Man's Will Is Under Divine Sovereignty.

Man’s Will Is Under Divine Sovereignty:

Exodus 7:3. “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart.”

Exodus 9:16. “And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth” (Rom 9:22; Pro 21:1).

Exodus 10:1. “And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart.” (Exod. 9:12; 10:20,27; 11:10; 14:8, etc.)

Joshua 11:20. “For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts...that he might destroy them utterly.”

1 Samuel 15:3. “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.”

Proverbs 19:21. “There are many devices in a man’s heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand”

Isaiah 40:8. “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”

Isaiah 40:13. “Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?”

Isaiah 46:10. “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying,

My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.”

Daniel 4:35. “And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?”

Luke 11:28. “But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”

John 1:13. “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

John 3:3,7-8. “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again [from above], he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

John 5:21. “The Son quickeneth whom he will.”

Romans 9:17. “For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.” (Pro 16:4).

Romans 11:24. “Thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree.”

Romans 16:13. “Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord.”

Ephesians 2:1. “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.”

James 1:18. “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth.”

God's Sovereignty Over Men's Wills

Does the Bible teach that God is sovereign over men’s wills? You tell me.

“you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.” (Gen. 50:20)

“But I will harden his (Pharaoh’s) heart, so that he will not let the people go.” (Ex. 4:21)

“And the Lord had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they granted them what they requested. Thus they plundered the Egyptians.” (Ex. 12:36)

“And I indeed will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them. So I will gain honor over Pharaoh and over all his army, his chariots, and his horsemen.” (Ex. 14:17)

“But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass through, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that He might deliver him into your hand” (Deut. 2:30)

“For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them” (Josh. 11:20)

“God sent a spirit of ill will between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech” (Jud. 9:23)

“the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’” (2 Sam. 24:1)

“The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets” (1 Kings 22:23)

“that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom” (Ezra 1:1-3)

“the Lord made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria toward them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God” (Ezra 6:22)

“He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal craftily with His servants.” (Ps. 105:25)

“A man’s heart (will) plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.” (Pr. 16:9)

“The king’s heart (will) is in the hand of the LORD…He turns it wherever He wishes. (Pr. 21:1)

“Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger…I will send him against an ungodly nation, and against the people of My wrath I will give him charge…Yet he does not mean so, nor does his heart think so” (Is. 10:5-7)

“For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?” (Is. 14:27)

“Who says of Cyrus, ‘He is My shepherd, and he shall perform all My pleasure’” (Is. 44:28)

“I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever” (Jer. 32:39)

“I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me.” (Jer. 32:40)

“I will give you a new heart (will) and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart (will) of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.” (Ezek. 36:26-27)

“For His dominion is and everlasting dominion, and His kingdom is from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, “What have you done?” (Dan. 4:34-35)

“For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.” (Acts 4:27-28)

“And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” (Rom. 8:28)

“Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” (Rom. 9:19)

“But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.” (1 Cor. 12:11)

“for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” (Phil. 2:13)

“Instead you ought to say, ‘If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that.’” (Jas. 4:15)

“For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.” (Rev. 17:17)

Why Trichotomy is Wrong 3 F, The Errors It Spawns

3F Various Other Errors

As if the last 5 posts weren't enough to expose Trichotomy for the false doctrine that it most definitely is, we will conclude this series today by looking at a few other assorted erroneous theological consequences of Trichotomy.

1. Let us consider first what Trichotomy means for the doctrine of regeneration. On the Trichotomist scheme, regeneration is the miracle which occurs when God gives us a new spirit, since we are spiritually dead. Christians are said to have a new life which unbelievers do not possess. God has given us a new spirit, or as some prefer to put it, God has created in us a new spirit. B.B. Warfield clearly saw the inherent theological flaw in the Trichotomist scheme. He writes, "Thus the man is not saved after all; a different newly created man is substituted for him. When the old man is got rid of - and that the old man has to be ultimately got rid of [we do] not doubt - the saved man that is left is not at all the old man that was to be saved, but a new man that has never needed saving." (B.B. Warfield, Review of "He That Is Spiritual," by Lewis Sperry Chafer.) Warfield's point, while apparently philosophically obtuse, is actually a very valid objection. If regeneration means that the "old man" who was me is no more and has been replaced by a "new man" by God's miraculous act of creating a new spirit, then I am no longer me. If I replace an apple tree with a cherry tree, I no longer have the same tree. In other words: I was not saved; I was made into a man that didn't even need to be saved.

2. Trichotomy also allows for the false doctrine of free-will. The body, since it is flesh, we are told tends toward evil - and we are said to be spiritually dead. But the soul remains magically unaffected by the Fall into sin, therefore it is able, when properly induced, to make a decision to accept Christ and savingly believe on Him. Trichotomist anthropology lets its adherents appear to take seriously the passages of Scripture which speak of men as dead in their fallen sinful condition, while at the same time, making full allowances for this Baal of free-will. In the final analysis, this makes man's will, and not God's grace, to be the final arbiter and determining factor of each man's eternal destiny. If we reject Trichotomy, we are left with a man who is composed of two elements, a body and a soul, both of which are ruined by sin. Thus any hope of salvation must reside in God's good pleasure and not in man's pretended abilities to do that which is diametrically opposed to his nature. Fish can't fly; neither can dead sinners resurrect themselves.

