Luther Bondage of the will

[Mark Quayle]

For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
— Romans 8:5-8

The fleshly people neither have an interest to follow Christ nor can they please God, since they don't care about breaking the Law and they live in sin, and even if they wanted to stop living in sin, they couldn't, since the power of breaking with sin is through the Holy Spirit. That is how it is with people of the world.

Paul sets a clear distinction between being of the flesh and being of the Spirit. But he is not talking about the convicted man here. What I don't see is that a man of flesh has an inability to respond to the gospel if he is convicted. I think that is reading more than it says. If a man of flesh is convicted by the Holy Spirit, he can respond to the gospel and be born again. I don't see how a person of flesh can be born again, become spiritual unless he can respond.

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
— 1 Corinthians 2:11

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
— 1 Corinthians 2:14

The thoughts of God has to be known through the Holy Spirit. The man of flesh can't understand the things of God and he doesn't want to, since they are appraised by the Holy Spirit. So is it with the man of flesh until he is convicted by the Holt Spirit, responds to the gospel and is born a again. I think again the problem comes when we read it like Paul means a man of flesh can't respond to the gospel. I think the distinction he makes is between two archetypes, the man of flesh, the man of Spirit. He is not talking about the transition between the two.

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
— John 3:3-7

Jesus says unless one has received the Holy Spirit he cannot "see the kingdom of God/enter the kingdom of God". It is through receiving the Holy Spirit one sees/enters the kingdom and is born again/saved. What John 3 is not saying is HOW one receives God's Spirit. It says nothing about the order of things or of an inability to respond. It says for a man to be saved, he needs to receive the Holy Spirit. It doesn't say the man first has to see the kingdom of God to enter it. Seeing and entering is a description of the same thing. It is what happens when one receives the Spirit of God, he becomes member of the kingdom, is saved.

What does 'convicted' mean then? If it has the transformative power of changing the unable to now able, is that not regeneration? I'm not talking about convicted, such as a demon knows it is altogether evil and ungodly, but convicted as in desiring God and purity. That kind of conviction is not just desiring relief from conviction, btw.

 

[Clare73]

I will give a response to that tomorrow.

I think it is dangerous as you can make texts say things they aren't meant to say and it can be like forcing your understanding on someone.

Both what the texts are "meant to say," or not to say, is just as assertion until it is demonstrated from Scripture.
There are safeguards to the meaning of Scripture, but those safeguards require knowledge of all Scripture.

That's a cute example.

Thanks!

That is not the preferring I'm talking about, and I didn't think you were talking about that either. Of course we prefer different things and that is how it is. But if someone puts a bowl of chocolate ice cream to your left and a vanilla ice cream to your right, you might choose vanilla even you prefer chocolate. Why? Because you don't choose what you prefer, (since then you would always choose chocolate),

But you did not choose vanilla without a reason. At that moment you preferred vanilla over chocolate for whatever reason: to prove a point, a desire for a change, caffeine is not good for you, the chocolate looked old, etc. You chose what you preferred in that moment.

but you control the preferring that very moment, you control what to prefer to choose. I thought that was the inclination we were talking about, the inclination to make a specific choice.

A specific choice operates the same way, there is a reason to prefer what you chose, even if it's just not wanting to bother with having to decide. Your choice is not causeless.
When God works in the disposition, no choice presenting itself is more compelling to you than him.

I think it is important since I can't see how we can be responsible for crimes unless we can actually say "no".

That assumes responsibility is based on ability.

That's not how justice works in God's court. It is not based on our ability, but on what we owe.
We owe obedience to God, whether we are able to render it or not, and we are liable for that debt.
It's the same in our courts. If I borrow money from someone, and find myself unable to pay him back, I still owe the debt regardless of my inability to pay.
The penalty for not paying back the money is seizure of my assets in payment of it.
Responsibility is not based on ability to pay, but on what is owed.

To prefer things of the Spirit is another matter. I don't know, but I believe our choices in life may either move us closer to wanting to know Christ or further away. But I believe that is happening without us knowing at the time the consequences of our choices.

Indeed, all things end up working for the glory of God, even evil.

