Could they become Christians whenever they wanted?

Hay-on-wye, Wales (photo from trekearth.com)

I was listening to a well-known Christian teacher on-line, that I respect and have learned from over the years. I reason this teacher is an incompatibilist, whereas I am a compatibilist, due to my research concerning the problem of evil.

Gregory A. Boyd explains that incompatibilism assumes since human beings are free, their wills and resulting actions are not, in any way, determined by any outside force. Boyd (2001: 52). John Sanders writes that in incompatibilism it is believed genetic or environmental factors are not ignored in the process of human actions, but it is thought that a human being could always have done otherwise in any given situation. Sanders (1998: 221).

Libertarian free will is often understood as a form of indeterminism. The concept is that a person is able to perform another action in the place of one that has been committed. This action cannot be predetermined by any circumstance or desire. Norman Geisler explains that indeterminism is defined as the idea that there are no antecedent (preceding conditions) or simultaneous (at the same time) causes of human actions. All human actions are free if a person could have done otherwise. Geisler (1996: 429). Indeterminism is also equated with incompatibilism which states that God, or any other being, cannot cause by force or coercion any human action, nor can any action be simultaneously willed by God or any other being, for the human action to remain significantly free.

Compatibilism, would agree with incompatibilism that God or any other being cannot cause by force or coercion any significantly free human action, but contrary to incompatibilism thinks that God or an outside force can simultaneously determine/will significantly free human actions. Feinberg (1994: 60).

This teacher uses Acts 17: 27 where Paul addresses the Athenians and states within the New American Standard Bible:

That they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find him, though He is not far from each of us.

The teacher implied that by God’s grace and with incompatibilist libertarian free will, the Athenians could have believed, or not, in the Biblical God and therefore Christ, without being simultaneously determined/influenced by God to do so. But, in contrast, I reason that due to Paul’s comments in Romans 3 that this would not work. Instead the Greeks could know about God through natural revelation, but could not believe in the Biblical God and Christ, in the sense of saving faith, unless regenerated by God’s choice alone through the use of compatibilism. God’s choice would lead to influence over persons to freely believe. Roman 3:10 states that none are righteous; in 3:11 none understand and seek God. In 3:12 all have turned aside, and no one does good. In 3:23 all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

I thought I would look at my Acts commentary by Calvin. He explains that it was the human duty to seek God, and that God will meet human beings and demonstrated clear signs of his existence in creation. Calvin (1552)(1995: 302). Calvin states that those who do not exert themselves to seek after God are not worthy to live on this earth. Calvin (1552)(1995: 302). Through the creation of the world God has shown his glory. Calvin (1552)(1995: 302).

Calvin raises the important issue if whether this knowledge concerning God from nature allows persons such as the Athenians to gain true and clear knowledge about God by this nature. Calvin (1552)(1995: 302). Calvin explains that persons choose not to pay attention to God, but that true knowledge about God is a special gift, which comes by faith and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Calvin (1552)(1995: 302). This I reason requires compatibilism as God alone chooses to regenerate an individual and then influences, moulds and illuminates a person. Calvin writes that our own human minds cannot penetrate this far if guided by human nature alone, Calvin (1552)(1995: 302), and I reason that this eliminates libertarian, incompatibilist free will as an option.

Calvin notes that in this Acts passage, Paul is not dealing with the human ability to believe in saving faith, but is only showing that persons have no excuse when God is not perceived, and Calvin mentions Romans 1:20, which concerns God revealing himself in creation. (1552)(1995: 302-303). E.H. Trenchard notes that in Acts 17: 29-31, Paul is pointing out that a true knowledge of God would eliminate the need for man-made idols. Trenchard (1986: 1298).

I am therefore still convinced, as with my MPhil and PhD dissertations that Paul and Calvin both support concepts of compatibilist and not libertarian, incompatibilist free will in regard to human salvation. The teacher I listened to on-line, in my opinion is correct to assert that the Athenians had the option to seek God through natural revelation. This would point towards monotheism and not Greek gods, but in light of Paul’s teaching in Romans and overall New Testament teaching, it should not be assumed that the Athenians were not Christians based on the fact primarily that they did not choose to be. God still needed to regenerate them as their corrupt nature and resulting sinful choices would not allow these persons in themselves to know Christ by simply intellectually accepting the gospel they previously rejected. A human being will not believe in God and Christ simply by being given the intellectual option by God in grace, to do so.