3. Trichotomy is responsible also for many of the more flagrant errors of Pentecostalism and Charismaticism. Let's consider the issue of Tongues again for a moment. If I edify myself by speaking in a language which my mind does not understand, why is an interpreter required by Paul when I do this in church? If I can edify myself by hearing my babbling of unintelligible syllables, why can't the rest of the church be edified by hearing the same uninterpreted things which edify me? This alone is sufficient to demolish the whole modern tongues-speaking movement. It is obvious from the text that the speaker understood what he was saying in a language he knew but with which the rest of his hearers were unlearned. This is why his understanding was unfruitful. He knew what he was saying, but no one else did. I speak Tagalog fluently. If I were to stand up in a small country church in rural America and speak in Tagalog, I may edify myself by the wondrous truths I was proclaiming, but my understanding would be unfruitful because no one else in the room would benefit from my understanding without an interpreter.

4. Another potential danger of Trichotomy is dualism. By elevating the "realm of the spirit" over the body, i.e., by understanding the spirit to be higher than the body and soul, one creates an unscriptural dichotomy between the material and immaterial. This is plain old Greek speculative philosophy. It pits spirit against soul and body in a way that is unjustifiable. Matter is not evil. God proved this by (1) creating it in the first place, (2) by the Incarnation, and (3) by the promise of resurrection. If matter is inherently evil, how can we maintain that a good God created it? This is exactly what the ancient dualistic heretics did. If the body, as matter, is inherently bad, how can we maintain that Christ took on human flesh? If Christ did not take on human flesh, we are still in our sins, because a hologram cannot die. If our bodies, as matter, are inherently bad, how can we hope for their resurrection? Killing a flawed inferior thing is a good thing. It does not gain dignity simply by being brought back to life. Let me anticipate a question here, too. Why, you might ask, is the soul considered with the body as part of the lower nature of man and not up with the spirit in the higher nature? It is for this reason. "The most familiar, but also the crudest form of Trichotomy is that which takes the body for the material part of man's nature, the soul as the principle of animal life, and the spirit as the God-related rational and immortal element in man" (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology).

You might object that no professing Christian holds to such false views of the body. I beg to differ. Even if Trichotomists denied belief in such propositions, this would not make them invalid consequences of their system, mind you. Once you divide man into superior and inferior parts - and you put soul and body down into the inferior category, you have nowhere to go logically but to dualism. If you pit the spirit against the soul as the animal life of the body, soul and body must be viewed, and accordingly treated, as inherently bad. This has been proven repeatedly by Church history. Monasticism is a case in point. Why did men and women deprive themselves of sleep and food? Why did Simon sit on the top of a pole for decades? Why did countless monks sleep on the ground and not in beds? Why did they wear hair shirts? Because they saw their bodies as part of a lower nature with the soul, that was necessary to keep under wraps if one was to nourish and nurture his higher, i.e., spiritual nature. Animals eat, drink, bathe, breed, sleep, etc. If we are higher than animals, and the soul is the animal life of the body, then these impulses must be subdued if one wishes to be spiritual. Why was poverty considered such a noble state? To read some of the medieval mystics, or John Wesley for that matter, you'd think that being poor was already a deeply spiritual accomplishment on its own. If one had to choose between poverty and even sufficient provisions, there was no doubt in these people's minds that poverty was the more spiritual option. This foolishness is also what was behind the whole celibacy movement as well. How could a person who enjoys the bodily pleasures associated with the marriage bed be as spiritual as one who has deprived himself of such? Again, nothing in Scripture even remotely suggests that we should ask this question.

5. There is another potential Trinitarian error inherent in Trichotomy. If you recall when we dealt with the false teaching of the 'carnal Christian,' we quoted Chuck Smith, an advocate of such teaching, as saying, "We meet God in the realm of our spirit." Many people have misunderstood John's phrase "in the Spirit" (Revelation 1:10) to be describing a different realm or dimension of reality. This is an extremely dangerous idea. It depersonalizes the Holy Spirit into a 'force' or a 'dimension.' Think of Frank Peretti's novels. There is the realm of the physical and a spiritual realm in which is mirrored all the events of the physical realm. This spawned all the strange idea current in our days regarding 'spiritual warfare.' Christians, through mind-denigrating spiritual exercises can somehow influence unseen things in this spiritual realm, which in turn, impact events in the physical realm. There is nothing new under the sun. The Manicheans of old held the same view of reality. By referring to the Spirit as a realm, the Trinity is denied. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches us that God is one, and that He exists in one divine Essence, yet subsists in three Persons. 'Person' is the operative word. A realm is not a person. This seems to me to be latently pantheistic. Pantheism is the belief that God is the sum total of all existence. In other words, everything is God and God is everything. If my spirit and your spirit and God's Spirit are a realm, then they are all by definition one common realm of common experience for us all - which means that my spirit and God's are essentially the same thing. How can I distinguish my own spirit from God's? This is pantheism. If my spirit is a dimension or realm for experiencing the divine and your spirit is an entirely different realm, then there could be no talk of a "realm of the spirit." We would have to allow for an innumerable multitude of these "realms." But no one speaks this way. Trichotomists constantly and consistently speak of one "realm of the spirit." This has at least a tinge of pantheism in it. Therefore it is no surprise when the spiritual exercises proposed to nurture the spirit are identical, whether they be "Christian" or Pantheist. It also explains why their form of the spiritual gift of a "words of knowledge" looks suspiciously like mind-reading or a Vulcan mind-meld. We reiterate: the Holy Spirit is not a realm, a force, or a dimension of experience. Speaking this way is an implicit denial of the Trinity. Incautiousness in speech begets wrong ideas; wrong ideas beget false doctrine; false doctrine begets more false doctrine; and false doctrine damns, especially when it spawns idolatrous notions about the Godhead. Other doctrines may be negotiable; doctrines about God and His nature are not.

