Of Freewill: An Exposition of the LBCF IX
Posted by deangonzales on July 7, 2009
The doctrine of the human will has been one of the most important and most debated doctrines in church history. Augustine debated Pelagius over this doctrine.1 Luther debated Erasmus.2 Calvinists have debated Arminians.3 According to Greg Nichols, “Freewill is the pivot of all anthropology. Error at this point is fatal.”4 And not only does the doctrine of freewill affect the doctrine of man, but it also can seriously affect other doctrines of Scripture. The third century theologian Origen illustrates this point. Origen’s doctrine of freewill led him to the conclusion that sinners in hell may still be converted and saints in heaven may yet fall from grace into hell!5 As this example illustrates, the doctrine of freewill is of paramount importance for the rest of our theology and practice.
1. The gift of human freedom
1 God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any [‘absolute,’ WCF] necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
According to the Confession, God has endowed man with a certain capacity called “natural liberty.” The Baptist Confession adds an explanatory phrase to the Westminster Confession, “and power of acting upon choice.” This “power of acting upon choice” is “free” in at least two senses: first, human freedom is not “forced … to do good or evil.” Neither environment, nor circumstance, nor peer pressure, nor persecution, nor Satan, nor even God can force or coerce a sinner to do good or evil (Isa. 10:7ff.; Matt. 17:12; James 1:14). Second, human freedom is not fixed—“nor [is it] by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.” Man’s morality is not determined by his humanity. That is, man’s human nature as such does not in itself determine his moral character or choices.
Of course, this does not necessarily mean that men can choose to do things outside the limits of their human capacities or moral character. For example, human freedom does not enable a man to leap over a ten-story building or fly like a bird. Nor can man as a mere creature freely chose to exercise the omniscience or omnipotence that belongs to God the Creator. Humans may freely do what humans are capable of doing. Therefore, “freewill” is not the power of omni-choice. Furthermore, the Bible indicates that a man’s moral character conditions his choices and actions (Jer. 13:23; Matt. 7:17; 12:33-35). Therefore, “freewill” is not the power of contrary or arbitrary choice. Rather, freewill is best defined as the freedom and ability to choose as one desires within the parameters of one’s human nature and ethical character.
In light of these observations, I want to draw two brief conclusions: first, we must affirm the doctrine of human freedom lest we undermine the doctrine of human responsibility. A wooden puppet cannot be responsible for its actions. Nor is a woman who has been raped against her will guilty of sin. This is because human freedom is partly the basis for human responsibility. Men cannot be responsible unless they are, as human beings, able-to-respond (see qualification under paragraph three). Second, human nature does not by itself determine moral character or choices. In other words, good and evil are not genetically predetermined. Thus, we must reject the popular notion that says, “To err is human.” On the contrary, “To be free is human.”
2. The states of human freedom
The Confession summarizes four different states of human freedom that are described in Scripture:
(1) Human freedom in Adam
2 Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it.
As I argued above, the essence of human freedom does not consist in the power of contrary choice. Rather, it consists in the freedom and ability to choose as one desires within the parameters of one’s human nature and ethical character. Adam and Eve, however, appear to be an exception to this rule. They were created with an upright heart (Eccl. 7:29). They had no built-in proclivity towards sin. Yet they chose to do evil (Gen. 3:6). How do we harmonize this fact with Jesus’ statement that “every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit” (Matt. 7:17)?
Our first parents’ choice to sin against God remains in some sense a mystery.6 As such, we should not deny it. Furthermore, we should remember that Adam and Eve’s psychological and spiritual makeup was unique. They were created “upright.” We were born “sinners.” Therefore, we must beware of using Adam and Eve as a model for defining freewill for sinners or saints. This was the mistake made by Pelagius, and the church rightly condemned it.7
(2) Human freedom in fallen man
3 Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
This paragraph presents the “other side of the coin,” what has been called, “the doctrine of total inability.” Though in one sense, the Bible speaks of fallen men as possessing “natural liberty” or “freewill” (Isa. 10:7ff.; Matt. 17:10). Yet in another sense, the Bible teaches that fallen man has lost his freedom. Just as a bird with broken wing can fly as a bird, but cannot fly as an injured bird. So too the sinner can will to do good as a human being, but he no longer has the ability to do good as a depraved human being. I draw the following summary of the biblical evidence from Sam Waldron exposition of the Baptist Confession with a few modifications of language:8
- The Bible portrays sinners as slaves (John 8:31-34; Rom. 6:16, 20), blind (2 Cor. 3:14), and dead (Eph. 2:1), which are pictures of inability.
