The Question of Free Will Part 1: Mochas and Frappes, Free Will and Nature
September 17th, 2008 by Alexander HooperIntroduction
My dear brothers and sisters in the faith, I introduce myself to you and this website with a series of articles concerning the question of free will. A controversial subject no doubt, yet a necessary discussion nonetheless. One may ask why bring up this discussion and to that several reasons can be espoused. One reason can stem from the flesh. We reformed minded believers have a tendency to set our fellow brothers and sisters straight on this subject, not necessarily for their good but for own ego trip. We conjure up this subject so that we can stand resolutely and say, “See we’re right and you’re wrong. Bask in our knowledge.” This is no more than knowledge puffing itself up. Now can I say that I am immune to this sentiment? Absolutely not. I’m young, immature and filled with a need to find security and approval from my perceived intelligence. Hence, it’ll be a struggle not to slip into the flesh and just try to start showing off my knowledge and prove someone wrong. I pray I overcome the temptation but if not I indulge your forgiveness. But besides the flesh, there’s a spiritual reason to discuss this subject (it’s not always discussed for controversy and pride). Reformed minded or Calvinist minded believers can see in the discussion of free will an opportunity to assert truth, clarify the nature of humanity, understand the love of God, put God at the center of history, and give Him the Glory due to Him. It has the practical result of inspiring great humility and praise in the believer. So with that lengthy introduction having now been said, I implore you to step into this dialogue with openness and grace as befitting brothers and sisters in the faith.
The Question of Free Will Part 1: Mochas and Frappes, Free Will and Nature
The Starbuck’s Discussion
An Arminian and a Calvinist walk into a Starbuck and the Arminian says to the cashier, “I believe in free will so I choose a low fat tall Mocha with no whip cream.” The cashier busy with the day only heard “low fat tall Mocha with no whip cream.” The Calvinist says, “That is good. I believe in free will as well. I want a grande Mocha frappe with extra whip cream, and a cookie.” The Arminian jokingly says, “Don’t you mean you were predestined to have that order?” The Calvinist with a concealed grin on his face said, “I wanted this Mocha frappe so I chose to have it with my own will; God didn’t force me to get it.” The Arminian a bit irritated and confused turned to the cashier and said, “Make it a venti Mocha. I believe that this is going to be a long conversation.”
The Confusion of Free Will
The Arminian sips his venti Mocha and listens to the Calvinist say that God is sovereign, that he ordained and predestined everything that comes to pass, and that he chooses those who are going to be saved. The Arminian agrees with some of these points, such as God’s sovereignty, but finds other points, such as God choosing those who are going to be saved as disturbing and uncomfortable. But then the Calvinist puts down his frappe and says, “Of course, just because God is sovereign and that he chooses who is going to be saved that doesn’t mean that he forces those who are going to be saved to choose Jesus Christ against their will, nor does it mean that he takes away the ability to choose away from humanity. In fact, when God does call an individual to salvation they actually begin to have a will that is free.” At this point, the Arminian becomes a little frustrated and says “That sounds so contradictory. How can God choose someone to come to Him without infringing on their free will?” When the Calvinist states that this is not a contradiction, the Arminian growing irritated has the urge to throw the Venti Mocha on the Calvinist.
Free Will Defined:
The Calvinist realizing that he was confusing and irritating his Arminian friend decided to clarify how he and other Calvinist understand free will. He began, “When a Calvinist says that he believes in free will, he means simply this:
The will of an individual will always act according to the individual’s nature.
The person is free to act according to their nature.
Therefore, we humans who have an inherited sinful nature from Adam are enslaved to that sinful nature. We will choose sin and we will not choose God because of our sinful nature. In order for us to choose God, we must receive a new nature which creates a new will that’ll choose God.
Now at this point, I must say that there is a debate amongst Calvinist concerning whether a person with a sinful, depraved nature would have good desires toward God. Some say that Romans 7 is not about a Christian, but a sinner. And if so, Romans 7:14-28 shows that a depraved individual can yearn or desire to do the things of God but the sad reality is that they are in bondage to their sinful nature and are not free to do the things of God; they lack the power and ability to do things of God. Others will say that Romans 7 is about a Christian and I assume that they use Romans 3:10-18 as a description of the sinful nature and therefore the statement in Romans 3:11 “no one understands; no one seeks for God” (ESV) would indicate that the sinful nature at its core doesn’t seek for God or the things of God. I tend to think in this way but I’ve only begun to understand the other Calvinist’s opinion recently, so I’ll have to consider if that is the way we are to look at the depraved nature of man as it has been passed down to us by Adam.
But regardless, the Calvinist sees that the will of a sinner is in bondage to the sinful nature. The will of a depraved, sinful individual, which every Christian had or every future Christian has now, is free to act and choose according to their sinful nature, but it is not free to choose God because that is contrary to their sinful nature. Remember that, for the Calvinist, the will is bound to the sinful nature. The will is not free to act outside or contrary to the nature of the individual.”
Having ended his oration, the Calvinist stopped to let his friend consider these Calvinistic ideas about free will, reached for his cookie and took a bite. When he finished his bite, he thought it important to show how this thought of free will and nature applied to Arminian thought. So he began his next oration.
“So how does the Arminian view free will? Well, let me pause and say that I want to be cautious here because I’m a Calvinist and this is how I understand the Arminian view of free will. I don’t think I’m wrong about this perspective but you may not phrase it the way I do now.
I’ll try to use different ways of stating how I think you would view it from the framework I’ve been talking about.
Now, an Arminian will say that free will means:
Every possible option is open for the person to choose from. If not, then the person is not truly free.
Freedom is viewed as limitless options of choices.
An individual has the ability to choose contrary to their nature.”
