# Interesting Quote Regarding Free Will



## Marrow Man (Mar 27, 2009)

I read the following quote several years ago in a seminary class, then I ran across it again today. It shows a fundamental shift, even among Arminians, with regard to how the view of the will changed about 200 years ago. I blog about this here, but I thought some of you might find the quote itself interesting. The quote is found in Ted Campbell's _Christian Confessions_.



> Despite the agreement of traditional Evangelical doctrinal statements that human beings have no natural free will [he references The Methodist Articles of Religion here], it must be noted that through the 1800s this was a point often missed, especially by Methodists and other Arminian Evangelicals. In the 1800s, influenced by democratic optimism and popular ideas of individualism and voluntarism, Methodists and others began to speak of human beings as having a "free will" as if it were the natural possession of every human being .... Although this contradicts their own doctrinal tradition, the idea of "free will" as an inborn or natural gift was so popular that it affected Evangelicalism very broadly, even to the point of influencing Baptists and others.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 28, 2009)

It is true that classic Arminianism did not hold to _natural_ free will. And while the notion of "having a _free will _as if it were the natural possession of every human being" became the norm, evangelical Arminians and Wesleyan theologians (even today) recognize and hold to the classic distinction -- no natural free will. Thus they claim to also hold to the concept of _total depravity_. This may be found in Wesley's writings and those who have followed.

But here's the rub. The Arminian/Wesleyan concept of universal prevenient grace is an "enabling grace" that offsets the noetic effects of the Fall such that all men universally (or at least all who are confronted with the gospel) are given sufficient grace to believe _if they will_. This grace restores man's "free will" such that he may freely (of himself) choose Christ, but it is of course resistible. This idea was implicit in the original Remonstrance and obvious to the framers of the Canons of Dort.

So, while Arminian theologians maintain that they hold to a doctrine total depravity, it is practically denied since all men are _de facto _enabled by prevenient grace. Total depravity becomes a hypothetical condition since is actually overcome by God's grace for all.

In fact, this is the subtle distinction between Arminianism and Semi-pelagianism. Semi-pelagianism says man did not lose his free will in the Fall (thought it may have been impaired), and he maintains his natural ability to respond to God. Arminians say man lost his natural ability in the Fall, but God has restored it by grace. Thus, according to B.B. Warfield, Semi-pelagianism is a naturalistic view and Arminianism is a supernaturalistic view -- but they are both synergistic, i.e. God does his part, man must do his.


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 28, 2009)

Excellent points, Jim. I think the quote by Campbell, however, is meant to denote to note a shift in American forms of Arminian soteriology. That is, if some Arminian theologians of the past were alive today, they might be shocked at how close Arminianism has moved toward Pelagianism (even beyond semi-Pelagianism). In other words, there was a shift in thinking in the 19th century (the idea of the "noble savage") that affirmed the naturalistic ability of man and denied the effects of the Fall. In a sense, I guess, that closely parallels Pelagian notions, but for different reasons.


----------



## MMasztal (Mar 28, 2009)

I think Campbell's assessment is correct and follows the "rugged individualism" that came along with the settling of the mid- west and western United States in the 1800s.

Free will is a frequent topic of discussion with my high school students and really needs to be adequately parsed so everyone is discussing the same issue. Since our school is non-demoninational (all but 2 other teachers are varying degrees of Arminian), the previous religious instruction was pretty generic and avoided hot-button issues like "free will". I have had to approach this topic pretty diplomatically.

I like to differentiate free will from free choice and explain that our "will" is in bondage to our sinful nature (i.e., we are dead in sin- not sleeping in sin, unconscious in sin, or even in a coma in sin- citing appropriate passages) and blocks any chance we have to choose Christ outside of the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. That being said, God has not made us robots and we have the freedom to make choices in our everyday lives which, however, are still part of God's sovereign plan.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 28, 2009)

I understand what you guys are saying. But wonder whether Campbell's observation applies merely to the default understanding of "Arminian" laymen. Or is he implying that schooled Arminian theologians are now arguing a semi-pelagian view. If the latter, I would love a source citation.

My thought was that studied theologians still argue the classic Arminian view.



For reference, see discussion and footnotes in
Schreiner - Does Scripture Teach Prevenient Grace in the Wesleyan Sense?


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 28, 2009)

Jim, I think he is mainly saying that this is the view of the "average Arminian," specifically meaning the layman. I think you are correct on that assessment.

The book by Campbell does tend to use broad strokes in its assessments of the doctrines of various denominations. When we read the book for a class (on Christian confessions), the prof always made a point of stopping and addressing the places where the author missed the mark. That said, at least in a broad sense, I think he is correct in the assessment above. I also think it goes well beyond Methodism and other forms of Arminianism. The "individualism", for instance, led to practices like Revivalism and Arminian influences in traditionally Calvinistic denominations (e.g., Baptists and even Presbyterians). Of course, there are a whole host of factors that led to these shifts in the first place; I just thought it was an interesting quote.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 28, 2009)

Tim, thanks for your additional comments. I agree.


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 28, 2009)

You are welcome. BTW, I appreciate the link to the Schreiner article. I've read it before (I think it's in _Still Sovereign_, correct?). We used his book on Paul in NT class in seminary, and he even came and guest lectured at Erskine back in 2003.


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Mar 28, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> I read the following quote several years ago in a seminary class, then I ran across it again today. It shows a fundamental shift, even among Arminians, with regard to how the view of the will changed about 200 years ago. I blog about this here, but I thought some of you might find the quote itself interesting. The quote is found in Ted Campbell's _Christian Confessions_.
> 
> 
> 
> > Despite the agreement of traditional Evangelical doctrinal statements that human beings have no natural free will [he references The Methodist Articles of Religion here], it must be noted that through the 1800s this was a point often missed, especially by Methodists and other Arminian Evangelicals. In the 1800s, influenced by democratic optimism and popular ideas of individualism and voluntarism, Methodists and others began to speak of human beings as having a "free will" as if it were the natural possession of every human being .... Although this contradicts their own doctrinal tradition, the idea of "free will" as an inborn or natural gift was so popular that it affected Evangelicalism very broadly, even to the point of influencing Baptists and others.



If you want to read more on this topic, I could not more highly recommend Mark Noll's work _America's GodAmerica's God : from Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln [WorldCat.org]_ esp. the chapter "Theistic common sense" and later chapters on Methodism. Compare his statements (and the above quoted) with Daniel Whedon's response to Jonathan Edwards in _Freedom of the Will as a Basis for human responsibility and divine government_ and note the major change in how the freedom of the will is defend, i.e., not so much (as with classical Arminianism) exegetically but philosophically as a necessarily presupposition we must bring to Scripture. Note that this is not a Reformed interpretation of the change in Arminian theology, but an explicit one in works like Whedon's.


----------