Necessity and Volition Are Not Mutually Exclusive

Necessity and volition are not as opposed to each other as Arminians like to think. In fact, if Scripture is any authority on the matter, these two things are not opposed or exclusive of each other at all.

Here is a case in point; in fact this is the best possible case ever: Jesus was necessarily holy. It was absolutely and intrinsically inevitable that He be holy in every aspect of His life and perfectly righteous in all His actions. Secondly, it was absolutely necessary that He should die for the sins of the elect. Christ was so necessarily good that is was impossible for Him to be otherwise, notwithstanding, He was voluntarily good. That is why He could say, “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work (John 4:34). Secondly, He could not avoid being put to death as an offering for the sins of the elect. Nevertheless, He died voluntarily. He said, “how am I straitened till it be accomplished! (Luke 12:50). And also, “I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” (John 10:17-18).

If this is not enough proof that necessity and volition are not mutually exclusive, nothing is. You may ask how this can be. Our only answer can be that it holds by the wise ordaining of God, who is great in counsel (Jer. 32:19). A true Christian will be satisfied with this answer.

It is safe to assume that very few Arminians, if any, would ever assert that is was possible for Christ to have fallen from grace by sin and to have perished eternally. But, as shocking as that notion is, it is an absolutely necessary consequence of the Arminian doctrine of contingency, whether any Arminian admits, acknowledges or avows it or not.

Scripture Does Not Teach Free-Will

To listen to Arminian preachers, you’d swear the Bible is brimming with affirmations of free-will. You’d think every page of Scripture affirms that men are basically good and simply need to apply themselves. You’d think there’s a verse somewhere that actually says, “God has done His part, now the ball’s in your court.” You’d think “God helps those who help themselves” was a Biblical concept.

Below is a SMALL list (There are many, many more passages of Scripture to this effect) of Scripture passages denying that the unregenerate have free-will. If you can read the following list and come away still convinced that man is basically good and that he has the intrinsic power to choose right, then I question your skills of comprehension, not to mention your honesty when it comes to being instructed by Scripture.

Genesis 6:5: “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

Psalm 33:10: "He maketh the devices of the people of none effect."

Psalm 81:12: "So I gave them up unto their own hearts’ lust: and they walked in their own counsels."

Psalm 119: 36-37: “Incline my heart unto thy testimonies, and not to covetousness. 37 Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity; and quicken thou me in thy way.”

Proverbs 21:1: "The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will."

Proverbs 28:26: "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool."

Ecclesiastes 7:20: "For there is not a just man upon the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

Isaiah 63:17: O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance.

Jeremiah 4:22: "For my people is foolish, they have not known me … they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge."

Jeremiah 17:9: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

Matthew 7:18: “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”

Matthew 16:17: “for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

John 1:13: "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

John 3:27: "A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven."

John 6:44: "No man can come to me except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:65: "Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

John 15:5: "I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without me ye can do nothing."

John 15:16: "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you."

John 17:1a-2: “Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.”

Acts 4:27-28: For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

Romans 3:10-12: "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is no that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

Romans 5:6: "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."

Romans 7:18-19: "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do."

Romans 8:7: "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

Romans 9:16: "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

Romans 10:20: "I was found of them that sought me not."

1 Corinthians 2:11, 14: “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God…But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

1 Corinthians 4:7: “For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?”

1 Corinthians 12:3: “no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.”

2 Corinthians 3:5: “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God”

Ephesians 2:1: "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins."

Ephesians 2:5: "Even when we were dead in sins, hath he quickened us together with Christ; (by grace ye are saved.)"

Philippians 1:29: “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake”

Philippians 2:13: "For it is God which worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

Colossians 1:21: “And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled”

Colossians 2:13: "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses."

Titus 3:3-5: "For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

God's Sovereignty Over Men's Wills

Does the Bible teach that God is sovereign over men’s wills? You tell me.

“you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.” (Gen. 50:20)

“But I will harden his (Pharaoh’s) heart, so that he will not let the people go.” (Ex. 4:21)

“And the Lord had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they granted them what they requested. Thus they plundered the Egyptians.” (Ex. 12:36)

“And I indeed will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them. So I will gain honor over Pharaoh and over all his army, his chariots, and his horsemen.” (Ex. 14:17)

“But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass through, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that He might deliver him into your hand” (Deut. 2:30)

“For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them” (Josh. 11:20)

“God sent a spirit of ill will between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech” (Jud. 9:23)

“the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’” (2 Sam. 24:1)

“The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets” (1 Kings 22:23)

“that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom” (Ezra 1:1-3)

“the Lord made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria toward them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God” (Ezra 6:22)

“He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal craftily with His servants.” (Ps. 105:25)

“A man’s heart (will) plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.” (Pr. 16:9)

“The king’s heart (will) is in the hand of the LORD…He turns it wherever He wishes. (Pr. 21:1)

“Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger…I will send him against an ungodly nation, and against the people of My wrath I will give him charge…Yet he does not mean so, nor does his heart think so” (Is. 10:5-7)

