and Calvinistic theology but what does the Bible really teach?
Episcopius (An Equal Check to Pharisaism and Antinomianism by John Fletcher, Volume Two, p. 209, Published by Carlton & Porter) John Calvin (An Equal Check to Pharsaism and Antinomianism by John Fletcher, Volume Two, p. 202, Published by Carlton & Porter) John Calvin (Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 60, published by Truth in Heart) Dr. Wiggers (An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism From The Original Sources by G. F. Wiggers, p. 392) Asa Mahan (Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 59, published by Truth in Heart) David Bercot (Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up, p. 64, published by Scroll Publishing) David Bercot (Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up, p. 66, published by Scroll Publishing)
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 18, 2009 1:54:10 GMT -5
Excellent. I'm pretty excited about reading it. That was nice and easy to read. That Episcopius quote is great! If I remember correctly, Finney had a similar quote in his systematic theology. "This doctrine is a stumbling-block both to the church and the world, infinitely dishonourable to God, and an abomination alike to God and the human intellect, and should be banished from every pulpit, and from every formula of doctrine, and from the world. It is a relic of heathen philosophy, and was foisted in among the doctrines of Christianity by Augustine, as every one may know who will take the trouble to examine for himself." I probably should assume you have this in the book already
|
|
|
Post by nazerite on Dec 18, 2009 11:55:15 GMT -5
If man has complete free will over his life then God is not or can not be God. You would have to say that God has no plans and is limted in his control over his creation becuase he can not interfere with the freewill of man. That is a limted God. I thought God had no limits? Who is God: man or Ellohim?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 18, 2009 13:30:24 GMT -5
Nazerite if your God would cease to be God if man had a free will, you really need to reconsider your understanding of God!
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 18, 2009 13:58:17 GMT -5
If man has complete free will over his life then God is not or can not be God. You would have to say that God has no plans and is limited in his control over his creation because he can not interfere with the freewill of man. That is a limited God. I thought God had no limits? Who is God: man or Elohim? It's great that you are trying to defend God but you seem to be making a mistake in your thinking about the human will. It sounds like you think having a will means you are omnipotent. But God has given us limited responsibility. He didn't give us complete control of his universe. It also sounds like you think we have free will whether God wants us to or not. But it was God's choice and he could change his mind about it if he wanted to.
|
|
|
Post by nazerite on Dec 18, 2009 14:45:18 GMT -5
What is their to reconsider? If God's plans can not overide the plans of man, how can he be in control?If it is true about what you say, about man having a freewill and that God can not direct a mans steps becuase of his freewill, then it seems to me that God is depenedant on the will of man to make a decision, instead of his own council and freedom to make a decision. This would immply that God is limted and not independant, which nullifies many verses in the Bible that descibe God's indpendance from creation and man for his needs. Where are his decrees and what happened to Gods omnipoteance; the fact that God is able to accomplish all his holy will? Is God the author of history or not? If God "accomplishes all things according to the council of his will," then it seems to me that your saying that in order for God accomplish that will, it is dependant on whether man will respond to that will. This nullifis any plans that God might have becuase his plans are limted to everybody's choices; this makes man God.
Lastly to make things clear, it can be understood that when Scripture describes God responding to our prayers and repantance, feels differently from our responces or lack therof, and acts differently to those responces, you must keep in mind God exist outside of time and he acts in time. God sees everything in one single eternal moment; therfore, he is not limted to time as we are, who live day to day, moreover, God sees events in time and acts in time (WG) Keeping that in mind, he still has from all eternity predestined every event that comes to pass. He is sovereign over every detail of our lives and thus, it is we who are dependant on God and not the other way around. God declares "the beggining from the end" and he accomplishes all that he desires. Even though he knows the future, it is God who designs our future, while not sinning. Things that God sovereign over:
1.) He plans our days. Psalms 139:" In your book were written evry one of them, the days that were formed for me, as yet there were none of them" 2.) Our days have been numbered. Job 14:5 "... Days our determined, and the number of his monthes is with you, and you appointed his bounds that cannot pass" 3.) God controls the hearts of kings: Proverbs 21:1 "The kings heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; wherever he wills" 4.) God Hardened the Pharoahs heart: Exodus 13 :1 "Go to pharoah, for I have hardened his heart and the heart the officials so that I may perform my miraculas sign among them ," 5.) Stirred up the heart of Assyria: "Turned the heart of assyria." Ezr. 1:1 6.) God guides believers hearts: " both to will and to work for his good pleasure" Phil 2:13
All in all, mankind is able to make his own choices and those choices have consequences, either for good, or bad. Lastly, We are still responsible for our choices, yet God has complete control over those choices while not sinning or doing any evil.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 18, 2009 18:01:15 GMT -5
When talking about free will we are talking about God’s moral government only. The Moral Government of God is the governing of God in the realm of morality over moral agents who are His subjects. The Bible describes God as a Governor (Matt. 2:6) who is the Sovereign of a Government (Isa. 9:6-7). The Scriptures also describes God as a King (Ps. 47:2; 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16) who is over a Kingdom (Ps. 45:6; 47:7; Dan. 6:26; Heb. 1:8; Rev. 12:10). The Bible describes God as having four distinct governments. God governs over man’s moral actions (Moral Government), God governs over nations (Providential Government), God governs over animals and creatures (Animate Non-Moral Government) and God governs over the matter of the universe (Material Non-Moral Government).
The Material Government (Solar systems, matter, whether, material worlds) is governed by the law of cause and effect (Gen. 6:7, 19:24, Exo. 14:21-29; Num. 11:31; 1 Kin. 18:38; 2 Chro. 7:13; Ps. 50:1, 93:4, 135:6-7; Isa. 45:7, 45:12; Dan. 4:35; Jonah 1:4, 14-15; Matt. 5:45, 8:24-27, 24:29; Mk. 4:39-41; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2-3; 2 Pet. 3:10; Rev. 16:1-4, 8, 12, 18, 21). We must never confuse physical law with moral law. Physical law is cause and effect, moral law is influence and response. In the former the outcome is certain; in the latter the outcome is contingent.
The Animate Non-Moral Government (Animals, insects, etc) is governed by the law of instinct and causation (Gen. 9:2; Num. 22:22-23; Deut. 11:31; 1 Kin. 17:4-6; Dan. 6:22; Jonah 1:17, 2:10; Matt. 10:29, 17:27, 26:74; Mk. 5:11:13). There is no free will in the animal kingdom. Animal behavior is preprogrammed. Animals have no free will or conscience and are therefore not moral agents, they are not subjects to moral government, and they are not capable of moral character.
The Providential Government (nations, rulers, and kings) is governed by the law of influence and also at times causation or coercion. (Gen. 19:24-25; Exo. 11:9-10; 18:10; 20:2; Num. 33:53; Deut. 2:5; 2:25; 3:20; 9:23; 11:24; Josh. 1:2-6; 1:15, 8:1; 11:20; 23:15; 24:14; 1 Kin. 22:19-23; 1 Chro. 29:10-12; Esther 4:14; Ps. 22:28, 66:7; Prov. 21:1; Isa. 60:22; Jer. 21:10; 27:6; 32:27-30; 35:15; 50:9; Eze. 11:15; 17:24; 29:19; Dan. 2:21; 2:38; 4:17; 4:32; 5:21; 5:18; 7:25; Zeph. 3:8; Jn. 19:10-11; Rom. 13:1; 13:4-5; Rev. 17:17).
In His providence, God may temporarily suspend the free will of a being and use him as an instrument as an emergency measure in order to accomplish His will or a very important providential plan (Prov. 21:1; Rev. 17:17). Moral character and moral accountability is of course suspended when free will is suspended and God does not override, suspend, or violate a person’s free will when it comes to salvation. We saw this with King Cyrus, where God predetermined some of the behavior of Cyrus before he was even born in His providence over nations (Isa. 44:28; 45:1). It is also possible that the free will of John the Baptist was temporarily suspended for the sake of the nation of Israel until John was in jail and God gave Him the liberty to make the free choice of salvation (Matt. 11:11; Lk. 1:15; Lk. 7:20). This providential measure of suspending free will is abnormal, being the exception and not the rule. We must take look at examples which are the exception and make them the general rule.
It is God’s Moral Government over man that is governed by motives presented to the mind, appealing to free will. It is not governed by the law of cause and effect, or governed by force, but is rather governed by the law of liberty or the law of influence and response (Gen. 3:11; 4:6-7, 6:5; Deut. 30:19, Josh. 24:15; 1 Kin. 18:21; Isa. 1:16-20, 5:4; 45:22; 55:6-7, 66:3-4; Jer. 2:9; Hos. 10:12; Jer. 18:5-11; 21:8; 26:13; Eze. 18:30-32; 20:7-8; Matt. 23:37; Jn. 1:11; 5:40; 7:17; Acts 2:40; 17:30; 7:51; Rom. 2:5-11; 6:16-17; 2 Cor. 7:1; 2 Tim. 2:21; Jas. 4:7-10; 1 Pet. 1:22; Gal. 6:17-8; Rev. 3:20; 22:17). In God’s moral government, God gives men and all moral beings the freedom of choice to form their own moral character by obeying His law or disobeying His law. God may be able to incorporate into His plans the free moral choices of men (Gen. 50:20) but God does not plan or predetermine the free moral choices of men. God is the Sovereign of the world because God is the ultimate authority over everything, not the ultimate cause of everything. Men are the authors or causes of their own sin. God gives moral agents laws, allows them free choice, and He holds them accountable.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 18, 2009 18:03:06 GMT -5
God is naturally a person and therefore God is naturally sequential, since personhood includes will, emotion, and thought which all require duration.
* Scriptures that say God has a past, present, and a future: Rev. 1:4, 1:8, 4:8
* Scriptures that say God’s eternity is endless time, that is, time without beginning or end: Isa. 9:6-7; Isa. 43:10; Isa. 57:15; Job 36:26; Dan. 4:34; Hab. 1:12 Ps. 23:2; Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:24; Ps. 102:27; Lk. 1:33; Heb 1:12; Rev 1:4; Rev. 1:8; Rev. 4:8; Rev. 5:14;
* Scriptures that say man's eternity is endless time: Isa. 45:17; Eph. 3:21; Rev. 14:11;
* Scriptures that say eternity is endless time for Heavenly creatures: Rev. 4:8
* Scriptures that say there will be time in Heaven, or a distinction between the past and the present: Rev. 5:12
* Eternity is time without end (endless time instead of timelessness): Isa. 9:6-7; Isa. 43:10; Isa. 57:15; Job 36:26; Dan. 4:34; Hab. 1:12 Ps. 23:2; Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:24; Ps. 102:27; Lk. 1:33; Heb 1:12; Rev 1:4; Rev. 1:8; Rev. 4:8; Rev. 5:14; Isa. 45:17; Eph. 3:21; Rev. 14:11
|
|
|
Post by nazerite on Dec 18, 2009 18:54:03 GMT -5
God creates the law for humans to follow, but humans can not follow that law becuase of their sinful nature; therfore, they fall short of God's glory. It is not possible for a man to follow his law becuase if it was possible Christ would not had to come. But becuase it is not possible for anyone to follow this law he came to save us. Now in order to believe this message you must be regenerated by the Spirit, otherwise the gospel will just bounce off your head into the other direction; therfore, that is why Jesus said nobody can believe in him unless the Father enables him or draws him to Christ. That is why it is only God's elect who will recieve God's grace; they will no longer be condemed for their sin for all eternity becuase they have recieved his message with Joy and thus, justified in Gods sight and adopted as sons. Although they were once God's enemies Christ has reconciled back to the Father as his freinds; these are the ones that the Father gave to the Son.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 19, 2009 12:38:08 GMT -5
CHAPTER THREE
MAN’S ABILITY TO OBEY THE MORAL LAW
It is almost universally admitted that when God created Adam and Eve in His image He gave them a free will. They were free to choose for themselves what their moral character would be. All admit that Adam and Eve did not have a sinful nature because when God made everything He made it “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Their nature did not necessitate their will. Their nature did not force them to do what is good or to do what is evil. Doing what was right or doing what was wrong was not determined by their nature but was determined by their will. If their good nature necessitated good choices, they never would have sinned. If their nature necessitated their choices and they sinned, God must have given them a sinful nature. The only way to explain their sin, without making God the author of sin, is to say that they sinned by free will and not by necessity of nature.
Just as Lucifer sinned against his nature, not because of his nature, but by his own free will (Isa. 14:13-14), so the sin of Adam and Eve was not the result of their nature either but was caused by their free will. Your nature does not cause your will, that is, the state of your nature does not necessitate the choices of your will, but the will is free to choose according to or contrary to your nature. James Arminius said, “The Efficient cause of that transgression was man, determining his will to that forbidden object and applying his powers or capability to do it… Man therefore sinned by his free will…” James Arminius (The Works of James Arminius, published by Baker Book House, p. 371, 373) The debate or question is whether or not free will was lost when they sinned or if it survived their misuse.
Augustine introduced to the Church a concept that was never before held by the Church. He came to teach that when Adam sinned, God punished all of mankind by removing their ability to obey Him. Augustine said, 'By the greatness of the first sin, we have lost the freewill to love God.” He also said, “by subverting the rectitude in which he was created, he is followed with the punishment of not being able to do right” and “the freedom to abstain from sin has been lost as a punishment of sin.”1 In other words, God punishes mankind for Adam’s sin, by making sin unavoidable and by making obedience impossible.
This Augustinian notion is contrary to true justice and reason. First, the idea that God punishes all of Adam’s posterity for his sin is contrary to God’s explicit justice (Deut. 24:16; 2 Kng. 14:6; 2 Chron. 25:4; Eze. 18:2-4; Eze. 18:19-20). God will not “condemn the guiltless” (Matt. 12:7). According to retributive justice, a man cannot be justly punished for a sin that he did not commit because a man cannot be guilty of a sin that he did not commit. Just punishment is according to personal character and personal character is determined by a persons own will. Under the moral government of God, everyone is accountable for their own deeds (Matt. 16:27; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Cor. 11:15). Second, God is a most reasonable being (Isa. 1:18) but the idea that God punished Adam’s disobedience by making obedience impossible for everyone simply and plainly makes no sense. Why would God make obedience impossible? If God punishes man for disobedience, God must want obedience from man. And if God wants men to obey Him, why would He remove from them the ability to obey? It makes no sense at all to punish disobedience by making disobedience unavoidable and obedience impossible. Pelagius said, “"Sin ought not so to have been punished, that the sinner, through his punishment, should commit even more sins." Pelagius (On Nature and Grace by Augustine) If God wants obedience, He would grant and not withhold the ability to obey. Unless God wants men to sin, He would make sure that they always have a free will ability not to sin. Unless God wants men to sin, He would not take away their free will because of Adam’s sin.
The idea that Adam lost the free will faculty of our nature is not rational or scriptural. Adam could not have changed our nature because man does not have the ability to change his nature. Not even the devil can change our nature. Only God can change our nature. Man is capable of determining or changing his character but a man is not capable of determining or changing his constitution. God is our Maker. God is our Designer. God is our Creator. God is the one who forms each individual (Gen. 4:1; Ex. 4:11; Isa. 27:11; 43:7; 49:5; 64:8; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 95:6; 139:13-14, 16; Ecc. 7:29; Job 10:9-11; 31:15; 35:10; Jn. 1:3). Our nature is the product of His hands and therefore our nature is precisely what He wants it to be.