- The Bible explicitly teaches that sinners have lost the moral ability to please God (Jer. 10:23; Matt. 7:17-18; 12:33-37; Luke 6:43-45; John 3:3, 5; 6:44; Rom. 7:18; 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:14).
- · The Bible teaches that sinners are not willing to come to Christ apart from God’s drawing influence (John 5:40; 6:37, 39, 40, 44, 45, 65; Acts 7:51; Rom. 3:10-12).
- The Bible describes God’s will not man’s will as the source or ultimate determining factor in the application of salvation (John 1:12-13; Rom. 9:16-18; James 1:18).
- The Bible depicts the human responses of “faith” and “repentance” as gifts from God (Acts 5:31; 11:18; Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 1:29; 2 Tim. 2:25-26).
This is the doctrine of total or spiritual inability. According to the Bible, man’s will is in bondage to sin though he remains a free and responsible agent. Admittedly, these two truths appear paradoxical. Nevertheless, the Scriptures do sometimes view the unregenerate man from two perspectives.9
Despite the biblical evidence, the following objections have been raised against the doctrine of total inability. In the first place, some argue that the doctrine of total inability undermines human responsibility since responsibility assumes ability to respond. Total inability, however, does not deny the sinner’s ability to respond as a human being. Rather, total inability only denies the sinner’s ability to do good as a depraved human being. Thus, responsibility remains intact. To borrow an illustration, a drunk driver’s inability to stay on the right side of the road does not erase his moral responsibility should he claim the lives of innocent victims.10
Second, some argue that the doctrine of total inability breeds passivity and despondency among sinners. If I cannot come to Christ in faith, then why should I even bother to try believing? However, as Sam Waldron notes,
Despair of human resources is, in fact, the necessary preparation for the gospel. It is the opposite doctrine of human sufficiency, which is the true hindrance…. The doctrine of inability is calculated to produce urgency, not indifference, in any sinner who cares.11
Third, some argue that the doctrine of total inability in incompatible with the free offer of the gospel. How can we genuinely invite those who are unable to come? In response, it should be noted that Jesus Himself sometimes preached total inability to lost sinners whom He invited to believe in Him (John 6:44, 65). Therefore, it cannot be “incompatible” with inviting sinners to Christ. Furthermore, the Bible teaches that “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” (Rom. 10:17). Thus, the free offer of the gospel is the instrument God uses to awaken the sinner and to incline his heart to trust in Christ.
For a simple and helpful five-minute video presentation of how fallen man’s will may be free in one sense yet under bondage in another, see Robert Elliott’s Free Will vs. Robot.
(3) Human freedom in the believer
4 When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
When God saves a man, He gives him a new heart (Jer. 31:33; 32:40; Ezek. 36:26; Titus 3:5). This new heart enables the sinner both to desire and to perform that which is well-pleasing in God’s sight (Phil. 2:13; Heb. 13:21; 1 John 3:22). Yet, God does not remove all the corruption from his heart. Consequently, the saved sinner still may choose evil even though he now has the ability to do good (Rom. 7:14-25; Gal. 5:17).
This paragraph reminds us that sin no longer reigns in our heart. As born-again believers we now have the ability to please God with our attitudes and actions. Thus, there is no place for an inordinate “worm-theology.” On the other hand, the paragraph also reminds us that sin still remains in our heart. Therefore, let us walk humbly and, by God’s grace, strive to mortify the remaining deeds of the flesh.
(4) Human freedom in the glorified saint
5 This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only.
According to the Scripture, the glorified saint will attain a state of perfection in which he is no longer capable of sinning (Eph. 4:13-14; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 21:4, 27; 22:3), and thus he will remain forever with the Lord (1 Thes. 4:17). This wonderful reality, which all evangelicals affirm, refutes the notion that human freedom must consist in the power of contrary choice. Glorified saints will never, ever be able to choose evil again. Yet they shall experience a true freedom like that of God Himself—the freedom to do only and always that which glorifies God.
