Chapter Overview
As in the first chapter, I will begin with what I believe to be false, which is the idea that we have a “free will” that can only choose evil. I will cite examples of those men who believe and teach this error. This doesn’t mean that I think they are liars who are intentionally attempting to deceive us for personal gain. I will reference the teaching of these men.
- Augustine
- Martin Luther
- John Calvin
- Jonathan Edwards
As I discuss what these men believed and taught, I will explain why I think they were incorrect and describe the flaws in their ideas. I will also refer to important ideas that make all the difference in understanding the Word of God. I will address the question, “Are there conditions in the gospel?” I will discuss the critical distinction between the ground and the conditions of salvation. Some theologians confuse these two considerations and incorrectly assume that attaching conditions to the offer of free salvation means good works earn salvation and are the procuring cause of salvation.
I will close this chapter by stating what I believe to be the underlying reasons why some people think the will isn’t free. These folks don’t believe that you and I voluntarily self–originate or cause our own moral actions. They believe the cause lies with some force we can’t control, such as inherited total depravity, original sin, evil feelings, passions, desires, or motive, which cause the will to choose, the sin nature, the flesh, or the old man. Moreover, these individuals equate emotions with virtue or vice. They recognize that they can’t directly and immediately control their feelings. It is assumed that the law of God requires certain feelings, and because they can’t directly and immediately feel in a “Christian” way, they think that this means their will isn’t free. Let us begin our discussion by addressing the question before us: “Do we have free will?”
Introduction
You might be surprised to learn that many theologians don’t believe our will is free. They may say our will is free, but they don’t really think it. Using a newly convenient definition of free will, they teach that we never lose our freedom. But freedom becomes an empty notion. Even worse, freedom comes to mean slavery. They have believed their own lies. Then there are those Christians who steadfastly support the dogma of inability and inconsistently argue that our wills are free. They don’t seem to realize that inability must mean our wills aren’t free by definition.
THE FALSEHOOD = WE HAVE A FREE WILL THAT CAN ONLY CHOOSE EVIL
THE TRUTH = WE HAVE FREE WILL THAT CAN CHOOSE EVIL OR GOOD
For our purposes, when I speak of freedom of the will, I mean to talk about morality. The notion of freedom may also encompass non-moral choices, such as what clothes I wear and what I eat, and so forth. True freedom of the will concerns itself with what I can will or choose for God, not just against Him. Augustine was accurate when he said sinless Adam had free will. Moral liberty is the ability to choose for or against God. I use the terms’ moral liberty’ and ‘free will’ synonymously, in an ethical context only. Augustine doesn’t, as we shall see. Like Augustine, some believe Adam and his posterity lost free will, as just defined, with Adam’s sin. Adam’s children have a new kind of free will. However, this new free will does not include the ability or freedom to obey God. This new free will is a slave of sin. Freedom now means slavery. Don’t we now have a new definition of free will? We do. How can we use words to communicate with each other when the standard definition of a word is forsaken, and the opposite idea is the new meaning of that word?
Why did America fight a civil war to free the slaves, among other issues, like states’ rights? If slaves are really free persons, why fight a war? I guess Americans, especially slaves, believed that being free to be a slave was an obscene concept. But in theology, this “obscene concept” is readily accepted and zealously defended. I really don’t get it. But admittedly, I am untrained in the art of theology.
Below are a couple of examples of those who hold that our will isn’t free. They would, of course, object to such a statement. They believe in a form of free will. I will show that they have changed the definition so that they can maintain that man has free will, all the while it is very clear that man doesn’t have free will. They want it both ways. They appear to lack the courage to stand for what they really believe, so they hide behind contrived and elaborately confused arguments.
Augustine
Mr. Sproul, in relating Augustine’s position on free will, states the following. “In creation, said Augustine, man had the—ability to sin and the—ability not to sin. Even in this state, divine assistance was available to him… This gracious assistance enabled Adam to continue in his original state, but did not compel him to persevere in it.”[1] Here is a good definition of free will, one that I can agree with. Free will is the faculty that allows us to choose between God and self, between good and evil, between sin and righteousness. Free will doesn’t mean we don’t need God’s assistance. A moral or good person chooses or wills what is right. I believe that man has free will and can choose between good and evil. Like Adam, God’s gracious assistance helps, not forces us to be holy. To be a moral being, subject to moral law, you must be able to choose what is right as opposed to what is wrong. A person is not a moral being, subject to moral law, if he can only choose what is good. The opposite is also true. A person is not a moral being if he can only choose what is wrong. Morality or freedom of the will involves making choices between right and wrong. Thus far, I agree with Augustine. As we proceed, we shall see how this definition undergoes a radical change. All in an attempt to deny free will and hold to it at the same time.
Free will is the ability to sin and the ability not to sin.
Free will is not just the ability to sin.
Free will is not just the ability not to sin.
If the ability—not to sin—is taken away, then there is no free will. It’s not an issue of morals. Free will requires both conditions, and each condition must be a real possibility. Eliminate either one, and we are not talking about free will or morals but something else.
“How can a creature with no prior inclination to evil suddenly and spontaneously become so inclined? This is the great poser of the fall, and it remains the most difficult question we continue to face about this event.”[2] The event is original sin. Time and time again, Mr. Sproul underestimates the power of lust and temptation as an adequate cause or source of sin. I understand it this way. God creates moral beings. They desire some of what they must not possess. This provides the Creator with a test for His children. God tests us to prove our love. Will we check our desire, say no to self, and trust Him? Satan and his followers said they didn’t trust God. They sinned. Adam did the same thing. He let his desire overrule what he knew to be the right thing to do. He sinned. When a man trusts God and says no to his desires, when they conflict with the known will of God, God then knows He is truly loved. God gives those desires, which are the occasion for our testing. Even so, God never tempts anyone to sin. God wants those who choose Him when it costs them something. Even though they could freely reject Him, they freely choose Him. Is this not the only way God can receive love? He could force us to obey Him, but that would eliminate our free response of love. Could it be any other way and make sense?
The doctrine of original sin is the basis for Augustine’s understanding of free will. According to Augustine, in the fall, Adam and his posterity lost the ability to resist sin. In other words, after the fall of Adam, mankind can only do one thing, and that is sin. Try to square that with the next idea, which is reflected in his book. The author insists that Augustine taught that humanity was created with the capacity for choice, which means humanity possesses free will.[3] Animals who can’t think and choose/will can’t be moral agents. An ethical agent must be able to choose between good and evil, sin and holiness, self and God, virtue and vice.[4] A moral being/agent, which is accountable to God’s laws, must be able to choose virtue or vice. But how can Augustine say we are capable of moral action, “either virtue or vice,” when we can only select vice? It’s a hopeless contradiction. Augustine and his followers believe that up and down are simultaneously perceived as the same. They appear to think right means right and wrong at the same time.
Augustine clearly affirms that man before and after the fall possesses free will. The ability to choose, or the faculty of the will, remains in man even after the fall. Augustine insists we “always” have free will. Now here is the catch: this “free” will can be an evil or good free will, a contradiction in terms on its face. We will come back to this in a moment. Augustine believes that the choices we make must be voluntary, not necessitated or involuntary. He thinks this is a condition of moral obligation, guilt, or merit.[5] I agree. Augustine sounds Pelagian, doesn’t he? The actions of the will must be voluntary, and free will is still in our possession even after the fall. I will demonstrate to the reader that the expression “free will” has a distinct meaning in Augustinian theology following the Fall. Free will now means the ability to choose only what is evil, but this is supposedly done voluntarily. I don’t wish to be unkind, but is this not a form of sophistry? Is this not an apparent attempt to hide the truth in a bunch of words?
