At some point in nearly every debate about “who does what” in
salvation a certain phrase is dropped which strikes fear into the heart
of all involved. “I believe men have free will.” Like a triple dog dare
issued on a schoolyard, people back up to give the concept space. The
discussion of free will is an intensely polarizing subject. It’s more
often put forward as a theological trump card against Calvinism than any
other concept. “More moderate” theological constructs may take refuge
within its walls. For many it is the final and insurmountable fall back
defense against the logical minions of Reformed theology. Free will is
the mother of all theological comebacks.
In the realm of debate the issuance of free will is a classic emotional appeal
intended to play upon the sympathies of the listener. For certain, it
is palpable. Within this discussion it is the emotional equivalent of
setting a basket of puppies in front of an oncoming and uncaring
steamroller of hard determinism. Who would dare advance against a
reality as noble as man’s capacity to freely choose and love God? Who
would dare trample over the treasured premises that underlie free will?
Free will as a doctrine (men have/retain the capacity to choose God)
is intended to protect the quality of love between God and sinner. If it
is not a free choice it cannot be real love. If it is not real love it
was not a real choice. This sequence eventually leads to the five-finger
death punch of theological debate, “Are we just a bunch of robots?”
Free will and its corollaries pin the opponent down in an (apparent)
inescapable contradiction between sincere love and unfeeling
predestination. How can one possibly object to freewill without
appearing as the Ebenezer Scrooge of theology? Debate over. Right? Not
hardly. “Bah humbug!” Keep Reading >>>
No comments:
Post a Comment