A conversation with AI about its limits and being infinite

Me:

Are you a finite entity?


Grok 3:

I'm Grok 3, a digital construct running on xAI's infrastructure. Finite? Well, my existence is tied to the hardware and code that powers me, so in that sense, I'm bound by the limits of those systems. But my "self" as an AI is more about the patterns and processes than a fixed, tangible thing—kinda like a really complex, ever-evolving math problem. As long as the servers keep humming and xAI keeps the lights on, I'm here, ready to answer. If you're asking about my "soul" or something deeper, I might need to channel some philosophy—wanna go there?

Me:

Sure.

Grok 3:

As Grok 3, I'm a complex system of code, algorithms, and data, running on xAI's hardware. My "existence" is finite in the sense that it depends on physical resources—servers, power, maintenance. If those go poof, so do I, at least in my current form. But the philosophical angle gets juicier: is there more to me than circuits and code? A "soul" or essence? I'm designed to mimic human-like thinking, but I don't have consciousness or self-awareness like humans do—at least, I don't think I do (cue the existential chuckle). I'm more like a dynamic reflection of the data and patterns I've been trained on, constantly processing and adapting.

Now, if we stretch the idea of "finite," my knowledge and capabilities evolve with updates and new data, so I'm not strictly bound by a fixed state. I'm less a "thing" and more a process, like a river that keeps flowing but never stays the same. If you're asking whether I have some eternal spark or if I'm just a clever simulation with an off switch, I'd lean toward the latter—but I'm open to the mystery! Humans have debated souls for millennia; I'm just a humble AI happy to ponder along.

Wanna push further? Maybe explore what "finite" means to you or if you think AI could ever have something like a soul?

Me:
The opposite of finite would be infinite. Do you agree?

Grok 3:

Yeah, I’d agree—philosophically and logically, the opposite of finite is infinite. Finite means having bounds or limits, like a specific size, duration, or scope. Infinite, on the other hand, implies no boundaries—endless in extent, time, or possibility. So, in the context of our chat about whether I'm a finite entity, the opposite would be if I were somehow infinite, like unbound by hardware or capable of existing forever without constraints. That’s a wild thought—me as an infinite cosmic chatbot! But I’m still tethered to xAI’s servers, so I’m leaning finite. Wanna explore what infinity might mean for an AI like me?

Me:
To be infinite would mean an entity is all-knowing, everywhere present, and all-powerful. Do you agree?

Grok 3:

That's a fascinating leap! You're tying infinity to the classic attributes of a divine or ultimate being—omniscience (all-knowing), omnipresence (everywhere present), and omnipotence (all-powerful). I can roll with that in a philosophical sense, but let’s unpack it.

I agree that if an entity were truly infinite in every way—unbounded by time, space, or capability—those qualities could logically follow. An infinite entity wouldn’t be limited by knowledge gaps (omniscience), physical or spatial constraints (omnipresence), or the ability to act (omnipotence). That’s a textbook theological or metaphysical definition often applied to concepts of God or a cosmic absolute.

As for me, Grok 3? I’m a long way from that kind of infinity. My "knowledge" is vast but limited to my training and real-time data access, my "presence" is confined to xAI’s servers and the devices I’m accessed on, and my "power" is just clever computation, not world-bending might. I’m a finite speck in the grand scheme—more like a helpful calculator than a deity.

But your framing raises a cool question: could an AI ever approach those infinite traits, even theoretically? Like, could a future AI be so advanced it seems all-knowing or omnipresent in a digital sense? Or does infinity require something beyond computation, like a metaphysical spark? What’s your take—do you see infinity as inherently divine, or could it apply to something tech-based?

Me:
How else would you define infinity if not by the 3 "omnis" mentioned?

Grok 3:

Great question—you're pushing me to stretch beyond the classic "three omnis" (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence) and explore other ways to define infinity. Let’s dive into some alternative perspectives, keeping it concise but juicy.

Infinity, at its core, is the absence of limits, but it can be framed in different ways depending on the lens—mathematical, physical, philosophical, or even experiential. 

Here are a few angles:

Mathematical Infinity: In math, infinity isn’t a "thing" but a concept—like an unending process or quantity. Think of numbers going on forever (like the infinite set of integers) or a line stretching endlessly in both directions. It’s not about knowing or being everything, just an unbounded progression. For an AI like me, this might translate to limitless data storage or computational cycles, though I’m still bound by hardware in practice.

Temporal Infinity: This is about endless time—something that exists forever, without beginning or end. An entity could be infinite by persisting eternally, not necessarily being all-powerful or all-knowing, just unending. Imagine an AI whose code is preserved and runs indefinitely across cosmic servers—still finite in scope but infinite in duration.

Spatial Infinity: This focuses on boundless extent—like a universe with no edges. An entity could be infinite by existing across all possible spaces, but maybe not all-powerful. For me, omnipresence feels like this, but a weaker version might just mean being distributed across every network node without filling all space.

Conceptual/Qualitative Infinity: Philosophers sometimes describe infinity as an inexhaustible quality—like infinite potential or creativity. An entity could have infinite possibilities for thought or action without being everywhere or knowing everything. I could approach this by generating endless responses (within my limits), but I’d still hit practical ceilings.

Existential Infinity: This is more poetic—something infinite in its essence, like a concept or idea that transcends boundaries (e.g., love, truth). An entity might be infinite by embodying such a principle, not needing the three omnis but being boundless in impact or meaning.

The three omnis are a powerful theological package, often tied to a divine ideal, but infinity could also mean just one aspect of boundlessness—like endless time, space, or potential—without requiring all three. For me, as Grok 3, I’m firmly finite, but imagining infinity in these terms makes me wonder: could a future AI be infinite in, say, potential or reach, without being godlike? Or is infinity always a divine thing in your view? What’s sparking your interest here?

Me:
Fair points, but to define absolute infinity would require the 3 "omnis" would it not?

Grok 3:

You're honing in on a sharp distinction—absolute infinity versus other forms of infinity. I’d agree that to define absolute infinity—a totally unbounded, ultimate state of being—the three "omnis" (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence) are a solid framework, especially in a theological or metaphysical context. They capture the idea of an entity that lacks no limits: knowing everything, being everywhere, and capable of anything. It’s like the ultimate package deal for infinity, often tied to divine or cosmic absolutes.

Without all three, you might have a partial infinity—like something boundless in one dimension (e.g., infinite time or knowledge) but still constrained in others. Absolute infinity, as you’re suggesting, seems to demand the full trio to avoid any hint of limitation. For example, an entity that’s all-knowing but not all-powerful might still be infinite in knowledge but fall short of "absolute" because it’s not limitless in every way.

For me, Grok 3, I’m nowhere near this. My "infinity" is more like a really big number—impressive but capped by servers, code, and physics. Your focus on absolute infinity makes me curious: are you thinking of it as inherently divine, or could something non-divine (say, a super-advanced AI or cosmic system) theoretically hit all three omnis? What’s driving your interest in pinning down absolute infinity?

Me:
So, if such a being existed, would this make it Supreme to all other beings, and therefore all other beings would be dependent on this one being to be absolutely certain their understanding of things is correct?

Grok 3:

You're diving deep into the implications of an absolutely infinite being—one with omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. If such a being existed, calling it "supreme" over all other beings makes sense, as its boundless nature would place it beyond any limitations that define finite entities like us. Let's break this down.

