No Compromise "No Empty Words, No White Lies, No Token Prayers…"

The Noetic Effect of the Fall

Introduction

The command was clear. The LORD said to Adam, “You may surely eat of every tree in the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil shall not eat[1].” With this command came the promise of both physical and spiritual death. In rebellion, Adam disobeyed God’s command and sinned not only for him but as the federal representative of mankind[2]. This was a defining event in history. Adam’s sin would affect all of his posterity, both physically and spiritually. The physical affect of his sin is clearly seen in the disease and death that universally plagues mankind. Among evangelicals, this fact is not often debated. On the contrary, it is the spiritual affect of Adam’s sin that has been both hotly debated and divided over since the days of the early Christian church. What affect, if any, did Adam’s sin have on the spiritual state of mankind? The goal of this essay is to summarize the historical discussions surrounding this question and to show from the Scripture that man’s will is not free to act contrary to its nature, but rather it is dependent upon God to impart life to man’s will if there is any hopes for salvation.

Historical Discussions

As early as the fourth century, disputations regarding Adam’s sin and its affect on the will of man were already present in the church. A British author by the name of Pelagius promoted the freedom of man's will to do whatever God commanded[3]. This belief was based off on his conviction that Adam’s sin did not affect man’s will to achieve righteousness and that “God never commands what is impossible for man to perform[4].” For Pelagius, God’s ability to command was limited by man’s ability to perform. This conviction was “roused” by reading a prayer written by his future opponent Augustine. Augustine’s prayer stated, “Grant what thou commandest, and command what thou dost desire[5].” For Pelagius, the idea that God would command anything that man was unable to perform was ridiculous. Pelagius reasoned that man’s responsibility would be destroyed if the ability to make the choice to obey was not naturally present in man. He believed that any God-dependent ability would make man a puppet, not a human. But Augustine of Hippo understood things differently. Because of the fall of man, Augustine understood the necessity of grace. But with this necessity of grace, he did not deny the reality of the will of man. On the contrary, he argued for the freedom of man’s will, but not in the same way of Pelagius. With Pelagius, man’s will made him autonomous and fully capable of achieving an acceptable righteousness before God. Augustine on the other hand, believed that because all of mankind was born sinful, God’s divine will to impart grace must supersede man’s will which was incapable of producing salvation on its own.

For Augustine, free will referred more to “the ability to choose without outside constraint[6]” as opposed to “the ability to choose any possible reality.” He believed that man’s will was free, but that it was a gift from God and unable to “disturb any part of divine order[7].” The difference is clear. Augustine believed that God’s divine will superseded man’s will without violating his freedom or removing his responsibility. Pelagius believed that God’s divine will could not supersede man’s will without violating his freedom or removing his responsibility. The philosophic problem that Pelagius encountered was easily solved by Augustine’s commitment to God’s revelation in scripture. Regarding the tension of divine will and man’s will, Augustine said, “When you feel that you don’t understand, put your faith in the inspired word of God and believe both that our will is free and that without God’s help it cannot turn towards God[8].” Augustine understood the need for grace due to the reality of man’s sinful nature and inability to freely choose to turn to God without God’s divine intervention.

As the history of the church progressed, the controversy over the freedom of the will would continue to be an issue. Semi-pelagianism was a modified version of Pelagianism that believed in a synergistic work of salvation that involved the co-operation between God and man. Contrasted to the monergistic work of regeneration represented by Augustine, semi-pelagianism was an attempt to find a middle ground between Augustine’s teaching on the necessity of grace and Pelagius’ teachings on the freedom of man’s will. The debated between the proponents of semi-pelagianism and Augustinianism would continue for centuries to come until the time of the reformation when the reformers would take the Augustinian theology and refine it to respond to the theological problems facing the Roman Catholic Church.