Our friend Sproul then quotes Augustine, who insists that man has lost the freedom of his will in the fall. How are these two Augustinian contradictions to be reconciled? On one hand, he says man has free will, and on the other hand, man has lost the freedom of his will. The answer lies in his distinction between free will and liberty. We often think of liberty and freedom as interchangeable concepts. Not so with Augustine. When Augustine writes about free will, he is essentially arguing that we make choices without external compulsion. In other words, no one outside of ourselves forces us to do anything.[6] Dear reader, please remain vigilant to avoid missing this vital distinction. It’s an “internal” force, not an “external” force or constraint, an internal evil free will. Now, an internal, evil-free will is “free” to choose only evil. You might ask, “How is that free?” It isn’t free, and it’s obvious. The external force/constraint comment is misleading. It’s an empty cistern.
The author states that Augustine taught that the sinner is free, yet not free at the same time. The sinner is free to choose all the sins he wants, but not free to choose anything but sin. You see, the sinner only desires sin, and he is free to gratify that desire any time he wants, but the sinner is not free to stop sinning. The sinner can satisfy his passion for sinful pleasures, but he doesn’t have the liberty to be good.[7] My love of God compels me to remark that this is a hopeless bunch of double-talk and religious speak. Augustine first defines free will as the ability to choose between good and evil, but now it means we are free to choose all the evil we desire, but no good. Wait, this is liberty, not freedom. Mankind chooses only what is evil, but it’s done voluntarily. Never mind that we can only choose evil; it’s still a voluntary act. I am sorry to say his words mean nothing. Is it mean-spirited of me to comment that this is the most unsatisfactory and unconvincing argument I have ever read? I am supposed to believe that I have free will, for all moral agents must have one, but I have lost the liberty of my will to choose between good and evil as a result of the fall of Adam. But I still have free will, even though it isn’t free to choose good. How can I help but conclude that the emperor has no clothes!
Before the operation of God’s grace, according to Augustine, the sinner is in bondage to sin, as he is not at liberty nor does he have the ability to do what is right. God must give the sinner the ability and freedom to do the right thing by grace through faith.[8] Let me shock you and say that it’s no grace to give man the ability to obey the law. It’s fundamental justice. Ability is a level playing field. It’s justice, not grace. Remember, according to Augustine, that the unredeemed have a free will to do what is wrong but lack the liberty to do what is right. Does this not make you wonder? Is it not an affront to God to call ability grace? Grace enters the picture when those who can obey, disobey Him. Furthermore, they have no excuse for their sin, such as inability.
I want to conclude this section on Augustine’s views with one final reference. Augustine’s position, as some see it, means that God saves us who are really unwilling to be saved and that God does this against our wills and forces us “kicking and screaming” into His kingdom without our consent.[9] Sproul says this is not the case and is, in fact, a blatant distortion of Augustine’s position. My reaction to Sproul’s statement is disappointment and frustration. The language Sproul declares is a gross distortion of Augustine’s view, but it is not a distortion in my untrained opinion. According to Augustine, no unredeemed person is willing to be saved. Therefore, God must make that person willing. By definition, God does this without their prior consent, permission, and voluntary submission. God acts on them like the law of gravity. Is this not being done against their will? It is, and it must be, according to Augustine’s theology, for unredeemed man is unwilling to be saved. Salvation is strictly unconditional. Now, when the unsaved man is in fact saved, through no effort, willingness, or work of his own, he instantly becomes willing because God forced him to possess a good free will. An unsaved man had no choice. There are no conditions to be met for him to be saved. At that point, it isn’t true that he is saved against his will, for he now has a new will, a good, free will. This good free will desires to be saved. Does my frustration have any basis, or have I been too critical for no good reason?
Mr. Sproul cites a story about a professor who loves to use the writings of Charles G. Finney in his graduate classes because they are so clear and concise. Finney leaves no doubt about what he is saying. It doesn’t require an advanced degree in multiple disciplines to understand what he believed. I wish that were true of the writings of Sproul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards. Why is it that they don’t get to an understandable point? Why is it that their explanations seem so contrived, confusing, and contradictory? Why don’t their answers make sense? Did God write the Bible[10] in such a way that only the trained theologian and scholar would be able to understand it? Or did God write the Bible in terms that the least of us could understand what He wants of us?
I do not doubt Mr. Sproul’s love for God. I assume he loves Jesus Christ with all his heart. However, I must say that his arguments seem nonsensical to me, and in some cases, obscene. I can’t understand how such a brilliant man can write and defend ideas so full of apparent contradictions, double-talk, and deceptive language. One of us is confused, and you, the reader, must decide which one.
Does the defense of the truth ever justify such strong language? Some of you may think not. If so, we disagree. In my view, the lack of theological candor is one of the primary reasons why we (church and culture) are in such a profoundly immoral state. I think it is our responsibility to speak the truth in love and leave the results with God.
Martin Luther
Luther believed much like Augustine. He insisted that free will without God’s grace is not at all free and can’t do any good, being a slave of sin. Sinners can’t turn themselves to doing and being good. In this sense, they are not free.[11] To talk of free will is meaningless because our wills aren’t free (to do good) before the operation of God’s grace. Maybe we won’t have to deal with the less-than-satisfactory distinction between liberty and free will as we had to with Augustine. Luther admits the obvious. The will of man isn’t free if it cannot “turn itself to good.” I agree.
As we proceed, it will become clearer that the pivotal issue is whether salvation is conditional. For Augustine and those who agree with him, the answer is no, salvation is unconditional. It does not depend on man’s will in any way, shape, or form. It’s all of God from start to finish. This will be the subject of a later chapter.
Although Luther thought he was safeguarding the glory of God, I believe he actually did the opposite. For my current purpose, I can’t spend time on the connection that Luther saw between free will and God’s will, His immutability, His foreknowledge, providence, and election. Luther’s argument that what God foreknows He forcefully wills is an interesting debate. Does foreknowledge necessarily mean He directly causes or wills everything? I do not think it does. Does God know what moral agents will do before they do it? If so, does that mean God causes or forces them to act? Are we sure that future undecided acts are knowable before they are decided? If God doesn’t know what free agents will do before they do it, does that mean that we have attacked the very nature of God? God is omniscient and omnipotent, all-powerful. Does that mean that He causes all things? Even sin? For Luther, it seems that God must exercise absolutely in all His attributes, or His glory is diminished. It sounds convincing, but it actually does the opposite. It ultimately makes God responsible for all evil in the universe and excuses man from any guilt. I am for justifying God and condemning man. Augustine and Luther unwittingly do the exact opposite, in my humble opinion.
If God foreknows what will take place, then is it a necessary or predetermined event? Sproul says of Luther that he thought the word “necessity” too harsh because it suggests compulsion, something that is against one’s will. Luther taught that our will does whatever it wants under no compulsion or force, “as if” it were totally free.[12] Notice those two little words “as if.” Those two words qualify what he means by free will. It looks “as if” it’s free will, but it really isn’t. Luther argues for a free will that isn’t free. Moreover, Luther believed that God necessitates all things, but not under compulsion, I suppose. Fine distinction to be sure, mighty in form but devoid of substance. It sounds precisely like Augustine’s distinction between liberty and freedom of the will. What God wills becomes reality. Nothing else becomes reality but not under compulsion. Does this really make any sense to anyone? Or I am just not smart enough to understand? It seems to me to be the same argument. As we have seen, it’s under compulsion until God redeems man, then man is “involuntarily willing.” Compulsion makes me think of an external force, but we know that the force is internal (we have flawed free will), not external.
Luther believed that God wills and foreknows all things as if they were already absolutely done. Nothing can change the course, as it is settled in the mind of God, and all things are immutably known, decreed, and willed by God. There are no conditions for us to fulfill. It is all of God, or else how could we really depend on the promises of God? If mankind has a part, then God’s promises are contingent and mutable.[13] For Luther, knowing that God directly causes all things is a source of comfort and hope. Anything less would destroy the gospel.[14] That’s a powerful assertion. Is it my pride that keeps me from believing in Luther’s view of God? But just what exactly would I be proud of? Would I be proud about admitting I’m a justly condemned sinner? Would I brag about that? Maybe I’ll be proud that I yielded to Jesus my Savior when I admitted I was lost and without hope and couldn’t save myself. Just what exactly would I be proud of? Would I be proud of simply doing my duty to God?
