Discipleship, Education, and Spiritual Formation

In Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus said the following to His eleven disciples before He was taken to Heaven, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (ESV) This has been known throughout Christian history as the “Great Commission,” and it has formed the basis for both Christian evangelism and discipleship throughout the centuries as the Christian church has continued to grow and develop. Evangelism and discipleship have been the main cornerstones of the Christian church in building a community of believers that love and worship Jesus Christ.

This can be said to be the goal of the Christian church—to make disciples of Jesus Christ by preaching the Gospel and continuing to help them understand the truths of Scripture until they look like their Savior, Jesus Christ. But is this the essential goal of ministry within the Church—to make disciples? Is the sole goal of the Church of Jesus Christ “to make a disciple who worships Jesus”? This paper will seek to critique this assertion, and define discipleship according to a Biblical understanding of the term.

Barna defines discipleship as, “becoming a complete and competent follower of Jesus Christ.”[1] A. Boyd Luter, Jr. further notes that, “Disciple-making involves (a) winning others to Christ (“baptizing” implies their conversion, for water baptism was an outer witness of inner conversion) and (b) teaching the commands of Christ. “Christian instruction is to be a continuous process…continuing after baptism with a view to enabling disciples to walk worthily of their vocation.”[2] The main goal then, according to these men, is to bring men to the knowledge of Christ as Savior and then help them to grow to full maturity in their knowledge of Christ as Lord. The assertion, then, that the Church’s main ministry is to “make a disciple who worships Jesus,” does not fully flesh out what it means to make a disciple of Jesus Christ. This definition lacks the continual aspect of discipleship—leaving discipleship as nothing more than evangelism. A man or woman who comes to Christ as Savior is already a “disciple who worships Jesus,” according to the New Testament. Philippians 3:3 says, “we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus.” (ESV) The new believer is a worshipper of Christ from the time of his conversion; therefore, discipleship should end at this point, according to this definition of discipleship. This definition fails to account for the years following the person’s conversion.

What then is the purpose of discipleship? Discipleship is often linked with education. Dr. Michael Mitchell defines Christian education in the following manner: “Education is the creative process of utilizing external and internal forces to facilitate the functions of teaching and training in promoting and attaining growth and development, enabling complete individuals to comprehend, contemplate, and contribute to their community and culture.”[3] With this definition, it is quite obvious why it would be often linked with discipleship. Discipleship is often a matter of growth in understanding. The Apostle Peter says in 2 Peter 3:18, “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (ESV) Obviously, education is important in the process of discipleship. But is that all that pertains to discipleship?

Spiritual formation is another way in which discipleship may be furthered. John H. Armstrong notes, “Spiritual formation refers to Christian growth through a definite process of living the Christian life by the Holy Spirit. It also refers to the means, or methods, by which this life is to be lived.”[4] However, Armstrong also cautions, “I also watch these developments with a cautious eye since some parts of this tradition are clearly questionable for those of us who are deeply rooted in the gospel of grace alone.”[5] Spiritual formation is intent on helping believers discover how to practice the Christian faith through the power of the Holy Spirit. Spiritual formation helps one answer questions regarding the practice of Christian living.

Discipleship, Education, and Spiritual formation all attempt to deal with the need for growth in the life of the Christian. They all attempt to approach it from slightly different angles. Education attempts to approach Christian growth through gaining knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Spiritual formation seeks to approach Christian growth through development of Christian practices. Discipleship encompasses both of these aspects and lasts the entire lifetime of the believer, as they become more and more like Jesus Christ.

The Church’s ministry should be focused mainly toward the entire process of discipleship—from conversion until full maturity in Christ. Discipleship is the most important ministry within the Church because it is discipleship that grows the entire body “to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,” as Paul says in Ephesians 4:13. (ESV) This ministry is important within the local church because a body of weak Christians will portray a weak body to the unbelieving world, and will not bring proper glory to God. Within the church, discipleship can have many different functions, as noted by James G. Samra: “Discipling can be conveyed by mature believers to less mature believers in small groups or with one person, through intensely personal relationships whereby evangelism, humility, suffering for Christ, and other subjects are taught, discussed, exemplified, tested.”[6] Discipleship can take many forms in the church, but it is vital for the life of every believer within the local body.