BOYD, GREGORY A. (2001) Satan and the Problem of Evil, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

SANDERS, JOHN (1998) The God Who Risks, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

TRENCHARD, E.H. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

C.S. Lewis and wickedness

Cha Grande, Brazil (photo from trekearth.com)

I am very busy with final PhD dissertation revisions and so I provide my third and likely final MPhil dissertation C.S. Lewis presentation. I am in greater agreement with this section of his work than with the other two sections I posted as blog articles. I will provide new material in the Additional 2008 section.

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/01/mphil-wales-2003.html

Human Wickedness

Within this chapter, Lewis set out to show the reader that the western culture of his day (1940) had a misunderstanding of human wickedness. He stated that his culture put too much emphasis on kindness being the measure of good, and cruelty the measure of wickedness. Lewis pointed out that this kindness was based on the fact that: "Everyone feels benevolent if nothing happens to be annoying him at the moment." Lewis (1940)(1996: 49).

This is a good point, kindness or niceness is certainly not a measure of goodness. Being nice is a way of dealing with people which is most pleasurable, beneficial and brings about, generally, the most pleasurable and beneficial response. However, someone can be nice with evil intentions, an example would be Judas betraying Jesus with a kiss, or someone can act in unkind fashion but mean something for the good. For example, a Doctor re-broke my nose twice by hand without anaesthetic, after I had been assaulted by a bottle attack. This was cruel treatment and it caused me pain. The first attempt caused blood to pour out, however, the treatment straightened my nose and allowed me to look and breath better while lying down, providing me a better night’s sleep.

As well, kindness or niceness, as Lewis alluded to, often disappears when someone is annoyed. This hardly needs much explanation as we can relate to this with ourselves and others we know. I would think true goodness is an objective standard based on one emulating God, and thus one would be good to others regardless of circumstance.

Lewis also stated that human beings needed to better understand that they were sinful and that Christ and Scripture saw them as so.

He noted that a human being could misunderstand wickedness by comparing oneself with someone else, and making a favourable review. Lewis pointed out that: "Every man, not very holy or very arrogant, has to ‘live up to’ the outward appearance of other men." Lewis (1940)(1996: 53). The reviewer is not fully aware of the sins of the people under review, and at the same time, within public persona, is hiding from the world around him/her, the depth of wickedness within.

Lewis thought that people tend to desire to see wickedness in the sense of corporate guilt. He believed that this was, in a way, evading the problems of individual sin. He noted: "When we have really learned to know our individual corruption, then indeed we go on to think about corporate guilt and can hardly think of it too much." Lewis (1940)(1996: 54).

Yes, it seems rather easy for individuals to allow social systems to do wicked things, and thus have the blame for evil shifted to it. However, Lewis has a point, individuals must take responsibility for thoughts and actions, clean up their own act, and then set out to change systems, if possible.

Lewis also tackled the view that time cancels sin. He made an interesting point here:

The guilt is not washed out by time but by the repentance and the blood of Christ: if we repented these early sins we should remember the price of our forgiveness and be humble. As for the fact of sin, is it probable that anything cancels it? All times are eternally present to God. Lewis (1940)(1996: 54-55).

I agree that time cannot cancel sin, and that this is a huge error in thinking in today’s western world. The example of divorce comes to mind. It seems to me that an adulterer who has abandoned his/her mate after enough time often thinks that all should be forgiven, and that "we should stay friends." Although, I totally agree with God’s call for forgiveness, in the case of sin, friendship should be conditioned on things being set right with repentance, as well as forgiveness taking place. For things to be set right then, a wrong has to be admitted and seen for what it is, evil, and not simply overlooked after a certain amount of time.

Lewis pointed out that nothing could truly cancel sin. Interesting speculation indeed, as he points out Christ paid for our sins, but sin is sin and will have always have taken place. I think, however, that God, as well as paying for sins with Christ, can also render the power of these sins useless in everlasting existence.

Lewis warned against the idea that there is safety in numbers. Just because all people are evil does not make it right for individuals to do evil actions

Additional 2008:

Donald G. Bloesch comments that in philosophy a morally good life is inward satisfaction, peace of mind, and happiness in the sense of well-being. In theology a truly good life is vicarious suffering in service for others. Bloesch (1987: 25).

W.R.F Browning notes that both Testaments anticipate certain punishment for the wicked and there is the wonder of why the wicked prosper. There is often the Biblical idea that eventually punishment shall come for the wicked. Wickedness is a deep-seated evil in the heart of persons and inspired by Satan. Browning (1997: 394).

