By simple definition, free will in salvation (or Arminian free will) refers to the ultimate self-determining power of humans to choose God and in turn get saved, or choose otherwise and be condemned forever. No matter how many times Wesleyans can say that all has been provided for by virtue of prevenient grace (which is a doctrine that has alarmingly weak biblical foundations), they can and will never deny that human volition is the decisive factor in controlling whether or not an individual is saved. Prevenient grace supposedly restores free will to all men, hence its being described 'universal'. If that is the case, it is only logical that everything boils down to that one human choice.
Here is a brief analogy. Free will in terms of the Arminian understanding works like the slow step, or the rate-determining step of a chemical reaction. For those of us who are getting quite acquainted with reaction kinetics and the like in preparation for upcoming examinations, this should make quite a bit of sense.
The problem I have with this understanding of free will is that it espouses a theology that is incoherent, and reflects a God who is seemingly unjust and unloving. Nevertheless, I think it is relatively easy to explain how and why.
The bulk of arguments that propose the necessity of free will are largely philosophical and psychological; not biblical, shockingly. Thankfully, both perspectives are easy to repudiate in their own terms.
Firstly, it seems that for Arminian free will to work, all humans must have an equal degree of exposure to the gospel, if any, prior to possible conversion. This is so that everyone has an equal chance of exercising his/her free will in response to what s/he has heard. After all, what is the point of having free will but never having had the chance to make the life-changing choice? It would be gravely unfair wouldn't it? And so it is! Clearly not everyone is blessed with a Christian family from whom to learn about Jesus since young. Not everyone exists in a multi-religious society that allows Christianity to flourish with minimal persecution. Many of the heathen in Africa and South America live and die without having even heard about Christ. I don't quite know of a means to quantify dogmatic exposure, but even without it I think anyone would sense enormous discrepancies. Is God unjust?
Secondly, it is said that God has given us free will because He loves us and does not want to force us to love Him back. The psychological appeal in this argument is so strong that it proves to be such a huge stumbling block for many believers today. Yet, according to the Arminian reasoning, what it really does prove is that God is more unloving than anything. Why would God, knowing that the gospel would be unevenly circulated around the world, ordain for a means of salvation whose fairness depends on an egalitarian knowledge of Christ? Unless He didn't intend for it to be possible that all men be saved, but had unconditionally chosen the people from whom He would lift the scales of unbelief...all of which is incoherent with the Arminian doctrine of conditional election.
It is perhaps divine irony that the contradictions of unbiblical theology unravel upon their own mechanisms, insofar as close logical analysis is implemented to expose the faulty, incongruous components. Subsequently, I would also willingly point us to a more biblical explanation of Christian soteriology, so as to not leave this thread a-hanging like some run-of-the-mill notion. But I reckon that would be too much for one post. Maybe in the next (next next next...) one.
So in times like these, perhaps it is only fitting that we sit back and marvel at the sheer beauty of His creation, and see what really points to the glory of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment