Customer Reviews

Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Sproul's book "Willing to Believe" is different from his other books that expound on, and defend, Calvinism such as Chosen by God and Grace Unknown. In this book he focuses primarily on the nature of the human will as it has been defined by prominent thinkers throughout Church history, especially as it is related to the topics of sin and salvation (regeneration primarily). As Sproul shows, the Calvinistic understanding of the human will has its roots in Augustine and the distinction between freedom (defined as "the ability to choose w/o external constraint") and liberty (defined as "the ability to choose righteousness"). Liberty is lost because of the Adamic Fall; however, freedom as defined above is not. The two terms, liberty and freedom, are not considered synonymous as they are for many today which is one of the reasons for misunderstanding from critics. Also, Augustine isn't consistent in his use of terminology, as Sproul mildly points out, and therefore at times "seems to deny all freedom to the will of fallen man" (pg. 63). This inconsistency is seen, for example, in Sproul's quote on pages 63 - 64 from the Enchiridion where Augustine states that man, by the evil use of his "free-will" destroyed both it and himself. Later in the same quote Augustine uses the term "true liberty" in reference to freedom from sin thereby implying that "liberty" is synonymous with "free will" with the only difference being the adjectival term "true". One must understand that Sproul "helps" Augustine be consistent. What Augustine calls "true liberty" Sproul simply calls "liberty" in contrast to "freedom" in general in accordance with the above definitions. Now, notice the definition given for "freedom." This is not the popular libertarian definition assumed by many, which is another source of misunderstanding. Libertarian freedom is sometimes defined "the ability to do otherwise." This definition and view of freedom is held by Christian thinkers such as Norman Geisler, author of "Chosen But Free."

Luther embraced Augustine's distinctions in his debate with Erasmus. So also did Calvin, Turretin and later Jonathan Edwards. Edwards provided further exposition on the Augustinian-Calvinist distinctions and affirmed that the will always chooses according to the strongest desire (motive, inclination, etc.), regardless of whether that desire is good or evil (this view is denied by those who hold to a libertarian view of freedom). In line with Augustine's doctrine of original sin, Edwards held that man is born with a sinful nature and his will is in bondage to it until the Holy Spirit regenerates the sinner (assuming, of course, that the sinner is one of the elect) thereby freeing the will to believe in Christ and produce fruits of righteousness. According to Calvinism, regeneration logically precedes faith and is the cause of it. The five major thinkers: Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Turretin, and Edwards form a consistent and complementary historical stream. In contrast with this stream, Sproul presents the following six thinkers who represent in greater or lesser degrees, the representative historical opposition: Pelagius, Cassian (a Semi-Pelagian), Erasmus, Arminius, Finney, and Chafer.

Although Sproul gives a good overall presentation of various positions and thinkers on the topic at hand, I feel that he could have better explained some of the issues that lend to misunderstanding. Another example is Sproul's mention of the classic distinction between original sin and actual sin. I've noticed that some who use the term "actual sin" in reference to sinful activity mistakenly think that original sin is not an actual type of sin but merely a potential to sin. Yet Adam, before the Fall, had the potential to sin, but he didn't have a sinful nature that caused him to sin. This is so even though, as Sproul explains, Augustine believed that Adam and Eve fell before they ate the fruit. In other words, "the first actual sin was committed by creatures who were already fallen" (pg. 53). Sproul should have cleared up this misunderstanding regarding original sin (the sinful nature). Also, I'm surprised that Sproul didn't once reference John Wesley, especially since much of what passes as "Arminianism" today is influenced more by his views than those of Arminius himself. Reformed Arminianism must be distinguished from Wesleyan "Arminianism". For those who want to know the differences, see "Four Views on Eternal Security," edited by J. Matthew Pinson. Also, I recommend studying Mortimer J. Adler's book "The Idea of Freedom" which some consider to be the definitive 20th century study on the issue. Although I'm not a Calvinist, I enjoy reading Sproul's books and learned much from "Willing to Believe." This is essential reading.

Because of the fall, we inherit original sin from Adam. The question is, how fallen are we? Sproul, arguing from Augustine, the Reformers, Jonathan Edwards, and the Scriptures says that we are so fallen that we will not choose God. There must be a work of grace from God before a person will turn to God. Rather than start from scratch, Sproul relies on almost 2000 years of theological history. Pelagius, Augustine, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Jonathan Edwards, and dispensationalist Lewis Sperry Chafer's views concerning "free will" are considered. The concern of Sproul(which is a concern of Reformed theology in general) is that God get all the glory for salvation. Evangelicals agree that salvation comes by Christ alone and faith alone. Sproul maintains that grace alone is the missing piece of good theology. The ordo salutis(order of salvation) is crucial to understanding a debate in recent years between dispensationalists and reformed evangelicals. When one understands that dispensationalists put faith(a move of man and God;synergistic) as the initial step in salvation whereas the reformers put regeneration first(a move of God;monoergistic), then light is shone on why the two groups have had this debate. Even though many dispensationalists consider themselves Calvinists, Sproul shows inconsistencies in their views that do not square with Calvin or Luther, but rather with Armimian theology. A concluding chapter summarizing the biblical case for the Reformed view would have been helpful. Sproul delivers sufficient information to build his case. However, a biblical summary could have delivered the knockout punch more completely. Nevertheless, both Arminians and Calvinists will benefit from Sproul's grasp of these issues. He is charitable to those he disagrees with, generating more light than heat.

