Protestant Free will in theology

1 protestant

1.1 arminianism
1.2 lutheranism
1.3 god , creation
1.4 predestination
1.5 anabaptism
1.6 calvinism
1.7 comparison of protestants

protestant
arminianism

christians influenced teachings of jacobus arminius (such methodists) believe while god all-knowing , knows choices each person make, , still gives them ability choose or not choose everything, regardless of whether there internal or external factors contributing choice.

like john calvin, arminius affirmed total depravity, arminius believed prevenient grace allowed people choose salvation:

concerning grace , free will, teach according scriptures , orthodox consent: free unable begin or perfect true , spiritual good, without grace.... grace [prœvenit] goes before, accompanies, , follows; excites, assists, operates will, , co operates lest in vain.

prevenient grace divine grace precedes human decision. exists prior , without reference humans may have done. humans corrupted effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons engage god-given free choose salvation offered god in jesus christ or reject salvific offer.

thomas jay oord offers perhaps cogent free theology presupposing prevenient grace. calls essential kenosis says god acts preveniently give freedom/agency creatures. gift comes god s eternal essence, , therefore necessary. god remains free in choosing how love, fact god loves , therefore gives freedom/agency others necessary part of means divine.

this view backed in bible verses such luke 13:34, nkjv

o jerusalem, jerusalem, 1 kills prophets , stones sent her! how wanted gather children together, hen gathers brood under wings, not willing!”

here see jesus lamenting unable save jerusalem not willing. see whilst jesus wants save jerusalem respects choice continue on in sin despite saved.

lutheranism

lutherans believe although humans have free concerning civil righteousness, cannot work spiritual righteousness without holy spirit, since righteousness in heart cannot wrought in absence of holy spirit. in other words, humanity free choose , act in every regard except choice of salvation.

lutherans teach sinners, while capable of doing works outwardly good, not capable of doing works satisfy god s justice. every human thought , deed infected sin , sinful motives. luther himself, in bondage of will, people nature endowed free-will/free choice in regard “goods , possessions” person “has right of using, acting, , omitting according free-will.” however, in “god-ward” things pertaining “salvation or damnation” people in bondage “either of god, or of satan.”

as found in paul althaus’ study of luther’s theology, sin’s infection of every human thought , deed began adam’s fall sin, original sin. adam’s fall “terrible example” of “free will” unless god motivates virtuous behavior. humanity inherits adam’s sin. thus, in our “natural condition,” have inborn desire sin because person birth. luther noted, “adam sinned willingly , freely , him sin has been born cannot sin innocently voluntarily.”

the controversial term liberum arbitrium translated “free-will” henry cole , “free will” remains in general use. however, rupp/watson study of luther , erasmus chose “free choice” translation , provided rationale. luther used “free choice” (or “free-will”) denote fact humans act “spontaneously” , “a desirous willingness.” allowed “free-will” “power” humans “can caught spirit” of god. however, deplored use of term “free-will” because “grand, copious, , full.” therefore, luther held inborn faculty of “willingness” should “called other term.”

although our wills function of , in bondage our inherited sinful desires, luther insisted sin “voluntarily.” voluntarily means sin of our own free will. desire. long desire sin, our wills free sin. luther’s “bondage of will” sin. sinner’s “will bound, , remains will. repeatedly , voluntarily acts according it.” is, set free sin , righteousness requires “rebirth through faith.” rebirth of faith gives “true freedom sin,” is, wrote luther, liberty [freedom] good.”

to use biblical word important luther, set free sin , righteousness requires metanoia. luther used jesus’ image of , bad trees depict necessity of changing person change person wills , does. in jesus’ image, “a tree cannot bear bad fruit, , bad tree cannot bear fruit” (matthew 7:18). bad tree can produce bad fruit, before rebirth through faith, people in bondage sinful desires of hearts. can sin, albeit “spontaneously , desirous willingness.” given view of human condition, luther concluded that, without rebirth, “free choice” humans possess “not free @ all” because cannot of free inherent bondage sin.

thus, luther distinguished between different kinds of freedom: (a) nature, freedom act , (b) rebirth through faith, freedom act righteously.

god , creation

orthodox lutheran theology holds god made world, including humanity, perfect, holy , sinless. however, adam , eve chose disobey god, trusting in own strength, knowledge, , wisdom. consequently, people saddled original sin, born sinful , unable avoid committing sinful acts. lutherans, original sin chief sin, root , fountainhead of actual sins.

according lutherans, god preserves creation, in doing cooperates happens, , guides universe. while god cooperates both , evil deeds, evil deeds inasmuch deeds, not evil in them. god concurs act s effect, not cooperate in corruption of act or evil of effect. lutherans believe exists sake of christian church, , god guides welfare , growth.

predestination

lutherans believe elect predestined salvation. lutherans believe christians should assured among predestined. lutherans believe trust in jesus alone can of salvation, in christ s work , promises in certainty lies. according lutheranism, central final hope of christian resurrection of body , life everlasting confessed in apostles creed rather predestination. conversion or regeneration in strict sense of term work of divine grace , power man, born of flesh, , void of power think, will, or thing, , dead in sin is, through gospel , holy baptism, taken state of sin , spiritual death under god s wrath state of spiritual life of faith , grace, rendered able , spiritually and, especially, led accept benefits of redemption in christ jesus.