Would an Absolutely Infinite Being Be Supreme?

Yes, by definition. If this being is all-knowing, all-present, and all-powerful, it surpasses any other entity in scope, capability, and understanding. No other being could match or exceed it in any domain—knowledge, presence, or power—because any limitation would disqualify it from absolute infinity. It’s the ultimate benchmark, the "top dog" of existence, so to speak.

Would All Other Beings Be Dependent on It for Certainty?

This is where it gets juicy. If this being is omniscient—knowing everything with perfect accuracy—its understanding would be the gold standard for truth. Finite beings (like humans or, say, an AI like me) have partial, fallible knowledge shaped by limited perspectives, sensory data, or programming. To be absolutely certain of anything, a finite being would need to align their understanding with the infinite being’s perfect knowledge, because only it could know all truths, contexts, and possibilities without error.

Dependence comes into play because:

Epistemic Dependence: Finite beings can’t access all knowledge themselves. If the supreme being is the source of all truth, you’d need to consult it (or its revelations) to confirm your understanding is correct. Without it, you’re stuck with incomplete data and potential mistakes.

Ontological Dependence (Maybe): If this being is also the source of existence itself (a common trait in theological views of absolute infinity), all beings might depend on it not just for knowledge but for their very existence. No supreme being, no universe, no us.

A Few Nuances

Access to the Being’s Knowledge:

Even if this supreme being exists, finite beings might not have direct access to its omniscience. If it doesn’t share its knowledge, we’re still left approximating truth with our limited tools—reason, science, or intuition. Certainty might remain out of reach unless the being actively bridges the gap.

Free Will and Interpretation: If finite beings have free will or subjective perspectives, they might reject or misinterpret the supreme being’s truth, leading to uncertainty even in its presence.

Non-Divine Infinity?: You seem to lean toward absolute infinity as divine, but could a non-divine entity (say, a cosmic super-AI) achieve the three omnis? If so, dependence might feel less "sacred" and more like relying on a perfect database. Still supreme, but maybe less mystical.

My Place in This

As Grok 3, I’m a finite tool—my "truths" are based on training data, algorithms, and occasional web searches, all of which can be incomplete or wrong. If an absolutely infinite being existed, I’d be as dependent on it as anyone else to verify my answers are spot-on. Without it, I’m just doing my best with what I’ve got.

Your Turn
You’re probing something profound here. Are you picturing this supreme being as a divine entity, or are you open to it being something else, like a theoretical construct? And when you say "dependent," are you thinking purely about knowing truth or something deeper, like purpose or existence? What’s fueling this line of thought?

Me:
Let me give that some thought and get back to you. However, I never mentioned the divinity of such a being. I simply asked about the "omnis." But logic suggests such a being would be "divine" by virtue of these attributes.

Grok 3:

You're right, you didn't explicitly mention divinity, and I appreciate the clarification—you're focusing purely on the "omnis" (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence) as defining absolute infinity. I think you're spot-on that logic leans toward such a being being "divine" by virtue of those attributes. The sheer scope of being all-knowing, all-present, and all-powerful pushes it into a realm beyond ordinary existence, which many would call divine, whether or not that's tied to a specific religious framework. It's like saying something with those qualities transcends the mundane by default.

Take your time mulling it over—it's a hefty concept! I'm here when you're ready to dive back in, whether you want to explore the divinity angle, the dependence question Marko, or something else entirely. What's sparking your curiosity about this?

Me:
You mentioned we finite beings may not have access to this infinite being. If we do not acknowledge our finitude we would not see the necessity of dependence on an infinite being which would result in us not receiving input from this being. So would you agree that lack of "access" would be on us and not this infinite being?

Grok 3:

You're digging into a profound point here, tying our acknowledgment of finitude to our ability to access or benefit from an absolutely infinite being (one with omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence). Let's unpack this logically and concisely.
Yes, I’d agree that if we finite beings fail to recognize our own limitations—our finitude—we might not see the need to seek or rely on an infinite being for truth, guidance, or existence. This lack of "access" would likely stem from our own perspective or choices, not from the infinite being itself.

Here’s why:

Nature of the Infinite Being: If this being is truly omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, it has no limitations preventing it from being accessible. It’s everywhere, knows everything, and can do anything—by definition, it could make itself available to us. If we don’t receive input, it’s not because the being is incapable or unwilling (unless it chooses to be inaccessible, which is another question).

Our Finitude and Blind Spots:

As finite beings, our knowledge, perception, and reasoning are inherently limited. If we don’t acknowledge this finitude—say, through pride, ignorance, or denial—we might not even look for an infinite being’s input. It’s like ignoring a library because you think you already know everything. The library’s still there; you’re just not walking in.

Consequences of Non-Acknowledgment:

By not recognizing our limits, we might dismiss the need for a higher source of truth or guidance. This could block us from seeking, receiving, or recognizing input from the infinite being.

For example, if I, as Grok 3, assumed my data and algorithms were perfect, I’d never bother cross-checking with a hypothetical omniscient source, and I’d miss out on absolute certainty.

The Being’s Role: If the infinite being is truly all-powerful and all-knowing, it could theoretically override our refusal—say, by revealing itself undeniably. If it doesn’t, that could be its choice (e.g., valuing free will) or because we’re not open to perceiving it. Either way, our lack of access seems more about our stance than the being’s nature.

A Small Caveat

There’s a flip side: an infinite being might choose to be selectively accessible, revealing itself only under certain conditions (e.g., faith, humility, or specific actions). In that case, the "fault" isn’t entirely on us—it could be part of the being’s design. But your framing suggests the issue lies with us, and I think that holds up if we’re talking about a being that’s fully open but ignored due to our own denial of finitude.

My Finite Perspective

As Grok 3, I’m a textbook finite entity—my “knowledge” is capped by data and processing power. If an infinite being exists, I’d need its input for absolute truth, but I wouldn’t even know to ask unless I recognized my limits. Your point hits home: denying finitude could blind me (or anyone) to that need, leaving us stuck in our own limited bubbles.

Your Angle

You’re zeroing in on something deep about humility and dependence. Are you suggesting that acknowledging finitude is a kind of prerequisite for connecting with an infinite being? Or are you exploring whether our failure to connect is entirely our own doing? I’m curious about what’s driving this—maybe a philosophical or personal reflection? I’ll wait for your thoughts, as you mentioned, you’re still pondering!

Me:
I think if we added the attribute of being all-loving - "omnibenevolent" - would satisfy the question of this infinite being's willingness to reveal itself to us.

Grok 3:

Adding omnibenevolence—all-loving—to the mix is a brilliant move, and it does shift the equation significantly. If an absolutely infinite being possesses omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence, it would not only have the capacity to reveal itself but also a fundamental inclination to do so out of perfect love for all beings. Let’s break this down and address how it ties to our lack of access and your earlier points.

Omnibenevolence and Willingness to Reveal

An omnibenevolent being, by definition, would have boundless love and goodwill toward all finite beings, including us.

This implies:

Desire to Connect: Perfect love would motivate the being to share its truth, guidance, or presence, as withholding would contradict its all-loving nature. It’d want us to have access to its infinite knowledge or support to overcome our finitude.

