I received an excellent e-mail from a Pastor in southern Indiana, named Rick Lauterbach, that I consider worthy of posting on my blog. I met Rick several years ago at U.P.S. and he immediately impressed me with his knowledge of Christianity. At the time, he was not a Pastor yet, but he was attending school to serve Christ more effectively. Now he is a bi-vocational pastor, he still works at U.P.S., pastors his congregation in southern Indiana, and now is attending Southern Seminary in Louisville to attain another Master's degree, and he hopes a doctorate. You can see from his e-mail, he knows his doctrine. So please read his reply to the subject of God's sovereignty in salvation, man's free will, and our ability to achieve relationship with God on our own ability.
Kevin
The idea of free will as the bible depicts it is quite different from the concept of free will as most people hold to. A fully sovereign God does not have to bow before the will of his creatures as many suppose. Libertarian free will is outside of the biblical understanding. Men are held responsible before a holy God for their sin, while at the same time being unable in their fallen estate to cause their own rescue. God holds them guilty of their own sin, not the sin of someone else. Every soul is in its original estate is damned. The grace of God rescues those he has by his election set aside for redemption according to his purposes. The only problem someone could have is that they would say it is unfair not to offer salvation to everyone. The problem is if he did so and left everyone to their own conscience all would perish and none would be redeemed. Is God unjust because he has saved some and allowed others to perish? God is judging sin in both the elect and the non elect. Christ suffered an eternity for each of his beloved and those that have not been atoned for will suffer through out eternity. Is God unjust because he acts according to his will and not as a man? Proponents of libertarian free will believe in someones right to choose, just not the right of God to choose. Everyone believes in limited atonement - we just differ on who is doing the limiting. Libertarian free will ultimately believes those that come to Christ were somehow either smarter, better, or more deserving of Gods grace. I hope I didn't make it less clear.
Blessings
Rick Lauterbach
Pastor of Sovereign Grace Baptist Church
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Rick,
ReplyDeleteWell said. The conclusion that there must be something in me that made me better, and was why God chose me, never sat well in me. Finally, through sound teaching, I came to believe exactly what you stated so eloquently in the closing lines of your letter. If my worthiness is what attracted God's attention, then my salvation is not based on unmerited favor, but on works. And that does not agree with scripture. Specifically what is written in Ephesians 2:1-10. Readers, reread this passage as you meditate on God's sovereign grace.
Three questions that are begging to be asked during this discussion:
ReplyDelete1. Why did Jesus have to suffer if the exploits of man were already determined before hand?
2. Could Jesus have failed?
3. Did Adam and Eve have free will?
KB
"A fully sovereign God does not have to bow before the will of his creatures as many suppose."
ReplyDeleteCorrect. He does not have to bow to man. He chooses, however, to allow man to choose his own destiny. Why would God force everyone into Heaven? That would destroy either Heaven or his creatures. Those who do not want to be there would either loose their free will to choose right and wrong or would destroy Heaven.
Why would God condemn everyone? I believe the question would be why wouldn't he? But, as Scripture makes clear, he loves us too much to abandon us to hell. He does not wish us to perish. And so he made a way for those who wish to love and be with him to do so.
"Men are held responsible before a holy God for their sin, while at the same time being unable in their fallen estate to cause their own rescue."
This is absolutely true. Man couldn't have rescued themselves. They still cannot. Christ's sacrifice is the only way to be justified. The sin has been paid for, will we accept it?
"God holds them guilty of their own sin, not the sin of someone else."
Yup :)
"Every soul is in its original estate is damned."
I disagree with this. It seems, to me, that the previous statement is contradicting this one. If we are held responsible for our own sin, then in our original state we were sinless. We are not condemned for being without sin, we are condemned for sinning. So the moment we sin, at that point we are condemned. Not before.
"The problem is if he did so and left everyone to their own conscience all would perish and none would be redeemed. Is God unjust because he has saved some and allowed others to perish?"
ReplyDeleteThis is different than saving some and allowing others to perish. This would be indirectly causing their deaths. God would make man, allow/cause their fall (not sure where you stand there) and then choose some people to save over others.
Is that unjust? I'm not sure. God has a right to do what he will with his creation. If we chose to reject him he would have every right to let us rot in hell. We attacked him! He's not required by any moral standard to save those who have scorned him. Of course, that would require a meaningful rejection to be justified. So all men must have, at some point or another, complete free will to choose to reject him. And if they have the option to reject, they must also have the equal option to accept.
"God is judging sin in both the elect and the non elect. Christ suffered an eternity for each of his beloved and those that have not been atoned for will suffer through out eternity."
No. Christ suffered for the sins of all people. God shows no favoritism. Certainly choosing some for life and some for death is picking favorites.
"Is God unjust because he acts according to his will and not as a man?"
No. He would be unjust if he contradicted his own morality. Which, this doctrine, is in stark contrast to. Somewhere along the line man had the ability to choose to accept or reject him. Complete free will. If this were not a real choice, God would be unjust in condemning us. Torture, punishment, etc without cause is obviously immoral. Some would say Adam and Eve were given this choice and all man is cursed for their decision.
But that cannot be true. Because God does not punish for the sins of others. We are condemned for our own sin. Otherwise, again, God would be punishing without cause. And in order for us to be justly condemned, we had to have, at some point, a meaningful decision to accept or reject him.
"Proponents of libertarian free will believe in someones right to choose, just not the right of God to choose."
Nope. I believe in God's right to choose. God chose to give us free will. He chose to create a world that would allow for evil and even greater good. He created a place where his creatures could legitimately love him. And love requires choice. God chose to give us choice.
"Libertarian free will ultimately believes those that come to Christ were somehow either smarter, better, or more deserving of Gods grace."
I don't think this makes much sense at all. I would say the opposite. To me, predestination peeps believe that those who are elected are somehow better or more deserving of God's grace. What makes the elect more deserving than the nonelect? Surely God wouldn't randomly choose people. And if there is a method, that means the elect stood in better standing with it.
I believe that all men are equally bad. And the only difference, is that some chose to make Christ lord. The fact that all are given the same offer doesn't make those who accept it "better, more deserving, etc". A man who dies unsaved in Africa given the choice to accept Christ once etc would have died with the same fate had he been born into a church family in the US.
Why? Legitimate choice.