It must be noted that the author of this post is no longer in full agreement with the contents therein. Except for the primary points of Christian faith (i.e. Christology, Trinitarianism, etc.), one must be willing to change his views on lesser important features of theology (i.e. soteriology, eschatology, etc.) as one’s understanding of scriptural teachings matures/changes.
In this post, I will attempt to address the question of the state of the human will since the fall of man into sin. During the first part of this post, I will briefly present the views of Pelagianism, Luther, and Arminianism. The rest of this post will consist of an assessment of the previous three views which will contribute toward the discussion of my view concerning the matter, both theologically and scripturally.
Pelagius (Pelagianism)
Pelagius was a British monk who died near the year 430 A.D. At some point in his life, probably between the years 380 and 410 A.D., he entered the city of Rome desiring to teach theology. However, he was appalled at the moral laxity of the citizens within the city; this was likely due to Pelagius being a moralist and an ascetic. Like most moralists, he was concerned, primarily, for the behavior of the people – he wanted them to be good and descent. During his time, as well as other times, the view of human nature was quite negative; he seemed to be fearful that this was leading to an antinomian view, of sorts, and having an adverse effect upon the behavior of the people within Rome. He seemed to believe that when one joins an emphasis upon the sovereignty of our Lord with this negative view of the nature of man that all motivation to live a good life, to behave well, would be gone and people would do as people have always done since the time of Adam (post-fall) – sin.[1] In response to this, Pelagius would develop, in my opinion, radical ideas concerning the free will of man, original sin, and the nature of man.
Pelagius denied the transmission of sin from Adam to humanity and, instead, he affirmed that, just as Adam was created neutral, man, today and in all other times, is neutral as well – neither good nor bad. Pelagius did not deny the presence of sin, outright; he taught that if there is any connection between Adam’s sin and the sins committed by other humans it is that of a bad example. Pelagius earnestly believed that the problem with man was not a sinful nature, but that he is surrounded by bad examples.[2] Humans, to Pelagius, are completely free, in that, sins committed one moment by a man do not corrupt that same man and affect his choices the next moment. In other words, man’s nature and will cannot be corrupted by sin so that he becomes sinful – he is, as Hoekema puts it, “totally free”. This means that he can commit sin without being sinful by nature. This also means that we would only be responsible for the sinful acts that we commit. Pelagius went so far as to claim that man can live a sinless life; and that he can live God’s commandments perfectly – in other words, on his own, man can please God.[3]
Martin Luther
Luther’s recorded theology was anything but systematic[4], but when it came to describing how man is justified and man’s role in the process, it is my assessment that Luther was nothing short of a biblical theologian. Luther studied and lived during a time in which the standard curriculum was scholastic theology, in which the goal was to understand Christianity in light of Aristotelianism.[5]
In the scholastic system, there were two basic forms of grace: actual and habitual. Actual grace was conferred upon a person during confession, but was not effectual enough to forgive original sin nor could it change a sinner’s heart toward God. This type of grace was only conferred if the sins were confessed – unconfessed sins did not merit this. Habitual grace was able to do what actual grace could not.[6] How it was conferred is a little less clear.
Coupled with scholasticism’s notion of grace was the nominalist view of justification, meritum de condigno facere quod in se est – “earn real merit by doing one’s very best” – this literately means to do what is in you.[7] By Luther’s own account, he did his very best, yet all of it, all the duties of a monk and of a Christian, left him in despair. For, he realized something that Augustine did, non posse non peccare, that man, that he, Luther himself, could not help but to sin. How was one to earn grace if the very best that he could do was to sin?
