Are the unsaved responsible for believing the gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that we witness or preach? Do they have a choice? Are unbelievers only the passive recipients of regeneration? These questions have been debated for centuries. Barrett (click to open) writes articles on this debate between Augustine/Pelagius, Luther/ Erasmus, Calvin/Arminius, and John Edwards/John Wesley. The debate continues today between proponents of Free Will and the Bondage of the Will. My thoughts on the debate are that some who teach the freedom of will promote a free will that is too free. Some who contend for the bondage of the will advocate a will that is to bound.
John Piper: We can say, first, that regeneration is the cause of faith. That’s plain in 1 John 5:1: “Everyone who believes [that is, has faith] that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” Having been born of God results in our believing. Our believing is the immediate evidence of God’s begetting. Actually, believing and loving one another, also mentioned in 5:1 is evidence of fellowship with the Lord. Evidences of fellowship is the theme of 1 John, as stated in 1:3.
John Piper advocates that faith is the gift of God: I am driven by exegesis. It is taught in the Bible. It is icing on the cake that it happens to smash pride. But that is not the reason I invent it. It is taught in the Bible that faith is a gift. We are dead in our trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1). Nobody would ever believe and perform the most beautiful act of morality that can be performed, namely faith, if God didn’t enable us to get rid of our hard hearts and have a heart of flesh. Some Bible teachers have asked, if God regenerates before He gives the gift of faith, why is faith needed? The sinner is already regenerated!
John Piper links regeneration before faith and faith the gift of God to the bondage of the will: Referring to John 5:43-44, Piper wrote: You cannot believe when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from God. Cannot. Why not? Why pronounce over them such bondage? Because their love for self-exaltation makes love for Jesus impossible.
Charles Ryrie, by way of contrast, writes: Sovereignty must not obliterate free will, and free will must never dilute sovereignty.
God's sovereignty seems to contradict man's freedom or actual responsibility. But even though it may seem to do so, the perfection of sovereignty is clearly taught in the Scriptures, so it must not be denied because of our inability to reconcile it with freedom or responsibility.
Also, if God is sovereign, how can the creation be so filled with evil? [1]
Free will was allowed in the eternal degrees of God
These views relate to the question of the order of the decrees of God. This discussion concerns logic more than revelation, and it only serves to highlight the different perspectives by attempting to place an order on the parts of the single decree of God, especially focusing on the relation of election to the Fall (lapse—fall).
Supralapsarianism places election first (supra—above) followed by the decrees to create, allow the Fall, and then provide for the salvation of the elect.
Infralapsarianism (infra—later) lists Creation, Fall, election, and then provision for the salvation of the elect.
Sublapsarianism (sub—beneath) sees this order: Creation, Fall, provision of salvation for all, election of some to be saved. Some theologians do not recognize the distinction between infra and sub, and I must say that none of these schemes really confirms anything. The issue under discussion concerns the extent of the Atonement, and it will not be settled or even enlightened much by deciding the supposed order of the decrees.[2]
The Fall was included in the decree of God but cannot be blamed on God. Adam fell because he had freedom of will to choose to disobey God.
Free will was exercised by Satan
This sin must have been included in the eternal plan of God. Yet God never assumes the responsibility for the commission of any sin, including Satan’s. [3]
J. O. Buswell identifies Satan exercising free will:
According to the Bible, then, sin originated in an act of free will in which the creature deliberately, responsibly, and with adequate understanding of the issues chose to corrupt the holy character of godliness with which God had endowed His creation. … Satan sinned necessarily. God is rightly angry with all sin. … The denial of free will seems to be purely arbitrary philosophical dogmatism, contrary to the biblical view. [4]
Free will was exercised in the Garden before the Fall
Man was created with genuine freedom, but the exercise of that freedom in rebellion against God introduced sin into the human race.
However we describe Adam’s moral nature before the Fall, it is clear that he was without sin .... Adam possessed unconfirmed (because he had neither passed nor failed the test) creature (because his holiness was not the same as the Creator’s) holiness (because he was more than “innocent”).
