What Would Martin Luther Say to “Free Will”?

Theology
41

Brother @KPuff

I appreciate your desire to avoid unnecessary polarization and to uphold both God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. On that much we agree. However, your position seems to lean more heavily on philosophical reasoning about God’s timelessness than on the exegetical teaching of passages such as John 6, Acts 13:48, Romans 9, and Ephesians

  1. The issue is not whether God’s sovereignty and human responsibility coexist, they certainly do. The real question is how Scripture explains that relationship. Our theology should ultimately be shaped by the biblical text itself rather than by what seems philosophically satisfying. Scripture often leaves us with mystery, but it does not leave us without clear teaching on God’s sovereign initiative in salvation.

I don’t believe this discussion is unproductive. Throughout Scripture, we see that contending for sound doctrine is not presented as divisive when it is done with humility, love, and submission to God’s Word. In fact, we are repeatedly exhorted to test, examine, defend, and rightly handle the truth.

The Bereans were commended because they “received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Paul instructed Timothy to “do your best to present yourself to God as one approved… rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). He also charged Titus to “give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9). Jude likewise exhorts believers to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

Even the apostles engaged in robust theological disagreement. Paul publicly opposed Peter when the truth of the gospel was at stake (Galatians 2:11–14), and the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 involved “much debate” before arriving at a biblical conclusion. Their goal was not victory in argument, but fidelity to God’s revealed truth.

Unity is indeed a precious gift of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:3), but biblical unity is never divorced from biblical truth. In the very same chapter, Paul teaches that Christ gave pastors and teachers so that the church would no longer be “tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:11–15). Unity and sound doctrine are not competitors, they belong together.

So while we may disagree strongly on doctrines such as election, grace, and free will, I don’t believe the discussion itself is fleshly or unproductive. If our desire is to submit ourselves to the authority of Scripture, to sharpen one another with humility (Proverbs 27:17), and to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), then these conversations serve the very purpose God intends: that His people grow in the knowledge of Christ and in the truth of His Word.

Just my observation. Your “pole” seems to lean on the side of providential compatibilist-ism.

Shalom Bro.

@TheologyNerd you are welcome to participate, if you feel led to by the Spirit brother.

J.

42

Chapter 9 – Free Will

  1. God has endowed the will of man with natural liberty and power to act on choices so that it is neither forced nor inherently bound by nature to do good or evil.1

1Matthew 17:12; James 1:14; Deuteronomy 30:19.

  1. Man in the state of innocence had freedom and power to will and to do what was good and well-pleasing to God.2 Yet this condition was unstable, so that he could fall from it.3

2Ecclesiastes 7:29. 3Genesis 3:6.

  1. Man, by falling into a state of sin, has completely lost all ability to choose any spiritual good that accompanies salvation.4 Thus, natural mana is absolutely opposed to spiritual good and dead in sin,5 so that he cannot convert himself by his own strength or prepare himself for conversion.6

awithout the Spirit
4Romans 5:6; Romans 8:7. 5Ephesians 2:1, 5. 6Titus 3:3–5; John 6:44.

  1. When God converts sinners and transforms them into the state of grace, He frees them from their natural bondage to sin7 and by His grace alone enables them to will and to do freely what is spiritually good.8 Yet because of their remaining corruption, they do not perfectly nor exclusively will what is good but also will what is evil.9

7Colossians 1:13; John 8:36. 8Philippians 2:13. 9Romans 7:15, 18, 19, 21, 23.

  1. Only in the state of glory is the will made perfectly and unchangeably free toward good alone.10

10Ephesians 4:13.

43

The question of why God gave humans a free will often comes up in a discussion about the problem of evil. Someone will ask why there is so much evil in the world, and the answer is that human beings have chosen to do evil things. God is not to blame. The follow-up question is, if God knew all the evil things that people would choose to do, why would He give us free will?

The “standard” answer seems to be that, for love to be real, it must not be coerced. If we did not have the ability to reject God, then neither would we have the ability to truly love Him. Some theologians even go so far as to say that human freedom is the highest good and that even God will not violate it. Genuine love and genuine good can only exist in a world where there is an opportunity for genuine rejection and genuine evil. Some add that, since God knows all possibilities past, present, and future (foreknowledge), the world He created must be the one where the greatest amount of good would result. Out of all possible worlds, the one He made is the best. The problem with this line of thinking is that, although it may be somewhat satisfying intellectually, it is never articulated in Scripture.