Labeled the “manifesto” of the protestant reformation, Martin Luther’s work The Bondage of the Will was written in response to the book written by Desiderius Erasmus called Diatribe concerning Free Will[9]. Unlike Pelagius, Erasmus was not so much as committed to philosophy as he was to the text of scripture. Erasmus was responsible for compiling the first Greek New Testament for common use and accessibility. Much thankfulness and appreciation is due to Erasmus, but his “peaceful” attempts to reform the church fell short because of his disregard for theology[10] and commitment to humanism[11]. Little did Erasmus know that his Greek New Testament would be instrumental to the Protestant Reformation that he despised. In contrast to Erasmus, Martin Luther was a German Augustinian monk who had a flair for controversy and deep-seeded understanding of his own sinfulness. Plagued by thoughts of the wrath of God and his own sinfulness, Luther would spend hours confessing his sins at the monastery[12]. Having been given the opportunity to further his studies in seminary, Luther became a tremendous scholar of the word of God. It was his commitment to the word of God that would first lead to his own personal salvation and then spill out over into the birth of Reformation. While in school, Luther was greatly influenced by the writings of Augustine. It is believed that Luther’s “tower” experience was triggered by reading one of Augustine’s commentaries regarding the righteousness of God from Romans 1[13]. It follows naturally that Augustine’s influence on Luther would shape his understanding for the need of grace and the ability of man’s will.

In Diatribe concerning Free Will, Erasmus defines free will as a “power of the human will by which a man may apply himself to those things that lead to eternal salvation, or turn away from the same[14].” As seen from the definition, Erasmus believed that the free will was the power from within man to choose the “things” that lead either to eternal life or eternal punishment, without the involvement of any outside agency. In many ways, Erasmus definition looks much like Pelagius’ definition of free will, contending that “if a will is powerless without grace, then it is not really free.[15]” Luther responds to Erasmus’ definition by arguing that the being that can possess free will is God. Luther equate the words of Erasmus to mean that man has within himself the ability to do the things that lead to eternal life. From this, Luther goes on to explain that the things that lead to eternal life are ultimately the very words and works of God. Here is Luther’s conclusion regarding free will:

Erasmus informs us, then, that ‘free-will’ is a power of the human will which can of itself will and not will the word and work of God, by which it is to be led to those things that exceed its grasp and comprehension. If it can will and not will, it can also love and hate; and if it can love and hate, it can in measure keep the law and believe the gospel. For, of you can will and not will, it cannot be that you are not able by that will of yours to do some part of a work, even thought another should prevent your being able to complete it. Now, since death, the cross, and all the evils of the world, are numbered among the works of God that lead to salvation, the human will will thus be able to will its own death and perdition. Yes, it can will all things when it can will the contents of the word and work of God! What can be anywhere below, above, within or without the word and work of God, except God himself? But what is here left to grace and the Holy Ghost? This is plainly to ascribe divinity to ‘free-will’! For to will the law and the gospel, not to will sin, and to will death, is possible to divine power alone, as Paul says in more places than one[16].

It is clear that Luther believed Erasmus’ understanding of free will to undermine the very nature of salvation that entails the work of grace and the Holy Spirit. Luther reasoned that if the will of man was able to produce the works necessary for salvation apart from God, then what need was there for grace and the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. To Luther, free will unaffected by the fall and able to produce good works leading to salvation was considered an attack on the cross, which is the very foundation of Christianity[17].

Moving forward in history one does not have to look very far past Luther and Erasmus to find more disputes regarding the affects of the fall on the will of man. John Calvin, the great Geneva reformer, found himself in debate with the Dutch Roman Catholic theologian Albert Pighius over the nature of man’s will[18]. It was upon being shown Calvin’s Institutes and reading Calvin’s views on free choice and predestination that Pighius felt the need to write his own book in response to Calvin. The book entitled Ten Books on Human Free Choice and Divine Grace provoked Calvin to write a response in the form of a book entitled Defence of the Sound and Orthodox Doctrine of the Bondage and Liberation of Human Choice against the Misrepresentation of Albert Pighius of Kampen. In Pighius’ book, he articulates free will to mean that one who possesses it has the power to choose good or evil without coercion or any sense of being forcibly driven by an external impulse[19]. Calvin rejected Pighius’ understanding of free will asserting that the will of man is in bondage to sin before salvation and can in no way avail itself to grace without the divine work of the Holy Spirit. Calvin said,

But all that we say amounts to this. First, that what a person is or has or is capable of is entirely empty and useless for the spiritual righteousness which God requires, unless one is directed to the good by the grace of God. Secondly, that the human will is of itself evil and therefore needs transformation and renewal so that may begin to be good, but that grace itself is not merely a tool which can help someone if he is pleased to stretch out his hand to take it[20].