The Calvinist stopped there in order to see if what he had said would be considered an acceptable view of free will by an Arminian. He watched the Arminian put down his venti Mocha and noticed that his friend was reflecting on what he had been saying. The Arminian then said, “I think the ability to choose contrary to one’s nature is not necessarily a true statement of Arminian thought in this framework. After all, you may consider the idea that perhaps the nature of humanity is a nature that still gives humanity the ability to choose God or not. In other words, the individual’s nature may not be depraved to the point that it lacks the ability or desire to choose God. Perhaps, after the fall, human nature was depraved to the point that they couldn’t seek after God, but perhaps God in his mercy provides each individual with enough grace that their nature is changed to the point where they are able to choose equally God or not.”
The Calvinist was about to answer directly to this question but decide to go a different direction. He said, “The question of what kind of nature a person has is something that we should dialogue about. But I think we have at least come to clarity or agreement that how we view the will of an individual depends upon how we understand their nature. I hope you understand now why I affirm the idea of free will. But if you’re on board with me about the will following the nature of an individual then we can dialogue about the state of the fallen nature of humanity now. But after that discussion we can and will talk about the will of God in relation to his nature, the will of the saints in heaven and their nature, and the will of Adam and of Christ according to their nature. These discussions I believe will ultimately lead us into great mystery and praise to God. But let’s talk more about our thoughts on the fallen nature of man and see what Scriptures says. You know what? Before we do that I need a break; I need to go the restroom.”
The Calvinist left his seat thinking about the conversation and the Arminian stayed in his seat thinking about the conversation.
Interlude
Now while these two are on break, if you have any questions or comments about what you have heard let’s talk about it.
September 18th, 2008 at 11:35 PM
I guess before we continue with the discussion, I would like to make a comment at this point.
My comment is that if by “free will” the Calvinist means that:
“The person is free to act according to their nature.”
then, a person’s will really isnt free at all. In fact, isn’t the above statement exactly how we would describe animals who are only capable of acting on instinct? Animals are free to act according to their nature. THey are not free to act against it. They are not capable of recognizing or evaluating their nature or their will, and they are not capable of choosing to act in accordance with it or not. They simply act according to their nature… in other words, they are not free. Humans, on the other hand, are not like this. Humans can act against their nature.
Adam and Eve, who (I think) we all agree were created without a sinful nature, chose to sin – an act contrary to their nature which was good (or at least neutral.. but certainly not sinful).
Christians who have been forgiven and redeemed, who are co-heirs with Christ, who have been seated with Christ in heavenly realms (Eph. 1), who have been crucified with Christ, and given a new self (Galatians 2 , 5), who have died to sin and have been made alive with Christ, STILL sometimes act in accordance with a nature that is not their own. These new creations, these saints or holy ones, still sometimes act as if they were not new creations or saints at all.
It may be true that the standard Arminian point of view is that humans act according to their nature, and their nature allows them to choose God or reject Him. But, I just wanted to point out that this is not the only option… and for that matter, there are viable (and I believe much more satisfying and biblical) alternatives to both Calvinism and Arminism when it comes to the issue of free will.
A final thought…. I appreciated your Introduction. I too find myself simply wanting to argue for the sake of arguing… trying to win arguments for the satisfaction of it. There is no point in starting down that road, so I will do my best not to. I think that we can have lively discussion and debate without things dissolving into arguments that simpy divide rather than serving to build one another up. So… may these discussions serve to build the body of Christ and bring Him the honor he deserves.
September 20th, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Alex, my dear friend, it seems we can’t get past this doesn’t it?…well in the spirit of a good debate, and hopefully helping the divided body find some common ground…I’m in….just remember you invited me so its not my fault what happens after this point….jk
First off I too want to confess the desire/pitfall/weakness I share in trying to argue and flex the proverbial ”mental muscle” and prove that I do in fact know it all when usually I just prove to everyone but myself that I don’t. I hope to add and not take away from this converstation and I ask God for guidance/words/wisdom for us all to share in a way that helps rather than hurts.
My biggest question right now follows the same path as mikehazeltine…while I was reading your narrative I wrote the following question down:
If free will is defined as “The person is free to act according to their nature” then how can one claim to have a “free” will when they are bound to act in the nature given them by God? It seems to me that you didn’t chose the “Grande Mocha Frappe with no whip cream, and a cookie” because you freely wanted it…you chose it because according to your nature you couldn’t chose anything else…right?
The definition to have free-will has to involve the ability to contradict one’s nature…in my finite way of thinking that is the only way to truely have a freedom…otherwise like mikehazeltine said we are just instinctual. Furthermore, if man didn’t have the freedom to contradict his own nature then how would Adam/Eve ever have sinned in the first place…did God give them a nature of sin? The bible says God tempts no man to sin (James 1:13). Further down the line on that same thought…how can a Christian then continue in sin when their nature has been changed by Holy Spirit or is inheirantly different because of God predetermining them as elect? Why are we warned against not producing good fruit if we as Christians can’t act against the nature of the spirit who lives in us?
Now I don’t claim to be Reformed or Armenian and that might seem a contradiction to you – my reformed friend Alex I think would classify me as Armenian, but the truth is I live some where in between, and maybe it is the Armenian part of me that agrees with your definition of free will from the Armenian perspective more than the Reformer… I’m not saying that is the totality of the definition but it does in fact seem to be a better fit to me than the other.
I think further discussion of what “free will” is and man’s nature is something we should settle on for a bit prior to moving forward. For instance…
What is the nature of a man prior to becoming a christian (meaning he will one day become a christian)? Being chosen by God, as the reformers put it, does he then share the nature of Sin that those who are outside of the faith share, or does he always possess the nature of a Christian? Does his nature change upon becoming a Christian? Why then do some men have the “nature” of a Christian yet aren’t…(those who do good outside of Christ, those who say “Lord, Lord…” yet God doesn’t know them, etc, etc…)?
I’m just curious of what reformers/armenians thought are on the different “natures” of man…do they change? are they always the same? Is there only two natures…sin and God…or is there more?
Looking forward to everyone’s thoughts, and I do have many more…I just know this is a very deeeeeeepppppp rabbit hole and I think it best to venture lightly.