What follows are a few more thoughts that may help us formulate some conclusions as to why God gave us a free will. At least they will give us the full weight to the biblical evidence.

First, we have to admit that “free will” is limited by physical possibilities. “Free will” cannot mean we are free to do anything we want to do. Probably a lot of people would like to fly like Superman or be as strong as Samson or teleport from one location to another, but physical limitations prohibit them from doing it. On one level, this may not seem to be an issue of free will, but it is not completely extraneous, because God created a world in which people desire to do these things but have no ability to do them. In this sense, God has curtailed “free will”—it is not truly free as popularly defined.

When we pray for something, we often are praying that another’s “free will” will be curtailed by outside circumstances and physical limitations. If a brutal dictator invades a neighboring country, and we pray for his defeat, we are certainly praying that the dictator will be unable to do what he wants to do. In this case, the person praying is asking God to intervene with another person’s will to prevent a person from accomplishing what he has chosen to do. In the way God created the world, He has built in many limitations that stymie our wills and limit our choices. Likewise, He may intervene to further limit our choices by circumstances beyond our control.

With this in mind, perhaps we might define free will as the ability to choose whatever we want, within the bounds of physical limitations. This brings up the second problem, which has to do with what we want. To deal with this issue, Martin Luther wrote his treatise The Bondage of the Will. The problem is not that we are not free to choose what we want, but that what we choose is severely limited by our desires. We freely choose to disobey God because that is all we want to do. Just as we cannot fly like Superman due to our physical limitations, we cannot obey God due to our spiritual limitations. We are free to choose all sorts of ways to disobey God, but we simply cannot choose to obey God without having our desires radically reorganized (some would say regenerated)—and we are powerless to do this on our own. Apart from God and left to our sinful selves, we will choose sin (Psalm 14:1-3, 53:1-3; Romans 3:10-12).

Romans 8:5–8 identifies the spiritual limitations to our “free will”: “Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God” (emphasis added). From the context, it is clear that those who “live according to the flesh” are unbelievers. Their wills are in bondage to sin, and so sin is all they want to do. They cannot submit to God’s law.

If this is the case, who then can be saved? “All things are possible with God” (Mark 10:27). The Lord so works in some to energize their spirits and give them a desire to repent and believe (see Acts 16:14). Sinners do not do this on their own but only under the convicting power of the Spirit. If it were otherwise, the saved could boast that they possessed some wisdom or moral superiority that caused them to choose to repent and believe when confronted with the facts, even while so many others continue to reject the gospel. But we are saved by grace, and no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8–9). God is not obligated to save anyone (He has free will), yet He desires that all would be saved and come to repentance (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9). He offers salvation to everyone (Titus 2:11) yet He will not force anyone to come to Him. By His sovereignty, unchanging character (Malachi 3:6), foreknowledge (Romans 8:29, 11:2), love (Ephesians 1:4-5), and plan and pleasure (Ephesians 1:5) He predestines some to salvation. Others He allows to continue in rebellion—which is exactly what they want to do. In either case, people make real, uncoerced choices.

Later, pressing matters at hand here in SA.

J.

44

If the apostles genuinely possessed the freedom to write otherwise, what guaranteed that they would not write error? If they could have chosen different words, could Scripture have been different from what God intended? If not, then God’s sovereign superintendence, not autonomous human freedom, was the decisive factor in the production of Scripture.

Correct KP?

The Testimony of the holy Scripture…

2 Peter 1:20–21: “No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecThe Greek idias epilyseōs (‘one’s own interpretation/explanation’) is debated. The KJV takes it as a statement about how prophecy should be interpreted (not privately but communally/ecclesially). However, the context of verse 21 suggests it is about the origin of prophecy — no prophetic Scripture arose from the prophet’s own devising or interpretation of events. The prophet did not generate the message; it came from God. We render it in the origination sense, which fits the flow into verse 21.y was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

The phrase “carried along” (Greek: pheromenoi) pictures a ship being borne along by the wind. The authors were active participants, but the Holy Spirit was the decisive guiding influence.

