X-Christianity

Free Will

Lately the topic of freedom of will has arisen among the saints here at Spurgeon Heritage Church. In my own mind, that is a good thing, for it requires all of us to once again go to the only place that speaks authoritatively about human free will: the Bible, the very Word of God.

Our church holds to the doctrine of the total depravity of man, sometimes also called the total inability of the will of man to choose the spiritual good necessary for salvation. For this series of articles, we will use the more traditional term after first defining what we mean by it when we are discussing the noetic effects of sin.

Before I launch into this discussion, I would like to comment personally on why I do so. First, I am a bit reluctant as a writer in theological areas, as my view is that just about all that can or need be said about such topics has already been said, and that by authors who are far more capable than I. I could do but only a few minutes of surfing on the Internet and come up with links to a huge list of articles and authors who have written on the topic of free will, and all of them are likely far more capable than I of explaining and examining this topic. So then, what is my justification for writing this here on my blog?

Well, you be the judge as to whether I am justified or not, but my own thinking is that the only reason for doing so is to customize it to the people for whose benefit I attempt to write. It is the people that are in my life for whom I write. I know them personally and I know their general ability to deal with such topics. Some are quick to understand; others need a more generous learning curve. I hope I am able to take the wisdom of other’s scholarship and translate the information into language and examples that our own people can understand and accept as valid. The only thing that I do claim as anything unique to me is the use of the argument regarding mankind’s “want to.” Some years ago I began discussing the issue of total depravity by reference to the fact that our “want to” is broken [in our natural state, though restored by regeneration]. For example, I might say that we are free to choose what we “want to,” but that the options from which we make our choices can only be of a certain sort because our “want to” is broken. Our “want to” is that constitutional part of man that is precedent to our volitions and presents options to the will. This “want to” part of man’s constitutional makeup is corrupted by sin from the effects of the fall of man through the sin of Adam. I will discuss this further in the series in more detail, but this suffices for a general example of my own kind of language employed in a discussion of this subject.

The meaning of terms

As in any discussion, we must first define our terms if we are to make any headway in our understanding of a subject. This is crucial not only on this subject, but just about anything that we discuss or debate. Sadly, the notion of free will is so variously understood that it cannot be assumed for even a moment that two people mean the same by the phrase. In other words, one person’s free will is to another person total anarchy, a completely psychotic state. I believe, for instance, that one form of radical free will that is promulgated today is nothing short of an illogical contradiction which reaches the level of insanity, that is, if anyone really believed that view of free will, they would be what we commonly define as insane. Surely I must explain that seemingly crazy view of free will, and I intend to do so. But for now it suffices to demonstrate that one man’s definition of free will is another man’s definition of insanity. How can those two person’s talk to each other about free will if such is the state of affairs? Not very intelligently, I would say, unless we come to some mutual understanding of what each of us means. So it becomes absolutely necessary to define our terms if we are to progress in our understanding.

Hermeneutics

Our church, probably a little differently from many others, studies the major points of conservative Biblical hermeneutics, that is, the scholarly study of how to interpret the Bible. Here again it is necessary to have some framework for proceeding, lest each person appeal to his own authority for his principles of Biblical interpretation. Diligent students of the Word here at Spurgeon Heritage Church keep in their Bible a bookmark with the title “The Principles of Biblical Interpretation.” On that bookmark are printed 11 principles of Biblical interpretation that we feel are critical to “rightly dividing the Word of truth.” I list them all here for the reader’s consideration, but intend only to highlight a few that I think most important to understanding the subject of our discussion, free will.

The priority of the original languages
The accommodation of revelation
Progressive revelation
Historical propriety
The principle of ignorance [which we frequently employ!]
Differentiating interpretation from application
The checking principle
The principle of induction
Preference for the clearest interpretation
The principle of the unity of Scriptures
The Analogy of faith

These principles are not original, but adapted from a wonderful little volume that I bought long ago in seminary back in 1968. The title of the volume is “Protestant Biblical Interpretation” by Bernard Ramm [W.A. Wilde Company, 1956]. I recommend that if you can find and obtain this fine little book, do so without hesitation.

The principle that I have discovered over the years that are central to an proper understanding of free will are three in number, though by extension nearly all are involved. But let’s define these three principles so that all understand what we are saying as we begin our discussion of free will.

The principle of induction

We here at Spurgeon Heritage Church are Bible-believing Baptists. That means that we believe the Bible is the very Word of God and is infallible, inerrant and the sole authority for our faith and practice. Our faith is one founded upon the Rock of God’s divine revelation and we will not accept any other authority, especially man’s autonomous reason, as being a basis for our beliefs. If we are going to believe anything about free will, we believe we must resort to the Bible for our understanding of it.

But many people “resort” to the Bible for their beliefs, and at times it would seem that the Bible has no specific meaning on what it speaks to, which makes it but a tool to support any view whatsoever. Every single whacko claims the Bible as their authority, including such notable “biblicists” as David Koresh of the Branch Davidians and Jim Jones of the now infamous Jonestown mass suicide. Both of these cultists claimed the Bible as their authority. Sadly, a mere cursory knowledge of Biblical hermeneutics would have allowed the people who were duped to know and recognize that those men were among the most perverse interpreters of Scripture that have come along since Satan himself, who mangled the Biblical text in the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness [Luke 4]. Another such modern perverse interpreter of Scripture that comes to mind is Bill Gothard, whose myriad of followers have frighteningly similar traits as those of the two cultists mentioned above. Gothard interprets the Bible in much the same was as those cultists did. They all then sanitize their perverse interpretations by calling themselves “biblicists,” which would be laughable if it were not so transparently pathetic.

