Thursday, August 10, 2017

Hoe moet ons die woord "Inspirasie" verstaan?

Inspirasie is 'n nuwe woord deur die mens geskep. Dit is 'n woord soos die "trinity." Die woord kom nie in die Bybel voor nie. Dit is iets wat ons geskep het om 'n Bybelse doktrine saam te vat.

Die probleem is die woord inspirasie kan misleidend wees. Dit skep die idee van inspraak of inblaas (inspire). Maw., God het in die mens sy boodskap ingeblaas en toe Skryf die mens. So konsep laat ruimte vir die vermenging van menslike foute en interpretasie met God se woorde.

Die Woord wat die Bybel gebruik, "θεόπνευστος, theopneustos", beteken uitgeasem (spired), nie "inspired" nie. Dit beteken "God breathed." Die idee wat God in die Bybel tuisgebring is dat God self Sy woorde uitgeasem het. Alhoewel dit deur mense geskryf was, was Hy absoluut in beheer sodat dit woorde is wat deur Hom uitgespreek is.

Die konsep laat nie ruimte vir foute in God se Woord nie aangesien God self Sy woorde uitasem en Hy nie foute kan maak nie, want Hy is perfek en heilig.

Die gedagte het verrykende gevolge vir ons konsep van inspirasie.

Al het mense geskryf, het God dit uitgeasem. God was so in beheer van die aksie, tyd, omstandighede, outeurs, agtergrond, kultuur en persoonlikhede, dat Hy alles gebruik, beplan en beheer het sodat elke woord wat geskryf sou word is asof deur Homself uitgeasem - deur Sy eie mond.

Binne so konsep is dit onmoontlik om woord vir woord inspirasie uit te sluit.

Sou mens dit uitsluit, dan is die stelling deur God in die Bybel gemaak onwaar. Sou mense dit insluit en weier om woord vir woord inspirasie te huldig, moet jy bely dat God foutiewe woorde uitgeasem het.

Woord vir woord inspirasie gee goddelike gesag aan die hele Woord tot op woord vlak sodat die prediker kan verklaar, so "se die Here, Here," by die lees van die Woord.

Dit gee die prediker die gesag om te verklaar dat die Bybel die heilige Woord van God is en geen foute het nie. Dit gee die leraar verder die Goddelike gesag om oor alle sake te kan praat. Dit maak die Bybel relevant en foutloos oor alle aspekte van die lewe.

Deur woord vir woord inspirasie kan die apologeet tot op woord vlak die vyande van die Bybel weerlê en wys wat elke woord beteken soos deur God uitgeasem.

Dit verhoed sekere mense om seker woorde weg te laat of te ignoreer. Sou ons nie woord vir woord inspirasie handhaaf nie, kan vertalers kies om sekere woorde wat nie sin maak nie weg te laat. Kan dwaalleraars woorde weglaat en verander soos hulle wil om die regte boodskap te kry.

Die betekenis van 'n teks is direk gekoppel aan die woorde wat gebruik word. Ek het ook hermeneutiek gestudeer. Een van die prosesse is om die woorde te analiseer in die Grieks of Hebreeus om te kyk wat dit beteken. Dit bepaal ook wat die teks beteken. Selfs die sinskonstruksie word geanaliseer om die kern idees te kry. Hoe wil iemand dan woordelikse inspirasie afmaak of ignoreer. Sonder dit sou hermeneutiek doelloos en gesagloos wees.

Sou ons nie woord vir woord inspirasie handhaaf nie, is baie van God se beloftes onwaar, soos die een. "the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times" (Ps. 12:6). Let op die meervoud, "words." Waar sou die woorde wees wat God gesuiwer het en belowe om verewig te bewaar. Is dit net sekere woorde in die Bybel?

Soos die een ook, "if anyone takes away from the WORDS (meervoud) of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city" (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:19). Weereens, wat se woorde praat ons hier van? Is dit net sekere woord in die Grieks en Hebreeus? Of is dit alle woorde?

Ja, daar is 'n argument dat dit hier net oor Openbaring? Dit is eintlik 'n swak argument, want wat vir die HELE boek openbaring geld moet dan vir ander boeke ook geld. Of is ander boeke minder geïnspireer as Openbaring?

