Bavinck on the Limits of Theology and Philosophy

The will of God is, and from the nature of the case must be, the deepest cause of the entire world and of all the varietas and diversitas found in it. There is no more ultimate ground for this than the absconditum Dei consilium (the hidden counsel of God). The unfathomable mystery of the world compels the intellect and the heart, theology and philosophy alike to fall back upon the will of God and seek rest in it.


It frequently happens, however, that theology and philosophy are not contented with this. They then endeavor, after the manner of Plato and Hegel, to offer a rational explanation of the world. Or, while falling back upon the will of God, they make out of this will a Βυθός άγνωστος (deep unknown), as is done by Gnosticism, or a blind, irrational and unhappy will, as is done by Schopenhauer, or an unconscious and unknowable power, as is done by von Hartmann and Spencer. By his Christian faith Calvin was kept from these different forms of pantheism. It is true, Calvin upholds with the utmost energy the sovereignty of the divine will over and against all human reasoning. Predestination belongs to the divinae sapientiae adyta (shrine of the divine wisdom) which man may not enter and in regard to which his curiosity must remain unsatisfied; for they form a labyrinth from which no one can find the exit. Man may not even investigate with impunity the things God meant to keep secret. God wants us to adore, not to comprehend, the majesty of His wisdom.

Excerpted from Herman Bavinck's article, "Calvin and Common Grace"
Source: The Princeton Theological Review, Vol. 7, No. 3 (1909), p. 450, the parenthetical translations of Latin and Greek terms are mine.

Business Theory or Theology?

I've been studying about Project Management applications in business and found an uncanny parallel between the traditional five steps in the life cycle of a project and the 5 points of Calvinism.


Project Management Steps:

1.  Initiate
2.  Plan
3. Execute
4. Control
5. Closure

The "5 Points" as God's "Project":

1. God initiates everything (including salvation, because we are totally depraved sinners)
2. Unconditional Election is God's plan to save
3. Particular Redemption is the execution of the plan
4. In the Effectual Call, He guides the outcome of the plan
5. The saints Persevere because God Preserves them, bringing the plan to perfect completion

See the parallels? God IS the greatest of all Project Managers.

Ephesians 1:11-12 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Romans 8:28-30 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

UPDATE: Ralph Petersen's insightful comments on this post can be read HERE. 

Reflections on "The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model"

Pastor Richard Ostella of Westminster Reformed Church in Plymouth, Michigan graciously granted permission to re-publish his March 2009 ETS paper on theological paradox here at THEOparadox. The entire series can be viewed as separate "bite sized" posts here or you may wish to read it in long form here. Following are my reflections on the material.

Reading through Dr. Ostella's paper on theological paradox was highly beneficial for me. I appreciate the fact that he begins with a careful definition of theological paradox. Helpfully, he mentions this about identifying paradoxes: 

Paradoxicality is not difficulty in arriving at comparable truths, but difficulty in harmonizing truths that are clear.

Thus, it is not a question of perspicuity (the clarity of Scripture), but of logically reconciling that which is perspicuous. Dr. Ostella shows that his embrace of theological paradox is not in any way a rejection of the use of logic, but exactly the opposite: a full acceptance of it.

Therefore, to fulfill our role on earth receiving God's communication to us in nature and in Christ, we ought to be logical, consistent, and non-contradictory in our thinking . . . Using logic is an “ought to”; it is an ethical ought. Being logical is being godly. It is God-like. It is good and proper. It is required of us not only academically or intellectually but also morally and spiritually. 

Also:

The coherence of God and His revelation calls us to avoid contradictory thoughts and practices. . . . God is logical because He is truth. If there were contradictions in God's knowledge, then some of His knowledge would be false, He would not be the truth, and He would not be God. Accordingly, there is no contradiction in God’s revelation; therefore, man, His image bearer, to be like Him, must avoid contradiction.  Nonetheless, we must come to terms with apparent contradictions, beliefs that seem inconsistent. Importantly, we know that there is no inconsistency between them because God has revealed them. 

At the same time,

Paradoxicality should be no surprise. After all, we are creatures and He is the Creator. We have limited knowledge; we cannot penetrate all the interconnections that exist within the truth that God knows.