2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is breathed out by God.” Scripture is ultimately God’s Word, even though it came through human authors.

1 Corinthians 2:13: Paul says they impart truths “not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit.”

J.

45

@Johann

OK. As you wish.

I hear you; I do! I understand your position perfectly, (I’m pretty sure). I have no argument with any of it. I appreciate your zeal, and your passionate ardor to get your point across. You have accomplished that abundantly. Message received.

Since my last response to Pastor PeterC, you awed us with over 2200 words, (in excess of 10,000 characters) without any other persons POV interspersed. Impressive! That feels like “shock and awe” to me. For a simpleton like me, it is difficult to digest, and even more difficult to respond to. As it is, participation in discussion is problematic since so many false assumptions are leveled, which stand in need correcting, and so too many valuable points get lost in the weeds of other points being copiously and unnecessarily repeated. I don’t even know where to begin, and I surely can’t be confident of which points even need to be addressed.

Johann, please correct me if I am misrepresenting you, but in your post(s) you erroneously suggest that I am "framing the issue psychologically rather than exegetically”, that I’m offering “philosophical reconciliation contrary to faithful exegesis”. You state I have failed to provide “biblical texts” even though I did, and conclude that it is “quite clear” to you that I “do not hold to Reformed theology”. You state that you suppose that my “position seems to lean more heavily on philosophical reasoning about God’s timelessness than on the exegetical teaching of passages such as John 6, Acts 13:48, Romans 9, and Ephesians” You are suggesting my “philosophical” thoughts are of little value in light of your sophisticated “exegetical” understanding, and an offering my personal observations exposing the root of the current discord is not helpful in a discussion in which you are trying to prove a point. You have come to the erroneous conclusion that “we disagree strongly on doctrines such as election, grace, and free will”. then you also label me as a Reformed Providential Compatibilist. These approaches may seem like “healthy theological dialogue” to you, but to me they are disagreeable, and make healthy dialogue almost impossible for me to engage in.

Sincerely, I wish I knew how to write in such a way that you could understand me. Even when I’m agreeing with you, some foothold of dissention emerges. I admit I lack the skill to be heard and understood; may God have mercy on my writing. From my standpoint, everything I have written is squarely in step with classical Reformed theology, it should be completely unobjectionable to you, and it is in full accord with the unifying work of The Holy Spirit. I am confident if you could recieve what I’m writing you would simply add your hearty Amen. That is on me; I accept full responsibility for being unable to compose a POV that is clear, understandable, and acceptable to those who hold the same position.

I apologize for being unable to make a point that is clear enough to be heard.

KP

46

Cheers @KPuff. Wish you well.

J.

47

First, there’s no need to apologize. I don’t doubt your sincerity, and I’m certainly not questioning your desire to be faithful to Scripture.

If I misunderstood your position, then that’s on me, and I’m happy to revisit it. But perhaps you could help me with one point, because I think this is where I’m struggling.

You now say your position is “squarely in step with classical Reformed theology.” I’m happy to accept that as your intention. But earlier you also said that “both views are true.”

That’s the part I can’t reconcile.

Classical Reformed theology doesn’t simply affirm God’s sovereignty; it also rejects the Remonstrant understanding of election, grace, and effectual calling. The Westminster Confession, the 1689, and the Canons of Dort don’t present the two positions as complementary, they argue that they cannot both be right.

So here’s my question.

When you say “both views are true,” what exactly do you mean? Are you saying that both systems correctly explain the biblical doctrine of election? Or do you simply mean that both recognize truths found in Scripture, even though their conclusions differ?

I think the answer to that question would help me understand your position far better than any label ever could.

Yes?

J.

48

@Johann
Thank you for your kind response and open mind. I will ask our Father for help, and try again to explain how I see this situation, but it will have to be tomorrow.

Until then
Fondly
KP

1 Like
49

Off to gym, I need it.

And I won’t stop trying for you and me to see eye to eye and clear up any misunderstandings or miscommunication between us. I think we both want the same thing, to understand what the Scriptures teach and to be faithful to them.

Enjoy your rest, brother.

J.

