What different accounts has the Christian tradition given of the human ability to love, please and serve God?

(a) I am able to choose what is right without anyone’s help (Pelagianism)

‘My effort, from beginning to end.’

A simple moralism, pre-dating Pelagius, is in works such as the Shepherd of Hermas:

‘Believe in [God], therefore, and fear him, and fearing him, be self-controlled. Keep these things, and you will cast off all evil from yourself and will put on every virtue of righteousness and will live to God, if you keep this commandment’ (Cited by Peterson)

This view has come to be associated with the name of the British monk Pelagius, who died in 419.  For Pelagius, there is no original sin.  Each person is free to choose between good and evil.  All that God has done for us is to reveal his moral will, first in the law of Moses and then in the life of Christ.

We can have some sympathy with Pelagius’ motives.  He was rightly concerned about those Christians who were using God’s grace as a licence for sin.

‘The tenets of the Pelagians on this subject are expressed in one of the charges urged against Cœlestius in the Council of Carthage, “That a man may be without sin, and keep the commandments of God if he will;” or in the passage which Augustine cites from his work, “Our victory proceeds not from the help of God, but from the freedom of will.”’ (Source)

But, in Pelagianism, Christianity is essentially morality.

Oliver O’Donovan explains:

‘The belief of Pelagius, which led him into conflict with Augustine in the second decade of the fifth century AD, was fashioned by his strong sense of individual moral responsibility. Each of us must take the blame for the wrong things we do and must shoulder the burden of moral resolution that will amend our lives. We should not attempt to blame our weakness on our ‘human nature’, which was a perfectly good human nature when God gave it to us; if it is weak and enslaved to bad habits now, we have only ourselves to thank. The implication is that each of us began our lives equipped with a humanity that had no involvement with sin, and that the involvement which we now have has been picked up on the way. Each of us, as it were, began in his own Garden of Eden, with his own innocence. Adam’s fall, the abuse of his free-will to rebel against the command of God, is the pattern for what each of us has done, the paradigm case for human wilfulness, the first of the long series, a series in which every individual human, at least every adult and morally responsible human, has followed him. ‘

Pelagianism was opposed by Augustine.  O’Donovan continues:

‘Augustine was sure that this was wrong. We do not each begin where Adam began; we begin where Adam left off. The fall of Adam was not simply a paradigm for the way all men fall. It was the determining factor that controlled what it has meant to be a human being ever since. In Pelagius’s view it was possible (though very unlikely) that a new-born baby would never sin. Perhaps it would gasp once and die, before it had had a chance to look upon forbidden fruit. But for Augustine it was already too late for such hopes. The new-born child belonged to a race that lives under the effects of Adam’s sin. It was a human being. No member of the fallen race, not even the youngest, could live as though the fall had not happened. This is the position that the Article intends to make its own when it begins:‘Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam [that is, in imitating his example] as the Pelagians do vainly talk.’’

Pelagius and Pelagianism were condemned as heresies at the third and fourth ecumenical councils in A.D. 431 and 451.

The Indiculus (503) stressed original sin and inherited depravity, and was widely supported in the Church in later centuries:

‘In Adam’s sin all men lost their natural power for good and their innocence.  No one can of his own free will rise out of the depth of this Fall if he is not lifted up by the grace of the merciful God.’ (Cited in The Anglican Tradition: a Handbook of Sources).

The philosopher Kant held that the demand to do something would be unreasonable if we were unable to do it.  Kant concluded, with Pelagius, that human nature is not fallen and is capable of choosing and doing what is right.

Demarest notes that Pelagian-type theology is characteristic of modern liberalism.  As an example:

‘George Burman Foster (d. 1918), a student of Ritschl and Harnack and a free-thinking University of Chicago theologian, was a liberal Baptist minister who later pastored a Unitarian congregation. Denying many fundamental tenets of the Christian faith, Foster championed the following theological vision: “not supernatural regeneration, but natural growth; not divine sanctification, but human education; not supernatural grace, but natural morality; not the divine expiation of the cross, but the human heroism … of the cross.”’

In Christianity and Liberalism Gresham Machen identified the fundamental difference between orthodox Christianity and liberalism:

‘Here is found the most fundamental difference between liberalism and Christianity—liberalism is altogether in the imperative mood, while Christianity begins with a triumphant indicative; liberalism appeals to man’s will, while Christianity announces, first, a gracious act of God. . . . Liberalism regards [Christ] as an Example and Guide; Christianity, as a Savior: liberalism makes him an example for faith; Christianity, the object of faith.’

Among modern teachers, the Franciscan Richard Rohr and the Baptist Steve Chalke both lean towards Pelagianism.  Both appeal to human beings as created in the image of God, and minimise, or deny, the so-called ‘fall’ of Adam.  The result is that ‘original goodness’ is affirmed, rather than ‘original sin’.

Chalke writes:

‘Following Jesus isn’t about religion and all its paraphernalia; it’s simply about walking a way of life with Christ. It’s about being fully human, it’s about becoming the best version of yourself and living intentionally. Love yourself—you’re made by God.’ (Source)

(b) I am able to take the first step towards God, and he does the rest (Semi-Pelagianism)

In semi-Pelagianism , man takes the first step towards God, who then responds with saving grace.

‘Do your best; God does the rest!’

Or, in the words of a Latin proverb: ‘God does not refuse grace to one who does what he can.’

J.I. Packer characterises the semi-Pelagian outlook like this:

‘Do your best [they say,] and God will certainly smile on you and help you and accept you.  He is good and kind and will neve reject anyone who lives a decent, honest life.  God is merciful, so salvation presents no problem, and there is no need to worry about it.  Why some people get troubled about their salvation we cannot understand – unless it just means that they are morbid or pyschologicaly odd.’ (Selected Shorter Writings, IV, p1-6)

‘The Semi-Pelagians, though they did not deny the necessity of grace, yet taught that preventing grace was not necessary to produce the beginnings of true repentance, that every one could by natural strength turn towards God, but that no one could advance and persevere without the assistance of the Spirit of God.’ (Source)

Chrysostom (ca. 400):

‘All depends indeed on God, but not so that our free will is hindered … [God] does not anticipate our choice, lest our free will should be outraged. But when we have chosen, then great is the assistance he brings to us.’ (Cited by Peterson)

Vincent of Lerins (d. 434), John Cassian (d. 435), and Faustus of Riez (d. 490;) attempted to steer a middle course between Augustinism and Pelagianism.  According to Demarest:

‘They rejected the doctrines of effectual grace and unconditional election as incompatible with free will, human responsibility, and the universal offer of salvation…

‘Semi-Pelagians shared Augustine’s view of the seriousness of sin, but they denied that Adam and his offspring suffered holistic depravity. Human free will was diminished rather than destroyed; consequently sinners are capable of initiating the process of salvation (cf. Matt 7:7–8). In their infirm condition the unconverted bring forth the first desire to please God and exercise initial faith. Against Augustine, the Semi-Pelagians held that faith is not God’s special gift to helpless sinners. When individuals produce initial faith, God responds with grace. In sum, the Semi-Pelagians defined grace as the indwelling divine power that illumines the human mind and will thereby increase faith.”

Demarest quotes John Cassian (founder of monasticism in Western Europe):

‘God, when he sees in us some beginnings of a good will, at once enlightens it and strengthens it and urges it on towards salvation, increasing that which he himself implanted, or which he sees to have arisen from our own efforts.’

