The idea that our wills are free is ultimately nonsensical both philosophically and theologically.  First, a working definition for free will: “In philosophy, the doctrine that an individual, regardless of forces external to him, can and does choose at least some of his actions.”[1]  That you can make any choice apart from forces external to you is philosophically impossible. For example, when you wake up in the morning and are hungry, you have a choice. You can eat to satisfy that hunger or not eat and go hungry. A proponent of free will may say, “If the person does not eat, he is exercising free will since he is going against an outside, impeding influence.” This is not true. Hunger may be the obvious motive that he is denying, but he is only denying it in favor of another, stronger less obvious motive. Maybe that motive would be a hunger strike, a fast, or simply an attempt to prove me, the Calvinist, wrong. Whatever the choice, there is at all times and in all situations forces outside of someone influencing them and motives inside someone directing their choice.

            Free will is also impossible theologically. We simply take what we learned from the above example and see if it is true biblically. I will deal with the nature of our depraved state later, but for now let us just look at the Arminian idea of prevenient grace and original sin and see if they can produce the free will they are aiming for.  Logically prior to God pouring out his prevenient grace, the Arminian accepts the fact that the unbeliever cannot ever turn to God due to the nature of his sin.  So, God sends out his prevenient grace to counter-balance that of our depraved nature. But, it is not salvific nor does it coerce us in any way, so sin still remains influential, regardless of how much influence it has. I will answer the question I posed above by saying you cannot obtain free will by adding prevenient grace, instead you just give the will another outside impeding influence that shows the will is truly limited to those influences.

            Is there another alternative to Calvinism that is not Arminianism? You could deny total depravity altogether (this is called Palagianism) or you could commit to a partial depravity that allows for reason to be left unaffected (semi-palagianism).[2]  However, nobody within historic Christianity takes these two positions seriously. Pelagius himself was condemned as a heretic and has stayed that way throughout theological history. Arminians and Roman Catholics work very hard to stay away from those two routes. There is only one other option, Calvinism, that can be taken with authority.

            Choosing the Calvinist/reformed tradition does not mean an exclusion of choice altogether. Gregg Allison shows a better way of explaining what choice actually means. It is not a free choice, which is a nonsensical concept; rather it is a real choice. It is a choice limited by its motives, but it is a choice nonetheless that you can make between those motives. This real choice must be held in tension with the reality of total depravity and God’s sovereignty.[3]

            The doctrine of original sin states that our sinful condition came about after Adam and Eve sinned.  They brought sin into the world, affected everyone, and because of its universal affect it shows that we are also born with this condition.[4] To what extent does this sin nature affect us? Firstly, as John Murray taught, Adam’s sin is what makes us totally depraved.[5]  Meaning, as Wayne Grudem said, “It is not just some parts of us are sinful and others are pure. Rather, every part of our being is affected by sin—our intellects, our emotions and desires, our hearts…” [emphasis mine][6]

            Secondly, our sin nature not only strikes broadly, but deeply as well. We completely lack spiritual good before God.[7]  As Paul says, “I know nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh”, and, “to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted”[8]  We also lack the ability to do spiritual good.[9]

            Thirdly, our sin nature is diverse in its corruption. Our Lord points this out in Mark 7:22-24, “From within, out of the hearts of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride and foolishness…” We can see the different ways that each of us sin and further our own corruption.

            Fourthly, our sin nature is multi-layered, meaning that one sin will stack itself on top of another sin, creating a snowball effect. You reap what you sow. You also, as Cornelius Plantinga observes, sow what you reap:

…sow a thought, reap a deed; sow a deed, and reap another deed; sow some deeds, and reap a habit; so some habits, and reap a character, sow a character, and reap two thoughts. The new thoughts then pursue careers of their own.  …the progress of both good and evil is more like a spiral than a shuttle and, more than that, like waves of intertwined and self-replicating spirals.[10]

 

            The self-replicating nature of sin is what led Jonathan Edwards to speculate on what the sin nature in unbelievers will do to them in hell. John Gerstner sums up Edwards thoughts: “In hell the wicked continue to rebel against the just punishment of God, and that brings more just punishment.  So growth in misery in hell seems as inevitable as growth in blessedness in heaven is certain.”[11]  In short, sin starts in the heart, and then corrupts our mind, which in turn corrupts our flesh/body, which in turn corrupts our hearts further.

I gave this detailed explanation of the doctrine of total depravity to build my argument of how deeply sin corrupts our minds. Now, in discussing the noetic affects of sin, we must first be honest with our assessment in order to discourage any form of extreme doctrine that we may formulate. The bottom line is the state of the unbelieving mind is awkward to articulate. Banhsen shows this to be true by saying the unbeliever is “not only a rebel against God, but also a creature of God, made as His image, inescapably in possession of a knowledge of Him, and restrained in his rebellion by the common grace of the Holy Spirit.[12]  Cornelius Van Til called this mental state a mixed bag.  “Being “without God in the World” the natural man yet knows God, and, in spite of himself, to some extent recognizes God. The actual situation is therefore always a mixture of truth with error.”[13]

            However, this mixture does not show us that unbelievers are not totally corrupted nor is it evidence for prevenient grace nor does common grace reduce our apologetic challenge.  Since the goal of prevenient grace is to establish free will, one can see that this mixture does not at all give a person free will.  Common grace, according to the Calvinist, is established by God to keep our corrupted wills from completely annihilating each other and ourselves.

Common grace does not necessarily help the unbeliever’s plight for two reasons. First, he takes that common grace and the knowledge of being the image of God and continually covers it up with his sin in attempts to rid himself of it. This is what Paul meant in Romans chapter one when he said that unbelievers “suppress the truth in their unrighteousness”.  Even Paul recognized the awkward state of the unbeliever’s mind when he said that they know God (because His divine attributes are in them) but they did not glorify nor give thanks to God.  Once the unbeliever thinks he has rid himself of this knowledge (this is a continual process, not a state of achievement) then he can claim autonomy. Paul says “professing themselves to be wise they became fools” and then takes the rest of chapter one to describe that spiraling effect sin has on unbelievers. So, the unbeliever actually uses the image of God and the common grace God has given humanity to further his own corruption. Second, because the unbeliever uses these things against God, he is actually storing up wrath against him on judgment day. As Paul says in the same chapter, “the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” Paul even says in verse 20 that nature itself, which is part of common grace, is put there before the unbeliever as a witness against him so that he will be without excuse for his unbelief. Edwards comments similarly about the state of the unbeliever on judgment day. “The sinner spends all his time here gathering fuel for his own fire there.”(FN: Gerstner, Heaven and Hell, 62)

[1] Audi, Robert ed. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 280.

[2] Erickson, Theology, 845

[3] Allison, Gregg R. “The Doctrine of Election” (classroom lecture notes, 27080—Systematic Theology III, Fall 2004, packet), 27.

[4] Romans 5:12-17, Psalm 51:5

[5] Murray, John The Imputation of Adam’s Sin (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing Co., 1959), 95

[6] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994) 497

[7] Ibid.

[8] Romans 7:18 and Titus 1:15

[9] Romans 8:8, “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” John 5:5 “Apart from me you can do nothing.”

[10] Plantinga Jr., Cornelius, Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 70

[11] Gerstner, John H. Jonathan Edwards on Heaven and Hell. (Morgan, PA: Sli Deo Gloria Publications, 1998), 66

[12] Bahnsen, Apologetic, 411

[13] Van Til, Cornelius An Introduction to Systematic Theology, In Defense of the Faith, vol. 5 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1947), 27.

---