Four Views Of Free Will

by Rev. Greg Robertson ^[1]

When theologians talk about “free will,” they are usually referring to free will in salvation, and there are usually two extremes to the question. On the one hand is a strict or “five point” ^[2] Calvinism, while on the other hand is a synergistic, works-based or cooperation-based salvation in which man has a degree of earnings or merit added to the equation.

There are few theologians who maintain that God has determined every action (including every blink of the eye) and every choice of man, so we will not discuss such radical determinism.

In atheistic evolution is the idea that people are by-and-large determined by their environment and inherited traits. Recently in America one atheistic scientist even argued that the rape of women was caused by a leftover in the evolutionary development of man. Such ideas of atheistic philosophers must be reserved for other essays. And, of course, in the "faith-system" we call evolution, there is no belief in sin, a fallen creation, or even the need for restoration or salvation.

We will not discuss the doctrine of election because it is so clear in Scripture that all Christian groups believe in it although there are various interpretations as to what it means exactly.

At present I want to write about free-will and Christian salvation. This topic can be launched with a simple question – Why are some saved, and not others? The attempt to answer this question when the answer is not clearly given in Scripture, has been the cause of many problems in Christian theology.

In the study of biblical subjects I have discovered an overriding principle that seems to control a lot of what we think and believe on theological subjects. The overriding principle is this: People are usually persuaded, in all honesty, to believe the theological positions of the institutions they graduate from or the churches they attend. The principle was illustrated as I was reading a book called The Water That Divides: The Baptism Debate, ^[3] I was overwhelmed with the vast amount of Scripture and evidence that supported infant baptism as I was reading that section of the debate. Then I read the arguments against infant baptism and they seemed to be convincing as well. If a person were to concentrate all their studies on one side of the debate, it would be almost impossible to be convinced otherwise.

This essay is perhaps a slight example of that principle. The author graduated from Lutheran institutions and maintains a Lutheran view on the free will and salvation issue. Thus, it is believed that the solas ^[4] of the Protestant Reformation are of primary importance in the discussion of biblical subjects.

For the question, “Why some and not others?” there are at least four possible answers:

Why Some and Not Others?  Answer #1

1) Because God has determined and predestined everything according to His sovereign and irresistible will.

This view is held by the Reformed in general and Calvinists in particular.

One day I had an argument with one of my professors when I was working on my bachelor’s degree. Although we were both Lutheran, he maintained that Calvin never taught double-predestination. That night I checked Calvin’s famous Institutes of the Christian Religion. The next time we had class I showed the professor two clear passages from Calvin’s Institutes, one of which was as follows:                 

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. ^[5]

Historically, this statement by Calvin and  its proclamation and practical application by his followers, has caused innumerable blasphemies and denials of Christianity by those who have heard and understood the implications or felt the consequences of being considered among the “elect to damnation.” A taste of this may be seen in the treatment of the Indonesian people by the Dutch Calvinists who in some cases used their double-predestination ideas as a theological excuse for subjugation and exploitation.

Any honest person who has read more than a few paragraphs of Calvin must admit that his brilliance and scholarship is astounding, but he had a problem with logical consistency. Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that Calvin was lacking in logical consistency. Instead, his theological system was so logically consistent that at times it became unbiblical. That is one of the problems with the study of systematic theology. Sometimes boxing up theology into nice, neat, understandable categories forces Scripture into an organized package without a proper fit. It leaves no room for paradoxes. Although Scripture has the answer to the most important questions of life, it does not answer every question one might come up with. Even though Scripture does not answer every question, neither does it ever give the wrong answer.

Calvinism loses its biblical flavor, however, not with the issue of free-will, but with its emphasis on Limited Atonement, ^[6] and with the logical conclusions of Irresistible Grace and the Perseverance of the Saints. ^[7]

Homer C. Hoeksema, a Five Point Calvinist, writes about Calvinism’s Five Points and compares the Calvinistic view of Limited Atonement with the Arminian and Lutheran view that Christ’s death was gratia universalis, for all:

Hence, the Arminians teach: 1) That the atonement of Christ is for every individual man, so that Christ obtained reconciliation and forgiveness of sins for all men. 2) Yet this atonement is effectual only in the believers. Though Christ obtained reconciliation and forgiveness for all, not all enjoy this reconciliation and forgiveness, but only the believers. The Arminians, therefore, teach a general atonement of which the benefit and the effect is dependent upon faith. They teach a universal atonement, but not a universal salvation. And they really deny the whole idea of the atonement, as we shall see. It is also very significant to notice the texts which they quote. By their quotation of these texts they give expression to the common Arminian error of making the Scriptural term ‘world’ equivalent to every individual man.