This book has revolutionized my theological understanding, and has been instrumental in dislodging my former Pelagianistic orientation. I picked it up as a project to be refuted, and in the process, I was devastated by cogent argumentation from Sproul and, as he demonstrates, some of the greatest minds in church history. At one particular point in the book, he lists the salient points of Pelagianism and I found myself nodding yes to every point as I read. Up to that point I considered myself a sort of Arminian "on steroids". I was as bigoted against reformed theology as one could be; yet, by the time I finished this book, I was mortally wounded! This magnum opus on free will is powerfully relevant to the watershed of contiguous doctrines which touch its theme and are under attack in our time. To those who foster Pelagian or semi-Pelagian (Arminian) viewpoints, this book is of crucial importance. Even if you don't subscribe to the positions which are here contained, you will need to consider it and formulate your arguments over against this trenchant analysis. Here is one of Reformed theology's most brilliant, passionate defenders and his arsenal is impressive...you'll see!

It is my sincere pleasure to submit my favorable review of Sproul's "Willing to Believe". As with any Sproul text, the author's position is never in doubt; its clear and compelling exposition is introduced in the first few pages, and is sustained throughout its length. Yet, Sproul's summaries of the major personalities and positions that have arisen throughout Church history and given shape to the free-will / sovereignty debate are fair, accurate, and balanced. Despite the author's endorsement of a particular theological agenda, one gains the impression that he has not intended to write as a polemicist, but as one motivated by an irenic concern for all Christians to be captivated by the splendid vision of God's sovereignty. As a basic survey of the free-will controversy, "Willing to Believe" could be quite useful as an instructional tool in the undergraduate setting. Though some of the age-old, nagging questions are left unanswered, anyone who attentively reads this text will at least understand what the questions are, as well as the various answers that have been proposed down through time. Sproul has repeated shown himself to be a master of the art of communicating concepts crucial to historical theology in a clear, concise, and accessible manner; the text under consideration certainly is no exception. In addition, the book is laid out in an attractive, readable format. The abundance of charts, chronologies, and bibliographies heighten this books instructional usefulness and effectiveness. Again, Sproul is to be commended; "Willing to Believe" is to be read.

I found this book quite interesting; it helped me to understand the historical development of the free will/salvation debate. The author, R.C. Sproul, is a committed Calvinist but this does not hinder his presentation of opposing theologians. He quotes from primary source material whenever possible and even though this may be difficult to understand at times, I think it is the best way to proceed.

Sproul's approach was to look at all the important figures in Church history who have contributed to the free-will/salvation debate. He starts by contrasting Pelagius and Augustine. Even though they lived about 1,500 years ago, they set the groundwork for the debate. Pelagius is almost universally condemned as being heretical, both in his time and ours. The other theologians covered are: Martin Luther, John Calvin, James Arminius, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Grandison Finney and Lewis Sperry Chafer. Sproul also covers semi-Pelagianism as taught by Cassian. It is interesting to note that this issue is often developed in the form of argument between two men: Augustine and Pelagius, Martin Luther and Erasmas and so on.

Sproul then goes to the great Reformers: Martin Luther and John Calvin, who BOTH defended what is now called Reformed or Calvinist theology. It was interesting to learn that Luther and Calvin basically voiced the same position. Then, there is James Arminius, the Dutch theologian, who has represented the semi-Pelagian or Arminian position in the modern era. I was surprised to learn that Arminius agrees with Calvin on the doctrine of total depravity (Sproul shows this by quoting directly from Arminius).

One of the main points that Sproul makes a few times is that the Calvinist position is often caricatured. Even if you think Calvinism is false, it is simply dishonest to build up theological straw men to knock down and then claim victory. Another interesting point is that one's doctrine or understanding of the Fall determines one's soteriology (doctrine of salvation) and one's understanding of free will.