Adam had a free will and a mind capable of weighing choices. [5]
John Calvin wrote of Adam’s free will: Adam, therefore, could have stood if he would, since he fell merely by his own will; but because his will was flexible to either side, and he was not endued with constancy to persevere, therefore he so easily fell. Yet his choice of good and evil was free; and not only so, but his mind and will were possessed of consummate rectitude, and all his organic parts were rightly disposed to obedience, till, destroying himself, he corrupted all his excellencies. [6]
Sinners have free will today
God is the Architect of a plan, which does include all things but includes them in a variety of relationships. Architects’ plans are detailed. So is God’s plan. In the process of constructing a building, experts can predict that so many workers will be injured and in some cases that some will lose their lives. Such grim statistics are included in the planning of the building, and yet we would not hold the architect responsible for the injuries and deaths (assuming proper safety measures). Carelessness, indifference to rules, even violation of safety restrictions are usually the causes of accidents. But whose fault are they? The individuals who are careless or indifferent. [7] Ryrie writes accurately, “Sovereignty must not obliterate free will, and free will must never dilute sovereignty.” [8]
The debate between Martin Luther and Erasmus over Free Will
Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam wrote Discourse on Free Will refuting what Martin Luther had written on free will in his Assertions. Erasmus fired the shot across the bow: Luther first wrote against free will in his Assertions. Luther in Article 36, restating the 13th Heidelberg thesis, asserts that the free will is a mere fiction. Article 31 asserts that a pious man sins doing good works. Article 32 asserts that a good work is a mortal sin. Cf. chapter IV, footnote 5. [9) Luther responded to Erasmus in his Bondage of the Will.
Martin Luther states his view: However, with regard to God, and in all things pertaining to salvation or damnation, man has no free will, but is a captive, servant, and bondslave, either to the will of God or to the will of Satan. [10]
Erasmus gives his definition of free will:
In my opinion the implications of the freedom of the will in Holy Scripture are as follows: If we are on the road to piety, we should continue to improve eagerly and forget what lies behind us;
· If we have become involved in sin, we should make every effort to extricate ourselves,
· To accept the remedy of penance [Roman Catholic sacrament],
· And to solicit the mercy of the Lord, without which neither the human will nor its striving is effective [the mercy of the Lord enables the sinner to keep the sacraments]. [10]
Erasmus sounds Semipelagian
Erasmus sounds Semipelagian, which contends that the sinner, who is only partially depraved, begins his pursuit of salvation on his own, and then God intervenes with grace. Roger Olson, quoting Nazarene theologian Orton Wiley, states that semi-Pelagianism teaches that in the partially depraved nature of man, he makes the first move toward God in procuring salvation but then needs divine grace to move further. The initiating act of man provokes God’s response with the necessary grace to complete salvation. [11] Because the will is not totally depraved, the sinner can initially seek salvation unaided by God’s grace, according to semipelagism.
Erasmus and the infallibility of the RCC
Erasmus reveals his view of the infallibility of the church. Under the heading Infallibility of the Church, Erasmus writes: “Finally, even though Christ’s Spirit might permit His people to be in error in an unimportant question on which man’s salvation does not depend, no one could believe that this Spirit has deliberately over-looked error in His Church for 1300 years.” [12] The RCC teaches salvation by works i.e., keeping the sacraments.
Erasmus’ view of free will is far too free. Erasmus includes works for salvation.
Luther’s refutation of Erasmus’ definition
Luther quotes Erasmus’ definition and proceeds to refute it by comparing Erasmus’s to Pelagius’ view: “For I have shown above that free will belongs to none but God alone.” [13] “This means that no one since the Pelagians has written of free will more correctly than Erasmus. For I have said above that free will is a divine term and signifies a divine power. So far only the Pelagians have ever assigned to it such power.” [14] “Accordingly, Augustine in his second book against Julian calls it a slave will rather than a free will.” [15]
Erasmus writes more favorably about Pelagius than he does Augustine:
Pelagius taught that no new grace was needed once grace had liberated and healed the free will of man. Thus the free will by itself was deemed sufficient to achieve eternal salvation. But we owe salvation solely to God without whose grace the will of man could not be effectively free to achieve good. The strength of soul, with which man can pursue the good he knows and avoid all evil, is in itself a gift of the creator who could have made a frog instead of man. [16]
Under the heading of Freedom and grace according to St. Augustine and the reformers, Erasmus writes:
“Diametrically opposed is the view that all morally good deeds [without grace] are detestable in God’s sight no less than criminal deeds such as murder and adultery, because they do not originate in faith nor in love of God. This judgment is obviously too severe.” [17]
Pelagianism, was declared heretical by the Church Council of Ephesus (431). The Semi-Pelagians of the later 5th century taught a modified form, condemned in 529. Erasmus’ interpretation of Pelagianism is less critical than that of the Church. Luther thus inclines to classify Erasmus as a Pelagian, something he distinctly abhors. [18]
Erasmus on foreknowledge
Foreknowledge does not cause what is to take place. Even we know many things which will be happening. They will not happen because we know them, but vice versa. An eclipse of the sun does not occur because astronomers predict it, but it can be predicted, precisely because it will take place. [19]
What God foreknows does come to pass (1 Pet 1:20; 1:2).