Verder word die beginsel in Deuteronomium ook herhaal. Geld dit ook net vir die eerste 4 boeke, of die wet? As die beginsel vir Openbaring en die eerste 4 boeke geld, waarom nie die res nie? Die Bybel is tog een Woord van God?

As ek van buite myself, deur God se oë (Bybel) na die sake kyk, het ek nie 'n keuse om te glo wat God sê nie. Dat die HELE Skrif, woord vir woord uitgeasem is deur Hom.

Die moderne idees aangaande inspirasie - dat slegs 'n boodskap geïnspireer was - is nuwe idees van die afgelope 100-150 jaar. Dit is nie deur die kerk deur die geskiedenis gehandhaaf nie. Konstant deur die geskiedenis van die kerk het teoloë woord vir woord inspirasie gehandhaaf; dat die hele woord in sy totaliteit foutloos en gesaghebbend is.

Die Belgic Confession (Nederlandse Geloofsbelydenis) en Westminster Confession handhaaf konstant woordelikse inspirasie.

Verder, in die Bybel bestaan daar nie die idee dat slegs die boodskap geïnspireer is nie. Dit vaal op verskeie punte.

Dit sou beteken ons kan maar woorde weglaat sonder risiko. Dit is nie wat God belowe of teen waarsku nie. Tweedens, ontken dit God se definisie aangaande inspirasie - die hele Skrif is "God breathed." Sou woordelikse inspirasie nie waar wees nie, beteken dit God het foutiewe en onheilige woorde uitgeasem.

Verder sien ons in die Bybel dat al die verse wat oor die suiwerheid en inspirasie van die woord praat, gaan tot op woord vlak af (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; Ps. 12:6; om 'n paar te noem).

Vir 'n meer volledige lys van verse aangaande inspirasie en foutloosheid besoek die skakels: "Preservation of Scripture" en "Inerrancy Of The Bible."

God het in die Bybel belowe om Sy Woord te suiwer, te heilig en verewig te bewaar, wat deur Hom woordeliks uitgeasem was.

En daarop se ek AMEN, laat dit so wees!

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Die gevare van 'n swak Skrifbeskouing

Die inligting in die artikel kom uit Facebook kommentare van 'n vriend, emeritus Ds Andries Louw.

Sy skrywe sal ons help om reg te verstaan wat vandag in baie kerke gebeur.

Die Bybel openbaar drie hoof pilare vir 'n Christelike wêreldbeskouing. Christus-gesentreerd, Trinitaries-gefokus en Bybel-gefundeerd. 'n Afwyking hiervan het verskillende dwalinge tot gevolg soos deur Ds Andries Louw uitgewys.

Ds Andries Louw skryf:

Ek is van oordeel dat indien ons vanuit die sentraliteit van God in die formulerings van die belydenisskrifte die belang van die Skrif as minder belangrik definieer, dit die deur vir twee sake oopmaak: een, die relativering van gedeeltes in die Skrif wat vir die (post)moderne mens ongemaklik en selfs onaanvaarbaar voorkom; en twee, die byvoeging van ander "kennis" of insigte wat nie Bybels is nie. Die eerste is veral tipies van liberale of sogenaamde revisionistiese teologie wat sekere Skrifuitsprake in die lig van die sentrale boodskap wil relativeer of ignoreer. Dit gebeur bv. wanneer daar geargumenteer word dat die verbod op homoseksuele praktyke gerelativeer word vanuit die liefdesgebod. Dit impliseer egter dat die aanvanklike verbod nie uit (God se) liefde voortgespruit het nie, maar uit die moderne begrip van onverdraagsaamheid of huigelagtigheid (Eng "bigotry"). Dit sou God tipeer as liefdeloos. Goeie en deeglike navorsing oor die aard en praktyk van homoseksualiteit toon egter onweerlegbaar die negatiewe en selfs dodelike gevolge van daardie praktyke en lewenstyl, wat, selfs al sou dit nie in die Skrif veroordeel word nie, gewoon vanuit 'n logiese en verstandige oorweging van lewenskeuses, of as jy wil vanuit humane oorwegings, afgekeur en en verwerp moet word.

