I’d like to share some of the main points, as a way to encourage others to read this book. If these points don’t seem well-argued, it’s because I’m not trying to defend them here (I couldn’t do that thoroughly nearly as well as Edwards, and I would need to write far more than he did). I’m only stating them to whet your appetite. So whether you think they’re compelling or nonsense, read Freedom of the Will and find out for yourself!

You can get a copy of Freedom of the Will here:

• CCEL: Electronic formats, including web, plain text, and PDF for free, and ePub for $3
• Amazon: Physical copy $11 or Kindle $1

Freedom of the Will

1. The Arminian concept of freedom doesn’t even make sense, for this reason: a person determines their actions by willing. But how are those choices of will themselves determined? If the person also determines those, then that too must be done by willing. But, if so, how is that choice of will determined? By prior willing. So we have an infinite regression (which cannot be), or else there is a first act of the will not determined by willing, but by something else—and that would mean that, ultimately, will is determined by something else.
2. Necessity cannot be incompatible with free will if God has foreknowledge. If God foreknows that some things will happen, those things are necessary, and so that view of free will also has necessity. It doesn’t matter if those future things are determined by God’s decree or not; either way, the events are certain and therefore necessary.
3. Necessity cannot be incompatible with moral good and evil, because God, Christ, and the unfallen angels are necessarily good, and the fallen angels are necessarily evil, yet we still ascribe good and evil to them.
4. Arminianism says you need to have the power of contrary choice in order to be responsible. But there is a difference between two types of ability to choose: natural ability and moral ability. Natural ability means that you have the capacity to do something, like walk or speak. Moral ability means that your will is such that you will to do it; for example, I like ice cream so I will eat it, but I don’t like cheesecake so I won’t eat it (that’s Josh, not Edwards!). To be held responsible, it’s true you need to have natural ability to choose: for example, a man can’t be held responsible for not flying on his own power. But it’s not true that you need to have moral ability to choose: whatever your will is inclined towards, that you will necessarily do. But having a will so inclined to evil that you will necessarily do it doesn’t excuse you from the evil. That’s precisely what commands are for: to tell you what your will should and should not be inclined towards.
5. You don’t have power to change what your will is inclined towards; if you did, that would be an act of the will too. And to say that you can presently will to change what you presently will is a contradiction. You may indirectly will that you didn’t have the consequences of what you will to do, but you still will to do it.
6. The Calvinist view of necessity, praise and blame is the common sense one, and the Arminian view is the unintuitive, philosophically complex one. Common sense is that whenever someone acts as he wills, you can praise or blame him for it. People don’t withhold praise or blame until they can determine what is metaphysically going on behind the action: if they did, most people would never get to that point at all. So common sense says that any action according to one’s will can be praised or blamed. And this is Edwards’ view: predestination means that you act according to your will, not constrained against your will. It’s your will that is predestined, and this is not constraining you against your will.
7. This distinction between natural and moral inability isn’t an artificial distinction; common sense supports it. For example, consider this story. A man is in prison for doing something wrong against a good king, but the king invites him to come to him and repent and be given freedom and a high status. If the man cannot do it because he is physically bound, nobody blames him. If the man cannot do it because he hates the king so much he can’t bring himself to do it, then he is blameworthy. Therefore, there is a difference between natural and moral inability.

1. God is gain and the rest is garbage

Ps 63:1c—…as in a dry and weary land where there is no water.

Ps 63:3a—Because your steadfast love is better than life…

Phil 3:7-8a—But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.

David writes about his longing for God and compares it to being “in a dry and weary land where there is no water.” In the experience of wandering in the desert, David found a metaphor for the barrenness of life apart from God. No wonder he could say a few verses later that God’s “steadfast love is better than life”—the kind of life that’s found apart from God isn’t satisfying in the least. Paul made it even more explicit: now that he had come to see Christ, he looked at the religious pursuits he had formerly seen as gain and now “counted [them] as loss for the sake of Christ.” Going further, he then says that he “counts everything as loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my lord.” He doesn’t just say that knowing Christ is the most important thing, and other pursuits are less important: he says that Christ is gain, and everything else is loss.

When we are indifferent to God and more excited about getting a promotion, having fun, or dating and marrying the right person, these verses say we are trading the riches of Christ for garbage. If we want to overcome this backwards thinking, the first thing we need to do is recognize the reality of the worth of God and other things. We can’t change our heart, but we can choose to believe the truth and renew our minds to it.