50

Confidential to @Johann

I appreciate your inquiry into my personal views on soteriology, election, and what is commonly called “free will”. I want to remind you, even though it seems your laudable purpose was (is) to affirm and defend the biblical doctrine of election, that was not my purpose when I joined into the discussion. You were doing a fine job of defending the doctrine, and I did not feel my voice would add anything not previously well-said. I won’t reiterate here what I have already posted (Matt 5:37). I was adding an opinion on why the recalcitrant disagreement survives; a nuance, it seems, was lost on my readers.

My position

The Holy Spirit of God has taught (is continuing to teach) me personally, through His Holy word, the deep spiritual mysteries of The Gospel; reinforcing consistent doctrine that aligns with what has come to be called “classical Calvinism”, or “reformed theology”. I did not come to this understanding through academic teaching, social affiliations, or convincing preaching by strong leaders, but solely, as far as I can tell, through careful and dedicated attention to The Word of God. (BTW, I am usually labeled “too reformed” in many Christian circles - in fact, you are the first, and only person I have experienced that has inferred that I was not “reformed enough”. That, however, is inconsequential. )

51

To answer your question directly

“When you say “both views are true,” what exactly do you mean?”,

This is what I mean. Let me begin by saying I am not suggesting “Calvinism” and “Arminianism” are both true; I am NOT saying, “that both systems correctly explain the biblical doctrine of election?” They clearly stand in opposition in many areas, and they cannot both be correct.

I was trying to say that a man’s willful decision to accept the offer of new life, and the internal drawing of The Holy Spirit are both real, and both are necessary. When a human being comes into the Kingdom of God, his human experience reassures him that the decision was his, an expression of his own free will. Coming into the Kingdom through the process of “willful decision” is the mysterious procedure ordained by God Himself. This is the very heart of The Gospel; we preach “be reconciled to God”, we are conscripted to plead for “decision”, we preach Jesus Crucified and raised, “warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily.” (Colossians 1:28-29). We seek a real (sincere) decision, and we don’t expect God to raise someone to newness of life without it. Informed by every sense in his being, the newly regenerated human comes into that state of new life, knowing only that he has done it by his own free will, fully convinced that he has thoroughly considered, weighed his options, and willingly assented to the proposition presented by Jesus; i.e. “… he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. (John 5:24), likewise, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.” (John 6:35). At the same time, the manifest evidence that the man has been able to hear and understand the Gospel, and witnessing his own confession that he has chosen, apparently of his own free will, to accept the free gift of salvation and righteousness, we, the church, are assured that The Holy Spirit has unfailingly “drawn” him into that decision. Because his decision feels like every other decision he has ever made, (is experienced in the same way), he may not understand the secret fullness of what has happened to him; he may not come to understand it for quite a while, or maybe never this side of glory. He may be slow coming to understand the beauty of what Jesus was implying when he says “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:37-40). Relying more heavily on the familiar, well known realness of his personal “decision” rather than on the difficult, esoteric, and novel unexplained movement of God spiritually raising him to new life, the mysterious mechanics of soteriology presented by Jesus, (and others) seems implausible to the babe-in-Christ, and may remain implausible for some time. The man’s whole-hearted “decision” was not unreal, but sincere; the process of “accepting” was not an illusion, but actual fact. He was not deceived, nor was his willful acceptance only symbolic, but necessary. By all scriptural accounts, mankind does not come into the kingdom without this process of considering, assenting, accepting, deciding, and proclaiming. These are not unreal occurrences, but real, important, and ordained by God. They are as real as the unseen movement of The Holy Spirit in the inner-man, gifting him with faith, and drawing him into Jesus. The heart and mind of man, moved by the Holy Spirit of God work together to assure the newly born from above saint of his new life. The Holy Scriptures teach that both are real at the same time. It cannot be otherwise. Just because the man’s effectual decision depends wholly on Irresistible Grace does not make the decision unreal or unimportant. God simply does not save men without it.

Scripture is very clear, that without God-given initializing Faith, without the Holy Spirit’s involvement, the person remains in their state of death even if while believing they are truly citizens of The Kingdom. The mysterious statement of Jesus: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.“ (John 6:44-45) cannot be ignored or set aside. According to our common Savior, no one enters The Kingdom without being first apprehended by The King, but the King apprehends us through His own ordained process of first lovngly filling us with a zealous intentional willingness to go.