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of our yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works that no one should boast” Ephesians 2:8-9. When salvation is correctly understood, a sinner’s boasting is eliminated. Sinners have nothing to brag about, even if they break off from their sin in repentance and faith. If you really want to destroy a man’s pride, take away his excuses for sinning, such as inability. Place all the responsibility on him and give him no room to blame someone else. Luther’s theology doesn’t destroy pride but infuses it with ultimate theological power. The elect can be proud because God chose them over all others. For whatever reason, they are the special ones, and everyone else is rejected or passed over. In this system of Augustinian Calvinism, pride is inevitable.
Luther argues that if God doesn’t directly cause all things, then how could anyone count on His promises? In other words, the free will of man makes it impossible to count on the promises of God. Man’s free will somehow limits God. Free will diminishes the perfection of God. What about Adam before he sinned? Did Adam’s possession of real free will make God’s promises less sure? Of course not. The God I read about in the Bible retains all of His perfection while He delegates absolute freedom to man. Isn’t God perfect enough to be able to bring about His purposes even while He restricts Himself and empowers man? Apparently, Luther’s God can’t do these two things and still be God. Doesn’t God demonstrate His perfection by accomplishing His purposes while He allows mankind to go against His will? Do you trust in the promises of God because of His absolute power to cause all things to happen? That is clearly an essential aspect of being able to trust in God’s promises, and I agree. However, there is even something more important than God’s power. God is love and He is good. First and foremost, we can trust in the promises of God because God is good and loves us. Secondly, we can trust in God’s promises because He is faithful to fulfill His word. However, we all know those who can satisfy their word but don’t because they are not good. But can’t you see that ability alone is no good reason to trust someone?
Luther missed the most crucial point. How can I trust in a God that requires me to obey Him, on pain of damnation, while He creates me (directly or indirectly) unable to follow Him? How can I trust in a God that holds me guilty for another man’s (Adam’s) sin? How can I trust in a God that may have already determined that I will not be saved? Augustine and Luther believed this, yet they found no insurmountable problem in trusting in such a god. What do you think? Which view of God honors Him the most?
Luther used the word “necessity” even though it suggests what he doesn’t want it to. Necessity to Luther doesn’t mean force or compulsion. Necessity implies something less than that. God’s rule in the universe is still sovereign, but He doesn’t force, coerce, compel, or make us do His will. According to Luther, this is a mystery. In other words, there is no external power that forces us to sin.[15] My love for God and the truth compels me to speak out boldly. Luther’s comment is not valid and is deceptive at best. What God does is to force man to have a new will without that person’s prior consent. When redeemed, man wills what God wills and that involuntarily. But does man decide that he wants to be redeemed? Not according to Luther and Augustine. God alone chooses who will be saved, and He saves them when they are unwilling. When saved, they instantly become willing. Is this not more double-talk? (Pray for me. I must be a weak man because I do get frustrated when I read statements that are obviously untrue.) In love, let’s be honest with each other. If salvation is unconditional, then God alone is responsible, and man does not possess genuine free will, one that can choose between good and evil, God and self. If salvation is conditional, then man is responsible for meeting the conditions and is partly responsible for his own salvation. He has genuine free will. The quality of free will that Adam had before the fall.
Please consider another quote on the role of conditions and free will. “Now, my firm conviction is that this idea of unconditionality completely rules out any meaningful notion of human freedom. Those Calvinists who continue to hold to both are simply inconsistent, and the devices by which they hope to rescue rationality-redefined free will, second causes, and permission quickly lose their integrity within the confines of unconditionality.”[16] Please reread this quote. For my part, I am only addressing their attempt to “redefine free will.” Second causes and permission are more attempts to evade the obvious. Man does not have free will if salvation is unconditional. Free will is not just the ability to choose one sin instead of another. Free will must include the real ability to choose not to sin and to choose good.
Are there conditions in the Gospel?
Is the gospel, as it pertains to salvation, unconditional? If so, then there is no condition whatsoever that we can meet to secure salvation. Period. If the gospel of salvation is conditional, then we must know and fulfill the conditions to be saved. Does that mean we can save ourselves without God in the picture? Of course not, the conditions simply give us the right to partake of His salvation. “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe on His name” John 1:12. If sinners met the conditions perfectly from the exact moment they first repented of their sins till death they would still need a Savior to cover past sins. There is obviously much more to it but to argue that salvation is conditional does not mean that sinners don’t need God and His grace to be saved. What God does in salvation is essential. It provides the basis on which salvation is possible to begin with. What we do qualifies us for His gift of salvation.
Ground versus conditions of salvation
The ground of our salvation is to be understood as the primary moving cause of salvation. It is not the same as the conditions of our salvation. For Ryrie, MacArthur, Sproul, Stanley, and many others, the ground of our salvation is the imputed righteousness and obedience of Christ. I disagree. Is that okay? The ground and moving cause of our salvation is the love of God. The love of God toward sinners is the primary moving cause of our salvation, not the obedience of Christ. That love compelled Christ to make atonement for sin and seek the lost. The conditions of salvation are the requirements we must meet to experience the benefits of the atonement and the salvific love of God.
I have heard it explained this way. The ground of salvation is the “that for the sake of which,” and the conditions of salvation are the “that not without which (sine qua non).” Do you understand the difference? It is an important distinction. The reason why some Christians might think I teach a legalistic gospel is that they confuse the ground of salvation with the conditions of salvation. They incorrectly assume that the conditions earn salvation and are the “that for the sake of which.” But the conditions of salvation give us the right to become children of God and are the “that not without which, sine qua non.” Remember that if a sinner repented (met all the conditions of salvation) and never sinned again, they would still go to hell without the benefits of the atonement, which flows out of the love of God. That is the difference between the conditions and the ground of salvation.
The dangerous tendencies of these fatalistic doctrines are the next concern addressed in Sproul’s book. How can one avoid the conclusion that all human behavior is an exercise in futility? If Luther is correct, doesn’t everything then happen according to fate or the will and decree of God? Doesn’t God preordain everything? Doesn’t God determine, with specificity, whatsoever comes to pass? How is Luther’s view different from fate? Therefore, why would anyone even try to become a better person and clean up their act? If it is meant to be, it will be. If not, why struggle for nothing when nothing will change anyway, unless already decreed by God? Right? Why would anyone battle for holiness and goodness? Don’t these ideas of Luther “open a flood-gate of iniquity?”
Luther ignored the obvious ungodly tendencies of these ideas and claimed that the Word of God was clear, and that settles the question.[17] As a follower of Christ, I am ashamed and embarrassed by Luther’s propositions. At this juncture, I must quote one of my favorite passages, for it speaks directly to this obscene position by Luther.[18] I refer to this passage as an acid test. It isn’t difficult to remember, and it’s a quick way to test any idea against the Word of God. In the book of Titus, the first verse, it is written, “and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness.” Titus states emphatically that all truth promotes, encourages, and advances godliness in its hearers. This is how we know immediately if what we are being told is true. Does it promote godliness? Luther didn’t seem to care that what he taught opened “a flood-gate of iniquity,” for he responded, “so be it.” What darkness passes as light! That a man who has accomplished some good can be so blind is a remarkable thing. Any doctrine that does not promote our personal righteousness is not true. Luther said he was merely being faithful to the Word of God, was he? I believe he missed the most essential truth of all: truth encourages God-like behavior. Can it be any other way and still make sense?
Luther struggled with the clear implications of his ideas and stumbled over them himself. He understood that these ideas gave great offense and contradicted the idea of a just loving God who is full of grace and mercy. Instead, according to Luther, we have a God who damns to eternal torment a very significant portion of humanity for no other reason than His own sovereign choice, when He could have just as easily saved everyone. Does God really get more honor by damning people rather than saving them? Please!
