Book Review: Free Will Revisited by Robert Picirilli

Opening my inbox, I saw an email that caused me to pause. The subject line was Arminian Theology and the author was Robert Picirilli. Expecting anything but an email from the noted theologian of that name, I clicked to read it. To my surprise it was from the Robert Picirilli. And he was asking me to review his book. I was more than happy to accept.

Robert Picirilli (link), the former Academic Dean of the Graduate School at Free Will Baptist Bible College (now Welch College), has authored numerous books and commentaries, including one on Romans from an Arminian perspective (amazon). He has also written the book Grace, Faith, Free Will (amazon), one of the best and most accessible books (IMO) on the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. Picirilli was also a contributor to Grace for All, a book that was blogged through on this site (link).

__FW

The topic of free will is challenging. It is one of the areas that is debated and discussed in philosophical, theological, and scientific circles. One of the difficulties is that the word itself has been defined and redefined by various participants in the debate. Given this rather short work on such a diverse and difficult topic it is important to understand what drove Picirilli to write and what he sought to accomplish in this book.

The aim can be discerned by the subtitle a Respectful Response to Luther, Calvin, and Edwards. This book seeks to explore free will as understood by these esteemed theologians who each have written extensively on this subject.

I determined on a specific approach: namely, to deal with the subject as it was argued, specifically, by Luther, Calvin, and Edwards. I picked them because each of these theological masters wrote a volume against free will … [1]

In interacting with these authors, Picirilli wants the reader to not only understand each of their arguments against free will, but to offer a rebuttal to each of the major objections.

Is it possible that such beings have a will that is free to make choices between alternative courses of action? To answer this is the purpose of this work. [2]

__FWOpen

This book is about free will but it is not a general survey on this subject. This work is about the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism, but it is not written to deal with all of the theological topics that are part of that debate. The intent of this work is to deal with the intersection of these two areas: specifically how free will is viewed within Calvinism and Arminianism.

An outline of the book

The book is written in four parts.

  • Part One: Defining the Issues
  • Part Two: The Case against Free Will
  • Part Three: The Major Issues
  • Part Four: In Conclusion

The first part provides a brief introduction to the ideas and terms involved in the discussion of free will. Key concepts include free will, determinism, compatiblism, certainty, and necessity. The second part of the book is the strength of the book. It outlines each of the major works on free will written by Luther, Calvin, and Edwards.

  • Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will
  • John Calvin’s The Bondage and Liberation of the Will
  • Johnathan Edwards’ Freedom of the Will

In each chapter Picirilli presents 1) the historical context of the writing;  2) an outline of the work with a summary of each section; 3) the main ideas comprising the case against free will, and 4) offers a definition of free will that the theologian was arguing against. This last point is important. A key thesis in this book is that the versions of free will that Luther, Calvin, and Edwards wrote against was not the same as that offered by Arminius, Wesley and other Biblically sound theologians. This section offers minimal rebuttals, leaving that for later in the work.

It is important to note, as Picirilli does in the preface, that the arguments and interactions in this book are based primarily on how each theologian presented and argued against free will in the one work dedicated to that subject. Picirilli does not engage points about free will the authors may have made in their other works. For example, the chapter on Martin Luther deals with what is written in The Bondage of the Will, without examining what was written in On the Freedom of a Christian. 

The third part of the book is where Picirilli interacts with the arguments of the theologians, demonstrating where they are wrong. He does this by grouping similar points made by Luther, Calvin, and Edwards and dealing with them together. This is done in several chapters as follows:

  • Free Will, Foreknowledge, and Necessity
  • Free Will, Human Depravity, and the Grace of God
  • Free Will, and the Sovereignty and Providence of God
  • Free Will and the Logic of Cause and Effect

These chapters provide good, concise rebuttals to Luther, Calvin, and Edwards. The main thrust of each counter-point would be familiar to those well-read on the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism. The book concludes with a summary of the arguments against free will and a summary of Picirilli’s arguments for our ability to choose among possible alternatives. Continue reading

What is the Full Gospel according to Calvinism?

In an interview, posted in October on the Desiring God site, John Piper was asked:

Can an Arminian preach the gospel effectively — Christ and him crucified?

This question was prompted by Charles Spurgeon’s claim that “[t]here is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism”.

Arminian’s do preach an effective gospel, affirms Piper, if by effective it is meant that there is “enough of gospel truth so that God is willing to use it to save sinners.” While admitting that an Arminian can preach an effective gospel, Piper underscores the point that they cannot preach a full gospel; only one that is defective and harmful.

piperfullgospel

Can an Arminian preach the gospel fully?
Can an Arminian preach the gospel without implicit or explicit theological defects?
Can an Arminian preach the gospel without tendencies that lead the church in harmful directions?
Can an Arminian preach the gospel in the most Christ-exalting way?
And my answer to all those questions would be: No, they can’t.

Piper explains that when gospel truth is presented it can and often is stated in such a way that both an Arminian and a Calvinist would readily accept it.

However, he rightly notes that as one unpacks the terminology in that presentation that there would be a different “direction” or meaning behind many of the words and phrases that are used. Differences that, Piper notes “really do matter as people grow in faith.” Continue reading

Not Dead, Mostly Dead, and All Dead Illustrated

I recently taught a class on “original sin”. In order to clarify the differences between the views which were described as Not Dead, Mostly Dead, and All Dead, in a previous post, I used illustrations focusing on people from the sermon we had heard that morning (covering Acts 8-11). This post expands on those idea, focusing on the Ethiopian eunuch (instead of Cornelius).

The conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch is described in Acts 8:26-40 (NET translation used below). It should be noted that the circumstances surrounding this event and the way that God sent Philip were extraordinary and occurred during a time when the followers of Christ were becoming aware of God’s plan for the “good news” to be taken to the Gentiles. Even though we are not supernaturally transported to evangelical encounters like Philip, we all share a responsibility to respond to (Acts 4:12; 8:12; Rom 10:9-13) and share the good news (Acts 1:8; Rom 10:14-15).

This narrative is used to illustrate the differences in the views regarding the nature of man after the Fall. The numbered bullets are correlated across the illustrations so that it is easier to see the similarities and differences.

…There [Philip] met an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace,queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship, and was returning home, sitting in his chariot, reading the prophet Isaiah. … [Philip] asked him,“Do you understand what you’re reading?” The man replied, “How in the world can I, unless someone guides me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. … So Philip started speaking,and beginning with this scripture proclaimed the good news about Jesus to him. Now as they were going along the road, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look, there is water! What is to stop me from being baptized?” He said to him, ‘If you believe with your whole heart, you may.’ He replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’. So he ordered the chariot to stop, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.

The Not Dead (Pelagian) view

This view (positively stated based on canon 1 and 7 of the Council of Orange), believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired after the offense of Adam’s sin. People can form right opinions and make right choices which relate to the salvation of eternal life. This includes assenting to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Here is how a person holding to the Not Dead view might break down this passage.

  1. The eunuch, of his own volition, desired to worship God.
  2. The eunuch’s desire caused him to take the initiative of traveling to Jerusalem to worship and to read the Scriptures.
  3. God graciously sent Philip to explain the Scriptures and proclaim the good news (prevenient grace).
  4. The eunuch understood the gracious gift of eternal life through saving faith, and had the ability to accept or reject it.
  5. The eunuch accepted the gracious gift through faith and was regenerated (made a new creation).

The Mostly Dead (Semi Pelagian) view

This view (positively stated based on canon 3, 4, 5, and 8 of the Council of Orange), affirms that the free will of man has been weakened through Adam but still has the ability to seek salvation. The beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Jesus and are saved comes from our own will and choice, however the increase and completion of this act requires the Holy Spirit.

Here is how a person holding to the Mostly Dead view might break down this passage.

  1. The eunuch, of his own volition (despite a corrupted nature), desired to worship God.
  2. The eunuch’s desire caused him to take the initiative of traveling to Jerusalem to worship and to read the Scriptures.
  3. God saw the desire and initiative of this person and sent Philip to explain the Scriptures and proclaim the good news (prevenient grace).
  4. God helped the eunuch overcome his corrupt nature so that he could understand and accept/reject the good news that Philip shared (prevenient grace).
  5. The eunuch accepted the gracious gift through faith and was regenerated (made a new creation).

The All Dead (Arminian) view

This view, (summarized from articles 3 and 4 of the Remonstrance) asserts that man is in a state of apostasy and sin and can not think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having saving faith). He must be renewed through prevenient, assisting, and co-operative grace so that he is able to rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good. However this grace is given in such a way as to be resistible by man.

Here is how a person holding to the All Dead/Arminian view might break down this passage.

  1. The eunuch, because of his corrupted nature could not desire to worship God until this desire was graciously given to Him (prevenient grace).
  2. Once the desire was stirred in the eunuch it allowed him to choose to act on it. He chose to take the initiative of traveling to Jerusalem to worship and to read the Scriptures.
  3. God graciously sent Philip to explain the Scriptures and proclaim the good news (prevenient grace).
  4. God helped the eunuch overcome his corrupt nature so that he could understand and accept/reject the good news that Philip shared (prevenient grace).
  5. The eunuch accepted the gracious gift through faith and was regenerated (made a new creation).

The All Dead (Reformed/Calvinist) view

This view, (summarized from articles 1, 2, 3, and 14 released by the Synod of Dort under the section that addressed the third and fourth articles of the Remonstrance) sees man as having a corrupt nature that resulted in (among other things) blindness, distortion of judgment, and hardness of both heart and will. Without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit people are neither willing nor able to turn to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to desire these things. God produces in man both the will to believe and the belief itself. Faith is not offered by God for man to choose but bestowed on man, breathed and infused into him.

Here is how a person holding to the All Dead/Reformed view might break down this passage.

  1. The eunuch, because of his corrupted nature could not desire to worship God until this desire was graciously given to Him (prevenient grace).
  2. Once the desire was stirred in the eunuch it caused him to act upon it, thus he traveled to Jerusalem to worship and also read the Scriptures.
  3. God graciously sent Philip to explain the Scriptures and proclaim the good news (prevenient grace).
  4. God helped the eunuch overcome his corrupt nature by regeneration him (making him a new creation) so that he could understand and accept the good news that Philip shared (prevenient grace). This grace was not able to be resisted or rejected by the eunuch since he now had a new nature.
  5. The eunuch, with his new nature and the desire for a relationship with God stirred in him, acted by accepting the gracious gift through faith.

The question for those holding to the All Dead/Reformed view is how did the eunuch desire to worship God and learn about Him in the Scriptures (#1 and #2) prior to his being regenerated in step #4?

Do you think these illustrations properly represent each view?

Which view do you think best represents Scripture?