“For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?” (Is. 14:27)

“Who says of Cyrus, ‘He is My shepherd, and he shall perform all My pleasure’” (Is. 44:28)

“I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever” (Jer. 32:39)

“I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me.” (Jer. 32:40)

“I will give you a new heart (will) and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart (will) of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.” (Ezek. 36:26-27)

“For His dominion is and everlasting dominion, and His kingdom is from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, “What have you done?” (Dan. 4:34-35)

“For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.” (Acts 4:27-28)

“And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” (Rom. 8:28)

“Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” (Rom. 9:19)

“But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.” (1 Cor. 12:11)

“for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” (Phil. 2:13)

“Instead you ought to say, ‘If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that.’” (Jas. 4:15)

“For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.” (Rev. 17:17)

Let Go Of My Ego

To listen to many pastors and preachers these days, you’d think that every page of the Bible resounded with affirmations of Free-will. The way that term is bandied around from the pulpit, you’d expect to find the Scripture saying things like:
“It is not of God that shows mercy, but of him that wills, and of him that runs.” (cf. Rom 9:16);
“Which were born, not of the will of God, but of the will of man.” (cf. Jn. 1:13);
“For you make yourself to differ from another, and you willed to receive what you have. (cf. 1 Cor. 4:7)

But when I read my Bible, whether in the venerable old King James Version, the ESV, or the NIV, NASB, TEV, (you get the picture), I read assertions to the opposite effect. Just look up the actual wording of the Scriptures cited above.

Before I rush off into my diatribe against Arminian free-willers, let me first clarify that I am referring to free-will in the unregenerate. This is clearly the issue. Many people unquestioningly assume that fallen man has an intact power of free-will by which he can choose to accept Christ and that only once he had done so, will God grant His grace. “God helps those who help themselves.” This is what I flatly deny.

I would never stoop to the stupid argument that the Bible nowhere uses the term “Free-will” (it doesn’t), because the Scripture doesn’t use the terms Trinity, Hypostatic Union, or Eschatology, though it clearly teaches these concepts. So just because a term isn’t used in Scripture, this doesn’t mean that the idea isn’t there. I’m simply saying that the idea of a bound will is to be found in all throughout Scripture, written in black and red (or should say ‘black and blue’?).

The Scripture record is so stacked against the notion of free-will that it is a wonder any thinking Christian could ever broach it with a straight face. The Bible, in fact, says we are in bondage (Rom. 8:15), we are slaves (Rom. 6:16-22). The Bible goes even farther and claims that outside of Christ, a man is dead. (Eph. 2:1). Think about that. Can a dead man will anything? Can he decide that he’d like to be resurrected? Yet this is the very supposition that Arminians make with respect to the unregenerate. The man who Scripture declares to be dead they declare has the ability to will to be resurrected. He can be made alive in Christ if he will only make the decision (read: will and run). Imagine standing in front of the casket of a dead man and saying, “If you’d like to be resurrected, raise your hand.” Yet few have any qualms about saying to sinners who equally dead, “If you want to go to heaven, make a decision for Jesus now.”

I am frequently met by puzzled looks when I say things like this, as if I were making up something that the Church has always known better than to believe. Jaws drop when I introduce them to these very concepts in the writings of the great teachers of the Church’s yesteryear. It is easy to pay lip service to an Augustine, a Luther, an Edwards or an Owen, while being completely ignorant of what they taught. Though their books may dutifully take up space on our shelves, few are ever opened, let alone read.

I said all that to set up a couple of astounding quotes. The first is from Augustine’s Enchiridion, On Faith, Hope and Love. He writes:
“For it was in the evil use of his free will that man destroyed himself and his will at the same time. For as a man who kills himself is still alive when he kills himself, but having killed himself is then no longer alive and cannot resuscitate himself after he has destroyed his own life--so also sin which arises from the action of the free will turns out to be victor over the will and the free will is destroyed. ‘By whom a man is overcome, to this one he then is bound as slave’ (2 Pet. 2:19)… What kind of liberty can one have who is bound as a slave except the liberty that loves to sin? He serves freely who freely does the will of his master. Accordingly he who is slave to sin is free to sin.” Enchiridion Ch.9.30

What Augustine is saying is fairly plain, it seems. Adam destroyed his free-will when he fell. Now all his descendants are slaves of sin. They can do nothing freely, but sin – which can hardly be called freedom.

The second quote is from Martin Luther. It comes from his book entitled The Bondage of the Will. In it, he attempts to further assert these Pauline doctrines that we have just read from Augustine. Luther goes to great lengths to show that Scripture everywhere asserts that man’s will is not free, but is in bondage to sin. In driving this point home, Luther shows that the term “free-will” itself is problematic. He writes, “Free-will is plainly a divine term, and can be applicable to none but the divine Majesty only: for He alone ‘does, (as the Psalm sings) what He will in Heaven and earth’ (Ps. 135:6). Whereas, if it be ascribed unto men, it is not more properly ascribed, than the divinity of God Himself would be ascribed unto them: which would be the greatest of all sacrilege.” (Section XXVI).

Luther thinks it would be better If theologians dropped the term all together because it so easily lends itself to wrong ideas about man’s innate abilities. Theologians sometimes use the term in an extremely technical sense, which grants men little more that the power to choose between a bowl of cereal or a waffle for breakfast. But when the term is used without caution, people begin to import into the term the false idea that the human will is not subject to anything or anyone.