Again:

‘Divine grace is necessary to enable a sinner to return unto God and live, yet man must first, of himself, desire and attempt to choose and obey God’,

and

‘Divine grace is indispensable for salvation, but it does not necessarily need to precede a free human choice, because, despite the weakness of human volition, the will can take the initiative toward God.’ (Source)

‘Semi-Pelagianism was widespread in the Middle Ages. In the latter part of that period Semi-Pelagianism was advocated by theologians such as Duns Scotus (d. 1308), William of Occam (d. 1349), and Gabriel Biel (d. 1495). Scotus and Occam averred that humans by natural powers alone are able to love God above all else. Said Scotus, “If a man … can love a girl or a covetous man love money—all of which are a lesser good—he can love God, who is a greater good. If by his natural powers he has a love for the creature, much more does he have a love for the Creator.”’

Thinking on this subject in the 13th and 14th centuries was dominated by Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus.  Aquinas, a Dominican friar, followed Augustine.  Scotus, a Franciscan, leaned more towards Pelagianism, maintaining a belief in the freedom of the will.  It is probable that the modern Catholic Church tends towards Franciscan, rather than the Dominican, doctrine.

Since the time of Scotus, the account of Cornelius (Acts 10:4) has been cited in support of the idea that he,

‘before his baptism and a knowledge of the Gospel, had put up prayers and given alms, which are spoken of in Scripture as acceptable to God.^[23] They thought, therefore, that some degree of goodness was attributable to unassisted efforts on the part of man towards the attainment of holiness; and, though they did not hold that such efforts did, of their own merit, deserve grace, yet they taught that in some degree they were such as to call down the grace of God upon them, it being not indeed obligatory on the justice of God to reward such efforts by giving His grace, but it being agreeable to His nature and goodness to bestow grace on those who make such efforts.’ (Source)

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection “in seeking and loving what is true and good.”

1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an “outstanding manifestation of the divine image.”

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.

This view continues to permeate much of the teaching of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Bernard of Clairvaux:

‘God is the author of salvation; free will is merely receptive thereof; none can grant it save God alone, nothing can receive it save the free will. Thus then salvation is given by God alone, and it is given only to the free will; even as it cannot be wrought without the consent of the receiver, so cannot it be wrought without the grace of the giver.’

In the West, became the dominant school of thought in the Middle Ages.

‘Fundamental to the via moderna model was the principle that human beings had at least some natural ability within themselves to turn to God in penitence and faith — some innate capacity to do good works. In particular, the doctrine demanded that the human will had to be sufficiently free and able to respond to the offer of God’s grace. The Council of Trent accordingly expressly anathematized those who taught that “the free will of man is lost and extinguished.” On this matter, the post-Reformation Roman church has been remarkably consistent. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) is as emphatic as Trent was that man’s nature is such that “he might of his own accord seek his Creator” (paragraph 1730).’ (Source)

At the time of the Reformation, Erasmus argued, as the Semipelagians did, for a weakened free will:

‘For although free choice is damaged by sin, it is nevertheless not extinguished by it. And although it has become so lame in the process that before we receive grace we are more readily inclined toward evil than good, yet it is not altogether cut out.’ (Cited by Peterson)

This was roundly opposed by Luther (see later).  But Luther’s heir, Melanchthon, anticipated Arminian thinking by claiming that there are three causes of salvation: Scripture, the Holy Spirit and free will.  Peterson writes:

‘When asked why one person believes and another does not, Melanchthon answers that “the reason is in us.”’

Eastern Orthodox, of course, stands apart from the debates of the Catholic Church and the Reformation.  Relying heavily on the teachings of the Apostlic Fathers, Orthodoxy agrees that the human will is neither totally free nor totally bound, but weakened.

According to the Orthodox Study Bible:

‘Mankind’s strong propensity to commit sin reveals that in the Fall, the image of God in man (Gn 1:26, 27) is also fallen. However, the ancient Fathers emphasize that the divine image in man has not been totally corrupted or obliterated. Human nature remains inherently good after the Fall; mankind is not totally depraved. People are still capable of doing good, although bondage to death and the influences of the devil can dull their perception of what is good and lead them into all kinds of evil.’

This appears muddled to me.  What serious thinker – Augustinian or otherwise – ever taught that ‘the divine image in man’ has been ‘obliterated’?  This is a straw man, set up to bolster the claim that ‘human nature remains inherently good.’