What do you treat as though it’s gain compared to Christ? Will you choose to believe what God says about it, that it’s a loss instead?

2. Our souls are made to thirst for God

Ps 63:1b—my soul thirsts for you; my flesh faints for you,

Phil 3:10-11 NIV—I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead.

What happens when you choose to believe that God is gain and everything else is loss? You start to feel a longing for him. David starts out his psalm describing this desire, saying “my soul thirsts for you; my flesh faints for you.” That doesn’t sound like someone who feels duty-bound to obey God; David wants God and he can hardly stand any impediments to that relationship. Paul says that he chooses to suffer tremendous things in order to gain Christ. His driving desire is “I want to know Christ.”

When we understand that an intimate relationship with God is gain and everything else is loss, then our hearts begin to desire God instead of other things. Who desires garbage? So if we feel longings for the things of this world but we feel cold toward God, it may be that we don’t really see God as desirable. It can help to recognize what it is we do feel desire for: sex, drugs, power, marriage, success, friendships. Whether these things are good or bad, to desire them more than God is wrong, and we should confess the sin of our heart’s desires. God will use this confession to start changing our hearts.

What are you thirsting for? Will you choose to believe that what your soul really desires is God?

3. We must choose to lose all things to gain Christ

Phil 3:8b—For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish

Paul has written that God is gain and everything else is loss, and therefore that he desires Christ. What he does next follows naturally from those truths: he chooses to lose all things. I say “he chooses” because Paul writes “for his sake I have suffered the loss of all things.” It isn’t a meaningless suffering that he endures; there is an intentionality in it. Paul values all things as a loss, and so he chooses to actually lose them.

Primarily, this means choosing to lose all things from a heart perspective: deciding that you won’t cling to them, but that you’ll open your hands to God. Some things, like extravagant luxuries or unhealthy relationships, God may call you to give up entirely. Other things, God may only ask you to hold them more openly, such as being willing to give more of your income, or to watch less TV so you can spend more time relating to God. Still other things, such as your commitment to your spouse, God will call you to maintain— but no longer with an attitude of protectively trying to get satisfaction for yourself, but rather open to whatever God will call you to.

What are you unwilling to surrender to God? Believe that it really is loss, let yourself desire Christ, and take a step of faith to surrender it to God, choosing to lose it from a heart perspective.

4. We must actively seek Christ

Ps 63:1a—O God, you are my God; earnestly I seek you;

Ps 63:8—My soul clings to you; your right hand upholds me.

Phil 3:12-14—Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

When someone starts desiring Christ as their treasure and gives up everything for his sake, what do they do next? David writes that he “earnestly” seeks God: he does it with great effort, not halfheartedly. He also writes “my soul clings to you.” When God reveals something of himself to David, he treats it as treasure to be eagerly held onto. When he doesn’t feel like he’s experiencing closeness to God, he hangs on to his memories with faith, believing that God is still God and things will get better. Paul writes that he has not yet fully obtained the kind of intimacy with God that he desires, so he “presses on,” while “forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead.” There is no room for passivity: the people who will experience God are those who exert extraordinary effort to seek him.

Those who desire worldly things spend countless hours working at the office, putting their heart on the line on dates, trying to understand the stock market, or honing a skill. God is most glorified when those who long for him seek him with as much or more effort than that. The reason that effort is required is not because God doesn’t want to be found; as Paul says, Christ has already made believers his own. We have the promise that God will reveal himself to us when we seek him, but he’s chosen to reveal himself through the means of us seeking.

What are you pursuing more than Christ? Will you choose to instead pursue God in whatever way works best for you—Bible study, prayer, books, worship music, nature, discussion? Believe that God will reveal himself as you seek him.

5. We will be filled with joy as we see more of Christ

Ps 63:4-7—So I will bless you as long as I live;
in your name I will lift up my hands.
My soul will be satisfied as with fat and rich food,
and my mouth will praise you with joyful lips,
when I remember you upon my bed,
and meditate on you in the watches of the night;
for you have been my help,
and in the shadow of your wings I will sing for joy.

David looks forward to the end goal of his seeking, and lets it propel him onwards. The goal isn’t prestige, ministry, obedience, or even Christlikeness (although some of these will happen along the way). The goal in his mind is that he will be satisfied in God, as satisfied as he is after the richest, most delicious meal. He will praise God with joyful lips, not rote repetition. He will sing for joy, not out of tradition. The satisfaction that comes from God will be deep and lasting, sustaining him through the worst suffering of sickness or persecution or bereavement.

