Dr. Bruce Ware is a highly esteemed evangelical theologian who serves as a Professor of Christian Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Prior to his arrival at Southern, he taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary and at Bethel Theological Seminary. Dr. Ware co-editedThe Grace of God and the Bondage of the Will and Still Sovereign with Dr. Thomas Schreiner. He also authored God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism, God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith, and Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance. In this clip, Dr. Ware discusses the matter of free will superbly.
37 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
Dr. Galyon, Thanks for sharing this clip. Dr. Ware is not only a great thinker, he is a great speaker. This looks like a debate format- do you know what the circumstances of it were?
In regard to the debate, Dr. Ware joined Dr. Tom Schreiner on the “predestination” side as opposed to the “free will” position advocated by Asbury Seminary profs Dr. Joe Dongell and Dr. Jerry Walls.
Is this explanation of compatability a necessary step toward the “free offer” theory?
While Dr Ware is a skilled debater, please don’t tell me he is a hypo-Calvinist also!
Dr. Galyon,
I have been reading and enjoying you blog for a couple of months now. I do not consider myself a “5 pointer” by any means, but I tend to lean more that direction than many of my friends. You say that Dr. Ware is arguing for the “predestination” side, but it seems more like he is arguing a “both / and” position much like Dr. Norman Geisler presents in his book “Chosen But Free”. By the way, that is my position. Dr. Geisler calls it “Moderate Calvinism”. It bascially affirms both man’s choice and God’s choice. Dr. Ware has given some good examples here, but their are several others like Judas Iscariot. Clearly Judas chose for himself his direction, while at the same time Judas was predestined as the son of perdition. Any thoughts?
Thanks for this James. Great clip, and very helpful. I like Bruce Ware. I’m currently reading his Crossway book on the Trinity.
This is maybe a tad off topic, but I think I recall hearing that Ware denies limited atonement? I think I heard him and Piper discussing this somewhere.
Joe – Thanks so much for dropping by 2WC. I’m very glad to hear you’ve been dropping by for a couple of months now.
I believe part of the reason you believe Dr. Ware is arguing for “Moderate Calvinism” (ala Geisler) is because what many consider the “Calvinist” position is absolute determinism, no freedom whatsoever in choices, etc. (e.g., Islam). Dr. Ware, however, is expressing the historical “Calvinist” position (e.g., Augustine, Calvin, Edwards). This is different than Geisler’s position, actually. Geisler , for example, denies the doctrine of election in order to retain human autonomy. The “Calvinist” position, however, affirms the doctrine of election and denies autonomy (obviously) while affirming free agency. Geisler also has to modify the doctrines of depravity and perseverance to uphold his view while Dr. Ware maintains the historical views and affirms free agency.
With no doubt, Judas Iscariot chose to betray the Lord for 30 pieces of silver. When he made that choice, he made it freely. He was not coerced. The blame is entirely his, it is his sin. At the same time, and with just as much certainty, God was fulfilling His purpose and plan (Matthew 26:24; John 19:11; Acts 2:23). The “Calvinist” position does not deny man’s choice. Rather, it affirms that each human being is responsible for his or her own choices, actions, etc., while at the same time affirming that God accomplishes His hidden will perfectly. God is not thwarted or frustrated in His purpose or plan.
Joe, I hope we’ll continue this conversation and others along these same lines. Thanks again for dropping by 2WC.
Charles – I’m still holding out hope you’ll keep listening to R. C. Sproul and become one of us “Hypos”.
W: Bruce Ware has stated publicly that he is not an Amyraldian (4-Pt. Calvinist for those of you keeping score at home), but that his position has some affinities to Bro. Moises. He prefers to call his position the “Multiple Intentions” view.
IMO (I can just hear the comments now), I think Amyrault receives WAY too much heat from contemporary “Calvinists” (e.g., claims of heresy, denying the faith, etc.). Amyrault was, in fact, very Reformational and very concerned with retaining a biblical position. He looked at the multitude of passages having both a “universal” and “particular” aspect and sought to explain them biblically. He never intended to deny particular redemption, and I don’t think he did, but many accuse him of that very thing. I don’t think it has been right to call 4-Pt. Calvinism by his name, because what usually passes as such was not what he taught. I’d be very interested to hear your perspective, my friend.
Dr Galyon
I listened to RC Sproul until I got to his Sproulism on the paradox of human freedom and divine freedom and I couldn’t buy into it. So sadly Sproul and I have parted on that point. I hope that he will handle the separation and not take it to hard.
I believe in Eternal Calvinism “Once Calvinistic always…” No thanks to hypo. If I were to depart Calvinism I would prefer Wesleyanism with prevenient grace. I’m just not good at handling inconsistences and pretensiousness. wink! wink!
Or else I would just follow Arminius and be a good Arminian.
your friend
Charles
Charles, my friend, I am sad to hear you and Sproul (and I) have parted on that point. Nonetheless, you are still my friend.
on Amyraldianism by Warfield, Plan of Salvation
Post-redemptionism (Amyraldianism), therefore (although it is a recognizable form of Calvinism, because it gives real validity to the principle of particularism), is not therefore necessarily a good form of Calvinism, an acceptable form of Calvinism, or even a tenable form of Calvinism. For one thing, it is a logically inconsistent form of Calvinism and therefore an unstable form of Calvinism. For another and far more important thing, it turns away from the substitutive atonement, which is as precious to the Calvinist as is his particularism, and for the safeguarding of which, indeed, much of his zeal for particularism is due. I say, Post-redemptionism is logically inconsistent Calvinism. For, how is it possible to contend that God gave His Son to die for all men, when he gave His Son to die, he already fully intended that his death should avail for all men alike and equally, but only for some which he would select (which, that is, because he is God and there is no subsequence of time in his decrees, he had already selected) to be its beneficiaries? But as much as God is God, who knows all things which he intends from the beginning and all at once, and intends all things which he intends from the beginning and all at once, it is impossible to contend that God intends the gift of his Son for all men alike and equally and at the same time intends that it shall not actually save all but only a select body which he himself provides for it. The schematization of the order of decrees presented by the Amyraldians, in a word, necessarily implies a chronological relation of precedence and subsequence among the decrees, the assumption of which abolishes God, and this can be escaped only by altering the nature of the atonement. And therefore the nature of the atonement is altered by them, and Christianity is wounded at its very heart.
John A. Broadus (distinguished professor of New Testament and successor to Boyce at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary): “1. Q. What is meant by the word regeneration? A. Regeneration is God’s causing a person to be born again. 9. Q. Does faith come before the new birth? A. No, it is the new heart that truly repents and believes” (taken from Broadus’ A Catechism of Bible Teaching, reprinted in A Baptist Treasury, pp. 67-68).
Since I’m lazy and you’ve already waded through “his position the “Multiple Intentions” view,” maybe you could do a post on it?
Is this video found anywhere in todo?
Thomas – maybe. No promises. The video (DVD) may be ordered but I don’t know of the entire video being available anywhere online.
I agree with Charles Page’s position.
Sproul is an enemy of Grace just as much as a rank unbeliever is.
Is Sproul an enemy of grace because he asserts justification by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone; because he affirms total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints; or because, like Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Hodge, Warfield, Broadus and Boyce, affirms free agency?
Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Hodge, Warfield, Broadus and Boyce, affirms free agency?
Because you affirm free agency?
James, assuming we can break down the moment (atamos) when regeneration takes place does faith already exist before that moment or does faith exist only after that moment. It seems to me that a compatabalist will try to say (mental gymnastics) that it is simultaneous so that it can’t be detected. It is neither prior or after but indiscernable. If that was true then I would still be a Pentecostal preacher in a Wesleyan-holiness Church. I would not be working at Fed EX and free on Mondays to comment on this blog. I would be a Pentecostal Biblicist who cares less about the argument between Arminianism and Calvinism. I would not be disturbed about works salvation and Finney-like altar calls. I struggled with these two things every time (almost 30 years) I stepped into the pulpit to preach. I could never accept them and thus invited failure in my ministry every time I sent my end of the month ministerial report to the denomination headquarters. That struggle affected my walet and my family suffered financially. Grace has cost me dearly so please don’t take offense if I don’t buy the ‘ipse dixit’ and ‘these men agree with me’ argument.
I have a hard time believing Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Hodge, Warfield, Broadus and Boyce, affirms free agency. These men believe that faith follows regeneration. IMO If you believe that faith follows regeneration then you are affirming limited atonement and irrestible grace.
If you affirm these then you deny free offer. IMO
Arguing for grace is not a pasttime hobby but a real life issue that has eternal consequences.