Soon, through his study of Paul in Romans, he realized that his meritorious works could not justify him; he could not will himself to be saved. It was from this position that Luther would state that free will existed in name only, at least, in matters that concerned pleasing God and salvation.[8] To Luther, if one attempts to please God, who apportions grace unconditionally, by his own effort, then everything, his whole hope of salvation, will depend upon his effort.[9] In other words, if you are working to please God (to appease your sins) then you are not trusting in the work of Christ, faith is not found in you, and you are damned. Luther never denied that man had a will, but he denied its freedom; to Luther, the will does just that – it wills without being able to stop willing. The question is, what does the will will and why? Luther’s answer: “Original sin itself, therefore, leaves free choice with not capacity to anything but sin and be damned.”[10] Conclusively, to Luther, we are not forced to sin, but we are bound to. Thus, we are bound to depend upon God to change our will, for, “everything depends upon the power and operation of the Holy Spirit.”[11]
Classical Arminianism
Jacobus Arminius was raised in Holland during a time of social, political, and religious upheaval – the Protestant Reformation. He was trained as a Calvinist preacher under the successor to John Calvin in Geneva, and the man who took Calvin’s doctrines to extremes that Calvin would not, Theodore de Beze (Beza).[12] Widely known throughout Holland and respected as a pastor, Arminius is credited for having started a still existing feud within Calvinist circles when he was called upon to refute the ideas of Dirck Koornhert concerning his rejection of Calvin’s view of predestination. But, during his research for this task, he came to the opinion that Koornhert was correct.[13]
Arminius did not deny the doctrine of providence taught in the Reformed tradition; he disagreed with the linking of divine providence with the divine decree.[14] In essence, Arminius took issue with Beza’s supralapsarianism (Hypercalvinism). Beza worked out Calvin’s doctrine of predestination to become his starting point for every other doctrine. According to supralapsarianism, the decree to elect and to condemn (double predestination) was the first of the divine decrees; this view suggests that God is responsible for the Fall, although Beza would affirm that Adam sinned by an act of his own will.[15] This has the effect of taking the importance away from the work of Christ on the cross and placing everything upon the divine decree.
Arminius responded with his own theological formulation. In regard to the transmission of sin from Adam to his descendents, Arminius affirmed that all of humanity is corrupted due to original sin; but, he denied that humanity bears any guilt due to original sin. He asserted that, because of original sin, we are fallen, but we do not bear any inclination of the will toward sin.[16] Why do we not have any natural inclination toward sin? Because, our will is free; it is free to choose to sin and free to choose not to sin. In short, Arminius argued that while man’s moral nature is corrupted, this corruption does not affect man’s ability to make choices. This would mean that we would be able, on our own, to respond to God in a positive way. Arminius would deny the charge that man, on his own, can respond to God; how? He developed the hypothesis of prevenient grace. This form of grace is akin to the doctrine of common grace[17], in that, it is universal – all can receive it. It was through prevenient grace, per Arminius, that made salvation open to all, it made it possible for man to make a choice of his will to become a disciple of Christ and attain salvation.[18] Going further, Arminius argued that we are only guilty for the sins that we, as individuals, commit – not for the sin of Adam.[19] To put it another way, Arminius was attempting to affirm our responsibility to God, as sinners, while, at the same time, protecting God’s character. The thought of a righteous and loving God damning us to Hell for the sins of Adam was a repugnant thought to Arminius. Affirming free will, libertarian free will (as it is referred to by Reformed theologians), was the mode in which Arminius attempted to protect God and affirm the guilt of sinners.
My Position
I deny that Pelagianism is an effective answer to the question of the nature of the will of man. Pelagius’ views, while likely being well meaning, are wrought with three serious errors that, if followed, takes one down the path to heresy.
1.) He denies a cardinal doctrine that is taught explicitly in Romans and Ephesians – original sin. In the fifth chapter of Paul’s letter to the church at Rome, Paul speaks of the connection between the sin of Adam and the sins of man: …as sin came into the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all have sinned (v. 12).
In the second chapter of his letter to the Ephesians, Paul speaks of how everyone is under sin, by nature – this would include anyone who believed that they were living the law of God perfectly: And you were dead in your trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the…spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience – among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath (v. 1-3). If humans are born morally neutral, how can we be by nature children of wrath?[20]
2.) Pelagius denies the need of God’s grace for salvation. A discussion of grace was not absent from his theology, but his definition of it was anything but biblical. Pelagius defined grace as being related to free will; he meant that a person, by use of his reason and logic, could capture a glimpse of God and understand the Law of Moses and Jesus’ commandments.[21] This type of “grace” is nothing short of a works-theology, which puts the sinner in the position of the Savior – he can save himself by his merits. True grace demands reliance upon God: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Eph. 2:8-9).