This is the satisfaction that God promises to those who seek him. It’s found in seeing the truth of who God is and what he has done for us. But it doesn’t always come automatically when we think about God. What is it in your life that causes you to rejoice the most? Is that thing really as good as it gets? What should you feel when you read that God designed and created everything you have ever seen, the greatest to the smallest? That God hates evil and will not let the smallest wrong go unpunished? That, when you were guilty and at odds with God, Christ gave up his life to bring you back from the dead and cleanse you? That you have been given all the riches of the Son of God? That the Holy Spirit surrounds you every moment, empowering and guiding you? Is indifference a sufficient response to all these riches? Shouldn’t your heart instead burst with joy? Then pray for that joy. Confess your hardness of heart. Ask God to give you the joy you should feel for these things, to bring out the new heart he gave you when he brought you to life. Reflect on the truths that should move you, and carry them with you until they do move you.

What are you rejoicing in? Choose to rejoice in what you already know about God, and believe that he will give you ever-increasing heartfelt joy in him, in this life and throughout eternity.

Growing in truth

These truths are powerful, and the fact that they’re found in both Old and New Testaments confirms that they’re foundational for the life of a follower of God. Spend some time studying and meditating on Psalm 63 and Philippians 3:7-14. A deeper understanding of these truths will come from seeing them in their original context.

I’ve found that these truths are things I’ll forget if I don’t regularly re-orient my mind to them. To help me not to forget them, I’ve begun praying through them weekly, one truth per day. On Monday, I remind myself that “God is gain and the rest is garbage.” I look over the verses in Psalm 63 and Philippians 3 that pertain to this. I’ve also written down other related verses I’ve found throughout the Bible, and I look over them as well. Then I ask myself the question from above—what do I treat as gain compared to Christ? On Tuesday, I do the same for the second truth, “Our souls are made to thirst for God.”

Going over these truths and examining my heart repeatedly is helping me gradually to grow in deeper love for God. This only takes a few minutes, so I’m freed up to study other things as well. But I’m always kept grounded in the truths of seeking and enjoying God. If that’s your desire, I encourage you to soak in these truths as well.

• Premise 1: There is a distinction between God’s legal acceptance of us (“love”) and his emotional inclination toward us (“like” or “pleased”). God accepts us based on Christ’s sacrifice, but he is inclined toward us on the basis of our sanctification or behavior.
• Premise 2: Our sanctification or behavior consists in Christ acting through us, not in us acting ourselves.
• Conclusion: God’s inclination toward us (“like” or “pleasure”) is really an inclination toward Christ acting through us, and not really an inclination toward me myself at all.

This conclusion is definitely emotionally troubling. Paul made some good points to solve this problem, and I had some additional thoughts on both premises.

On premise 1, as an Augustinian/Edwardsian/Christian hedonist, I tend to have a deep suspicion of any distinction between “loving” and “liking.” If love for God and man is the highest virtue, then perfect love must include feeling what is appropriate to feel for God and man, not just a dry sense of duty for things that are glorious and should be satisfying. If “love” does include feeling, then when does scripture say God’s love for us starts? Not after our sanctification, not after our justification, and not even after our election. God’s love for the elect is given as the grounds for election itself: “…even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will…” (Ephesians 1:4-5). God freely chose to love a group of people before they had done good or evil, and not on the basis of foreseen actions (Romans 9), but simply out of his free choice to love. That’s the root reason that scripture doesn’t go behind: love. So it’s no surprise that scripture says that when Christ dies for those who are still sinners, he already loves them before dying for them (Rom 5:8). And when God disciplines his children to sanctify them, he already loves them before discipline has its effect (Heb 12:6).

This means that God has felt love for his elect from eternity past. This love humbles us because it’s not based on anything we’ve done or anything in us, rejecting the pride that says I will only accept love that is based on my merit. Now, there is still a place for us to want to please God with our lives. Someone you love can please you or displease you; think of the father of the prodigal son, who was heartbroken over his son’s sin and longed for his return. But to please God with our lives, we need to first accept that God has already not only justified us but also loved us. Otherwise we’re working for acceptance.

