Throughout the history of the of the New Testament church
there hasn’t been a doctrine more debated than that of the grace of God and the
free will of man.
Introduction
When many think of the debate of
grace and free will they quickly think of John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius. As
much effort as the two put into the work of the theology, the debate can be traced
back to the first century when scholars debated the sovereignty of the Lord
Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ isn’t viewed in the right perspective then His
saving work on the cross is worthless and the debate of grace and free will is
in vain. The redemptive work of salvation of the Lord is solely on God’s grace
and man’s free will. Geisler states that, “The mystery of the relationship
between divine sovereignty and human free will has challenged the greatest
Christian thinkers down through the centuries.”
There is no mistake why Christ
would ask His disciples who other people thought He was. The disciples answer,
“John the Baptist, Elijah, and one of the prophets” (Mark 8:28). He turned His
attention to His closest companions with the question and Peter answered, “You
are the Messiah” (Mark 8:29, NLT). If He is the Messiah and has demonstrated
throughout the Gospels that He is willing to save whomever He chooses, then why
is there such a debate? This paper will
demonstrate the problem (the fall of man), background to the debate, the
biblical definition of grace and free will, and detail John Calvin’s and
Jacobus Arminius’s views on grace and free will.
The Problem: The Need for Grace and Free Will
The problem begins after the
creation in the Garden of Eden. God created man and woman in a perfect state.
The two had perfect communion with God in which they could talk with God and
have an open relationship with Him. Genesis three records the temptation and
the fall of Adam and Eve. Eve was first tempted by the serpent with the
forbidden fruit from the tree that God said that they were to never eat from.
After being convinced that the fruit looked pleasing to the eyes she also
convinced Adam that it was good to eat as well. The two eat of the fruit from
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
As a consequence of eating the
fruit, God cursed the serpent (Genesis 3:14), the woman would have great pain
during child bearing (Genesis 3:15), and the man was sentenced to a shorter
life and to a life of labor (Genesis 3:17-19). God did not want Adam and Eve
eating any more fruit such as the fruit of the tree of life that would enable
them to live forever so, He banished them from the Garden of Eden. Man falling
from the grace of God was enough for the need of a Savior and being right with
Him again, but there was another that also fell.
Lucifer’s Fall
The Bible does not tell when
Lucifer the great angel fell, but it is very evident that he fell. Isaiah 14:12
says, “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” In Luke
10:18 Christ said, “Yes, he told them, I saw Satan fall from heaven like
lightening.” It is imperative that it is recognized that Satan is a fallen
being roaming to and fro on the earth tempting all people and has access to the
throne of God. Job 1:6 says, “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to
present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.”
This is important to know because Satan
is the, “god of this world” blinding those who don’t believe (2 Corinthians
4:4). He also does his best to pull God’s elect away from His grasp (which isn’t
impossible if we are truly His), “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift each of
you like wheat” (Luke 22:31). The problem of sin is due all in part of the fall
of man and the fall of Satan. The fall of both, man and Satan, has caused God
in His loving kindness to send His only Son to redeem His creation. His love
has two products which are grace and free will. Ironically, these two products
have sparked many debates since the first century.
A Biblical Definition of Grace and Free Will
Man has fallen and Satan is lurking
around the earth for people to call his own. Throughout the Old Testament God
pointed His children to the Law which He knew would not suffice. All of that
time they had judges over them, priests to call on God for them, rituals to
perform, and sacrifices that had to be done in order to be right with God. None
of this would suffice and would never be good enough. He waited for the perfect
time to send the perfect Sacrifice in order for His creation to be made right
with Him once again; His One and Only Son.
1 John 2:2 says, “He Himself is the
sacrifice that atones for our sins and not only our sins but the sins of the
whole world” (NLT). “He Himself” is talking about Christ, God’s One and Only
begotten Son which is God in the flesh. He did this because He loved us this
much, but this love when speaking of salvation has the product of grace.