On a side note I want to say that ultimately I think Armenians and Reformers who read their Bibles are saying the same thing, just from different perspectives. There invovles two extremities to the argument that need to be coupled…”The soveriegnty of God” and “man’s ability to make choices”…Reformers want to stress the Sovernty of God and I think many times in discussion leave Armenians with the thought that they don’t think man has a choice when in reality (which I think my Good friend Alex is trying to illustrate) is that they do have a choice, but God’s sovergnty does rule supreme….and Armenians many times focus on the fact that man has the God given ability to make choices…Armenians also believe God has a plan and is in control only that God lets them make choices and uses those decisions in his will. He’s not waiting on man to do anything, but he does allow us to act on our own but ultimately he rules supreme on both sides….Anyway..I’m rambling but I do think for the most part both sides are saying the same thing it is only the rhetoric that seperates them.
September 21st, 2008 at 1:30 AM
I’d like to submit that there is another possible view point on all of these issues. The core of it is this: God knows all future certainties as certain and all future possibilities as possible. Therefore God knows all reality that can be known as it actually is. I don’t have the answer to every question, but I think this fits best with who God is described to be in the Bible.
Also, Jeremy’s thoughts led me to a question for you. In relationship to your view of God’s sovereignty and the will of man, is God the author of sin? Or another question: Has God ever forced anyone to sin and if so would/did He hold that person accountable for what He caused?
September 21st, 2008 at 12:29 PM
“Also, Jeremy’s thoughts led me to a question for you. In relationship to your view of God’s sovereignty and the will of man, is God the author of sin? Or another question: Has God ever forced anyone to sin and if so would/did He hold that person accountable for what He caused? “
I’m not sure if you are looking for Alex’s thoughts on this, or if you are just generally asking but I thought I’d direct you to James 1:13..
“13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”…NIV
I’m guessing you are specifically asking Alex what his view of this is in perspective of his views with Free-will & Man…but I thought it noteworthy to go ahead and put this in the discussion…
I’ll give Alex the floor for his thoughts on what has been said/asked/brought up thus far…
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:58 PM
I have little to add to the debate. Your knowledge is far beyond mine on this subject.
From the personal side I would only observe that it all made sense when I realized that God did everything for me. Before I was His, I had no desire to follow Him. I was trapped. There is no salvation outside of His name.
Once He called me to Himself, I accepted His call. It just made sense.
Sorry for my uneducated response.
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:50 AM
I’d like to offer some things that I believe would make this discussion more clear and give us a more full picture of desires and decision making.
I think that reading Romans 3’s statement that no man seeks after God to mean that someone who is not a Christian never has any desire towards God at all is not the correct application of this verse, and I am a Calvinist as well. This may seem inconsistent at first, but let me explain.
Alex uses this verse as a lens to interpret Romans 7 as being about a Christian because according to his application of this verse there would be no way that a non-Christian could have any desire towards God and Romans 7 does say that the person speaking does “agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good (v. 16)”, saying “the good that I want, I do not do (v. 19)”, and “for I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man (v. 22)”.
I would like to show how these verses are actually compatible with the view that the person in Romans 7 is a non-Christian and still uphold the integrity of Romans 3.
Paul says that Christians are no longer slaves to sin (Rom. 6:6). “For he who has died is freed from sin” (Romans 6:7). What this shows us is that, as an unbeliever, we were a slave to sin. In fact, Paul elsewhere puts it so boldly as to say that you once “were dead in your transgressions and sins in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:1-3).”
However, in Romans 6, Paul shows us that Christians have died to the sinful nature and are no longer enslaved by it as they once were before. They have died to the sinful nature and are FREE from the sinful nature, meaning that they weren’t FREE before.
Here is a problem: The speaker of Romans 7 also says this about himself: “I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin (v 14)”. He also says that he is “a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members (v 23)” and “a slave to the law of sin (v. 25)”.
If we viewed the Romans 7 person as a Christian, then this slavery to the sinful nature would be impossible to reconcile with Romans 6. However, the fact that this person is a non-Christian without the Holy Spirit and a slave to sin, yet also desires to obey God, is reconcilable to Romans 3 which says that no man seeks God. Here’s how:
People always ultimately choose what they desire the MOST. People can have conflicting desires, but the desire that wins out will be the desire that they desire the most. A person who is a slave to sin can have a desire to obey the law of God and affirm that the law of God is good just as the Romans 7 person does. However, they have greater desires AGAINST God that win in the conflict of desires. This leads the slave to sin to ultimately not seek God because their sinful desires always win in the battle of desires.
It would be better to define free will as this:
PEOPLE ALWAYS FREELY CHOOSE WHAT THEY DESIRE THE MOST. In other words, people do what they want, ultimately.
There are an endless amount of options out there to choose, but people will always choose the option that they want the most. If a person is a slave to sin, then they will want sin the most in the conflict of desires. Unbelievers do want to do what is good sometimes, but ultimately they do not seek God (Rom 3). Romans 7 actually helps us not to interpret Romans 3 in a way that denies the reality of the conflicting desires within the unbeliever. They may think that the law of God is good and have desires to do it, but the desires to go against God’s law will overcome those desires. This gives us a more full picture of the unbeliever and keeps us from having a skewed view of the people around us.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Matt, I like your definition: “PEOPLE ALWAYS FREELY CHOOSE WHAT THEY DESIRE THE MOST. In other words, people do what they want, ultimately.” This makes some sense. It may be true. Though I don’t think it supports the Calvinist view point. It isn’t logically consistent to say people freely choose if they only have one option. I think people do what they want. They choose what they desire the most. When that choice is sin they deserve punishment. If they can only choose sin they should not be held responsible. God never punishes for things people aren’t responsible for. Don’t murder. Now choose whether you will murder or murder. Now you will die for your sin. Like the whole discussion in Ezk 18. God says over and over the soul who sins will die. It’s a matter of personal responsibility not a confusing situation where a person can only choose sin.