Charles:
They affirm free agency, not because I do (obviously), but because it is biblical. By the way, I was asking Paul how SPROUL is an enemy of grace. I must confess I’m a bit offended by your statement, “Arguing for grace is not a pasttime hobby but a real life issue that has eternal consequences.” Affirming sovereign grace has cost me and my family dearly, as you well know. And, Charles, affirming the free offer is not a denial of the doctrines of grace. The doctrines of grace affirm free agency, which is much different than maintaining human autonomy / absolute free will.
James
I certainly did not mean to offend you and apologize if offense was taken. We both have suffered for our beliefs in grace and for me to imply to you otherwise would be a great dis-service to the cause. I entered this struggle with freed will and know that the suffering for not entering this struggle would be far greater than the little suffering I have endured. You have struggled and I count it an honor to join you in the struggle.
You will have to bear with me as I struggle with free agency.
Charles
As to Sproul, I just can’t buy into the paradox of Human and divine freedom. I see them as incompatible. I confess a weakness in reasoning ability. I guess I spend too much time loading hundreds of different size boxes totaling about 2 tons into containers all day. (each container holds about 2 tons) By the way you can actually maximize density so that relative little space is wasted! The young people I work with are so nice but they lack the deductive skills to maximize density. They waste so much cargo room and when FedEx ships ‘air’ in a AirBus they loose money. With the price of gas…
Charles – Thank you very much for your kind words.
As far as free agency goes… do you believe that an individual, let’s use Pharaoh (the one of Moses’ day) as the example, is responsible for his sin? Do you believe he made choices himself? In other words, did he choose to rebel against God? Did he choose to refuse to let God’s people go? Did he finally decide to let them go? I would answer in the affirmative. Pharaoh rebelled against God because of the corrupt pride in his heart. He refused to let Israel go because of the wickedness in his heart. When he finally let the people go, he did so grudgingly, and even changing his mind and pursuing them with the intent of destroying them.
Was God in charge of this entire period? Of the Egyptian response and Pharaoh’s rebellion? YES! God was sovereign over the entire affair. God accomplished his purposes through the slack obedience of His servant, Moses, and through the willful rebellion of Pharaoh.
Was God responsible for Pharaoh’s sin or was Pharaoh? I contend Pharaoh is responsible for his own sin. I contend God is not the author of sin. I contend God was not the author of Pharaoh’s sin.
What do you think, Charles? Paul?
“Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”
Pharoah was a puppet! Robotically, he lived by the dictates of the prince of the power of the air. Pharoah was ruled by a prince! Prince and Pharoah were ruled by God! Pharoah lived in the consequences of Adam’s sin. Sadly, he was not of the elect of God, of which we can not be certain.
So my answer is in the negative to your questions in first paragraph and affirmative in the second.
James, can’t you see the hints of Pelagianism in your statements about Pharoah? You hint of some degree of goodness and potential of Pharoah choosing to do the right thing! You are wanting to modifying depravity. You hint of intruding into the decree of God to demonstrate his power in election. Not just Pharoah is utterly sinful we all are sinful. Pharoah and Moses; Jacob and Esau are all alike under the curse of sin. God is sovereign in choosing who to save. You would have God refusing someone who yet has a degree of goodness, Pharoah, and that would make God unjust! If Pharoah has the potential to choose then we all have and God would be unjust in sending us to hell! We would only be partially deserving of hell. When people die and lift up their eyes in torment they suddenly comprehend their depravity. Initially and quickly they will assume the responsibility for their punishment. That is something we will fight, tooth and toenail, to disprove.
“slack obedience” and “willful rebellion” are terms foreign to scripture and maybe foreign to logic. Oxymoron comes to my mind. Paul calls sinners “children of disobedience” Pharoah was naturally disobiedent, naturally rebellious.
I cannot buy into “free agency” You ask, “Was God responsible for Pharaoh’s sin or was Pharaoh?” Your answer, “I contend Pharaoh is responsible for his own sin.”
James, the real question; is God responsible for Adam’s sin? Of a certainty Adam and Eve are responsible for sin. The real mystery is how they had free choice.
For me I do not have personal anxiety over a poor evangelistic response nor of the fact that determinism may lean toward God being responsible (intentionally allowing) for sin (but not the author) Perhaps he created the conditions that allowed sin to exist. JMHO
For me, God created everything in a pattern to demonstrate his sovereignty to elect freely and parade his self-exalting and glorious plan of redemption. “That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.”
PS don’t make me wait till next week for your response. Wink! wink!
