Tozer on Choice

Our Lord Jesus looked after the rich young ruler as he walked away, but He did not follow him or attempt to coerce him. The dignity of the young man's humanity forbade that his choices should be made for him by another. To remain a man he must make his own moral choices; and Christ knew this and permitted him to go his own chosen way. If his human choice took him at last to hell, at least he went there a man; and it is better for the moral universe that he should do so than that he should be jockeyed to a heaven he did not choose, a soulless, will-less automaton. God will take nine steps toward us, but He will not take the tenth. He will incline us to repent, but He cannot do our repenting for us. It is of the essence of repentance that it can only be done by the one who committed the act to be repented of. God can wait on the sinning man; He can withhold judgment; He can exercise long-suffering to the point where He appears "lax" in His judicial administration; but He cannot force a man to repent. To do this would be to violate the man's freedom and void the gift God originally bestowed upon him. Where there is no freedom of choice there can be neither sin nor righteousness, because it is of the nature of both that they be voluntary. However good an act may be, it is not good if it is imposed from without. The act of imposition destroys the moral content of the act and renders it null and void.
A. W. Tozer Sermon: The Responsibility of Choice
””””””””””””””””””-

Spot on A.W.!

I love Tozer he is one of my faves.

This little snippet is not to be confused with an actual argument against the sovereignty of God's saving power.

If one does try to us it, you quickly find out is a straw-man argument. If you read it closely you will find no reformed would disagree with it. Why? Because he is inventing a scenario that does not exist, it's not true-to-life or symbolic, it's merely an assertion that men' wills cannot be coerced and call it genuine repentance. No reformed would disagree with that. (yea I'm sure there's one out there.)

Maybe we should do a poll? The question...and you should ask ALL THE REFORMED..."did God coerce you into believing by forcing your mind and heart to believe, repent and accept Jesus Christ against your will". You will probably find none of them, and none of the arminians would ascribe to that. So, it follows if there are no robots, and yet God is sovereign and God does elect and God does convict of sin, righteousness and judgment before conversion, who is in actual danger of falling into a 'coercive act of God upon their wills'? Well...I'll just take a guess, no one has.

All of this has been run-through on Mak's long running thread and was discussed in such a manner that both sides never seemed to run across an instance where such a person as Tozer creates has been noticed.

If you read some of the good ole reformed theologians they would agree with Tozer and set forth God's saving power as a will-converter, not a will coercer.

Let's just say for argument's sake...a person in Hell this very moment were able to repent, able to believe and call upon Jesus for salvation, do you think in his severe condition and the prospect of eternal torment he would say "yea, I don't want anyone to force me into heaven, I would never want to be anything less than a man going to hell, at least I am a man". It would be my strong opinion there would be no such argument, I would venture to say the man in hell would cry out "Oh God, send my brother, send anyone, send Moses, send anyone and grab me up and don't let me go until I understand what this place is and what Jesus has done for those who will never go here".

All this talk of free-will bravado is only done this side of hell. In hell a man comes to know what it means to be slave to sin in a fashion he never imagined.

But, that's just me.

You see a difference between irresistibly drawing and wooing (some) men until they "repent” as being compatible with free will. I simply do not, because of the word "irresistible.” Now if you defined "irresistible” as merely powerful, or difficult, to resist I could take your point. But the moment you make irresistible mean "impossible to resist” then free will is out the window.

P.S. how do you know folks in hell aren’t crying out for mercy? Just wondering.

Hi Todd,

In answer to your question to Marvin about people in Hell pleading for mercy, I would point to two Scriptures. First, the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Two things the rich man in Hell asked for.....water and someone to warn his brothers. One thing missing in his pleas, a desire to be with God and know God. I find that extraordinary for a man who obviously knows firsthand the consequences of his lifetime of not going after God.

Likewise, when God starts final Judgement and the punishments are being poured out, the people who are being severely pummeled with affliction do not cry out for mercy or at least repentance. They basically shake their fists at God. Not just a few but the indication is all.

This fact from Revelation, also points to the wickedness of mens' hearts when God's spirit stops striving with them and withdraws the spirit of peace as Revelation says from their lives. Perhaps the multitudes of people being judged in Revelation are the truly wicked as opposed to other sinners, but there is no warrant for that assumption. I think the underestimation of the true wickedness in mens' hearts as evidenced by Scripture is the source of many a misunderstanding of free will.

God changing or circumcising a man's heart so that he loves God ( Deuteronomy 29 ) and so that he has a spirit of the fear of God so that he will not walk away from Him does not make man an automation but rather makes him truly human.

I don’t know Robert- eternity’s an awfully long time. They might get tired of gnashing their teeth after 7 trillion years or so.

It is a long time, but that is the insanity of a fully unrestrained fully given over wicked and hardened heart.

Hi Todd: A couple of things.

I suppose many in hell are crying for mercy, and others not. But my supposition is basically presuming a repentance- -based-on-punishment could exist. Similar to a man in prison repents so as to escape the punishment of confinement.
A repentance based upon true godly repentance as we are admonished in this life, would mean the Holy Spirit would be at work convicting of sin, righteousness and judgment in order to bring about a conversion. So I don't see how that could happen, because God has already at this stage made his judgment of the man and there are no texts that give any hope of reprieve from this judgment.

I personally cannot see any biblical reason for objecting to 'irresistible'. Why?
1. Because the final judgment is also irresistible
2. Salvation through Jesus Christ is also irresistible ( in that all other offers are false)
3. The wage is sin is death is also irresistible
4. The damnation of the wicked is also irresistible
These and many more like it can be added ad nauseum to show that in all of these cases those who refute 'irresistible grace' will not refute irresistible judgment, death, truth, life, peace and even the existence of God himself.
So many Christians who stumble at irresistible grace stumble not at all over the irresistible call to divine judgment for all men.

When one reads the book of Acts and reviews the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, one must confront the facts...Saul had no choice in meeting God, Saul had no choice of his blindness, no choice in his manner of deliverance, no choice in being told "great things he will suffer".

I've heard this portion of scripture preached again and again and I've never heard any preacher even bother to mention that Saul's conversion was not 'free-will friendly'. In fact so obviously noticeable that God is going to do this and Saul just doesn't have a say in the matter.
I suppose one could argue with Paul that he had a 'choice', but after being blinded so that he might see the light Paul knew what he had to do.