Let me know your thoughts. I love what everyone is saying. Let’s keep it up and get more people involved.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:07 PM
The following is a conversation that I had with Micah Sewell on Google Chat. I have his permission to post it here.
Micah: got ya
12:31 PM i just commented on the free will one. let me know what you think
12:32 PM Danny: very good
12:36 PM Micah: what are your thoughts on that
12:38 PM Danny: do you think people are “basically good” or “basically bad”?
12:39 PM if you had to choose one or the other
12:41 PM Micah: neutral
until we are accountable and make choices
i mean, does stryder really seem guilty to you?
12:42 PM Danny: yes
i can already see his sinful nature
Micah: aghhh
when David sinned his newborn son died
12:43 PM David says ill be with him again
talking about heaven
Danny: right
Micah: God sees stryder as innocent
until he actually sins
12:44 PM Danny: what is your scripture that backs that up?
explicitly
12:45 PM Micah: any verse where God gives a commandment and a consequence
Deuteronomy
Gen 3
all the prophets
if you do this, this will happen
12:46 PM ezk 18 the soul who sins will die
first john
12:47 PM it just isnt righteous or loving to hold someone responsible for something they didnt have an option for
Danny: so do you deny original sin?
Micah: probably
what is your definition
Danny: because that is categorically heretical
Micah: :o)
since the 1500s
12:48 PM and augustine in the 300ish
not according to scripture
based in philosophy not history or scripture
Augustine had a sin problem he had to face
12:49 PM it’s hard to not sin. not impossible
12:51 PM Danny: has it ever been done?
Micah: Jesus
it has been overcome by others
Paul, John the Baptists parents
12:52 PM Enoch
Danny: Paul? since birth?
Micah: no he sinned. got saved. didnt sin
12:54 PM Danny: was Zechariah’s unbelief not a sin?
i’m not saying it is or isn’t, i’m just asking
Micah: i dont know
12:55 PM but earlier it was said that they were blameless
they dont lie in scripture
we just cant allow an everyone believes this trump the whole of the Bible
12:56 PM Danny: i agree, but i don’t think the interpretation lends itself to the notion that they are without sin
Micah: at any rate, let’s continue talking about this stuff for the next forever days
12:57 PM Danny: :)
we could post this chat string as a blog
Micah: ill keep posting stuff as long as you let me
if you want to sure.
12:58 PM Danny: i’ll let you stand with Pelagius for now.
12:59 PM Micah: but remember you are friends with a heretic :)
a heretic who loves Jesus
1:00 PM Danny: very good friends indeed.
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Wowsers, I should have known it would be Alex that would stir up the hornets’ nest.
Well, in response to the question regarding the accounability of sins, here are some things to ponder.
In Isaiah 6 we find the much lauded Call of Isaiah. Isaiah, standing before Yahweh and the Heavenly Court, cries out, “Here am I! Send me.” (v8) Afterward, Yahweh defines Isaiah’s call. He gives Isaiah’s mission an objective. One would assume that God would instruct Isaiah to tell Israel “I love you, I miss you, I don’t want to destroy you but I will if you don’t repent and turn back to me!” on God’s behalf. But what we find is quite different than this.
Isaiah 6:9-13
And He said, “Go, and say to this people:
“‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ 10 Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” 11Then I said, “How long, O Lord?”And he said:”Until cities lie waste
without inhabitant, and houses without people, and the land is a desolate waste, 12and the LORD removes people far away, and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land. 13 And though a tenth remain in it, it will be burned again, like a terebinth or an oak,
whose stump remains when it is felled.” The holy seed is its stump.
So we find that God has placed Isaiah on a mission to Israel. Yet, its success is to be marked by seeming failure. God’s desire in this is for Israel to not repent (see v11b). So if this is His desire, they should not be punished, right? Wrong. Isaiah asks how long, and Yahweh’s reply can be summed up by saying, “until their punishment is complete.”
Consider also Pharaoh in the book of Exodus.
It is stated numerous times that Pharaoh “hardened his heart” (8:15, 32; 9:34) so that he would not let Israel go in order that God’s glory would be made known. But, the text is very clear that the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart (9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:8). It also appears that the text uses the two interchangeably. Meaning therefore, that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened by God, yet, it was Pharaoh who holds responsibility of his action. In one instance (9:33-10:1) the text says:
9:33So Moses went out of the city from Pharaoh and stretched out his hands to the LORD, and the thunder and the hail ceased, and the rain no longer poured upon the earth. 34But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet again and hardened his heart, he and his servants. 35So the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people of Israel go, just as the LORD had spoken through Moses. 10:1Then the LORD said to Moses, “Go in to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs of mine among them,
Here, Yahweh interprets the actions of Pharaoh by telling Moses that Pharoah’s action in hardening his heart, was actually due to Yahweh Himself. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and at the same time, it must be said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Thus, Pharaoh is accountable for his sin.
Thoughts? (and from the looks of things, perhaps an Original Sin forum topic will be exciting, or perhaps a forum discussing the Imputation of Christ’s righteousness)
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Hey Micah.
I have a couple of questions.
1. What do you consider a sin?
Stryder certainly has some sinful tendances: he is self seeking, selfish, and rebels against God’s created order of the family (he’s cute too). Is that sinful?
2. When Jesus died he said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
Luke 22:34. If they didn’t need forgiveness why did He ask the Father to forgive them?
3. You said that “God knows all future certainties as certain and all future possibilities as possible.” How does this relate to the story of Job? Did God know that Job would reamin faithful? Or was He just hoping Job would remain faithful?
I hope all is well with you and Beth.
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:52 PM
This is a response to Micah’s response to my first post. I’m glad you appreciate my definition of free will. I believe that what I said was logically consistent. I think that the problem lies here: Logic is made up of different “building blocks” if you will. In your logic, you don’t seem to include the “building block” of an unbeliever being a slave to sin which I showed Paul describing in Romans 6, 7 and Eph 2 (using a different analogy of being spiritually “dead” as opposed to spiritually “alive”) (In my examples in Romans, Paul is using the analogy of a person being a “slave” as opposed to a “free man”). Here are the building blocks of my logic.