So if there’s still a place to want to please God with our lives, then part of the problem still remains: do *we* ever please God with our lives, or is it only Christ who pleases God by living through us (premise 2)? Most theologians in my circles would agree that, while justification is monergistic, caused entirely by God, sanctification is synergistic, involving a cooperation between God and the person. I find the most helpful passage on this to be Philippians 2:12-13—”work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” God works in us, changing our hearts in ways we never could, and then we act or work out here on the basis of that changed heart. God gets all the credit for the sanctification, but it is still us who is working. Otherwise, we’re just puppets being controlled by God and being punished for things that God is causing us to do. It’s only hypercalvinists who hold to that kind of view; all credible Calvinists I’ve read assert that we act in accordance with our desires, and therefore we really are responsible for our actions.

One of the problems with that puppet view is that it makes God the one who is doing evil through his puppets, and therefore he is the one who is guilty of evil. Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor, solved this problem by asserting that God uses evil people as instruments for good. They intend the evil, but God uses them for good ends (which is practically a quote from Joseph in Genesis 50:20). But to be able to argue this, it has to be true that the evil people have intentionality that is rightly ascribed to them. If that’s true, then our intentionality as believers is rightly ascribed to us as well. And if all that is true, then I think it’s right to say that, as God sanctifies us, we ourselves act more and more righteously. If our actions please God, then, it’s really *us* who is pleasing him, not just Christ in us. This doesn’t conflict with Calvinism at all, because God gets the credit for both the justification and the sanctification. And Calvinism in particular argues that our actions after we’re saved can’t be marked by sin just as much as before we were saved. There’s something different about the life itself, and that difference is pleasing to God.

One more objection remains: it may be us who are acting, but if sanctification is making us less like ourselves and more like Christ, then God is only pleased with us when we become less of ourselves. I had never thought about that before, and that’s the problem that Paul’s blog posts addressed excellently, so I have nothing to add to it.

To examine this issue, I’d like to distinguish between four different views of the role of works:
1. Works as grounds of justification
2. Works as instrument of justification
3. Works as part of faith
4. Works as consequence of the indwelling Spirit

1. Works as grounds of justification

The grounds of justification refers to the answer to the question, “How can a holy God accept sinners as righteous?” The grounds of justification is whatever it is that allows this to happen. In this view, if a person performs sufficient good works, God accepts those good works as a basis upon which to consider the person righteous. This view is historically identified with Pelagianism, and is rejected by both Protestants and Catholics alike. It is included here only to distinguish it from the other views. Of course, this view cannot in any sense be described as “justification by faith,” because there is no place for faith in it as scripture defines the term–only for works.

2. Works as instrument of justification

In this view, the grounds of justification are not a person’s works, but rather Christ’s atoning work of a perfect life and dying on the cross for sinners. The basis for God to accept sinners is that Christ died for their sin (under various explanations of the role of that death). But how does a person receive the benefits of Christ’s death? That is what the term “instrument of justification” refers to. In this view, works are the instrument, or the way a person receives the benefit of Christ’s death. For the sake of simplicity, I am including here both views where works are the sole instrument, and views where works and faith are the two separate and essential instruments.

This view is historically identified with Semi-Pelagianism, and is the teaching of the Catholic church. This view cannot be described as “justification by faith alone,” because even in the view where faith is included, it functions in exactly the same way as works, as an instrument–so there is no sense in which faith is alone. Although historic Protestantism rejects this view of works as instrument, some language used by lordship salvation teachers suggests this view. For example, such teachers sometimes describe salvation as a door that has two handles: faith and repentance/works/submission to Christ as Lord. But this metaphor suggests that there is something else that functions in salvation in exactly the same way as faith, serving as a handle to open the door of salvation. If this is the view held, then it cannot in any way be described as justification by faith alone.

3. Works as part of faith

This view asserts that Christ’s atonement is the grounds of justification and faith alone is the instrument of salvation. Where is the place of works in it? In various ways, those who take this view suggest that works are an essential part of faith. They can therefore say that they hold to justification by faith alone, because there is nothing separate from faith that is necessary. The works that are necessary are part of faith, and without those works there is no faith as these writers define it.

This seems to be the view held by prominent Reformation theologians, although they differ in how they explain that works are an essential part of faith. Calvin writes in his Institutes that repentance (which he defines to mean a change of life direction) flows out of faith as a necessary consequence of it. Luther takes it further in Concerning Christian Liberty: he says that faith is saying that God is right, and there is nothing more righteous than this, and that someone who truly believes this will live as God says. If a person has faith, then, they necessarily have works as a consequence.