Some may think that sin, on its own, so ruined human nature that obedience became an impossible but free will could not have been lost by Adam’s sin unless God took it away. Sin could not, of itself, damage or impair the faculty of the will. Sin is a choice of the will and therefore could not damage the constitutional faculty itself. If free will was lost, it had to be that God took it away. God gave us a free will in the first place for good reasons and those same reasons are why God would not take away our free will because of Adam’s sin. God gave us a free will so that we could freely choose to love Him and love our neighbor. Mankind still has a free will because God still wants us to freely love Him and love our neighbor. Neither sin, nor God, removed free will from mankind. Alexander of Alexandria said, “Natural will is the free faculty of every intelligent nature…” Alexander of Alexandria (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, pg 293, published by Hendrickson Publishers)
Pelagius said, "We have first of all to discuss the position which is maintained, that our nature has been weakened and changed by sin. I think that before all other things we have to inquire what sin is, - some substance, or wholly a name without substance, whereby is expressed not a thing, not an existence, not some sort of a body, but the doing of a wrongful deed. I suppose that this is the case; and if so how could that which lacks all substance have possibly weakened or changed human nature?" Pelagius (On Nature and Grace by Augustine) And “"No will can take away that which is proved to be inseparably implanted in nature." Pelagius (On Nature and Grace by Augustine) Julian of Eclanum said, “free will is in all by nature, and could not perish by the sin of Adam; which assertion is confirmed by the authority of all Scriptures.” Julian of Eclanum (Letter to Rome) and elsewhere he said, “free will has not perished, since the Lord says by the prophets, 'If you be willing and will hear me, you shall eat the good things of the land: if you are unwilling, and will not hear, the sword shall devour you.'” Julian of Eclanum (Letter To Rufus Of Thessalonica)
We read about God being emotionally disturbed and upset with men for their sin throughout the Bible. “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth…” (Gen. 6:5-7). Why would God be grieved over their sin and even repent of creating mankind, if He was the one who removed their free will when Adam sinned? Why would God be grieved over their sin and even repent of making them, if He knew all along that they were going to sin because He made obedience impossible? It only makes sense for God to be grieved and upset with sinners for sinning if they are capable of not sinning.
We are to pray “thy will be done in earth” (Matt. 6:10) which means that God’s will is not always being done. Contrary to John Calvin’s blasphemous charge “that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it" John Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion" Book III, Chapter 23, Paragraph 7), the Bible explicitly and plainly describes God’s great heartache and disappointment with mankind because of their sin. What a great tragedy to read “…it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth (Gen. 6:5-6). Man, as a free moral agent, is capable of disappointing his Maker! Sin was not God’s plan, desire, nor expectation. God had planned holiness for mankind and expected obedience from us. No verse could communicate God’s divine disappointment more than this passage does. All disappointment implies expectation. Disappointment is nothing more than failed expectations. The fact that God was disappointed with them for their sin teaches that God created them for obedience and expected obedience from them. How could God, or why would God, expect obedience from them, if He had removed the ability to obey from them? The only way that God is reasonably and rationally disappointed with them for their sin is if He knew that they were capable of not sinning.
God’s dialog with Cain is a very telling narrative. God tried to persuade him not to sin. God spoke to Cain, the son of Adam, as a free moral being even after the fall. “And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? And why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him” (Gen. 4:6-7). A free moral agent is an individual who is free to determine his own moral character. Free will is the ability to choose between obedience or disobedience. God spoke to Cain as if he had a choice. “If thou doest well” means Cain had a choice. “If” implies possibility. Cain had the ability of choice to do what was right or what was wrong. Cain had the power to rule over sin. Sin was not necessitated by avoidable. God reminded Cain that because of this ability that he had, he had no reason to be upset. If Cain had inherited a ruined nature from his father which made obedience completely impossible and sin totally unavoidable, Cain would have a reason to be upset and he could not rule over sin. God’s dialog with Cain would make no sense at all if free will was lost because of Adam’s sin.
We see that despite God’s efforts to persuade Cain to make the right choices and avoid sin, Cain still went on to murder his own brother. This wickedness was not the result of Cain’s nature which he inherited from Adam. This wickedness was the result of Cain’s own will. This is implied when God said, “What hast thou done? (Gen. 4:10). It was Cain’s own fault. That is why God said, “now thou art cursed…” (Gen. 4:11). God punished Cain for his sin because his sin was his own choice. We also know that Cain’s choice was an avoidable choice because of God’s previous dialog with Cain. We can see that a sinner is punishable for his sin because his sin is his own avoidable choice. Sin is not birthed out of some necessity of our inherited nature. Sin is originated out of the freedom of our wills. Cain had nobody to blame for his sin but himself.
God also spoke to all of the Israelites as beings who had the freedom of choice. “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life” (Deut. 30:19). “I have set before you” and “therefore choose” means that life and blessing or death and cursing was their free choice and not something that God would predestine or decide for them. “Choose you this day whom ye will serve” (Josh. 24:15). God was not going to force anyone to serve Him. He left that for them to decide. God wants people to willingly serve Him. God wants a people who serve Him because they truly want to. If God wanted to, He could have created machines that had to do His will. Instead, He created beings that had the choice. The Israelites had the natural ability to choose to serve Him or not. They were free to decide to obey Him or not.
That explains why God was so disappointed with Israel for their sin. God greatly wanted them to be obedient to Him and bemoaned their disobedience. “Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!” (Ps. 81:13). Why would God bemoan the disobedience of Israel, unless they were capable of obedience? Why would God be grieved with their disobedience, if He was the one who made obedience impossible and disobedience unavoidable for mankind when Adam sinned? God takes for granted, or assumes, the ability of man in this passage.
Consider these logical syllogisms:
- Disappointment implies expectation - God was disappointed over man’s disobedience - Therefore God expected obedience from man
- Expecting obedience, if justified (reasonable and rational), implies the ability to obey - God expected men to obey Him - Therefore men had the ability to obey Him.
- If God wants men to obey Him, He will give them the ability to obey Him. - God wants all men to obey Him. - Therefore God has given all men the ability to obey Him.
The working of the Holy Spirit also presupposes the ability of man. The Bible says that the Spirit of the Lord strives with men (Genesis 6:3). To strive is to plead with. The only reason that the Holy Spirit would plead with men or influence men to obey, is because men are capable of obeying but are unwilling to do so. They therefore need moral influence. If men are not capable of obeying, the Spirit strives in vain. Who would dare credit folly and foolishness to the Spirit of God? The Spirit of God is called the Spirit of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding (Isaiah 11:2). Either man is capable of obeying or else the Spirit of God is foolish. And if the Spirit is foolish, the Bible is wrong for calling Him the Spirit of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. Therefore, man is able to obey or else the Spirit is foolish and the Bible is wrong.
While men might think that they cannot obey God, God does not think such a thing! The Bible says that God tests men to see if they will obey His law or not (Gen. 22:12; Ex. 16:4; Deut. 13:3; Jdg. 2:20-22; Jdg. 3:4; 2 Chron. 32:31). “And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.” (Deut. 8:2). If this does not show that God believes men have the ability to obey Him, than nothing ever could show it. Why would God test men, to see whether they will obey Him or disobey Him, if it is already certain that they will not obey, or if they do not have the ability to do so? Their moral character must be something that they can freely decide. Their moral character must not be a foregone conclusion. Character is a contingency not a certainty because the will is free. It is clear that men have the possibility of obeying God or not since God tests men to see if they will obey Him or not.
God even repented of making Saul the King because of Saul’s choice to backslide and become disobedient. “It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments.” (1 Sam. 15:11). God actually expected obedience from Saul which means that obedience was possible from him. It would be unreasonable for God to expect obedience when obedience is impossible. God had a genuine disappointment because God has a genuinely failed expectation. This passage shows that Saul’s will was free to choose between obedience and disobedience. God wanted Saul to obey Him but God granted Saul the freedom to choose for himself.
God speaks of man’s obedience as a genuine possibility that can be brought to reality, or as a contingency that can be brought to actuality. The Bible says “if ye will obey” (Exo. 19:5; 23:22; Zec. 6:15) and “if ye will not obey” (1 Sam. 12:15; Jer. 18:10). The word “if” clearly signifies a contingent possibility or two alternative courses which men are free to choose between. Justin Martyr of the Early Church said, “Every created being is so constituted as to be capable of vice and virtue.” (Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 61, published by Truth in Heart) Clement of Alexandria said, “To obey or not is in our own power…” (c.195, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 287, published by Hendrickson Publishers) Tertullian said, “I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of his own will and power.” (c.207, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 288, published by Hendrickson Publishers) Archelaus said, “All the creatures that God made, He made very good. And He gave to every individual the sense of free will, by which standard He also instituted the law of judgment… And certainly whoever will, may keep the commandments. Whoever despises them and turns aside to what is contrary to them, shall yet without doubt have to face this law of judgment… There can be no doubt that every individual, in using his own proper power of will, may shape his course in whatever direction he pleases.” Archelaus (Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up, by David Bercot, pg 71, printed by Scroll Publishing)
Conditional prophecies in the Scriptures show that men have a choice between two possibilities. These types of prophecies show that the course of man’s future is a genuine contingency which is determined by their own choice. We see this in the following. “At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it: if that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.” (Jer. 18:7-10).
Again, the word “if” implies that men have the ability of either obeying or disobeying. Those who are disobedient can repent and become obedient and those who are obedient can repent and become disobedient. God has so made man with the freedom of will that the righteous can become wicked and the wicked can become righteous. Individuals are free to determine their own moral character. It is not God who determines who repents and who doesn’t, or else God would never have occasion to change His plans as this passage showed. God has given men the choice to repent or not and to obey or not. It is within the self-determining power of man to decide. Nothing could be any more positive proof that God does not determine that sinners will repent or that saints will persevere in holiness than the fact that God changes His plans in correspondence with the changing choices or character of men. God let’s men determine if they will repent of their sins or if they will persevere in holiness. It is within a man’s power of self-determination to decide his own moral character. Sinners have the freedom of choice to repent and saints have the freedom of choice to backslide.
Moral character cannot be determined by what it outside of man but only by what is inside a man. Moral character must be self-caused, self-determined or self-originated, or else it is not really their moral character. The character of an individual must be determined internally to himself, not externally to himself. It would be impossible for God to determine the moral character of anyone else because moral character can only be determined by a beings own internal will. That which is moral always relates to the will. That which is a moral attribute of a being must be originated or determined by his will. Apart from free will, there can be no moral character at all.
If mankind does not have a free will, why would God speaks of the future in terms of what may or may not be? (Ex. 3:18, 4:9, 13:17; Eze. 12:3) Free will would necessarily mean that the future has possibilities which would perfectly explain this. Or if mankind does not have a free will, how else can we explain the fact that God has expected things to happen that didn't come to pass? (Gen. 18:19; Isa. 5:1-5; Jer. 2:30; 3:6-7, 3:19-20) “Now will I sing to my well beloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My well beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: and he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?” (Isa. 5:1-4). God would not expect obedience from them, nor influence them to obey, if they were not capable of obedience. God had influenced them to obey Him, knowing that they were capable of obeying Him, and expected obedience from them, yet they still refused. God had apparently given them the power to decide what type of fruit they would bear, or what type of moral character they would create.
The power to decide is also necessary for any genuine conviction of sin. The Holy Spirit has come to convict the world of their sin (Jn. 16:8). Sin is transgression of the law (1 Jn. 3:4). Therefore the Holy Spirit has come to convict men for their violations of God’s law. If men are incapable of obeying God, how could they truly be convicted in their hearts for their sin? Conviction is when a person is convinced that they are guilty and deserve punishment because of their choices. How could they truly be convinced that they deserve punishment for their disobedience, unless they are convinced that they are capable of obedience? If they were convinced that the law was impossible, instead of feeling conviction, they would feel justified and excused by inability. If men were conscious of inability, they would have an excuse for disobedience. If they are capable of obedience, they have no excuse for disobedience. The Holy Spirit is able to convict men for their sin, because deep down they are conscious of having the ability to obey. No man could possible regret his past actions unless he presupposed that his past actions were avoidable.
Michael Pearl said, “If we cannot choose to do good…. Why do we feel guilt when we fail? Why do we blame ourselves for not being good? Are we that irrational? We suffer guilt only when we know we hav acted differently from how we should have acted. No one feels an obligation to ac in a manner he deems impossible. Guilt, being self-incrimination, only occurs when we blame ourselves for our failure. So the universality of guilt is irrefutable testimony to the universal belief that we are indeed capable of willing to do good.” 2
A writer in the Early Church said, "When will a man guilty of any crime or sin accept with a tranquil mind that his wickedness is a product of his own will, not of necessity, and allow what he now strives to attribute to nature to be ascribed to his own free choice? It affords endless comfort to transgressors of the divine law if they are able to believe that their failure to do something is due to inability rather then disinclination, since they understand from their natural wisdom that no one can be judged for failing to do the impossible…. Under the plea that it is impossible not to sin, they are given a false sense of security in sinning..." Writer in the Early Church (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, p. 53, published by The Boydell Press)
Charles Finney said, “It is inconceivable that man should be under moral law and government, without the power of free moral action. The logical condition of the existence of a conscience in man is that he should be free… That man is free is evident from the fact that he is conscious of praise or blameworthiness. He could not reasonably blame himself unless it were a first truth that he is free.” Charles Finney (The Sinner’s Natural Power and Moral Weakness, The Oberline Evangelist, August 13, 1856 )
Winkie Pratney explains how all those who have ever been angry with themselves presupposed the liberty of will, assuming the power of contingent or alternative choice. “The reason you were angry with yourself was that you knew you were capable of better things, but did not do them.” Likewise, “God is angry with the wicked every day because He knows what they are capable of and to what depth they have fallen.” 3
A sinner is rightly the object of God’s wrath and anger (Ps. 7:11), because a sinner is the cause of sin (Matt. 5:19). Sin is not self-existent. Sin is caused by a sinner. A sinner causes his sin to exist, when he did not have to cause it to exist. God’s anger with sinners because of their sin presupposes that sinners are the cause of their sin. If a sinner was no the cause of sin, God would not be angry with sinners because of sin. God punishes sinners for their sin because sinners are the cause of their sin. Being angry with sinners and punishing sinners for their sin presupposes that they are the cause of their sin and that they did not have to cause their sin to exist. If a man uses his car to run over people, the man goes to jail and not the car. People would be upset with the man, not with the car. The cause of the crime is what is subjected to punishment for the crime. And only avoidable actions are punishable actions. These are self-evident truths of justice.
Ransom Dunn said, “If volition is necessitated, and can in no given case be different from what it is, then there can be no responsibility attending volition. If we cannot hold the knife responsible for stabbing a man, while the hand which grasps the knife and directs the blow is held by another, how can we hold the man responsible while the power which constitutes his agency is held and controlled by force beyond his agency?”4
Imagine if a government made a law which stated, “Every citizen must have white skin. If anyone has a skin color other than white, they must immediately change their actual skin color. Anyone found with a skin color other than white will be publicly executed.” Such a law would be tyranny because such a law requires the impossible. Yet there are preachers who say that God requires us not to sin but it is impossible for us to cease from sin or to avoid sinning. And they say that God is just in requiring this! The same injustice that would exist if the government of man executed a man for being black would also exist if the government of God sent sinners to hell forever for disobedience, if their disobedience was unavoidable or if their obedience was impossible. But the punishment that God threatens is worse than any punishment that men could threaten! The government of God would be much more unjust!
Now consider what the law actually requires from everyone, “He said unto him, what is written in the law? How readest thou? And he answering said, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right…” (Luke 10:26-28).
Notice that God does not command that we love Him with faculties that we do not possess, but rather that we love Him with all that we currently possess, “with all thy,” as opposed to with that which is not currently yours. The commandments are directions to man as to how he is to use his ability. The commandments of God are not impossible, demanding that we love Him with a heart, soul, mind and strength that we do not have. Rather, it is possible to keep the law of God, which demands that we love Him with all of what we do have, with all that we are capable of, to the very highest of our ability, no more and no less. The God-given commandments and our God-given ability directly correspond with each other. The command of God is that we love to the very highest of our ability, no more and no less, and therefore we are able to keep the law of love; we are able to keep the commandments of Jesus (1 Jn. 2:3; 3:22; 5:2-3; Rev. 12:17; 14:12; 22:14). Obedience is always possible, and disobedience is never necessary or unavoidable. The law of God is the law of our ability, to love Him supremely and our neighbor equally, according to our ability, with all of our ability, “with all thy.”