O.T. Allis explains that wickedness is a rendering of more than a dozen Hebrew words in the Hebrew Bible and five Greek, New Testament words. Wickedness always involves a moral state. Wickedness is used less in the New Testament, but is usually rendered poneros (πονηρoς). Allis (1996: 1171).

Please note that in 2006, I had to have nasal reconstruction surgery. My surgeon here in the Lower Mainland stated that the MD in England who had straightened the nose by hand had made it far worse!

ALLIS, O.T. (1996) ‘Wicked, Wickedness’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/03/theology-of-
common-sense.html

A church being liberal at the expense of being Biblical

Hoffstadt Creek Bridge, Mount Saint Helens (photo from trekearth.com)

An article in the local Maple Ridge Times explains that a Maple Ridge Anglican church has voted to allow same-sex marriages, and will do so when given permission by the diocese. This church had kindly assisted me with my questionnaire a few months ago and so I do not write this article with hard feelings against anyone! I genuinely appreciated their help in providing a liberal theological voice to my questionnaire. I have nothing personally against any liberal churches or homosexuals. The Times explains that at least 15 churches have voted to separate from the Anglican Church of Canada over this issue.

In the article the Reverend explains that they are an inclusive church and they stand for the liberal voice. I am a moderate conservative, and do not consider myself a fundamentalist, but I thought that a truly Christian church should stand for the voice of God through Scripture. The Scripture is to be followed as God’s Revelation for the world and the church, regardless if it means taking a conservative or liberal stand on an issue.

The Reverend points out that some people state homosexuality is a choice, but he disagrees. I can half grant his point as I think evangelicals at times are in error when they separate sinful choices from a corrupted human nature. It is not simply a choice. The Reverend states that homosexuality is part of the natural order of creation. I reason that this is a half-truth. Yes, in a fallen world, some persons by nature and choice are homosexual. I am not a scientist and I am not going to argue for or against the idea that some persons are born homosexual, but, even if it can be shown scientifically in conclusive manner that homosexuals are different than heterosexuals this would not make homosexuality natural within a Biblical context, in a fallen, corrupted creation. As human beings are corrupt in sin (Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:23, 6:23) it should not be a surprise that what seems perfectly natural for some is considered unnatural and corruption by God. Those who live in homosexual practice stand outside of God's Kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Revelation 21:8). The entirety of humanity is corrupted, including physical nature and so a hypothetical homosexual nature in some persons would still mean that homosexual acts would be sinful.

The Reverend states that we need to get away from flat earth theology and become more enlightened.

Biblically enlightened?

As I noted in my previous article on this subject, Romans 1:26-27 discusses the issue of homosexuality. James D.G. Dunn states that Paul's attitude to homosexual practice is unambiguous. Dunn (1988: 74). For Paul this practice is a passion not worthy of respect and is unnatural. Dunn (1988: 74). Cranfield notes from the Biblical text an abandonment of natural intercourse with the opposite sex, for same sex intercourse. Cranfield writes that Paul is explaining that homosexual acts are contrary to nature and the creator's intention. Cranfield (1992: 35). It is perversion that is condemned. Cranfield (1992: 36). Mounce states that Paul views homosexual practice as shameful, unnatural, indecent, and a perversion. Mounce (1995: 82). Mounce traces it back to the Old Testament condemnation in Leviticus 18:22. Mounce (1995: 82-33). Mounce further writes that in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul notes that homosexual offenders will not be allowed to enter the Kingdom of God. Mounce (1995: 82-83). These offenders are 'soft ones' who allow themselves to be used as women. Mounce (1995: 83). Mounce makes the very reasonable deduction that there is no room for the allowance in the Christian Church of homosexual practice since it is clearly condemned in both Testaments. Mounce (1995: 82-83).

Biologically enlightened?

Basic biology tells me that marriage by definition is in part sexual and can, under normal circumstances, lead to sexual reproduction. I am not stating that a heterosexual couple that marries and cannot have children is not a valid marriage, nor is a marriage invalid where no children are produced by choice. Old persons that get married cannot have children, however, the physical sexual act of intercourse would be the same for all heterosexual couples and would be natural regardless of whether or not pro-creation could take place. The natural ability to sexually reproduce is impossible normally with homosexual couples, thus there is a clear distinction and I think that this should be legally recognized.

