Steve,

yes, the Holy Spirit commends the Bereans for investigating, proving the all things,
yes, a child does trust more simply, and I think that has some what to do with innocence, purity and recognition of authority, and an uncluttered heart – simplicity. and it is true that any good parent would want their little ones to learn well.
peace in Jesus

Wouldn’t a sinner, albeit with a fallen heart, when granted a glimpse of Christ in his majesty, fall before him as Paul did on the way to Damascus? Though some may be ‘enemies’ of God, many simply hunger for a god unknown. What are the ‘benefits’ of heaven? Free dental care? There is only one. The eternal presence of God. When allowed to glimpse that, who wouldn’t choose it? It is simply not a credible proposition to claim when you say “we wouldn’t want to be in the presence of God” once He had permitted us to glimpse his glory.

You assert “unbelievers would want to avoid hell. But, they aren’t going to bow the knee to God”. I think most people would bow the knee to Stalin if it enabled them to avoid Siberia. Who, of their ‘free will’, would ‘chose’ hell as an eternal resting place KNOWING what it was (as opposed to speculating what it might be).

The maps can’t be as clear as you claim or else EVERYBODY would be heading in the same direction. Asserting other religions don’t work doesn’t cut it. ‘Based on the evidence’? What evidence? All you can say is that you find Catholicism more to you liking.

As for telling Almighty God upon whom he may – or may not – have mercy, what doctrine they have to subscribe to before His Holy Spirit is with them, seems to me rather presumptuous. It seems more like a grasping for the human power of a gatekeeper than an adoration of our Heavenly Father’s absolute power and love.

For among other things, the scripture says, “And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” And “The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”

Hello, thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment.

re: “Who, having been granted a beatific vision, would not want heaven.”

The sinner and fallen human heart. In our natural state, we’re enemies of God, so even if we wanted other benefits of heaven, we wouldn’t want to be in the presence of God.

re: “What current disbeliever, given a glimpse into hell, would not choose to avoid it?”

True, unbelievers would want to avoid hell. But, they aren’t going to bow the knee to God without a new heart.

re: “The problem does not reside in the destinations, but in the maps at our disposal.”

As an apologist, I think the maps are relatively clear. Atheism doesn’t work and nearly every other religion (but the ones that deny reality as we can sense it) can be ruled out. Christianity is the only worldview that holds up.

That’s just based on the evidence… but then we (believers) have the witness of the Holy Spirit, our relationship with Jesus, and Scripture to get into the details.

Hi Ian, thanks for commenting and sorry for the delayed response. I agree with you overall, but have to disagree a bit with what seems like a bit of disparagement in regards to education? Remember that in Acts, Scripture commends the Bereans for their diligence in checking out what the apostles were teaching them (Acts 17).

Also, when Scripture speaks of believing like a child, I’d say to think of it more in terms of trust, not a child’s lack of learning. They trust their (good) parents because of the relationship, but I think any good parent also wants their children to learn as much as possible.

Maybe that isn’t what you were meaning, but I just wanted to comment on that. But, you’re certainly correct that we have to depend on Scripture and the Holy Spirit to even appropriately do any of the above. So, I guess among brothers (and sisters) that’s a given. But, it’s still important to keep in mind!

But as God promised, He gives a new heart and new spirit to all who would believe in the Son of God according to the Scriptures. The old heart for such a believer is (should have been) crucified with Christ and buried with Him in baptism.
This is why Paul can say I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live yet not I but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live, I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.
Paul tells us that we who are so crucified and buried with Christ need to count ourselves dead to sin and alive to God.

The human mind loves to dissect everything and compartmentalize it all, But Christ Jesus simply wants us to believe like a child what is written in the Scriptures.
While we are ‘free’ to choose to examine every point of Scripture in a complex way, and read numerous books written about what people think about Scripture (and strangley enough God can use that too) Jesus said we ought to become more like children – simple faith, and depend on the work of the Holy Spirit to empower us with that simple truth of Scripture.
And this is what we can see in Peter’s first sermon. This guy did not have letters after his name, nor was he learned in ‘theology’ of the day, but he was filled with the Holy Spirit to such an extent that thousands were turned to the Lord that day. These men had been with Jesus and the religious folks could see it. Perhaps he had something we have not attained to.

Paul was trained before he was brought face to face with Jesus, but he counted all his training as dung.
Both these men were no dumb dumbs concerniing the Scriptures.
What mattered more to Paul and Peter was reality and truth in simple terms through the vibrant fellowship they had with the Father and the Son.

Theology is the study of God, and we can best do that by spending time in His word and in His presence. AS the apostles said a long time ago – We will give ourselves to the Word and to prayer. Isn’t this what we need more of, brothers?
My point here brothers is that we ought to meditate on the Scriptures and depend more on the Holy Spirit to illuminate and breathe on the minds of those we seek to help.
And we have free choice to do or not to do, and we can set our will to do that thing too, until we come into the fullness of the stature of Jesus our Lord and God..

Thanks for pointing this out. It should be fixed. (And, I’m sorry it took so long for me to do so!)