Ostella does not merely affirm the validity of logic; he makes proficient use of it. His identification of the Kantian formula, "Duty implies ability," as unbiblical and illogical is particularly helpful. His exegetical analysis of numerous Biblical texts in refutation of this commonly held assumption is also excellent. I found the following line of reasoning deeply insightful:

For Christians who can live righteously but who may also sin, is their ability to sin central to their new found freedom in Christ? No, it shows that they have freedom now partially and not yet fully. Their ability to sin is not evidence that they are free. Instead, it is evidence that their freedom is incomplete. What demonstrates their freedom? What shows that they are free persons is their ability to do good from the heart, even though it has to grow.

Along the way, Ostella effectively uses various illustrations to demonstrate his points. Alongside of these are extensive quotations from other scholars, including some wonderful excerpts from John Calvin.


Finally, Dr. Ostella's systematic and ferocious (yet irenic) dismantling of "free will" doctrine - from the "duty implies ability" fallacy to the Arminian notion of "prevenient grace" - is simply incredible!


I am deeply grateful to Dr. Ostella for allowing me to share his superb article with readers of THEOparadox. As a result of studying this material, I have gained a better understanding of leading Reformed thinkers like John Calvin, Cornelius Van Til, John Frame and Scott Oliphint, as well as some of their detractors. Most importantly, I have gained useful insight into the Bible itself.

Questions for reflection

1. How might someone attempt to overthrow the arguments presented in the paper? Are there any obvious openings?
2. Which part of Dr. Ostella's article was most edifying or beneficial to you?

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 16

Pastor Richard Ostella of Westminster Reformed Church in Plymouth, Michigan has graciously granted permission to re-publish his March 2009 ETS paper on theological paradox here at THEOparadox. To understand these thoughts in context, please begin with part 1.

Conclusion 

 Therefore, theological paradox is not only legitimate, but it is also helpful in calling us to a most humble use of logic in subordination to Scripture. It does so by giving conscious priority to faithful handling of Scripture above logical consistency. Then we can follow Calvin’s pastoral encouragement to stop inquiry where the Holy Spirit closes His holy lips.47 At that point, the reasoning self rests, we rest, on Christ the solid Rock; and there we bow in worship and praise.    

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

47 “When God stops speaking, we end our quest. Scripture is the school of the Holy Spirit, in which, as nothing is omitted that is both necessary and useful to know, so nothing is taught but what is expedient to know. Therefore we must guard against depriving believers of anything disclosed ….in Scripture, lest we seem either wickedly to defraud them of the blessing of their God or to accuse and scoff at the Holy Spirit for having published what it is in any way profitable to suppress. Let us, I say, permit the Christian man to open his mind and ears to every utterance of God directed to him, provided it be with such restraint that when the Lord closes his holy lips, he also shall at once close the way to inquiry”(Institutes, 3.21.3). 

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ALL POSTS IN THIS SERIES

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 15

Pastor Richard Ostella of Westminster Reformed Church in Plymouth, Michigan has graciously granted permission to re-publish his March 2009 ETS paper on theological paradox here at THEOparadox. To understand these thoughts in context, please begin with part 1.

4) The paradox model emphasizes faithfulness in biblical study 

 The great lesson in exegesis and theological formulation is that faithfulness to the text has 

precedence over logical coherence.42

 This does not stifle debate as if anyone may shout “paradox” and dogmatically end discussion. No, debate must continue by faithful study with the caution that though we must engage with critical thinking, we must not make logical consistency the dominant principle or ultimate goal.  

 For example, if Scripture clearly teaches that the natural man has moral inability and if it clearly teaches that he has full responsibility then, however difficult this may be to harmonize logically, we must accept both and work hard to apply both in preaching, teaching, and living. Similarly, if Scripture perspicuously teaches that the natural man is morally unable to do anything good then this teaching ought to take precedence over logical inferences “from Scripture” that contradict that teaching,43 such as the duty/ability inference.  

 Of course, how we interpret the many passages on inability (blindness, deafness, deadness, etc.44) must reflect faithful exegesis.45

 Debate is also legitimate with regard to the “duty implies ability” reasoning to see if it is philosophically problematic, Kantian, and counterintuitive.46

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

42 In one sense, admitting paradox is simply another way of saying that God's thoughts are above ours as the heavens are above the earth and it should not surprise us when we face difficulty. What we must do in faithful quest of the truth is pull together biblical data and accept paradox "where it is warranted."(John Frame, Ibid, 323-24). Logic is properly used when it is governed by the recognition of our creaturehood and hence by the recognition of the limits of creaturely reasoning. We must acknowledge the distinction between Creator and creature, and thinking this way must control the use of logic because the laws of logic are founded in the character of God (He is truth and thus there can be no contradiction in His knowledge or revelation). Properly used, the laws of logic will reveal no contradiction in the biblical system of truth because as God's revelation it has no real contradiction.  

