The Free Will
Controversy
Everyone
likes to believe that they are free to do what they choose, is this fact
or fallacy?
There
are many evangelicals who contend that man is free to choose to reject the
saving grace that God offers to the sinner. Diametrically opposed to this
view, however, is the claim that God chooses those who should be saved.
The former group of evangelicals accuse the latter group of unfairness,
‘double predestination’ and automatonism. Since I unashamedly profess
allegiance to the latter group I shall be seeking to present convincing
justification from the Biblical perspective.
In
order to place the subject in its historical context we retrace our steps
to Holland in the year 1610. A Dutch professor, Jacobus Arminius, had just
died and his teaching had been formulated into five main categories of
doctrine. His legacy has become known as Arminianism.
When
we look into Arminius’ timeframe we find that he lived at a time when
Europe was discovering Biblical truth as contained in Reformation
Protestantism. Luther had taken the Church out from under the grasp of the
Church of Rome. Calvin, Melanchton, Zwingli, Knox and others had once
again touched the hearts of the people through the proclamation of the
Gospel. Souls were being saved. Lives and whole communities and countries
were being transformed. Romanism was being confronted. As Protestantism
developed it was clearly acknowledged that the doctrinal system known as Calvinism
was greatly used by God and it became the most influential ‘glove’ in
the hand of the Holy Spirit. For example, this fact is recognised in the
Gallican (1559), Belgic (1561) and Heidelberg (1562) Confessions of Faith,
as well as the Synods of Antwerp (1666), La Rochelle (1571) and Dort
(1618-19).
It
must be clearly refuted that ‘Calvinism’ has its origins in the
teachings of John Calvin. It is often similarly and erroneously claimed
that Calvin derived his teaching from Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.).
Without doubt, Paul and Augustine studied faithfully the Scriptures, and
in particular the inspired writings of Paul. Paul himself, through the
work of the Holy Spirit received his learning from the Lord Jesus Christ,
the Second Person of the Trinity, the Author of the Book! Therefore, the
term ‘Calvinist’ is, in some ways, an unfortunate term but it is
merely a label of convenience.
The
doctrines of Rome, pertaining to soteriology, are at best Pelagian.
Calvinism, on the other hand, is the complete opposite! Pelagius was a
contemporary of Augustine and basically he taught that man can take the
initial and fundamental steps towards salvation by his own efforts, apart
from Divine grace. However, Augustine preached and wrote against Pelagius
and, in 416 A.D., he was excommunicated. The Council of Carthage in 418
further condemned Pelagius’ teachings and in a series of nine canons
affirmed in uncompromising terms the so-called ‘Augustinian’ doctrine
of the Fall and original sin.
The
two terms, then, - ‘Pelagianism’ and ‘Augustinianism’, - proceeded
along very separate paths. However, in the 4th and 5th
centuries a group of theologians held that, while not denying the
necessity of salvation by grace, the first steps towards Christ were an
activity solely dependent upon the human will. It was only afterwards that
God’s grace supervened. This position has come to be known as ‘semi-Pelagianism’.
It was outright condemned by the Council of Orange (529 A.D.).
Hence,
when Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) voiced his doubts regarding the
Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, after studies in the Epistle to
the Romans, he was accused of Pelagianism and disloyalty to the
Confessions of the Church. This indeed was a serious indictment for a man
who had studied in such places as Leyden (1576-82) Geneva and Basel
(1582-87). Shortly we shall be looking briefly at the Arminian doctrines
that were formally set forth in the Remonstrance of 1610. The ensuing
struggle between the Arminians and the Calvinists was bitter.
Since
Arminianism was seen to be a more liberal school of theology than the
strict Calvinists, they exercised considerable influence on the Dutch and
European Protestant theology. In England Archbishop William Laud of
Canterbury, - no friend of the Puritans! – ‘ploughed a similar
doctrinal furrow’ to Arminius and consequently the influence was
advanced. However, the effect of Methodism’s John Wesley, - an ardent
Arminian, - has continued to sift through all theological corridors
effected by this form of preaching. This emphasis has been further
enflamed by the Holiness movement and subsequent related teachings, even
within our own century.