Geisler states that, “Without grace initiating and executing the plan of
salvation, no one would ever be saved; our eternal life finds its origin only
in grace.”
1 Timothy 2:4 states, “Who (God)
desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” The key
word in that verse being desires. John 3:16 explains that is the reason why He
sent His only begotten Son. Free will is best displayed in Romans 10:9 which
states, “
If you confess with your
mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the
dead, you will be saved” (emphasis added). The “if” is dependent on individuals
that choose to come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Owen states that,
“Free will consists in its liberty, freedom, and ability to consent to choose
and embrace spiritual things.”
God has imputed that free will to everyone; the free will to accept His free
grace.
Background to the Grace and Free Will Debate
It can be stated that the first
argument was started in the first century and was recorded in the Bible about
the grace and free will of God. Geisler states that one of the acts of the Holy
Spirt is redemptive work in a new convert.
The recorded event was that of Simon the Sorcerer who came to believe the
preaching of Philip. When Peter and John arrived in Samaria to lay hands on the
new converts so that they could receive the Holy Spirit Simon asked to buy some
of that power (Acts 8:9-18). Simons had a twisted view of salvation, the grace
of God, and the free will of man.
Second Century Debate
Much later than the Gospels more
humanistic views started to creep into the church. In the second century Origen
twisted the Word of God and the meaning of salvation. Origen viewed the Bible
allegorically and thought that the Old Testament was offensive if taken
literally.
The concept of salvation that he taught was more Gnosticism and thoroughly
filled with Greek philosophy.
Origen had a follower who would
believe much of the same doctrines that he taught. He taught a twisted view of
Jesus Christ. He taught that Jesus was created from God out of nothing, that
God the Father was the Only true God (not Jesus), and taught a controversial
word homoousious meaning of one substance.
With this much of a twisted view of Christ, the doctrine of salvation is
meaningless. Origen was a backdrop to the first Council of Nicea, but this
Council was mostly concerned with the teachings of Arius.
The Council of Nicea
The Council of Nicea was the first
Ecumenical Council and met in 325. The Council was called together because of
the concern of the teachings of Arius. There were many bishops who supported
him however, there more that didn’t support his views. “Constantine became
emperor of the East as well as the West and was forced to intervene.”
The Council of Nicea did condemn Arius, but it also split the church into two
different groups; the East and the West. The West was clear on the full deity
of Christ along with others in the East. There were still Origenists that were
less clear on the deity of Christ.
There were some negatives and
positives that came along with the Council of Nicea. The negative aspect of the
Council was that an emperor (or ruler) was using his power to call together
bishops and overthrowing a heretics teaching; regardless of how bad it may be.
If he could do that for the bad, would he do that against the good as well? The
emperor’s actions did cause some good at the Council of Nicea for salvation;
grace and free will. It was his actions that caused the church to, “reaffirm
the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, which has proved to be an immensely
significant foundation for virtually all Christian life, work, and worship in
the centuries that followed.”
Kreeft and Tacelli says that, “If Christ was divine, then the incarnation, or
“enfleshing” of God, is the most important event in history. It is the hinge of
history. It changes everything. If Christ is God, then when He died on the
cross, heaven’s gate, closed by sin, opened up for us for the first time since
Eden.”
Other Councils
The divinity and the Person of
Christ is imperative to Christian teaching in the church. It is His work that
was done on the cross that demonstrates the Father’s love that imparts grace to
His creation and allows His creation to freely accept His grace. From the first
Council of Nicea there have been several other Councils in an effort to protect
the Person and work of Christ. Walton lists six other Councils that met after
the first Council of Nicea which were: Council at Constantinople, Council at
Ephesus, Council at Chalcedon, another Council at Constantinople, again at
Constantinople, and another Council at Nicea.
Most of all of the Council’s did
their best to keep Christ and true doctrine of Him the main focus. The last
Council, the Council at Nicea, “Both sides sought to accuse each other of
heresy concerning the person of Jesus Christ, although neither side questioned
the truth of the first six councils.”