3.) He denies the corrupting and enslaving nature of sin. Jesus stated: Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin (John 8:34). According to this, the first time a person sins he is bound to continue sinning – the man’s will is encapsulated in sin. Slaves, by definition, cannot free themselves; they are controlled by their master (sin). He also stated:
What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All of these evil things come from within, and they defile a person (Mk. 7:20-23). According to Christ, a person sins not because of the poor example(s) that may abound around him, but, because sin abides within him. The man can only bring forth that which is in him – the sinner is bound to sin.
Another problem with Pelagianism is that it attempts to solve the problem of man (sin) by teaching moralism. This has also occurred during the 19th through the 21st Centuries in western Christianized countries. Teaching from the pulpit became less fixated on a fear of God, as the controlling motive, and more fixated on ethics – right living (morality) – at the expense of a fear of God.[22] The problem with doing this was summarized by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in three points. 1.) It is an insult to God. All thoughts are turned inwardly toward the self – “How can I be good? How can I earn benefits from God?” – this puts us in the position of an idolater. 2.) It is an insult to man. Morality is only interested in the behavior of the man instead of the whole man. To go further, morality cares nothing for man’s relationship to God, only man’s relationship to society. 3.) Morality fails to provide a proper reason for man to behave morally. Morality commends us to live rightly, to be good – but, it fails to provide us with the answer to the very question of: why should we be moral? In other words, the view that we should be moral for the sake of being moral is not grounded in a type of authority. This leads to a form of liberalism in which one view is just as good as any other.[23]
I also take the negative position toward classical Arminianism’s answer toward the question at hand. In my assessment, Arminianism fails in, at least, three ways.
1.) Libertarian free will fails to provide sufficient reason for choosing one thing over another. As Bruce Ware puts it: If…an agent chooses A, he could have chosen B, or not-A, then it follows that any reason or set of reasons for why the agent chooses A would be the identical reason or set of reasons for why instead the agent might have chosen B, or not-A.[24] This means that any supposed free choice that a man makes to follow God or to rebel against God becomes arbitrary and irrational. At one moment, he could fall in love with the risen Lord, or, for the same reason(s), he could chose to despise him – why is this so? Arminians have argued that freedom must mean that our decisions are not constrained by some outside source. Put another way, freedom means that we are able to choose otherwise.[25] If this is what freedom truly means then we cannot attempt to describe or to know why we or anyone else would choose to love or to hate God. The doctrine of sin would, under this form of freedom, fail to describe why one would rebel against God – for it is something that would constrain someone’s choice and, therefore, would have to be eliminated in the discussion of trying to understand one person’s choice(s).
2.) Lack of scriptural support for its view of free will. Those on the side of classical Arminianism are forced to infer or presuppose free will. It is believed that if this is not done then it would be difficult to distinguish God from Satan.[26] Even Roger Olsen, staunch defender of the classical Arminian position, affirms this: Critics and defenders of free will theism look in vain for proof texts for it; there is no chapter or verse (in the Bible) that, taken alone, demonstrates conclusively that persons have libertarian free will.[27]
The biblical data, in my opinion, eliminates the possibility of libertarian free will: As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Gen. 50:20) At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.” (Matt. 11:25-26) This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (Acts 2:23) So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” (Rom. 9:18-19)
3.) Like Pelagianism, classical Arminianism fails to properly explain the corrupting nature of sin.[28] In the original state of creation, Adam possessed a will that was totally free, yet not perfect (if perfect then he would not have sinned, non posse peccare – which is the state in which we find Christ – Hab. 1:13; Tit. 1:2; Heb. 6:18). In this condition, Adam was posse non peccare, he was able, on his own, not to sin. Yet, because his free will was not perfect, he was also posse peccare, able to sin – which, according to Genesis 3, is exactly what he did. Adam disobeyed God’s command and as a result Adam, as well as all of humanity, lost his free will; he did not lose his will, just its freedom. Instead of being able not to sin, Adam and all of humanity became non posse non peccare – not able not to sin. The result(s) of this fall of Adam is horrific: The whole mass of the human race was under condemnation, steeped and drowning in misery, and it was being tossed from one form of evil to another.[29]