You and I are obedient when we proclaim His truth (plant & water), both in and out of the body, but God will build His church (cause the growth) His way, and in His time(Psalm 127:1). If a disciple still believes God waited for him to make his decision because he cannot imagine it otherwise, he is in no peril. God will eventually bring us all into His unity of the fullness of The Truth, a beautiful fullness none of us yet understands nor can even imagine.
In Jesus
KP

Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature. (1 Cor. 14:20)

1 Like
52

Yes you did @KPuff
…and thank you for taking the time to explain your position so thoroughly. I appreciate it. I also need to say that I misunderstood where you were coming from. From some of your earlier comments I had assumed you were arguing from an Arminian perspective, but after reading this carefully, I don’t think that’s the case.

I find myself agreeing with much of what you’ve written. Scripture clearly teaches that no one comes to Christ unless the Father draws him (John 6:44), that all whom the Father gives to the Son will come (John 6:37), and that saving faith itself is God’s gift (Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 1:29). I also appreciate your insistence that man’s repentance and faith are genuine acts, not illusions or mere symbols. We really do repent. We really do believe. We really do come to Christ. Scripture commands these things because they are real responses.

The only place I would seek a little more precision is in the order of salvation. You wrote, “God simply does not save men without” the process of considering, assenting, accepting, deciding, and proclaiming. I agree those realities are always present in conversion, but I would say they are the fruit of God’s regenerating work rather than conditions that precede it.

Jesus seems to place the order this way: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me” (John 6:37), and “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44). Likewise, Paul says that we were dead in trespasses and sins, but God “made us alive together with Christ” (Ephesians 2:1-5). A dead man does not first decide to live; rather, because God gives life, he believes. Faith is not bypassed, it is produced by the new birth.

So I think we would both affirm that the sinner’s decision is real, voluntary, and necessary, while also affirming that it is entirely the result of God’s prior gracious work. The decision is genuine precisely because God has changed the heart, not because the fallen heart possesses the ability to produce saving faith independently.

Thank you again for taking the time to clarify your position. It has helped me understand you much better, and I think we are much closer theologically than I had first assumed.

Grace and peace to you and family Achi.

Johann

53

I’m beginning to understand why you don’t post very often.

Thoughtful, Scripture-driven discussions seem to be increasingly rare, and careful exegesis is often overshadowed by opinions and sound bites. Reading your response has helped me understand your position much better.

My own journey into studying the Scriptures, now spanning nearly 49 years, gradually led me to the conviction that what is commonly called Reformed theology is simply the theology that best arises from the biblical text when Scripture is allowed to interpret Scripture. It wasn’t the label that convinced me, it was the Word of God.

Like the Bereans, I wanted to test everything against the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). The more I studied passages such as John 6, Romans 8–9, Ephesians 1–2, and many others, the more I became convinced that salvation is wholly of the Lord from beginning to end (Jonah 2:9). That conviction wasn’t born out of loyalty to a theological system but from wrestling with the text itself.

image
image452×552 68.6 KB

Keep up the good work.

J.

1 Like
54

Peter would you consider yourself an Arminian? Some of the ways you have shared lead me to ask. I appreciate that you guys have a great back and forth on this thread. And although i differ greatly with the reformed camp, I think there is much value in that camp…as well as the Arminian camp too (which i would also see as reformed).

I don’t believe salvation is synergistic. I do believe it is monogastric. But I am a reformed reformed believer. So if I may interject, what I mean by that is this:

  • God’s salvation is 100% His to give

Let’s dumb it down. If I were to give someone a car, and they accepted, there is nothing in that where they earned the car. They just accepted what was offered. They did not make the car. They did not decide to give it to themselves. And there was no option to work for the car because it was a gift. Salvation is a free gift. If we received that gift we are receiving a work of salvation God has done and only He has done 100%. We are receiving that 100% salvation gift. Because we received that 100% salvation gift, does not make the gift of the car a 99% gift because you or anyone decided to accept. Acceptance has no wight on how much a gift it is. Nor can accepting something free change the value of the gift given.

The way i see it is simply…we are translated from the kingdom of darkness to light. We are a new creation. These are not things we share in. We are told to “put on” what is already real – this new creation. We are to walk in this new creation. Where I disagree with the reformed camp is that I understand God has left each of us to choose if we want Him. To do so does not count as salvation. To not do so, though, is to miss 100% (not 99%) of salvation. Because what is rejected is the 100% work of salvation offered. If that makes sense? Blessings.