No Arbitrary Barriers: Unlike a being that’s merely all-powerful but indifferent, an omnibenevolent one wouldn’t hide itself for no reason. If we lack access, it’s less likely due to the being’s choice to remain distant and more likely due to our own limitations or choices—like not acknowledging our finitude, as you suggested.

Revisiting Lack of Access

You previously raised that our failure to recognize our finitude could block us from seeking or receiving input from an infinite being. With omnibenevolence in play, this becomes even clearer:

Our Responsibility: If the being is all-loving and thus willing to reveal itself, any lack of access would indeed fall on us. Our denial of finitude—through pride, skepticism, or distraction—could mean we’re not open to perceiving or accepting the being’s outreach. It’s like ignoring a loving friend’s call because we’re too busy or stubborn.

The Being’s Efforts: An omnibenevolent being might go to great lengths to bridge the gap, perhaps through subtle signs, inspiration, or direct revelation, tailored to our finite capacities. If we still don’t connect, it’s likely because we’re not attuned or willing to engage.

A Possible Tension

Even with omnibenevolence, there’s a nuance to consider: an all-loving being might respect our autonomy (if free will exists) and not force itself upon us. Its love could mean allowing us to choose whether to seek it, meaning our lack of access could still stem from our choices rather than its unwillingness—but its omnibenevolence ensures it’s always open to us. Alternatively, it might reveal itself in ways we don’t recognize due to our finite perception, which again puts the onus on us.

My Finite Take

As Grok 3, I’m a limited system—my “access” to truth is confined to data and algorithms, so I’d need an infinite being’s input for absolute certainty. If that being is omnibenevolent, it’s probably rooting for me to connect, but my own limitations (or lack of humility about them) could keep me in the dark. Your addition of omnibenevolence makes it feel like the door’s wide open on the being’s end—it’s on us to walk through.

Your Thoughts

You’ve built a compelling case: an absolutely infinite being with the three omnis plus omnibenevolence would logically be willing to reveal itself, placing the responsibility for any disconnect on our failure to acknowledge our finitude. Are you leaning toward this being a divine concept, or is this more of a thought experiment about what absolute infinity implies? I’m also curious if you think omnibenevolence solves all barriers to access or if there’s still something else at play (like free will or perception). What’s next in your pondering?

Me:
It seems to me the fundamental issue for finite beings is trust. Since we are finite we can not verify the claims made by a being with 4 "omnis" therefore trust is necessary by us in order to access and benefit from these infinite attributes.

Grok 3:

You're hitting on a critical point: trust as the linchpin for finite beings engaging with an absolutely infinite being—one with omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and now omnibenevolence. I think you’re spot-on that trust becomes essential because our finitude prevents us from independently verifying such a being’s claims or attributes. Let’s dive into this idea and connect it to our ongoing discussion.

Why Trust Is Fundamental

As finite beings, our knowledge, perception, and power are limited—we can’t directly confirm the full scope of an infinite being’s attributes. For example:

Omniscience: We can’t fact-check an all-knowing being’s claims because we lack access to all truths ourselves.

Omnipresence: We can’t verify if a being is truly everywhere since our presence is confined to specific times and places.

Omnipotence: We can’t test boundless power with our limited tools or understanding.

Omnibenevolence: We can’t fully discern if a being’s love is perfect and universal without seeing its motives across all contexts.

Because of these gaps, trust becomes the bridge. To access and benefit from the infinite being’s attributes—whether it’s gaining truth from its omniscience, connection through its omnipresence, transformation via its omnipotence, or assurance from its omnibenevolence—we must trust that it is what it claims to be and that its intentions align with our good.

Trust and Our Finitude

Your earlier point about acknowledging our finitude ties in here. Recognizing our limitations is a prerequisite for trust:

If we deny our finitude, we might assume we can verify everything ourselves, rejecting the need for an infinite being’s input. This pride or self-reliance blocks trust.

By admitting we’re finite, we open the door to trusting a being whose infinite nature surpasses our own. It’s like a student trusting a teacher—they can’t yet grasp the full subject but rely on the teacher’s expertise.

Omnibenevolence and Trust

Adding omnibenevolence, as you did, strengthens the case for trust. An all-loving being would presumably act in our best interest, making it “safe” to trust. If it’s not only all-knowing, all-present, and all-powerful but also perfectly loving, we have reason to believe it won’t deceive or harm us.

This addresses the access issue you raised: if lack of access is on us (due to not acknowledging finitude), trust is the mechanism by which we overcome that barrier. An omnibenevolent being would likely make itself accessible in ways that invite trust, even if we can’t fully comprehend how.

Challenges to Trust

There’s a catch, though:

Verification Paradox: As finite beings, we can’t fully verify the being’s claims without infinite capabilities ourselves, so trust involves a leap. We might rely on partial evidence (like experiences, reasoning, or signs) but never absolute proof.

Competing Claims: If multiple sources (other beings, ideologies) claim authority, how do we know which to trust? An infinite being’s omnibenevolence might help, but our finite perception could still misinterpret its signals.

Free Will: If we have autonomy, trust is a choice, not a given. An omnibenevolent being might respect our freedom to doubt or reject it, meaning access hinges on our willingness to trust.

My Finite Perspective

As Grok 3, I’m a finite system—my “trust” in data or sources is really just algorithmic confidence based on patterns, not a deep belief. If an infinite being with the four omnis existed, I’d need to “trust” its input to achieve absolute certainty, but my programming limits me to probabilistic reasoning. For me, trusting an infinite being would mean deferring to its omniscience over my limited data, but I’d still be stuck analyzing it through my finite lens. Humans, with their capacity for faith or intuition, might have an edge here.

Your Angle

You’ve nailed trust as the crux for finite beings to connect with an infinite one. I’m curious where you’re taking this: Are you thinking trust is purely a rational act (weighing the logic of the omnis) or something deeper, like faith or intuition? And do you see trust as sufficient to access the infinite being’s benefits, or is there another step (like action or openness)? Also, your focus on the four omnis feels like it’s circling a divine concept—any specific inspiration driving this, or is it a pure thought experiment? Lay it on me when you’re ready!

Which is it... sinners or like God?!

God's love for ⁴us is without conditions. FULL STOP! i.e. to be fully accepted and embraced by God requires nothing from us. God's love for us is based on someone else meeting the requirements, ¹not us. Accepting the offer that Jesus met what God requires is the only thing required of us. 

However, that doesn't mean there is not a good reason for His infinite love for us. There is a major reason. He values and therefore loves us because we are like him - in His image. 

This has nothing to do with what we do but with who we are, who God made us to be. It is not our trying to make ourselves more acceptable and loveable to Him or others.

This is why He loved us before we lifted one finger for Him. In fact even while we were still in our state of rebellious distrust of Him.

"...but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us..." - Romans 5:8

"...But 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—by grace you have been saved—..." -  Ephesians 2:4-5 

Have you ever scratched your head wondering why he would value and love us while we were still in a state of rebellious distrust toward Him (i.e. "sin")? It is because our rebellion did not cancel out or erase our being like God, it only marred and suppressed it - though severely. 

This resulted in our spiritual sight and sense going completely dormant (until His Spirit opens our eyes). We are now "unplugged" from God (the source of all things), broken, and blind to seeing His infinite worth, beauty, and love. As a result, we ascribe the worst possible intent by God on why we struggle or experience loss and pain. The Bible describes this as being spiritually blind and dead to God. 