1) There are countless varieties of options of what people could choose at any given moment.
2) People will choose the option that they want the most out of all the options in the given moment.
3) People without the Holy Spirit indwelling them are slaves to sin or spiritually dead, so they want sin the most out of all the options, otherwise they wouldn’t choose it.
It is not as though the options aren’t available to them. If they wanted to choose the other options they they could. The problem is that they don’t want to choose the option of obeying God as much as they want the option of disobeying God.
Free will never means (whether one is Arminian or Calvinist) that we are free from all influences that impose themselves upon us. We cannot fly anytime we want to because the law of gravity is at work against us. The fact is that we cannot do simply anything that we want.
That a person is influenced by their own nature does not violate the principle of a person choosing exactly what they want out of the options that are available to them.
Perhaps in your next response a comment on how you handle Paul’s statements about the unbeliever as a slave to sin would be helpful. Thanks Micah!
September 24th, 2008 at 1:46 AM
I know I’m an “outsider” but I hope you guys don’t mind me jumping in again…
Matt – I have thoughts about your definition of Free Will:
I don’t know that I completely agree with you on the fact that people always go with the biggest desire…where then does reason fit into the equation? Does a drug addict not have the ability to reason in some way to make the choice to go against their desires for the next “high” in hope of a better future without the addiction, or would you consider this another desire?
I begin to think desire is just another way of reiterating Alex’s definition…instead of being a product of ones nature…you are making person a product of His/Her desires and while both are partly true I still think it lacks freedom and the ability to overcome or better one’s self dispite one’s surroundings. Nature and Nurture if you will…I believe Desire/Nature are synonomous so therefore we need the Nuture element added i.e. ability to reason/learn.
Could we redefine Free-will as the summation of our nature/desires, and ability to reason to determine a path that best fits our goal? (whatever said goal may be)…
JackNathan,
Correct me if I’m wrong but I think this correlates to this point…(Rom 3:1-8)
1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.
3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:
“So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge.” [a]
5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—”Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!
Basically God is not unjust for using the unrighteousness of people for his Glory, and neither is he the cause of it…correct?
It is stated numerous times that Pharaoh “hardened his heart” (8:15, 32; 9:34) so that he would not let Israel go in order that God’s glory would be made known. But, the text is very clear that the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart (9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:8). It also appears that the text uses the two interchangeably. Meaning therefore, that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened by God, yet, it was Pharaoh who holds responsibility of his action. In one instance (9:33-10:1) the text says:
9:33So Moses went out of the city from Pharaoh and stretched out his hands to the LORD, and the thunder and the hail ceased, and the rain no longer poured upon the earth. 34But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet again and hardened his heart, he and his servants. 35So the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people of Israel go, just as the LORD had spoken through Moses. 10:1Then the LORD said to Moses, “Go in to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs of mine among them,
Here, Yahweh interprets the actions of Pharaoh by telling Moses that Pharoah’s action in hardening his heart, was actually due to Yahweh Himself. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and at the same time, it must be said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Thus, Pharaoh is accountable for his sin.
I admit tricky verses to comprehend and maybe we are not supposed to completely, but I think the important thing is to emphasis is that Pharoh is responsible for his deeds and not that God is a puppet master and we are all on strings. I think the above quoted scripture from Romans 3 can apply here as well…yes/no?
I also want to add as a counterpoint to this Puppet Mastery (kidding) some verses for consideration…
“This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3-4, NIV).
John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
Rev 3:20
‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me’
These are just some thoughts for now, I have much reading/praying/contemplating to do before I say more, but I did want to throw some thoughts into the mix before the Thread moved on (I turn my back for a second and the thread explodes). It is getting late now but I will try to add some more thoughts as soon as I can…
I hope you all don’t mind me adding more and I look forward to more collaboration on this topic…
God Bless all!!!
September 25th, 2008 at 5:59 PM
I was not intended to espouse my theology in my comment above. I was only intended to show two places where the actions of God are not what is expected. I surely do not believe that God is a “Master of Puppets”. I see a tension between free will and God’s sovereignty, especially as exhibited in the Exodus account I brought up. It is a mystery, although I do not claim inability to know anything, since I am Reformed. We musn’t try to explain away the text to meet our theology, we must diligently find what the text is saying.
We must not seek to proof-text our theology, but allow the text to form our theology. If I ever lean towards proof-texting, slap me please, so that I will return to respecting the text.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Hey guys! Sorry it’s taken so long for me to get back on here. I’ll try to quickly answer a few of the questions.
Matt, I don’t think I can this time address the Romans 6-7 and Ephesians 2. I haven’t studied it all any time recently. I will though. I just want to be able to give it the time it deserves and not just casually comment on it. I don’t think we think very differently about what is said in those passages though. You are exactly right about not being free from influences. And hey, I am sorry for the comment I made about your logic. It came out weird and looks mean. I wasn’t trying to make that personal. You are obviously very intelligent and your thoughts are very well organized. Feel free to message me to remind me to discuss those passages.
Amanda,
Here are a few answers. :o)
1. what sin is:
Sin (By Noah Webster)
SIN, n.
1. The voluntary departure of a moral agent from a known rule of rectitude or duty, prescribed by God; any voluntary transgression of the divine law, or violation of a divine command; a wicked act; iniquity. Sin is either a positive act in which a known divine law is violated, or it is the voluntary neglect to obey a positive divine command, or a rule of duty clearly implied in such command. Sin comprehends not action only, but neglect of known duty, all evil thoughts purposes, words and desires, whatever is contrary to God’s commands or law.