 

Over against this Arminian Doctrine stands the Reformed doctrine in Canons II.

 

If you remember this, it really makes the whole issue of the atonement as it is currently being debated a very simple one. It is simply literally Arminian to teach that Christ died for all men. That is the literal teaching of the Arminians. And that is the literal teaching that is explicitly opposed by the positive truth in Canons II, the first part, and rejected outright in Canons II, the second part, or the Rejection of Errors. It is important that we keep our bearings in this regard and that we do not begin to imagine that it is possible at all to impose that Arminian idea on our Reformed confessions. ^[8]

If everything is turning out exactly as God has planned it, there are numerous verses in Scripture that make no logical sense. In one case the Apostle Paul was very distressed and warned the Christians that ravenous wolves would rise up among them. If this was all according to God’s irresistible plan, Paul should have rejoiced that the Almighty God cannot be resisted and was carrying on exactly as He had planned. Instead, he wept and warned, day and night, for the space of three years.

There are numerous passages which make it clear that Christ’s atonement was for the whole world. One such verse is in 1 John 2:2 “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” Of course those who have digested Calvin’s system can give convincing defenses for it, maintaining that “whole world” is meant in the same sense that it was meant when the Bible says that the “whole world is gone after him.”

One thing is sure, you will never hear a Calvinist preaching the harsh realities of his system from the pulpit: “Some of you here today may have been predestined to eternal hell and damnation – to the glory of God!”

Why Some and Not Others?  Answer #2

2) Because man has a free will and with it can freely choose God’s salvation for himself.

This view is held by those who are generally placed under the Arminian umbrella, although in actual fact, both James Arminius and John Wesley, who is generally considered Arminian, did not believe that man has a free-will in salvation – at least not without divine aid. Article III of The Five Arminian Articles (1610) states:

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John xv. 5: ‘Without me ye can do nothing.’ ^[9]

John Wesley taught that there was a Prevenient Grace which was given to every man. He believed that man lost any natural ability or free-will through the fall, but that God in His grace and mercy has provided a special grace which has been given to every man so that a person can make the first response toward God through the Gospel. Colin W. Williams says in John Wesley’s Theology Today: ^[10]

We should not believe, however, that this use of prevenient grace is meritorious; for it is a response that is possible only by the strength supplied by God’s grace, and the way to salvation, of which this is the first step, can be covered only when God strengthens us continually by his grace. ‘He worketh in you of his own good pleasure, without any merit of yours.’ (Wesley’s Works, VI, 513)

 

Q. 23. Wherein may we come to the very edge of Calvinism?

 

A. In ascribing all good to the free grace of God. (2) In denying all natural free-will, and all power antecedent to grace. And (3.) In excluding all merit from man; even for what he has or does by the grace of God. ^[11]

Generally, those who study the Arminian viewpoints from a Lutheran or Calvinistic point of reference, place them within a category called “synergism.” ^[12] Instead of believing that man has a complete free will to chose salvation for himself, it is maintained that the Arminians believe that every man has been given enough grace to cooperate with God for his salvation and when such cooperation begins God will help out by giving more grace. In effect, those in the  Arminian camp believe that man has what might be called a modified free-will: a free will that has been given to every person by the unmerited grace of God.