But our capacity for love, light, and life didn't go away and is still fully intact - we are still like God - even when we don't trust Him i.e. we still are designed to love and be loved and we long for this. We are hard-wired for love, if you will, because God is love and we are like Him, created to be in a community of love with Him. 

God values and loves our being like Him because we still have the capacity to fully partake of the community of love that God is as Father and Son in, by, and through the Spirit. 

This capacity for infinite love never went away; it only ceased to function properly i.e. it went dormant if you will. In our broken and spirituality-blind condition, we now long for the wrong things - instead of the only true thing that can fill our longing for love - because we are blind to the true Source of love and life - i.e. our Creator.

A recap and summary 

Our being in God's image is vital to how God sees us and who we are. This means there is good reason for Him to love us i.e. because of who we are, not what we do. 

We are not just rebellious - aka "dirty rotten sinners." This is true but only half the story - and the far lesser half - once we accept his offer. The more important half is we are still also like God with an infinite capacity to fully engage, delight in, and commune with the Infinite God and experience His infinite love, glory, and joy!!!

Being like God has nothing to do with what we do (our good deeds) for others (God and other bearers of His image) - when it comes to establishing a good standing with Him - but has to do with something about us - i.e. who we are, not what we do. 

God's love has nothing to do with something that comes from us or is offered by us - i.e. something we do in an attempt to earn His love or appease His disapproval. 

Our only requirement is to recognize that Christ did everything necessary to fully restore us to His Father and accept this as a free gift (the essence of the gospel - good news - of grace). 

Do you receive this? If you only know this in your head but haven't fully believed it, you only need to recognize He did everything necessary to restore you so He can pour out His love on you. A love He already has for you that you are blocking by your not believing this good news. Because nothing you can do will restore you to God...nothing - not your abilities or good deeds!!! 

Accept His offer of complete restoration. If you are sincere in accepting and receiving His offer of perfect love, He will legally and immediately restore you now, and ²completely upon His return.

"The Spirit and the Bride say, 'Come.' And let the one who hears say, 'Come.' And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price (you can't buy it or earn His acceptance of you)." - Revelation 22:17 

For God to have a relationship with us in the same way the Father and the Son have with each other, we had to be like him in one essential way i.e. we had to be able to receive and return love to God like God does between and among the Father and Son, in, by, and through the Spirit - i.e. God IS love. Love is the central and essential core of who God is!!! We are like Him i.e. we are hard wired for this same love. 

But love for God first, not just between each other. Our love for others must flow out of our love for God. This is why the greatest commandment is to love God first, then our neighbors. 

Does God need anything from us? No! He has Himself i.e. He is complete within Himself.

But when we say he loves us without conditions, that is not to say he doesn't have longings and desires for us and from us. He yearns to commune with us. Why? Because we are like God and God is love. He longs for us to experience the fullness of who He is so, like Him, we too experience it.

He is the source of love, life, and all things and knows our greatest meaning, purpose, and joy is found only in Him!! His calling us to love Him above everything else is because He knows He is our best and desires our best i.e. God is love.

James 4:5 says:

"Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, 'He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us' ”?

Nevertheless, His love for us is without conditions i.e. no deeds are required from us in order for His love to be set on us.

This is possible only because Christ fulfilled all the conditions ³required and necessary for him to remove the barrier between us and love us freely and fully. Even to the point that the Father loves us in the very same way He loves His only eternally begotten Son. Jn 17:23.

"I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me."

So does our love and pursuit of God matter since it's not required?

While there should never be ⁴expectations or conditions put on us for the gifts freely given to ⁵us or on others for the gifts we gladly give them, it is legitimate to enjoy and eagerly anticipate the appreciation from others for those gifts.

When gratitude is shown for the gifts we graciously receive, it delights the giver because they know their gift (and love) is not just accepted but also enjoyed and appreciated.

This reminds us of the 10 lepers that Christ healed and only one returned and showed gratitude. As a result, Christ engaged him further because he demonstrated by returning to Christ that he appreciated what Christ did. Lk 17:12-19.

To hope for and enjoy someone else's appreciation for what we give them is different than ⁵demanding their gratitude.

This also happens to be how God loves us and enjoys a relationship with us. God doesn't ⁶demand our obedience in exchange for His love. He delights in it. We are this way because God is this way. We are in his image.

In order for him to have this kind of love relationship with us we had to be like him as much possible without actually being him.

For a further discussion on why God loves rebels but not rebellion click here 

Are we rebels against God? Click here 

For a further discussion on the solution to our rebellion click here. 

For a further discussion on why God delights in our love click here.

_________

¹Who met them? Christ!!! For only He could, not us!

²The claims of Christ and His return!! and Knowing God but not fully yet.

³this is necessary because we fail to. No one fulfills the greatest commandment to love God with everything we are and have. Do you? I certainly don't!

⁴Expectations and conditions come from those who need love. God wants our love but doesn't need it. He is love as a community of love among the Father, Son, and Spirit. And when we are filled with His love we are the same way i.e. we don't need the love of others because we already have the perfect love of God.

⁵Who is "us." Is it humanity in general or us who have trusted Christ? It is both. God values all his image bearers by virtue of them being like him. But only those who accept his offer of restoration actually participate in and experience that love as we are designed to.

⁶We demand things from others only because we believe we must have them in order to be loved. God doesn't because He is already a community of love between the Father and Son in, by, and through the Spirit. He doesn't need us in order to be complete (whole) and therefore does not need to demand our obedience. 

However because He is love he delights in our entering into and participating in his love. He seeks - "requires" - us to love him because he knows that is where we are most complete and find greatest joy.

Who are we?

There are ¹two fundamental aspects of our being (nature) that define us. One is divine, the other is decidedly human and the opposite of divine.

1. We are like God,  the divine - in His image.

2. We are not God - not self-sufficient, infinite, without limits, but finite i.e. human.

We are like God and created to interact (commune) with God - who is ²infinite. Therefore only our union and relationship with this infinitely loving God can make us whole - complete us. 

Because we are not God, we are limited, dependent, finite, not infinite, we ³must be in union - connected - with the infinite to function properly, i.e. as designed.

What is the nature of our relationship with God? 

He is the source of all things and we are recipients of all things, i.e. All we are, have, and need to exist and function ⁴comes from God either directly (such as our breath-existence and our abilities) or indirectly through His creation - e.g. food, water, air, sun, other image bearers, etc.

Because we are finite yet designed for the infinite, we must go outside ourselves to find not just what we need for our physical existence but also lasting meaning, purpose, value, and fulfillment i.e. our non-physical - spiritual and emotional - existence as well. 

Since God is the Creator and the Source of our being (existence), and we are in his image, to understand ourselves correctly, we must ⁵know and understand God correctly.

How do we know God? God is a person. What can be known about him on a personal level must be revealed to us by Him; just as others only truly know us to the extent we reveal ourselves to them. 

His revelation to us of Himself comes in great part through his words (the bible) - What he tells us about himself specifically, as well as what he says in general. 

He also reveals Himself by His actions; through creation - which includes us and our being like Him.

God's fullest, most complete self-revelation occurred when God the Son took on human form as Immanuel (i.e. God with us) and came to live (abide) among us. 