Clemens of Alexandrinus said that the call of “the Divine word… requireth but that which is according to the ability and strength of every one.”5 Gordon Olson said, “The words ‘all thy’ express our obligation. It is the exertion of ‘thy’ personality and ability that is required – ‘all’ this ability.”6 Asa Mahan said, “the law, addressing men…requires them to love God with all their ‘mind and strength,’ that is…with the power they now actually possess.”7 Clement of Alexandria said, “What the commandments direct are in our own power…”8 Charles Finney said, “Entire obedience is the entire consecration of the powers, as they are, to God. It does not imply any change in them, but simply the right use of them.”9 Finney also said that the law “simply requires us to use what strength we have. They very wording of the law is proof conclusive, that it extents its demands only to the full amount of what strength we have. And this is true of every moral being, however great or small.”10 Again Finney logically said "entire obedience to God's law is possible on the ground of natural ability. To deny this is to deny that man is able to do as well as he can. The very language of the law is such as to level its claims to the capacity of the subject, however great or small that capacity may be. “Thou shalt love he Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength” (Deut 6:5). Here then it is plain, that all the law demands, is the exercise of whatever strength we have, in the service of God. Now, as entire sanctification is nothing more than the right use of whatever strength we have, it is, of course, forever settled, that a state of entire sanctification is attainable in this life, on the ground of natural ability.”11
God commands that you use “thy heart” and “thy soul” and “thy mind.” The command of God is directed towards our current faculties, and it does not exceed the limits of those faculties. We are to love him with “all” of these faculties, not with less or with more than those faculties are capable of. Man is not responsible for more than he can perform, and so man is not accountable for more than he can perform. Man’s responsibility is in accordance with all of his ability, and man’s accountability is according to his responsibility. Therefore, man will not be accountable for that which was beyond his power because man is not accountable beyond his responsibility, and his responsibility is never beyond his ability. Even Augustine at one point said, “God does not demand impossibilities.”12
The extent of God’s commandments is the exact extent of man’s ability, and the extent of man’s ability is the extent of God’s commandments; each one establishes and determines the limitations and boundaries of the other, and since man will be judged by the commandments, the extent of man’s accountability will be the extent of man’s ability. A man will not be accountable for that which he was not capable of; he will not be judged for that which was outside of the realm of his control.
The law of God is therefore the law of our ability: to love Him supremely and our neighbor equally, according to our ability, with all of our ability, to the highest of our ability, no more and no less. There is, then, no inability in which a sinner can hide behind as an excuse, no commandment that a sinner can point to as tyrannical, since all the commandments of God can be kept, without exception.
Pelagius rightly said, “Nothing impossible has been commanded by the God of justice and majesty... Why do we indulge in pointless evasions, advancing the frailty of our own nature as an objection to the one who commands us? No one knows better the true measure of our strength than he who has given it to us nor does anyone understand better how much we are able to do than he who has given us this very capacity of ours to be able; nor has he who is just wished to command anything impossible or he who is good intended to condemn a man for doing what he could not avoid doing.”13
Even more passionately and brilliantly Pelagius said, “In the manner of good-for-nothing and haughty servants, we cry out against the face of God and say, ‘It is hard, it is difficult, we cannot do it, we are but men, we are encompassed by frail flesh!’ [The argument of the Gnostics] What blind madness! What unholy foolhardiness! We accuse God of a twofold lack of knowledge, so that he appears not to know what he has done, and not to know what he has commanded; as if, forgetful of the human frailty of which he is himself the author, he has imposed on man commands which he cannot bear. And, at the same time, oh horror!, we ascribe iniquity to the righteous and cruelty to the holy, while complaining, first, that he has commanded something impossible, secondly, that man is to be damned by him for doing things which he was unable to avoid, so that God – and this is something which even to suspect is sacrilege – seems to have sought not so much our salvation as our punishment!”14
E. M. Bounds asked, “Does God give commandments which men cannot obey? Is He so arbitrary, so severe, so unloving, as to issue commandments which cannot be obeyed? The answer is that in all of annals of Holy Scripture, not a single instance is recorded of God having commanded any man to do a thing, which was beyond his power. Is God so unjust and so inconsiderate as to require of man that which he is unable to render? To infer is to slander the character of God.”15
Nelson G. Mink said, “He does not ask us to do the impossible” Nelson G. Mink (That ye sin not, published by Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, p. 28) Jed Smock said, “Does God command the impossible? If He did, that would make Him a despot, a tyrant. But God is the Benevolent Moral Governor of the universe. When He gives us a command, He provides a promise or the means to enable us to fulfill the command.” Jed Smock (Who Will Rise Up? Published by The Campus Ministry USA, Pg. 183) There is no state of mind or body more miserable than to be tormented in hell. Therefore there could be nothing crueler than to eternally damn to hell beings that violated the law, when they never have the ability to obey the law in the first place. Nothing more unjust is conceivable.
How can a finite being obey an infinite God? The answer is that an infinite God would also be infinitely good and infinitely reasonable. Therefore an infinite God would not require, at threat of eternal hell, anything from a finite being that was beyond his ability. The command of the Ruler, without the ability of the subject, would be cruelty. God is not a tyrant, and His laws are not tyrannical. Pharaoh commanded brick, but gave no straw, and then beat those who failed to perform the impossible. Pharaoh was a tyrant for doing such, and scripture assigns the fault to Pharaoh, not with those subservient to him (Ex. 5:16). The moral fault was with the commander, not with the command breakers. The infallible testimony of Divine Inspiration declares that when an impossible law is broken, the problem is not with the transgressor, the problem is with the law itself and with the one who issued the law.
That which is a vice in Pharaoh would not and could not be virtue in God. What scripture condemns in one is condemnable in all. What is a vice in one is a vice in all. The equality and impartiality of justice demands that what mars the character of one must mar the character of all, and that which is a blemish to one must be a blemish to all.
Tertullian said, God granted man the free will “that he might constantly be the master of his own conduct by voluntarily doing good, and by voluntarily avoiding evil: because, man being appointed for God’s judgment, it was necessary to the justice of God’s sentence that man should be judged according to the merits [or demerits] of his free will.” 16
God does not command obedience when He gives no ability to perform that which is commanded, only to punish with eternal torment those who do not obey when they had no ability to obey in the first place. According to the Scriptures, the fault would be with the commander, not with the transgressor, when the commands are broken. Sin would ultimately be the fault of the one who gave the unreasonable law, since sin is transgression of the law (1 Jn. 3:4), and there can be no transgression where there is no law (Rom. 4:15; 5:13; 1 Jn. 3:4). Therefore, transgression of the impossible law is the fault of the law itself, and the fault of the one who decreed the law.
When an impossible law is broken, transgression would not and could not be the fault of the one who broke the law because he naturally could not keep the law. The one who decrees an impossible law must be the ultimate author and actual cause of sin. The precious truth of revelation, however, is that God is not the author of sin; He is not the ultimate cause of transgression, because God’s moral laws are not unreasonable, but can, in fact, be kept. Natural revelation (conscience) and supernatural revelation (scripture) assign the fault of sin to sinful men; they are the cause of their own rebellion; they are the authors of their own sin. God is angry with the wicked (Ps. 7:11) because they are the cause of their own wickedness. Sin is not self-existent. Sin is an effect that is caused by the will of a sinner. Augustine said, “"In all laws, warnings, rewards, punishments, etc. there is no justice, if the will is not the cause of sin."17
Sinners are misusing and abusing their God given free will by causing sin to exist. Tertullian said that the person who chooses to sin chooses to “make a bad use of his created constitution” 18 According to Dr. Wiggers, Pelagius said that sinners, “abuse the liberty granted to them” while the righteous are “rightly using freewill.” 19 Pelagius also said, "Our most excellent Creator wished us to be able to do either but actually to do only one, that is, good, which he also commanded, giving us the capacity to do evil only so that we might do his will by exercising our own. That being so, this very capacity to do evil is also good - good, I say, because it makes the good part better by making it voluntary and independent, not bound by necessity but free to decide for itself." Pelagius (Pelagius: Life & Letters).
While I was street preaching in the city green of Waterbury CT, a sinner asked me why it wasn’t acceptable for us to sin since God has given us the freedom of choice. Rather than understanding that we are responsible for our actions because we have a free will, he expected to be able to sin with impunity because God has given us free will. I explained to him that sin was a misuse of our free will. God gave us a free will so that we would choose the good over evil, not so that we would choose evil over the good. God gave us the ability to do wrong so that we could freely do what is right. God wanted us to use our ability of choice to imitate Him in holiness. If we use our liberty for selfishness, or if we use our ability of choice to choose what is evil and do what is wrong, we are misusing our liberty of choice and are justifiably held accountable.
Since God has granted man free will, God’s moral government over man is not tyrannical but a reasonable and just. God does not condemn the incapable for failure to perform the impossible. God condemns those “who have received the law . . . but have not kept it” (Acts 7:53) for their failure to perform the possible. Sinners are condemned for voluntarily and freely choosing darkness over the light (Jn. 3:19). Sinners abide under the wrath of God for being criminals by choice (Rom. 2:5), not for being cripples by birth. The fault is with their own choices (Isa. 14:13-14; Lk. 19:14, 27; Jn. 5:40), not with their God-given constitution (Ecc. 7:29).
While open air preaching at Yale University I rebuked the students on the campus for their sin. This campus is known for its “naked parties” and homosexuality. Their newspaper boasted that not even Harvard parties as sinfully as they do. While rebuking them, I explained that they knew better than to sin and they were capable of not sinning. They both knew better and were capable of better. Therefore they have no excuse and ought to be ashamed of themselves. Similarly I used the same line of reasoning for Theodicy while open air preaching at the University of Alabama in Birmingham. I explained to the students that God’s wrath against them was justified. “God has given you a free will so you are capable of not sinning. He has given you a conscience so you know right from wrong. You have freely chosen to do what you know is wrong. Therefore you are rightly and justifiably the objects of God’s wrath. You truly deserve punishment! Therefore you need to repent of your sins and find the mercy of God through Jesus Christ.”
Sin is punishable because sin is avoidable. God’s condemnation and execution of penalty is justly exerted upon the capable for violation of commandments that could be kept. Condemnation for violation of commandments is justly deserved upon condition of capability, upon condition of being able to keep the commandments. Condemnation for breaking a law that could not be kept is unjust condemnation. Eternal damnation for breaking that which was unavoidably and inevitably to be broken is unjust eternal damnation. God does not send to hell those who are victims of their birth, victims of nature, victims of their parents, or victims of fate, who hadn’t any power, option, or ability of obeying all that was required of them. Rather, God sends deserving criminals and rebels to eternal hell (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Rev. 21:8), those who freely, of their own accord, chose to walk contrary to the righteous demands of God’s reasonable and just commandments, when it was well within their power, well within their ability of will, to obey and conform to all of their moral obligations and requirements.
Charles Finney said, “… every excuse for sin charges blame upon God, and virtually accuses Him of tyranny. Whoever pleads an excuse for sin, therefore, charges God with blame… INABILITY. No excuse is more common. It is echoed and re-echoed over every Christian land, and handed down age after age, never to be forgotten. With unblushing face it is proclaimed that men cannot do what God requires of them… Hence, those who plant themselves upon these grounds charge God with infinite tyranny... And you, Christian, who make this dogma of inability a part of your "orthodox" creed, may have little noticed its blasphemous bearings against the character of God… ” Charles Finney (The Oberlin Evangelist October 25, 1848)
Winkie Pratney said, “Many sincere men are saying, ‘God gave us good laws to keep,’ and in the next breath saying, ‘we are actually unable to keep them!’ If this is true, then God’s laws are not good! No law is good that asks the impossible of its subjects. If God demands obedience to impossible laws then God is not just . . . If God demands such obedience under penalty of death, then God is not only unfair, but monstrous. What kind of being would pass laws upon his subjects they are unable to keep, and then condemn them to death for their failure to obey? This is a blasphemy on God’s character.” 20 To assume that God commands the impossible at the threat of eternal torment is to directly slander the character of God; it is to blame God for our sin rather than to rightly blame ourselves! Cruelty cannot be ascribed to God’s character because injustice cannot be ascribed to His government. The character of God does not allow anyone to go to hell for failure to perform moral impossibilities, but only for failure to perform moral possibilities, for being unwilling, but not unable.
Men cannot blame God or His laws for their own disobedience and rebellion. God is not responsible for the sin of the world because God’s has granted man a free will and has only decreed laws that are reasonable and good. All men who voluntarily choose to disobey God are responsible for their sin. Sinners cannot blame God or His laws for sin. God blames them, that is, He blames their own will for their sin.
John Fletcher asked “if you take away free will, how does he [God] judge the world?” 21 Justin Martyr said, “Unless the human race has the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions.”22 Again he said, “We [Christians] maintain that each man acts rightly or sins by free choice… Since God in the beginning made the race of angels and men with free will, they will justly suffer in eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they have committed.” 23 Origen said, “The Savior…declares that it lies with us to keep what is commanded and that we will reasonably be liable to condemnation if we transgress.” 24 Lactantius said, “And he [God] can give a punishment for those who do not obey – for it was in their power to obey if they so wished. 25 Clement of Alexandria said, “Each one of us who sins with his own free will, chooses punishment. So the blame lies with him who chooses.”26 Again he said, “It is by one’s own fault that he does not choose what is best.”27 And again, “If one chooses to continue in pleasures and to sin perpetually,… let him no longer blame either God, riches, or his having fallen. Rather, let him blame his own soul, which voluntarily perishes.”28
The Bible says, “Behold I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; a blessing if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God…. And a curse if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God” (Deut. 11:26-28). If this does not teach that man is capable of obedience or disobedience, that man has the choice between the two, then nothing ever could! God has left the decision up to us between obedience and disobedience.
Adam Clarke commented on Deut. 11:26 and said, “If God had not put it in the power of this people either to obey or disobey; if they had not had a free will, over which they had complete authority, to use it either in the way of willing or nilling; could God, with any propriety, have given such precepts as these, sanctioned with such promises and threatenings? If they were not free agents, they could not be punished for disobedience, nor could they, in any sense of the word, have been rewardable for obedience. A Stone is not rewardable because, in obedience to the laws of gravitation, it always tends to the center; nor is it punishable be cause, in being removed from that center, in its tending or falling towards it again it takes away the life of a man. That God has given man a free, self-determining Will, which cannot be forced by any power but that which is omnipotent, and which God himself never will force, is declared in the most formal manner through the whole of the sacred writings. No argument can affect this, while the Bible is considered as a Divine revelation; no sophistry can explain away its evidence, as long as the accountableness of man for his conduct is admitted, and as long as the eternal bounds of moral good and evil remain, and the essential distinctions between vice and virtue exist. If ye will obey, (for God is ever ready to assist), ye shall live; if ye will disobey and refuse that help, ye shall die. So hath Jehovah spoken, and man cannot reverse it.”29
Jesus said that he came to call sinners to repentance (Matt. 9:13). To repent is to change your mind. Sin is violation of God’s law. To repent of your sin is to change your mind about breaking God’s law. Therefore Jesus Christ said that He came to call transgressors to change their mind about transgressing God’s law. Why call sinners to repent of breaking God’s law unless they are capable of keeping God’s law? Jesus was not a fool. Why would Jesus command men to be perfect (Matt. 5:48) if this wasn’t possible? Why would Jesus waste his breath to tell us to waste our time and energy? Some say, “You should try to be perfect” but what good is it to try to do the impossible? If it cannot be attained, why try? Trying would be a waste of time and energy. In fact, it would be folly and insanity to attempt to accomplish that which you know cannot be accomplished.