I like his definition. Jesus talks about sin a lot. He basically says if you hate you are a murderer. If you lust you are an adulterer. From there we can see that sin has everything to do with motive. I heard this one guy say this: “Sin is the decision of the will to satisfy a good desire in a forbidden way.” It is okay to desire a car. It is not okay for me to steal Danny’s car. It is okay to desire sexual intimacy just not outside of marriage.
James also says that sin is knowing the right thing to do and not doing it.
Sin is a deliberate decision and totally not excusable. It is not being tempted. It is deciding to act on the temptation.
Stryder is not sinning. Would you punish him for wanting to be fed or held? No. Neither would God. He is just living with his limited ability of communication and an inability to help himself. 2Sa 12:23 “But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” Read this story sometime. David’s son dies. David says that he will go to his son. Where is his son? Is David saying that they will both go to hell? After all his son never got to repent of the sin passed to him. Nahh. I don’t think so. I think his son went to Heaven.
We have to know that something is wrong or we aren’t guilty. There will come a day when Stryder knows right and wrong and will most assuredly choose to sin. But I don’t think it is anywhere close to yet. :o)
2. Father forgive them. They were hating and murdering Jesus. Of course they knew what they were doing was wrong and sinful. The law is written on our hearts. They were guilty and needed to be forgiven.
3. Job. ;o) I don’t think we are ready to get into this yet. If you want to chat over private email with me I will. It just wouldn’t be fair for me to jump into this without a lot more ground work being laid on this site. It would be telling the punch line before the joke.
We would have to look at the whole book and see if God ever says that Job was going to do this or that in the end.
A story where we do have the information is with Abraham and Isaac. God tested Abraham telling him to sacrifice Isaac. Try to read that story (Genesis 22) without theology glasses on, and let me know what you see there. What does the Bible say happened?
September 27th, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Here are some thoughts about God’s sovereignty as it relates to his hardening of Pharaoh’s heart….
JackNathan, you wrote:
“9:33So Moses went out of the city from Pharaoh and stretched out his hands to the LORD, and the thunder and the hail ceased, and the rain no longer poured upon the earth. 34But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet again and hardened his heart, he and his servants. 35So the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people of Israel go, just as the LORD had spoken through Moses. 10:1Then the LORD said to Moses, “Go in to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs of mine among them,
Here, Yahweh interprets the actions of Pharaoh by telling Moses that Pharoah’s action in hardening his heart, was actually due to Yahweh Himself. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and at the same time, it must be said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Thus, Pharaoh is accountable for his sin.”
My question is this, “How did God harden Pharaoh’s heart?” What means did he use to harden it? Was it a unilateral action on God’s part, where he reached down from heaven and hardened Pharaoh’s heart by force? Did God bend Pharaoh’s heart towards rebellion and disobedience by some divine act of manipulation? Look at the passage again, with different emphasis:
4But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet again and hardened his heart, he and his servants. 35 So the heart of Pharaoh was hardened..
Pharaoh responded to God’s miraculously stopping the hail by sinning and hardening his own heart. This is the means God used to produce the effect of Pharaoh’s hardened heart: God brought about the plagues, He brought on the rain and the hail, then he caused them to cease, and Pharoah responded by hardening his heart. The means by which God hardened his heart was not a divine manipulation, or an action that left no room for Pharaoh to exercise his will. Quite the opposite, in fact! God brought a situation to Pharaoh and waited for Pharaoh to freely respond. The goal of the plagues was not to induce a hardened heart, rather the goal was to produce repentance, and result in freedom for Israel. Pharaoh, however, hardened his heart as a result of the plagues (and actually, he hardened it as a result of God’s mercy in causing them to cease, which ought to have produced repentance!). That is how we ought to understand God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart – He hardened Pharaoh’s heart indirectly, by allowing Pharaoah to respond to His power and mercy.
I know that prepositions are tricky to translate, and I have never studied Hebrew, but I think the word “so” in the beginning of 9:35 is best understood as “thus” or “in this way”. If this is true, it would read,
” 4But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet again and hardened his heart, he and his servants. 35 In this way, the heart of Pharaoh was hardened… then the LORD said to Moses, “Go in to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs of mine among them…”
God’s actions did indeed produce a hardened heart in Pharoah, but it was produced through Pharaoh’s free choice to respond in repentance or in rebellion to the work that God was doing. The means by which God hardened Pharaoah’s heart, according to the text, was by allowing Pharaoh to freely respond to what the Lord was doing with the plagues. God performed an action, Pharaoh responded in sin, and his heart was hardened as a result. It is in this indirect sense that we ought to understand what is meant by God’s declaration: “I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants.” God is saying that His actions have produced the effect of Pharaoh’s hard heart. God is not saying that He reached down from heaven and twisted Pharoah’s heart towards evil against Pharaoh’s free will.
It may seem like a minor point that I am harping on, but it makes all the difference in the world. We all agree that God hardened pharaoh’s heart, and that pharoah also hardened his own heart. The question is, by what means did God harden Pharaoh’s heart? By manipulation, or by allowing Pharaoh to freely respond to Him? The second option is the only one I can reconclie with a just and loving God who holds acccountable those who willfully sin against him. Only a wicked God (or a manupulative one at best) bends someone’s heart toward evil and then punishes him for it.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:46 PM
I am perplexed that nobody has used Romans 9 in this discussion yet. I will use it here in direct response to Mike’s comment above.
We ALL exist for God’s glory. Those of us that end up in Heaven attest to His glorious mercy. Those of us that end up in Hell attest to His glorious justice. The preposition in Exodus may or may not lend itself to Mike’s theory, but the one in Romans 9:16 does not.
I cannot read these verses and come up with any conclusion other than that of Pharoh being hardened BY God and FOR His glory.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:40 PM
I agree that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Whether the preposition is correct or not, God hardened pharaoh’s heart. The question is still, “How did he do it?” From the passage in exodus, the ‘how’ is clear – by allowing pharaoh to respond to God’s power (the plagues) and mercy (relenting of the plagues). From the passage in Romans, the “why” is clear – to demonstrate God’s power and bring Him glory. I agree with you, Danny – Pharoah’s heart was hardened by God and for His glory… but we disagree on ‘how’ God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.