55

When you say God has left each of us to choose if we want Him, what gives one fallen sinner the desire to want Him while another rejects Him? If both hear the same gospel under the same conditions, what ultimately accounts for the difference? Is it something inherent in the individual, or is it God’s gracious work in the heart?

J.

56

Hi Johann. So on this one I think there still are things i want to iron out in my own thinking. But my leaning for the past few years has been away from faith being a gift. So like in the Phil 1:20 sense I would see that in relation to Phil 1:20 is like this:

  • The gentiles have been given the opportunity on a wide scale now to believe whereas previously the gentile world had been shut out from wide spread availability

What i mean by that is that God used Israel in the OT to witness to the gentile world. It was not just like a blanket way that gentiles could “believe.” it was stationed through Israel as God set it up. So I would just see that as a different kind of gift. A gift available to all gentiles. Because the opportunity blanket since the OT has changed. It is no longer Israel dealing with the oracles of God, but the gentiles.

In that light what do you make of John Calvin here?

Ephesians 2

**8.**For by grace are ye saved. This is an inference from the former statements. Having treated of election and of effectual calling, he arrives at this general conclusion, that they had obtained salvation by faith alone. First, he asserts, that the salvation of the Ephesians was entirely the work, the gracious work of God. But then they had obtained this grace by faith. On one side, we must look at God; and, on the other, at man. God declares, that he owes us nothing; so that salvation is not a reward or recompense, but unmixed grace. The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us.

Ought we not then to be silent about free-will, and good intentions, and fancied preparations, and merits, and satisfactions? There is none of these which does not claim a share of praise in the salvation of men; so that the praise of grace would not, as Paul shews, remain undiminished. When, on the part of man, the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith alone, all other means, on which men are accustomed to rely, are discarded. Faith, then, brings a man empty to God, that he may be filled with the blessings of Christ. And so he adds, not of yourselves; that claiming nothing for themselves, they may acknowledge God alone as the author of their salvation.

… and …

2:9…

But it is still more absurd to overlook the apostle’s inference,lest any man should boast. Some room must always remain for man’s boasting, so long as, independently of grace, merits are of any avail. Paul’s doctrine is overthrown, unless the whole praise is rendered to God alone and to his mercy. And here we must advert to a very common error in the interpretation of this passage. Many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment. His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.

. . . . .

In this it would seem my sense upon salvation as a free gift "(like a car) is how Calvin sees it too. In this sense I would see myself as more of a Calvinist than the reforms (tongue-in-cheek). I look forward to your reply brother. :slight_smile: Blessings.

57

Thank you for your reply TCC and I appreciate that you’re still working through these passages. I think that’s the right attitude for all of us, because none of us has exhausted the Scriptures.

Regarding Calvin, I actually agree with his grammatical point in Ephesians 2. I don’t think Paul is necessarily saying that “faith” alone is the gift. The nearest antecedent doesn’t require that conclusion, and Calvin’s explanation that Paul is referring to salvation by grace through faith as God’s gift is a sound one. So I don’t think Ephesians 2:8–9, by itself, settles the question.

Where I still struggle is with your understanding of Philippians 1:29.

You suggested that the gift is the wider opportunity now given to the Gentiles to believe. My difficulty is that I don’t see that in the context. Paul isn’t discussing Jew and Gentile, or the expansion of the gospel to the nations. He’s writing to believers in Philippi who are suffering for Christ.

He writes,

“For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake.”

The verb “has been granted” governs both infinitives, “to believe” and “to suffer.” It seems to me that Paul is saying both believing and suffering have been graciously granted to these believers.

So my question would simply be, what in the immediate context leads you to conclude that Paul is speaking about the wider opportunity given to the Gentiles rather than about believing itself?

The reason I ask is because I always try to let the immediate context control my interpretation before looking to broader biblical themes.

I’d also be interested in how you understand passages like Acts 16:14, where the Lord opened Lydia’s heart to respond to Paul’s message, or Acts 13:48, where “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”

Those texts seem to place the decisive cause in God’s work rather than in man’s response.

I appreciate the discussion, brother. It’s sharpening my own thinking as well.

Grace and peace.