Now what I have been trying to demonstrate by these quotes, among other things, is that a denial of free-will in the commonly used sense has always been the Church’s teaching. The logic of men like Finney, who argued that it was cruel of God to command things of sinners that they were unable to do, and then to threaten them with Hell for failing to obey – this logic is the same reasoning used by Pelagius, the heretic antagonist of Augustine. In fact, it is the logic of Paul’s opponents (Rom. 9:16-24).

So pastors and preachers, I implore you to stop telling sinners, “God gave you a free-will.” Salvation is not an act of human will. Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9). Sinners are dead in sin and so is their will.

Augustine on "Free-Will"

it pleased God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, that, since the whole body of the angels had not fallen into rebellion, the part of them which had fallen should remain in perdition eternally, and that the other part, which had in the rebellion remained steadfastly loyal, should rejoice in the sure and certain knowledge of their eternal happiness; but that, on the other hand, mankind, who constituted the remainder of the intelligent creation, having perished without exception under sin, both original and actual, and the consequent punishments, should be in part restored, and should fill up the gap which the rebellion and fall of the devils had left in the company of the angels. For this is the promise to the saints, that at the resurrection they shall be equal to the angels of God. (Luke 20:36) And thus the Jerusalem which is above, which is the mother of us all, the city of God, shall not be spoiled of any of the number of her citizens, shall perhaps reign over even a more abundant population. We do not know the number either of the saints or of the devils; but we know that the children of the holy mother who was called barren on earth shall succeed to the place of the fallen angels, and shall dwell forever in that peaceful abode from which they fell. But the number of the citizens, whether as it now is or as it shall be, is present to the thoughts of the great Creator, who calls those things which are not as though they were, (Romans 4:17) ordereth all things in measure, and number, and weight.

But this part of the human race to which God has promised pardon and a share in His eternal kingdom, can they be restored through the merit of their own works? God forbid. For what good work can a lost man perform, except so far as he has been delivered from perdition? Can they do anything by the free determination of their own will? Again I say, God forbid. For it was by the evil use of his free-will that man destroyed both it and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost. “For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.” (2 Peter 2:19) This is the judgment of the Apostle Peter. And as it is certainly true, what kind of liberty, I ask, can the bond-slave possess, except when it pleases him to sin? For he is freely in bondage who does with pleasure the will of his master. Accordingly, he who is the servant of sin is free to sin. And hence he will not be free to do right, until, being freed from sin, he shall begin to be the servant of righteousness. And this is true liberty, for he has pleasure in the righteous deed; and it is at the same time a holy bondage, for he is obedient to the will of God. But whence comes this liberty to do right to the man who is in bondage and sold under sin, except he be redeemed by Him who has said, “If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed?” (John 8:36) And before this redemption is wrought in a man, when he is not yet free to do what is right, how can he talk of the freedom of his will and his good works, except he be inflated by that foolish pride of boasting which the apostle restrains when he says, “By grace are ye saved, through faith.” (Ephesians 2:8)

St. Augustine, Enchiridion, 29. 30

Martin Luther on Free-will

Free-will is plainly a divine term, and can be applicable to none but the divine Majesty only: for He alone “doth, (as the Psalm sings) what He will in Heaven and earth.” (Ps. cxxxv. 6.) Whereas, if it be ascribed unto men, it is not more properly ascribed, than the divinity of God Himself would be ascribed unto them: which would be the greatest of all sacrilege. Wherefore, it becomes Theologians to refrain from the use of this term altogether, whenever they wish to speak of human ability, and to leave it to be applied to God only. And moreover, to take this same term out of the mouths and speech of men; and thus to assert, as it were, for their God, that which belongs to His own sacred and holy Name. But if they must, whether or no, give some power to men, let them teach, that it is to be called by some other term than “Free-will”; especially since we know and clearly see, that the people are miserably deceived and seduced by that term, taking and understanding it to signify something far different from that which Theologians mean and understand by it, in their discussions. For the term, “Free-will,” is by far too grand, copious, and full: by which, the people imagine is signified (as the force and nature of the term requires) that power, which can freely turn itself as it will, and such a power as is under the influence of, and subject to no one. Whereas, if they knew that it was quite otherwise, and that by that term scarcely the least spark or degree of power was signified, and that, utterly ineffective of itself, being the servant and bond-slave of the devil, it would not be at all surprising if they should stone us as mockers and deceivers, who said one thing and meant something quite different; nay, who left it uncertain and unintelligible what we meant. For “he who speaks sophistically (the wise man saith) is hated,” and especially if he does so in things pertaining to godliness, where eternal salvation is at stake.

Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will, Sect. XXVI

Dependence Disproves Free-Will

It should be noted first of all that man’s free will is not independent from God. Man is totally dependent upon God. This dependence includes 1) his being, 2) his activity, 3) God’s prerogative to obligate him to His will and laws, and 4) the foreknowledge and decree of God. This foreknowledge cannot be thwarted; and this decree cannot be changed.

Secondly, the will does not function independently of the intellect. The will cannot function apart from the intellect. It cannot act other than the intellect dictates, because man is a rational being and therefore functions rationally. Otherwise the will could reject that which is good as well as what it perceived as being good, and find delight in sin as sin – which is irrational. All sin is loved because it is perceived to be good and/or its results are perceived as desirable (Gen. 3:6).