September 28th, 2008 at 12:18 AM
JackNathan,
I am sorry if you took my comments as “text proofing” or something of that nature. My intentions were not to force idealogy on any of you by trying to “text proof” my point I was simply trying to offer more thoughts as to what had been said so far. The scriptures I added were only for everyone to read over and comment on as they seem relate to what is being said so far (to me anyway).
The “Puppet Master” comment was in jest that is why I put the (kidding) following it, sorry if my attempt at humor failed…but I did truely use the comment lightly.
Mikehazeltine,
I really like the way you covered the Pharaoh passages…I’m in the process of reading over Romans (again) so I can comment further on what has been said, but I did want to note that I like your thoughts so far…
I will add more as soon as I can…I’m really enjoying everything that is being said so far.
God bless all!
September 28th, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Micah,
I’m still thinking about a portion of your last response to me:
2. Father forgive them. They were hating and murdering Jesus. Of course they knew what they were doing was wrong and sinful. The law is written on our hearts. They were guilty and needed to be forgiven
I went back and read the whole verse:
Luke 23:34 But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing ” And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.
Jesus said “they do not know what they are doing”. You keep saying they don’t lie in the Bible (I affirm Sola Scriptura as well),so I feel this scripture is confirming that they are commiting a sin even though they are unaware their actions are sinful.
Would a warden working death row consider his actions sinful when he exeecutes an inmate?
September 29th, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Amanda,
I’m so sorry for that “Father, forgive them” part of my answers. I was going so fast I didn’t even read the verse. I just started writing. I’ll be sure to not do that again. Please allow me to just ex that part out of my comment.
I think what’s going on in these verses is simpler than I made it the first time. I think Jesus is just saying, “they don’t realize the reality of things here.” Mainly, that they didn’t realize He was God. God is so merciful and patient – quick to forgive. I’d guess Jesus’ heart was just to be quick to forgive. If they knew who I was they wouldn’t do this. They were ignorant. Was it sin? I don’t know. I think you are right about the executioner idea. We do know that Jesus didn’t say “don’t make them go to Hell for this.”
Sorry again for the bad/hasty response.
September 29th, 2008 at 1:22 AM
I’d like to submit that Romans 9 is not talking about individual people but nations. There is a lot more to question regarding God’s methods of influencing or causing, but we can’t say that it is talking about individuals and certainly not an individual’s salvation. Just as Pharaoh’s hardening did not mean God was sending him to Hell. Romans 9 and a lot of the rest of Romans is focused on God using Israel for a great purpose and the relationship of Jews and Gentiles.
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Hello All,
I’m sure your wondering what happen to the man who stirred up the hornet’s nest and then walked away. I apologize for not posting sooner, I’ve been out of town, busy trying to create a web page and maintain my other duties of life. But I’ve been checking pretty consistently the comments each person has made, and a few times I almost made a response. However, many of the responses were I would say from an Arminian perspective (not all of them but some) and so I hesitated to respond because I was waiting and hoping that other people from a Calvinist point of view would jump into the dialogue. After all, the way I wanted the post to work was not for me to be seen as the champion of Calvinism which I’m not by far; rather I wanted to set the stage for people on either sides or who claim to be on neither side to enter the dialogue and interact with one another. In other words, I wanted you to become a part of the story between the Calvinist and the Arminian. However, my lack of involvement I believe has allowed the conversation to go down too many different directions and there are a lot of posts on the site that are good comments and questions but are too much too soon. It is too difficult for me to interface with all the questions and since this is a series let’s try to tackle and discuss things in their proper order and time. This is not a retreat from comments and questions but it is a means to re-establish order and direction in this particular dialogue. Now, I’m not going to say too much in this post because I’ll be putting up an article tomorrow and I hope to address some of the questions and comments that have been posted. So here’s some of my remarks.
First, here’s an explanation of the article. In the article, I simply wanted to explain how a Calvinist sees free will being connected with one’s nature. I want to thank Matt for developing that concept even farther by showing how Romans 3 and Romans 7 coordinate together. The idea that an individual has countless options of possibilities to choose from at any minute yet they choose the one that they most desire I think is a great elaboration of the idea that one’s decisions/desires flow from one’s nature.
Second, the article presented the option that some Arminians believe (and this was expressed throughout the post) that one can act contrary to one’s nature. But the article also has the Arminian present the idea that one’s nature could be such that they are capable of choosing both God or sin equally. Here the attempt is to stay in the definition that the will follows the nature of an individual, but it seeks to re-evaluate the nature of humanity. The reason I presented this idea is because I believe this is behind John Wesley’s prevenient grace concept. I could be wrong about this perspective on Wesley’s prevenient grace, but this is what I’ve pieced together from seminary. So I wanted to present two ways an Arminian can engage and dialogue with this definition of free will and nature. Either they can say free will transcends nature as most of you have voiced or the will is still bound by one’s nature but their nature has been changed to such a point that they are able to choose either God’s way or sin. Now I think Wesley developed the concept of prevenient Grace because he was honest enough to read how depraved human nature had become after the Fall and so he wanting to maintain free will presented the idea of prevenient grace. Prevenient grace changed the person’s nature so that they their nature was such that they can choose God or not, in other words it restore them to a neutral nature like Adam. Now, I’m not an expert on Wesley and perhaps Benji can affirm, deny or clarify this point about Wesley and prevenient grace. However, I think that regardless of whether or not Wesley believed this, Arminians uphold some way of changing or understanding the nature of humanity after the fall so that humanity can choose God or not. In this way they can say okay nature follows the will so long as you see nature this way. The other option for an Arminian is to say the will transcends and acts contrary to one’s nature.
So there’s a little more explanation of the article.