Charles Finney said, “Are we not always to infer, when God commands a thing, that there is a natural possibility of doing that which he commands? I recollect hearing an individual say, he would preach to sinners that they ought to repent, because God commands it; but he would not preach that they could repent, because God has no where said that they can. What consummate trifling!... It is always to be understood, when God requires any thing of men, that they possess the requisite faculties to do it. Otherwise God requires of us impossibilities, on pain of death, and sends sinners to hell for not doing what they were in no sense able to do…That there is natural ability to be perfect is a simple matter of fact. There can be no question of this. What is perfection? It is to love the Lord our God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength and to love our neighbor as ourselves. That is, it requires us not to exert the powers of somebody else, but our own powers. The law itself goes no farther than to require the right use of the powers you possess. So that it is a simple matter of fact that you possess natural ability, or power, to be just as perfect as God requires.” Charles Finney (Christian Perfection, Lectures To Professing Christians, Lecture VIII. 1837).
The Westminster Catechism says, “No man is able, either of himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God; but does daily break them in word, thought, and deed.”30 The Bible says, “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way of escape, that ye may be able to bear it” (1 Corinthians 10:13). The former says “No man is able” while the latter says “ye are able”. Which one is right? Jesus said, “My yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:30) and the Apostle told us, “His commandments are not grievous.” (1 Jn. 5:3)
Finney said, “But you take the ground that no man can obey the law of God. As the Presbyterian Confession of Faith has it, "No man is able, either by himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God; but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed." Observe, this affirms not only that no man is naturally able to keep God's commands, but also that no man is able to do it "by any grace received in this life;" thus making this declaration a libel on the Gospel as well as a palpable misrepresentation of the law of its Author, and of man's relations to both. It is only moderate language to call this assertion from the Confession of Faith a libel. If there is a lie, either in hell or out of hell, this is a lie, or God is an infinite tyrant. If reason be allowed to speak at all, it is impossible for her to say less or otherwise than thus. And has not God constituted the reason of man for the very purpose of taking cognizance of the rectitude of all His ways?” Charles Finney (The Oberlin Evangelist October 25, 1848)
A modern phrase I have heard is “sinning saint”. It is an absurd contradiction to say that a person can be a saint, which means a holy person, while being a sinner, which means an unholy person. You cannot be an unholy holy person or a holy unholy person. A person is either holy or unholy but never both at the same time (Matt. 7:17-18; Lk. 16:13). You cannot be a sinning saint anymore than you can be a saintly sinner. The Bible doesn’t use the phrase “sinning saint”. It uses the phrase “hypocrite” which is more fitting and honest. Anyone who names the name of Christ must choose to depart from iniquity (2 Tim. 2:19).
I have heard many people say, “Everyone sins” “everybody is a sinner” “we all sin every day” and worse of all, “everybody is a hypocrite”. I know of a Church that has unashamedly called itself “A Church Full of Hypocrites”. Their excuse is “Everybody is a hypocrite”. Contrary to the idea that everyone is a make-believer, there are genuine believers. Jesus Christ told us not to be like the hypocrites (Matt. 6:5; 6:16; Lk. 12:1). That means it is possible not to be a hypocrite but that we have the ability to live a genuinely holy life. We do not have to be sinful. We can choose to be holy. We do not have to break the law of God. We can keep His commandments. We do not have to sin. We can choose to glorify God. Jesus rebuked men for their hypocrisy (Matt. 15:7; 22:18; Matt. 23:13-29; Mk. 7:5; Lk. 11:44). That shows that hypocrisy is a free choice of the will. Men don’t have to be hypocrites. Men should not be hypocrites and men are capable of not being hypocrites. Otherwise, rebuking anyone for hypocrisy makes no sense.
It is a contradiction when the Church says, “nobody is perfect” “You can’t keep the commandments of God” “You can’t stop sinning” “everybody is a hypocrite” and then they will be outraged when Jim Baker is caught in a financial scandal, or when Jimmy Swaggart was caught with a prostitute, or when Ted Haggard was exposed for drugs and homosexuality. If sin is unavoidable and everyone is a hypocrite, why be upset when the sins of these Church leaders are exposed to the public? It is because both the Church and the world know that sin is a choice and that it is avoidable.
I cannot count how many times I have heard people say, “The law of God is impossible. We cannot keep the commandments of the Lord.” But it is very clear that the law of God is not impossible for man to keep because the Bible says that some men actually keep the law of God. “But they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless” (Luke 1:6). The Bible says “we keep his commandments” (1 John 3:22; 5:3) and therefore the commandments are not impossible to keep. Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments” (Jn. 14:15). The Bible says about Christians that “we love him” (1 Jn. 4:19) and therefore “we keep his commandments” (1 Jn. 3:22). “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.” (Rev. 22:14)
One writer in the Early Church said, "Is it possible then possible for a man not to sin? Such a claim is indeed a hard one and a bitter pill for sinners to swallow; it pains the ears of all who desire to live unrighteously. Who will find it easy now to fulfill the demands of righteousness, when there are some who find it hard even to listen to them?" Writer in the Early Church (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, pg 167, published by The Boydell Press) Augustine even said, “We must not instantly with an incautious rashness oppose those who assert, that it is possible for man to be in life without sin. For if we deny the possibility of this, we shall derate both from the free will of man, which desires to be in such a perfect state by willing it; and from the Power or Mercy of God, who effects it by the assistance which he affords… if I be asked, ‘Is it possible for a man to exist in the present life without sin?’ I shall confess, that it is possible by the grace of God, and by man’s free will.” (On the Demerits and Remission of Sins, Against the Pelagians by Augustine)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 19, 2009 12:39:42 GMT -5
APPENDIX I
DOES MAN HAVE A SINFUL NATURE?
Whenever the topic of natural ability is brought up, the question about man’s nature in general is usually introduced to the discussion. Just as natural inability is commonly used by sinners as an excuse for sinning, so also a “sinful nature” is a common excuse and justification that I regularly hear from sinners when witnessing. Instead of taking full responsibility by saying “sin is my choice”, they blame their Creator by saying “sin is my nature”. Instead of humbly admitting that sin is the choice of their will, they comfort themselves by saying that sin is the defect of their nature. As long as men try to convince their minds that sin is not their fault, they will never admit that they deserve punishment and need the atonement of Christ. For these reasons I thought it might be good to comment on that issue here.
As I mentioned earlier, effective communication necessitates the defining of words. Therefore the word “nature” must first be defined. Your nature is your constitution, make up, structure, design, composition, disposition, substance, and essence. Human nature would include our faculties of intelligence, emotion, free will, and all of the elements of spirit, soul, and body. Our constitution is physical, spiritual, and mental.
First we must understand that God is the author of our nature. God is the cause of our constitution. Neither Adam nor the devil forms our nature. The Bible says that God personally forms us in the womb (Gen. 4:1; Ex. 4:11; Isa. 27:11; 43:7; 49:5; 64:8; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 95:6; 139:13-14, 16; Ecc. 7:29; Job 10:9-11; 31:15; 35:10; Jn. 1:3). God did not merely create Adam and then step back as Deism claims. Our nature is not the product of mere natural generation. God is not uninvolved in our formation. God is the Creator of everyone. The development of a child inside the womb is a miracle, it is supernatural. The work of designing and creating a baby inside the womb is God’s own personal work. That is why God takes personal responsibility for the condition of our flesh at birth (Exo. 4:11).
Mankind is described as being made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7). The Bible says that men are “made after the similitude of God” (Jas. 3:9) even after the fall of Adam. That is why when it comes to sin, the Bible says that sin is actually contrary to human nature (Rom. 1:26-27). God wanted mankind to imitate Him in choosing holiness (Lev. 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:26; Matt. 5:48; 1 Pet. 1:16). God did not design us to live wickedly. Sin is an abuse and misuse of our constitution. That is why the Bible says it is “against nature” to sin. Sinners choose to do “that which is against nature”. Through the freedom of their will they choose to do what is contrary to their nature or design. It was never God’s intention for man to sin; it was not His plan for mankind to be sinful (Gen. 6:5-6; Matt. 25:41; Eph. 1:4; 1 Thes. 4:3). God would have preferred a sinless universe that needed no atonement at all (1 Sam. 15:22). Since sin was contrary to God’s plan or intention for mankind, God has made sin contrary to the design of our constitution.
God never intended for us to use our constitution for sin but wants us to use our body for righteousness (Rom. 6:13, 19; Rom. 12:1; 1 Thes. 4:3-4). “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor.” (1 Thes. 4:3-4). Our constitution was not designed for sin, but sin is contrary to the intended use of our nature, because God is our designer. “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works…” (Ps. 139:14) Jed Smock said, “Sin is a perversion of our nature. We were not designed to sin. We were designed to live holy. And sin is using our nature selfishly instead of using our human nature lovingly.” Jed Smock (Debate on Total Depravity, Jed Smock vs. Peter Allison, produced by Destiny Ministries). He also said, "... as an automobile is not designed to be used as a tractor, our minds and bodies are not designed to plow the fields of sin... sin is contrary to man’s design and nature." Jed Smock (The Campus Ministry USA Email Newsletter, Plowing Through, published Dec. 17th, 2009)
God also designed our constitution or nature with a conscience so that we have the natural tendency or constitutional bent to obey the law of God. “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law are a law unto themselves: which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another…” (Rom. 2:14-15). This is often referred to as “natural revelation” or “the light of nature”. We have a natural disposition, or a constitutional inclination, to obey the law of God. By divine design we have a constitutional bias against sin. God has designed our nature to be in favor of virtue or goodness by written his law upon hearts. Men sin against their better knowledge. Sin is unintelligent (Matt. 7:24-27). Sin is to choose against what you know to be right, to choose what you know to be wrong. “Jesus said unto them, if ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, we see; therefore your sin remaineth.” (John 9:41). “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” (Jas. 4:17).
Deep inside man, within his very essence, embedded in the nature God has given him, is the still small voice of conscience that cries against his every act of sin and commands obedience to the moral law of God. A sinner chooses contrary to the influence of his nature. A sinner is at variance with his conscience. He is fighting against his knowledge. He has mutinied against the light of nature! He is at war with his own constitution! Men sin against the nature that God has given them.
The doctrine of the Necessitarians is that the will of a being is necessitated by the nature that that being has. The mode of the wills operation is that of necessity. The doctrine of Libertarians is that the will of a being is free to act according to, or contrary to, the nature that they have. The nature one has may influence their choices but not cause their choices. The mode of the wills operation is that of liberty. The former and not the latter is what are affirmed by the Scriptures.
If the will was not free but was necessity by the nature then the fall of angels and men would have never occurred. Sin is the proof of free will. When God created everything He said it was “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Lucifer himself was created an angel, not a demon, who had a good nature. Lucifer became a devil by sinning against his nature. His sin and character was not the product of his nature, but was the product of his will. “For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” (Isa. 14:13-14). Your nature does not cause your will, that is, the state of your nature does not necessitate the choices of your will. The will is free to choose according to or contrary to your nature (Rom. 1:26-27). Your nature may influence your choices but it does not cause your choices. The choices of the will are self-determined. Free will is the power of self-determination. The faculty of the will originates choices freely. The rebellion of Lucifer was not committed by any necessity of his nature but occurred through the freedom of his will. Likewise, God created Adam, Eve, with a good nature. Yet despite their good nature, they sinned. Their will was free to choose according to, or contrary to, their nature. The tragedy of mankind is that God has created every single one of us and we too, just like our first parents, have freely chosen to sin against our nature.
Alfred T. Overstreet said, “God created all men with a good nature. All sin is a corruption of man’s nature, it is a perversion of man’s nature. It is rebellion against our nature – it is rebellion against the ‘law of God written in our hearts’ and against the God who has written his law in our hearts.”1 He also said, “The nature we are born with teaches us to reject evil and choose good… Men must go against their nature to sin.”2
Winkie Pratney said, “Sin is never natural. It is horribly un-natural. Sin is never ‘human’. It is horribly in-human. Sin creates remorse, guilt, and shame; every time a man feels these three witnesses in his soul, they tell him sin is not natural. Even the simple lie-detector can tell us this. The whole body reacts adversely when a man sins… God never planned sin for man. It is the most un-natural thing in the moral Universe… Do not dare say sin is ‘natural’! God hates sin with perfect hatred; He loves humanity.”3
Charles Finney said, “The constitution of a moral being as a whole, when all the powers are developed, does not tend to sin, but strongly in an opposite direction…”4
We know experientially through consciousness that we have been so created by God that we naturally feel the pains of conscience when we do what is wrong and we naturally have peace of mind when we do what is right. When the idea of right and wrong is developed within the mind, we naturally feel good when we choose to do what is right and we naturally feel bad when we choose to do what is wrong. It is not by choice that we feel that way, it is by nature. By design, our sensibilities naturally respond or react when our will chooses contrary to, or in conformity with, the knowledge of our mind.
Gordon C. Olson said, “God endowed man’s constitution with profound abilities and reactions to enable him to achieve great heights of comprehension and moral character in imitation of his Creator. Just as virtuous actions would deposit uplifting characteristics in the inner personality, so sinful indulgences would degrade our inner being and bring about disturbing agitations.” Gordon C. Olson (The Truth Shall Set You Free, published by BRCCD, p. 141).
Even a transgressor can say “I consent unto the law that it is good” (Rom. 7:16) because of “the law of” his “mind” (Rom. 7:23). A sinner can say, “I delight in the law of God after the inward man” (Rom. 7:22) which is a classic way of referring to our God given conscience. The supernatural revelation of “thou shalt not” given in the Ten Commandments is automatically affirmed by the natural revelation of our conscience. If the unregenerate did not consent unto the goodness law, they could never be convicted and consequently converted. They could never feel guilt or be convinced that they are justly condemned if they did not consent to the goodness of the law which they have chosen to violate. A man would feel justified in violating a bad law but a man would feel condemned for violating a good law. If the law is wrong, the transgressor is right. If the law is right, the transgressor is wrong. A man can only feel guilty and his mind can only recognize that he was wrong for his transgression if his mind is convinced that the law which was violated was a good law.
Since God has created our nature with a conscience, or a natural knowledge of right and wrong, we naturally approve of the moral attributes of God and other benevolent beings. We also naturally disapprove of the moral attributes of the devil and other selfish beings. Epic tales of good vs. evil in both literature and Hollywood depend upon mankind’s ability to distinguish between good and evil and mankind’s natural approval of the good and natural disapproval of evil. Think of any famous tale of good vs. evil, or think of any story that has a “good guy” and a “bad guy”. What was it that made the “good guy” good? It was that he cared about other people. We naturally know what the Bible also says, that love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:10; Gal. 5:14). What was it that made the “bad guy” bad? It was that he cared supremely for himself. We naturally admire and respect a man’s good moral character. Through our conscience we naturally know that benevolence is right and selfishness is wrong. It is because of our conscience, or the natural moral knowledge God has given us, that we naturally approval of what is right and good and naturally disapprove of what is evil and wrong. It is our nature to approve of what is good and it is our nature to disapprove of what is evil.
Broadcasted through the airwaves each year are pictures and videos of suffering children and starving masses across our world. Which heart does not naturally break at the sight of such agony, grief, and misfortune? These commercials are meant to be appeals to our “humanity”. God designed us with a natural compassion for the weak, hurting, and dying. The tragedy of humanity is that despite our humanity, despite our natural compassion, men still choose to be selfish and wicked. The wickedness of man is despite our nature, not because of it.
I remember as a young child on the playground of my elementary school seeing a little boy being picked on by another boy. I remember being naturally outraged at the abuse the child was suffering by the bully. I naturally knew that the way he was being treated by the bully was wrong and consequently I naturally felt upset over it. Having care and concern for the young and innocent is a “natural affection” (Rom. 1:31; 2 Tim. 3:3). These thoughts and feelings I had were not the origination of my own choice but were the result of the design of God. It was by nature, not by choice, that I was disturbed over this unjust treatment. It is natural to be upset over the abuse an innocent person suffers at the hands of a bully; it is unnatural not to be so.
