If the Arminian cannot rely on prevenient grace to enable all men to
receive the Gospel, then what does he do? Norman Geisler rejects the
Wesleyan tradition and believes that since God created Adam in his image, every
man remains able to freely choose to believe in God. He believes this in spite
of the abundance of scripture teaching on man’s dead, enslaved, desperately
wicked, incapable heart.
While Geisler admits that “fallen human beings are
spiritually dead in that they have no spiritual life,” he maintains that “God’s
image is still present in them; hence, they’re able to hear his voice and
respond to his offer of salvation.”[1]
Geisler cites little scripture to support this argument, but simply believes it
must be true because it makes sense. If we are not free, then God cannot hold
us responsible for our sins.[2]
Geisler makes rational, philosophical arguments for human freedom. He says,
“Humankind intuitively recognizes freedom as being good… People never march against
freedom... Free choice is an undeniable good.”[3] Later
he says, “Sound reason demands that there is no responsibility where there is
no ability to respond.”[4]
Speaking scripturally, Geisler says that “God’s image in
Adam was effaced by the Fall, but not
erased. It was marred but not
destroyed. Indeed, the image of God (which includes free will) is still in
human beings. This is why murder and even cursing [those] 'who have been made
in God’s likeness' are sins.”[5]
Geisler believed, much like Finney and Pelagius, that our sin originates as a
choice from some kind of constitutionally neutral position. He says, “Fallen
man is ignorant, depraved, and a slave of sin, but all these conditions involve
a choice.”[6] In
this Geisler speaks correctly, but he does not completely understand what he
speaks about. The sinner does choose to deny God and to live in his sin, but he
can make no other choice. He has a will, and he chooses of his own accord,
uncoerced by anything outside himself. In this sense, he is free, but he is not
free to make any positive, righteous choice. He is not free to believe in God.
In his Systematic Theology, Geisler continues
Even after Adam sinned and became spiritually “dead” (Genesis 2.17; cf. Ephesians 2.1) and thus, a sinner because of “[his] sinful nature” (Ephesians 2.3), he was not so completely depraved that it was impossible for him to hear the voice of God or make a free response: “The Lord God called to the man, ‘Where are you?’ He answered, ‘I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid’” (Genesis 3.9-10). As already noted, God’s image in Adam was effaced but not erased by the fall; it was corrupted (damaged) but not eliminated (annihilated).[7]
Adam made a free choice, but the Calvinist doctrine of
depravity never denies the freedom of natural man to respond negatively to God.
The natural man can freely disobey God. In this same passage, we read that even
after God confronts him, Adam refuses to submit to God and blames him for his
own failure: “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree,
and I ate” (Genesis 3.12). Man has complete freedom to defy God, but he is not
free to trust in God nor to obey him.
Scripture barely speaks of “the image of God,” and it hardly defines it rigorously enough for us to make any claims on its ability to strengthen the will to trust in God in spite of the inherent corruption of sin. Theologians rely largely on philosophical assumptions that “made in the image of God” denotes such characteristics as reason, morality, emotion, and volition. We may say that the image of God distinguishes us from the animals, but that hardly gives us any detail to establish any kind of “free will” doctrine. If anything, this image distinguishes us from the animals by enabling us to relate to God, but this is precisely what died when Adam sinned—our connection to God. Gentry and Wellum explain the most common traditional interpretation:
The divine image refers to the mental and spiritual qualities that man shares with his Creator. The fact that commentators cannot agree in identifying these qualities makes this approach suspect...The majority of Christians [believe this view.] … This interpretation did not originate with the Christian church but can be traced back to Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher living in the time 30 B.C. to A.D. 45. The traditional view does not rest on a grammatical and historical interpretation of the text; instead, it is based on theological conclusions. It does not account for the fact that “image” normally refers to a physical statue and therefore cannot be exegetically validated as the author’s intended meaning of the first audience’s natural understanding of the text in terms of the ancient Near Eastern cultural and linguistic setting.[8]
Animals reason[9], so
does this mean they are created in God’s image? If a person becomes mentally
disabled and can no longer reason, is he no longer made in God’s image? Animals
care for each other, showing some level of morality and emotion. Obviously they
make choices. In what way are we different from animals? This “image” precisely
distinguishes us from the beasts, but what exactly is it?
Gentry and Wellum believe that by “the image of God,”
scripture describes a representative relationship with God.
The term “image of god” in the culture and language of the ancient Near East in the fifteenth century B.C. would have communicated two main ideas: (1) rulership and (2) sonship. The king is the image of god because he has a relationship to the deity as the son of god and a relationship to the world as ruler for the god… The divine image indicates man’s relationship and spiritual fellowship with God.[10]
We represent God on earth, and in this representation we
enjoy a relationship to him. At least we did, until Adam abandoned this
relationship to assert his independence from God. If the image of God denotes a
relationship to God, then apart from Christ’s redemption, only Christ retains
the image of God. Indeed, after Adam’s sin, we read that Adam’s first son was
born “according to [Adam’s] image” (Genesis 5.3), and no longer in God’s image.
We also read that God forbids murder because man was created in God’s image
(Genesis 9.6), but this refers to the value that God places on us, not any
inherent righteous ability, long destroyed by Adam’s sin. Paul tells us that
Christ bears God’s image (2 Corinthians 4.4; Colossians 1.15), and that we
possess this image as God creates it in us (Colossians 3.10). If we can connect
any kind of righteousness to this image, we can do so only before the fall, and
after redemption. Adam bore God’s image before he sinned, and he remained
righteous in relationship to God until he sinned. As Christ bears God’s image,
we do only as we are in relationship to God, in Christ. There is nothing in
scripture that connects any kind of faith to the marred image of God in the
sinner. Regarding Paul’s mention of God’s image, Gentry and Wellum add, “Paul
mentions holiness, knowledge, and righteousness, not because one can identify
ethical or mental or spiritual qualities as elements
of the divine image, but because these terms are covenantal and describe a
covenant relationship.”[11]
Scripture does not supports Geisler’s assumption that we are sufficiently free
from sin to choose to believe in God, much the opposite.
[1]
Geisler, 20.
[2] Ibid,
31.
[3] Ibid,
34.
[4] Ibid,
41.
[5] Ibid,
45.
[6] Ibid,
45.
[7]
Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, (Bloomington: Bethany House, 2011),
page 773.
[8] Peter
J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, God’s
Kingdom through God’s Covenants: A Concise Biblical Theology, (Wheaton:
Crossway Books, 2015), page 71-72, 86.
[9]
Ashley Capps, “Responding to the Claim That Animals Can’t Reason, Don’t Deserve
Same Consideration,” Free from Harm. Retrieved from https://freefromharm.org/common-justifications-for-eating-animals/animals-cant-reason-dont-deserve-treatment/,
December 29, 2014. Also compare “10 Animals that Use Tools”, Charles Q. Choi,
December 14, 2009. https://www.livescience.com/9761-10-animals-tools.html
[10]
Gentry and Wellum, 77.
[11]
Ibid, 86.
No comments:
Post a Comment