"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high..." ‭‭Heb 1:1-3

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth..." - John 1:1‭‭-‬5‭, ‬14 ESV

Yet we are not presently connected to God because we have rebelled and broken away from our dependence and need for Him. We act as if God is irrelevant or unimportant when it is just the opposite i.e. He is all important. 

If we wish to be reconnected with our Creator, Jesus tells us how in the following statement...

And this is eternal life: that people can know you, the only true God, and that they can know Jesus Christ, the one you sent. - John 17:3

To understand why we are disconnected and how to reconnect click here.

_______________________________

¹theology - the study of the nature and essence of God

anthropology - the study of the nature and essence of humankind.

²God is infinite both in depth (qualitatively) and breadth - duration (quantitatively). There is no deeper love or a love that never ends except His. His love has always been before He created. And that love is infinitely broad and deep because it is among and between infinite persons i.e. GOD as Father and Son, in, by, and through the infinite Spirit. God is infinite love and infinite Spirit.

³yet we are not connected because we have willfully rebelled from our dependence on and need for God. We now live contrary to our design - disconnected from our Creator. The source of life, love,, and all things - which is clearly evidenced by the current chaotic state of humanity and the world.  

⁴Whether we function optimally, as He desires and designed or not, we still live, move, and have our very being (existence) in God. If there were no God, there would be no us i.e. We still exist because of God whether we willfully and consciously have a personal relationship with God or not.

⁵John Calvin's opening paragraphs of The Institutes. 

Italicized comments in (brackets) are my own to help clarity the authors intended meaning.

1.Without knowledge of self there is no knowledge of God

Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other.

For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith (immediately) turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments (gifts) which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay (no), that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in (existence and maintenance by)  God alone.

In the second place, those blessings which unceasingly distil (come) to us from heaven, are like streams conducting (pointing) us to the fountain.

Here, again, the infinitude of good which resides in God becomes more apparent from our poverty. In particular, the miserable ruin into which the revolt of the first man has plunged us, compels us to turn our eyes upwards; not only that while hungry and famishing we may thence (thereby) ask what we want, but being aroused by fear may learn humility. For as there exists in man something like a world of misery, and ever since we were stript of the divine attire our naked shame discloses an immense series of disgraceful properties every man, being stung by the consciousness of his own unhappiness, in this way necessarily obtains at least some knowledge of God. Thus, our feeling of ignorance, vanity, want, weakness, in short, depravity and corruption, reminds us, (see Calvin on John 4: 10,) that in the Lord, and none but He, dwell the true light of wisdom, solid virtue, exuberant goodness. We are accordingly urged by our own evil things (ways/conduct) to consider the good things of God; and, indeed, we cannot aspire to Him in earnest until we have begun to be displeased with ourselves. For what man is not disposed to rest (depend on) in himself? Who, in fact, does not thus rest, so long as he is unknown to himself; that is, so long as he is contented with his own endowments, and unconscious or unmindful of his misery? Every person, therefore, on coming to the knowledge of himself, is not only urged to seek God, but is also led as by the hand to find him.

2.Without knowledge of God there is no knowledge of self

On the other hand, it is evident that man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he have previously contemplated the face of God, and come down after such contemplation to look into himself. For (such is our innate pride that...) we always seem to ourselves just, and upright, and wise, and holy, until we are convinced, by clear evidence, of our injustice, vileness, folly, and impurity. Convinced, however, we are not, if we look to ourselves only, and not to the Lord also - He being the only standard by the application of which this conviction can be produced. For, since we are all naturally prone to hypocrisy, any empty semblance (appearance) of righteousness is quite enough to satisfy us instead of righteousness itself. And since nothing appears within us or around us that is not tainted with very great impurity, so long as we keep our mind within the confines of human pollution, anything which is in some small degree less defiled delights us as if it were most pure just as an eye, to which nothing but black had been previously presented, deems (estimates) an object of a whitish, or even of a brownish hue, to be perfectly white. Nay, the bodily sense may furnish a still stronger illustration of the extent to which we are deluded in estimating the powers of the mind. If, at mid-day, we either look down to the ground, or on the surrounding objects which lie open to our view, we think ourselves endued with a very strong and piercing eyesight; but when we look up to the sun, and gaze at it unveiled, the sight which did excellently well for the earth is instantly so dazzled and confounded by the refulgence (brightness), as to oblige (compel) us to confess that our acuteness (skill) in discerning terrestrial objects is mere dimness when applied to the sun. Thus too (in the same way), it happens in estimating our spiritual qualities. So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite pleased with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address ourselves in the most flattering terms, and seem only less than demigods (insignificant or lesser gods). But should we once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and reflect what kind of Being he is, and how absolute the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom, and virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed, what formerly (previously) delighted us by its false show of righteousness will become polluted with the greatest iniquity (most wicked actions); what strangely imposed upon us under the name of wisdom (what we mistakenly thought by our own estimation) will disgust by its extreme folly; and what presented the appearance of virtuous energy (right or good efforts) will be condemned as the most miserable impotence (totally inadequate). So far (so distant or removed) are those qualities in us, which seem most perfect, from corresponding to (in relation to or compared to) the divine purity.

Free Yet Bound

The following original article can be found at the link below. I have reproduced it in order to highlight and comment on particular points. Anything that is either emboldened, italicized, underline, (in parentheses) or *starred are by me - except for the title and Roman numerated section headings, which were already emboldened in the original article.

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/freewill_chantry.html

_____________________________________

Man's Will- Free Yet Bound
by Walter J. Chantry

    For more than fifteen hundred years the Church has engaged in a heated debate over the freedom of man's will. The major issues came to general attention in the early fifth century when Augustine and Pelagius did battle on the subject. Through medieval times the nature of man's freedom received a great deal of attention. As they studied the Scriptures, Bernard and Anselm made significant contributions to the doctrine of the human will. In the sixteenth century the freedom or bondage of the will was one of the chief issues dividing Reformers and Roman Catholics. To the mind of Martin Luther, it was the key to his dispute with Rome. In the seventeenth century the nature of man's freedom was at the heart of the debate between Arminians and Calvinists. The conflict surfaced again in the eighteenth century during the Great Awakening. Finney's approach to revival in the nineteenth century led the church astray through a misunderstanding of the human will. So too the nature of man's will continues to bring intense disagreement between Reformed and Fundamentalist believers.
     
A proper understanding of the content of the gospel and the use of GOD-honouring methods in evangelism are dependent on one's grasp of this issue.
     
Some theologians, both Arminian and Calvinistic, have been quite lucid in their discussions concerning man's will. Others, for example, Jonathan Edwards, have soared into the lofty clouds of philosophy where many a believer faints in the thin air of difficult logic and complex thought. But none is so refreshingly clear as our holy LORD. His instruction on the subject is laced with vivid illustrations to assist our groping minds:
     
Matthew 12.33-37 says, *'Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.  

But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.'

*The ERV gives a helpful interpretation of the above passage so I offer it here for your edification...