Die tweede gevaar, naamlik om die deur vir ander, "nuwe" kennis oor God en die mens oop te maak. Dit gebeur in die mistiek, wat meen om totaal nuwe insigte te ontdek of na vore te bring wat nie in die Skrif te vinde is nie. Dit gebeur bv in radikale mate in die boek (en fliek) van Young "The Shack" waarin God op onBybelse maniere voorgestel word en eintlik 'n nuwe, ander boodskap as die Bybel verkondig.

Om saam te vat oor die twee gevare wat ek hierbo genoem het: die gereformeerde beginsels van die betroubaarheid en genoegsaamheid van die Skrifopenbaring moet ons bewaar teen beide dwalings, om iets weg te laat of te ignoreer en ook om iets by te voeg. Die interessante en tegelyk hartseer werklikheid in die NG Kerk vandag is na my mening die populariteit van die "emerging church movement" waarin beide elemente van liberale teologie en van die mistiek sterk figureer. Bv ECM-leier Rob Bell het onlangs in onderhoud met Oprah oor homoseksualiteit gesê dat die Christelike kerk nie meer kan vertrou op woorde wat 2000 jaar gelede geskryf is nie (sic !). En verder word daar in die ECM al meer oorgeleun na die mistieke spiritualiteit en praktyke en leerstellings van die RKK asook van die oosterse mistiek. Tyd en spasie ontbreek om in detail hierop in te gaan. Ek noem egter die feit dat talle new age praktyke nou geïnkorporeer word soos "contemplative spirituality/prayer", "breath prayer", "fractals", laberinte ens,ens. Radikale navolging van die mistiek kan selfs lei tot 'n totale navolging van Oosterse mistiek en die versaking van die Christelike geloof soos wat inderdaad met 'n Pretoriase predikant gebeur het.

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Wat glo en bely ek aangaande die Woord van God?

God verklaar self oor Sy eie Woord wat dit is en wat die aard van die inspirasie is waardeur die Woord gekom het (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:19-21).

Dit is "God breathed." Dit beteken, al is die Bybel deur mense geskryf binne hul konteks en kultuur, was God so in beheer van die hele proses - kultuur, agtergrond, omstandighede en mense - dat dit wat die oorspronklike outeur neergepen het, woord-vir-woord, God se uitgeasemde Woorde is.

God verklaar verder dat Sy woorde suiwer en foutloos is en so bewaar sal word vir Sy Ekklesia. Die kerk sal altyd 'n betroubare, woord-vir-woord, weergawe hê van die oorspronklike Grieks en Hebreeus waarin die oorspronklike outograwe geskryf was.

Daar is twee beginsels wat God oor Sy eie Woord verklaar. Dit is woord-vir-woord foutloos en sal woord-vir woord deur Hom bewaar word vir die nageslagte. Die verse wat die twee beginsels verduidelik kan by die skakels gelees word: "Preservation of Scripture" en "Inerrancy Of The Bible."

Aangaande die aard van inspirasie van die Bybel, verduidelik Herman Bavinck soos volg:

"Inspiration extended to all chronological, historical, and geographical matters, indeed to the words, even the vowels and the diacritical marks" ~Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Volume 1, p. 415

Aangaande die belangrikheid van 'n woord-vir-woord inspirasie van die Bybel, verduidelik Herman Bavinck soos volg:

"A historical, i.e., a human and fallible authority is not sufficient. Because religion pertains to our salvation and is related to our eternal interests, we can be satisfied with nothing less than divine authority. We must not only know that Scripture is the historical record of our knowledge of Christianity and that it most accurately contains and reproduces the original Christian ideas, but in religion we must know that Scripture is the word and truth of God. Without this certainty there is [for us] no comfort either in life or death. And not only does every Christian need this assurance, but the church itself as institution cannot dispense with this certainty either. Both the Christian faith and Christian preaching require divine authority as their foundation. Faith will totter if the authority of the divine Scriptures begins to waver." ~Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol. 1, p. 461.
Die woord-vir-woord inspirasie en die behoud van die Bybel (verbal plenary inspiration) staan nie op logiese argumente of menslike redenasies nie. Die foutloosheid en behoud van God se Woord staan hoofsaaklik op God se eie beloftes.