What
did Arminius teach?
1.
Free
will, or human ability.
Man, although affected by the Fall in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3), is not
wholly incapable of choosing spiritual good. He is able to exercise belief
and faith in God that will ultimately lead to his salvation. Therefore,
man’s free will is compatible with the sovereignty of God.
2.
Conditional
election.
God decided to save those who decided to choose Him. In other words, God
knew before the event took place who would actually come to Him for
salvation. Thus, God elected those for salvation whom He saw would, of
their own free will, want to be saved, - even though they belonged to a
natural fallen state.
3.
Universal
redemption, or general
atonement. Christ died for all men, but only in a potential
fashion. That is to say, the death of the Lord Jesus Christ allowed God
the opportunity to save sinners on the condition that they believed in
Him. The success of God’s salvation is totally determined by the free
will of the fallen human creature turning to Him in repentance.
4.
The
work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration limited by the human will.
It is the Holy Spirit that draws near to the sinner and convicts him of
his sin. However, the power and work of the Holy Spirit can be thwarted
and resisted and frustrated if the sinner does not wish to relinquish his
sin. The Holy Spirit’s capability to save from sin is entirely at the
behest of the sinner’s desire to turn to Him or reject Him.
5.
Falling
from grace. A person
who is responsible for choosing to be saved is similarly responsible for
keeping his salvation. Otherwise, if/when he sins he could finally lose
his salvation. He has no ultimate assurance that God’s redemptive grace
will keep him. He can be saved and, at a later stage, be lost.
These
five points of Arminianism were thoroughly discussed at the Synod of Dort
(1618-19) during its 154 formal sessions, stretching over seven months.
Consequently, this assembly of the Dutch Reformed Church passed on 23rd
April, 1619 the following five sets of articles:
1.
Total Depravity
2.
Unconditional Election
3.
Limited Atonement
4.
Irresistible Grace
5.
Perseverance of the Saints
It
is this doctrine that underpinned the God-glorifying evangelistic
preaching of men like Whitefield, C.H. Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, and a great
host of others!
“The
old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, is the truth that
I must preach today, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I
cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough
edges of a doctrine. John Knox’s gospel is my gospel. That which
thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again.”
Spurgeon
on the implications of free will.
According
to the free will scheme, the Lord intends good, but He must wait like a
leckey on His own creature to know what His intention is; God willeth good
and would do it but He cannot because He has an unwilling man who will not
have God’s good thing carried into effect. What do ye, sirs, but drag
the Eternal from His throne and lift up into it that fallen creature, man;
for man, according to that theory, nods and his nod is destiny. You must
have a destiny somewhere; it must either be as God wills or as man wills.
If it be as God wills, then Jehovah sits as sovereign upon His throne of
glory, and all hosts obey Him, and the world is safe; if not God, then you
put man there to say, ‘I will’, or ‘I will not; if I will it, I will
enter heaven; if I will it, I will despise the grace of God; if I will it,
I will conquer the Holy Spirit, for I am stronger than God and stronger
than omnipotence; if I will it, I will make the blood of Christ of no
effect, for I am mightier than the blood, mightier than the blood of the
Son of God Himself; though God make His purpose, yet will I laugh at His
purpose; it shall be my purpose that shall make His purpose stand or
fall’.
Why,
sirs, if this be not atheism, it is idolatry; it is putting man where God
should be; and I shrink with solemn awe and horror from that doctrine
which makes the grandest of God’s works - the salvation of man - to be
dependent upon the will of His creature whether it shall be accomplished
or not. Glory I can and must in my text in its fullest sense. ‘It is not
of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth
mercy’ (Romans 9:16).