Thirdly, the will of man is not free from human peculiarities. People function according to their respective natures. A person who is holy in his nature will be a servant of righteousness, and the will shall respond accordingly (Rom 6:18). But, is a man is sinful in his nature, he is a servant of sin (John 8:34). The will responds and functions in harmony with man’s sinful nature. To a holy nature belongs a holy will, and to a sinful nature a sinful will.

Moreover, the will is not the whole essence of being. It is merely a faculty that exists in living rational creatures and only in living creatures. Corpses have no will. Scripture declares that our breath is in God’s hands (Dan. 5:23). An old country preacher I know, commenting on this verse, use to say, “All God has to do is tighten His grip and you’ll have trouble breathing!” Inflammatory perhaps, but true nonetheless.

The will is not independent of the intellect, nor is it independent of the nature of the person in whom it resides. And most definitely it is not independent of God. Wherein then is the supposed freedom of which the papists and Arminians boast? The fact is they have imported a false idea into Christianity. They assume, without Scriptural warrant, that free-will means self-determination (autexousia). This concept is NEVER found in Scripture. On the contrary, Scripture portrays man as dependent on God for everything, from his breath (Dan. 5:23), to his daily food (Mat. 6:11), to his age and nationality (Acts 17:26), to his saving faith in Christ (Phil. 1:29).

Human freedom is just as much a creation of God as are earthworms, and as such it presents no quandary to Him as how to reign supremely and yet not “interfere” with men’s so-called freedom.

So the burning question is this: If the man who is believed to self-determining is absolutely dependent upon God in every single detail of his life, how is he then self-determining?

Four Insurmountable Arminian Errors

The kernel of Arminian doctrine regarding man’s natural state is that he has a natural inclination to repent and believe. One must simply appeal to this inclination with the right amount of persuasion. This belief, however, is so antithetical to scripture that it is almost impossible to put it into words. But here goes. There are four Scriptural declarations concerning man in his natural fallen state that Arminianism either disbelieves or disregards. The end result is the same.

1. First, man is totally blind as far as spiritual things are concerned. “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them” (Eph 4:18). Jude says, that they “have not the Spirit” (Jude 19). Paul says that they people cannot discern spiritual things, which is not to say that it is impossible for a person to imagine them without revelations, for he speaks this of natural men who lived under a gospel ministry (1 Cor. 2:8). This is evident from what he adds, “for they are foolishness to him.” No one considers something to be foolish if he has never heard of it before. Man is so blind that the ability to see and understand must be given to him by God. God gives this to some people and withholds it from others. Christ said to his disciples, “It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given” (Matt 13:11). Someone who is blind to this degree can neither will, repent of himself, nor believe in Christ, even if he hears the gospel.

This whole line of reasoning, solidly Scriptural as it is, flies in direct contradiction to Arminianism. Arminians act is as man simply has his eyes closed. In fact, we have probably all heard Arminian preachers urge their listeners to open their eyes.

2. Secondly, man by nature has such an evil disposition that he isn’t willing to repent. In fact he CANNOT even will to do so, for he cannot respond with his will to that which he does not know. Even if one judges a given matter to be desirable in its very essence, he will have no interest in this now, here, and for himself, since the things of this world appear to him as being much more desirable and beneficial now, here, and for himself. Spiritual things and sinful things stand in direct opposition to each other, it is impossible to delight in spiritual things if you enjoy sinful things. The natural man loves things that are sinful and of the world, therefore he cannot be willing, nor is he ever actually willing to love spiritual things. “And ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life” (John 5:40); “... and ye would not!” (Matt 23:37). If the natural man perceives but a few rays of spiritual light and life, he will hate it at once. “... men loved darkness rather than light. ... For every one that doeth evil hateth the light” (John 3:19-20); “... haters of God” (Rom 1:30); “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me” (John 15:18). Wherever there is such a disposition, it is impossible to be willing and to repent.

3. Thirdly, since man is ignorant and unwilling he simply cannot repent. “No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him” (John 6:44). The phrase “no man” is all-inclusive. Whoever a person may be, he is unable and does not come. God’s almighty power and drawing is what is needed in order for anyone to come. “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom 8:7).

4. Lastly, as far as spiritual life is concerned, man is dead: “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph 2:12). Paul is not only referring to those who had never heard the gospel, but also to those who had heard it, for Paul includes himself. Among the Ephesians there were many Jews (Acts 19:8), and the expression used is general in nature. He is not referring to natural death, but to being spiritually dead in trespasses and sins. Spiritual death consists of the absence of union with God. We know this because spiritual life is defined for us as communion with God (Gal 2:20). Those who are without such a union are atheoi, that is, atheists or without God (Eph 2:12); those “having not the Spirit” (Jude 19). Nor is he simply speaking of the punishment for sin, its wages being death. Rather he is speaking of that death which is the opposite of spiritual life. Since spiritual life is the very opposite of spiritual death, he speaks of spiritual death. “Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ” (Eph 2:5). Since man is dead, he cannot make himself alive. Both nature and Scripture teach us that a dead person cannot do this, regardless of the type of death referred to.

Now let us tie these four points together. Natural man is blind and ignorant. He is so evil that he is utterly unwilling and hates repentance and belief in Christ. Furthermore, he is so impotent that he is completely unable to repent and believe. And to top it all off, he is dead, with no internal disposition, propensity, ability or power to repent and believe in Christ.