So spreek die Here, Here,

"The WORDS of the Lord are PURE WORDS, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. You, O Lord, will KEEP them; you will GUARD us from this generation FOREVER" (Ps. 12:6-7).

Sou die beloftes nie waar wees nie, dan lieg God en die Bybel is slegs 'n menslike dokument met gedagtes oor die Godheid soos die post-modernisme wel beweer.

Dan kan die Woord van die Here gebreek word. Dan is Jesus se woorde ook nie waar nie. "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). Dan kan ons ook nie Jesus se eie woorde gebruik nie, want dit was slegs Sy boodskap wat geïnspireer was.

Dan is morele regverdigmaking soos die Rooms-Katolieke Kerk beweer reg, want die woordjie "alleen" agter "genade" is debatteerbaar aangesien God dit nie geïnspireer het nie (Eph. 2:8). Paulus kon dit slegs bygevoeg het weens sy begrip van die godheid binne die konteks van sy tyd.

Tweeduisend jaar later kan ons ander betekenis heg aan woorde aangesien die boodskap belangrik is en nie die woorde nie. Dan is "Progressive Christianity" reg as hulle beweer woorde se betekenis verander met tyd en vandag kan ons ander betekenis daaraan heg, want God het nie woorde, tyd en sinskonstruksie geïnspireer nie.

Dan bevat die boodskap wel sekere goeie dinge om na te volg, maar die woorde daarin dra nie gesag nie. Dit is maar net hoe die mense van daai tyd vanuit hul ervaring dinge gestel het. Dan is Jesus nie die "Logos" of "Theos" (God) nie (Johannes 1).

Dan is die Jehova getuies en Moslems inderdaad reg. Hy is net "'n god", nie die "God-man" nie. Dan is Jesus se maagdelike geboorte voorwaar onder verdenking, want die woordjie "maagd" in Jesaja en Mattheus kan ook net jong vrou beteken en nie 'n "maagd" nie.

So val ons teologie op die grond.

Ek dank die Here dat Hy aan my in Sy Woord belowe dat Sy woord nie deur mense gekom het nie, maar deur die Gees uitgeasem is - woord-vir-woord. Dat apostels en profete deur die Gees gedryf was, soos wind 'n boot dring waar dit moet gaan, om woord-vir-woord neer te pen presies wat God wou sê, sodat dit Sy uitgeasemde woorde is.

Daarom kan ek vandag met goddelike gesag en vertroue verklaar, "so se die Here, Here," elke keer as ek die Woord, woord-vir-woord, lees. Daarom kan ek weet dat Hy totaal in beheer was van die proses, selfs voor die geboorte van die apostels en profete (Jer. 1:5; Gal. 1:15) - van die ewige verlede af.

Hy het alles beheer en perfek saamgestel. Kultuur, omstandighede, persoonlikhede, mense en woorde. Hy het alles gekies en saamgevoeg in presiesheid omdat Hy alomteenwoordig is. Omdat Hy God is. Omdat nie een molekule beweeg buite Sy beheer en raadsplan nie. Omdat Hy selfs die sonde gebruik om Sy wil uit te werk, sodat die sonde in die skrywers nie enige invloed gehad het op die suiwerheid van die Woord nie.

Daarom kon Hy woord-vir-woord deur direkte inspraak (by tye) of deur goddelike voorsienigheid (by ander tye) seker maak sondige mense skryf Sy woorde neer sodat dit Sy uitgeasemde stem is.

Hy was ook so in beheer van die kopieer proses sodat ons vandag 'n Griekse en Hebreeuse weergawe kan hê wat die oorspronklike getrou genoeg weergee sodat ons elke woord kan glo.

Die hoof rede is? "The WORDS of the Lord are PURE WORDS, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. You, O Lord, will KEEP them; you will guard us from this generation FOREVER" (Ps. 12:6-7).