J.

1 Like
58

TCC

The only way I can make your metaphor work is by adding more metaphorical framework to make it more representative of the same dire circumstance humankind finds himself in.

Continuing your metaphor of the gift of a car.

For your metaphor to represent our reality you might have to say there is a large population in a decaying city that is doomed for utter destruction at some unrevealed point in the future. The population doesn’t believe destruction is imminent, so they ignore every warning. There is a way of escape, but only by car (there are no other options, no trains, no airplanes, no boats, no walking, etc), only by CAR. You offer everyone in the city a car and encourage them to leave the city pronto. EVERY PERSON rejects your gift; no one wants your stinking car! Cars to them mean the end of city life, and nobody wants that. In fact, groups spring up to discredit your offer by conjuring imaginary conveyances of their own that make them feel good and optimistic, and so they promote egotistic charismatic orators who blame the crumbling state of the city on you and your stinking cars. The propaganda seems to be quite effective.

Because you love these people, who hate you for no reason except you have tried to save them, you develop a way that you can save enough of the people to save the race. It involves allowing them to demolish your own car beyond repair, and then supernaturally restoring it to a state of unmatched glory before their very eyes. You also develop some odorless, tasteless, invisible compound that once applied to a person, it will remove that person’s hatred of cars, cause the warnings to suddenly make sense allowing them to accept that the city really is doomed, and reform their thinking making them eager to get into the car you have provided, while earnestly trying to bring as many of their friends and neighbors with them.

Of course, this is only a holey metaphor, and not a holy metaphor; it falls apart on many levels, but still, it is your metaphor, so I thought I’d attempt to amend it for the sake of clarity.

Respectfully
KP

2 Likes
59

Your analogy is actually quite good. It’s basically a metaphor for total depravity, effectual calling, regeneration, and the perseverance of the saints. If you intending it that way, there are a lot of Scriptures that correspond to each part.

I’d group them according to the flow of your analogy.

1. The city is doomed

Humanity is under God’s judgment.

  • Genesis 6:5–7
  • Psalm 14:1–3
  • Romans 1:18–32
  • Romans 2:5
  • Romans 3:9–19
  • Hebrews 9:27
  • 2 Peter 3:7–13

2. Nobody believes the warning

People suppress the truth.

  • Romans 1:18
  • John 3:19–20
  • John 5:40
  • Luke 13:34
  • Matthew 23:37
  • 2 Peter 3:3–4

3. Everyone rejects the gift

This is one of the strongest biblical themes.

  • Romans 3:10–12
  • Romans 8:7–8
  • 1 Corinthians 2:14
  • Ephesians 2:1–3
  • John 3:19
  • John 5:40
  • John 6:44
  • John 8:43–47

Notice how Paul’s language is stronger than merely “won’t.”

He says

cannot

(Romans 8:7-8)

and Jesus says

No one can come…

(John 6:44)

4. False teachers offer alternative ways

The “imaginary conveyances.”

  • Matthew 7:13–15
  • Matthew 24:24
  • Acts 20:28–30
  • 2 Corinthians 11:3–4
  • Galatians 1:6–9
  • 2 Timothy 4:3–4
  • 2 Peter 2
  • Jude 3–16

5. The car is destroyed and restored

Obviously Christ.

  • Isaiah 53
  • Matthew 27–28
  • John 10:17–18
  • Acts 2:22–36
  • Romans 4:25
  • 1 Corinthians 15
  • Philippians 2:5–11

6. God changes the heart

This is probably the central point of your analogy.

Your are speaking of…

removing hatred

That immediately reminds me of…

  • Ezekiel 11:19
  • Ezekiel 36:25–27
  • Jeremiah 24:7
  • Jeremiah 31:31–34
  • Deuteronomy 30:6

Then in the New Testament

  • John 3:3–8
  • John 6:37
  • John 6:44–45
  • Acts 16:14
  • Romans 8:29–30
  • Ephesians 2:4–5
  • Titus 3:3–7

7. They suddenly understand

Exactly what happened to Lydia.

  • Acts 16:14

Also

  • Luke 24:45

“Then He opened their minds…”

  • 2 Corinthians 4:3–6

One of my favourite passages.

God

“shone in our hearts…”

8. They willingly come

Notice…

They are not dragged.