Hi Lora (and sorry for not replying for so long),

I suppose Lutherans would fall into the Calvinist camp, but Luther was in this debate a bit before Calvin, so maybe Lutheranists. 😉 But I think Calvin worked out the doctrines more in detail and into the theology of that tradition than maybe Lutherans. I’m going a bit beyond my church history knowledge here… but it seems Lutherans (at least in my upbringing) left a bit more ‘mystery’ in aspects of this discussion, or didn’t stress the outworking of the details as much.

Since Frank falls more into the Arminian camp, I think he would typically blend the two points I’m trying to separate above (i.e.: will and choice) and speak of the freedom we have to choose Christ or walk away from Him. Arminians generally talk about how love is impossible without free will, so God had to create this freedom so we could truly love Him or not. (I also think he subscribes to a concept called Molinism or ‘middle knowledge’.)

If we separate will and choice, though, I think the issue gets more clear. In our fallen state, no one is going to choose to be with God or love Him, as our will are opposed and hostile towards God. But, once our wills are put back in right relationship with God, we’ll naturally recognize Him for who He is, love Him, and long to be with Him. No strong-arming us into the Kingdom is necessary.

Thanks so much for stopping by, Danny! You’re welcome. Just for the sake of other readers, here is the Natasha’s post we’re referring to: 14 Ways I Teach Apologetics to My 5-Year-Olds http://christianmomthoughts.com/14-ways-i-teach-apologetics-to-my-5-year-olds/

re: Robots – Yes, the Bible seems quite clear that we’re not robots, but also about the state of our wills towards God. I’m not sure how someone can solve that without making a distinction between will and choice. I think they typically don’t, and just glaze over it.

re: neutrality – Yes, I think so. Both in the sense that we don’t often really understand the fallen state (I think most people would go with the, ‘we’re basically good’ statement today), but also within Arminianism, the concept of prevenient grace. The problem, then, as Dr. James White often points out, is whether God brings everyone to this neutral state from which to make the decision. Aside from such concepts being absent from the Bible (as far as I can tell), it would seem God is still picking some to give this semi-grace and bypassing others, or at the very least, giving some much more than others.

Thanks for this article. Would you say that one of our problems in understanding this issue is that we mistakenly assign neutrality to ourselves?

Hi Dennis, an honor, thanks for reading and for this excellent contribution!

Yes, what happened pre-Fall is a great question, and I guess my article is primarily concerned with theological post-Fall discussion (or even the use of will and choice in non-theological discussion). I’m glad to hear I’m in good company with Augustine and Calvin, though I probably somewhat lucked out there, as my schooling hasn’t taken me into great depth in either (though I’ve been Reformed most of my life, and have listened to great Reformed theologians, so some of it must have rubbed off!). I’m not extremely fluent with some of the technical terms (like compatibilism or incompatabilism), but I hope I have a general understanding of the concepts.

I like Augustine’s, “sufficient to have stood though free to fall” as I see Adam and Eve as not possessing the will, conformed to Christ like we hope to enjoy in eternity. So, maybe I’m missing some distinction, but if you’re not fallen (opposed to God) nor conformed to Christ (unbreakably in favor towards and in relationship with God), that’s about as free as one could be in one sense. Either way, the choices are free.

So, I’m not sure quite what to do with Adam. I’ll have to run this by more of my Reformed friends. Most talk seems to be post-fall. If the atonement was planned before the foundation of the world, then God certainly knew Adam’s choice. Whether that makes it free or not is a philosophical debate. I suppose we’re stuck with a form of soft-determinism by God knowing (as it can’t be otherwise). Maybe I’m not philosophically sophisticated enough, but that doesn’t seem like it couldn’t still be free. The Bible speaks like this about the crucifixion of Jesus. The parties involved are responsible, yet it was a sure thing to happen, planned by God. If God knowing = determinism, then the only option left to avoid this seems to be open theism (which doesn’t seem Biblical). So, even if I can’t understand it, I’d think some form of compatibilism must be the case (if I’m using the term properly). I guess we Lutherans get teased about the mystery thing, but maybe that is where this one has to stay.

Supposedly, Middle Knowledge is a solution, but I just don’t see it. If God actualizes a particular world, things are still determined in the same way they are for the Calvinist (with the downside that God is held hostage to this ‘knowledge’ that comes from free creatures he hasn’t even created yet?). I’m sure there are some other theories I’m not familiar with. Hugh Ross talks about effects of extra dimensions in ‘Beyond the Cosmos’ (http://shop.reasons.org/Beyond-the-Cosmos-p/b1001.htm). I have not read it yet, but have heard him talk about it.

As to the why, I would probably say that I don’t think it is a matter of pre-programming (at least future), as much as ‘will’ in the fullest sense. We choose to sin, because we’re opposed to God in our wills (we’re sinners). Maybe our final state of conformed to the will of Christ involves a knowledge of the effects of opposition to God as witnessed through history, such that sin is so horrific to us that we just won’t ever go there… not that we’re pre-programmed to perfection. (Sort of the opposite tact, and in addition to your good habit explanation.) So, it sounds like we agree on that possibility (though I wouldn’t claim I know that’s how it works.) Just like, as I said in the article, God theoretically has the capacity to sin, but won’t. I suppose there will be the theoretical capacity for another fall, but it just won’t happen.