43In this light, the inference that people (believers and non-believers alike) draw from duty to ability wrongly sets aside the biblical teaching about moral inability. The command to keep the whole law of God in its spirit and intent is a duty; from that we must not set aside the doctrine that an evil tree cannot bear good fruit. In turn, the fact that lost sinners have the command to repent and believe does not allow us to infer to their ability to believe and repent such that we set aside all the clear texts on moral inability with respect to faith.   

44 Cf. Cunningham, Historical Theology, II, 586-588 and The Canons of Dort, “Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine: The Corruption of man, His Conversion to God, and the Manner Thereof.” 

45 Our interpretations must be subject to examination by the church at large. Nonetheless, it should be easy for us to see (by the aid of the paradoxicality model) that there are scores of inability texts and “cannot” texts. It is reasonable to affirm that we must keep them front and center in our discussions with acute awareness of the philosophically problematic nature of the “duty implies ability” challenge to the “clear” message of the “cannot” texts.  

46 It is perhaps the result of the failure to preserve the distinctiveness of the “duty implies ability” principle to 

Christians who have the indwelling Spirit and can discern spiritual things. It is the natural man that can do nothing good whatever.

PART 16 - Click Here

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 14

Pastor Richard Ostella of Westminster Reformed Church in Plymouth, Michigan has graciously granted permission to re-publish his March 2009 ETS paper on theological paradox here at THEOparadox. To understand these thoughts in context, please begin with part 1.

3) The model promotes humility in biblical study 

 It is a reasonable attempt to do justice to the connection between the secret things [that] belong to the LORD and the things that are revealed [that] belong to us and to our children (Deut. 29.29). For example, that Jesus is both fully God and fully man while remaining one person is clearly revealed. How these facts fit together is in many ways beyond our grasp as secret things. Likewise, the moral inability and full responsibility of fallen man are clearly revealed facts and the inference from responsibility to the denial of inability is a stab in the darkness of divine secrecy.  

In the words of Calvin, we do “not investigate what the Lord had left hidden in secret” and “we should not neglect what he has brought into the open, so that we may not be convicted of excessive curiosity on the one hand, or of excessive ingratitude on the other.”39  Therefore, 

within a Christian philosophy regarding critical thinking,40 we may appropriately refer to 

accepting theological paradox as the most humble use of logic.41

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

39 Institutes 3.21.4. 

40 By a “philosophy of logic,” we are referring to the wise principles necessary in the use of logic. Thus, to say Christians need a philosophy of logic is to say that even the pursuit of wisdom must have a godly foundation. We need wisdom to strive for wisdom. Bottom line: a philosophy of logic means that true knowledge begins with the fear of God and knowledge of His will. Five components show how the fear of God and knowledge of His will give us the foundation for wisdom in a philosophy of logic: logical skill, contextual sensitivity, open-minded humility, presuppositional awareness, and the acceptance of paradox (picture a pie with five slices that represent the basic elements in a Christian philosophy of logic). If any of these components are lacking in our reasoning then to that degree we are unwise, which means we are to that degree ungodly. To be a critical thinker is a matter of godliness. For explanation of these components and for a fuller picture of how paradox fits into a philosophy of logic see “A Christian Philosophy of Logic,” by R. Ostella, JBA, Spring 2008.  

41 Noting the fact of biblical paradox aids presuppositional awareness that is essential in humble self-criticism by which we look at and evaluate the theological bifocals by which we see. Like bifocals presuppositional glasses determine how we see things, but we can tilt our heads and at times see that with which we see. Awareness of our presuppositions is a way for us to bow our heads and, though difficult to do, go through the door to self-critical thinking. Of course, it is important that we engage biblical context with this awareness in order to do our best to examine our beliefs by Scripture knowing that some of our beliefs color how we read every text. Furthermore, self-criticism is something that we must undertake by prayer and meditation because we tend to wear masks when we look into the mirror of Scripture. As Augustine put it, we tend to put ourselves behind our backs; in our context, this means that we tend to put our cherished, even if false, presuppositions behind our backs so we cannot see them for what they are in the light of Scripture. False presuppositions are like demons: they only come out by prayer and fasting! Switching analogies, we can say that we must be concerned with every relevant thread that intersects the piece of fabric at any given time; otherwise, our work of interpretation will come apart at the seams. Paradoxical truths are threads of truth that are clearly and tightly woven together in the fabric of Scripture even though how they can co-exist in the same fabric may be difficult or even impossible to grasp. 