Worship is important within the local Church. E. F. Harrison says of worship, “Our English word means ‘worthship,’ denoting the worthiness of an individual to receive special honor in accordance with that worth.”[7] Each aspect of the discipleship process, including education and spiritual formation, affect the worship of the believer. They should drive the believer to worship the Lord with a deeper reverence and love. The worship of the believer should grow deeper as the believer is discipled and grows in maturity in his knowledge of Christ. Worship itself does not define discipleship, however; it will act more as a determinant of the level of maturity of the believer.

Discipleship is one of the most important ministries which the church has the opportunity to engage in within the local body. Discipleship cannot be summed up as simply “making a disciple who worships Jesus,” because discipleship involves the entire process of growing a believer from being a spiritual newborn until they have reached full maturity in their knowledge of Christ. This can be affected by both education and spiritual formation—education deals with learning about Christ, and Spiritual formation deals with the practice of becoming more like Christ. These areas will affect the believer’s worship by drawing them more deeply into worship of Jesus Christ, until they have grown to full maturity.

---

[1]Barna, George. Growing True Disciples. Colorado Springs: WaterBrook Press, 2001. pg 17

[2] Luter, A. Boyd Jr. "Discipleship and the Church." Bibliotheca Sacra, 1980: 267-272. pg 269

[3] Mitchell, Dr. Michael R. Leading, Teaching, and Making Disciples. Bloomington: CrossBooks, 2010. pg 241

[4] Armstrong, John H. "Introduction." Reformation and Revival, 2004: 8-9. Pg 8

[5] Ibid

[6] Samra, James G. "A Biblical View of Discipleship." Bibliotheca Sacra, 2003: 220-234. (pg. 234)

[7] Harrison, E. F. "Worship." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, by Walter A. Elwell, 1300. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. (pg. 1300)

The Glory of God in Marriage (Pt. 3)

This is the third post in a 9 part series on the Glory of God in Marriage. Enjoy!!

The Glory of God in Marriage (Pt. 2)

This is the second post in a 9 part (3 weekends...) weekend series. The sermon comes from Paul Washer, and it speaks very well of how God is glorified in marriage. Enjoy!!

The Glory of God in Marriage (Pt. 1)

So, for the next three weekends, the posts will be from a message preached by Paul Washer on the Glory of God in Marriage. Marriage is the greatest expression of the Gospel which God has given to man. As a man loves a woman by laying his life down for her and a woman respects and submits to her husband as the Church submits to Christ, the world sees the Gospel in a way that is really very unique. I hope that this gives us all a better picture of what marriage is supposed to be. Enjoy!!

Cohabitation: Marriage Lite or the New Concubinage?

This post is a link to an article semi-related to the article from yesterday about Gucci Mane. This delves into the mindset that is behind cohabitation--although many would not actually think about "shacking up" in this way. I found this rather compelling, and I thought maybe you would too. Enjoy!!

You can find the article here

Gucci Mane--"Mane" Up!

This is somewhat a response, and somewhat just a rambling rant. Recently (and mostly unfortunately), I listened for the first time to a hip-hop artist named Gucci Mane. The song I listened to was called "I Don't Love Her" (or something self-centeredly titled like that...). The song was basically three verses from three different rappers about how they love the way that their woman behaves sexually, but they don't actually love her.

And that pretty much sums up the whole song... laced with sexual language and curse words, it spews forth almost 4 minutes of self-centered objectifying lyrics about women whom Gucci Mane "don't love."

After listening to this song, I can honestly say that my first response to this song (besides the bewilderment of why anyone would be attracted to listening to Gucci Mane's voice...) was that of anger and disappointment. Anger at the fact that this is supposed to be a "Mane" ("man" for those who don't speak foolish-bragadocio), and yet he clearly thinks it's manly to talk of women as if he were a pubescent public school boy. Also, I felt disappointment at the fact that I know several girls who are fans of Gucci Mane, and who would maybe even sing along with this self-deprecating song, instead of calling him out for his boyishness.