The Christian Church with the use of Scripture and biology should definitely be able to see that there is a clear distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages, but many extreme liberals within the Church have lost trust in the word of God. I for one if I was an Anglican would refuse to submit to leadership that does not take a contextual evaluation and application of Scripture very seriously, placing it in front of sentiment and social and political ideology.

The Reverend notes that some Christian churches opposed the abolition of slavery in the past and compared it to the issue of churches opposing same-sex marriage. I think this is faulty reasoning as the Bible does not condemn any ethic group or race as being less than human or unnatural, but homosexuality is considered unnatural and sinful. Slavery did exist in Biblical times, but an aspect of New Testament teaching is equality of persons in love and that a person should no longer be a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother as Paul tells Onesimus concerning Philemon in Philemon 1:16.

In closing, I present a link and article and some key points from the article. I provide this as a contrast to the views of the Reverend regarding civil rights for blacks and homosexual rights. I can write concerning this article if needed in comments.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=18338

Texas: 'Gay rights,' civil rights not the same, black leaders say

He (Dwight McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church and president of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention’s Pastors’ Conference) pointed out three major differences between the two movements.

First, civil rights are rooted in moral authority, while homosexual rights are rooted in the lack of moral restraint, McKissic said. Trying to undo the damage of years of a race of people in slavery was the right thing to do, he said, whereas trying to change laws solely because of the decisions of a group of people is not the right thing.

Second, civil rights are rooted in constitutional authority, while homosexual rights are rooted in civil anarchy, McKissic said. According to the Constitution, all men have God-given rights. It was because of these rights Martin Luther King Jr. and others fought for freedom. He cited a speech King gave in Washington D.C. “He says, ‘America has written black folk a check and the check came back marked with insufficient funds,’ because the Constitution guaranteed us rights to vote, rights to buy property. It guaranteed us certain unalienable rights.”“But,” McKissic said, “the gay community [is] trying to write a check on an account that hasn’t been opened yet.”

Third, the sufferings of the homosexual do not compare to the suffering of the black man in America. McKissic said when the homosexual community suffers through 200 years of slavery, is declared only three-fifths human and is denied the right to vote or buy property, then the two movements can be compared.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

C.S. Lewis concerning free will and Hell

The following is another section I wrote on C.S. Lewis and the problem of evil, from my MPhil in 2003. There is material added in the Additional 2008 section.

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/01/mphil-wales-2003.html

To Lewis, Hell was the place where those who were committed to unrepented rebellion against God were separated from their creator in the next life. Lewis noted this was the negative side of free will, that many would reject their creator. "Some will not be redeemed." Lewis (1940)(1996: 119). This is the case even though Jesus Christ did the work required to save all of humanity.

Lewis noted that because of free will, all of humanity could only be saved if God saved them against their own will. I see the logic of his point; however, it appears from Romans for example, that all reject God prior to God’s grace through the Holy Spirit. Romans 3:10-11, mentions that not one person is righteous, not one person really seeks God. This being accepted, then even believers in Christ have their will somehow moved without being violated, since many believers accept the idea that human beings have, to some degree, free will. If a human being does not choose God without God first moving his/her heart, then the question arises, why does God move some and not others? Yes, some do believe and repent, but they cannot do this autonomously, so the reason why some are saved, and some are not, remains somewhat a mystery to humanity, and cannot be Biblically, entirely contributed to the human use of free will. Lewis explained some major objections to Hell, and countered these objections. He dealt with the objection with God’s retributive justice. He made the following point.

The demand that God should forgive such a man while he remains what he is, is based on a confusion between condoning and forgiving. To condone an evil is simply to ignore it, to treat it as if it were good. But forgiveness needs to be accepted as well as offered if it is to be complete: and a man who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness. Lewis (1940)(1996: 124).

So, based on this idea, God must punish sinners, otherwise he condones sin. I think this true as well, to not believe in God in a relationship sense and fail to ask for forgiveness is a rejection of God. To refuse a relationship with God, one’s own creator, is to arguably commit the greatest crime possible. To reject the being that made you in love, and to reject your very own purpose to serve that God in love, is certainly a punishable offense. If there is anything wrong and offensive in the Universe that would be it!