His moral sensibilities notwithstanding, Luther forced himself to believe that there was no injustice in God in predestinating most of humanity to eternal torment. You see, Luther felt that God’s will is law, and there is no standard by which any man can judge God’s actions. In other words, God’s will is law even if it violates our ideas about right and wrong. God is not obligated to obey or comply with any absolute standard. Apparently, we can’t and shouldn’t expect to understand this, for it is a mystery beyond our comprehension. God’s will is the standard for right, so whatever He wills is right by definition. Luther did not expect us to understand such mysteries as God’s secret predestination but to stand in awe of them.[19]
Where to begin, there is so much error in Luther’s statements. Do you adore the sweet mystery that God chose before we were born, who would be damned and who would be saved? He created some of us to go to hell to suffer forever so that He could glorify Himself. Seriously, couldn’t God get more glory by sending everyone to heaven?[20]
A Story
Mr. Matthews, a widower, has eight children. He has decided that his challenging life requires him to make some changes, and his kids are part of both the problem and the solution. Matthews has decided he will simply kill those children that he chooses. He reasons that he has the right to get rid of them, as they are his children. No one deserves an explanation for what he intends to do, for he says he isn’t bound by any laws in his own home. His will is the law, just like God’s will is law in the universe, and God does as He pleases; He damns some and takes to heaven a few. Matthews figures if God can kill and damn His children, why is it wrong for him to do the same? Why would God have a law against it for us when He practices that very thing?
“A ridiculous story,” you say. I agree. But isn’t this story Luther’s story? How is Luther’s story different?
Luther believes God is not obligated to any law. His arbitrary will is a law unto Himself. That sounds like our government. Congress makes laws for us and excludes itself from them. What do you think of that? Luther believes that God is not bound to obey moral law. For instance, God isn’t obligated to live by the law of love or justice. He can choose to disregard these moral principles or redefine them at will. With all kindness, who can believe such a thing? I hope that doesn’t sound mean of me, but sometimes I get exasperated when I read such things. Furthermore, to say God’s will is law, which can be changed at any time for any reason, is to take an absolute and make it relative. The absolute moral law becomes relative. Will we never learn the harm relativism has caused in the world? According to Barna, the pollster, some 60% of evangelical Christians don’t believe in absolutes. Is there any wonder why the visible church is as wicked as the world? To suggest that anyone’s arbitrary will can be law is to make that person a despot. God is obligated to the same law we are, for these laws are perfect and reflect God’s character, Psalm 119.
All moral beings are required to love and to show impartial justice, God included. It’s not optional for God or man. Listen to the Word of God.
“Circumcise then your heart, and stiffen your neck no more. For the Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality, nor take a bribe. He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing” Deuteronomy 10:16-18.
Could God arbitrarily change His mind and decide not to do justice and not show love and not be good, for that is what Luther would have us believe? God doesn’t show partiality or take a bribe because that would violate the moral law, and He will not set the law aside by His arbitrary will at any time for any reason. Moral law is absolute.
We can all sympathize with Luther as he struggles with the distasteful implications of his beliefs, declaring that he himself has stumbled upon these ideas in great despair. I am writing about this type of religious blindness. Why do so many religious persons accept the unreasonable and illogical? God gave us these faculties of the mind to keep us out of the darkness. How incredible, instead of turning away from the darkness, men such as Luther embrace it. Why is it that we are asked to accept what violates our God given sense of justice and love? I have found that the truth has never put me in the “deepest pit of despair” as it did Luther. The truth has always liberated me, sometimes painfully so. If I had to believe what Luther teaches, I too would be in the pit of despair, for I would have to pretend to adore a God I couldn’t trust. I would have to force myself to love a God who was arbitrary and capricious in His dealings with His children. If you think my comment is too harsh, please understand that my heart is full of love for God. Will you allow God to judge my motives, or will you take His place?
I firmly believe that God’s commands imply our ability to obey them. Does that make me a Pelagian and an outcast? If I were able to sit down and talk with Luther, this is how I think it might go. Luther says, “God’s commands are impossible for us to obey.” When I question, “Isn’t that unjust of God?” Luther responds that “God does this to show us how weak and miserable and unable we are to obey God and His laws.” I wonder why he didn’t answer my question. When I ask, “If we could obey the law, would we, in fact, obey God? Luther says, “No, we wouldn’t even if we could.” I agree with Luther. When I say, “Ability is better suited to reveal my depravity than inability,” Luther calls me a Pelagian. When I state the Bible everywhere uses words like “do this” and “if you will obey” and “if you are willing” all which imply that we can meet the demand. Luther responds that “why don’t we rather conclude God is testing us so we know our how unable we are to do good.”[21] Again, I wonder why I can’t get a straight answer from Luther and his kindred.
Ability is a “possible” inference, we are told, not a “necessary” one. It “quickly vanishes when we bring into consideration the character of God.” Two comments are in order. First, Luther states that God brings us to knowledge of our impotence by giving us impossibilities to obey. If Luther is correct, why didn’t God say, “You can’t keep my laws?” Why does He use words that convey the exact opposite? If bringing us to knowledge of our impotence was all there was to it, I might not object so much. But we are not only brought to this awareness, we are condemned to hell for not perfectly obeying laws we are created perfectly unable to obey. Again, if Luther is correct, why didn’t God say, “You can’t keep my laws for they are impossible for sinful humanity to keep.” Why does God use words that give the impression that obeying Him is up to us, as if we really could? Second point, what “quickly vanishes when we bring into consideration the character of God” is the obscene notion that God gives us commands to obey, under penalty of eternal death, that we are created unable to obey. How is it possible that “ability” to obey God could be an affront to the character of God, as Mr. Sproul indicates? How can anyone really think it is honoring to God to maintain that God condemns us all for unavoidable sin or the sin of another person?
Luther’s comment about God testing us with impossibilities to reveal our impotence evokes the imagery of an animal in a laboratory experiment. God, who is conducting the test, watches us, the animals, fail time after time, like rats in a cage, unable to escape but always trying. Then, for no apparent reason, the great Experimenter (God) decides that we have failed long enough, and He gives us the ability to succeed, to get out of the cage. Not everyone is given the ability to succeed; only a few actually break free from the cage. Now the grand design of the experiment was to show those “caged—free” animals their impotence. Profound.
Brother Sproul believes that the law of language or logic prohibits us from interpreting the phrase “if you are willing…” to mean anything about who really has the power to will or take advantage of the promise of God.[22] Isn’t the author’s comment a blatant and obvious falsehood? Or am I making too much of it? In all kindness, Mr. Sproul, what about the laws of plain English? What should I infer from that phrase (if you are willing), my inability to will? Sproul references John 3:16 and believes that this text actually says nothing about who can or will believe in this promise of eternal life.[23] Obviously, the text says nothing about who, in fact, will believe. The question is “Who can believe?” Who has the ability? When Jesus said to the crowd, “Come to me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28), I infer that this is not an open invitation to all. I am to assume that all who do come, find rest, but not that they can, in fact, come. Only if they do will they find rest. I do not question Mr. Sproul’s love of God, but I find his argument unworthy of his great mind and integrity. Ability may not be a “necessary or immediate inference,” but it is a “necessary assumption.” Clearly, we should infer that this is an open invitation to all, and it’s evident that all could come and accept the invitation if they were willing. It was up to them.
Luther believed that the Bible explicitly teaches man’s inability to obey God’s law. If this is true, then I am out of my mind entirely. In my opinion, the opposite is true.[24]
John Calvin
According to our friend Sproul, Luther wrote more about free will than did Calvin. However, since the Reformed tradition has been instrumental in preserving Augustinian ideas, we will examine Calvin’s teachings in relation to this subject.