 

[fhansen]

What does 'convicted' mean then? If it has the transformative power of changing the unable to now able, is that not regeneration? I'm not talking about convicted, such as a demon knows it is altogether evil and ungodly, but convicted as in desiring God and purity. That kind of conviction is not just desiring relief from conviction, btw.

A convicted person can turn back and ignore their conviction. They can escape the corruption of the world by knowing Christ (2 Pet 2:20) and then reject that knowledge later. These warnings, to believers, to persevere, to refrain from returning to the flesh, etc, are frequent in Scripture. We can spurn and dismiss even the transforming grace of God. We can taste of the heavenly gift and later spit it out, mocking our own conviction. Pride and covetousness will always be the problem. Those who don't succumb, or who eventually return with godly sorrow and repentance if they do, those who persevere to the end, IOW, are the elect.

 

[Clare73]

And it doesn't matter how you understand what Scripture presents, it's all about what Scripture-together with Tradition-present.

If tradition is not in agreement with the word of God it is irrelevant, and if it is in agreement, it is not needed.

Better read the rest of Scripture.

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

Don't confuse Scripture's warnings with a danger of apostasy.
Those warnings are the means whereby God keeps the elect from apostasy.

 

[zoidar]

Don't confuse Scripture's warnings with a danger of apostasy.
Those warnings are the means whereby God keeps the elect from apostasy.

And if an elect believer doesn't have Scripture available, those warnings aren't needed to keep him from apostasy?

 

[fhansen]

If tradition is not in agreement with the word of God it is irrelevant,

True enough, or Tradition must never contradict Scripture in any case.

and if it is in agreement, it is not needed.

Pure presumption-with no logical reason. That's like telling the Thessalonians, "Never mind what I told you before in 2 Thess 2:15, do not hold fast to the oral teachings/traditions we passed on to you, only to the written ones."

Don't confuse Scripture's warnings with a danger of apostasy.
Those warnings are the means whereby God keeps the elect from apostasy.

More presumption. They are warnings against apostasy, only necessary because of the possibilty of their apostasizing.

 

[zoidar]

But you did not choose vanilla without a reason. At that moment you preferred vanilla over chocolate for whatever reason: to prove a point, a desire for a change, caffeine is not good for you, the chocolate looked old, etc. You chose what you preferred in that moment.

I don't think you only choose what you prefer in that moment, but you control what you prefer to choose in that moment.

A specific choice operates the same way, there is a reason to prefer what you chose, even if it's just not wanting to bother with having to decide. Your choice is not causeless.

No choice is not causeless. It is "free willed", caused by will. And you control your will.

When God works in the disposition, no choice presenting itself is more compelling to you than him.

I don't know what to say about that, more than it sounds theoretic.

That assumes responsibility is based on ability.

That's not how justice works in God's court. It is not based on our ability, but on what we owe.
We owe obedience to God, whether we are able to render it or not, and we are liable for that debt.

I don't think unbelievers are judged simply because they don't obey God, but because not obeying God means they live in sin and not in righteous life and they are judged accordingly.

It's the same in our courts. If I borrow money from someone, and find myself unable to pay him back, I still owe the debt regardless of my inability to pay.
The penalty for not paying back the money is seizure of my assets in payment of it.
Responsibility is not based on ability to pay, but on what is owed.

I would say: What you owe is no more than you have made yourself guilty of. But still, one sin leads to death. A reminder for everyone who thinks he can earn salvation.

Indeed, all things end up working for the glory of God, even evil.

 

[zoidar]

What does 'convicted' mean then? If it has the transformative power of changing the unable to now able, is that not regeneration? I'm not talking about convicted, such as a demon knows it is altogether evil and ungodly, but convicted as in desiring God and purity. That kind of conviction is not just desiring relief from conviction, btw.

Good question! I can't use the word regeneration, since that is the word Christians use for having received the Spirit/the right standing with God/salvation. Conviction means the understanding of the need for salvation through Christ, the knowing of being under judgement (I don't think there has to be a desire for purity, but a desire for the right standing with God). This then leads to repentance, through which the person receives the Spirit/is regenerated/born again. But sure conviction could be said to be a kind "regeneration" only not in the sense it's understood by the Reformers.