PART 15 - Click Here

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 13

Pastor Richard Ostella of Westminster Reformed Church in Plymouth, Michigan has graciously granted permission to re-publish his March 2009 ETS paper on theological paradox here at THEOparadox. To understand these thoughts in context, please begin with part 1.

2) The model elevates divine authority in biblical study 

 It helpfully accents the place of reason in relation to revelation. The model stresses the  ministerial versus the magisterial use of reason in which the reasoning self consciously submits to the authority of God’s word37 acknowledging that what God has said is true precisely at those places where he cannot discern how revealed threads of truth cohere.38

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

37 Reason functions in a ministerial place as the handmaiden of theology. We must use good reasoning skills in learning Scripture. But reason does not rule over Scripture. This is consciously set forth in the quest of truth from the start. The title of Oliphint’s book speaks volumes in this connection: Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology (P&R Publishing, 2006). 

38 This is the failure of Craig/Mooreland in their attempt to find a more logically coherent relation between the deity and humanity of Christ (Philosophical Foundations For a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003), 606-613. They press unity of the divine person against Christ’s true humanity. One divine person with two distinct natures for them yields a revived Appolinarianism in which they lose the full humanity of Christ. They distort church doctrine on the true humanity of Christ by logical inferences from His unipersonality. Granted, they affirm both the humanity and deity of Christ, but the formulation fails to do justice to these paradoxical threads of truth because it draws logical entailments from one thread that deny/distort the other. Accordingly, they adopt a version of Appolinarianism in which the Logos (the eternal person, God the Son) did not have a fully human nature except by the union of His person with the animal nature of a human body. Jesus did not have two wills or a dual consciousness. That they feel leads logically to two persons. Their solution is a subliminal and a waking consciousness in the person of Christ. Thus the divine nature becomes subliminal (a variation on, but not an improvement on, kenotic theories that lose sight of His divine immutability). Moreover, the human nature that He took to Himself in the incarnation is incomplete being completed by the Logos. Thus, while affirming the orthodox view of two complete natures and one person they lose both the immutability of the divine nature and the completeness of the human nature. Why? It is because of what they see as contradiction in the historic view of a single person who is both fully God and fully man. In reply, if we stick with Scripture and affirm that Jesus is a single person and that He is fully God unchanging and fully human, then though some may claim contradiction in one way or another (cf. the battles underlying the historic creeds), the orthodox and reformed reply is that since Scripture teaches each of these truths clearly (without forcing contexts) and that God has no contradiction in His thoughts or revelation, then the idea of contradiction is only a matter of appearance and not actuality. God knows how these things fit together in truth and with no inconsistency. Layman and scholar can both discern the failure by this distortion and can reasonably conclude that something is seriously wrong with the formulation even if they lack philosophical finesse.  

PART 14 - Click Here

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 12

Pastor Richard Ostella of Westminster Reformed Church in Plymouth, Michigan has graciously granted permission to re-publish his March 2009 ETS paper on theological paradox here at THEOparadox. To understand these thoughts in context, please begin with part 1.

3A. Implications

 Working from the nature of the paradoxicality model, we can draw some implications for biblical study by scholars, pastors, and church members alike.35

 1) The paradox model advances clarity in biblical study 

 Acquaintance with paradoxicality, teaching it, and grasping the model is helpful in handling difficult teachings. It is an organizing principle by which to identify threads of truth for clarity in the midst of complexity.36

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

35 There is much that is practical here for the church. Consider the illustration of a rope over a pulley hanging in front of someone stuck half way down a deep well. The person sees two ropes and cannot see that they connect or how they connect to form a single rope. To use the “ropes” to save his life, he must grab both at the same time. If he grabs one to the exclusion of the other, he will plummet to the bottom of the well. To receive the bread of life from Scriptural paradoxes for our benefit, we must believe and live by both threads/ropes of truth, even if our logic tells us that using one to the exclusion of the other is easier.  