I can also remember when my brother and I were very young children and our mother took us for a walk to the local corner store. My brother wanted a candy bar but my mother denied his request. After getting back home, my mother saw my brother walking around with a candy bar. My mother asked, “Where did you get that?” Immediately my brother burst into tears. Nobody had to teach my brother to cry, or even tell my brother to cry, it was natural. Eventually he remorsefully confessed to stealing the candy. My brother felt awful about his theft and I did too. I remembered how nice and friendly the owner of the store had always been to us. I felt bad that my brother would steal from him. My mother had my brother walk back to the store, return the candy bar, and apologize to the owner. Both my brother and I had very sensitive consciences. It is natural to feel bad for sin. It is unnatural not to.
Through the habitual choice of sin a moral being is capable of numbing their conscience. Through continually ignoring your conscience, you can desensitize yourself so that you can have a seared conscience (1 Tim. 2:4). This state of insensitivity is not a natural state, but an unnatural state. It is a degenerate state which is arrived at through habitual choice. Men must corrupt themselves to be in such a state. God speaks of Israel after they continually rebelled against Him and He said, “Where they ashamed when they had committed abominations? Nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush…” (Jer. 6:15; 8:12) This state of being is not how God makes us, or how we are born, but how we can make ourselves through our free will. Extreme cases of this degenerate state would be sociopaths and serial killers. These are the exceptions and not the rule for mankind. The average or normal person does feel good when doing right and feels bad when doing wrong. That is normal or natural and anything else is abnormal and unnatural.
It should be understood that a man is not virtuous because he feels bad for doing wrong. Even the unconverted naturally feel bad for doing wrong. That is a natural reaction that the sensibilities have in response to the consciousness of the choices of the will and the moral knowledge of the mind. Our feelings naturally react when our will chooses to obey or disobey our conscience. Moral character is not determined by the states of the sensibilities but by the states of the will. Whether a man is good or evil is not determined by his nature but by his will. A man is virtuous if he actually chooses what is virtuous. A man is not virtuous because he has a natural approval of towards virtue or because sin is against his nature or design. His will is free to live according to his nature or to choose that which is against nature. Man’s character is derived from his will choosing according to, or contrary to, the conscience God created as part of his nature.
We must not confuse character with constitution. Nature and character must be distinguished between, lest we confuse our natural attributes with our moral attributes. Our character is determined by our own will. Our constitution or nature is determined by God’s will. Moral character has to do with voluntary states, not involuntary states. Nature has to do with involuntary states, not voluntary states. There is no moral character in man’s involuntary nature. Man did not consent to or choose what type of nature, design, or natural tendencies he would have. Therefore his moral character does not consist in his nature, design, or natural tendencies. Man’s design does not show any virtue in man, rather, it shows the goodness of our Designer. God has given us our nature and therefore our nature reveals the character of God. Thomas Chalmers said “There are certain broad and decisive indications of moral design, and so of a moral designer, in the constitution of our world… One patent example of this in the constitution of man, is the force and prevalence of compassion – an endowment which could not have proceeded from a malignant being; but which evinces the Author of our nature to be himself compassion and generous.” Thomas Chalmers (The Bridgewater Treatises, On the Power Wisdom and Goodness of God as Manifest in the Adaption of External Nature to the Moral and Intellectual Constitution of Man, 1853 Edition, p. 251)
Some may think that if I am saying that mankind has a natural or constitutional tendency towards virtue and against sin, that mankind therefore is not sinful. The truth is that a man is a sinner, who truly deserves punishment and therefore needs forgiveness through the atonement of Christ, because while God has given mankind the natural ability to obey Him, and He has given us the natural tendency to obey Him, we have nevertheless chosen to sin. This is true not only of Adam but also of all of us. Men sin against their conscience and therefore they sin against their nature. The influences of nature can be obeyed or disobeyed, yielded to or resisted. Despite all the efforts of God, both internal and external to man, mankind has still chosen to rebel against the good moral government of God.
The Bible says that sinful men have “corrupted themselves” (Gen. 6:12; Exo. 32:7, Deut. 9:12, Deut. 32:5, Jdg. 2:19, Hos. 9:9). The Bible say’s man’s heart is evil from their youth (Gen. 8:21; Jer. 32:30). That means that all men everywhere, at the age of accountability when they know right from wrong and become moral agents, have personally and freely chosen to be sinners (Gen. 6:12, Ex. 32:7, Deut. 9:12, Deut. 32:5, Jdg. 2:19, Hos. 9:9, Ps. 14:2-3, Isa. 53:6, Ecc. 7:29, Rom. 3:23, Rom. 5:12). Men have chosen to be sinners despite the fact that sin is contrary to our design or nature, and despite our natural ability to do the will of God. “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way...” (Isa. 53:6). The phrase “we have turned” means personal deliberation. Sinners are deliberately rebels. Sin is something that each individual conceives in their own heart (Acts 5:4), something that men originate with their own will (Matt. 12:35, Lk. 6:45). “All have sinned” (Rom. 3:23) means that all men have personally and deliberately chosen to violate the law of God. “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” (Ecc. 7:29). We have used our natural ability of choice to choose contrary to the design of our nature. “But unto the wicked God saith… thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee.” (Ps. 50:17) All men have deliberately chosen to rebel against the moral knowledge God has given them and to choose what they have naturally known to be wrong. Sin is universal because temptation and free will are universal. All men, at some point, have freely given into temptation.
To deny that man is sinful by nature is not the same as denying that man is sinful. You can deny that man is sinful by nature and still admit that man is sinful. To say that man is not sinful by nature but yet is still sinful is to affirm that man is sinful by choice. A man is the author of his own character.
Ignatius said, "If anyone is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice." Ignatius (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume One, p. 61)
Gordon C. Olson said, “Moral beings themselves are the author of their own rebellion, which is an unintelligent abuse of their God-given endowments of personality…. It is man who has abused his God-given freedom.”5 We cannot blame anyone else for our sin. If we are sinners, it is our own fault.
Paris Reidhead said, “Are people in trouble spiritually because they inherit some spiritual defect from their parents or grandparents? No. They are in trouble because when they reach the age of accountability they deliberately turn their own way - they commit their will to the principle and practice of pleasing themselves as the end of their being. That is sin.”6 He also said, "Now remember, sin is a crime. It is the committal of the will to the principle and practice of governing one's life to please one's self. In other words, when the Scripture says, 'all have sinned,' it is saying that upon reaching the age of accountability, every individual has chosen to govern and control his life to please himself... We know that upon reaching the age of accountability, each of us chose as the principle by which we would live: 'I am going to govern and control my own life."7
The very basis of our guilt is the fact that we have the natural ability to obey God (free will) and a natural knowledge and bent to obey God (conscience) and have chosen to sin. Without free will and conscience being elements of man’s nature, man could not be accountable for his actions at all. The faculties of free will and conscience are essential to moral agency and consequently necessary for any being to be subject to moral government. The fact that mankind has a nature that includes free will and conscience does not mean that mankind is not sinful, but is actually the precondition for man to even be sinful at all. That is because a being is sinful if they freely choose to do what they know is wrong (Jn. 9:41; Jas. 4:17). Men are sinners because they sin when they don’t have to, knowing that it is wrong but doing it anyways.
While it is true that our natural tendency is for virtue as far as our conscience is concerned, but our natural tendency is for self-gratification, as far as our flesh is concerned. Our flesh doesn’t care if we gratify it naturally or unnaturally, lawfully or unlawfully, it just wants to be gratified. The reason many think that we have a “natural tendency towards sin” is because they are thinking of our flesh, but our flesh doesn’t want “sin” as if “sin” was the end in mind or object sought. The flesh wants gratification, whether it comes through sin or through lawful means.
We have a constitutional, natural, God given desire for gratification. The flesh and mind that God has given us has natural desires that can be gratified through natural and lawful means. God designed our body to be gratified through lawful means. Sin is the choice of the will to gratify these natural desires through unnatural and unlawful means. F. Lagard Smith said, "We have a nature that is capable of being perverted from legitimate to illegitimate, from the natural to the unnatural, from the pure to the polluted." He said that sin is to "pervert... natural, legitimate, human desires."8 Augustine said, "Evil is making a bad use of a good thing."9 Tertullian said that the person who chooses to sin chooses to “make a bad use of his created constitution” Tertullian (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 285, published by Hendrickson Publishers). Paris Reidhead said, “sin is the decision to gratify a good appetite in a bad way." Paris Reidhead (Finding the Reality of God, pg 141-142)
A perfect example of this is the narrative of Eve’s temptation and sin. We are told that she was tempted, not because she had a sinful nature, but because she had natural God given desires which the devil tempted her to gratify through forbidden means. “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” (Gen. 3:6). The narrative of Jesus’ temptation in the desert shows the devil appealing to the natural desires that Jesus’ body had (Luke 4:3).
Our flesh has its proper God given place but we must choose to control it and use it the way God intended. The devil will tempt mean to gratify their natural desires in an unnatural and unlawful way. This is why we must choose to keep our body under subjection (1 Corinthians 9:27) and choose to deny ourselves (Lk. 9:23). “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh…” (Gal. 5:17). Our flesh wants us to be self-indulgent and practice self-gratification but the Spirit tells us to practice self-control and self-denial, choosing to our flesh in its proper place and make a legitimate use of it. Our flesh has its proper function and its desires have a natural and lawful way of being gratified. Sin is to misuse our flesh and gratify its desires unnaturally and unlawfully outside of its intended purpose and legitimate boundaries.
Michael Pearl said, “The root of all sin is founded in runaway indulgence of God-given desires… Drives which are not in themselves evil, nonetheless, form the seedbed on which sin will assuredly grow… As the body of flesh was the medium of Eve’s sin and of Christ’s temptation, so it is the implement of your child’s development into selfishness – which, at maturity, will constitute sinfulness.”10
Charles Finney said, “The bodily appetites and tendencies of body and mind, when strongly excited, become the occasions of sin. So it was with Adam. No one will say that Adam had a sinful nature. But he had, by his constitution, an appetite for food and a desire for knowledge. These were not sinful but were as God made them. They were necessary to fit him to live in this world as a subject of God’s moral government. But being strongly excited led to indulgence, and thus became the occasions of his sinning against God. These tendencies were innocent in themselves, but he yielded to them in a sinful manner, and that was his sin.” 11
Sin is an illegitimate use of our flesh, an illegitimate gratification of a legitimate desire. An example would be our sexual desires. The attraction between the sexes is considered a “natural attraction”. It is normal and natural and is not in and of itself wrong. God has given us our sex drive. These desires are God given. Everything God creates is good (Gen. 1:31). Paris Reidhead said, "When God made us He gave us many different appetites... But God looked at the being He made and to whom He had given all these appetites and urges and said, 'It is good!'...” Paris Reidhead (Finding the Reality of God, p. 85) God intended for man to populate the world. God told Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiple” (Gen. 1:22, 28). Julian of Eclanum rightly said “that the sexual impulse—that is, that the virility itself, without which there can be no intercourse—is ordained by God.”12 God designed men and women for each other. If a man and a woman commit themselves to each other through marriage, and engage in a sexual relationship with each other within that marriage, they are naturally and lawfully satisfying or fulfilling their God given desires (Heb. 13:4). Natural attraction is a normal state of the flesh, but lust in the sinful sense is a state of the will. It is a sin to intentionally look at a women, whom you are not married to, lustfully (Matt. 5:28) but there is no sin in marital sex or in the fleshly passions which are involved, so long as these desires are fulfilled lawfully and naturally.
When a person engages in any form of sexual immorality, such as fornication, homosexuality, or sodomy, they are choosing contrary to God’s intention, contrary to the design of our constitution. These sins are against our nature, they are contrary to our design. Through these sins men are trying to satisfy or fulfill their God given sexual desires in an unnatural, unlawful, and selfish manner. The Bible says that fornication is a sin against our body (1 Cor. 6:18), homosexuality is against nature or against the natural use of the body (Rom. 1:26-27) and sodomy is an abuse of our flesh (1 Cor. 6:9). Men are not fornicators or homosexuals by birth or by design. Men are sinners by choice. Our will is free to choose to gratify our flesh lawfully or unlawfully, naturally or unnaturally. The natural desires of our flesh become the occasions of sin.
The fact that our nature or body is susceptible to temptation does not mean that we have a “sinful nature”, a “sinful flesh”, or a “sinful body”. We must distinguish between sin and temptation. The desires of the body are the occasions of temptation (Jas. 1:14-15) but sin itself is a choice of the will (John 5:14, John 8:11, Rom. 6:12; Rom. 6:19 Eph. 4:26; 1 Jn. 3:4). Charles Finney said, “the appetites and passions tend so strongly to self-indulgence. These are temptations to sin, but sin itself consists not in these appetites and propensities, but in the voluntary committal of the will to their indulgence. This committal of the will is selfishness.”13
Sin is contrary to the design of our body. It is an abuse and misuse of our flesh. An example is the sin of drunkenness. Drunkenness is an unnatural state of mind and body. Sobriety is a natural state. Drunkenness is an “induced” state. Liquor and beer require an “acquired taste”. Our body naturally rejects alcohol when the body becomes inebriated or intoxicated. Our body reacts with vomiting and headaches which show that the sin of drunkenness is contrary to our nature, it is contrary to our design, it is contrary to the proper function of our flesh. We have to corrupt our body to enjoy cigarettes or to crave alcohol. Our bodies do not naturally have those enjoyments or cravings. It is through choice that we corrupt our flesh, degenerate our nature, or pervert our body to enjoy and crave these things.
These unnatural desires of the flesh do not, in and of themselves, constitute sin. Drug babies for example cannot be considered “sinful” just because they inherit a flesh that has these unnatural cravings. Sin or sinfulness does not consist in the states of the body or in the states of the sensibilities. All moral character consists in the states of the will. A person could decide to no longer abuse mind altering substances while their flesh is going through withdrawals. If a person’s body craves drugs, but they choose not to gratify these cravings, than they are experiencing temptation but are not sinning.
Charles Finney said, “If these feelings are not suffered to influence the will… if such feelings are not cherished, and are not suffered to shake the integrity of the will; they are not sin. That is, the will does not to them, but the contrary. They are only temptations. If they are allowed to control the will, to break forth in words and actions, then there is sin; but the sin does not consist in the feelings, but in the consent of the will, to gratify them.” 14 Paris Reidhead said, “Now temptation is not sin. Temptation is the proposition presented to the mind that you can satisfy a good appetite in a forbidden way. Temptation leads to sin…. Sin is the decision of the will…. sin is the decision to gratify a good appetite in a bad way."15 Winkie Pratney said, “Don’t mistake temptation for sin. Temptation is a suggestion to gratify a desire in an illegal way or amount. Temptation is not sin. Jesus was tempted.”16 The word “temptation” itself implies man’s choice to yield or resist or man’s ability to obey or disobey.
We cannot say that our flesh is “sinful” or that we have a “sinful nature” just because our flesh or nature is susceptible to temptation. It is not “sinful” to be tempted. Jesus Christ was tempted yet without sin (Heb. 4:15). Therefore temptation is not sin. Sinfulness is violation of God’s law (1 Jn. 3:4). God’s law tells us what type of choices we should and shouldn’t make (Exo. 20:3-17), not what type of body or nature we should or shouldn’t have. Therefore choices can be sinful, but a body or a nature cannot be. Our flesh is just dirt (Gen. 2:7, Gen. 3:19) and therefore it cannot be “sinful”. You cannot have sinful dirt. Dirt does not violate any commandment. There is no commandment that says, “thou shalt not be made out of dirt”. Even if there was such a commandment, our violation of it would not be our fault but God’s fault, since it was God who made us out of dirt.