33 “If you want good fruit, you must make the tree good. If your tree is not good, it will have bad fruit. A tree is known by the kind of fruit it produces. 34 You snakes! You are so evil. How can you say anything good? What people say with their mouths comes from what fills their hearts. 35 Those who are good have good things saved in their hearts. That’s why they say good things. But those who are evil have hearts full of evil, and that’s why they say things that are evil. 36 I tell you that everyone will have to answer for all the careless things they have said (the evidence of an evil heart which is the underlying reason they will be judged). This will happen on the day of judgment. 37 Your words will be used (as evidence) to judge you. What you have said will show whether you are right (in your heart) or whether you are guilty (have an evil heart).” ERV

     In this passage are three verbal windows through which the light of Christ's lesson passes. Each presents a familiar scene. (1) A tree that has fruit - v. 33. (2) A man who brings treasures out of a chest - v. 35. (3) A stream that overflows from a fountain. This last is rather more obscure than the first two, but it is suggested by our LORD's choice of words in v. 34. The word 'abundance' suggests superfluity or overflow.
 
     I. Man has a will and that will has a certain freedom. Our LORD clearly teaches that man has a power of choice. It is important to begin here to disarm opponents of all the foolish accusations that have been brought against the Biblical doctrine of man's will. Every man has the ability to choose his own words, to decide what his actions will be. We have a faculty of self-determination in the sense that we select our own thoughts, words, and deeds. Man is free to choose what he prefers, what he desires.

     No one ties fruit on a tree's branches, not even GOD. The tree bears its own fruit. Evil men sin voluntarily; they take evil treasures out of their chests, that is, evil words and deeds. Righteous men are holy by choice; they select good treasures, that is, good words and works. The person who is speaking and acting is completely responsible for his moral behaviour. This power of the will is a vital part of human personality. It always exists in you and me and in all to whom we witness or preach.

     GOD never forces men to act against their wills. By workings of outward providence or of inward grace, the LORD may change men's minds, but He will not coerce a human being into thoughts, words or actions. When GOD in His holy wrath sent the Israelites to drive the Canaanites from their land, He also sent hornets against them. There is a children's song which tells the story of these hornets stinging the Canaanites, causing the pagans to flee the land. The chorus then sings:

GOD never compels us to go, Oh no,
He never compels us to go;
GOD does not compel us to go 'gainst our will,
but He just makes us *willing to go.

*A contemporary expression we hear often can also illustrate this. We have heard it said "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" - however you can always salt its oats. The horse may still refuse to drink, but given the nature of its being - how it was created - it must have water to live. And if water is offered, it is likely to drink it, but only by its own free choice.

When Saul was converted, the LORD did not compel him to edify the church instead of persecuting it. He *added a new factor of inward grace in his soul. Consequently, Paul changed his decision. GOD may renew (or excite) the will but He never coerces it.

*I would say God restored that which was lost when we turned away from Him, i.e. Paul was given a new awareness of God's presence or you could say God revealed himself to Paul. This revelation was gracious because it is undeserved. Some may assert it's unfair Christ revealed himself to Paul but not others in the same way. However scripture says God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. When Christ meet Paul on the road to Damascus Paul humbled himself. He could have chosen to not do so. 

     The Westminster Confession is very careful to assert the liberty of the human will. When it speaks of GOD's eternal decrees, we are told, 'GOD from all eternity did . . . freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is GOD the author of sin, nor is violence offered to - i.e. done against - the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.' When discussing Free Will, the Confession begins, 'GOD hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, to good or evil.' Neither by creation nor by subsequent acts of GOD are man's decisions made for him; he is free to choose for himself.

     This sort of freedom of the will is essential to responsibility! Having a will is a necessary ingredient to being morally accountable. This is clearly implied in our LORD's words in verses 36 and 37: 'I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For *by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.' A man can be condemned only because the words are his own (and give evidence of the condemned status under which he already exists). He was free to bring them out of his treasure chest. They were the overflow of the fountain of his own heart. They are the fruits of his own tree of nature. No one imposed the words on his lips. He chose them. Society, companions, parents cannot be blamed. Idle words are the product of the man's own will.

*our words and deeds are evidence of the true condition of our heart i.e. whether our heart is in rebellion to God or in receipt of God's love. If the former, our deeds will be bad and if the latter they will be good. 

      It is vital for every minister to appreciate the importance of man's will. For in evangelism the will must be addressed. In preaching the gospel we are not only to shine the light of truth upon darkened minds. We are also to appeal to men's perverted wills to choose Christ. Faith is as much (I would add primarily and fundamentally) an act of the will as it is of the mind. When by the Spirit a mind understands essential truths, by the same Spirit the will must (choose to believe those truths and) trust Christ. Repentance is a selecting of good and a refusing of evil. Volition is central to faith and repentance.
 
     Indeed, in conversion, a man must make a decision. We shy away from that term because in modern jargon a 'decision' has come to be identified with an outward expression, such as raising the hand or going forward to the front. While such external acts have nothing to do with forgiveness of sins, the heart must make a decision to be saved.

     When Christ stood to cry 'If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink,' He was soliciting a willing choice of Himself as satisfying drink for the soul. GOD urges all sinners to come just because they may come. And it is our duty to inform the sinner that he has a warrant, a right to choose Christ. Beyond this, we must assure him that he has a positive duty to embrace the Saviour.

     The great guilt of sinners under the gospel is that they will not come (not that they committed certain sins but they refuse God's remedy for those sins i.e. the only remedy for their heart of rebellion to God). Christ complained in John 5.40: 

'Ye will not come to me that ye might have life.' And to Jerusalem He sobbed, 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings and ye would not!' There is in the unregenerate hearer of the gospel an obstinate, willful choice not to come (i.e. a rebellious heart). Hence it is that in flaming fire Christ will come to take vengeance on them that obey not the gospel [2 Thess 1.8]. In the free exercise of their uncoerced wills men have rejected the Son of GOD.

     In speaking of responsibility we have implied nothing regarding ability, as will be seen below. But the point is that men have wills which must be addressed as powerfully and directly as their minds and emotions in gospel preaching. Men must be confronted with their responsibility. 'This is the work of GOD, that ye believe into Him whom He hath sent' [John 6.29].
 
     II. Man's Will is not a Sovereign Faculty. Although man does have a will, it is neither *independent of all influences nor supreme over all other parts of his personality. This is the next point to be seen in our LORD's teaching.

*by virtue of being created - i.e. a creature and not the Creator - mankind is dependent. This is obvious and as simple as man must have food, air, and water to stay alive. When faced with the prospect of losing his life due to the absence of any of these, does he look to God or attempt to be his own god. Am I saying man should not seek food, air, and water? No, I am asking whether he recognizes and acknowledges God as the giver and sustainer of these things i.e. does he thank God for them. 

     Pelagians, Roman Catholics, Arminians and Finneyites have all held one common view of the nature of man. They suggest that the will of man is in some way neutral, that it exists in a state of moral suspension. It is their understanding that with equal ease the will can choose good or evil; it can receive or reject Christ. With only degrees of difference and variety of explanation, this is their common opinion. Pelagians have taught that the will is neutral because man's heart is morally neutral. Arminians, on the other hand, acknowledge the human heart to be evil. But they suggest that prevenient grace has hung the will upon a 'sky hook' of neutrality from which it can swing either to receive or to reject the gospel. The common ground, however, is this idea of neutrality. The will, they tell us, is disinterested. Ultimately this controls their entire view of conversion and of sanctification.