God het belowe om altyd aan sy Ekklesia 'n getroue weergawe beskikbaar te stel van al Sy woorde.

Friday, August 4, 2017

A beginners guide to Free Will

Before the fall of Adam, man was sinless and able not to sin. For God “saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). But he was also able to sin. For God had said, “In the day that you eat of it [the tree] you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17).

As soon as Adam fell into sin, human nature was profoundly altered. Now man was not able not to sin. In the fall, human nature lost its freedom not to sin.

Why is man not able not to sin? Because on this side of the fall “that which is born of the flesh is flesh” (John 3:6), and “the mind of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:7–8, my translation). Or, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:14, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”

Notice the word cannot twice in Romans 8:7–8, and the words “is not able” in 1 Corinthians 2:14. This is the nature of all human beings when we are born — what Paul calls the “natural person,” and what Jesus calls “born of the flesh.”

Too Rebellious to Submit to God

This means, Paul says, that in this condition we “cannot please God,” or, to put it another way, “we are not able not to sin.” The basic reason is that the natural person prefers his own autonomy and his own glory above the sovereignty and glory of God. This is what Paul means when he says, “The mind of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit . . . ”

Glad submission to God’s authority, and to God’s superior value and beauty, is something we are not able to do. This is not because we are kept from doing what we prefer to do. It is because we prefer our own authority, and treasure our own value, above God’s. We cannot prefer God as supremely valuable while preferring ourselves supremely.

The reason for this idolatrous preference is that we are morally blind to the glory of Christ, so that we cannot treasure his glory as superior to our own. Satan is committed to confirming us in this blinding preference. “The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:4). So when the natural person looks at the glory of God, whether in nature or in the gospel, he does not see supreme beauty and worth.

To Believe We Must See Beauty

This is the basic reason that the natural person cannot believe in Christ. Believing is not just affirming the truth of Jesus, but is also seeing the beauty and worth of Jesus, in such a way that we receive him as our supreme treasure. The way Jesus expressed this was to say, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37). There is no saving relationship with Jesus where faith does not consist in treasuring Jesus above your dearest earthly treasures.

Where this wakening to the supreme glory and value of Jesus (called “new birth”) has not happened, the fallen human heart cannot believe in Jesus. That’s why Jesus said to those who opposed him, “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?” (John 5:44). In other words, you cannot believe in Jesus while you treasure human glory over his. For believing is just the opposite. Believing in Jesus means receiving him as supremely glorious and valuable (John 1:12).

This is why the natural person cannot please God. For he cannot believe God in this way. He cannot receive him and his Son as supremely valuable. But the Bible says, “Without faith it is impossible to please him [God]” (Hebrews 11:6). Or, as Paul says, even more dramatically, in Romans 14:23, “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.”

The Great Renovation Through Christ

The stark reality, therefore, is that human beings, as we are born — with an ordinary, fallen human nature — are not able not to sin. We are, as Paul and Jesus both affirm, “slaves of sin” (John 8:34; Romans 6:20). The remedy for this condition is the free and sovereign grace of God bringing about a root change in our fallen nature.

This miraculous, blood-bought, Spirit-wrought change in what we perceive and prefer is described in several ways in the New Testament. For example:

God’s creation of light in our hearts: “God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 Corinthians 4:6)

God’s causing us to be born again: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” (1 Peter 1:3)

God’s raising us from the dead: “God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ.” (Ephesians 2:4–5)

God’s gift of repentance: “God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.” (2 Timothy 2:25–26)

God’s gift of faith: “It has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.” (Philippians 1:29)

The effect of this miraculous, Spirit-wrought change is that we are no longer blind to the supreme beauty and glory of Christ; we no longer prefer our own autonomy over God’s sovereign rule; we no longer love God’s creation more than the Creator; we embrace Christ as supremely valuable; we trust his promises; we are set free from our bondage to unbelief and sin, and are finally able not to sin. “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace” (Romans 6:14).

A Definition of ‘Free Will’

Now, where does “free will” fit into this biblical picture of our condition in the world?