Flesh is not sinful but it can be used sinfully. It is sinful to selfishly live after the flesh (Rom. 8:13), or to be living to gratify our flesh (Rom. 8:7), but it is not sinful to have a flesh. We know that it is not sinful to have a flesh because Jesus Christ was sinless (2 Cor. 5:21) and He had a flesh (Luke 24:39, John 1:14, 1 Tim. 3:16, 1 Jn. 4:3, 2 Jn. 1:7). Jesus had the same type of flesh that we have. “For as much than as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same…. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren…” (Heb. 2:14, 16-17). Jesus made in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3) which means Jesus was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:7). The word “flesh” is sometimes used synonymous with men (Gen. 6:12, Matt. 16:17). Jesus was morally perfect (2 Cor. 5:21) even before He had a glorified, resurrected, or perfect body, even while he had a body which was subjected to death (Heb. 2:14). Sin is not a substance of the body. Sin is a choice of the will. Therefore you don’t need a new body or a new substance to be free from sin. You can have a pure heart in this life. We must differentiate between moral depravity and physical depravity and we must distinguish between moral perfection (Philippians 3:15) and physical perfection (Philippians 3:11-12). What is physical relates to the flesh but what is moral relates to the will.
While we do inherit physical depravity, or a body that is subjected to death (Gen. 3:22; 1 Cor. 15:22), we do not inherit moral depravity (Eze. 18:19-22). Moral depravity is our own fault. Moral character is not hereditary but originated. Righteous parents do not give birth to righteous children. Sinful parents do not give birth to sinful children. A righteous moral character, or a sinful moral character, requires personal choice. A man is the author of his own character. Moral character cannot be “transmitted through natural generation” or inherited by posterity. Neither righteousness nor sinfulness is a hereditary substance. Infants are morally innocent (2 Kng. 21:16; 24:4; Jer. 13:26-27; Ps. 106:37-38; Matt. 18:3). They don’t yet have moral character because they have not yet “done anything” morally “good or evil” (Rom. 9:11). Moral knowledge plus moral choices equals moral character. Without moral knowledge and moral choices there can be no moral character. Children remain morally innocent until the age of accountability, which is the age of reason, when they know right from wrong (Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15-16), and choose to do wrong (Jas. 4:17). Those who don’t know right from wrong cannot be sinful (Jn. 9:41) and infants do not yet know right from wrong (Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15-16). The idea that infants are born sinful because they are born of flesh is nonsense.
Sin is a state of the will, not a state of our nature. Charles Finney said, “The fact is, sin never can consist in having a nature, nor in what nature is, but only and alone in the bad use which we make of our nature. This is all. Our Maker will never find fault with us for what He has Himself done or made; certainly not. He will not condemn us, if we will only make a right use of our powers – of our intellect, our sensibilities, and our will. He never holds us responsible for our original nature… since there is no law against nature, nature cannot be a transgression… man’s nature is not a proper subject for legislation, precept, and penalty, inasmuch as it lies entirely without the pale of voluntary action, or of any action of man at all.”17 Sin is the choice to violate God’s law. God’s law tells us what type of choices to have, not what type of substance to be made of. Therefore choices can be sinful but our substance cannot be. Since sin is a choice and not a substance, men can only be sinful by choice and not by substance and men can only be sinners by choice and not by substance.
The Gnostic’s taught that the flesh was sinful in and of itself which is why they denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh (1 Jn. 4:3, 2 Jn. 1:7). Gnosticism believes that sin is a substance of the body. Gnosticism attributes moral qualities to states of matter. The Bible says our flesh is an instrument or a tool which we could use for sin or for righteousness. Paul said, “Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.” (Rom. 6:13) and “…for as ye have yielded your members servants of uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.” (Rom. 6:19). Sin is not the substance of our body, but we can choose to use our flesh for sin or use our flesh for the service of God.
To counteract the Gnostic idea that matter was intrinsically evil, or that the flesh was in and of itself sinful, Paul said that we can choose to sanctify our flesh, to set apart our bodies for the service of God. “I beseech you therefore brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” (Rom. 12:1). “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor.” (1 Thes. 4:3-4). “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thes. 5:23). “I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.” (1 Tim. 2:8).
We certainly cannot have a glorified body in this life but we can have a sanctified body in this life. That means that we cannot have a physically perfect body in this life (Philippians 3:11-12) but we certainly don’t have to use our body to sin or gratify our flesh through sin. We can sanctify our flesh. We can set apart our body from sin to the service of God.
If we fail to distinguish between sin and temptation, between the physical and the moral, between nature and character, between natural attributes and moral attributes, we will fall into the error of Gnosticism. While I was preaching on North Carolina State University I asked a Calvinist, “Is the body a sin?” He said, “Yes our bodies are made of sin.” I asked, “You can put sin under a microscope and look at it?” He said, “Sure.” While I was preaching on Alabama A&M a man said to me, “You can’t stop sinning. Even waking up is a sin because you wake up in sinful flesh.” While I was open air preaching at the University of Texas in Austin I said, “Go and sin no more” to which a Calvinist responded, “Just the fact that we are composed of flesh makes us sinners…” While I was open air preaching to students at Tyler Junior College, I said, "Sin is a voluntary choice to violate God's law!" A Calvinist in the crowd responded by saying, "Your body is sin. You are a sinner because you have a body. And so long as you are in your body, you are a sinner!"
After traveling the length and breadth of this nation and talking to thousands of people I have concluded that Gnosticism is alive and well today. I have been shocked at how many Gnostic Calvinists I have encountered. The idea that your body is sinful and consequently you cannot be morally perfect until you get a glorified body is pure Gnosticism.
Gnosticism fails to distinguish between physical depravity and moral depravity. Gnostic moral philosophy says that sin is a substance of matter and is not limited to free will choices. To view sin as a state of the body, or a state of human nature, rather than a state of the will, is to have a Gnostic view of sin. The whole idea that man has a “sinful nature” or that man’s nature is sinful, that man is sinful through hereditary inheritance rather than through voluntary choice, is nothing more than the remains of Gnostic philosophy surviving through Augustinian and Calvinistic theology. The theological term of “the transmission of sin” presupposes that sin is some sort of substance rather than a personal choice. It is a Gnostic world-view to blame sin on man’s nature rather than on man’s free will.
These notions were foreign to the Early Church and even refuted by them, as they were held only by the Gnostics until Augustine converted from Manichean Gnosticism and brought these views with him into the Church. Many throughout Church history have publicly refuted these Gnostic views of human flesh and human nature.
Charles Finney said, “To represent the constitution as sinful, is to present God, who is the author of the constitution, as the author of sin.”18 A writer in the Early Church said, “… it is impious to say that sin is inherent in nature, because in this way the author of nature is being judged at fault.”19 Winkie Pratney said, “To equate humanity with sinfulness is to make God the Author of His own worst enemy; to make God responsible for the thing that has brought Him unhappiness.”20 Julian of Eclanum said, “God is the Maker of all those that are born, and that the sons of men are God's work; and that all sin descends not from nature, but from the will.”21 Asa Mahan said, “If the above dogma is true, it is demonstrably evident, that this corrupt nature comes into existence without knowledge, choice, or agency of the creature, who for its existence is pronounced deserving of, and ‘bound over to the wrath of God.’ Equally evident is it, that this corrupt nature exists as the result of the direct agency of God. He proclaims himself the maker of ‘every soul of man.’ As its Maker, He must have imparted to that soul the constitution or nature which it actually possesses.” 22
God certainly would not create us with a sinful nature that makes sin necessary or unavoidable since God does not even tempt anyone to sin (Jas. 1:13). God does not form us in the womb with a sinful nature. The Bible says that we are wonderfully made. King David said, "I will praise thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are they works; and that my soul knoweth right well." (Ps. 139:14). We could not be wonderfully made if we were sinfully made. God’s works could not be marvelous if God created sinfulness. God does not make men sinners but men make themselves transgressors (Ecc. 7:29; Gal. 2:17-18).
While I was open air preaching at the University of Minnesota in Duluth, one of the students asked me “Why did God created sin?” I explained to him that sin was not part of God's creation. Sin is a choice that men and angels have made. God is not the author of sin. Sin is originated by other moral beings. Sin is the wrong use of free will. Sin is not some substance that God created. Sin is a free choice that moral beings have made. Sin is not God’s creation, it is our own. Each sinner creates or originates their sin. Each individual is the author of their own moral character.
Man, not God, is at blame for sin because sin is the result of free will, not the result of a sinful nature. Sin is the fruit of our will, not the necessity of our flesh or the state of our nature. Sin is man’s fault. Man is to be blamed for sin. That is because man is the cause of sin. Sin is man’s choice. Sin is the fault of our own will. Sin is not God’s fault. God is not to be blamed for sin. God is not the cause of sin. That is because sin is not the fault of the nature God has given us. Everything God makes is good (Gen. 1:31). The problem with the world is not the nature God has given us. The problem is that God’s creation has corrupted itself (Gen. 6:12). The problem with the world is the choices that men have made. The problem is not with nature but with the will of man.
Pelagius said, “…we have to inquire what sin is, - some substance, or wholly a name without substance, whereby is expressed not a thing, not an existence, not some sort of a body, but the doing of a wrongful deed.” (On Nature and Grace by Augustine) Sin is not a substance of the body. Sin is a choice of the will. The Bible does not teach that we will always have “indwelling sin” as some believe. “Indwelling sin” is a choice of the will, it is a disobedient heart. It is a choice to have sin inside of you or not. “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.” (Rom. 6:12). “If iniquity be in thine hand, put it away, and let not wickedness dwell in thy tabernacles.” (Job 11:14). “Let not” implies the choice of the will. “Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh…” (Ecc. 11:10). To “remove” or “put away” is a choice of our will. Jesus said, “cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside may be clean also.” We must choose to put away any sin that is within us. Since sin is a choice, to be free from sin requires choice.
We are taught to train our children in the way they should go (Prov. 22:6). This presupposes that they have the power of choice to determine how they are going to live and through teaching we can influence them to make the right choices. We are also taught about the goodness of physically disciplining our children (Deut. 21:18; Prov. 22:15; 29:15). This implies that bad behavior is the result of their own will, not necessitated by their nature. If their behavior was a necessity of their nature, instead of that which was chosen or determined by free will, teaching our children would be useless and disciplining them would be cruel. Disciplining children presupposes that their behavior and moral character is self-caused, self-determined, or self-originated, deriving from their own will.
Even Augustine at one point said, “Sin is volitionary. No one is compelled by his nature to sin.” Augustine (Did God Know by H. Roy Elseth, pg 41, published by Calvary United Church) The fact that God punishes sinners for their sin shows that sin is caused by the liberty of their will, not the necessity of their nature. If sin were necessitated by their nature then sin is not their fault and they cannot be justly punished for it. If sin is caused by the freedom of their will then sin is their fault and they can be justly punished for it. Tertullian said, “No reward can be justly bestowed, no punishment can be justly inflicted, upon him who is good or bad by necessity, and not by his own choice.” (Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 61, published by Truth in Heart) Justin Martyr said, "If a man were created evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.” Justin Martyr (First Apology Chap. 43) Origen said, “The Scriptures…emphasize the freedom of the will. They condemn those who sin, and approve those who do right… We are responsible for being bad and worthy of being cast outside. For it is not the nature in us that is the cause of the evil; rather, it is the voluntary choice that works evil.” Origen (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 289, published by Hendrickson Publishers) Irenaeus said, “Those who do not do it [good] will receive the just judgment of God, because they had not work good when they had it in their power to do so. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for they were created that way. Nor would the former be reprehensible, for that is how they were made. However, all men are of the same nature. They are all able to hold fast and to go what is good. On the other hand, they have the power to cast good from them and not to do it.” Irenaeus (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 287, published by Hendrickson Publishers)
The fact that Jesus Christ rebuked sin (Rev. 3:19) and we are called to rebuke sin (Lev. 19:17; Lk. 17:3; 1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:13; 2:15) implies that sin is a choice of a person’s will and not a state of their nature. It implies that their sinfulness is their own fault. It implies that their moral character is within the realm of their own control. If a man is born sinful because of the nature they inherit, their sinfulness is not their fault and it makes no sense to rebuke them for their sinfulness. But if a man is a sinner by choice, if a sinner is the cause and creator of sin, then rebuking him makes total sense. The very words “sinner” and “transgressor” implies choice. A sinner is someone who has made the choice to sin. A transgressor is someone who has made the choice to transgress God’s law. Sin or sinfulness is not a hereditary nature, sin or sinfulness is a choice to violate God’s law (1 Jn. 3:4). Evil is something that the will can refuse and good is something that the will can choose. The Bible says “to refuse the evil, and good the good.” (Isa. 7:15-16). Some today may think that sin is natural because they have developed a habit of sinning. Choice creates character and character creates habits. Through the continual choice of disobedience men have made sin “natural” or “normal” for them, in the sense that it has become their habit. When men do something so often and regularly, it becomes like “second nature” to them. This habit of sin, or tendency towards unlawful gratification, is the result of their own will and not the product of the hands of God. Their habit comes, not from their God given constitution, but from their own will.
We have a natural tendency towards virtue when our conscience is developed, but before it is developed, we only have a constitutional tendency towards self-gratification. In the development of a child, their flesh with its passions and desires is developed long before their mind or conscience is developed. By the age of accountability children have developed a habit of self-indulgence and self-gratification which they choose to continue in even after they know better. This self-centeredness becomes sinful once they know better (Jn. 9:41; Jas 4:17), once the value of other people is developed in their minds. Ones a person knows that God is supremely valuable and therefore we ought to love Him supremely, and that our neighbor is equally valuable and therefore we ought to love them equally, it is sinful, wicked, and rebellious to be self-centered and to live supremely for the gratification of ourselves.
When the Bible talks about the natural man (1 Cor. 2:14) it is talking about a sensual and carnal man. It is someone who chooses to be governed by their passions rather than being governed by their conscience. When the Bible says that sinners are “by nature children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3) it is talking about those who live for the gratification of their flesh. The context of men being under God’s wrath by nature is talking about a former manner of life, addressing a previous lifestyle. "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world... among whom also all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh..." (Eph. 2:2-3) Instead of obeying their conscience, living for God, and putting their flesh in its proper place (a spiritual life), they ignore their conscience and live for themselves by living for the gratification of their flesh (a carnal life). This is a natural life as opposed to a spiritual life. Living a natural or carnal life is selfishly living for the gratification of your flesh.
In summary, our constitution is not sinful in and of itself. Our constitution could be used as a tool for righteousness or unrighteousness. We do not have a constitutional tendency towards “in” but a constitutional tendency towards gratification because of our flesh and towards virtue when our conscience is developed. We naturally know good and evil because God has written his laws upon our conscience and we consequently naturally feel good when we do what is right and we naturally feel bad when we do wrong. That is the way God has designed our constitution. Feeling bad is an undesirable state. It is a state of misery. Feeling good is a desirable state. It is a state of happiness. Therefore, even though all men have chosen to sin contrary to their nature, we are naturally prone to virtue; we have a natural tendency towards goodness. That is, as far as our conscience and subsequent feelings or sensibilities are concerned. Our sensibilities respond to the knowledge of our mind, which is why we start to feel bad when we recognize that we have done what is wrong. Regarding our flesh, it wants gratification. Our flesh feels good if we gratify it lawfully or unlawfully, but if we gratify it unlawfully we start to feel the pains of conscience. Our flesh inclines us towards gratification, but our conscience or intelligence inclines us towards virtue.
It makes sense that if God would give us the natural or constitutional tendency towards virtue, and a natural approval of the good, that He would also give us the natural ability to do what is good. Or you could argue the other way around. If God gives us the natural ability to do good because He wants us to do what is good, why wouldn’t he give us the natural tendency towards virtue and the natural approval of it? If God wants us to avoid sin, why wouldn’t He give us the constitutional tendency away from sin? Since God wants us to obey His Will, He has given us the natural approval, the natural tendency, and the natural ability to obey His Will. Our Creator designed us for holiness.