Let's get this straight. While I can not claim that I have listened to the entirety of Gucci Mane's music (I really had no desire to search out anything beyond his Facebook videos... which I didn't even really watch...), I can say that from the songs that I heard by Gucci Mane, he did not represent anything close to what a man should truly be. All of the songs I listened to were focused on (I'll give you one guess... give up?) Gucci Mane. Even the song that was focused on the woman whom he doesn't love, was ultimately focused on what Gucci Mane liked in the girl. He liked what she did for him.

This is about as far from manhood as is humanly possible. Real manhood is focused on sacrifice, not selfishness. Gucci Mane needs to take a look at Ephesians 5, where Christ is put forth as the example of what a man is supposed to be for his woman. Christ gave Himself for His bride. He did not selfishly use the Church for His benefit and then toss her aside for someone who fulfilled Him better. This is what is being put forth as "mane-hood" by Gucci and his fellows. Use a woman until she doesn't do what you want her to do anymore. This sounds more like exploitation than it does an exhibition of manhood. With Christ and the Church as the example, Christ chose a woman not for what she could give Him, but so He could love her and give Himself for her. This is real manhood. Real manhood does not float from woman to woman, consuming everyone in his path until they have nothing left to give. Real manhood commits to one woman and seeks to love her more deeply for the rest of his life--that a woman would settle for something less (or allow less from the "man" they are dating) than this should signal that she doesn't understand what she should be looking for in a man.

So, Gucci, don't brag about how many women you have duped into believing in your false version of manhoord. Instead, brag when you have been able to keep the same woman's affections for 50 years. Don't brag about yourself and your sinful lifestyle. Repent of your sin and trust in Christ, and let your boasting be done in the Lord. As Jeremiah says, " let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousnesson earth". (Jer. 9:24) This is where real manhood is centered--in the Gospel and self-sacrificing giving, not self-centered consumption.

Gucci Mane--Mane Up!

A Critique of John Feinberg

This is a critique I wrote of an article John Feinberg wrote for the Trinity Journal on the topic of the Free Will Defense. Enjoy!!

In the article “And The Atheist Shall Lie Down With The Calvinist: Atheism, Calvinism, And The Free Will Defense” written for the Trinity Journal, John Feinberg discusses the solution to the problem of evil. Feinberg’s main thesis is that the Calvinist objection to the Free Will argument as a solution to the problem of evil is dependent upon the same reasoning used by atheists to reject the same propositions. Feinberg bases his argument upon the differences which he distinguishes between definitions of the term “freedom.” Noting atheist Anthony Flew’s distinction, he states, “One sense of the term ‘free’ means ‘unconstrained,’ while the other means ‘libertarian,’ according to Flew.”[i] Feinberg critiques the atheist response to the Free Will argument. He then notes the similarities within the Calvinist system of argumentation against Free Will, and responds with answers to both atheists and Calvinists by explaining the Free Will argument and how it answers the problem of evil. He concludes the article by summing up the similarities between atheist and Calvinist thought; while still differentiating between the systems of thought.

John Feinberg argues for the concept of Free Will by observing that it consistently (within its own system of belief) answers the “problem of evil.” The “problem of evil” needs to be distinguished, according to Feinberg, as he states, “I like to distinguish between what can be called a religious problem of evil and a philosophical/theological problem of evil.”[ii] He notes that the religious problem deals with a particular source of evil, while the philosophical problem deals with the presence of evil in general. He argues that the problem of evil is one that should be dealt with internally within each theological system. Feinberg answers the problem of evil by defending the “Free Will” argument. He claims, “on an incompatibilistic account of freedom, the Free Will Defense does solve its theology’s problem of evil.”[iii] Feinberg’s argument for the Free Will as the solution to the problem of evil is grounded in his rejection of atheist arguments of causal determinism (which states that God could create a world with free creatures who always do what is right[iv]); as he notes, “Causal determinism and freedom are incompatible.”[v] His argument style is based almost solely on philosophy and anthropology rather than Scripture. He argues very clearly for the position of Free Will as a solution to the problem of evil; however, he fails to clearly show the Scriptural basis for such arguments. His argument is a sufficient response philosophically, but it lacks in Scriptural support. By implication, then, the argument works only philosophically and not theologically. The argument solves the philosophical problem of evil; but fails to deal with the root issue, which is the theological and Biblical problem of evil.

