CONCERNING FREE WILL OR THE BONDAGE OF THE WILL

By on Aug 19, 2013 in AM Missives, Current Issues, Features

 

A1

In the Apprising Ministries post The Gospel: God-Centered Vs. Man-Centered we discussed what is meant by our use of these particular terms. A man-centered gospel is the belief that the determining factor in whether or not a man is eternally saved—in the end—relies upon an act of his own will i.e. a human decision where he cooperates, on some level, with God.

While the Reformation solas of e.g. sola fide and sola gratia mean that while the sinner is dead in his trespasses and sins it is God Himself sovereignly regenerating those whom He will and gives them as His gift the faith to believe and repent. This is diametrically opposed to any of the Seeker Driven evangelical movements like that led by Purpose Driven Pope Rick Warren.

Fueled by its infatuation with corrupt Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism, today the contemporary American Christian community largely believes in synergism (man cooperates with God in his salvation); while in opposition to the synergism of apostate Roman Catholicism, the Reformers—even before John Calvin—taught monergism (God alone saves a man, i.e. soli Deo gloria).

Once you grasp this idea then you’ll more readily understand why Rick Warren’s purpose driven man-centered mythology has been so readily embraced within apostatizing evangelicalism, which believes that revival can be worked up by human endeavor. Yet sadly, now we’re even witnessing ostensibly Calvinist leaders like John Piper and Al Mohler apparently working more closely with Warren. ((See JOHN PIPER, RICK WARREN & FOSTER-WILLARDISM and AL MOHLER AND SBTS EXECUTIVE TEAM VISIT RICK WARREN))

This is also why more and more pretending to be Protestant evangelicals have come under the delusion that we can even do pre-conversion discipleship. For example, consider the following from Emerging Church missiologist Alan Hirsch from a book actually endorsed by Rick Warren himself:

we need to reframe evangelism within the context of discipleship…even “the Twelve” (and “the Seventy”) were all what we would call “pre-conversion disciples.” ((Alan Hirsch, Deborah Hirsch, Untamed: Reactivating a Missional Form of Discipleship [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2010], 150))

In closing this out, for now, let me point you to Recovering Reformation Theology: Rejecting Synergism and Returning to Monergism by Christian apologist Bob DeWaay. Keeping all of this in mind you’ll see that DeWaay begins with the core issue and is dead-on-target when he says:

Please realize that free will is more of a philosophical concept than a theological one, though it has theological implications… free will is not the simple solution to many important theological issues that many people think it is… I will be discussing two alternative definitions of free will. The first is the typical definition demanded by Arminians (those who believe that a free will choice to believe brings about salvation): “The ability to choose between options, either of which could be actualized by the act of choosing.” The second definition was proposed by Jonathan Edwards: “The ability to choose as one pleases”…

Free will is assumed from passages that teach human responsibility… [because of a ] most important problem: free will is never directly addressed in the Bible. Even in passages where prophets and others asked God why He allowed so much evil to harm the innocent, it was not discussed. The answer was never that God was committed to the principle of free will and determined that allowing evil was a necessary by-product of free will…

[People can produce] a long list of scriptures on human responsibility…[and then assume] that if we are responsible we must have free choice in the matter… If we say that in order for a person to be responsible, that person must be perfectly able to make correct choices to obey God—it is the same as rejecting the teaching of the Bible. The Bible teaches that humans are both responsible for their sin and in bondage to their sin. It teaches that God’s grace is necessary to deliver us from sin. If man were free to perfectly choose obedience, then someone other than Christ could have lived a sinless life and escape judgment based on human merit. That idea denies Paul’s teaching in Romans 3:9-18…

Charles Finney, the 19th century revivalist championed the idea that Biblical passages about man’s moral responsibility imply complete ability to perfectly obey God:

Moral agency implies the possession of free will. By free-will is intended the power of choosing, or refusing to choose, in every instance, in compliance with moral obligation. Free-will implies the power of originating and deciding our own choices, and of exercising our own sovereignty, in every instance of choice upon moral questions of deciding or choosing in conformity with duty or otherwise in all cases of moral obligation. That man cannot be under a moral obligation to perform an absolute impossibility is a first truth of reason. But man’s causality, his whole power of causality to perform or do anything, lies in his will.

This sounds logical to the unregenerate mind; but it is not Biblical. Finney’s position is a reiteration of the Pelagian heresy. It goes so far in the direction of human ability that even Rome anathematized it at Trent: “If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if by free-will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty: let him be anathema.”

Rome also anathematized Luther’s opposite position on this, the bondage of the will: “If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free-will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan: let him be anathema.” Roman Catholic theology is semi-Pelagian, which it viewed as middle ground. That means Rome taught “prevenient grace”: “If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him: let him be anathema.”

Summary Statement

Let me summarize the three basic positions on the will of man in relationship to ability to choose to obey God: 1) Pelagianism like that of Finney teaches that humans are fully able to obey God without any special work of grace. The mere presence of a command from God, they say, requires the reality of free will ability to comply. 2) Semi-Pelagians teach that without prevenient grace, man would not be able to respond freely to the call to believe; but that God has already provided such grace to all humans. “Prevenient” is an old English term that means “to go before.” The semi-Pelagian view is also synergistic—meaning that salvation and sanctification are a cooperative effort between God and man.

3) Luther and the other reformers taught the bondage of the will. This position, anathematized by Rome in several canons on justification, was that all fallen sinners are in bondage to their own sin so much so that they will not submit to God without a prior sovereign work of God’s grace. This became the Reformation doctrine of “grace alone,” also called “monergism.” By this thinking salvation is an act of God alone. I agree with Luther on this matter. (source)

Further reading