By Mark W. Christy, PhD
Classical Arminianism and Calvinism both affirm the bondage of the human will due to the sin of Adam. Both also agree no one can be saved apart from God’s prevenient (coming before) saving grace working in the human heart (inner person including the mind and thoughts) in such way that a person is enabled to respond to the gospel in repentance and faith. In 1610, the followers of Arminius wrote in defense of their view:
“That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ.”[i]
Likewise, Calvinists assert that the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is required in one’s inner person so they may be enabled to respond. In response to Arminius’ aforementioned followers, Calvinists established their contention on this topic in 1619:
“Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto, and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, or to dispose themselves to reformation.”[ii]
Disagreement between the two, however, occurs over whether all persons receive this enabling grace and therefore can respond freely (Arminianism) or only some elect persons become divinely enabled in such a way that a saving response is guaranteed (Calvinism). For the Arminian, God’s will remains primary in all matters of life except salvation because their view makes salvation possible to any who respond to God’s saving grace, which has been poured out upon all humanity. The Calvinist, however, argues that God chooses the one whom He pours His saving grace into, and when He does so, that person will indeed be saved. Within this classical debate, another contender has arisen to assert a third alternative, libertarian freewill. This position denies the necessity of prevenient grace and argues that people are capable, in and of themselves, of making a freewill decision in regard to the gospel. In other words, they completely deny the bondage of the will as taught by Arminius and Calvin.
To sort out which position is to be accepted, one should turn to Scripture. Perhaps the most cited reference comes from story of Joseph when he explains God’s role in his brothers’ crime against him. In Genesis 50:20, Joseph says to his brothers, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive” (cf. Gen 45:4-8).[iii] In this passage, Joseph looks beyond his brothers’ role in his coming to Egypt and instead focuses on God’s will to have him come to suit His divine purpose. From this Scripture alone, it would seem human will and divine will operate in a compatible manner in such way that humanity can never make decisions which move beyond the constraints of the divine will. After all, the divine will even had well-laid plans for the evil act perpetrated by Joseph’s brothers to the extent that the one act led to an untold myriad of decisions which culminated in Joseph’s family coming before him at the time of Genesis 50:20.
This mysterious connection between human and divine decision-making is also portrayed in the story of Jonah when he finds himself rebelling against God and sailing in the wrong direction in the midst of a life-threatening storm. After drawing lots, the sailors came to the conclusion that Jonah was to blame, and the prophet readily agreed with their perspective. Moreover, he even told them how to save themselves: “Pick me up and throw me into the sea. Then the sea will become calm for you, for I know that on account of me this great storm has come upon you” (Jonah 1:12). After some hesitation and sincere effort on the sailors’ part to avoid bringing harm to Jonah, the storm of the Lord continued to become worse until the sailors felt forced to follow Jonah’s advice (1:13-15). Curiously, the Lord acted against these sailors to such an extent that they willingly subjected their wills to His and even seemingly did so with humility and as act of worship (1:16). In the end, the prophet totally discounts the sailors’ role in his being cast overboard and completely charges that decision to the Lord’s account (2:3). Upon review, this story suggests that God is able to willingly, actively, and forcibly subject the human will to His own.
Like Jonah, Paul also found himself onboard a ship in the midst of a terrible storm. In the midst of what seemed to be a certain death scenario, Paul announces that the Lord will save all of them (Acts 27:24). Despite the many people involved, an attempt at escape among some, and a plan to kill the prisoners, God’s will ultimately prevailed, and all were saved.
From these three passages, it should be made certain that God’s will undergirds all things. In conjunction with these biblical texts, the Bible also frequently acknowledges God’s choice in the election of those being saved. In Ephesians 1:4, Paul states, “[God] chose us in [Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” In John 6:44, Jesus says, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” This verse clearly states that those whom the Father draws will indeed inherit eternal life. From these two verses among many others, it seems clear that God’s sovereign choice is the deciding factor in salvation.
If one considers God’s predetermination before the beginning of world to send Christ on behalf of the Elect, one will be forced to realize that the whole of God’s salvation plan, including the original sin, the Mosaic Law, the coming of Christ, His Death, His resurrection, His glorification, His Pentecost, and His salvation and glorification of souls, was decided by the divine will and made certain even before human will was created. Everything that is, therefore, rests upon His will. With this consideration, it would seem that Calvinism offers the best explanation of freewill in that it claims that freewill works under full submission to the divine will even while the human will remains in bondage to sin. Put simply, a person who responds to the gospel does so because it is the will of God. While this argument will by no means end the historic debate between the Arminians and Calvinists, it might at least cause some to reconsider God’s Word. On the other hand, those espousing libertarian freewill may still reject the idea that one’s will is in bondage to sin even if they acquiesce to the contention that God maintains sovereignty ultimately in all matters including freewill decisions. That being said, an in-depth discussion on total depravity goes beyond the purposes of this present discussion.
[i]The Five Articles of Remonstrance (1610), Society of Evangelical Arminians, Available at: http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-five-articles-of-remonstrance.
[ii]The Canons of Dort (1619), Available at: https://prts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Canons-of-Dort-with-Intro.pdf.
[iii]All Scripture references are taken from NASB1995.