Commenting on Zech 1:6, the same source comments:

‘God commands His people to receive My words and My ordinances. God does not force His way upon mankind. He honors free will. He wants human obedience, fidelity, and fellowship. He calls people to repentance, but He never circumvents human free will.’

And on Jn 3:17f –

‘While Christ came to save and not to condemn, man has free will. Thus, he can reject this gift, and he becomes condemned by his own rejection.’

As with Arminian teaching, God’s foreknowledge does not include the notion of foreordination.  Thus, on Acts 9:15 –

‘That Saul was God’s chosen vessel does not mean that he had no free will in the matter. Rather, it indicates that God had selected Saul, knowing that he would freely accept and be capable of doing the work set before him.’

Predestination, in Orthodox teaching, does not apply to the salvation of individuals, but to the vocation of the Church.  Comment on Rom 8:28-30 –

‘Predestined must not be understood as overpowering man’s free response, for man’s free will is a gift from God. Nor does the term apply to individuals. Rather this term (which can also be translated “preordained”) means that God has a specific calling for His people from before the beginning of the world. “God does not will evil to be done, nor does He force virtue” (JohnDm). Based on His foreknowledge, God assures, or predestines, that those who will choose to love Him will be conformed to the image of His Son, that is, glorified.’

Note the ‘straw man’ argument: the idea that predestination consists of ‘overpowering man’s free response’ does not fairly represent the Reformed position.

Speaking for the Eastern Orthodox Church, Timothy Ware writes:

‘Because we still retain the image of God, we still retain free will, although sin restricts its scope. Even after the fall, God ‘takes not away from humans the power to will – to will to obey or not to obey Him’. Faithful to the idea of synergy, Orthodoxy repudiates any interpretation of the fall which allows no room for human freedom.’’ (The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity, ch. 11 (1997)

‘Some Orthodox Christians use the parable of a drowning man to plainly illustrate the teaching of synergy: God from the ship throws a rope to a drowning man, pulls him up, saving him, and the man, if he wants to be saved, must hold on tightly to the rope; explaining both that salvation is a gift from God and man cannot save himself, and that man must co-work (syn-ergo) with God in the process of salvation.’ (Wikipedia)

(c) God’s grace is available to all, and he has given us all the ability to choose or reject it (Arminianism)

‘God has made the first move; it’s up to you to respond.’

‘The true light enlightens every man.’

In Arminianism, God frees the sinner’s will so that she or he can choose to accept or reject saving grace.  God has done everything necessary for your salvation.  He is now waiting for you to respond.  We are free to accept or reject salvation.

Arminius (d. 1609) was a Dutch theologian.

He accepted the doctrine of human depravity:

‘In his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good.’

But, he taught, God has given each person prevenient grace, by which he may repent and believe.  It would be unfair, Arminius argued, to condemn people if they had not been given to opportunity and ability to believe.  How could we be held accountable for our sins if we were unable not to sin?  So God gives everyone sufficient grace to believe; and that grace may be freely accepted or rejected.  It is non-coercive: it may be rejected by those who resist the call of the Gospel (Matt 23:37; Luke 7:30; Acts 7:51), and may also be rejected after believing (Gal 5:4; Heb 12:15).

‘Concerning grace and free will, this is what I teach according to the Scriptures and orthodox consent: Free will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without grace…. This grace [prœvenit] goes before, accompanies, and follows; it excites, assists, operates that we will, and co operates lest we will in vain.’ (Source)

Again:

‘The grace sufficient for salvation is conferred on the elect and on the non-elect, that, if they will, they may believe or not believe.’ (Cited by Peterson)

So, as Peterson remarks:

‘Whereas for Calvin and Augustine before him prevenient grace was particular and effective, for Arminius it was universal and potential.’

In 1610 the followers of Arminius drafted the five points of the Remonstrance.  Article 4, of ‘prevenient grace’, states that:

‘Man himself without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ…But as respects the mode of operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost, Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places.’