APPENDIX II
ORIGINAL SIN PROOF TEXTS EXPLAINED
The following is an explanation of the passages commonly used in support of the “born a sinner” or “born sinful” doctrine.
I. "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps. 51:5
1. This scripture is talking about David and his mother. It is not referencing all of humanity. It says nothing about Adam.
2. The event spoke of is the conception of David, not the birth of David. He is not saying that he was born a sinner, he is saying that his mother was in sin when she conceived him. The conception is the beginning of the pregnancy, the birth is the end of the pregnancy. This passage is talking about the beginning of the pregnancy, the conception.
3. A strong case can be made that Ps. 51:5 is talking about the defilement of David’s mother because she was previously the wife of or the concubine of a heathen.
a. David had two half-sisters named Zeruiah and Abigail (1 Chron. 2:13-16).
b. The father of David’s half sisters was not Jesse but Nahash (2 Sam. 17:25).
c. Nahash was an Ammonite king (1 Sam. 11:1; 1 Sam. 12:12).
d. David’s father was Jesse, not Nahash. But the Father of David’s half sisters were daughts of Nahash. This could explain why Nahash showed kindness towards David (2 Sam. 10:2).
e. David’s mother was most likely the second wife of Jesse. The first wife of Jesse would have been considered superior to his second wife which had been either the concubine or wife of a heathen king.
f. This would explain why David’s half brothers viewed themselves as superior to David, and why David was considered prideful for thinking he was as good as them (1 Sam. 17:28-30).
g. This may explain why David was not called before Samuel the prophet amongst the other sons (1 Sam. 16:11).
h. David’s mother apparently had a good relationship with the Lord (Ps. 86:16; 116:16). But she would have been, in the eyes of Jewish law, considered defiled by her previous relationship with an Ammonite (Num. 25:1,2; Deut. 7:3,4; 1 Kings 11:2-4, Ezra 9:2; Neh. 13:23,25; 2 Cor. 6:14-17).
4. The context of David’s prayer of repentance is not consistent with David making an excuse for his adultery, “I was born this way”. In true repentance, an individual takes full responsible for their sin, offering no excuses for justification. David was not blaming his sin on his birth. David was simply stating that even the circumstances of his birth were surrounded by sexual sin.
5. David said that he was “wonderfully” and “marvelously” made by God in the womb (Ps. 139:13-14). Therefore, he could not have been sinfully made by his mother in the womb. It is not wonderful to be born sinful or marvelous to be created evil.
II. "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." Ps. 58:3
1. This is a poetic book which verses can be taken figuratively or literally.
2. The context of this passage requires a figurative interpretation.
a. The entire chapter is figurative; the surrounding verses are all poetic. It talks of men being like serpents and deaf adders (vs. 4), of God breaking the teeth of the young lions (vs. 6), men melting away like running water (vs.7), God bending his bow to shoot arrows (vs. 7), men passing away as a snail which melts (vs. 8), and God destroying like a whirlwind (vs. 9).
b. It says that children speak lies from the womb.
c. Infants do not know how to speak as soon as they are born.
d. Therefore, this passage is poetic not realistic; it is figurative not literal.
3. The obvious meaning of this passage is that individuals choose to sin at a very early age, from the dawn of their moral agency, and the first sin which children usually commit is lying.
III. “For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” Romans 5:19
1. If we are going to apply the first section of the passage unconditionally and universally, we must also apply the second section of the passage unconditionally and universally, since the language for both is the same. If the first section means mankind is universally and unconditionally condemned in Adam, then the second
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 19, 2009 12:41:03 GMT -5
CHAPTER SEVEN
SCRIPTURAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED
Now that I have presented my case for what the sinner’s problem really is and what the solution is that the Holy Spirit brings, this will help you understand my view of some of the passages commonly used against the idea of man’s natural ability or free will.
NO MAN CAN COME TO THE SON WITHOUT TEACHING FROM THE FATHER “No man can come to me, except the Father which sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:44
This passage must not be isolated or left alone because the following verse explains what it means. It is a sound principle of hermeneutics to allow the Bible to interpret itself. The context of a passage helps us to understand the passage itself. The following verse says, “It is written in the prophets, and they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” John 6:45
How then are men drawn by the Father? Are men drawn by a constitutional change? No. Men are drawn by moral means. Coming to Christ is a choice of the will, therefore the means used to bring about this choice are means which respect and regard the will of man. Coming to Christ is a choice of the will; therefore God brings men to Christ by influencing their will. God teaches men and this is what influences men to come to Jesus. The drawing of God is through spiritual revelation. This is no doubt how the Apostle Paul was converted (Acts 9:4), by a revelation of Jesus Christ. The Father draws men to His Son, by granting them a revelation of His Son and what He has done for us on the cross. “And if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (John 12:32).
If verse 44 was talking about a constitutional change, it could not be brought about by teaching as verse 45 says. Teaching has no tendency or ability to change the constitution of man. But if the drawing is brought about by teaching, as verse 45 says, than the drawing in verse 44 must be an influence upon the will of man. Truth influences the will and therefore teaching the truth has the ability to change the will of man.
I was pleased to find out that Albert Barnes also interpreted this passage the same way that I do. He said, “In the conversion of the sinner God enlightens the mind John 6:45, he inclines the will Psalms 110:3, and he influences the soul by motives, by just views of his law, by his love, his commands, and his threatenings; by a desire of happiness, and a consciousness of danger; by the Holy Spirit applying truth to the mind, and urging him to yield himself to the Saviour. So that, while God inclines him, and will have all the glory, man yields without compulsion; the obstacles are removed, and he becomes a willing servant of God.”1 He goes on to say, “Shall be all taught of God - This explains the preceding verse. It is by the teaching of his Word and Spirit that men are drawn to God. This shows that it is not compulsory, and that there is no obstacle in the way but a strong voluntary ignorance and unwillingness.” 2
Regarding man’s natural ability, man is only able to obey the truth that he knows. If a man does not know about Jesus, he is not able to believe in Jesus or to follow Jesus. Natural ability is not the ability to obey truth that you do not know; natural ability is the ability to obey the truth that you do know. Natural ability is not the ability to do the impossible (obey what is not known) but it is the ability to do the possible (obey what is known). Natural ability is the ability to obey, or disobey, the light or revelation that has been revealed or given. This is clearly stated by the Apostle Paul, “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:14). This shows, not only the necessity of open air preaching, but also the necessity for the work of the Spirit who takes the truth preached and presses it powerful upon the minds of men to influence their will to believe and call upon the Lord.
The point is that those who have not heard cannot believe, which explains why those who have not been taught by the Father cannot come to the Son. This perfectly explains why no man can come to the Son, unless He is drawn by the Father. Unless the Father first teaches sinners about His Son, they are not capable of believing in, coming to, or following the Son. And unless the Father first convicts men of their sin, they will not see their need of coming to the Savior. Teaching must always come before obedience. Knowledge, or truth, is a precondition or requisite for obedience. The will of man can only obey, or disobey, the knowledge that the mind has. Does man have the natural ability to believe in Jesus, whether they know about Jesus or not? The answer is of course not. Natural ability cannot do the impossible. But does man have the natural ability to believe in Jesus, come to Jesus, and follow Jesus, once the truth about Jesus is revealed to them? The answer is yes.
I would also quickly add that the mind operates under the law of necessity, but the will operates under the law of liberty. That is, the mind must affirm truth when it is presented, but the will can obey or disobey the truth that is affirmed by the mind. We see this with the crowd that Stephen preached to. “And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake” (Acts 6:10). Their minds, by necessity, affirmed the truth of what he preached. Their minds could not resist it. But it goes on to say, “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit, as your Fathers did, so do ye” (Acts 7:51). Their will operated under liberty. Their will disobeyed and resisted the truth that their minds affirmed. The revelation that God grants is irresistible. Men cannot help but to know the truth, when God reveals it. But sinners reject and suppress the truth that they have (Romans 1:18). Yet, according to John 6:45, those who not only hear the truth, but actually learn from it, come to Jesus Christ. Those who do not learn from what they hear from the Father will not come to the Son. But those who hear from the Father, and choose to learn from it, will come to the Son. Men resist or yield to the drawing of God by choosing to learn from, or not learn from, the teaching that He gives them.
SPEAKING BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD
“Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost” 1 Corinthians 12:3
The question with this passage is, what does “speaking by the Spirit of God” mean? Does it mean that the Holy Spirit gives us a constitutional enabling? Or does it mean that men can speak under the influence of the Holy Spirit? I would say the latter. When a man is under or submitted to the influence of the Holy Spirit they will not call Jesus accursed. If a man calls Jesus accursed, that is proof that they are not submitted to the influence of the Spirit of God. But if a man truly confesses Jesus Christ as Lord, this is done under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
Without the influence of the Holy Spirit, revealing to man the truth about Jesus Christ, man would never and could never confess Him as Lord. Man could never because without the Spirit revealing Jesus as Lord, how can they confess Him to be Lord? The Spirit must first reveal to man that Jesus is the Lord, before man could be capable of confessing Him as such. And man would never because man, on his own or without the influence of God, would never submit to the truth but would continue on in deception. Man is unwilling to obey God and to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Therefore man needs an influence, outside of himself, to bring him to submission and obedience. That outside influence is the working of the Holy Spirit. When a man is brought to submission to the Lordship of Christ, it is because of the working and influence of the Holy Spirit in his life.
The Spirit makes us willing to do, what God has already made us capable of doing. That is, the Holy Spirit makes us willing to obey God, by presenting powerful truths to our minds. And at creation, God made us constitutionally capable of obeying the truth that we know and receive, when He granted us a free will and made us in His image. At creation, God made us capable of obedience. At conversion, the Spirit makes us willing to obey.
TAMING THE TONGUE
“But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.” James 3:8-9
James also told us, “If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.” (James 1:19). Therefore let’s take for granted or suppose that the expressed limitation in taming the tongue must refer to the unregenerate. If that is the case, here are my thoughts.
First, it is very worthy noting that this passage describes “men” as being “made after the similitude of God”. The so called “inability” of man is typically credited to the sin of Adam, saying that when Adam sinned the image of God in man was lost. Since the image of God in man was lost, man no longer has a free will. This is the common argument. However it is clear from this verse that the image of God in man has not been lost. Therefore any free will that man had at the beginning, because he was made in God’s image, he still has now. There are other passages, after Genesis 1:26-27, which describe man as being in the image of God, such as Genesis 9:6 and 1 Corinthians 11:7. That is because it is God who is still our maker, who still forms each individual in the womb (Gen. 4:1; Ex. 4:11; Isa. 27:11; 43:7; 49:5; 64:8; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 95:6; 139:13-14, 16; Ecc. 7:29; Job 10:9-11; 31:15; 35:10; Jn. 1:3). We are born precisely the way God wants us to be born. God is responsible for the condition that we are born into (Exodus 4:11). Since God forms us in the womb, God still forms us in His image.
Consider how God spoke to Cain, after the fall of Adam, as one who had the power of choice between obedience and disobedience. “And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him” (Gen. 4:6-7). Whatever the results upon all of mankind are, because of Adam’s sin, the loss of the image of God and the loss of free will certainly are not part of it.
Second, no man (no sinner) can tame the tongue unless he first changes his heart. “O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Matthew 12:34). The reason that they cannot speak good things, according to Jesus, is because they have evil hearts. Again, “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doeth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit… A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh” (Luke 6:43, 45). That is why Jesus commands us to change our hearts or “make the tree good” (Matt. 12:33). The roots must change before the fruit can change. It is impossible to change the fruit if you do not first change the root. A sinner cannot tame his tongue. He must first change his heart. As long as He remains a sinner, that is, as long as he remains sinful in his heart, he cannot tame his tongue.
This is because the heart (tree) is the cause; the action (fruit) is the effect. The action is not self-existent. The action must have a cause. And you cannot change the effect without changing the cause. As long as the cause is the same, the effect will be the same. It is absolutely impossible to change the effect without first changing the cause. A sinner cannot speak differently, or act differently, until his heart is different.
A sinner may, for a time, seem to control his tongue. But the overflow of his evil heart will eventually come out. Words and actions are nothing more but the outflow of the heart. The heart is the problem. Therefore it is the inside that must change first. Jesus said, “cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also” (Matthew 23:26). That is why the Bible says, “Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die…” (Ezekiel 18:31). “Wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved” (Jeremiah 4:14). “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded” (James 4:8). The words are the outflow of the heart. Men have the ability to change their hearts. That is why every man will have to give an account even for every idle word that they speak (Matt.12:36).
THE CARNAL MIND CANNOT OBEY
“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Romans 8:7
This passage would be completely without meaning or understanding if we do not define what the carnal mind is. Many have taken the liberty to define the carnal mind on their own but good hermeneutics says that we must allow the Bible to interpret itself, context gives us great insight. This verse is very commonly taken by itself when it was never meant to be. The two previous verses say: “For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” Romans 8:5-6
The word “mind” in verse 5 and 6 is “phroneo” and according to Strongs means “intensively to interest oneself in (with concern or obedience): - set the affection on.”1 The word “mind” is verse 7 is “phronema” and it means “to purpose”. 2 Therefore the carnal mind is when a person is choosing to interest themselves in carnality, to set their affections on their flesh, when they purpose to live for the gratification of themselves. It is when a sinner chooses to “mind the things of the flesh”, that is, when they choose to serve themselves and their own pleasures rather then serving God. The carnal mind is nothing more than a selfish state of mind.
The carnal mind is not a passive state but an active state. It is not a state that we are passively born into. It is a state that men choose to be in. The word “enmity” is “echthra” and means hostility or opposition.”3 Hostility or opposition is an active state. The carnal mind is a mind that is in active hostility or opposition to God. It is when an individual is purposely and intentionally minding the things of the flesh. That is, they are living to please themselves in stead of living to please God. Such a state of mind is intentional, voluntary, deliberate, or volitional.
Albert Barnes commented, “it means that the minding of the things of the flesh, giving to them supreme attention, is hostility against God”4. Charles Finney said, “The proper translation of this text is, the minding of the flesh is enmity against God. It is a voluntary state of mind. It is that state of supreme selfishness, in which all men are, previous to their conversion to God. It is a state of mind; in which, probably, they are not born, but into which they appear to fall, very early after their birth. The gratification of their appetites, is made by them, the supreme object of desire and pursuit, and becomes the law of their lives; or that law in their members, that wars against the law of their minds, which the apostle speaks. They conform their lives, and all of their actions to this rule of action, which they have established for themselves, which is nothing more nor less, than voluntary selfishness or a controlling and abiding preference of self-gratification, above the commandments, authority, and glory of God. It should be well understood, and always remembered, that the carnal mind, as used by the apostle, is not the mind itself but is a voluntary action of the mind. In other words, it is not any part of the mind, or body, but a choice or preference of the mind. It is a minding of the flesh. It is preferring self-gratification, before obedience to God.” 5
According to Thayer’s definitions, “echthra” means the “cause of opposition”6. In other words, the carnal mind is the cause of a sinners opposition to God. It is with the mind that choices are made. The will is a faculty of the mind. Because a sinner is choosing to serve his flesh, to “mind the things of the flesh”, he is in opposition to God, who commands him to deny himself (Matthew 16:24) and serve God (Exodus 20:3; 1 Corinthians 10:31). The cause of his enmity with God is his carnal mind, his choice to serve himself, his choice to be selfish. A sinner is in opposition to God and is in a state of hostility towards God’s law, because he is choosing to be selfish, he is minding the things of his flesh.
While a person is in this selfish state of mind, they cannot please God and they cannot obey the law. That is because God is not pleased with selfishness (Psalms 5:4) and the law requires benevolent motives, not selfish motives (Luke 10:27; Romans 13:10; Galatians 5:14). Therefore those who are carnally minded cannot please God and they cannot obey the law. As long as they are in this selfish state of mind, they cannot be pleasing to God, nor can they be in submission to the law.