John Feinberg does a fine job of evaluating the philosophical problem of the existence of evil. He also argues very soundly the Free Will response to the problem of evil. His argument focuses on the absolute freedom of man’s will being the reason for the existence of evil within the world which God created as good. The article does leave the reader with several questions, however. If free will is, as Feinberg claims, “good of the highest order which counterbalances and overbalances the evil which is present in the world,”[vi] then why should that good be afforded to man and not God? Why should man be the one afforded free will, as opposed to God being given the right to His free will? Certainly God being free-willed does not solve the problem of evil in and of itself, for evil still exists. However, this is where the Biblical argument for the existence of evil begins. This is another question raised by Feinberg’s arguments. Shouldn’t Christians use the Bible as their answer to all of life’s problems, and use philosophy as a tool in that argument? Why should one separate the argument into two different problems, when the Bible addresses both? The answer to these questions would greatly benefit the reader of this article in dealing with the situation Biblically, as opposed to merely philosophically.

Feinberg, John S. “And The Atheist Shall Lie Down With The Calvinist:
Atheism, Calvinism, And The Free Will Defense.” Trinity Journal 01:2 (Fall 1980): 142-153.

---

[i] Feinberg, pg. 146

[ii] Ibid, pg. 143

[iii] Ibid, pg. 149

[iv] Ibid, pg. 147

[v] Ibid, pg. 148

[vi] Ibid, pg. 145

A Critique of Scott Warren

This is a critique of an article Scott Warren wrote for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.

In this article for the JETS, Scott Warren discusses the issue of Divine sovereignty and human freedom. Warren approaches the article from a different perspective than many of the theologians before him. He approaches the subject by proposing that the tension and often heated debate between those purporting to either Divine sovereignty or human freedom is owing to a misnomer in terms relevant to the subject. Warren’s main thesis is that the argument purported by many Calvinists that man is “not free”[i] is based on an incorrect distinction in terms. His main argument throughout the article is that mankind is free—in the sense of ability. However, despite this freedom of ability, man lacks the desire to respond positively to God. Warren distinguishes between man’s ability to perform an action, and the desire to perform that same action. His argument is that man’s desire, and not necessarily man’s ability, was altered through the fall of Adam. This corrupted desire, then, leads to man’s rejection of and opposition toward God.

Warren’s perspective in this article on human “free will” is that many have given an incorrect response to this subject because of a misunderstanding of the terms in question. Freedom, Warren argues, should be broken down further than this broad term. The two distinct areas within the broad scope of freedom should rightly be called ability and desire according to Warren. Warren claims, “Thus there are two basic factors in free choices: ability and desire (as expressed in preferences). One is free to choose where one has the ability to act; however, within the parameters of one's abilities, one will choose only according to one's desires.”[ii] His goal in this article is to bring clarity to the debate between sovereignty and free-will by distinguishing between the different aspects within human freedom.

Warren shows throughout the article how these distinctions within freedom affect the arguments for and against human freedom in a very precise manner. He argues with a strongly logical base that these distinctions within human freedom allow us to understand more completely the depravity that man has experienced due to the fall of Adam. Warren argues that both ability and desire were affected by the fall of Adam. “In order to be restored to righteousness and godly living for eternity, both ability and desire to do so are necessary. Sinful humans lack both - and each of these basic lacks must be addressed.”[iii] However, through the Gospel, men are given the opportunity to be freed from sin—if they are willing. This frees man in his ability, argues Warren, to choose to embrace the Gospel and be truly free. The remaining problem residing within man is his desire. Man’s desire is not oriented toward God, and simply hearing the Good News is not enough to influence man’s to choose to obey the Gospel. The desire is only freed when a man is regenerated by God.[iv] This understanding of the distinction in areas of freedom within the human will help to explain more fully several doctrines including the responsibility of man, the problem of evil, the impeccability of Jesus, and true freedom without sin.[v] It also exposes the flaws in past historical debate on the subject by Christian theologians. This distinction helps to explain the topic of human freedom with greater clarity, and solves a lot of the tension brought on by this massive issue.