Calvin also believes that mankind sins, not by external force or compulsion but because of an inherited sinful nature (an internal force). This sinful nature or irresistible craving for sin doesn’t force mankind to sin, even though this sinful nature doesn’t allow for any obedience or holiness to God. It is hard to believe that any thinking person can swallow any of this nonsense. Therefore, mankind is under a necessity of sinning, but he does this willingly and voluntarily. Say what? According to Calvin, God is also a necessitated being who can only do good. Do we say God has no free will because He must always do good?[25]
There is nothing new in Calvin’s statements. The unredeemed sin “willingly”, of necessity, but not by external force or by compulsion. No, the unredeemed sin by an “internal force” of nature, of necessity, for it requires no other compulsion, for the unredeemed can only sin. Using the words ‘willingly’ and ‘voluntarily’ in this context is, in my opinion, very misleading. Holders of this position should be honest and admit that man has no free will and quit trying to salvage a thread of free will in their theology. Augustine first defined free will as the ability to choose between good and evil. Then he and his followers change the definition to mean only the liberty to do evil, while they continue to argue that man has free will. They must do this, as almost all thinking people would reject their doctrines if they admitted that we had no free will. One of the most important rules of interpretation is the rule of definition. Calvin, Augustine, and Luther all violate this rule by changing the meaning of free will.
Furthermore, I disagree that it’s “necessary” for God to be good in the sense argued. Moral beings must choose between good and evil. Eliminate this choice, and moral agency ceases. God is good because He chooses to be good all the time. Calvin wants to make God a robotic slave of nature just like us. Now, who has the higher view of God? Besides, if Luther is correct and God’s will is the law, then God can make what is evil one day good the next simply by willing it. In other words, God’s way is always right, even if He becomes partial and takes a bribe. His will doesn’t need to yield to the fixed and permanent principle of righteousness. I do not understand how anyone can seriously believe this idea. Without a doubt, God always yields to the principle of righteousness, for He is always good because His will is not the foundation or ground of the law or moral obligation.[26] By His will, He voluntarily conforms to the absolute moral law, which reflects His nature and ours as well.
Listen to another theologian familiar with our topic. This scholar believes that Calvin taught that God determines every event, action, or behavior in both the internal world of our being and the external world around us. God operates on us like the law of gravity. God makes us think, feel, and choose as He has determined. Even our desires are controlled and determined by God. There is no possibility that we could make a contrary choice, or feel or think or act differently than we do.[27] Now, tell me, Calvin’s concept doesn’t violate any reasonable notion of free will, and I will wonder about your thinking. God is behind it all, and it must be that way if mankind doesn’t voluntarily cooperate with Him in the area of salvation. No slick argument will change the fact that man doesn’t really have free will or that God isn’t the author of sin in this system of theology.
“Thus, there is no instance in which we can desire other than decreed by God. Should we will, believe, or desire other than decreed by God, that very divine coercion extends into the depths of our choosing.”[28] Well put, Mr. Reichenbach. I strongly object to the confusing arguments that need to be brought forward to explain how mankind has free will, while it’s obvious he does not. Any time an argument needs such ingenious explanations, there is reason to reject it. The gospel is straightforward to understand. What is difficult to understand is this theology that contradicts what we know to be true about ourselves, violating reason, common sense, and the straightforward reading of the Word of God.
Jonathan Edwards
Jonathan Edwards, like Augustine, Calvin, and others, finds a basis for his view of the will in the concept of the fall of man and original sin. We have discussed this, but need to respond to Sproul’s comments. Sproul, in analyzing Edward’s beliefs, says that the history of mankind and natural reason, apart from Divine revelation, give sufficient evidence that our free will is the slave of sin. The answer to the question about why we sin is that our free wills have been corrupted by Adam’s fall. We sin because we are born sinners.[29] For Sproul, lust and temptation are not a sufficient answer to explain why we sin. Something more is needed to explain it, such as original sin and total depravity. Never mind that the Bible states explicitly that we sin when we are carried away with our lust. Edward argues that “natural reason” gives ample evidence for original sin. Really? This is a man who believes that “natural reason” is totally depraved in the fall, so how can it be relied on to give us this evidence? How can we trust this “natural reason”? Is there not a logical contradiction in his beliefs?
Sproul seems to believe that those who deny the doctrine of original sin and think we are born morally neutral and innocent need to explain how mankind became corrupt in the first place. What explains the universality of sin? It seems to him that we should be able to find a statistical average of 50% of human communities or societies that were given over to righteousness and not sin. Sproul asks Where are those societies that maintain their virtue? Why do all go into sin?[30]
I do not want to beg the question, so here goes nothing. How did Adam and Eve sin? Were they born with a disposition to sin? Did they have a sinful nature? They did not, but they still sinned, despite having seen God and walked with Him. At that time, two people were living who had no predisposition to evil. Both of them sinned. If my math is correct, that’s 100% of society, not 50%, so much for statistical averages. Might I add, sinning is not an issue of statistical probabilities. How did Adam and Eve, who had the advantages mentioned that none of us have ever enjoyed, become corrupt in the first place? Could it be the force of temptation and lust, as the Bible clearly teaches? Can you imagine being able to see God and talk with Him and then to sin against Him? Apparently, lust and temptation are that powerful. Either God willed (decreed) them to sin or they yielded to temptation as the Bible unmistakably indicates.
How did perfect Angels sin? Angelic sin is all the more remarkable in that they must have had even better access to God than did Adam and Eve. Did Angels have an evil nature or evil bent? Did God decree that they should sin? Or did they sin under self-generated lust and temptation? I can think of one society where the prevailing influence is to virtue and not vice, Mr. Sproul. That, of course, is the society in heaven with God and His Angels. Suppose morally and physically perfect Angels and Adam and Eve all sinned without an evil predisposition and special advantages. Why isn’t that enough to explain why people sin, who have none of the advantages that the Angels and Adam had? Why isn’t that sufficient evidence? Does brother Sproul think we are stronger than Adam? Therefore, a better explanation is needed to explain our sin. Is that pride? Maybe pride is as much of a concern in Calvinistic doctrines as in the doctrines of conditional salvation. Or is it just the sheer volume of sinners that is hard to understand? Sure, one or two perfect people might sin, but billions of people doing the same thing. That needs original sin to explain it. Why? How many sinless Angels sinned? What was the number? Maybe it was billions. Some Angels didn’t sin. Could it be that God irresistibly kept some Angels from sin while He irresistibly led the others into sin? Did I beg the question? I hope that my attempt to answer the question is genuine and honest.
I agree with the universality of human sin; all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. I am no exception to the rule. What I disagree with is the idea that I was born a sinner. If I agreed with that idea, God would be responsible for my sin, not me. Furthermore, it’s nonsense to argue that I might not sin when I have no other choice but to sin because I am born predetermined to sin. Sinning by definition requires the opposite possibility, or it can’t be an issue of morality and a violation of moral law. This is so obvious, at least to me; I am really amazed at how easily we can become confused. That alone might make me believe in the total depravity of the mind and soul. But that doesn’t make sense to me. All of these great men believe that reason has been critically impaired by the fall, yet by reason, they tenaciously guard the doctrine of original sin and total depravity. By their reasoning, they deny their doctrine in practice. These teachers believe that when we are redeemed, our reason gets a grace boost. But is this grace fix sufficient? Can we now understand and correctly reason? Most of these theologians believe the grace fix in redemption isn’t enough for the redeemed to be totally sanctified or to live habitually without sin, so how is it that they think their reason is totally sanctified? Why can’t they be consistent with their own ideas!
Edwards defines freedom of the will as “the mind choosing.” “The faculty of the will is that faculty or power or principle of mind by which it is capable of choosing; an act of the will is the same as an act of choosing or choice.”[31] Edwards taught that we always choose what we desire most, the strongest motive. Freedom to Edwards is the ability to do as we choose. It’s not the ability to choose between evil and good, however. This isn’t different from his predecessors. Freedom of the will is our ability to do all the evil we desire, but no good. Freedom of the will is the slavery of the will and the slavery of sin. I wonder how many slaves believe themselves to be free? Within the visible church, multitudes of slaves think they are free. Liberty to them is a license to sin and still go to heaven without the necessity of repentance.
“Promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption, for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved” 2 Peter 2:19. How does it get clearer?
