.
If we say (and we do) that God and God alone can bestow upon people the ability to know and to desire something of goodness, and to perform as much of it as they know, or try to change when they fail, then we must add that God has never withheld the gift of these abilities from anybody. Why must we say this? Because otherwise we are indirectly but inescapably saying God is a monster.
First, if there were anyone who from his conception until his death never had the ability even to desire the good, much less do it, then he would not be responsible for the evil he did. If we add that God (and God alone) could give him the ability to strive for the right or pursue the wrong, but does not, then we make God responsible for that person’s wrong choices. That’s another way of saying God is evil. Whoever has the choice is the one responsible for it. God must either abolish evil or be guilty of it. Or else we must say evil exists because man has a measure of genuine freedom, given him that his freely choosing the right may have value and meaning.
Second, if a person from conception to death never has even the ability to desire the good, there is no fair, moral ground for condemning him to hell. “Oh, but he willed the evil he did,” some may say, “so God is justified in condemning him.” So then what you do is accuse God’s own law of justifying His unfairness, immorality and monstrousness! No. The person cannot be said truly to have willed the evil if he could not have willed otherwise; that’s just playing with words. That’s sophistry. God, who could have given him that freedom but didn’t, would have no ground for allowing such a person to suffer eternally. He shouldn’t even have created such a person who never had any chance, to whom He never intended to give any chance for anything but eternal suffering. You can’t get around it; such a teaching portrays God as repugnant, hateful, and immoral.
To avoid making God out a monster one must affirm that there is nobody who never had a chance. Though we universally fail, it is and always was exclusively our own fault; it was never from God’s withholding from us any chance to succeed in fulfilling His will for us. We fail. It isn’t because we could not do otherwise; it’s because (worse) we would not.
Another Look at Genesis 3:13-15
20 hours ago
3 comments:
Anastasia,
First, thank you for this series of essays. Very enlightening indeed.
Second, it appears to me that you are saying the same thing that Luther did in his Small Catechism: "I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ my Lord, or come to Him, but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith."
Would this be a fair assessment?
Randy,
Freut mich!
Well, yes and no. :-}
Luther's comment would be fine, no problem, if, ironically, it were not set in a Lutheran context! Or at least in what I (mis?)understand as such.
That is, if it were not taken to mean God enables some people who hear the Gospel to believe and omits to enable others.
Let us stipulate a situation in which the Gospel is rightly preached (that, too, can happen ONLY by the Holy Spirit). God is drawing *all* the hearers, helping the fleshly weakness of *all* of them, showing *all* of them the truth, making faith possible for each and every one. Not merely some.
Free will, in other words, although far from the only thing necessary for conversion, is something everyone has, even though it is impaired.
*Now* how does it fit with Luther?
Anastasia
Or another way we could say it this this: the reason we cannot come to Christ by our own free will is not because we don't *have* any, but rather because more than that is required. Again, it appears to me that Luther's words are fine as they stand, provided we do not mean that! Provided they are not put in what I understand (or not) as a Lutheran context.
Anastasia
Post a Comment