Lewis also noted that while God does issue punishment to sinners in Hell, he is at the same time letting them live the selfish, Godless lives they desired apart from him, so it appears his love still remains even to those Hell bound. In the Screwtape Letters, Lewis as Uncle Screwtape states: "The whole philosophy of Hell rests on recognition of the axiom that one thing is not another thing, and specifically, the one self is not another self. My good is my good and yours is yours." Lewis (1941)(1990: 92) . This selfishness which leads to the damage of others is allowed by the Lord to flourish in Hell within the spirits of unrepentant sinners.

Lewis mentions the objection of God giving eternal-everlasting punishment for transitory sin. He handles this by stating that perhaps eternity is not necessarily in a line, but a solid, as in timeless state. So, I would take from this idea, that perhaps the actual punishment of the sinner never varies, but stays the same. Hell could be a timeless type of punishment. Also, I would like to counter this objection by stating that in everlasting punishment, the sinner is not primarily being punished for sins against God in the temporal life, but is being punished and separated from God for a sin position against God. Why does a sinner earn everlasting punishment? Because his/her rebellion against God is everlasting. There is thus no injustice because there is not really eternal-everlasting punishment for temporal sin, but everlasting punishment for everlasting rebellion against God.

Concerning the objection of the horrors of Hell, and the intense punishment, Lewis rejected annihilationism because he stated that ". . . the destruction of one thing means the emergence of something else. . . . If souls can be destroyed, must there not be a state of having been a human soul?" Lewis (1940)(1996: 127). This could be the case, but I think it tenable to believe that God could completely destroy what he had created. To say he could not would be troubling in light of the Christian belief in God’s omnipotence. It would not be contradiction for God to destruct what he had constructed, so I think Lewis has a logical point, but one that would not concern annihilationists, or critics of Hell very much, since the God Christians believe in should possess the power to destroy his own creations.

It is quite possible that the level of Hell one endures could very well be proportionate to their level of rebellion against God which takes place in their sin position. Jesus indicated there was greater sin for certain acts, as when he was handed over to the Romans by Judas and the Jews in John 19:11, so perhaps Hell is determined by what the individual makes of it largely.

Additional 2008:

Lewis noted this was the negative side of free will, that many would reject their creator. "Some will not be redeemed." Lewis (1940)(1996: 119).

Within much of Reformed theology persons outside of Christ freely reject God, but are also not elected to salvation. J.S.Whale states sovereign election means that all persons are subjects of double predestination, either in Christ or condemned. Whale (1958: 63). Election is based on God’s plan and initiative to save the elect. Calvin (1543)(1996: 200).

Lewis noted that because of free will, all of humanity could only be saved if God saved them against their own will.

I reason that this is incorrect. God can use compatibilism to save persons. Persons can be determined to believe in God without force or coercion, and freely accept the gospel message as God chooses to regenerate persons and moulds and persuades individuals to believe. Philosopher Louis P. Pojman explains the difference between determinism, which is also known as hard determinism, and compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism. Within determinism or hard determinism, an outside force causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although an outside force causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Within hard determinism an outside force would be the only cause of human actions, while with soft determinism an outside force would be the primary cause of human actions and persons the secondary cause. Pojman (1996: 596). Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form. This could be an outside force, as noted, that is not God. An atheist may be a compatibilist and/or an incompatibilist.

Alexander R. Pruss notes a key difference between incompatibilism and compatibilism in regard to committing an action. The incompatibilist thinks if someone freely refrains from an action, they must not have been causally determined or significantly influenced to do so. The compatibilist thinks if someone refrains from an action, they have the power to do this and were not constrained from doing the action by an outside force. Compatibilism allows for significantly free human beings to commit free actions, simultaneously influenced and determined by an outside force but never with the use of constraint, coercion or force. Incompatibilism denies that any outside influence can significantly will any action, or impose itself on a significantly free being for a truly free action to occur. Pruss (2003: 216).

He handles this by stating that perhaps eternity is not necessarily in a line, but a solid, as in timeless state.

I personally doubt that hell is timeless, but the lake of fire, although likely described in figurative terms, has a physical nature where physically resurrected bodies are punished (Revelation 20). How time would work in such a place I do not know, but I reason that persons need time to process thoughts and to process punishment.

Finally, I desire that no one end up in hell, but it is a Biblical teaching!

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

LEWIS, C.S. (1941)(1990) The Screwtape Letters, Uhrichsville, Ohio,
Barbour and Company.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

PRUSS, ALEXANDER R. (2003) ‘A New Free-Will Defence’, Religious Studies, Volume 39, pp. 211-223. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/02/bloghush-floyd-
mayweather-jr-to-fight.html