If I understand Edwards correctly, freedom of the will is the liberty, power, and ability to physically do as one wills physically, but not to choose between right and wrong. The strongest motive causes choices, not just influences them. Freedom of the will is the power to choose and do evil only. For example, I choose to sin. That is free will, even though I can’t choose otherwise. Ability is the power to carry out this sinful choice. It isn’t the power to say no to sin. Ability is the power to act according to my choices, but my choice is always sinful because I can only do one thing, and that is sin. I can’t choose to be holy.
Another example is that I decide or will to run a mile. Ability is the power to actually run. It’s not the choice to forgo running. Choosing to run is the result of the strongest motive, which causes the will to choose. Charles G. Finney is right. Edwards’ moral ability is nothing but natural physical ability. His moral inability is nothing but sin itself. Edwards confuses physical law and moral law, a fundamental error. The ability to act out my choices is controlled by physical law. It has nothing to do with morality. For instance, I choose to murder. The ability to murder, according to Edwards, means I can actually commit the act of murder. Can you not see that this is an issue of a physical nature, not a moral one? The ethical issue resides in the choice to murder, whether or not I can physically do the deed. Presumably, in Edwards’ theology, I wouldn’t actually be guilty because I couldn’t physically commit the act of murder. Can you not see that morally this is irrelevant? When I choose to murder someone, I am guilty of that sin whether or not I am physically able to carry out the act. In this case, the ability to do the deed is simply not relevant. In 1 John, we are told that hating a brother is equivalent to murder and that no murderer has eternal life abiding in them. Remember what Jesus taught about lusting after a woman. In God’s government, lusting brings guilt whether or not the act is committed.
In the laws of our Nation, action, not motivation, is rightly governed, for we can’t know a person’s motivation unerringly. However, motive remains a critical aspect in determining a person’s guilt or innocence. Only God knows the heart. In God’s eyes, many an adulterer has never committed the act. In God’s eyes, those who hate their neighbor are guilty enough to spend eternity in hell. If you think that comment is too harsh or unloving, you might want to read the four gospels once again. Pay attention to how often Jesus referred to hell and how harsh some of His comments appear to our soft Western minds.
At the level of choice, Edwards believed the strongest motive causes the will to choose. In his theology, there is no free will. Actual ability, free will, and morality are about choosing from amongst various conflicting motives that seek to have their way with us. Are the choices we make “determined” by the strongest motive, or are they “influenced” by motives? In other words, what is the cause of our choices? What is moral ability?
- Moral ability is the liberty, freedom, or power to do as one wills,
Or is it,
- Moral ability is the liberty, freedom, or power to will as one chooses.
The first definition is wrong. It should read, “Physical ability equals the liberty, freedom, or power to do as one wills.” But who cares about physical abilities when discussing moral issues? The second definition is correct. Next question, “What is the source of what we choose?” Is the relationship similar to the physical law of cause and effect? Is it a predetermined relationship? Does every effect have a physical cause, even in the moral universe?
- The strongest evil motive, original sin, the sin nature, causes free will choices,
Or is it,
- Free will choices are influenced, not caused, by motives, passions, desires, and the knowledge of what is right. There is no cause other than the sovereign choices made by the moral being in light of the various motives presented to the mind and senses.
The third definition is wrong. It should read, “non-free will ‘choices’ are caused by the strongest evil motive, original sin, the sin nature.” In other words, “choices” are governed by physical law, not moral law, because they operate by force like other physical laws. The very word “choice” is erroneous, as involuntary action is not a matter of choice. Why are we talking about physical law in a moral context? We shouldn’t be. The fourth definition is correct.
For Edwards, the motive to do evil is the strongest and effectively the only motive in the unredeemed. The unredeemed is incapable of having motives of the mind to do good. The choice is not between good and evil but between various kinds of evil. This is the freedom of the will, as described by Edwards. Like all the rest I have quoted, the definition of freedom of the will has changed as a result of the fall of Adam. It’s no longer a matter of choosing between God and self. Now it means that we can carry out all the evil we desire, but we are not free to choose good. Is it not wrong to call that free will? It’s in no sense morally free. For Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards, free will amounts to the slavery of sin. Please tell me how slavery can be equated with freedom? Please tell me how they can keep a straight face and argue that free will is identical to an enslaved will. How can an enslaved will be identical to a free will? I am not trying to be argumentative or unkind. If their theology makes sense to you, great, but it doesn’t make any sense to me. Maybe only the brilliant can understand this, and that is why it escapes me.
These men have devised ingenious explanations to rescue the idea of free will from their dogmas, which undermine it. They don’t want to deny freedom of the will, as their doctrines logically demand, because it’s odious to most of us. They keep the form of liberty alive, without the substance of freedom. They manufacture explanations so that man can still appear to have free will, while it isn’t really free. Augustine first defined free will as the ability to choose between good and evil. He and his successors then redefine the term to mean freedom to do only evil, yet they continue to insist that mankind has free will. Is it unloving of me to get exasperated with these contradictory and deceptive arguments? If we are born sinners with a sinful nature, we do not have free will.
If human nature is sinful and Jesus was really and fully human, then was Jesus born with a sinful nature? May it never be.
Christ showed us it is always possible to obey God. Wasn’t Christ a real man who was tempted in all points as we are? Did Christ have a fallen nature that He inherited from his mother and Mary from her mother and father? If not, then how can it be said He is our example in overcoming sin? If Christ didn’t come into the world as a sinner, then He doesn’t know, as a depraved and sinful man, what it is like to be tempted as a man. If Christ didn’t come into this world with a sinful nature, He couldn’t have been tempted in all points as we are. But if Christ is very God and very man, then He must have inherited a sinful nature from His mother and her father, if that doctrine is true, which it isn’t. Enter the Roman Catholic dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. There is no way around this. You can’t have it both ways. Christ didn’t have a sinful nature like the rest of us, and He was tempted in all points as we are. One can’t be true. Do you disagree?
These same theologians make obedience to the law impossible for us while they maintain Jesus was tempted in all points as we are. How is that possible for Him to perfectly fulfill the law? If it’s impossible for us, then how can Jesus know what it’s like to be tempted when it’s impossible to say no to the temptation? Then these same theologians maintain that Jesus couldn’t sin. Then what in heaven’s name was He tempted to do? Again, how can it be said that Jesus was tempted as we are when He couldn’t yield to temptation, and it is impossible for us not to yield to temptation? These ideas are incoherent, illogical, and unreasonable. Is it wrong of me to believe that the truth will actually make sense? Or am I just a narrow-minded zealot?
Another problem I have with the advocates of the inability argument is their lack of a reasonable argument. Instead of refuting ideas, what I have most often witnessed is a personal attack or an attempt to harm the opponent’s credibility. Did the world learn the “politics of personal destruction” from the church of Jesus Christ? Let me cite an example to clarify what I mean. Sproul writes about Charles G. Finney’s views and associates them with the repugnant views of Pelagius, both of whom believed that if God requires something from His creation, we must have the ability to obey the command. To create a moral obligation requires ability.[32] Sproul doesn’t refute Finney’s ideas; he repeats them and attaches them to the ideas of Pelagius. Or he says they aren’t orthodox or evangelical. Sproul does this repeatedly in his section on Finney. He quotes other theologians, who, like himself, think that Finney was probably more Pelagian than Pelagius. And that should end the discussion because everyone knows that Pelagius was wrong in every respect. I am not a defender or a detractor of Pelagius, but please tell me what is wrong with the “controlling assumption” that if God requires something of us, we must have the ability to do it? Please tell me why this isn’t right, don’t just tell me that you think it is Pelagian and assume that you have corrected me and proved that the “controlling assumption” is wrong. Could it be that Sproul et al don’t have any reasonable arguments with which to refute these ideas, therefore they must resort to name-calling or other evasive tactics? Mr.Sproul believes Finney missed Edwards’ point. In fact, Finney doesn’t miss his point at all. Edwards’ argument is similar to Augustine’s, his theological father, and both of them were incorrect about the freedom of the will, as has been repeatedly shown.