In this paragraph, Erasmus comes close to Luther: A passage from John could drive us further into the corner: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him” (John 6,44). The word “draw” seems to point to necessity and exclude the free will. But actually it is a nonviolent drawing. It causes a person to want a thing just as readily as he can refuse it [Luther would argue the sinner cannot refuse God’s grace]. And as we show a little boy an apple and he comes running; a sheep a willow twig and it follows, so God moves our soul by his grace and we give ourselves willingly. [20] Luther would disagree with the statement: “he can refuse it.” Efficacious grace cannot be resisted (Rom 8:29-30).
Erasmus on effective or efficacious grace
Erasmus refers to effective grace: The passage in Philippians 2,13, “For it is God who of his own good pleasure works in you both the will and the performance,” does not exclude the free will. If you relate “of his good pleasure” to man, as Ambrose of Milan does, you’ll understand that the good will cooperates with the effective grace. [21] However, effective grace can be refused, according to Erasmus. Paul is discussing believers in this passage, so it is inappropriate for the free will debate.
Erasmus’ reservations concerning justification by faith
So, did the RCC have reservations concerning justification by faith? Erasmus wrote about his reservations:
According to Paul, he is justified who within his heart believes. I do not especially want to quarrel with those who attribute everything to faith as the fountainhead, although it seems to me that faith and love, and love and faith come about and nurture each other mutually. Certainly faith is nurtured by love, as the flame in a lamp is nurtured by the oil. For we have greater faith in him whom we love dearly. There is no scarcity of voices who, more correctly, take faith as the beginning of salvation and not its sum total. But we don’t want to argue about that. [22]
Luther and faith as a gift of God
Luther combines the sovereignty of God in the election and efficacious grace producing salvation: Grasp it as what you might prefer to call the unchangeability of God's will and the powerlessness of our evil will – what some have called "a necessity of immutability." [23]
Luther advocates that faith is the gift of God: “However, this faith is a unique and rare gift from God, as Paul says.” [23]
The contemporary debate over free will
R. C. Sproul, in an article, Regeneration Precedes Faith, wrote: One of the most dramatic moments in my life, during which the shaping of my theology took place in a seminary classroom. One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters: “Regeneration Precedes Faith.” These words were a shock to my system. I had entered seminary believing that the key work of man to effect rebirth was faith. I thought that we first had to believe in Christ in order to be born again. I use the words in order here for a reason. I was thinking in terms of steps that must be taken in a certain sequence. I had put faith at the beginning.
Sproul saw faith as the work of the sinner. Faith, however, is rather the work of God, as Jesus stated in John 6:29, “This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom he has sent.” God draws the sinner, convicts the sinner of the sin of rejecting Christ, and by His grace, helps the sinner to believe. Ryrie states “Faith is also part of the total package of salvation that is the gift of God (Eph. 2:9); yet faith is commanded in order to be saved.” [24]
Ryrie addresses the Reformed view of regeneration preceding faith: In the Reformed statement of the ordo salutis, regeneration precedes faith, for, it is argued, a sinner must be given new life in order to be able to believe. Although this is admittedly stated only as a logical order, it is not wise to insist even on that; for it may as well be argued that if a sinner has the new life through regeneration, why does he need to believe? Of course, there can be no chronological order; both regeneration and faith have to occur at the same moment. To be sure, faith is also part of the total package of salvation that is the gift of God (Eph. 2:9); yet faith is commanded in order to be saved (Acts 16:31). Both are true. [25]
Harold W. Hoehner expands on the concept that faith is not the gift but rather salvation is the gift in Ephesians 2:8:
These verses explain “the incomparable riches of His grace” (v. 7), expanding the parenthetical statement in verse 5, It is by grace you have been saved, and adding that the means of this salvation is through faith. Hence the basis is grace and the means is faith alone (cf. Rom. 3:22, 25; Gal. 2:16; 1 Peter 1:5). Faith is not a “work.” It does not merit salvation; it is only the means by which one accepts God’s free salvation.