According to J.I.Packer the position of the Remonstrants on ‘free will’ is to be distinguished from that of John Wesley.  The former, he says, taught that the will is weakened, but not totally disabled, as a result of the Fall.  This is Semipelagianism.  Wesley, on the other hand, subscribed to the doctrine of total depravity, and so God’s prevenient grace was required to incline the will towards the gospel.

It is to be noted that John Wesley included the Anglican Article X in its entirety in the ‘Twenty Five Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church’ of 1784. (Source)

But, persuaded by ‘God’s love for all people, the universality of Christ’s death, and the Father’s unlimited offer of salvation’ (Demarest), Wesley agreed with Arminius that God had given everyone prevenient grace sufficient for them to incline them towards God and to freely choose (or reject) the overtures of the gospel.

Citing the case of Cornelius in Acts 10, Wesley argued that:

‘The benefit of the death of Christ is … extended … even unto those who are inevitably excluded from this knowledge. Even these may be partakers of the benefit of His death, though ignorant of the history, if they suffer His grace to take place in their hearts, so as of wicked men to become holy.’

According Irwin W. Reist, prevenient grace, for Wesley, includes a number of elements:

1. Conscience.  God has given to every person an ability to think morally and be conscious of good or evil.
2. Enabled will.  The will, in fallen man, is not free.  But God’s prevenient grace bestows on it a power to choose between good and evil.
3. Movement from natural, to legal, to evangelical man.  The first is man dead in sins and unresponsive to the Spirit.  The second is the man awakened in conscience, but not yet released in pardon and new birth.  The third is the man alive to God in Christ and freed from the guilt and power of sin.
4. Repentance.  This is the gift of God’s grace and a condition of justification by faith.
5. Faith.  Prevenient grace leadsa person from the faith of a heathen (belief in the existence of God) to the faith of the Jew (belief in Him who was to come) to the faith of a Christian (to belief that Christ gave himself for me).  Faith is both the work of God and the duty of man.

Arminianism differs from semi-Pelagianism in that, in the latter, human nature is damaged but not incapacitated, and sinners are capable of taking the first step towards God, who then interposes his grace.

This, writes Olson, is the meaning of ‘prevenient grace’:

‘Prevenient grace is the liberating grace of God that frees the sinner’s will so that he or she can choose to accept the gift of saving grace or reject it. It is grace that “goes before” (which is what “prevenient” means) and prepares the heart for saving grace, but in Arminian theology it is resistible. If a person touched by prevenient grace (normally through the Word of God) does reach out to God with repentance and faith it is only because he or she was liberated from the bondage of the will and convicted, called, enlightened, and enabled by prevenient grace. Thus, in Arminian thought, the initiative is all God’s and the ability is all God’s; everything in salvation is wholly and exclusively “by grace alone.” But God will not force himself on anyone and so the person whose will is freed by grace must cooperate by allowing God’s grace to save him or her.’

Joel Beeke (Reformed Preaching) remarks that popular Arminianism leans more to Pelagius than Arminius, by asserting that:

‘people are able to choose God by their free will, as if the fall of man did not significantly impair the soul, much less render it dead in sin.’

(d) I rely entirely upon God’s grace to begin and continue the Christian life (Augustinian, Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican)

‘Sin is sovereign, till sovereign grace dethrones it.’

In Augustinian and Reformed teaching, humanity possesses ‘free will,’ but it is in bondage to sin, until it is ‘transformed’ by God’s grace.

For Augustine:

‘Free will is sufficient for evil, but it is of no avail for good unless it is aided by Omnipotent Good.’

As Demarest puts it:

‘Divine grace does no violence to the human will. Rather, grace so heals the will, restores it to true freedom, and kindles in it spiritual desires that the person freely cleaves to Christ.’

Again:

‘The human will does not attain grace through freedom, but rather freedom through grace.’