They willingly come.

John 6:37

“All that the Father gives Me will come…”

Psalm 110:3

“Your people shall be willing…”

Philippians 2:13

“God works in you both to will and to do…”

9. They now want others saved

Perfect picture of evangelism.

Matthew 28:18–20

Acts 1:8

Romans 10:13–17

2 Corinthians 5:18–21

Colossians 1:28–29

10. God preserves them

Once they’re in the “car.”

John 10:27–30

Romans 8:28–39

Philippians 1:6

1 Peter 1:3–5

Jude 24–25

You write…

“…develop some odorless, tasteless, invisible compound…”

That almost sounds like God invents a new mechanism after humanity rejects Him.

Biblically, that isn’t quite right. My bad brother…

God’s saving purpose wasn’t a response to man’s rejection. It was His eternal purpose.

Relevant texts are:

  • Ephesians 1:3–11
  • 2 Timothy 1:9
  • Titus 1:2
  • 1 Peter 1:18–20
  • Revelation 13:8 (depending on translation and textual understanding)

Those passages show that redemption was purposed before the foundation of the world, not devised as a contingency plan.

Overall, though, your brilliant analogy captures the biblical teaching remarkably well. It illustrates that fallen humanity doesn’t merely need assistance; it needs a new heart. The decisive change is not that people are finally persuaded by better arguments, but that God graciously changes what they love, enabling them to see Christ for who He is and to come to Him willingly. That is exactly the pattern you see running from the prophets (Ezekiel 36; Jeremiah 31) through Jesus’ teaching in John 6 and into Paul’s doctrine of salvation in Romans and Ephesians.

Keep up the good work Achi.

J.

60

Thanks Johann. I appreciate your kind reply brother. I will get back to you hopefully tomorrow on the other verses. Concerning Phil 1, I appreciate the focus. This is an area where having a more profound sense of what we have been called into is so much in focus. I’ve been going through a study on the theology of rewards lately. So this goes nicely in highlighting wealth in His suffering unto us, amen.

I can understand Johann that my perspective does not rule out “a specific statement holistically targeted at Philippi,” but it also does not say clearly its inverse (highlighting others not believing). But wait. There actually kind of is right there in the very same verse though I believe from how it reads.

**28 **and in no way alarmed by your opponents—which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and this too, from God. **29 **For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer on His behalf, **30 **experiencing the same conflict which you saw in me, and now hear to be in me.

So these people could be gentiles or Jews or both. BUT, the paradigm of “those who go to destruction vs you philippians that believe” is kind of in there. It is clear there are those in contrast to believers at philippi. It could be used to say, “see…those God did not grant salvation to.” Understood. But the jury would still be out there. Where the jury however is not out is here though: We have a “context” in the passage itself contouring some form of contrast (those that don’t believe and those that do). And it is in every potential common to sense way that saying “it has been given unto you to believe” is in contrast to those being destroyed who won’t or don’t. And in that mini sense that paradigm (although not out rightly) suggests a contrast FOR THE SAKE to be able to say…“but you.” And this is “but you” juxtaposed to a group that won’t/don’t believe rather than it just being necessarily a statement solely about phillipi givin the inside track to sort of speak.

. . . . .

But i think this is actually quite a bit stronger. Here is a good chemistry set test for the book. We know socio-political and historically that Philippi was a gentile city/church. So we assume the persecution is gentile persecution. Which might make my case a bit harder. Ok. So prove it. lol. Prove any persecution clearly stated in Philippians that directly connect gentiles with persecution of that church.

Instead what we find “next door” in chapter three is a huge magnum opus of Paul’s warning of Judaizers and declaring himself having been so much of one…right next door. Now we do have inference. For example we have in Phil 3:20 a mention of citizenship. Which (especially in the context of what is being said in that area of scripture) that citizenship of Rome (a coveted commodity) would likely be triggered in the visual by contrast. And allude perhaps to the surrounding text’s foes. But hands down, in this book the only solid confirmed warming with ID is against the Jews. Which I believe makes my case more than does not…although it certainly does not go as far. But just saying. Because the contrast taking shape at that time in the 1st century was the Jews becoming unbelieving and the gentiles given permission to…which we see in paradigmatic form even within the contours of the Philippians writing. If that makes sense?