Occasionally, the book becomes difficult to understand. In particular, the chapter on Jonathan Edwards was difficult to understand. It was good that Sproul included a glossary of the Latin terms that have historically been used in the debate. The last section in the book was on Lewis Sperry Chafer, one of the founders of Dispensationalism. I have heard of this before but I don't know too much about it. Sproul lists Billy Graham and Norman Geisler as contemporary Dispensationalists. However, Sproul is only discussing Dispensational soteriology and doesn't touch on Dispensational eschatology (doctrine of last things; second coming of Christ, Rapture etc...).

I would recommend the book, and even though I found parts of it difficult, I think that I now have a better understanding of the free will debate.

The Calvinist Sproul takes a historical look at free will as it pertains to Pelagianism, Calvinism, and Arminianism. Overall he does a good job taking a look at such characters as Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and Arminius. However, his Calvinist slant--while I certainly don't disagree with it--certainly is one-sided, and I could see how an Arminian might not like how he takes a one-sided approach. In fact, I would have enjoyed a side-by-side look at the history of free will in conjunction with a thinker from the Arminian side of the aisle. Overall the book was easy enough to read, though certain parts did bog down. My favorite chapter was the last one regarding Dispensationalism, as the material I learned there was very educational. I would say that the more you enjoy history, the more you will enjoy Willing to Believe.

It is extremely important to carefully consider what those who have gone before us have thought and written on important subjects. Those who ignore historical theology leave themselves open to errors which may have already been ably refuted by others in the past. R.C.Sproul gives us an excellent summary of what some of the most influential men in Church History have thought on the controversial subject of the role that a person's will has in the salvation of an individual. Some of the men who's views are presented by Mr.Sproul are Pelagius,Augustine,Luther,Arminius and Jonathan Edwards. We should always seek to understand and accurately represent the views of those with whom we may not be in agreement with. It is a sad reality that this is often not the case. Lewis Sperry Chafer very helpfully clarifies what is a problem fo some on p.204 "It is a strange thing to deem the liberation of an enslaved will as a violation of freedom."This is what God does in the salvation of an individual. I don't believe anyone knows how God does this but the Bible clearly teaches that He in fact does. A great strength of this book as in all of R.C.Sproul's books is that the reader is not left with the impression that Sproul either does not understand(and therefore has not misrepresented)the view that he himself does not hold. The flip side being that the view that R.C.Sproul believes to be the Biblical view is very accurately given to us.

As someone new to the reformed faith, this is my first book by Dr. Sproul. Wow! I am taking my time reading it because of the wealth of history and theology contained therein. As a working mom of two young children, finding quiet, uninterrupted time to digest this book has been a challenge!

I'm about half-way through and have learned so much. I also watched the dvd "Amazing Grace" as a partner to the book and found it to be very easy to understand and a huge help in reading this book.

The historic controversy over man's so-called "free will" is neatly organized in this enlightening book. Sproul takes you on a historical voyage of the controversy, emphasizing the influential persons behind the debate and their relative positions. He points out (as I personally realized during my hard analysis of and subsequent "conversion" to Calvinism) that Calvinism stands or falls on Total Depravity. If Man's will is "free" then he is able to save himself with Christ's _help_ (e.g., Roman Catholicism and Arminianism). But if Man's will is in bondage to sin (i.e., Man can choose to do all he desires, but all his desires are sinful) then it will take the Sovereign act of the Triune God _alone_ to save men: The Father unconditionally elects a people to redeem, the Son dies specifically for them, and the Spirit regenerates them (causes them to be "born again") and gives them faith in Christ (Calvinism). This historical work will ! make you question everything you believe about your so-called "free" will.

Sproul has put together a very even handed, well documented, heavily referenced book that deals with the church long debate over human free will. Though personally from the Reformed camp, Sproul does not use this book as a vehicle for the advocacy of Reformed thought, but dispassionately examines the free will musings of various prominent thinkers throughout church history who represent a good variety of opinion.

Sproul takes the reader from Augustine to Chafer and looks at a number of folks in between such as Pelagius, Arminius, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and Finney. I felt that Sproul did a very good job of examining the views of each individual, and particularly in the cases of Finney and Chafer, showing that their views on free will didn't always reflect what they said their overall theology was. Very insightful writing here.

One of the things I got out of the book was the obscure nature of a number of nuances that surround this issue and separate folks along theological lines. I think readers who are not intimately familiar with these issues may find themselves a bit surprised by the often nuanced differences that have become such bitter points of contention between theological camps (monergistic versus synergistic soteriology is one example). I thought that Sproul did a good job of examining these views in a detailed way in order to lay bare the theological differences that speak for themselves. His extensive quotation of the above church thinkers on these issues allows the reader to see for him/herself what these thinkers wrote and thought.

Overall, I think this is a very informative book that serves to honestly treat the free will controversy in such a way that a layperson can better understand the controversy and be able to continue in their research with a solid basis of understanding. This book is a quality addition to the Christian's library.