Grace and Free Will

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.”[1]

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.”[2]

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.”[3] 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.[4] 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.[5] The concept of salvation that he taught was more Gnosticism and thoroughly filled with Greek philosophy.[6]

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.[7] 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.”[8] 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.[9]

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.”[10] 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.”[11]

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.[12]

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.”[13] There was a concern of idol worship and invoked the second commandment given by God in Exodus 20:4-5.[14] 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.”[15] 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.”[16] 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.

---

[1] Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology: Volume Three. (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 2003). 137.

[2] Geisler, Norman, Systematic Theology: Volume Three. (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 2003). 286

[3] Owen, John. The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1960). 287.

[4] Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology: Volume Two. (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 2003). 286.

[5] Lane, Tony. A Concise History Christian Thought. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2006). 20.

[6] Ibid., 20.

[7] Ibid., 29.

[8] Lane, 28.

[9] Ibid., 30.

[10] Noll, Mark A. Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity. (Third Edition). (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012). Kindle Loc. 1189.

[11] Kreeft, Peter and Tacelli, Ronald K. Handbook of Christian Apologetics. (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 1994). 152. 

[12] Walton, Robert C. Chronological and Background Charts of Church History. (Revised and Expanded Edition). (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005). Chart 28.

[13] Lane, Tony. A Concise History of Christian Though. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2006). 77.

[14] Ibid., 76.

[15] Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. (Revised and Expanded). (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2008). Kindle Loc. 10682.

[16] Enns, Kindle Loc. 10910.