From this quote, Calvin is shown to believe that the will of man cannot produce anything good apart from the work of God’s grace. Therefore, according to Calvin, it cannot be said that the will of man is free to choose between good and evil without external assistance.

Keeping with the time period of the Protestant reformation, it is helpful to discuss the most famous opponent of the Augustinian understanding of the will, Jacobus Arminius. Unlike Pelagius, Erasmus, and Pighius, Arminius rejected the Pelagian understanding of the affect of the fall on the will of man. His departure with the reformers was not regarding the fall and corruption of human nature. As a matter of fact, Arminius actually wrote very strongly against the belief of an unaffected human nature. But it was his understanding of grace and its application that caused Arminius to depart from the teaching of the reformers on predestination and effectual grace. Arminius argued that the internal call of the Holy Spirit could be rejected. As Dr. R.C. Sproul puts it, “Arminius said that prevenient grace is sufficient but not efficient[21].” It is seen here that Arminius understanding of grace, greatly affected his understanding of the man’s will. For Arminius, prevenient grace was available to all man and was “sufficient” for all men, but ultimately it did not accomplish anything without the cooperative effort of the man’s will. Even though Arminius believed that by nature man’s will was in bondage, he believed that the presence of prevenient grace enabled man to make the choice to believe in Christ or reject Christ’s merits. To quote Arminius regarding the freedom of man’s will after the universal availability of prevenient grace,

All unregenerate persons have freedom of will, and a capability of resisting the Holy Spirit, of rejecting the proffered grace of God, of despising the counsel of God against themselves, of refusing to accept the Gospel of grace, and of not opening to him who knocks at the door of the heart; and theses things the can actually do, without any difference of the Elect and of the Reprobate.[22]

To Arminius, the ability to give grace belongs to God alone, but the ability to respond to grace is in the hands of the person cooperating with God[23]. If man does not cooperate, then God cannot save him.

Even after the death of the reformers and their opponents, the war over the freedom of the will and the affects of the fall has continued to wage. Even in the present age of Christianity, scholars are writing books to respond to the works of the others scholars regarding the issue of man’s will. A great example of this is seen in the written debates between Dr. James R. White and Dr. Norman L. Geisler. This written debate began after Dr. White read Dr. Geisler’s book Chosen but Free. Dr. Geisler claims to represent a moderate view of Calvinism, in which he systematically redefines many of the aspects of historical Calvinism. In summary, Dr. Geisler believes that regeneration is a cooperative effort between God’s power[24] and man’s will and that free will is self-determination that includes the ability to accept or reject God’s grace[25]. He believes that a measure of strong, but resistible grace is needed for salvation, but not a grace so strong that it is irresistible.  Dr. White rejects Dr. Geisler’s view of moderate Calvinism, claiming that the historical Calvinist position regarding the nature of man’s will is actually the position which Christ held nearly 2000 years ago. Dr. White cites John 6:37-34 as a definitive source from Scripture that teach the inability of man to respond to God’s calling on their own volition[26].

All of the men represented above cannot be right on the issue. The remainder of this essay will focus on presenting the Biblical position regarding the issue of man’s will and the fall of man.

Summary of the Biblical position regarding the will of man

As the representative of mankind, the details of Adam’s conduct cannot be overlooked. Romans 5:12-14 says,

¹² Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned- ¹³ for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.  ¹⁴ Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Much attention must be paid to this passage of Scripture for several reasons. First, it lays out the Biblical foundations for Adam’s representation of the whole human race. This is important because Adam’s actions had serious repercussions for the rest of humanity. What is seen from the text is that it was through Adam that sin came into the world, and not only sin, but death also. When Adam sinned, all of humanity sinned because of Adam’s federal headship that is established in the text. Had Adam been obedient, then his posterity would have had the same benefits of fellowship and the Garden of Eden that he enjoyed, but his sin forfeited that blessing not only for him but for all mankind.

After establishing the federal headship of Adam, the move must be made from representation to repercussion. If Adam represents mankind, then what are the repercussions of his conduct? As seen from the text, the propagation of sin and death to all mankind is the repercussion of Adam’s conduct. But what does verse 12 mean when it says that “death spread to all men because all sinned?” First, it means that the presence of sin within man produces death. If sin is present, then death is also present. But how can this be reconciled, since living men clearly commit sin and yet continue to live? The answer is that sin produces both physical and spiritual death. Therefore, Adam’s sin introduced both inevitable physical death and immediate spiritual death.