It is impossible for a person, who has a carnal mind, to be pleasing to God or to be in submission to God, while they are in such a state of mind. They need to repent. Repent is “metanoeo” and it means to change your mind. To repent of your sin means that you change your mind about sinning, you make up your mind to obey the law of God. True repentance is when a person goes from being in a selfish state of mind (carnally minded) of choosing to serve him self (to live for self-gratification), to a loving state of mind of choosing to serve God supremely and love his neighbor equally. As long as a man is carnally minded, he cannot please God and he cannot obey the law. But if he changes his mind (repent), so that he is no longer choosing to live for himself but chooses to live for God, then he can be pleasing to God and he can obey the law. When the cause of his hostility towards God and His law is removed (the carnal mind), then He can be pleasing to God and in submission to His law. But if the cause of his hostility is not removed, he can do neither. As long as the will (a faculty of the mind) is in opposition to God, the will cannot be in submission to God. As long as the will of man is selfish, that man cannot be pleasing to God, because God cannot be pleased with selfishness.
This verse does not deal with the question of whether or not the carnally minded can change their mind, or whether they have the natural ability to repent. This verse simply says that while a person is in such a state of mind of carnality and selfishness, they cannot please God and they cannot truly obey the law. It would be equivalent to saying, “Those who have disobedient hearts cannot please God and they cannot obey the law.” That is, while their heart is disobedient, they cannot do such things. But if they change their heart, then they can. Such a statement does not say that they cannot change their heart, but it says that while their heart is in such a state, they cannot do such things. Likewise the statement about the carnally minded does not say that they cannot change their mind, it simply says that while their mind is in such a state, they cannot do such things.
I was pleased after writing the above to find that Albert Barnes and Charles Finney said that precise same thing. It is always a great relief to find out that you are not alone in your interpretation and understanding of the word of God. Charles Finney said, “The apostle does not affirm, that a sinner cannot love God, but that a carnal mind cannot love God; for, to affirm that a carnal mind can love God, is the same as to affirm that enmity itself can be love.”7 Albert Barnes said in his commentary, “But the affirmation does not mean that the heart of the sinner might not be subject to God; or that his soul is so physically depraved that he cannot obey, or that he might not obey the law. On that, the apostle here expresses no opinion. That is not the subject of the discussion. It is simply that the supreme regard to the flesh, to the minding of that, is utterly irreconcilable with the Law of God. They are different things, and can never be made to harmonize; just as adultery cannot be chastity; falsehood cannot be truth; dishonesty cannot be honesty; hatred cannot be love. This passage, therefore, should not be adduced to prove the doctrine of man’s inability to love God, for it does not refer to that, but it proves merely that a supreme regard to the things of the flesh is utterly inconsistent with the Law of God; can never be reconciled with it; and involves the sinner in hostility with his Creator.”8
Every call to repentance in the Bible which is directed towards man implies that man has the ability to change his mind. If the call to repentance does not imply that man can repent, then what in the entire Bible could ever imply that men could repent? Nothing could imply the ability to repent more than the command to repent. Why command men to do something if it is impossible? If men were incapable of repentance, God would have no reason to command them to repent. If God is good, why command repentance and punish impenitence, if repentance is impossible for some and impenitence is unavoidable for some? If God commands men to do something, He gives them the ability to do it. God calls all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30-31), which means that all men everywhere have the ability to change their mind. None need to change their mind but the carnally minded. Those who are spiritually minded do not need to change their mind, therefore God does not call the spiritually minded to repentance. It is only the carnally minded that God calls to repentance. Every call to repentance is directed to, and only to, the carnally minded. Therefore the carnally minded have the ability to change their mind.
Here is a logical syllogism:
- The command to repent implies the ability to repent (change your mind) - The carnally minded are commanded to change their mind (repent) - Therefore the carnally minded have the ability to change their mind (repent)
Men are commanded in the Bible to change their hearts, which implies that they have the ability to change their hearts. God, being a loving Ruler, does not command the impossible at the threat of severe punishment. The command of the ruler, without the ability of the subject, is tyranny. The command, if it comes from a good, just and reasonable Ruler, presupposes the subject has the power of choice. God commands men in the Bible to change their hearts, which implies that they have the ability to do so. “Wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved” (Jeremiah 4:14). “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded” (James 4:8). “Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die…” (Ezekiel 18:31). If men are incapable of obeying these commands, why give these commands at all? If these commands cannot be obeyed, they are useless, and God must never have even intended on them being obeyed at all. If God never intended on these commands being obeyed, then God does not really want them to be obeyed. And if God does not really want them to be obeyed, He is insincere in commanding them. If God wants these commands to be obeyed, and if He is sincere in His command, then these commands must be possible for men to obey.
The Bible also says, “Set your affections as things above, not on the things on the earth” (Colossians 3:2). “Set your affections” is the same Greek word used for “mind” in Romans 8:5-7. Men have the choice of minding the flesh or of minding the spirit, of setting our affections on things above or things beneath. It is within our natural ability to choose who we will serve (Joshua 24:15), whether we will serve ourselves or serve God. We have the natural ability to choose what we will set our affections on, either on the flesh or on the Spirit.
Charles Finney said, “Some one may ask, Can the carnal mind, which is enmity against God, change itself? I have already said that this text in the original reads, “the minding of the flesh is enmity against God.’ This minding of the flesh, then, is the choice or preference to gratify the flesh. Now it is indeed absurd to say, that a choice can change itself; but it is not absurd to say, that the agent who exercises this choice, can change it. The sinner that minds the flesh, can change his mind, and mind God.” 9
DEAD IN SINS
“…we were dead in sins…” Ephesians 2:5 It is common for those who argue for the doctrine of inability to appeal to this verse and others like it that describe man, before regeneration, as being “dead in sin”. They will ask questions such as, “Can dead men choose anything?” and then say, “No, dead men cannot choose anything. Therefore sinners, who are dead in their sins, cannot choose to be converted and live righteous.” Following this logic we would have to conclude that sinners do not choose to sin either because “dead men cannot choose anything”. This whole line of reasoning blurs the distinctions between physical death and spiritual death. It is a logical fallacy to take the limitations of the physically dead and to impose them upon the spiritually dead.
The Bible says that Christians are “dead to sin” (Rom. 6:2; 6:11) but does that mean that a Christian is incapable of sinning? No. Likewise, just because a sinner is dead in sins does not mean that he is incapable of repenting. We must be careful not to take points out of analogies which were not originally meant to be given. Regarding being dead to sin Adam Clarke said, “The phraseology of this verse is common among Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins. To die to a thing or person, is to have nothing to do with it or him; to be totally separated from them: and to live to a thing or person is to be wholly given up to them; to have the most intimate connection with them.”1 To be dead to sin is to be separated from sin and in a relationship with God. To be dead in sin is to be separated from God and in a relationship with sin. A person who is dead to sin is still capable of returning to sin (1 Jn. 2:1), and a person who is dead in sin is still capable of returning to God (2 Chron. 30:9; Isa. 55:7; Jer. 3:22; Hos. 6:11; Mal 3:7; Lk. 15:18, 20, 24).
When the Bible talks about a sinner being “dead” it is not talking about his ability at all, it is talking about his relationship. In Biblical interpretation we must look and see how a word is used elsewhere in the Bible. To see how a word is used gives us insight as to what the word means. “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.” (Luke 15:24). What did the father mean that his prodigal son was “dead” but is now “alive”? Did he mean that his son did not have the ability to return home, but now he has the ability to return home? No. He meant that his relationship with his son was dead, but now that he has returned, his son is alive to him relationally.
A Calvinist will ask, “Can a dead man resurrect himself? No. Then how can a sinner repent?” But this is to compare physical death with spiritual death. To say that we were “dead in trespasses and sins” is to say that we were spiritually dead. Physical death is constitutional and therefore affects your abilities. Spiritual death is not constitutional, it is relational. It has to do, not with our abilities, but with our relationships.
When the Bible says that a sinner is dead, that does not mean that he doesn’t have the ability to turn to God. When the Bible talks about a sinner being born again, regenerated, or made alive, it is not saying that he has now received the ability to turn to God. Relationally, when a man sins, his relationship with God is dead. A man’s personal sins separate him from God (Isa. 59:2). When a man chooses to sin, he becomes spiritually separated from God or dead in his relationship with God (Rom. 7:9; 7:11; 8:6; 2 Cor. 5:14; Col. 1:21; 2:13; Rev. 3:1). A sinner’s relationship with God is completely dead because of his sin. Spiritual death is relational separation from God. But when a man forsakes his sins and is forgiven through Jesus Christ, his relationship with God becomes alive. He starts to experience true life with God (Jn. 10:10; Jn. 17:3).
It is a very dangerous practice for any theologian to try to pull his theology out of, or squeeze his theology into, a single word. Since the Bible does not teach that sinners cannot repent and be converted, those who hold to such views have to resort to trying to prove their theology by imposing their own definitions upon words in Scripture instead of practicing proper exegetics. But if you simply give your own definition to Biblical words, instead of properly understanding their actual or original definition, you can make the Bible teach whatever doctrine you want. That is what I have seen many do when it comes to the word “dead”. To say that a sinner is dead in sin is to say that he is without a relationship with God, not that he is without the ability to return to God.
The story of Lazarus is sometimes appealed to by those who hold to the doctrine of inability. They equate God telling sinners, who are dead in their sins, to repent, with Jesus telling Lazarus to come forth. We should not equate the physical dead with the spiritual dead, but besides, when Jesus called Lazarus to “come forth”, Lazarus actually did it. This means God must have already given him the ability to do what He commanded. The fact that Lazarus actually came forth is proof that Lazarus had the ability to come forth. If he couldn’t have done it, he wouldn’t have done it. Nowhere in the Scriptures do we ever see God commanding anyone to do that which they cannot do. God only commands men to do what He has already given them the ability to do. What God commands, He supplies the ability to be done. God commands all those who are dead in their sins to repent of their sins (Acts 17:30), which means that He must have already given all of them the ability to do this. All men are obligated to obey God; therefore all are able to do so.
ETHIOPIAN SKIN & LEOPARD SPOTS
Another passage that is commonly used against the doctrine of man’s natural ability to obey God is Jeremiah 13:23 which says, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.”
It should be remarked that this passage is talking about Israel during a certain period of time in their history. This passage is not talking about all sinners of all time. To apply this passage to all sinners of all time is to ignore the proper rules of hermeneutic interpretation, particularly context.
It should also be remarked that this passage is not talking about the way Israel was born. This passage is talking about the way Israel had become through their self-chosen habitual manner of living. The unchanging state of these people was a moral condition by choice, not a constitutional condition by birth.
Israel, at this point in their history, had resisted God for a long time. These men disobeyed God continually, after God had been reaching out to them time and time again. “But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people” (Romans 10:21). But despite all of the efforts of God, they were still wicked and evil. In fact, they were worst than when they started, because they had to continually harden their hearts as God was reaching out to them. They were well accustomed in doing evil.
They were so accustomed to do evil that their reformation would be comparable to a leopard changing his spots or an Ethiopian changing his skin. Through their habitual choice of disobedience, they made themselves reprobates. They resisted the influence of God to the point of no return. It was as likely to see an Ethiopian changing his skin, or a leopard changing his spots, as it would be to see these hardened reprobates changing their moral ways.
This passage was given to show Israel that they were without excuse, not with excuse. If they were born evil, had no choice in the matter, or truly could not obey God, they would have an excuse for being evil. In context God was revealing to them the justice of their punishment. “What will thou say when he shall punish thee?... And if thou say in thine heart, wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity… Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil” (Jer. 13:21-22). They rightly deserved punishment because of their habitual and continual disobedience, because of their voluntary and well established custom in doing evil.
To use this passage to say that all sinners, of all times, are incapable of changing their ways, of repenting, or of obeying God, is to severely stretch and twist this passage, to change it’s actual meaning. This verse certainly does not support the idea that all men are incapable of changing their moral character, or that all the disobedient are incapable of obeying God.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 19, 2009 12:42:15 GMT -5
If men cannot obey God, it is not their fault that they do not obey God. It is not their fault because they cannot choose what natural abilities they would or would not have. That is God’s choosing since He is our Maker and forms us in the womb. But if it is not their fault that they do not obey God, then they do not deserve punishment for their lack of obedience. If they do not deserve punishment, they do not need atonement, grace, or mercy. Therefore if the doctrine of inability is true, the doctrine of atonement, grace, and mercy cannot be true. But if men can obey God, it is their own fault if they don’t. If disobedience is their own fault, because it is their own free choice, than they deserve punishment. And if they deserve punishment, than they need atonement, grace, and mercy. Therefore the doctrine of atonement, grace, and mercy can only be true, if the doctrine of man’s natural ability is true. In this way, every passage that speaks about atonement, grace, and mercy, actually implies or presupposes the natural ability of man.
Here is this truth presented in logical syllogisms:
- Man only needs atonement, grace, and mercy if he deserves punishment. - Man only deserves punishment for lack of obedience if he is capable of obedience. - Therefore, man only needs atonement, grace, and mercy if he is capable of obedience.
- Man only needs atonement, grace, and mercy if he is capable of obedience. - The Bible speaks of man’s need for atonement, grace, and mercy. - Therefore the Bible implies or presupposes that man is capable of obeying.
Just punishment for disobedience presupposes the ability to obey. Since the God of the Bible is just and since He punishes sinners, this implies or presupposes that they have the ability to obey. If men cannot obey God, yet God still requires obedience and punishes disobedience, then God’s law is tyranny and God’s punishments are cruel. But the Hosts of Heaven do not describe the judgments of God as tyrannical and cruel, but declare “true and righteous are thy judgments” (Revelation 16:7; 19:20). Sinners rightly and justly deserve to be punished for their disobedience because God has given them the ability to obey yet they have selfishly refused to do so.
Miner Raymond said, “It is axiomatic that that for which any agent is morally responsible must be within his control. If man be responsible for obedience or disobedience to the divine commands, then obedience and disobedience are both equally within his power. Which of them shall result is not determined by any thing external to him. His own power of choice selects the one, it being at the same time a power equally adequate to select the other. That for which an agent is morally responsible must be an election; that is, a selection with an alternative.” 1
L D. McCabe said, “Accountability necessitates the origination of choice between obedience and disobedience.”2
Augustine said, "There can be no sin that is not voluntary, the learned and the ignorant admit this evident truth" Augustine (De vera relig., xiv, 27)
Pelagius said, “If men are thus [sinners] because they cannot be different, they are not to blame… Sins ought not to be visited with even the smallest punishment, provided they cannot be avoided.” Pelagius (An Historical Presentation of Augustinism And Pelagianism by G. F. Wiggers, p. 154)
Jerome said, “God has bestowed us with free will. We are not necessarily drawn either to virtue or vice. For when necessity rules, there is no room left either for damnation or the crown.” (Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, pg 62, published by Truth in Heart)
Epiphanius said, “It would be more just to punish the stars, which make a wicked action necessary, than to punish the poor man, who does that wicked action by necessity.” Epiphanius (An Equal Check to Pharisaism and Antinomianism by John Fletcher, Volume Two, pg 203, Published by Carlton & Porter)
It would be unjust for God to send men to hell for their sin if they couldn’t help it, if their disobedience could not have been avoided. But the Bible says that God is just in all His ways and therefore sinners must have the ability to avoid their sin, they must have had the ability to obey. If we could not obey God, God would owe us forgiveness for our disobedience because that is what true justice would demand. But our salvation is credited to grace. Grace is unmerited or undeserved favor. If men truly have the ability to obey but they simply refuse to do so, than anything God does to save that person is truly an act of grace. God did not owe us the law or the Gospel. God did not owe us His Son or the influence of the Holy Spirit. Everything that God has done for man’s salvation has been an act of grace because man was capable of obeying God in the first place and therefore justice calls for our punishment.
|
|