Howell Harris, a missionary minded Calvinist, knew John and Charles Wesley  personally. He stated his opinion about them as such:

I have been long waiting to see if Brother John and Charles should receive farther Light, or be silent, and not oppose Election and Perseverance; but finding no Hope thereof, I began to be stagger'd about them what to do. I plainly see that we preach two Gospels, one sets all on God, the other on Man; the one on God's Will, the other on Man's Will; the one on God's chusing, the other on Man's chusing; the one on God's Distinguishing Love, making one to differ from another; the other on Man's being better than another, and taking more pains, and being better husband of his Grace than another, more passive under the Hand of the Spirit than the other; and if both shou'd come to Heaven they cou'd not harmonise in Praises . . . [emphasis his]. ^[13]

Whether Harris’s opinion is accurate or not is yet to be determined. We know it is accurate to say that the Calvinists place “all on God” when talking about salvation, but, on the other hand, it is not accurate to say that those in the Arminian camp place “all on man.”

Why Some and Not Others?  Answer #3

3) Because some partake of the sacramental gifts of the church, produce works of love and follow the instructions of the Pope and church hierarchy, recognizing them as the appointed successors of Christ and His apostles..

The system of salvation in Roman Catholicism is very complicated and difficult to understand. The system in Romanism is comparable to a bank account of merited salvation. In their understanding Jesus gave the Apostle Peter the power and authority to replace Him after the resurrection and ascension. Thus Peter, who is thought to be the first pope, and all his successors, are able to add to the divine bank-account of salvation-merits to which Christ Himself has added the greatest amount. Mary, the mother of Christ, has also added a substantial amount to the account and continues to do so. Other saints who have done more than required (works of supererogation) place their extra merits into the account. Saying a rosary five hundred times or repeating sacrificial masses over and over, adds more merit to the account. In this way the account can never be diminished.

In the thought of Romanism, when Christ appointed Peter as His successor, he was in a position to determine who was worthy to receive some of these merit-funds (that had been collected in the account) to apply toward the person’s salvation or time-off in purgatory. In this viewpoint, the Pope and his priests have the authority to determine who should receive from the church’s burgeoning account of salvation and forgiveness merits.

With such a system in place the question of free-will takes on a completely different face: “Do you have the freedom to go to a priest,  follow his instructions of penance and receive his withdrawal from the church merit-account on your behalf, after you confess your sins to him?” would be a better way to ask the question within the Roman Church.

A Lutheran pastor who was converted from Romanism told me about what made him begin seriously questioning the system. He had been told from childhood that it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays – that was the teaching of those who held the office as Christ’s contemporary Apostles. Once when he was a teenager he completely forgot that it was Friday and ate a piece of meat; he had committed such a serious sin – in the teaching of those who were sitting in the place of Christ – that he would not even be allowed into purgatory if he died in that state. He was able to get everything back in order, with the help of the priesthood, before it was too late. A while later the contemporary Christ and His Apostles decided that eating meat on Friday was no longer a mortal sin. My pastor friend saw that the Roman system was a corrupt, manmade creation.

If you consider carefully the Roman system of salvation, you will understand exactly how deadly serious the Protestant Reformation was with the biblical announcement that “the just shall live by faith.” That short declaration completely destroys the whole Roman Catholic salvation business. The bank account is completely full without any more merit than that which has been deposited by Christ; and it can be freely dispensed by any Saint of God (the biblical sense of "saint" includes all Christians), even if such were only a day old Christian!

With all this in mind, it is easy to understand why the Roman Church officially declared “eternal condemnation” (anathema) upon anyone who holds fast to the proclamation in the book of Ephesians:  “. . .  it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, ^[14] which God prepared in advance for us to do”: ^[15]

If anyone saith that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sin for Christ’s sake alone; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified, let him be anathema. ^[16]

In the documents of Vatican Council II, Rome had this to say:

For “God’s only-begotten Son . . . has won a treasure for the militant Church . . . he (sic ^[17] ) has entrusted it to the blessed Peter, the key-bearer of heaven, and to his successors who are Christ’s vicars on earth, so that they may distribute it to the faithful for their salvation. They may apply it with mercy for reasonable causes to all who have repented for and have confessed their sins. At times they may remit completely, and at other times only partially, the temporal punishment due to sin in a general as well as in special ways (insofar as they judge it to be fitting in the sight of the Lord). The merits of the Blessed Mother of God and of all the elect . . . are known to add further to this treasure.”

 

What Indulgences Are: The Church’s Authoritative Intervention

 

8. The taking away of the temporal punishment due to sins when their guilt has already been forgiven has been called specifically “indulgence.”