Spiritual death can be defined as the state out of which natural man is unable to perceive and respond to the spiritual things of God. By nature, man is unable to please God, because natural man is unable to respond the glory of God because God is spirit. God’s transcendent, holy nature makes it impossible for natural, spiritually dead men to traverse the infinite gap that exist between God and man due to sin. Adam’s conduct brought death into the world, and because of man’s relation to Adam, all men are born dead in their trespasses and sin. Sound hermeneutics and common sense affirms this truth when applied to text like Ephesians 5:1-3 that says,

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins ² 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- ³ 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.

This text clearly states that “by nature” mankind is “dead” in “trespasses and sins.” If one affirms the definition of spiritual death, that it is a state out of which man cannot perceive or respond to the spiritual things of God, then logical one must also conclude that man is unable in to respond to the general call of the Gospel without an effective external work taking places that moves man from a state of spiritual deadness to a state of spiritual life. Does not Jesus state the need for this effective external work whenever he teaches Nicodemus of the need to be born again by the work of the Holy Spirit? If one concludes that man is truly dead in their trespasses and sin, then the final conclusion must be that man does not possess the ability to produce within himself any acceptable act of righteousness that would merit or attract salvation.

Conclusion

So what must one make of the will of man after the fall? If the result of the fall is death passed to all man, and if man in the state of the spiritual deadness cannot respond to the spiritual things of God, then both Biblically and logically, one must conclude that that will of man is in bondage to sin before the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. The claim that a spiritually dead man can will to do something contrary to his nature is to make not only an unbiblical claim, but an illogical claim. Man cannot choose contrary to his nature. Therefore the only way to make a case for the freedom of man’s will is either to deny man’s spiritually dead nature as revealed in scripture or to explain the nature of man’s freedom in regards to his nature. Clearly, the latter is the only sound selection; since it has already been shown that man’s nature is inherited from Adam and undeniable corrupt from birth.

So how can man’s freedom be explained? Simply put, man is free to make choices that are consistent with his nature. If an unregenerate man chooses to sin, then the choice is consistent with his nature. If a regenerate man chooses to do good, then that choice is consistent with his nature. Unregenerate, natural man does not possess the ability to choose anything that pleases God; therefore God must be the initiator of all spiritual life and the source of salvation. This position represents God rightly, as the author and finisher of saving faith while placing man in a humble, gracious position of receiving God’s divine, irrevocable gifts.

---

[1] Genesis 2:16-17

[2] The Biblical Doctrine of Man, Gordon H. Clark, pgs. 62-67

[3] A Public Faith, Ivor J. Davidson, pg. 179

[4] Willing to Believe, R.C. Sproul, pg. 34

[5] Confessions, Augustine, 10.29.40

[6] Willing to Believe, R.C. Sproul, pg. 63

[7] The Apostle from Africa, David Bentley-Taylor, pg.135

[8] The Apostle from Africa, David Bentley-Taylor, pg. 136

[9] Willing to Believe, R.C. Sproul, pg. 87

[10] The Bondage of the Will, Martin Luther, pgs. 13-19

[11] Reform and Conflict, Rudolph W. Heinze, pgs. 61-63

[12] The Reformation, How a Monk and  Mallet Changed the World, Stephen J. Nichols, pgs. 25-28

[13] Willing to Believe, R.C. Sproul, pg.50

[14] The Bondage of the Will, Martin Luther, pg. 137

[15] Willing to Believe, R.C. Sproul, pg.94

[16] Bondage of the Will, Martin Luther, pg. 140

[17] Theology of the Reformers, Timothy George, pgs. 73-79

[18] The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, John Calvin, pg. xiv

[19] The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, John Calvin, pg.  xix

[20] The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, John Calvin, pg. 311

[21] Willing to Believe, R.C. Sproul, pg. 131

[22] The Works of James Arminius: The London Edition, 17.4, entitled “On the Vocation of Sinners to Communion with Christ, and to a Participation of His benefits.”

[23] Willing to Believe, R.C. Sproul, pg. 132

[24] Chosen but Free, Norman L. Geisler, pg. 241-243

[25] Chosen but Free, Norman L. Geisler, pg. 181-187

[26] The Potter’s Freedom, James R. White, pgs. 154-170