Then the author repeats a constant misrepresentation used throughout his book. Sproul insists that the salvation of Reformed theology doesn’t violate the sinner’s will. God changes a sinner’s will by His own agency; thus, according to Sproul, God liberates the sinner who is held as a slave in sin. So how can others view this as a violation of a sinner’s will when God is liberating the sinner’s will, asks Sproul?[33] Did you catch that theological double-speak? God changes a sinner’s will (without the sinner’s consent or permission) but doesn’t violate the sinner’s will. That is a fine distinction to be sure, one utterly devoid of truth. Furthermore, Sproul neglects to mention that, in his theology, freedom of the will is seen as the slavery of sin. Or, in other words, freedom of the will is the slavery of the will. “It’s a strange thing” to equate freedom of the will with the slavery of the will. I repeat: how can an enslaved will be considered a free will?
Freedom of the will is the ability of man to say yes or no to God. That is the subject at hand, not the fact that God’s saving grace frees a man from the power of sin. I believe that as well, but that isn’t the argument. The monergistic regeneration of Reformed theology does, in fact, violate a sinner’s will as has been shown over and over again. Moreover, it must be that way, for the unsaved man is not willing to be saved. He is not able to meet any conditions for his own salvation, for he is totally depraved and helpless. How is such a person saved? How can one who is unwilling to be saved get saved? By definition, his unwillingness and inability must be violated and overturned by a power not his own. I don’t believe Mr. Sproul is dishonest, so I have no choice but to accept that his divided loyalties have confused him. It’s incredible to me that his arguments make no sense. Obviously, he might say the same thing about my arguments. There is no doubt that Mr. Sproul is better educated and more intelligent than I am. But does that make him right? I lovingly repeat, convince me that my arguments are wrong by logic, reason, and the Word of God, and I will adopt your view. Will you do the same?
Brother Sproul thinks Pelagianism has a stranglehold on the evangelical church today.[34] From his perspective, he must, of course, view any effort to get mankind to make a commitment to Christ as self-salvation or works salvation and reject it. In my opinion, the opposite is true. An antinomian stranglehold exists in the church in almost unbelievable proportions. Look at the rampant sins of adultery, divorce, and even abortion in the church, to mention a few evils that usually get little rebuke. To his credit, Sproul at least maintains that a faith that doesn’t produce good works is not saving faith. His theology views obedience as a necessary consequence of salvation, rather than its foundation. Obedience can be thought of as a condition (not a ground) of salvation according to Reformed theology.[35] I finally agree with something Sproul and the Reformed tradition teach.
Those who believe the will isn’t free, as Augustine defined free will before Adam’s sin, fall into two broad groups. One group believes that we don’t cause our own moral actions. All of the examples I cited are of this flavor. The other group equates virtue with feeling.
WE DON’T CAUSE OUR OWN MORAL ACTIONS
These individuals do not believe that you and I voluntarily originate or cause our own moral actions. Instead, they argue that causation stems from some force beyond our control, which moves us much like a robot is activated by a power it cannot control. This cause, force, or power may be attributed to such things as:
- Inherited total depravity
- Original sin
- Evil feelings, passions, desires, or motives that cause the will to choose
- The sin nature
- The flesh,
- The old man.
Ultimately, God is responsible for sin in relation to each of these ideas. It’s an inescapable conclusion. Obviously, many advocates of humanity’s inability to do good would object to such a statement. Nonetheless, God is and must be the ultimate cause of sin, condemnation, and salvation. We are slaves, robots, and machines in these various schemes, not self-determining persons. Specifically, we don’t exercise sovereignty over our choices about right and wrong. We no longer have the free will that Augustine said Adam had before he sinned. We can’t choose good over evil. But we choose all the evil we want because we are at liberty to do so. But we are not at liberty to choose good with our “free will.” Liberty means slavery. We are free to be slaves. Is this the genuine gospel? If so, why would anyone want it?
Many, perhaps most, Christians believe that from Adam we inherit a sinfully and totally depraved nature. This sinful nature results or causes and is the very source of our inability to obey the law of God by virtue (strange word in this context) of our inherited sinful nature. They further believe God is just in condemning them for sinning with this sinful nature, which forces and causes them to sin; they say voluntarily, I say involuntarily. Our will isn’t free to choose—not to sin, but only to sin. Is this not a strange and worthless freedom? Freedom means slavery. If I am a slave of sin, how in heaven’s name can anyone maintain that my will is free? Do you condemn yourself for sinning even though the sinful nature you inherited causes you to sin without your prior consent and choice not to sin? Could it be that you condemn yourself because you know you really had a choice between good and evil, and you alone made an evil choice?
Even in extreme cases of bondage to vice, we choose to remain that way by free moral action, not a sinful nature, which forces us to be unchanged. The drunk remains an alcoholic by his own free will. Sure, he is enslaved. But he is always able to break free. He may decide to get help. He may not. Help is available. The drunk can obey the law of God. If the drunk ever gets to the point where it is physically impossible to stop drinking (it becomes an involuntary act), then it can’t be sinful to drink and a moral wrong. However, the drunkard chooses not to seek help or stop, and that makes him guilty of breaking the law. Our laws recognize this and don’t excuse the drunk because he has what some unfortunately call a disease. A disease speaks of inability, and inability is a valid excuse. Who would say they have sinned because they are sick with the flu? Who would enact a law against catching a disease such as the common cold? But alcoholism is voluntary, and there is no valid excuse, such as inability, for it. I have some personal experience with this.
At Rotary, one day, I sat with someone who ran an alcohol rehabilitation facility. He strongly asserted that alcoholism was a disease and, as such, no one, not even the drunk driver, should be prosecuted. What do you think? I would agree if alcoholism were a disease like cancer. But it isn’t. There is no valid excuse for drunk driving. It’s a criminal offense and a sin. Doctor Laura Schlessinger had a similar comment one day on the radio. It’s good to know that even if the church swallows the sin-disease myth, there are a few voices of reason out there, like Dr. Laura. We alone are ultimately responsible for what we do, not God, not alcohol, not Adam and Eve, not our parents or brothers or sisters, not the environment, not genetics, and not the Devil. We are sinners because we sin. Our runaway lust is the source of sin. We love ourselves too much. Most of humanity suffers from high self-esteem, not low self-esteem. In deference to Dr. James Dobson, I will admit to the possibility of exceptions.
EMOTIONS EQUATE TO VIRTUE
This second group understands that we involuntarily feel or don’t feel from time to time. They know we lack direct, immediate control over our feelings. They assume the law of God legislates over the emotions. Because they can’t always directly and immediately control their feelings, they attribute that to an inability to obey the law. They know we can’t choose or sustain a particular feeling. Consistently, they hold that if God requires us to have certain feelings, then we are unable to obey God’s law. Our intellect affirms this inability to feel at will and sustain those feelings. We can’t maintain those feelings some call love for God; therefore, we are unable to keep the law of God. Or it works the other way. For example, someone I care for deeply insists they love God while they persist in an adulterous affair. How is that possible, you ask? My friend recognizes their own good feelings toward God and assumes that means they love God. For these individuals, feelings are equated with virtue. But there is no real love for God in this.
Dr. James Dobson wrote a book about emotions and the problems associated with a lack of understanding of how emotions work.[36] What Dobson does very well is explain how fickle emotions can be. We feel strongly at times, and at other times, we do not. Most often, this has to do with physical conditions, not moral ones.