36 As theologians, pastors, and church members encounter threads of truth that seem to exist in intractable tension (such as: the full humanity and full deity of Christ, Scripture is the word of man and the word of God, and so forth) having a handle for these theological boiling pots on the stove gives perspective and keeps us from getting burned by confusion. Serving clarity, the paradox model goes hand in hand with the perspicuity of Scripture. Thus, even the most profound teachings of Scripture are bread of life for the church. Both theological formulation and pastoral proclamation can make profitable use of this model.  

PART 13 - Click Here

Father's Day Special: Paul Tripp on Parenting

If you are a parent seeking to glorify God by training your children in godliness and endeavoring to reach their hearts with the Gospel (or if you hope to become such a parent), you will be blessed and encouraged by this great interview. There are a lot of useful and enlightening principles here. Even if you aren't interested in parenting, you may find this video useful just because it is packed with wisdom.

I simply can't recommend this video highly enough! Enjoy.

HT: Desiring God Blog

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 11

Pastor Richard Ostella of Westminster Reformed Church in Plymouth, Michigan has graciously granted permission to re-publish his March 2009 ETS paper on theological paradox here at THEOparadox. To understand these thoughts in context, please begin with part 1.

6) Free will doctrine misconstrues the rich biblical notion of freedom 

 Fallen man does not have free will because the ability to do evil is not a component of freedom. The part of the definition that is true (the ability to sin) has nothing to do with being a free person. Consider the following examples.  

 In the garden, Adam’s ability to do evil was not part of his freedom. Instead, it revealed the incompleteness and mutability of his freedom. As the WCF states: “Man, in his state of 

innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to 

God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it” (IX, 2).  

 For Christians who can live righteously but who may also sin, is their ability to sin central to their new found freedom in Christ? No, it shows that they have freedom now partially and not yet fully. Their ability to sin is not evidence that they are free. Instead, it is evidence that their freedom is incomplete. What demonstrates their freedom? What shows that they are free persons is their ability to do good from the heart, even though it has to grow. 

 Furthermore, saints in heaven do not have the ability to sin (i.e. they do not have free will) and this does not alter their personhood, praiseworthiness, or responsibility. Being free from sin completely is the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Rom. 8.21). The free person is the person who is able to do good deeds; he is free for “slavery” to righteousness (Rom. 6.18, set free from sin, [you] have become slaves of righteousness). To be ultimately and supremely free is to be delivered from the ability to sin. Accordingly, heaven is a place where free persons enjoy a glorious God-like freedom.33

   

 Notably, God is a free person without the ability to do evil (so, He does not have “free will”). What makes Him free is His ability to act with perfect holiness. Surely, God is praiseworthy for His holy actions even though He cannot lie. Thus, the idea of free will as the ability to choose between good and evil confuses the biblical teaching about freedom.34

  

 Therefore, fallen man does not have free will; he does not have the ability to do a single good thing such as submitting to Christ in faith (Jn. 6.44; Rom. 8.7), but he is fully responsible.  

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

33 The old Star Trek TV shows spoofed this point more than once. They would present a world of perfect peace and harmony where everyone performs only good actions. But this state of affairs is rejected by Captain Kirk because man has no free will. For Kirk, if personal beings are not able to choose good or evil, then it is not utopia. He must be able to choose evil but not do so for it to be utopia. We should note that this is a wholesale attack on heaven. It is a denial that heaven as described in the Bible is a good thing. It denies that heaven is utopia. Why do I say this? Because there are all kinds of personal beings in heaven who cannot choose to do evil and that is part of what makes it heaven.  To whom do I refer? They are the saints, angels, and God!  What kind of heaven would it be if we thought that there could be another host of fallen angels? What kind of heaven would it be if the saints, rescued from sin for eternal life, could fall again like Adam and Eve? Would you even think of it as heaven, if God were capable of sinning?  The elect angels can only choose to do good. The saints in heaven can only choose to do good. God can only choose to do good. The epitome of free will, that is, of the free person with the capacity of will, is the immutable ability to choose only to do good.  