Another question is if a convicted person always repents. He most likely does, but always? That is more than I know.

Btw, love of Christ, desire to serve God, desire for purity I think are fruits of being saved, not something a person experiences from conviction alone.

 

[Clare73]

And if an elect believer doesn't have Scripture available, those warnings aren't needed to keep him from apostasy?

Do you men he never reads Scripture?

 

[Clare73]

True enough, or Tradition must never contradict Scripture in any case.

Pure presumption-with no logical reason. That's like telling the Thessalonians, "Never mind what I told you before in 2 Thess 2:15, do not hold fast to the oral teachings/traditions we passed on to you, only to the written ones."

Do we know what any of those oral teachings were that Paul was referring to?

More presumption. They are warnings against apostasy, only necessary because of the possibilty of their apostasizing.

You should know about means and second causes, which is the way God accomplishes his ends, including preservation of the saints (Eph 1:3-14, 2 Co 1:21, 5:5).

 

[Clare73]

I don't think you only choose what you prefer in that moment, but you control what you prefer to choose in that moment.

None of which means it is not what you prefer, for whatever reason, in that moment.

No choice is not causeless. It is "free willed", caused by will. And you control your will.

You then can control your will and choose to be totally sinless in thought, word and deed at all times and in all things?

I don't know what to say about that, more than it sounds theoretic.

God works in you both to will and to do (Php 2:13).

I don't think unbelievers are judged simply because they don't obey God, but because not obeying God means they live in sin and not in righteous life and they are judged accordingly.

Unbelievers are judged for not believing and dying in their sin.

I would say: What you owe is no more than you have made yourself guilty of.

We all owe God total submission and total obedience. That is what all are guilty of.

But still, one sin leads to death. A reminder for everyone who thinks he can earn salvation.

Their problem is unbelief, not sin. There is a remedy for their sin.

 

[fhansen]

Do we know what any of those oral teachings were that Paul was referring to?

It's been explained before, where those things that the church has always simply believed and practiced are often argued over between Sola Scriptura advocates.

You should know about means and second causes, which is the way God accomplishes his ends, including preservation of the saints (Eph 1:3-14, 2 Co 1:21, 5:5).

And yet you can only speculate and second-guess when it comes to those verses about apostasy. Because, for one thing, you reject the Tradition that possesses correct understanding by experience, having received at at the beginning.

 

[fhansen]

I don't think you only choose what you prefer in that moment, but you control what you prefer to choose in that moment.

No choice is not causeless. It is "free willed", caused by will. And you control your will.

I don't know what to say about that, more than it sounds theoretic.

I don't think unbelievers are judged simply because they don't obey God, but because not obeying God means they live in sin and not in righteous life and they are judged accordingly.

I would say: What you owe is no more than you have made yourself guilty of. But still, one sin leads to death. A reminder for everyone who thinks he can earn salvation.

An important point to keep in mind IMO is that, if man only chooses good if God changes his disposition such that he chooses good, then God is directly responsible for all evil, much more so than satan. Everything is predetermined. Not a very trustworthy Being there in any case if true.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Good question! I can't use the word regeneration, since that is the word Christians use for having received the Spirit/the right standing with God/salvation. Conviction means the understanding of the need for salvation through Christ, the knowing of being under judgement (I don't think there has to be a desire for purity, but a desire for the right standing with God). This then leads to repentance, through which the person receives the Spirit/is regenerated/born again. But sure conviction could be said to be a kind "regeneration" only not in the sense it's understood by the Reformers.

Another question is if a convicted person always repents. He most likely does, but always? That is more than I know.

Btw, love of Christ, desire to serve God, desire for purity I think are fruits of being saved, not something a person experiences from conviction alone.

Do you think a person's [continued] salvation depends on his repenting of every sinful thought or deed? Do any of have a true concept of the depth of our "old man" nature? I have reason to believe there is always sin we are unaware of, yet commit against God.

 

[zoidar]

Do you men he never reads Scripture?

Yes, if it's not available you can't read it.

