In my previous post, I was rebutting the belief in Free-Will as a means of an approach to God in theology. I am considering the implausibility of such a thing for it certainly makes the scriptures confusing and in many cases outright contradictory. We're picking up in verse 19 and considering Paul's case of the conflict of two-natures. I think it's important to point out that the author's viewpoint on this passage has changed or at least, he's realized that what has been taught over the years, by way of foolishness has much to do with why he's writing this. That is, this particular passage has been used over and over again to excuse sin. To make man not culpable in his sin and more to the point, it's been wrongly used to describe why free-will fails. It's not because the theology is wrong and blaspheme's God, no rather there is something that is stronger than the sinner, but only at times and occassions unknown to the sinner. So, the result is that the sinner struggles alone or under the grace of God, but in no way has any ability to have victory over sin. In fact, the author would go so far as to say that this passage has been wrongly used to obscure the complete ignorance and illogical argumentation of free-will. For free-will purveyors cannot solve the unanswerable question of why they cannot, in their freedom, stop sinning. Which, on face is rationally enough to question the accuracy of such a position, but to make the point, this passage in particular has been used to demonstrate, that while will is free, so that God can justly hold man responsible, man still fails at obeying God because he is somehow beset with sin because he is not yet perfect. Stated plainly and in complete rebellion to God, I'm not Jesus, that's why I struggle! But, I can overcome sin! It really does sound quite good, if you don't think about it and question it to it's most logical ends, and further more as I plan to demonstrate, apply the definition of words and systematic theology of presuppositionalism. Words have meaning and that's lost in a free-will theology.
19(F) For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.
How is it that Paul cannot do the good that he wants? In what way is his free-will beset so that even though he knows to do good, he's not able? This seems like cognitive dissonance. The holding of two contradictory positions in complete harmony as though there is no contradiction. No one could say that they want to do good, but they just can't. Why can't they? There must be something else they are choosing instead of choosing good and right. And if that is so, is not the will free enough so as to cause them the responsibility for that choice? And, if they have responsibility, why then aren't they guilty of lying as well? For do they not want this evil more than they want good? And doesn't that make them disingenuous? How is it that I can want something good, but then I want something bad more, so I do it, but then hold up the fact that I want the good thing as proof of anything? It's proof that I'm a liar or confused. I want what I do, because I'm free, thefore I do what I want!
20Now if I do what I do not want,(G) it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Hold on Paul, this cannot be what you mean? Now you're giving some unnamed, unspoken, entity inside of you the responsibility? Now, if I went up and punched someone in the face, of my own free-will, I couldn't very well tell the judge..."Your honor, it wasn't me. It's sin inside of me that chooses these things, I'm just and innocent bystanding, while totally free and I freely allow this sin to live within me, I'm not guilty, because technically it's not me". Yeah, that would work. Or, does it make more rational sense that Paul is putting a dividing line between his flesh and his spirit? Remember, Paul said that none seek God. So what can seek God except the Spirit of God? So then, Paul is starting to setup the case of the proof of the Spirit that there is a conflict. He's not excusing sin. He's not saying sin doesn't matter in the sense that you can live in it with impunity and be called a Son of God, rather he's setting up the case as to why you are FREE from it.
21So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
Paul is making clear that he's at war! He finds it to be a law, a rule of thumb that when he's seeking God that evil is seeking to destroy that connection and fellowship and that we are to be mindful of our enemy the Devil!
22For(H) I delight in the law of God,(I) in my inner being, 23but I see in my members(J) another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
The nail in the coffin. He delights in the Law of God. When he was a Pharisee, did he not delight in the law as he persecuted the church, yet this did not lead to righteousness. But that's not what he's saying. His inner being delights in the law of God. Which is different than his flesh, which does not seek to obey the law of God, nor is it even able to. But, what then, is he free from sin? No, he witnesses the war, the domination, at times of sin in his life. He makes clear there are too laws, the law of sin which leads to death and the law of the spirit, which delights in the law of God, in his inner being. They war against another. Since he's captive in this body, the law of sin dwells in his members. Meaning? He cannot escape sin. He's not free, to not choose it. It's only God himself, through the law of his mind, ie the law of God through Spirit, that actually overcomes sin.
24Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from(K) this body of death?
I've learned that this is a reference to Roman times that when a man murdered another man, what they would do is tie the dead man to the living man until he was consumed, unto death, by the filth of the deadness of the other man. In what way does this represent a freedom not to sin?
25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
Notice Pauls position, Thanks Be to God! Yet in my explanation of this thing that is wretched and insidious to deal with, does he say...yeah, I got it bad and so do you, so deal with it? NO! He says, THANKS BE TO GOD! For even though I may appear to complain, I'm thankful to God that he has ordained these things, since he is the only one wise and no one else is. In final he says, I myself serve the law of God with my mind or inner man which leads to life and peace but with his flesh he serves the law of sin which leads to death. Paul is saying that it is only the power of the law of God in his mind, and the sanctifying work of God, which is God's work alone that he can be free from his sin.
In conclusion, I do not see how you can rationally or logically hold on to a free-will theology, if you dont' intend to make the Apostle Paul out to be a confused, lying, multiple personality victim. The problem with describing the reason you don't sin as being a result of the grace of God and the reason you do to your free-will is that you deny that God has the ability be gracious enough to teach you not to sin, by causing you to sin. If you believe in free-will to the fullest, then offering secondary causes that are certainly under a persons control, as the primary reason why you sin, you are making false the claim, by your very own admission that you have free wiil. Because, if the first cause of your sin, is a secondary cause that's under your control, but you do not control it, then you either lie about having an inner man that doesn't want to sin, or you're confused about the level of control you actually have over the secondary cause. In either case, you're not in control. For certainly free-will can choose not to lie?
Some may say that this conflict of two natures is simply a reference to a desire to do well and not sin, but it's not necessarily including the ability to. In other words, there is a sense in which you can see the right things to do, but through secondary cause, ie guilt, depression, deception, circumstance, etc, you're unable to bring yourself to do right. I say, exactly right. Why then do you say that you freely choose right or wrong? If you see to do right, but cannot, is this not the very definition of the anthesis of freedom?
Freedom can only be defined by something that has the ability of obtain freedom for itself, or have the power to grant it to something lesser. However, in so granting it to something lesser, it's freedom is limited by the grantor. The very necessity of freedom being granted demonstrates the very limitation of that freedom. Afterall, God did not grant you the freedom He himself has He? So, the author asks.
You're free.
To what? From what?
No comments:
Post a Comment