34 Perhaps, we would be better off if we stopped using the confusing words “free will.” Calvin refers to “free will” as “a proud name” for “a slight thing” that is all too commonly used in an erroneous sense and should therefore be avoided (Institutes, 2.2.8; cf. Calvin's "Refutation of the Objections Commonly Put Forward in Defense of Free Will," Ibid., 2.5.1-19). Dropping the term would help clarify things in discussion of the “sovereignty/responsibility” paradox. Ciocchi (JETS, September 2008, 573-90) however makes matter worse by moving in the opposite direction and claiming that the SR tension should be called the sovereignty/freedom or the sovereignty/free will tension. There are two problems: a) he fails to distinguish the freedom that belongs only to Christians from the slavery of non-Christians, and b) he apparently assumes the definition of free will in which the natural man is able to do good or evil.  

PART 12 - Click Here

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 10

Pastor Richard Ostella of Westminster Reformed Church in Plymouth, Michigan has graciously granted permission to re-publish his March 2009 ETS paper on theological paradox here at THEOparadox. To understand these thoughts in context, please begin with part 1.

5) Free will perspective blurs saving grace  

 This doctrine results in diplopia (dual vision) regarding saving grace in which there exists 

semi-free/semi-enslaved sinners in a state between slavery to sin and freedom for righteousness. 

Claim: before the regeneration and freeing of a dead slave to sin takes place, there is a 

regeneration-like enabling of the dead to respond to the gospel, a granting of freedom to the 

natural man while he remains in his fallen state.31 This is soteriological diplopia at best (and 

contradiction at worst). At the place where Scripture presents a single setting free which involves 

newness of life by a new creation, free will doctrine sees double: a giving of ability prior to 

regeneration and a giving of ability by means of regeneration. 

 Problem: all the passages that deal with opening blind eyes, unstopping deaf ears, giving 

life to the dead, setting the slave to sin free, making a new creation refer to regeneration, the 

actual bringing of a sinner into fellowship with God (1 Cor 1.7).32

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

31 This enlivening-freeing-enabling is not regeneration; it does not save. Instead, it gives man the ability in his fallen and natural state to either obey the gospel or disobey it. In other words, this pre-regeneration-regeneration-like action of God bestows free will. Thus, although fallen man has this ability to hear God’s call, to see the truth, and to respond to it, having this ability (this life, this freedom) is not regeneration but a working of grace that makes a significant change in the dead sinner freeing him sufficiently and making him alive enough to take the next step and allow God to make him alive by the new birth. This is Wesley’s way of holding to a strong view of man’s depravity (Sermon on Free Grace, par. 3 ) and compromising it at the same time because for him dead and enslaved sinners who are unable to respond to the gospel nonetheless “suffer” [allow] God to make them alive (Sermon on Free Grace, par. 29). For a helpful explanation and critical evaluation of the Wesleyan view of prevenient see “Does Scripture Teach Prevenient Grace in the Wesleyan Sense?” by Thomas R. Schreiner, The Grace of God and the Bondage of the Will (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), II, 365-382. 

32 There are no passages that explicitly apply any kind of enabling, enlivening, eye-opening, or setting free in some way that is prior to and less than regeneration. Free will perspective views these things with blurred vision and sees double. On this view, there is some kind setting free of sinners within their bondage so they can choose to go free or remain in bondage: they are set free within bondage and given the ability to choose freedom, if they choose freedom, they are then set free from bondage. Evidence from Scripture for the presence of free will in pre-regenerate sinners boils down to two key texts: Jn. 1.9 (The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world) and 12.32 (And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself). However, John 1.9 can be reasonably taken to refer to the non-saving light of natural revelation that renders all men responsible on a par with Rom. 1.1-18. In John 12.32, the drawing of all to Christ says nothing of a pre-regeneration semi-saving grace of enablement, but reasonably refers to the drawing of people from all nations to actual salvation by the power of the cross. Thus, in paraphrase, Jesus says, “by the cross, I will draw people of all nations savingly to myself.” It is clear, then on the questionable use of John 12.32, that the cross only secured pre-regeneration and not regeneration (the dead in sin are given sufficient life to respond to the gospel); the cross did not secure redemptive release from sin or an eternal release contrary to Hebrews 9.12, which teaches that the cross secured eternal redemption. Ultimately, the teaching rests on the Kantian philosophical notion that “duty implies ability.” For Thielicke, this notion is the natural man’s illusion that is overcome when the Holy Spirit gives a new self-understanding by death to the old Cartesian self, Evangelical Faith, 138-173

PART 11 - Click Here