Scott Warren did a superb job bringing to light the distinction within the human will. This article answered very well the questions raised by both Calvinists and Arminians with regard to the human will. It explained very thoroughly the issue at stake with human freedom and Divine sovereignty, and responded to this article with remarkable clarity. While this article will most definitely not end all debate on the subject of the will, both sides can learn something from the distinctions brought up by Scott Warren’s article.

Warren, Scott C. “Ability and Desire: Reframing Debates Surrounding Freedom and Responsibility.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52:3 (Sep 2009): 551-567.

---

[i] Warren, pg. 552.

[ii] Ibid, pg. 553.

[iii] Ibid, pg. 556

[iv] Ibid

[v] Ibid, pg. 561-62.

Eric Ludy Weekend (Pt. 3)

This is the final feature in an Eric Ludy weekend. Today's clip features Eric speaking on the necessity of intercession from believers on behalf of this lost and dying world. Again, very convicting, but hopefully stirring as well. Enjoy!!

Eric Ludy Weekend (Pt. 2)

This is the second post of the weekend featuring Eric Ludy. Today's clip features Eric speaking on the "depraved indifference" of Christians who do not feel compelled to spread the Gospel. Very convicting... Enjoy!!

Eric Ludy Weekend

This weekend's posts will feature clips from Pastor Eric Ludy. Eric is a preacher whom I just found on Youtube (actually, I heard him on Wretched Radio first, but anyways...). Today's clip is of Eric explaining the Gospel and its implications for Christians. Enjoy!!

Sovereignty of God and Free-Will of Man: Conclusion

Conclusion

The issue of God’s sovereignty and the “free will” of man has been debated countless times throughout Church history. The issue is important because it has many implications that follow along with it. The problem of evil is a very big implication for both God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. Also, the justice of Hell is a major implication which demands an answer in the debate. Christians, however, are not left in the dark on such issues. Christians have the Scriptures, and the Scriptures are very clear that God is a sovereign God. Scriptures are also very clear that although man is responsible for his sinful choices against God, the will to do “good” in the Godward sense is not present. The unbelieving world does not have the desire to follow God, and they will not exercise their wills toward belief in God apart from His Grace. God has offered a way of escape through the Gospel. While men cannot naturally respond to this message, they can have their eyes opened by the Spirit through the power of God’s Word and especially through the power of the Gospel, “the power of God for salvation, according to Paul in Romans 1:16. The Gospel is the only hope for men to truly have a “free will.” As Jesus said in John 8:36, “So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.”

Sovereignty of God and Free-Will of Man: Relationship Between Sovereignty and the Will of Man

Relationship Between Sovereignty and the Will of Man

What then is the relationship between sovereignty and human will? It is a question resolved by understanding what Paul says in Romans 8:28, “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” God’s sovereignty extends to using the evil acts of willfully rebellious men for the good of those “who are the called according to his purpose.”

Jonathan Edwards in his book, Freedom of the Will notes, “Unless God foreknows the future acts of moral agents, all the prophecies we have in Scripture… are uttered without knowing the things foretold.”[1] This knowledge of all the moral acts of men constitutes the reason why God may cause all things to “work together for good;” because He is sovereign over every event that is going to happen by men, even of those who are enslaved to sin.

What response should be given to the “free will defense” as a response to the problem of evil? Feinberg argues very clearly for the position of Free Will as a solution to the problem of evil; however, he fails to clearly show the Scriptural basis for such arguments. His argument is a sufficient response philosophically, but it lacks in Scriptural support. By implication, then, the argument works only philosophically and not theologically. The argument solves the philosophical problem of evil; but fails to deal with the root issue, which is the theological and Biblical problem of evil.

Feinberg’s argument also leaves the reader with several questions. If free will is, as Feinberg claims, “good of the highest order which counterbalances and overbalances the evil which is present in the world,” then why should that good be afforded to man and not God? Why should man be the one afforded free will, as opposed to God being given the right to His free will? Certainly God being free-willed does not solve the problem of evil in and of itself, for evil still exists. However, this is where the Biblical argument for the existence of evil begins. This is another question raised by Feinberg’s arguments. Shouldn’t Christians use the Bible as their answer to all of life’s problems, and use philosophy as a tool in that argument? Why should one separate the argument into two different problems, when the Bible addresses both? The answer to these questions would greatly benefit the reader of this article in dealing with the situation Biblically, as opposed to merely philosophically.