In all three of these examples of faulty Biblical interpretation, one central principle of interpretation that was [and is, in the case of Gothard] constantly violated with impunity is the principle of induction. The principle of induction, plainly stated, is that our interpretation of Scripture must discover the meaning of a passage, not attribute one to it. [ibid, Ramm, pg. 119] Nearly all heretics and cultists in history have been guilty of taking their already-owned predilections, prejudices and presuppositions and imposing them on the Biblical text [eisegesis] instead of bringing meaning out of the Biblical text [exegesis].

The analogy of faith

The second hermeneutical principle most commonly violated in the discussion of free will is the principle of the analogy of faith. This principle can best be defined as that principle that says that “scripture is interpreted by scripture,” or “scripture is its own interpreter.” This was the principle that was central to Martin Luther in the Protestant Reformation, in that the Catholic Church had assumed all authority to interpret the Bible and only she [the Catholic Church] had the authority to make the obscure scripture clear. The Reformers countered this unholy usurpation of authority by insisting that guidance for understanding obscure scriptures must come from other scriptures where the doctrine was discussed with more clarity. We take this same position in this series of studies on this doctrine, the doctrine of free will.

The unity of scripture

The third most commonly abused, neglected and violated principle of biblical hermeneutics is that principle called the unity of scripture. This principle is closely related to the analogy of scripture principle, but somewhat different. This principle maintains that the meaning of scripture is one of unity, and that when more than one meaning is imposed on Scripture, chaos ensues and the meaning of Scripture is obscured. This principle provides some restraint from the uninhibited resort to improper spiritualizing, allegorizing and the excessive use of typology in the interpretation of the Biblical text. This problem has been going on in the faith from the very first centuries of God’s revelation. I would be remiss if I did not explain something here, though. While adhering to this principle, I do not deny that there is figurative language in the Bible. Nor am I decrying typology as a valid way of understanding the Bible. And I do not deny that there may be multiple fulfillments in predictive prophesy. Indeed, these are things I employ myself in my understanding and teaching of the Holy Scriptures. But the point is that I believe there is a firm connection between type and anti-type, between prediction and fulfillment, so that the fulfillments are extensions and expansions of the original text and not some new and novel meanings. Fanciful typology such as taking the mere color of Rahab’s scarlet cord as a type of redemption is a violation of this principle. All those who know me personally know my own view of Arthur Pink’s writings on the Pentateuch. I believe that Pink was all too often guilty of unbridled typology which sometimes clearly violated this principle of Biblical interpretation. It seems to me that Pink saw a too-convenient and too-clear connection between type and anti-type so that, for instance, almost any reference to wood for him created a clear and unequivocal connection with the crucifixion. He would have been well advised to employ a little more control on his imagination, in my view. That is why some of his writings have found an obscure and lower place in my library. The principle of the unity of scripture helps us regulate this excessive typology.

Employing the principle of the unity of Scripture, I maintain that the Scripture does not in one place teach free will and another place determinism. If there are seeming differences, we are obligated to seek to harmonize those texts by resort to the skills of Biblical hermeneutics within a framework of sound interpretive principles.

My definition of free will

Finally, I finish this introductory post with my own definition of free will, and at the same time set forth the framework for my own view so that those who might desire to take up the cudgel with me on this matter can begin their research and preparation for their counteroffensive. Here again, I offer no new ground, but that which has been hammered out over the centuries by minds much superior to mine. I thus resort to a document that is well known among those of us who identify ourselves as Calvinistic Baptists, sovereign grace Baptists, particular Baptists and Reformed Baptists. That document is the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. The 1689, as many of us call it, has a definition that is identical to the Westminster Confession of faith of the Presbyterians. Why they are the same is a matter of discussion for another time, but I believe that the definition is a very good one and provides the clarity that is needed to launch this discussion. Though we Calvinistic Baptists are often accused of denying free will, the 1689 Confession has a chapter, Chapter 9, entitled “Of Free Will.” Here are the five paragraphs of that chapter:

God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.

Man, in his state of innocence, 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.

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has 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.

When God converts a sinner and translates him into the state of grace, He frees 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 does not perfectly, nor only will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.

This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only.

That should do it for the first installment. The next step will be to define free will as generally understood in our culture today and especially as it is understood and defined by our theological opponents, most notably our Arminian and Semi-Pelagian friends. That step will be a little more difficult, as there is no monolithic understanding among the various proponents of that view. If I have, then, any credentials, they would be, one, that I myself was an avid Arminian free-willer, having been indoctrinated into that view by my first church experience in a fundamentalist Baptist church, complete with Arminian soteriology and Dispensational eschatology. The second would be that I have studied this issue and engaged in this debate now for more than 40 years and modestly consider myself as at least somewhat scholarly in preparation for this discussion.

Next: Free will in our modern Christian community