Now the conversation in this post has gone several ways. But I would like to keep it to the discussion of free will acting according to nature or acting against nature. Let’s stay with these concept and discuss them fully and clearly before jumping into the case of Pharaoh, open theism, and God’s desire to save all men. Also, I will offer more discussion and answers to the questions and statements raised by those who believe that the will is not free if it is bound to one’s nature in my next article. Here I’m thinking of Mikehazeltine and my dear friend Jeremy (Jerry!) who have commented that the will following nature sounds animalistic or instinctual and therefore can’t be considered true freedom. With all due respects, this doesn’t bother me and I’ll show why in my next article. Until then I ask for your patience. Also, Jeremy, I will hopefully address the question of the nature of a individual before and after conversion in my next article, if time allows if not then I will address it eventually. You know i wouldn’t run away from our little mental wrestling matches.
Now, in regards to the nature of a person, I think Matt’s references to Romans 3:10-18 and 7 as well as Ephesians 2:1-3 speaks directly to the will being enslaved to the sinful nature. And I would like to hear a response to those passages in regards to freedom and slavery. I don’t want to sound high and mighty or irritated, but I just want to be honest and say that I don’t think it’s fair to say that humans are free to choose God because their nature allows them to and not provide an interpretation of these passages that fits with that assertion. And for those who think one can act contrary to one’s nature what interpretation would you give to these passages. From my reading, Paul makes it very clear that we are enslaved to sin. Rom. 3 and 7 have an individual who I would say ultimately doesn’t desire God because of their nature. They may have an inclination or a desire from time to time but ultimately they refuse to come to repentance and faith because their nature has not been change. The force and power of these passages is that Christ is the one who set us a FREE from the sinful nature and makes us alive! So let me invite you to dialogue with me specifically with these passages instead of going down and presenting other reasons why Calvinism is wrong.
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Here is a response to Jeremy. Ultimately, I agree with Alex’s last post in that a response to Scripture’s teachings on unbelievers being slaves to sin and spiritually dead is in order (the texts that I brought up and others). This is where I will end this post so it will not ultimately be a distraction from that plea which I join in with.
However, I’ll go down your road for now. I think there is certainly a great place for reason. I would say that reason can have an effect on our desires. The drug addict of your example could certainly reason that his life would be happier without drugs. However, reason is not the same as belief. So first I will depart from talking about reason for a moment and talk about belief, which can be influenced by reason in the way that I will describe later.
Desire From Belief
I have become convinced that a person’s desires flow from what they believe. A person will desire what they believe will make them most happy or satisfied or fulfilled (pick a word you like).
Even a person that commits suicide believes that somehow they will be happier “on the other side” or that the next form of existence (even non-existence) would be better than their current state.
This means that people will even choose to suffer great suffering if they believe that this suffering will bring about lasting joy, even Christ Himself:
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus,
the author
and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross,
scorning its shame,
and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God (Hebrews 12:2).
Also Moses:
By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. He chose to be mistreated
along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ
as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward (Hebrews 11:24-26).
Christ even teaches us from His own mouth that this is the dynamic of decision making. He appeals to us to make a decision over and over and over by holding out to us future reward or satisfaction or joy:
“For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? (Matt 5:46)”
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven (Matt 6:1).”
“But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you (Matt 6:6).”
“He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward ; and he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward (Matt 10:41).”
“And whoever in the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward (Matt 10:42).”
but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst ; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” (John 4:14)
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life ; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. (John 6:35)
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried , saying , If any man thirst , let him come unto me, and drink (John 7:37)
“The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. (Matt 13:44)
“His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things ; enter into the joy of your master.’ (Matt 25:21)
This is by no means exhaustive of the many references I could make. Christ would not appeal to us this way if it were not the way we make decisions or if it were wrong that we make decisions this way. In fact, it is He that made us this way!
Reason and Belief
Our beliefs are never separated from reason. Any belief can be stated as a proposition of reason, i.e. “I believe that [fill in the blank].” A person can become convinced of something through argument and come to believe it. This is how most of our beliefs are formed. So a person can be reasoned with.
The drug addict you mentioned above could certainly become convinced by reason that he would really be happier apart from drugs. If the person really came to believe this, then they would choose against the drugs. HOWEVER, I still uphold that the person choosing against the drugs does so because they desire the future happiness/reward/fulfillment that they believe is available to them by not using drugs more than they desire the perceived lesser pleasure or even misery of the drugs. This shows that our desires reflect what we believe. An unbeliever may be able to overcome an addiction in just this way.
Returning to the Subject of Being a Slave to Sin
However, when it comes to God, a person that is an unbelieving slave to sin does not believe that God and life obedient to God will bring them fulfillment. They ultiimately believe that sin will be more pleasurable than God. One who is a slave to sin will not be able to be convinced by any reason to believe that God will make them more happy than sin, because they are enslaved by sin. They desire sin too much to be persuaded by any argument. They are a slave to sinful desires.
What this means is that they must become free from their slavery before they can be persuaded to choose otherwise. Just as a dead man cannot raise himself to life (spiritually dead, Eph 2), a slave cannot set himself free (spiritual enslavement Rom 6, 7), but both need a power greater than themselves to set them free (Rom 6, 7). This power is the Spirit of God.
“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God,
for they are foolishness to him
, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2:14)
So Let Us Attempt to Persuade the Unpersuadable!
What!? Didn’t I just say that they cannot be persuaded? Left to themselves as slaves to sin, they cannot. Be we do not persuade alone. We seek to persuade trusting that the very power that the slave to sin needs in order to be set free from their slavery is indeed the power that is working with us and through us. We trust God that through our actions and through our giving them His Word that the Spirit of God sets the unbeliever free in our evangelism to them. If we spoke and acted alone, they would never turn away from sin. But since the Spirit is giving them new life and making them born again through the ministry of the Word spoken, read and lived out, we actually have great hope that slaves to sin will be set free by God so that THEY ARE ABLE to receive the things of God, believe the things of God and desire the things of God! Praise be to God!