For Luther, too, ‘after the fall free will is a mere name’; it is free only to sin.  In Demarest’s summary:

‘He rejected the notion that the unconverted, by the exercise of free will, are able to love God, keep the law, and thereby merit saving grace. Rather, inherited sin in Adam’s descendants paralyzes the will in matters spiritual and evokes enmity toward God.’

Further: against the Roman scholastics, who held that grace is a quality infused by God into the soul, Luther understood grace as,

‘the favor with which God receives us, forgiving our sins and justifying us freely through Christ.’

He rejected the scholastic idea of merited grace: for Luther grace that is merited is no grace at all:

‘If any man ascribes anything of salvation, even the very least thing, to the free will of man, he know nothing of grace, and he has not learned Jesus Christ rightly.’

Calvin agreed that God’s general grace accounts for all that is good in humankind short of salvation:

‘Such universal benefits include restraint of evil forces, maintenance of the moral order of the universe, universal religious aspirations, elements of truth in non-Christian philosophies and religions, and the development of the arts, sciences, medicine, and politics.’ (Demarest)

However, God’s special grace:

‘illumines the mind and frees the will as the first step toward saving faith, remission of sins, and reconciliation with God.’

Everything stems from God’s grace in Christ; human merit is altogether excluded.

According to the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647),

‘Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation.. (9.3).

But God:

frees the sinner from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good’ (ch. 9.4).

Augustus Toplay:

‘A man’s free will cannot cure him even of the toothache, or a sore finger; and yet he madly thinks it is in its power to cure his soul. The greatest judgment which God Himself can, in the present life, inflict upon a man is, to leave him in the hand of his own boasted free will.’ (Source)

A.A. Hodge:

‘Man’s nature since the fall retains its constitutional faculties of reason, conscience, and free–will, and hence man continues a responsible moral agent, but he is nevertheless spiritually dead, and totally averse to spiritual good, and absolutely unable to change his own heart, or adequately to discharge any of those duties which spring out of his relation to God.’ (Outlines of Theology)

R.C. Sproul:

‘Something terrible has happened to us. We have lost all desire for God. The thoughts and desires of our heart are only evil continuously. The freedom of our will is a curse. Because we can still choose according to our desires, we choose sin and this we become accountable to the judgment of God.’ (Source)

Sam Storms:

‘All people freely and voluntarily and willingly reject the gospel because it is their heart’s desire to do so. A person’s freedom consists in the ability to act according to one’s desires and inclinations without being compelled to do otherwise by something or someone external to himself. So long as one’s choice is the voluntary fruit of one’s desire, the will is free. This is what I mean when I say, “Yes, all people are free moral agents.” On the other hand, to say that a person has free will is to say that he has equal ability or power to accept or reject the gospel. It is to say that he is as able to believe as to disbelieve, and that this ability springs from his own making and is native to him notwithstanding his fallen and sinful state. If this is what you mean when you ask me, “Is man free?” my answer, or rather, the answer of the Bible, is “No.” A man’s will is the extension and invariable expression of his nature. As he is, so he wills. A man is no more free to act or to will or to choose contrary to his nature than an apple tree is free to produce acorns.

‘…We are not kept from believing against our wills. “The one who comes to Me,” declares Jesus, “I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37b). The problem, however, as Jesus goes on to say, is that “no one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44a).'(Source)

Prevenient grace features in both Arminian and Reformed theology.  However, in the former, it is given to everyone, restoring the ability to respond to the call of the gospel.  It thus mitigates the effects of inherited depravity.  In the latter, it is effectual only in the Elect.