To accept Arminianism, one would have to discard this weight of Scriptural evidence – or completely ignore its existence. This is precisely what Arminianism does. It says, in the teeth of tons of biblical evidence, that man is basically good and has within him a natural desire to do what is good. He sins because he doesn’t understand the consequences of his sin. If only a preacher could tell him how self-destructive his behavior is and convince his that living for Christ is ultimately more fulfilling, he could coax him into repeating the sinner’s prayer and all would be well. Nothing could be further from the truth.

A Wee Little Man

And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho. And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich. And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature. And he ran before, and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way. And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house. And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully. Luke 19:1-6

I am always amazed at those who preach the role of man’s free-will in salvation from this passage. Surely, the opposite is here shown.

The typical Arminian evangelistic approach to this passage goes like this: Zacchaeus was trying to get to Jesus. He was a short man so he couldn’t see over the crowd. He had to get to Jesus, so he came up with a way. Where there’s a will, there’s a way, you know. Well, Zacchaeus saw a sycamore tree and climbed up it. He was doing everything he could. He had to overcome every hindrance to get to Jesus. When Jesus saw him up in the tree, He was impressed by this man’s persistence. Then Zacchaeus invited Jesus and His disciples over to his house. Later that day, Jesus said, “Salvation has come to this house today.” You see you have to get fed up with your life of sin and find a way to come to Christ. And on and on – You get the picture. Let me hasten to say that I have tried to paint a better picture of that type of evangelistic appeal than I have generally ever heard. Usually, the sermons are far worse than that.

But this is the exact opposite of what this passage teaches. First of all, the passage gives not so much as a hint of anything in Zacchaeus but curiosity. We are running way ahead of ourselves to assume anything righteous to Zacchaeus’ motives. He was simply curious. A huge crowd is coming down the road, huddled around someone and everyone seems excited. Zacchaeus is short and can’t see over the crowd to see what all the buzz is about. So, he climbs a tree. That is all that this text permits us to say. As far as Zacchaeus’ character is concerned, he was a crook. The text calls him a publican, which is always a bad thing in the New Testament. Publicans were tax-collectors. They were known to be thieves because they either skimmed money off the top of their collections or charged more than was actually owed so they could keep the extra. But more than just being called a publican, he is called the chief among the publicans. That surely means he was a thief. The fact that his repentance manifested itself in repaying what he falsely collected is clear proof of this.

More important though is what Jesus actually did. Jesus stopped, looked up and called Zacchaeus by name. One wonders how Jesus knew his name. Of course, as God, Jesus knows everything. Surely it is not without significance that Jesus calls by name a man whom he had never met before. More importantly, notice that Zacchaeus did not invite Jesus to his house; Jesus invited Himself to Zacchaeus’ house and pronounced that salvation had come to it with Him.

This is how it always works. Jesus invites Himself into someone’s life. They hurry to Him and receive Him with joy. Jesus brings salvation with Him. He calls whom He chooses.

Nothing New Under The Sun

"Heaven never helps the men who will not act." (Sophocles)

To do is to be. - Socrates

"Life is what you make it. Always has been, always will be. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

“The providence of God does not determine the free-will of man to this or that particular...” Jacob Arminius.

"If anyone says that man's free will [when] moved and aroused by God, assenting to God...in no way cooperates...[and] that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes...let him be anathema!" - Council of Trent

"There is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature. It consists entirely in the right exercise of the powers of nature. It is just that, and nothing else. When mankind becomes truly religious, they are not enabled to put forth exertions which they were unable before to put forth. They only exert powers which they had before, in a different way, and use them for the glory of God." - Charles G. Finney

"It's not who I am underneath, but it’s what I do that defines me." - Batman

Church Fathers on Depravity

If you’ve ever entertained the notion that the freedom of the will is something that has been monolithically believed by the Church, then perhaps the contents of this short post will help unburden you of that mistake.

One does not need to study the Fathers very long to read their declarations on human sinfulness. Paul’s disciple and traveling companion, Clement of Rome, writes, “Let us turn to every age that has passed, and learn that, from generation to generation, the Lord has granted a place of repentance to all such as would be converted unto Him.” (1) And again he says, “And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men…” (2) God must grant repentance, because fallen man is so lost he would never seek it on his own. God does not merely grant forgiveness, but the desire for repentance itself. Paul says, “It is God who works in you both to will and to do” (Phil. 2:13). And notice also that Clement affirms that our calling is made effectual by God’s will.

“They who are carnal cannot do spiritual things… unbelief (is incapable of) the deeds of faith.” (3) This is the pronouncement of Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp’s fellow disciple of the Apostle John. Those who are in the state of unbelief cannot repent and believe unless it be granted from above. Faith and repentance are spiritual acts. Those who are in the flesh cannot perform spiritual acts.

In the anonymous Epistle to Diognetus, we read, “having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able…Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life.” (4) The author of this short work clearly affirms that it is only through the power of God that we can attain to life. This is nothing in our nature that can avail.

Irenaeus writes, “For the Lord taught us that no man is capable of knowing God, unless he be taught of God; that is, that God cannot be known without God.” (5) This refers to more than special revelation. Irenaeus means to say that a saving knowledge of God must begin on God’s part. We cannot begin the process.