There was a concern of idol worship and invoked the second commandment given by
God in Exodus 20:4-5.
Many at the council still argued whether it was idol worship if the worship was
to an icon. They disregarded the whole point of the sovereignty of Christ and
wished only to worship an icon. This undermined the doctrine of the saving
grace of Christ and cared little about teaching people about their free will to
choose Christ over an icon.
Calvin and Arminius
Between the debates at the Councils
and the debates of John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius there have been many
debates over grace and free will. There have also been many debates after
Calvin and Arminius, but none have made such a profound effect as these two
have. Their differences and debates sparked splits in churches and
denominations. Many of the teachings of Calvin and Arminius can be found in our
churches today. Calvinistic teachings are found in Presbyterian churches,
reformed churches, and some Baptists. Arminianism teachings can be found in
Methodist, some General Baptist, Pentecost, and many charismatic churches. There
are many differences in the theologies of Calvinism and Arminianism, but for
this purpose the stark differences in grace and free will shall only be pointed
out.
John Calvin
According to Calvin man does not
have free will. Enns states that in Calvinism, “Man is unable to initiate
response to God therefore, in eternity past God elected certain people to
salvation. Election and predestination are unconditional; they are not based on
man’s response.”
Christ died for only those that God predestined to give His irresistible grace
to. Irresistible grace however, is contrary to the nature of God which would
seem to force people to do something against their will. Therefore, people
would not have free will or free choice to choose to come to the saving
knowledge of Christ. Calvin totally redefined the definition of grace and free
will as pointed out in the true biblical definition section.
Arminius
According to Arminius Christ died
for all, making it possible for all mankind to be saved. This is opposed to the
Calvinistic view in which Christ only died for only the predestined elected. Enns
states that Arminius believed that, “Grace was given to all people and that man
could cooperate with God and respond to Him in salvation.”
This view is a lot different than the view of Calvinism. As mentioned, Arminius
believed that man had the free will to respond to God’s grace and accept His
free gift of salvation. Calvin and Arminius had opposing views on perseverance
as well. Arminius believed that believers could lose their salvation while
Calvin believed that believers were secure and none would be lost.
Conclusion
Throughout the history of the New
Testament church there has been much debate over the grace of God and the free
will of man. The fall of the first man in the Garden of Eden and the fall of
Satan has caused God to provide for His people a way of redemption. In the Old
Testament that redemption came through the Law and sacrifices, but He provided
a Perfect sacrifice in the New Testament through His only begotten Son. Since
the first century the sovereignty of Christ has been twisted thus twisting the
salvation plan of God. That salvation plan included His unmerited grace for His
creation and free will for man to choose to accept his free gift of salvation.
Simon the Sorcerer wanted to buy
the Holy Spirit from the Apostles due to being greedy. Origen was a heretic
that viewed the Bible allegorically. Arius was also a heretic who happened to
be a follower of Origen that sparked the first Council at Nicea. There were
seven Councils that were called together that for the most part tried to solve
the deity of Christ which would have made right the salvation plan; grace and
free will. Finally, there were the debates of John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius.
These debates did just as the Councils did, split the churches. Many of the Calvinistic
and Arminianism grace and free will doctrines can be seen in various churches
today.
Bibliography
Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology: Revised and
Expanded. Chicago, Ill: Moody Publishers, 2009.
Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology: Volume Two. Minneapolis,
Minnesota: Bethany House, 2004.
Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology: Volume Three. Minneapolis,
Minnesota: Bethany House, 2004.
Lane, Tony. A Concise History of Christian Thought. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academics, 2006.
Noll, Mark A. Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the
History of Christianity. (Third Edition). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker
Academic, 2012.
Owen, John. The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1960.
Walter, Robert C.
Chronological and Background Charts of
Church History. (Revised and Expanded Edition). Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan, 2005.