The difficulty with these views is that they have trouble explaining some of how the Bible defines the concept of justification by faith alone. In Romans 4, Paul says that the one who will be justified is the one “who does not work but believes him who justifies the ungodly” (v. 4). But if everyone who truly believes necessarily has work, then there is no such thing as someone who believes yet “does not work.” Paul never says the exact phrase “justification by faith alone:” instead, he says “justification by faith apart from works.” This does not mean that works are unnecessary (as Paul makes clear and I will show in the fourth view), but it does mean that there must be some way to refer to a faith that exists without works.

4. Works as consequence of the indwelling Spirit

In this view, Christ is the grounds of justification and faith is the instrument: a faith that does not have works as part of it. This seems to be the best explanation of Romans 4 as described above. In what sense, then, can works be said to be necessary? Romans 8 answers this question. The Holy Spirit gives life to all believers (v. 11) in the sense of enabling them to put to death sinful deeds (v. 13) and so to live according to the Spirit (v. 5). How does this relate to justification? A person is justified by faith alone apart from works, and the Holy Spirit indwells that person, subsequently enabling and leading them into works. In this sense, works do not in any way come into the faith that justifies: they are logically separate and subsequent, rather than being an instrument alongside faith or as part of faith itself.

This may be a possible way to interpret scripture, but why is it necessary? For the answer to this, I am indebted to an insight from John Piper’s sermon series on Romans, although he may very well hold view 3 rather than view 4. In describing faith, he says that the reason it is the instrument of salvation is because it is the thing that humbles man and glorifies God the most. Faith is nothing to boast in, because what it is is to trust entirely in someone else. Faith has no merit or worth in itself, because it consists of asserting that one has no merit or worth oneself and of trusting in the merit or worth of another. This is the kind of faith that a small child, a mentally handicapped individual, or a thief dying on a cross can have, apart from any ability or opportunity to do good works. If this is true, then faith cannot be the most righteous thing, as Luther taught, or the spring from which all righteousness flows, as Calvin taught. God is most highly exalted when faith is seen to be the smallest thing, and this is why justification by faith alone is so important.

***

By explaining the necessity of works in terms of the operation of the Holy Spirit entirely apart from justification, both the simplicity of faith and the necessity of works are maintained. This seems to me to be the best explanation of Paul’s description of a person who does not work but trusts, and who will then necessarily put to death the sinful nature. If a person does not hold this view, then let them at least be clear as to whether they consider works to be the grounds of justification, the instrument of it, part of faith, or some other view. It would also be helpful to me to hear how their view can be said to allow for faith to be alone as the solas say, to allow for a person to not work but have faith (Rom 4:4), to allow for faith to exist apart from works (Rom 4:6), and to preserve faith as something that cannot be boasted in.

]]> http://theology.joshjustice.com/2011/12/faith-alone-and/feed/ 3 http://theology.joshjustice.com/2011/12/dangerous-duty-of-delight-study-guide/ http://theology.joshjustice.com/2011/12/dangerous-duty-of-delight-study-guide/#comments Wed, 28 Dec 2011 17:21:12 +0000 josh http://theology.joshjustice.com/?p=23 For a long time, I’ve been trying to come up with ways to help small group members and people I know to grasp the idea of Christian hedonism (or delight in God, or religious affections, or Augustinianism, or rejoicing in the Lord). It’s not always an intuitive concept, and unfortunately Desiring God is a little too long and in-depth for many people to benefit from.

However, The Dangerous Duty of Delight is an ultra-condensed version of Desiring God that’s much more accessible. I’ve put together the following study guide to help individuals, small group leaders, and small group members process the book. Whereas some study guides emphasize subjective opinion, rote repetition, or mere information, this guide is designed with the following goals:

1. Emphasize the scriptural texts cited, encouraging readers to interact with them.
2. Emphasize the logical arguments of the author, encouraging readers to grasp the logic and decide whether they agree.
3. Lead the reader to practical application, both in terms of large-scale prayers and immediate action steps.

Please check it out and let me know if you have any feedback!

File	PDF	Pages	Word
Study Guide (leader notes and questions)
Questions

]]> http://theology.joshjustice.com/2011/12/dangerous-duty-of-delight-study-guide/feed/ 0