Paul elaborated, and this is not from yourselves; it is the gift of God. Much debate has centered around the demonstrative pronoun “this” (touto). Though some think it refers back to “grace” and others to “faith,” neither of these suggestions is really valid because the demonstrative pronoun is neuter, whereas “grace” and “faith” are feminine. Also, to refer back to either of these words specifically seems to be redundant. Rather, the neuter touto, as is common, refers to the preceding phrase or clause. (In Eph. 1:15 and 3:1 touto, “this,” refers back to the preceding section.) Thus, it refers back to the concept of salvation (2:4–8a), whose basis is grace and means is faith. This salvation does not have its source in man (it is “not from yourselves”), but rather, its source is God’s grace for “it is the gift of God.” [26]
Theologians call this synergistic regeneration in contrast to monergistic regeneration. “The first is monergism, and the other is synergism. Both of these words contain the Greek word “ergon” which means “work.” The prefix syn means “with”, and the prefix mono means “alone.’” [27]
Monergistic regeneration is the view of Luther, Piper, and Sproul. God does it all. God regenerates before faith. God gives faith.
Now, synergistic regeneration means we cooperate with God in salvation. Synergistic regeneration can have many different advocates, including Roman Catholics. “According to the Catholic faith we believe this also, that after grace has been received through baptism, all the baptized with the help and cooperation of Christ can and ought to fulfill what pertains to the salvation of the soul.” [28]
My view, and others like Ryrie, is that our cooperation with God in salvation is not works or sacraments but believing, which is not a work according to Jesus in John 6:29. Also, Paul in Romans 4:3 states that Abraham believed and it was accounted to him for salvation and then in Romans 4:4, Paul added that “to him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” In other words, when Abraham believed and was counted righteous, his belief was not a work. When the Philippians jailor asked, “What must I do to be saved?” Paul did not answer “Nothing, you can do nothing.” Rather Paul responded, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved” (Acts 16:30-31).
Jonathan Edwards, although monergistic, expresses the cooperation of God and the sinner: We are not merely passive in [faith and obedience], [monergism] nor yet does God do some and we do the rest, but God does all and we do all. God produces all and we act all. For that is what he produces, our own acts. God is the only proper author and fountain; we only are the proper actors. We are in different respects wholly passive and wholly active. [29]
[1] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth, Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition, 49.
[2] Ibid., 368.
[3] Ibid., 162.
[3] Ibid., 359-360.
[4] J. Oliver Buswell, “The Origin and Nature of Sin.” Basic Christian Doctrines, Carl F. H. Henry, ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962,107-109.
[5] Ibid., 231.
[6] John Calvin, Institutes, I, XV, 215.
[7] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth, 359.
[8] Ibid., 48.
[9] Erasmus, Desiderius; Luther, Martin. Discourse on Free Will: (Bloomsbury Revelations) (p. 20). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.
[10] Ibid., 117.
[10] Ibid., 14.
[11] Roger Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2006, 30.
[12] Erasmus, Desiderius; Luther, Martin. Discourse on Free Will, 24.
[13] Ibid., 124.
[14] Ibid., 124.
[15] Ibid., 124.
[16] Ibid., 32.
[17] Ibid., 34.
[18] Ibid., 41-42.
[19] Ibid., 56.
[20] Ibid., 74.
[21] Ibid., 78.
[22] Ibid., 89.
[23] Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will: In Modern, Updated English Modern Puritans. Kindle Edition, 97.
[24] Ibid., 198.
[25] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth, 376.
[26] Harold W. Hoehner, Bible Knowledge Commentary, on Ephesians 2:8.
[27] Allen S. Nelson, IV, “3 Reasons to Hold to Monergistic Regeneration,” Founders Ministry.
[28] Synergism and Monergism: Which one is scriptural? At Viva Catholic Explaining and defending Catholic faith as a layman.
[29] Jonathan Edwards, Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 21, 251.