The Bible testifies to the fact that all who come after Adam are born into this world with a sinful nature (Rom. 5:12-19). We are born this way; it is who we are (Ps. 51:5). This sinful nature, which is transmitted to us from Adam, does not just corrupt us (contra Arminius), because of who we are, we are already spiritually dead (Gen. 2:17; Eph. 2:1). Because of this sinful nature, we are bound to sin and to continue sinning (John 8:34). I believe that Paul testifies, in Romans 6:15-23, that, before God saves us from our sin, we are slaves to sin. If an unbeliever is a slave to sin, he cannot do what is pleasing to God. This slave is also totally unwilling to do anything but sin being one who’s mind is hostile to God (Rom. 8:7-8); his will, therefore, is in bondage to sin. He is not forced to sin, as if some outside source constrains his choice; he chooses to do so freely (Eph. 2:3). Furthermore, the scriptures testify plainly that we all share in the guilt that is conferred with the sin of Adam (we are guilty of Adam’s sin). Evidence of this truth is displayed by the simple fact that we all die (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12, 14, 6:23, 7:5, 7:13; 1 Cor. 15:56). Our default position is, therefore, damnation – and there is not anything that we can do about it (Rom. 3:27-30).
Therefore, I am convinced by Luther’s argument concerning the effects of sin upon the human will; that the will of man is in bondage to sin. I am convinced, as Luther was, that man, on his own, is unable to know or please God. Luther describes the will of man as such: If God rides it, it wills and goes where God wills. If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills. Nor may it choose to which rider it will run, or which it will seek; but the riders themselves fight to decide who shall have and hold it.”[30]
Thanks be to God that, although the effects of Adam’s sin are great, the effects of Christ’s act of grace are so much greater (Rom. 5:15-19). It is only by God’s grace that our bondage to sin may be broken. Only those who trust in, abide in, and follow Christ can be freed of their sin (John 8:31, 34).
[1]John Ferguson, Pelagius (Cambridge: W. Heffer, 1956), 40.
[2]Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 154.
[4]Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1988), 56.
[6]George, Theology of the Reformers, 64.
[9]Gerhard O. Forde, The Captivation of the Will (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 52.
[10]Martin Luther, trans. E. Gordon Rupp, Luther’s Works (Philadelphia, Fortress, 1965), 33:272.
[11]Martin Luther, trans. E. Gordon Rupp, Luther’s Works (Philadelphia, Fortress, 1965), 33:154.
[12]Harold O. J. Brown, Heresies (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988), 356.
[13]Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. 2 (New York: HarperCollins, 1985), 179.
[14]Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 292.
[15]Brown, Heresies, 356-357.
[16]John D. Hannah, Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 2001), 232.
[17]Paul teaches that civil authorities have been instituted by God (Rom. 13:1) to maintain order and punish wrong doing. Although fallible instruments of his common grace, civil governments are called ministers of God (Rom. 13:6) that should not be feared by those who do good. God also sovereignly works through circumstances to limit a person’s sin (Gen. 20:6, 1 Sam. 25:26). Common grace is seen in God’s care for his creation, his restraining of human society from becoming altogether intolerable and ungovernable, his making it possible for mankind to live together in a generally orderly and cooperative manner, and maintaining man’s conscious sense of basic right and wrong behavior.
[18]Roger E. Olsen, Perspectives on the Doctrine of God, Bruce A. Ware, ed., (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2008), 167.
[20]Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 155.
[21]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 649.
[22]D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Plight of Man and the Power of God (Ross-Shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 2009), 35.
[23]Lloyd-Jones, The Plight of Man and the Power of God, 39 – 47.
[24]Bruce A. Ware, God’s Greater Glory (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004), 86.
[25]Roger E. Olsen, Perspectives on the Doctrine of God, Bruce A. Ware, ed., 150.
[28]Page 7, point 3, provides a sufficient explanation of this point. I will refrain from re-typing it to save room.
[29]Augustine, trans. Thomas S. Hibbs, Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1996), 3:246.
[30]Martin Luther, trans. E. Gordon Rupp, Luther’s Works (Philadelphia, Fortress, 1965), 34:336-337.