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.
No comments:
Post a Comment