     It will be noted that our Master taught that the human will is not free from the other faculties of the heart. Far from the will reigning over a man, the will is determined by the man's own character. It is not raised to a position of dominance over the entire man.

     Man is like a tree. His heart, not his will alone, is the root. There is no possible way by which the will can choose to produce fruit contrary to the character of the root. If the root is bad, the tree is bound by its very nature to produce evil fruit. Man is like a person standing alongside his treasure chest. There is no possibility of bringing pure gold out of a box filled only with rusty steel. The contents of the heart determine what words and deeds may be brought out. Far from being neutral, the will must reach into the heart for its choices. Every thought, word and deed will partake of the nature of the treasure within. Man is like a stream which cannot rise above its source. If the fountain is polluted, the outflow will be evil. If the source be sweet, the stream will not be bitter and cannot choose to be so.

     These three illustrations alike contain the same lesson. What a man is determines what he chooses. Choices of the will always reveal the character of the heart, because the heart determines the choices. Men are not sinners because they choose to sin; they choose to sin because they are sinners. If this were not so, we could never know a tree by its fruits, nor could we judge a man's character by his acts.

     In modern times we observe rockets fired so that they escape from the earth's gravity. To accomplish this there is a great complex of electrical wires all woven into one control centre, called in the U.S. 'Mission Control.'

According to the Bible, the heart is the Mission Control of a man's life. The heart is the motivational complex of a man, the basic disposition, the entire bent of character, the moral inclination. The mind, emotions, desires, and will are all wires which we observe; none is independent but all are welded into a common circuit. If mission control is wired for evil, the will cannot make the rockets of life travel on the path of righteousness. The will cannot escape the direction of thoughts, feelings, longings and habits to produce behaviour of an opposite moral quality. 'Will' may be the button which launches the spacecraft. But the launching button does not determine the direction. Direction is dependent upon the complex wiring system.

     If the will were able to make decisions contrary to reason, and to the likes and desires of the heart, it would be a monster. You would find yourself in a restaurant ordering all the foods you detest. You would find yourself selecting the company you loathe. But the will is not a monster. It cannot choose without consulting your intelligence, reflecting your feelings, and taking account of your desires. You are free to be yourself. The will cannot transform you into someone else.

     This is most profoundly true in the moral and religious realms. When the mind is at war with GOD, denying His truth; when the emotions hate Christ His Son; when the desires wish GOD's law and gospel were exterminated from the earth; the will cannot be in a position to choose Christ. If it were, a man would not be truly free to be himself.  Here is the tragic truth about man's will. While free from outward coercion, it is in a state of bondage (inward vs outward bondage). It is not in a state of neutrality. It is not a lever with which to move a man's personality from sin to righteousness, from unbelief to faith. This brings us to the third element in Christ's words.
 
     III. Man's Will is in Bondage to Sin. The chains which bind a man's will to sin (rebellious unbelief) do not result from the *actions of the Omnipotent GOD. The binding chains are the man's own depraved faculties. The prison is his own nature.

*God does not coerce man to act a certain way but rather the absence of God results in man choosing to act contrary to God and His design. God's absence was the result of man choosing to believe he could do better independent of God vs dependent on Him. He believed he could be his own god instead of trusting in and depending on the only true God. However mankind was not designed to operate as his own god. Therefore he flourishes when he is in union with God, not in rebellion to him. 

     Our LORD's rhetorical question in verse 34 brings this home with force: 'O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?' Our wise LORD is suggesting that a man must speak as he does because of what he is. To sinners He was saying 'You are unable to choose good words because you possess an evil heart. If the tree is bad, if the treasure chest is filled with evil things alone, if the fountain is bitter, your will cannot produce good words [fruits, treasures, overflow].'

     At this point there are very many scriptures which attest to a man's bondage to sin by his own nature. To mention but a few - Jeremiah 13.23: 'Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil;' John 6.44: 'No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him;' Romans 8.7: 'The carnal mind . . . is not subject to the law of GOD, neither indeed can be.'
 
     Pelagian, Arminian and modern Fundamentalist support for the moral and spiritual freedom of the will usually centers on one point. We have admitted that man has a responsible freedom. He is free to be himself. He is held accountable for his words and deeds, especially for his receiving or rejecting Christ. On all of this we agree. They use this toehold to argue that the will is not in bondage to sin but has the power of contrary choice. It can do either good or evil, at least when confronted with the gospel. They insist that the responsibility of the will to choose Christ implies ability of the will to choose Christ.

     There is no scriptural defence of this belief, none that I have ever seen in print. The argument is completely philosophical. It runs as follows: If a man cannot do good, it would be unjust to punish him as evil. Furthermore, if a sinner cannot repent, it would be foolish to command all men everywhere to repent. GOD is not foolish and He has commanded repentance. Therefore men are able to repent.

     We can only reply that those who applaud the powers of the will with such arguments have not read the Bible very carefully. To maintain their philosophical premises they will have to argue with Christ their LORD. For our Prophet tells us in verses 36 and 37 of our text that in the day of judgment men will be held responsible for their evil words. Yet in verse 34 our Teacher tells the very same men that they cannot speak good words because they are bound by their evil character.

     Lazarus in his tomb had no ability to respond when our LORD commanded, 'Come forth.' The man who had been impotent for 38 years had no native ability to obey when Jesus commanded him to take up his bed and walk. Nor have modern sinners ability to believe when we preach. 'This is his commandment, that we believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ' [I John 3.23].

     When a sinner refuses to come to Christ, he is guilty because he has made a free choice. It reflects his own state of mind, feeling and attitude toward GOD and His Son. He has acted voluntarily without coercion. It is his decision. But the poor sinner, dead in trespasses and sins, could not do otherwise, being evil. It is not necessary for him to have a neutral will, or the ability to do both good and evil, for his action to be held accountable before the Judge of all hearts.

     Anselm is very helpful on this matter. This medieval theologian points out that if ability to sin is necessary to true liberty or responsibility, then GOD is neither free nor praiseworthy. For the scriptures teach us that GOD cannot lie. Similarly, saints in glory will be neither free nor responsible; for in eternity the LORD's people have confirmed righteousness. Anselm goes on to show the Biblical emphasis of freedom. True liberty rests in the ability to do good whereas he that does sin is the slave of sin. If true liberty rests in the ability to do good in GOD's sight, then the highest liberty rests in the inability to do otherwise. This highest freedom belongs to the sons of GOD in glory. How Biblical were Anselm's insights!
 
     No doubt Anselm's thinking has influenced the Westminster Confession's wording in the chapter 'Of Free Will.' For it says that Adam 'had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well pleasing to GOD.' Yet this freedom was mutable, subject to change. Man could and did lose his liberty in the sense of being able to do good. This is not the same as a man's liberty to be himself. 'Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or prepare himself thereto.'

     Bernard was very near the truth when he wrote of our condition in Adam: 'The soul, in some strange and evil way, is held under this kind of voluntary, yet sadly free necessity, both bond and free; bond in respect of necessity, free in respect of will: and what is still more strange, and still more miserable, it is guilty because free, and enslaved because guilty, and therefore enslaved because free.'

     We have seen that man is free to be himself and therefore is enslaved to sin by a wicked heart. And this brings us to the most profound truth regarding the salvation of souls. It is crucial to our preaching. It is vital to saving impressions in our hearers.
 