Emotions have become the guiding force in our lives, and they’re destroying us. “Emotional experience in the Western world has become the primary motivation of values and actions, and even spiritual beliefs. Furthermore, (and this is the key point), we are living in an era when people are being encouraged to release their emotions, thereby granting them even greater power to shape their destinies. We are told, “If it feels good, do it!”[37] Dr. Dobson is describing the excessively destructive role emotions can and often do have in our lives. People usually form their values based on feelings. They think of things like right and wrong based on their feelings, and this explains why nothing is wrong anymore, except for the intolerance of others’ feelings. If it feels good and it is therefore morally good, then sin becomes virtue. Who doesn’t know that sin feels good? Why do people commit adultery? Because it feels bad? If the test of whether something is right or wrong is based on our feelings, then all sin can be excused or justified, for all sin makes us feel good, at least for a moment. We are emotional beings, thank God for that. We are also rational beings. What should guide us? Are we to be guided by our emotions or by what we reason and think to be right? It’s our reason that allows us to understand God’s will, not our feelings. Dr. Dobson then adds, “This statement was intended to convey one primary message: emotions must always be accountable to the faculties of reason and will. That accountability is doubly important for those of us who purport to be Christians.”[38]
For those who take the time to study the Bible, it’s clear that God doesn’t require us to feel a certain way, but rather that we act in a certain way, motivated by love or benevolence. Love is the supreme Biblical virtue, and it’s not an emotional state first and foremost. In the first book of Corinthians, chapter 13, love is described as patient, kind, not jealous, doesn’t brag, does not act unbecomingly, and is not arrogant. These descriptions convey the opposite of love as just a feeling. Love is explained as proper behavior for the right reason, even if the emotions run counter to it. When Christ said Love your enemies, did He mean for us to feel a certain way about them or act a certain way? He obviously meant we should act a certain way toward our enemies.
You will search in vain to find a Biblical mandate commanding us to have certain emotions and feelings irrespective of our behavior. Love in scripture is defined as obedient behavior. “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, and His commandments are not burdensome” 1 John 5:3. Love is the obedience of faith. And we are commanded to have a faith that works by love, Galatians 5:6.
If God requires that we feel a certain way, then we are genuinely unable to obey God, for none of us can feel at will and sustain those feelings for any extended period. Thank God, we are not required to feel, but to think, and then act according to the will of God. The corresponding feeling will follow the rules of physical law. For example, if I determine to think about the plight of the starving children in India, the feelings of compassion will follow naturally and unavoidably. It does not mean I am a good person because I feel compassion, which is an involuntary state of the mind.
Conclusion
It’s not right to define free will as the ability to choose between right and wrong, then radically change the definition. No one who names the name of Christ should do it at any time for any reason. One of the most important rules of interpretation is the rule of definition. The doctrines and their proponents I have attempted to refute violate this rule by changing the definition of free will. It now means the mental and physical ability to do all the wrong we want and no ability to do right. Freedom of the will, under their new definition, becomes identical to an enslaved will. Since when is the meaning of the word “slavery” the same as the meaning of the word “freedom”? Scripture declares that biblical interpretation is not a matter of one’s own determination. To redefine free will is to abuse this text.
To believe the men I have quoted, I must reject what I know to be true about myself and assume that I am being deceived. I must disregard my innate sense of justice, reason, and love and embrace confusion and darkness. I would be in the company of many if I did, but I would rather stand alone than give up my God given right and responsibility of private judgment. Does that make me a heretic?
I trust you understand why it’s contradictory to argue that we have free will but are unable to obey God. If we can’t obey God, our wills are not free by simple logic or reason. Strictly speaking, sin resides in the will and only there. Inability and free will are opposites and mutually exclusive concepts. Yet, I fear, multitudes of professing Christians claim that we have free will but are unable to obey the law of God. Free will becomes identical to an enslaved will. When lies become accepted as truth, reason and logic become irrelevant. Regrettably, it appears there is no limit to the foolishness that religious sheep will accept.
If the idea that we are unable to obey God (our wills aren’t free) settles into our minds, we will undoubtedly excuse our sinful actions. Who can argue that incapacity isn’t a valid excuse? We will not accept responsibility for our actions if we really think we are unable to obey God and that our wills aren’t free. Water seeks the lowest level. Most of us do too. Religious teaching that caters to our flesh must be rejected.
“And they bend their tongue like their bow; Lies not truth prevail in the land: For they proceed from evil to evil, and they do not know Me, declares the Lord” Jeremiah 9:3, emphasis added. This was the message given to God’s people by the prophet. I hope to convince you that “lies not truth prevail in the land.” How do I know that this is true today? “For they proceed from evil to evil,” all the while they continue to declare their faith religiously. Is it not true that many who profess to follow Christ, “proceed from evil to evil?” God says those who believe lies and proceed from evil to evil do not know Him. Those who don’t really know Him are condemned to an eternity in hell, are they not? God gave us the truth to set us free. What will we do with the truth?
[1] Willing to Believe, R. C. Sproul, Ibid., p.52.
[2] Ibid. p.53.
[3] Ibid. p.55. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[4] Ibid. p.61. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[5] Ibid. p.62. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[6] Willing to Believe, R. C. Sproul. Ibid. p.63. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[7] Ibid. p.64. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[8] Ibid. p.65. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[9] Willing to Believe, Ibid. p.65. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[10] Obviously, I know that the Word of God was written by about 40 human authors over 1600 years, more or less.
[11] Willing to Believe. Ibid.p.85. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[12] Willing to Believe. Ibid. p.92. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[13] Ibid. p.92. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[14] As I see it, God’s will has three distinct aspects: 1) His desired or preferred will, 2) His required will, and 3) His optional or permissive will. His “preferred” will is what He would like to see happen. For instance, He doesn’t want to see anyone perish, but the choice is theirs, not His. His “required” will is what He will make happen with or without anyone’s agreement. For instance, the judgment seat of Christ. All must come. It’s not optional. His “optional” will is what He will allow to happen, even if it goes against His desired will. In a sense, everything that happens, even sin, is God’s will. But it is not His preferred/desired or His required will. It is His optional/permissive will that allows evil to exist. Eliminate the potential for evil, and the potential for love is also eliminated. One can’t exist without the other.
[15] Willing to Believe. Ibid. p.92. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[16] The Grace of God and the Will of Man, Jack W. Cottrell, p.103.
[17] Willing to Believe, R. C. Sproul, Ibid. p.93. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[18] This is to say nothing about the anti-Semitism of Luther. Don’t be shocked that this statement of his is obscene, there are other such statements.
[19] The Grace of God and the Will of Man, Divine Commands, Predestination, and Moral Intuition, Jerry L. Walls. Ibid., p.263. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[20] Writers of the New Testament were attempting to correct the common understanding of the day, which declared that Jews, not Gentiles, were predestinated by God for eternal life. Furthermore, they were attempting to convince the Jews that personal repentance and faith in Christ were necessary for salvation and that their descent from the line of Abraham would not save them while they remained sinners. Some false ideas persist. The idea that, irrespective of personal conduct, a person or group of persons is predestinated to eternal life was rejected by the writers of the New Testament and the early church fathers.
[21] Willing to Believe, R. C. Sproul, p.98. The form of this paragraph is taken from Sproul’s book and is not original with me. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[22] Ibid. p.105. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[23] Ibid. p.107. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[24] Could it be that Luther, as a Roman Catholic, was overreacting to the self-salvation taught by his church?
[25] Willing to Believe. Ibid. p.111. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[26] What is the ground of moral obligation? The value of God and mankind is the foundation or ground of moral obligation. Defining the foundation of moral responsibility and commitment is beyond the scope of this work.
[27] The Grace of God and the Will of Man. Ibid., Freedom, Justice and Moral Responsibility, Bruce R. Reichenbach, p.283. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[28] The Grace of God and Will of Man. Ibid. p.283.
[29] Willing to Believe. Ibid., p.148. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[30] Willing to Believe. Ibid. p.148. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[31] Willing to Believe.Ibid.,p.155.
[32] Willing to Believe. Ibid. p.170-184. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[33] Willing to Believe. Ibid. p.204. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[34] Ibid. p.185. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[35] Willing to Believe. Ibid. p.179. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[36] Emotions: Can You Trust Them? Regal Books, A Division of G/L Publications, Ventura, CA,1980. Dr. James Dobson.
[37] Ibid. p.9.
[38] Emotions: Can You Trust Them? Ibid. p.11.