How can the will of man be understood more clearly? Scott Warren suggests that the tension and often heated debate between those purporting to either Divine sovereignty or human freedom is owing to a misnomer in terms relevant to the subject. Warren’s perspective on human “free will” is that many have given an incorrect response to this subject because of a misunderstanding of the terms in question. Freedom, Warren argues, should be broken down further than this broad term. The two distinct areas within the broad scope of freedom should rightly be called ability and desire according to Warren. Warren claims, “Thus there are two basic factors in free choices: ability and desire (as expressed in preferences). One is free to choose where one has the ability to act; however, within the parameters of one's abilities, one will choose only according to one's desires.”[2]

Warren argues that both ability and desire were affected by the fall of Adam. “In order to be restored to righteousness and godly living for eternity, both ability and desire to do so are necessary. Sinful humans lack both - and each of these basic lacks must be addressed.”[3] However, through the Gospel, men are given the opportunity to be freed from sin—if they are willing. This frees man in his ability, argues Warren, to choose to embrace the Gospel and be truly free. The remaining problem residing within man is his desire. Man’s desire is not oriented toward God, and simply hearing the Good News is not enough to influence man’s to choose to obey the Gospel. The desire is only freed when a man is regenerated by God.[4] This understanding of the distinction in areas of freedom within the human will help to explain more fully several doctrines including the responsibility of man, the problem of evil, the impeccability of Jesus, and true freedom without sin.[5] It also exposes the flaws in past historical debate on the subject by Christian theologians. This distinction helps to explain the topic of human freedom with greater clarity, and solves a lot of the tension brought on by this massive issue.

---

[1] Edwards, Jonathan. The Freedom of the Will. Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1996. 119

[2] Warren, Scott C. "Ability and Desire: Reframing Debates Surrounding Freedom and Responsibility." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sept. 2009: 551-567. 553

[3] Ibid 556

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid 561-62

Sovereignty of God and Free-Will of Man: Will of Man

Will of Man

The Freedom of the human will has been a very aggressively disputed issue throughout the history of the Christian church. According to the Dictionary of Evangelical Theology, free will, or self determinism is defined as the following: “This is the belief that people determine their own behavior freely, and that no causal antecedents can sufficiently account for their actions.”[1] This article, written by Norman Geisler, continues, “In this view a person’s acts are caused by himself or herself… Inanimate objects do not change without an outside cause, but personal subjects are able to direct their own actions. As previously noted, self-determinists reject the notions that events are uncaused or that they cause themselves. Rather, they believe that human actions can be caused by human beings.”[2] In Predestination and Free Will, Geisler argues, “Irresistible force used by God on his free creatures would be a violation of both the charity of God and the dignity of humans. God is love. True love never forces itself on anyone. Forced love is rape, and God is not a divine rapist!”[3]

Geisler is an avid proponent of the free will of man. He argues his point from verses such as Joshua 24:15, which says, “choose this day whom you will serve,” and 1 Kings 18:21, which says, “How long will you go limping between two different opinions?” He also states that Jesus emphasized free will in Matthew 23:37, when He said, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem… How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” Geisler claims that these verses emphasize the human responsibility regarding personal moral choices and eternal destiny.[4] The moral responsibility of man requires a free will according to those who support the idea of the freedom of the will. Millard Erickson states, “Humans would not be genuinely human without free will. This has given rise to the argument that God cannot create a genuinely free being and at the same time guarantee that this being will always do exactly as God desires of him.”[5]

It is also claimed that the free will of man is a valid solution to the problem of evil. John Feinberg in his article for the Trinity Journal entitled, “And The Atheist Shall Lie Down With The Calvinist: Atheism, Calvinism, And The Free Will Defense,” says the following regarding the Free Will defense, “The final implication of all this is that the free will defender can solve the problem of evil which confronts his essentially Arminian theology. If one begins with incompatibilistic freedom, there is no contradiction in using the Free Will Defense to solve one’s problem of evil.”[6] He defines a difference in the terms regarding freedom, in which exist both compatibilistic freedom and incompatabilistic freedom. Noting Anthony Flew’s definition of both compatibilistic and incompatibilistic freedom, Feinberg notes, “One sense of the term ‘free’ means ‘unconstrained,’ while the other means ‘libertarian,’ according to Flew.”[7] Feinberg continues, “The distinction is simply the following: To say that someone acted freely in the unconstrained sense, as Flew uses the expression, means that ‘there are contingently sufficient non-subsequent conditions for a person’s being such that he chooses to act, and acts, in one particular way and not another.’”[8] Feinberg claims that his system of thought is a valid solution for the problem of evil. He also claims that free will is a, “good of the highest order which counterbalances and overbalances the evil which is present in the world,” This, according to Feinberg, is a validation of the system as a possible theological construction of thought.