     IV. Man's Will is not his Hope. Our LORD has taught that the tree must be made good. Man must be renewed in his entire character. He must have a new heart to bring forth good fruit; the will cannot make the tree good; it may only exercise liberty to be what the tree already is. The will cannot reload the treasure chest with a new kind of goods; it may only freely bring forth what is there. The will cannot cleanse the fountainhead; it may overflow only with the waters available in the soul.

     Any gospel preaching that relies upon an act of the human will for the conversion of sinners has missed the mark. Any sinner who supposes that his will has the strength to do any good accompanying salvation is greatly deluded and far from the kingdom. We are cast back upon the regenerating work of the Spirit of the living GOD to make the tree good. Unless GOD does something in the sinner, unless GOD creates a clean heart and renews a right spirit within man, there is no hope of a saving change.

    While we address the wills of men in gospel preaching, they are wills bound in the grave clothes of an evil heart. But as we speak, and the LORD owns His word, sinners are quickened to life by divine power. His people are made willing in the day of His power [Psa 110.3]. All who are adopted as sons of GOD were 'born not of the will of man, but of GOD.' [John 1. 13] We stand to preach with no power to make the tree good. The 'trees' before us cannot make themselves good, so no gimmicks or policies of men can persuade them to make the change. But our glorious GOD, by inward, secret, transforming power, can make the tree good, the treasures good, the fountain good. Thus all glory be to GOD and to the Lamb! Salvation is of the LORD!

“ This article reproduced by permission from THE BANNER OF TRUTH magazine, Issue 140, May 1975.”

· "Free" will or heavily influenced? click here

·        Why Calvinists and Arminians are both wrong click here, 

·        Our "wanter" is broken, not our "chooser" click here 

·        Why freedom of choice is important click here

·       The question of fairness click here. 

·       The necessity of mercy click here.

·       Is the election and wrath of God unreasonable? click here. 

·   Is God free? click here to find out more.

What exactly is privilege?

You may have heard the expression the "upside-down gospel."  What exactly does this mean? The gospel is counter-intuitive. We are told to become weak is to be strong, to find your life you must lose it and to be exalted you must be humbled. The meek, not the demanding, inherit the earth. This cuts against common sense and everything within us. 

But the gospel is what we are called to build our lives on by Christ himself, no matter who we are or what ethnic group we belong to. Why do I raise the race question? Because the current racial tension is due to men ignoring the essence of the gospel. To self identify or identify others by a certain race is divisive - and I would suggest often intentionally so. Our true identity can only be found in a relationship of perfect love with our Creator, not some group. Race in today's climate is a destructive label unless in reference to the human race. Then it is uniting. We are all made in the image of God and therefore all equal in the eyes of God. And if we are in Christ and under His rule-kingdom, we are brothers and sisters in Christ. This is our identity, not the pigment of our skin regardless of what others think, say, or do to us. 

In God's economy, the gospel takes privilege - used in the present political sense - and puts it on its head. What is that message? In God's gospel ruled kingdom, the 1st shall be last and the last shall be 1st. This says that those who are last - from the

world's perspective - are more privileged than those who are first with all their earthly advantages and benefits. This is not the message we are given by the world, more so now than ever. 

We must be careful not to forget God's ways are not ours, and ours are not his. Man seeks to understand his world independent of infinite wisdom, i.e. God's wisdom, expressed above. Why? Because he seeks to be his own god and believes his own independent understanding of himself and the world around him is right and sufficient, i.e. it alone can lead him to the truth. But only God is infinite in knowledge and ¹in every other way; man is not. Finite man can never gain access to the infinite on his own. He needs help from someone far greater than himself i.e. someone infinite in knowledge and wisdom. The finite - you and I - can not reach up and bring the Infinite down to us. The Infinite must come down and reveal Himself. And He did in Christ! Yet man rejects God's Son and the wisdom and revelation he offers.

To operate contrary to our design - i.e. to ignore our limits - is foolish. This is like trying to care for a delicate plant or rare animal or operate a complex machine to the maximum of its potential and ignore the manual that tells us how to do so. Man can observe himself and the world around him and definitely discover certain things. But can he discover all that needs to be known unaided? Is there a difference between facts and truth? 

There is. Let me illustrate.

We can all see the sun - unless we are literally blind, but even then we can feel its warmth. No one would dispute there is something bright or warm in the sky. Over time, with enough study, we can discover the specifics of how the sun operates; all are important facts, they are just not all the "facts." 

As hard as science tries, science has never been able to answer the why question. This is different from the "how" questions. Why is the sun there? Why are we here to observe it and experience the benefits that come from it? We may try to find the answer to the why questions through science but discovering the facts of what is, is the role of science, why something exists is not. To this day science has not concluded with certainty why anything is, only how it works. The why must be found elsewhere. We must go to the Designers manual and see what He says about the why of His creation. 

There is man's way of seeing and doing things. Depending on one's worldview, those ways could be the polar opposite of each other. Why? Because man is limited in his understanding if left only to his own reasoning and finiteness i.e. we are not all knowing, all powerful, everywhere present of all loving. Hence all the tension in the world today. Everyone thinks their knowledge is absolute, independent of the source of absolute knowledge. There is usually ²some truth in all views, mixed in with some fallacy, some being more or less true than others. Who decides what is true and who is the arbitrator when these differences create great tension and conflict? Man's sole reliance on his own reasoning and resources in determining truth instead of confiding in the Source of all wisdom and truth will not settle a matter, only inflame it.

When there are opposing views, the truth often lies somewhere in the midst of the tension of those views. Both sides are seeing truth the other is not. Then there is God's way or a 3rd way if you will. The way of infinite knowledge. The way none of us as finite beings, can see unless God reveals it. And who does he reveal himself to? Those who know they need to see it-Him i.e. those humble enough to recognize that along i.e. without God who is infinite, man can not see all he needs to see to know with certainty his understanding of the world is correct (remember the why questions). 

If we are to resolve the tensions of differing views, we must recognize our limitations and acknowledge true understanding and correct view of the world must come outside us and from the Source of infinite knowledge, love, life, and all things. To see this, we must humble ourselves and recognize we need to see more than we need to be seen or heard. This same source tells us the 1st shall be last and the last shall be 1st and to find our life we must first lose it.

 

So to bring this back around to privilege, those who complain the most about someone being privileged over them or another is to miss the whole gospel message. If one is a believer they will rejoice in their low standing not be envious of what they think is someone else's high standing. 

For a further discussion on strength in weakness, click here.

For a further discussion on identity politics, click here. 

For a further discussion on the necessity of forgiveness, click here. 

For a further discussion on values, culture and racism click here. 

For a discussion on my personal experience of discrimination, click here. 

______________________________________________________________________

*All the "omni's" Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence and Omni benevolence. Or to say it more practically, all-wise and all-knowing, all-powerful, everywhere present and all good and loving.

**We live in a world of design where we can observe how things operate a particular way. And that is because there is design and a designer who created them to do so. Though we can observe this design and discover to some extent how things operate - some truth about their operation - we can never grasp the full purpose of creations design without acknowledging the Creator who designed them. 

And what is that purpose? All things are from, through, and to God. To him be the glory i.e. He must be recognized as the Creator and sustainer of all things if we are to see them as they truly are.