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
- See Augustine’s A Treatise on Grace and Free Will in vol. 5 of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series. [↩]
- See Luther’s work, The Bondage of the Will, trans. Henry Cole (1823; repr., Baker Book House, 1976). [↩]
- See especially The Canons of the Synod of Dort, chapters III and IV. [↩]
- Unpublished lectures on the “Doctrine of Man,” Lecture 14, p. 2. [↩]
- Origen expresses this view when he writes, “It seems a possible thing that rational natures, from whom the faculty of free will is never taken away, may be again subjected to movements of some kind.” Cited by David Bercot, ed., A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (Hendrickson, 1998), 289. By “movement” Origen is referring to transition from a condition of salvation to perdition or vise versa. See J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Harper & Row, 1978), 180ff.; Reinhold Seeberg, Textbook of the History of Doctrines, trans. Charles E. Hay (Baker Book House, 1956), 152-60. [↩]
- John Murray refers to this mystery as “The Psychogenetic Problem.” “The Fall of Man,” in Collected Writings of John Murray (Banner of Truth, 1977), 2:75-76. [↩]
- For the Pelagian controversy, see Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8 vols. (repr., Eerdmans, 1987), 3:783-850. [↩]
- A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 2nd ed. (Evangelical Press, 1995), 142. I’ve added the word “moral” before “ability” to the second assertion because I do affirm man’s human ability to please God. That is, when viewed purely (and abstractly) in terms of his humanity, man was made with the God-given ability to please God. I’ve also added the word “ultimate” before “determining factor” because I do believe it is correct to view the sinner’s will as a determining factor, though secondary to God’s will. [↩]
- The following examples should suffice: on the one hand, the Bible still views unregenerate man as the image of God and as therefore having intrinsic value (Gen. 5:1-3; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9). On the other hand, the Bible views the unregenerate man as a marred image of God, utterly depraved and corrupt (Gen. 6:5; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 1:21-32; 7:24). On the one hand, the unregenerate man is said to “know God” (Rom. 1:18-21, 25, 28-32; 2:14-15). On the other hand, unregenerate man is ignorant of God and His will (John 8:19; 17:3; 2 Thes. 1:8). On the one hand, unregenerate man can still recognize God’s voice in creation, providence, conscience, and Scripture (Gen. 3:8; Matt. 11:21ff.; Luke 16:27ff.; Rom. 1:18-21, 32; 2:14-15). On the other hand, unregenerate man is not able to recognize and respond to God’s voice properly (Rom. 1:21-23, 28; 1 Cor. 2:14). On the one hand, unregenerate man has free will by virtue of his humanity (Josh. 24:14-15; Luke 13:24; Rev. 22:17). On the other hand, unregenerate man’s will is in bondage to sin and no longer free in a moral sense (John 8:31-34; Rom. 8:5-8; Eph. 2:1). On the one hand, unregenerate man can still perform “good works” (1 Kings 21:27-29; 2 Kings 10:30-31; Rom. 2:14). On the other hand, unregenerate man cannot perform works that are truly pleasing to God (Isa. 64:6; Rom. 3:10ff.; Prov. 21:4). [↩]
- I heard or read Douglas Wilson use this illustration, but I cannot put my hand on the source. [↩]
- Modern Exposition, 145. Waldron uses the illustration of a man in a burning house who realizes that he does not possess a key to get out. In such a case of hopeless desperation, the man is likely to start crying out for help. [↩]
July 7th, 2009 at 11:10 am
[...] of the Second London Baptist Confession's teaching on this vital and controversial topic. On Freewill: An Exposition of the LBCF IX Your servant, __________________ Bob Gonzales Jr., Dean Reformed Baptist Seminary Easley, South [...]
July 7th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I love you brother for the rich mercies of Christ in you and the royal lineage you belong to and I think you have given an exposition of this subject which is, no doubt, faithful in virtually every respect to the intentions of the authors of the 1689 confession. I also appreciate that your position is probably the one more often touted by Calvinists today, yet I must say that, in certain important respects, I am forced to disavow this public analysis you have offered and deny it as muddled thinking in hopes that others will reconsider this traditional way of addressing so important an issue. There are certainly details where more work needs to be done but, thankfully, the brethren have no real need to heft around the “mysteries” that you have chosen to bear and defend because of certain awkward assumptions you’ve carried for too long.