However, does the logical consistency of a system of thought truly prove that it is the most Biblical form of thought? Should not the thought be formed by the Bible, with logical consistency only building upon the Biblical foundation? The Bible has very decisive input regarding the will of man, but does it support the concept of a “free will”?

The Bible speaks very certainly concerning the nature of the will of man. Paul, in Ephesians 2:1-3 says, “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” Along the same thought line, Paul writes to Titus in Titus 3:3, “For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.” Galatians 4:4 states, “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.” Paul tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:25-26, “God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”

Paul is not the only one in the New Testament who presents the nature of the human will. Peter, in 2 Peter 2:19, speaking of false prophets declares, “They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.” Jesus Himself spoke on the nature of the will in John 8:34, “Jesus answered them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.’” Jesus continues in John 8:44, “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

These passages seem to speak not of a free human will, but of a human will which has been enslaved to sin. Many theologians throughout Christian history have concurred with this Scriptural understanding of the will of man. John Calvin, noting Augustine’s view of the will of man says,

“Augustine hesitates not to call the will a slave. It is certain, he elsewhere admits, that without the Spirit the will of man is not free, inasmuch as it is subject to lusts which chain and master it. And again, that nature began to want liberty the moment the will was vanquished by the revolt into which it fell. Again, that man, by making a bad use of free will, lost both himself and his will. Again, that free will having been made a captive, can do nothing in the way of righteousness. Again, that no will is free which has not been made so by divine grace.”[9]

Calvin also says, “ In this way, then, man is said to have free will, not because he has a free choice of good and evil, but because he acts voluntarily, and not by compulsion.… An admirable freedom! that man is not forced to be the servant of sin, while he is, however, “ejthelodou'lo” (a voluntary slave); his will being bound by the fetters of sin.”[10]

Martin Luther, in the Bondage of the Will, states, “’Free-will’ cannot be applied to any one but to God only. You may, perhaps, rightly assign to man some kind of will, but to assign unto him ‘Free-will’ in divine things, is going too far. For the term ‘Free-will,’ in the judgment of the ears of all, means, that which can, and does do God-ward, whatever it pleases, restrainable by no law and no command.”[11] Luther continues, “But you cannot call him Free, who is a servant acting under the power of the Lord. How much less, then, can we rightly call men or angels free, who so live under the all-overruling command of God, (to say nothing of sin and death,) that they cannot consist one moment by their own power.”[12]

The nature of the human will is a subject addressed by many theologians, and more importantly the Bible. The Bible addresses clearly the nature of the human will, and it does not paint a very “free” picture. The Bible instead presents the human will as enslaved to its sinful nature, and unable to free himself. Theologians throughout Church history have dealt with the nature of the will, and have confirmed this Scriptural teaching of the “bondage of the will.” How then, can we harmonize the sovereignty of God with the will of man?

---

[1] Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.467

[2] Ibid 469

[3] Basinger, David, and Randall Basinger. Predestination and Free Will. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1986.69

[4] Ibid 64-65

[5] Erickson, Christian Theology, 448

[6] Feinberg, John S. "And The Atheist Shall Lie Down With The Calvinist: Atheism, Calvinism, And The Free Will Defense." Trinity Journal, 1980: 142-153.151

[7] Ibid 146

[8] Ibid

[9]Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion Vol. II. B&R Samizdat Express. 229

[10] Ibid

[11] Luther, Martin. "The Bondage of the Will." Christian Classics Ethereal Library. November 22, 2005. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/bondage.i.html (accessed April 17, 2011). XLI.

[12] Ibid