Explaining how our corruption is such that we must be rendered spiritual by God Himself, Irenaeus attests, “But we do now receive a certain portion of His Spirit, tending towards perfection, and preparing us for incorruption, being little by little accustomed to receive and bear God… This earnest, therefore, thus dwelling in us, renders us spiritual even now.”(6)

The great Carthaginian theologian Tertullian quite aptly remarks, “To begin with the passage where He says that He is come to ‘to seek and to save that which is lost.’ What do you suppose that to be which is lost? Man, undoubtedly. The entire man, or only a part of him? The whole man, of course. In fact, since the transgression which caused man's ruin was committed quite as much by the instigation of the soul from concupiscence as by the action of the flesh from actual fruition, it has marked the entire man with the sentence of transgression, and has therefore made him deservedly amenable to perdition.”(7)

Cyprian, the martyred bishop of Carthage, in a most unforgettable passage describes how he came to have a real saving relationship with Christ. His description of his own sinfulness is quite poignant and revealing. He writes, “For as I myself was held in bonds by the innumerable errors of my previous life, from which I did not believe that I could by possibility be delivered, so I was disposed to acquiesce in my clinging vices; and because I despaired of better things, I used to indulge my sins as if they were actually parts of me, and indigenous to me. But after that, by the help of the water of new birth, the stain of former years had been washed away, and a light from above, serene and pure, had been infused into my reconciled heart, - after that, by the agency of the Spirit breathed from heaven, a second birth had restored me to a new man; -then, in a wondrous manner, doubtful things at once began to assure themselves to me, hidden things to be revealed, dark things to be enlightened, what before had seemed difficult began to suggest a means of accomplishment, what had been thought impossible, to be capable of being achieved; so that I was enabled to acknowledge that what previously, being born of the flesh, had been living in the practice of sins, was of the earth earthly, but had now begun to be of God, and was animated by the Spirit of holiness.”(8) It is noteworthy that Cyprian says he was enabled, made capable and begun to be of God – all verbs in the passive voice.

Theophilus of Antioch, the 3rd Century Apologist, writing to an unbeliever, says, “For God is seen by those who are enabled to see Him when they have the eyes of their soul opened: for all have eyes; but in some they are overspread, and do not see the light of the sun. Yet it does not follow, because the blind do not see, that the light of the sun does not shine; but let the blind blame themselves and their own eyes.” (9) This statement would certainly not fly in our nice 'seeker-sensitive' pulpits these days. Who would ever dare blame the spiritually blind for their own blindness? Again note the teaching that man must be enabled to see God. We do not have an innate ability or will to do so.

The coup de grâce must certainly be the judgment of Chrysostom. He says, “Every man is not only naturally a sinner, but is wholly sin.” (10) This is not the error of Flacius who held that man’s whole nature had become sin. This is just Chrysostom’s typical rhetorical emphasis.

The classic denial that man’s freewill can have any part in his salvation must certainly be found in Augustine’s Enchiridion. Augustine writes, “[I]t was by the evil use of his freewill that man destroyed both it and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own freewill sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost.” (11) The whole gist of Augustine’s thought in this regard is that the only freedom the unregenerate have is the freedom to sin – if that can be called by so noble a name as “Freedom.” With this the Church wholeheartedly concurred. The Canons of the Council of Orange (529 AD) are sufficient testimony to this fact.

One disclaimer must be made pertaining to some of the Fathers of the Greek speaking Church. They often speak in very high terms of human free will. But, to their credit we must not forget that even their theological works were written with Manicheans in mind. Often, therefore, the Greek Fathers tend to overstate the case for human responsibility in order to avoid the error of these Gnostic determinists. Not only this, but in virtually every instance when a Greek Father was speaking of man’s freewill and ability to obey God’s commands, he was invariably speaking, not of fallen man, but man as he was created in the state of moral perfection.

Athanasius wrote a work in defense of Dionysius of Alexandria because the Arians were appealing to his writings in support of their false teachings. Athanasius labored to show that Dionysius’ statements were aimed at refuting Sabellianism and that this fact must be kept in mind at all times. Likewise, we must be constantly aware of the fact that the Greek Fathers were writing in a polemic tone against a deterministic Gnosticism. Ignorance of this fact will lead to misreading of their words into support for doctrines that they found odious.

Calvin himself was aware of this. In his Institutes, he demonstrates that many of the Fathers often spoke with some inconsistency; nevertheless, it is plain that they did not preach along the Pelagian/Arminian line. Calvin says, “At one time they teach, that man having been deprived of the power of free-will must flee to grace alone; at another, they equip or seem to equip him in armor of his own. It is not difficult, however, to show, that notwithstanding the ambiguous manner in which those writers express themselves, they hold human virtue in little or no account, and ascribe the whole merit of all that is good to the Holy Spirit.” (12) Calvin acknowledges that they often overstate man’s freedom, but he concludes his argument thus: “This much, however, I dare affirm, that though they sometimes go too far in extolling free-will, the main object which they had in view was to teach man entirely to renounce all self-confidence, and place his strength in God alone.” (13)

(1) 1 Clement VII

(2) 1Clement XXXII

(3) Ignatius to the Ephesians VIII

(4) Diognetus IX

(5) Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV. vi. 4

(6) Irenaeus, Against Heresies V. viii. 1

(7) Tertullian, Res. Carn.

(8) Cyprian – Ep. Ad Donatum 4

(9) Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus bk.1 ch.2

(10) Chrysostom, Homily in Advent.

(11) Augustine, Enchiridion, Ch. 30

(12) Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Bk. 2, ch. 2

(13) ibid.