But this comment is not intended as the crack of a starter’s pistol to launch into polemics on this issue until we have finished our previous exchange on GOD’s desires, whether they are in confict or no. I have no desire to distract you from that discussion with a conversation that would be equally absorbing (if not more so). My point here is simply to say that one can be a fervent Calvinist and a compatibilist and yet disagree with important aspects of your analysis of human nature and freedom, of “ability,” of the impetus of depraved choices and GOD’s relation to them and of the pre-fallen nature of our first human parents so that the “mystery” of much of this is helpfully dissolved.
Others, no doubt, will give their warm and convicted agreement with what you have said here and I welcome their reasons and point of view. Indeed, I readily admit that you have paraded by an admirable column of Scripture references which appear to clinch the point. I ask only what I imagine Dr. Gonzales would ask with a full heart, that our brothers and sisters who may read this think more deeply on these questions and examine the Scriptural teaching in totality, not remaining comfortable with “mystery,” which signifies a theological blind spot, but for the sake of ourselves and others to responsibly discern the proper balance of teachings.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Benjamin,
Thanks for your gracious yet not uncritical comments. I always welcome any sharpening from the brethren. Yet you are correct that we two have some unfinished business elsewhere on this blog. If only there were 48 hours in a day!
It seems that you think my use of the term “mystery” above was unwarranted. It also seems, and I could be wrong, that you view mysteries as areas of our understanding that are clouded due to sin but which may be cleared up after more study, reflection, sanctification, and prayer. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)
I presently relate mystery not merely to man’s fallen mind but to his finiteness. That is, since God and his ways are infinite and since all of divine and created reality are interrelated, then I cannot see how the human mind will every get its hands around everything about God and his ways. Have you already read James Anderson’s Paradox in Christian Theology (Paternoster, 2007)? Paul Helm has written a positive review: Paradox and Mystery. I’d be interested to hear your opinion of the book.
Feel free to offer a criticism of Murray’s explanation of the “pychogenetic problem” connected with Adam’s fall if you wish.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
July 7th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
You see, my brother? Here you are with your beguiling invitations trying to pull me back into the fray. No, but in all seriousness, I want to apologize to you. Although I tried to type my comment in gracious though honest terms, I wonder if there was much profit in posting as I did. You have been ever the patient and generous host and I do not want to make a nuisance of myself. It is simply that this topic has been of real importance to me for many years and I think it is too often handled without adequate consideration. Yet, you did not neglect the Word and tried to remain firmly within the boundaries of Reformed thinking. You even offered a suggestive way of resolving the tension between what appears to be the kind of impossibility of every natural man to fully repent and the possibilities inherent to human nature. I can see you were seeking to be true to conscience and the brilliant work of so many who lived and thought before you.
Perhaps I am simply being arrogant, but I think there is a better answer. As for “mystery,” I do not see that this necesarily represents an area of our understanding that is clouded due to sin. I agree with you that “mystery” is inevitable with GOD at some point as He cannot be comprehended, in the strict sense of that word.
My problem rests in two things: 1) first, in declaring “mystery” in an objective sense far too early. It is akin to the arrogance of a scholar scouring the Bible for an answer to a particular question and, in that moment when he has run out of answers and sits defeated and dejected, raises his nose from the page to insist that it must be impossible for anyone to discover it. It’s a “mystery.” Well, he can speak for himself, but it hardly stands that this represents a “mystery” to everyone, as hard as it might be to imagine that anyone could discern what he failed to or even what a handful of brilliant minds failed to uncover. 2) second, in the love of “mystery” as a bright patch to cover a portion of the tattered quilt of error. I do not think you resort to this, but when certain people find themselves at the end of the tether of their impoverished ideologies, rather than admit that they are staring into a blank wall, they declare a holiday and call it “mystery.”
I know that you legitimately want to preserve, as do I really, the profound nature of our faith and an expansive vision of our LORD at the heart of it. Your use of “mystery” does not strike me as the latter kind and hardly bears any resemblance even to the former. I think, rather, that you (with a pressing and delicate schedule of responsibilities) have simply repeated the conviction of men whom you trust.
So, in hopes that I do not stink of pride, I simply wish to say that I choose to take the path less travelled by and perhaps the difference it makes will be more pleasing to our precious Christ.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:18 am
[...] Of Freewill: An Exposition of the LBCF IX [...]