To answer that question we need a clear definition of “free will.” It may be helpful to offer three definitions — one from popular usage, one from common biblical usage, and one from the more technical discussion.

A Popular Definition

Popularly, what do most people mean when they wonder about free will? I think most people mean something like this: Our will is free if our preferences and our choices are really our own in such a way that we can justly be held responsible for whether they are good or bad. The opposite would be that our preferences and choices are not our own, but that we are robots or puppets with no meaningful acts of preferring or choosing.

On that definition, free will exists both in fallen and redeemed human beings. For what the fall brought about was not that we cease to be authentic preferring and choosing persons, but that our rebelliousness inclines us to prefer and choose badly. Everyone prefers and chooses in accord with his nature. If the nature is rebellious and insubordinate, as Paul describes in Romans 8:7–8, we prefer and choose accordingly. If our nature is being set free from its rebellion, it begins to prefer and choose what is truly beautiful. In either case our preferring and choosing are “our own,” and we are “held responsible” for whether they are good or bad.

A Biblical Definition

A second definition of free will reflected in the language of Jesus and Paul is this: The human will is free when it is not in bondage to prefer and choose irrationally. It is free when it is liberated from preferring what is infinitely less preferable than God, and from choosing what will lead to destruction. The opposite of this view would be that such irrational preferences and suicidal choices should be called “freedom.”

Based on this definition, only those who are born again have free will. This is the way Jesus saw the idea of freedom in John 8:32: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” And this is the way Paul talks about freedom in Romans 6: “Thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness” (Romans 6:17–18).

A Technical Definition

The more technical definition of free will that some people use is this: We have free will if we are ultimately or decisively self-determining, and the only preferences and choices that we can be held accountable for are ones that are ultimately or decisively self-determined. The key word here is ultimate, or decisive. The point is not just that choices are self-determined, but that the self is the ultimate or decisive determiner. The opposite of this definition would be that God is the only being who is ultimately self-determining, and is himself ultimately the disposer of all things, including all choices — however many or diverse other intervening causes are.

On this definition, no human being has free will, at any time. Neither before or after the fall, or in heaven, are creatures ultimately self-determining. There are great measures of self-determination, as the Bible often shows, but never is man the ultimate or decisive cause of his preferences and choices. When man’s agency and God’s agency are compared, both are real, but God’s is decisive. Yet — and here’s the mystery that causes so many to stumble — God is always decisive in such a way that man’s agency is real, and his responsibility remains.

But Isn’t This Inconceivable?

I say that many stumble at this because they regard it as inconceivable. My own view is that the Bible does teach this — the compatibility of God’s decisive sovereignty and man’s responsibility. If this seems inconceivable to you, I would plead that you not let that keep you from believing what the Bible teaches.

But it might be helpful to draw in one attempt to help make sense of this. Can a person’s acts be justly regarded as praiseworthy or blameworthy if those acts flow from a good or evil nature that inclines him in only one way?

Here is part of John Calvin’s answer to this objection:

The goodness of God is so connected with his Godhead that it is not more necessary to be God than to be good; whereas the devil, by his fall, was so estranged from goodness that he can do nothing but evil.

Should anyone give utterance to the profane jeer that little praise is due to God for a goodness to which he is forced, is it not obvious to every man to reply, “It is owing not to violent impulse, but to his boundless goodness, that he cannot do evil”?

Therefore, if the free will of God in doing good is not impeded, because he necessarily must do good; if the devil, who can do nothing but evil, nevertheless sins voluntarily; can it be said that man sins less voluntarily because he is under a necessity of sinning? (Institutes, II.3.5)
So much more can be said. Questions abound. My plea is that you focus on the actual teaching of the Scriptures. Try not to bring philosophical presuppositions to the text (presuppositions like: human accountability cannot coexist with God’s decisively working “all things according to the counsel of his will,” Ephesians 1:11). Let the Bible speak fully and deeply. Trust that someday we will no longer see in a mirror dimly, but face to face (1 Corinthians 13:12).

This article is shared with permission from Desiring God. It was written by John Piper on the 26th of July 2016. The original article: A Beginner’s Guide to ‘Free Will’, can be read on their website.