 

. . . In fact, in granting an indulgence the Church uses its power as minister of Christ’s Redemption. It not only prays. It intervenes with its authority to dispense to the faithful, provided they have the right dispositions, the treasury of satisfaction which Christ and the saints won for the remission of temporal punishment

 

The authorities of the Church have two aims in granting indulgences. The first is to help the faithful to expiate their sins. The second is to encourage them to do works of piety, penitence and charity, particularly those which lead to growth in faith and which help the common good.

 

Further, if the faithful offer indulgences by way of intercession for the dead they cultivate charity in an excellent way. While they raise their minds in heaven they bring a wiser order into the things of this world. ^[18]

Perhaps it is a mistake for me to even include the Roman system in this essay on free-will. My intention was to keep the research within the limits of those who think of the Bible as the authority in Christianity and the Roman Church is not even interested in such limits, because it sees itself not as a product of Christianity, but as its author.

The Scripture is clear on the issue as can be seen from a simple reading from Romans 4:1-8 “What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. What does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: ‘Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.’"       

Why Some and Not Others?  Answer #4

4) The conservative Lutheran position on this question is this: We don’t know! The answer has not been revealed to us in Scripture.

Luther was not so much a systematician as was Calvin, and as such, he allowed for paradox in Scripture, trusting that God has shown us what we need to know and we must settle for it.

A Lutheran theologian of the nineteenth century gave his opinion about the position of the Calvinists:

We refer to what is known as the crux theologorum [the theologians cross]. The question: Are you willing to maintain both the universalis gratia [universal grace, Christ death is for all] and the sola gratia? [salvation is by grace alone] forces men to disclose whether Scripture or reason rules their theology. The Calvinists cannot pass this final examination. They insist, as we have seen, that if the sola gratia is to be saved, the gratia universalis must be sacrificed. And the synergists, too, fail in this final test; they demand that in order to save the gratia universalis, the sola gratia must be surrendered. Both, says reason, cannot be maintained at the same time. The Lutheran church is fully conscious of the difficulty which the human mind here encounters. But our Church maintains both the universalis gratia and the sola gratia, fully and without any restrictions, because both doctrines are clearly revealed in Scripture. It leaves the intellectual difficulty unsolved for the present; it awaits the solution in yonder life. ^[19]     

In this author’s opinion, it is the Lutherans who have the best answer to the question, “Why some and not others?” There are really only three basic positions on the issue. Either we give too much credit to human effort; we limit the atonement of Christ; or we must say that there is a paradox and we cannot answer it because there is no clear word in Scripture.

The Lutheran position is stated clearly in the Book of Concord, “Solid Declaration” on Free Will:

. . . The free will by its own natural powers can do nothing for man's conversion, righteousness, peace, and salvation, cannot cooperate, and cannot obey, believe, and give assent when the Holy Spirit offers the grace of God and salvation through the Gospel. On the contrary, because of the wicked and obstinate disposition with which he was born, he defiantly resists God and his will unless the Holy Spirit illuminates and rules him. ^[20]

Obviously, there are logical complications with this if the reader insists that the question, “Why some and not others?” must be answered! Conservative Lutherans do not believe the question can be answered.

In spite of all the theological differences on these kinds of issues, Luther coined a new term to describe the grace of God as it is received even by the theologically errant. In contemporary vernacular, the term would be called the “blessed inconsistency.” Luther believed that the language one used in theological discussion was sometimes quite different than the language of the heart when it is in communion with God. It is the language of the heart that God understands best.

Once an Indonesian congregation sang a song in English before I was to preach, and such a “blessed inconsistency” was illustrated. The person who hand wrote the song on an overhead transparency accidentally wrote -- in reference to Satan --  “he is over throne.” As we sang the song I knew that the Indonesian hearts were saying that Satan is “overthrown” and not that he is exalted above the throne of God.

There is also present in some of the theologically "conservative" groups, what may be called a "damned inconsistency." This kind of inconsistency is seen in the words of a Lutheran who once told me that his sexually seducing of a girl was completely consistent with his Christian faith because, "We are saved by grace, not by works!"

Luther maintained that saving faith "always" produces good works, just as fire always produces heat!

---