 

[zoidar]

You then can control your will and choose to be totally sinless in thought, word and deed at all times and in all things?

No, since some choices are hard to choose and others not even available.

Unbelievers are judged for not believing and dying in their sin.

You are right about that.

We all owe God total submission and total obedience. That is what all are guilty of.

What do you mean by total submission and total obedience? Do you mean we owe God what is impossible for anyone to do?

Their problem is unbelief, not sin. There is a remedy for their sin.

This reminds me of what many Christians say: "I'm a sinner like anyone else, but I'm a forgiven sinner." This is a huge misunderstanding. If you sin like everyone else, you haven't received forgiveness. Forgiveness changes you from the inside, so you from there on are a saint, not a sinner.

 

[zoidar]

An important point to keep in mind IMO is that, if man only chooses good if God changes his disposition such that he chooses good, then God is directly responsible for all evil, much more so than satan. Everything is predetermined. Not a very trustworthy Being there in any case if true.

Even unbelievers choose good things. They just don't choose the highest good. I don't believe in the idea that God changes a person's disposition so he "chooses" Christ. I think it is a mystery why some "choose" Christ, while others don't. The question is complex. The practical answer would be that those not "choosing" Christ resist God and those who "choose" Christ have been convicted. I don't see that the Bible gives the full answer to this. So neither will I.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What I wonder is what passage or passages of scripture convince some people to believe that human will is in bondage and as a consequence is incapable of doing anything that is good?

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, since some choices are hard to choose and others not even available.

You are right about that.

What do you mean by total submission and total obedience? Do you mean we owe God what is impossible for anyone to do?

Yes, we do. This is something that is hard for many believers, and non-believers, for that matter, to accept. For a human, it is implied in this that God's point-of-view is merely cold and factual, and not loving and soft.

I don't know how to soften the blow, except by appealing to God's mercy toward believers, and the necessary implication of his intentions in creating. For eg, that, "this life is not for this life". But here's the blow, as I see it:

God made certain things true, in order for there to be a Body of Christ, and a Bride for Christ (bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh), and a Dwelling Place of God. In order for this to happen, it has to be so that God has ordained that some things are opposed to him. Since that opposition implies destruction/contradiction of truth, it must be itself destroyed ("sooner or later" from our perspective). It is a cold fact, and as real a comparison to the LIFE that God is, compared to the life that we of ourselves deserve, to compare the clay to the Potter, who may justly make vessels suited for destruction and vessels suited for permanent use.

We consider ourselves worthy of respect by God, for some reason, as though by making us sentient and morally responsible for our choices it is not fair for him to destroy those of us who are not given the ability to obey. But the heart of God is so beyond ours, and that, not only in degree but in TYPE or KIND of existence, that we are unable to comprehend how it is 'fair' or 'just' for God to judge us by what we are.

Remember that God made Lucifer. And God did so, knowing what would come of it.

Potter, and clay.

This reminds me of what many Christians say: "I'm a sinner like anyone else, but I'm a forgiven sinner." This is a huge misunderstanding. If you sin like everyone else, you haven't received forgiveness. Forgiveness changes you from the inside, so you from there on are a saint, not a sinner.

"...like anyone else" is a figure of speech. It is not said to imply there is no actual difference, but only, "I don't claim to have arrived". It is an admission that while the "Old Man" is put to death in the believer, unlike his life in the unbeliever, he still must continually be put to death.

 

[fhansen]

Even unbelievers choose good things. They just don't choose the highest good. I don't believe in the idea that God changes a person's disposition so he "chooses" Christ. I think it is a mystery why some "choose" Christ, while others don't. The question is complex. The practical answer would be that those not "choosing" Christ resist God and those who "choose" Christ have been convicted. I don't see that the Bible gives the full answer to this. So neither will I.

I agree. There have been many theologians down through the centuries who’ve debated this matter and in the past, the church, understanding that there's no easy or pat answer, never settled on one, other than to maintain that somewhere between God's sovereignty and the will of created, rational beings, His will is not always done on earth as it is in heaven-for now. But ultimately it will be done as He guides all those who follow Him into alignment with His perfect will, and finally separates the wheat from the tares.