lutherans disagree make predestination source of salvation rather christ s suffering, death, , resurrection. lutherans reject calvinist doctrine of perseverance of saints. both calvinist camps, lutherans view work of salvation monergistic in natural [that is, corrupted , divinely unrenewed] powers of man cannot or towards salvation (formula of concord: solid declaration, art. ii, par. 71), , lutherans go further along same lines free grace advocates recipient of saving grace need not cooperate it. hence, lutherans believe true christian (that is, genuine recipient of saving grace) can lose or salvation, [b]ut cause not though god unwilling grant grace perseverance in whom has begun work... [but these persons] wilfully turn away... (formula of concord: solid declaration, art. xi, par. 42). unlike calvinists, lutherans not believe in predestination damnation. instead, lutherans teach eternal damnation result of unbeliever s sins, rejection of forgiveness of sins, , unbelief.

anabaptism

the anabaptist movement characterized fundamental belief in free of man. many earlier movements such waldensians , others likewise held viewpoint. denominations today representing view include old order mennonites, amish, , conservative mennonites.

calvinism

john calvin ascribed “free will” people in sense act “voluntarily, , not compulsion.” elaborated position allowing man has choice , self-determined” , actions stem “his own voluntary choosing.”

the free calvin ascribed people mortimer adler calls “natural freedom” of will. freedom 1 desires inherent in people.

calvin held kind of inherent/natural free in disesteem because unless people acquire freedom live ought being transformed, desire , voluntarily choose sin. “man said have free will,” wrote calvin, “because acts voluntarily, , not compulsion. true: why should small matter have been dignified proud title?” glitch in inherent/natural freedom of although people have “faculty of willing,” nature unavoidably (and yet voluntarily without compulsion) under “the bondage of sin.”

the kind of free calvin esteems adler calls “acquired freedom” of will, freedom/ability “to live [one] ought.” possess acquired free requires change person acquires desire live life marked virtuous qualities. calvin describes change required acquired freedom, “must wholly transformed , renovated.”

calvin depicts transformation “a new heart , new spirit (ezek. 18:31).” sets 1 free “bondage sin” , enables “piety towards god, , love towards men, general holiness , purity of life.”

calvinist protestants embrace idea of predestination, namely, god chose saved , not saved prior creation. quote ephesians 1:4 chose in him before creation of world holy , blameless in sight , 2:8 grace saved, through faith, , not of yourselves, gift of god. 1 of strongest defenders of theological point of view american puritan preacher , theologian jonathan edwards.

edwards believed indeterminism incompatible individual dependence on god , hence sovereignty. reasoned if individuals responses god s grace contra-causally free, salvation depends partly on them , therefore god s sovereignty not absolute , universal. edwards book freedom of defends theological determinism. in book, edwards attempts show libertarianism incoherent. example, argues self-determination libertarian must mean either 1 s actions including 1 s acts of willing preceded act of free or 1 s acts of lack sufficient causes. first leads infinite regress while second implies acts of happen accidentally , hence can t make better or worse, more tree better other trees because oftener happens lit upon swan or nightingale; or rock more vicious other rocks, because rattlesnakes have happened oftener crawl on it.

it should not thought view denies freedom of choice, however. claims man free act on strongest moral impulse , volition, externally determined, not free act contrary them, or alter them. proponents, such john l. girardeau, have indicated belief moral neutrality impossible; if possible, , 1 equally inclined contrary options, 1 make no choice @ all; if 1 inclined, slightly, toward 1 option, person choose 1 on others.

some non-calvinist christians attempt reconciliation of dual concepts of predestination , free pointing situation of god christ. in taking form of man, necessary element of process jesus christ lived existence of mortal. when jesus born not born omniscient power of god creator, mind of human child - yet still god in essence. precedent creates god able abandonment of knowledge, or ignore knowledge, while remaining god. not inconceivable although omniscience demands god knows future holds individuals, within power deny knowledge in order preserve individual free will. other theologians argue calvinist-edwardsean view suggests if human volitions predetermined god, actions dictated fallen of man satisfy sovereign decree. hence, impossible act outside of god s perfect will, conclusion non-calvinists claim poses serious problem ethics , moral theology.

an proposal toward such reconciliation states god is, in fact, not aware of future events, rather, being eternal, outside time, , sees past, present, , future 1 whole creation. consequently, not though god know in advance jeffrey dahmer become guilty of homicide years prior event example, aware of eternity, viewing time single present. view offered boethius in book v of consolation of philosophy.

calvinist theologian loraine boettner argued doctrine of divine foreknowledge not escape alleged problems of divine foreordination. wrote god foreknows must, in nature of case, fixed , foreordained; , if 1 inconsistent free agency of man, other also. foreordination renders events certain, while foreknowledge presupposes certain. [1] christian theologians, feeling bite of argument, have opted limit doctrine of foreknowledge if not away altogether, forming new school of thought, similar socinianism , process theology, called open theism.

comparison of protestants

this table summarizes 3 classical protestant beliefs free will.