What, according to Arminianism, is wrong with the Calvinist understanding? –

‘If we do not have power of contrary choice, then our salvation is not a gift but a fate imposed and others’ damnation is not truly deserved. If there is no such thing as libertarian free will, as Edwards argued, then Adam and Eve’s fall into sin was part of the plan of God, controlled by God, and makes God a moral monster. If salvation is not something freely chosen or freely rejected, then, if some end up in hell for eternity, God is a moral monster. Why? Because he could have saved everyone since salvation is unconditional and not freely chosen. And if God imposes salvation on some without their free assent and cooperation, then the love they have for God is not genuine and God can take no real delight in it. Love that is not freely given is not real love.’ (Olson)

‘The tension between the Reformed and the Methodist approaches to questions of the appropriation of salvation was addressed by the international dialogue between the World Methodist Council and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches at its meeting in Cambridge in 1987. The dialogue noted that grace had been a major emphasis in both traditions; both had affirmed that ‘from first to last our salvation depends on the comprehensiveness of God’s grace as prevenient, as justifying, as sanctifying, as sustaining, as glorifying.’ But, in their ways of confessing that primary truth, the two traditions had emphasised different aspects: the one stressing God’s sovereignty in election, the other the freedom of human response.’ (Source)

The Methodist Conference of 1745 considered how close Methodist preachers could come to Calvinism. The answer
agreed was:
1. In ascribing all good to the free grace of God.
2. In denying all natural free-will and all power antecedent to grace.
And
3. In excluding all merit from man, even from what he has or does by the grace of God.  (Source)

Beeke, Living for God’s Glory:

In this article defending ‘libertarian free will’, the writer, not unreasonably, states:

‘It is helpful to recognize that this issue of free will is a secondary concern for both Arminians and Calvinists, and flows from our understanding of who God is. Disagreement over the issue originates from honorable intentions in both theological systems. Each side wishes to protect an aspect of God’s character, and each side believes that the other side’s understanding does damage to the character of God. Arminians believe that the goodness of God requires that man have free will in order to explain evil. Calvinists believe that the sovereignty of God requires that there can be no such thing as true free will, or else God is not really in control.’

But there is no actual appeal to the teaching of Scripture here.  The differences between Arminians and Calvinists are accounted for in terms of their motivation.

(e) ‘The Lord knows who are his’, and he will save them without any act of will on their part. (Hyper-Calvinism)

Unconditional election.  No free offer of the gospel.

Carey: “Young man, sit down! You are an enthusiast. When God pleases to convert the heathen, he’ll do it without your help or mine.”

In secular thinking

It is worth noting that at either end of the spectrum, extreme expressions, both of self-determination and of fatalism, are found in secular thinking.

Extreme self-determination comes in two forms: (a) optimism (‘I can do anything’); and (b) defiant ‘I am master of my fate.’  ‘I am the captain of my soul.’

Curiously the most extreme points at each end of the spectrum are occupied by secular thinking.

Extreme self-determination may take an optimistic form (‘I can do anything I want to do’) or a defiant form (‘It matters not how straight the gate…’)

Extreme determinism, which amounts to fatalism, is found in various materialist philosophies.

There is no place for free will in a materialist philosophy, where everything is determined by physical causes.

‘Nagel, an atheist philosopher, asserts, “There is no room for agency in a world of neural impulses, chemical reactions, and bone and muscle movements.”’

For sceptic Michael Shermer,

‘“Free will is a useful fiction. I feel “as if” I have free will, even though I know we live in a determined universe. This fiction is so useful that I act as if I have free will but you don’t. You do the same. Since the problem may be an insoluble one, why not act as if you do have free will, gaining the emotional gratification and social benefits that go along with it?’

‘In his book Free Will, [Sam] Harris claims we are not the conscious source of our actions and could not have behaved differently in the past from how we did. He says, “I, as the conscious witness of my experience, no more initiate events in my prefrontal cortex than I cause my heart to beat.”  Harris explains: “The brain is a physical system, entirely beholden to the laws of nature—and there is every reason to believe that changes in its functional state and material structure entirely dictate our thoughts and actions”.’

(Quotes from Evidence That Demands A Verdict)

Skinner: our behaviour is determined entirely by external forces (most notably, ‘reinforcement’).  Note the title of his most celebrated work: ‘Beyond Freedom and Dignity’).