Does that Bible Teach That We Have Free Will?

Photo by William White on Unsplash

The Bible has lot of things to say about lots of topics. It doesn't speak specifically about how much screen time kids in middle school should have, but it speaks to what we should put our time and energy into. Sometimes the Bible implies certain things about a topic. For example, when it says that we shouldn't murder, we can infer that if something is murder, we shouldn't do it (i.e. abortion).

Other times the Bible assumes that you already have some prerequisite  knowledge that doesn't need to be elaborated on. It's assumed that you have enough understanding to sufficiently grasp the main teaching point of the text.

I think the nature of free will is something like the last option. The Biblical authors assume that you have some concept of free will that you are bringing with you when you read the text. That's not to say that the Scriptures can't set the parameters for your view of free will. It just means that the Bible doesn't offer a treatise on the subject. So when we try to determine "what the Bible says about free will" we shouldn't expect it to directly address contemporary philosophical debates on the subject.

Documentary Hypothesis

Introduction

A careful reading of the first five books of the Old Testament (Pentateuch) reveals peculiar literary, stylistic, and ideological characteristics. Some of these characteristics are more immediately noticeable, while others require some knowledge of the Hebrew language. More importantly, a large number of biblical scholars claim that the Pentateuch contains diverging literary, stylistic, and ideological characteristics which, they claim, imply different source material throughout the Pentateuch. In modern times, these “divergences” are taken as evidence that the books of Moses were written long after the death of Moses. The theory that adheres to multiple non-Mosaic authors of the Pentateuch is known as the Documentary Hypothesis.

The Potter's Freedom: The Vital Issue

Prior to starting my studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary, I read a book by Norman Geisler titled "Chosen but Free". I was intrigued by the book as it purported to be a balanced view of the doctrine of election.  At that time I was debating the topic quite regularly with my friends and this book was one of the few books available on the topic from a non-Calvinist perspective.

Not long after CBF came out, the reformed apologist James White wrote a book titled "The Potter's Freedom". This book echoed some of the more widely held criticisms of Geisler's position and capitalized on the "strangeness" of the views presented in CBF.  In this series of blog posts, I will not be responding to Geisler.  This is not because I necessarily agree with him on every point; it's simply that I want to focus on White's work.

In this blog post, I want to focus on what White calls "The Vital Issue."  According to White, there is a criterion that serves to delineate between the "supernatural religion of Christianity" and the "man-centered religions that surround us." This delineation has to do with whether or not you think the work of salvation is "perfectly accomplished by God for His own glory" or it "is dependent upon man's cooperation and assistance."

In short, the delineation is between monergism and synergism along with "The truth of predestination (God's freedom) and man's depravity (his will in bondage)."  White claims that you cannot truly be reformed apart from upholding sola fide AND the truth of God's absolute freedom AND man's bondage in sin. He spends a good deal of time juxtaposing Calvinism with what he calls man centered religions. The implication here is that Geisler's position (along with pretty much anyone who is not in line with his brand of Calvinism) is not truly Calvinistic and is therefore a man-centered religion.

Christianity and Mythology with Allan Di Donato

Wanted to post a really great lecture by Allan Di Donato on the topic of Christianity and Mythology. In this lecture he talks about what myth is and has some really interesting conclusions. I especially like his appeal to Jungian psychology as a possible explanation for common mythological themes.

Allan Di Donato is an instructor at Central Piedmont Community College where he teaches the classics. Please check out this lecture and comment!

2011-04-03 EH (Missions - Week 8) from Community Fellowship Church on Vimeo.

A defense of the cessation of the apostolic sign gifts - sort of...

Introduction

While I don't agree that the case for the cessation of the apostolic sign gifts is air tight, I do find it helpful to set forth the case for the position in order to make sure the position is adequately understood.  In this article, I hope to put forward the case in a meaningful and charitable way.

Before Jesus Christ went to be with the Father, He spoke of the coming of the promised Holy Spirit. To His apostles He said, “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (Acts 1:8). When Jesus came, He “drew heaven with Him.”  When He went back to heaven, He did not leave His apostles to their own natural abilities. Rather, He graciously sent the Holy Spirit to give them supernatural gifts for the purpose of establishing the church.

In this article it will be argued that certain gifts of the Spirit have ceased with the passing of the original apostolic church. This article will give most of its attention to the connection between the apostles and the sign gifts. First, a general introduction to the gifts of the Spirit will be given. Next, a connection between the sign gifts and the apostles will be made. Possible objections to the connection between the apostles and the sign gifts will be discussed during the course of the article. After this, a summary of an argument for Cessationism will be given. Finally, some practical implications will be drawn.

Classical Arminianism and Total Depravity

In this post, I would like to explore similarities and differences in how classical Arminians and Calvinists view the doctrine of total depravity.  I say "classical Arminianism" because many people who claim to be Arminian do not understand Arminianism as it was stated by Arminius himself.  For example, the following website does NOT speak for the classical Arminian:

http://thegracecommunity.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/what-is-arminianism/

Free-will or human ability. ...Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man’s freedom consists in his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God’s Spirit and be regenerated or resist God’s grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit’s assistance but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man’s act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner’s gift to God; it is man’s contribution to salvation. (emphasis mine)

I understand why Calvinists react so strongly to these portrayals of Arminian theology.  Contrary to the quote above Arminius did not believe that faith is the sinner's gift to God.  Nor did he maintain that man's will, in his fallen state, is free from enslavement to sin.  In his book Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, Roger Olson writes the following:

Arminius could not have made clearer his belief that human beings are utterly helpless and totally dependent on grace for their salvation.

Roger E. Olson. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (p. 142). Kindle Edition.