No, Charles, I can’t see any hints whatsoever of Pelagianism in my statements. In no way do I hint at “potential goodness” in Pharaoah. What I did state is that he is responsible for his own choices and his own actions. That is not Pelagianism.
Is God responsible for Adam’s sin? No. Adam is. Was Adam’s sin within the scope of God’s sovereignty and providence? Absolutely!
P.S. (I was out of town for two weeks, that’s why you received delayed responses).
Doesn’t any choice exercised by a sinner toward God presuppose a variation of a Pelagian view?
An Augustinian view of depravity doesn’t allow for the sinner to exercise free will of any sort.
For Wesley there had to be prevenient grace and for the SBC there is a divine enablement. Both require depravity to be altered inorder for a choice to be made. Consequently both hold to a faith preceding regeneration.
The Bible sets fort a depravity that renders man dead in sin, totally without ability to respond toward God. This can be escaped only by altering the nature of the atonement. And therefore the nature of the atonement is altered by them (Wesleyans and SBC), and Christianity is wounded at its very heart.
No, “any choice exercised by a sinner toward God” does not “presuppose a variation of a Pelagian view.” If it did, then the Apostles were Pelagians when they commanded people to repent, etc.
Charles, have you read Augustine on free will? If so, you’ll find the Augustinian view of depravity does, in fact, “allow for the sinner to exercise free will.” Augustine differentiates between ‘free will’ and ‘liberty’. He declares all have free will, but none have liberty apart from God’s grace. I recommend you give him a read if you haven’t already.
BTW, there is a quite a difference between the Augustinian view and the Wesleyan view (prevenient grace), yet there are also many similarities. There is a much bigger difference between the Wesleyan view and the view which seems to predominate in the SBC (which I believe is, in fact, Pelagian in many respects). I much prefer the historical Wesleyan view to the “typical” SBC view (e.g., absolute autonomy; the ability to choose one of two options with no consideration of sinfulness; people as victims of sin, not as rebels in sin).
Did the apostles command dead sinners to repent?
Matthew 4:17 – From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Acts 2:38 – And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 3:19 – Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out…
Acts 8:22 – Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out…
Acts 17:30 – God…commands all people everywhere to repent…
The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up. From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 3:25-26 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
Doesn’t the context of these passages indicate that atonement is limited to thoes particularily prepared to hear and not a general call to all men? None of these passages support a general call
but a specific cal.
According to Eph 2:2-3 can a sinner experience a “change of mind”, a condition necessary for repentance? Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (does ‘all’ mean every where the specific call is commanded to be given?)
No, he commanded the regenerated elect to repent. A dead unregenerate sinner cannot repent. A dead unregenerate and unelect sinner will never repent.
Charles, that’s not what the Scripture states. It declares God commands all people in all places to repent. You’re correct, an unregenerate sinner will not repent. This does not mean, however, that he has not been commanded to do so. He has and he is responsible for his refusal to do so.
doesn’t your view in some way nullify original sin? Of coarse you are true SBC because they profess a nullification of original sin: “Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.” Adam’s sin left us “inclined toward sin” and when we are capable of moral judgement then we become trangressors. This is a variation of a Pelagian view. With this view you can command all people in all places to repent, inspite of what the Bible says. IMHO
A dead unregenerate sinner CANNOT repent. A dead unregenerate and non-elect sinner will never repent. Why will he never repent? Because he will never experience a godly sorrow. Why? Because his prince will not lead him in that direction. He follows blindly the dictates of Satan.
Only the Holy Spirit will produce godly sorrow in a regenerate life and godly sorrow leads to repentance. If the Holy Spirit gives godly sorrow universally to everyone then everyone will repent and all will be saved. God’s word will never return void. It is effectual.
Now if you hold to a variation of Pelagaianism then everyone has a degree of this godly sorrow. Or everyone’s depravity is supernaturally modifided to have godly sorrow. Or just the elect’s depravity will be modified with godly sorrow sufficient to repent and earn regeneration.
All these views are variations of Pelagianism.
A non-Pelagian view is that man is totally depraved and in need of new life inorder to experience godly sorrow. When a man is pricked in his heart in this manner he ask what must I do? You respond, “repent and be baptized…”
Charles, no my view doesn’t in some way nullify original sin. I affirm original sin without reservation. The BFM has a weak statement on original sin, one which I wrote to A. Rogers, A. Mohler and P. Patterson about when it was released in 2000.
The problem is you, like the “Arminian”, are confusing duty and responsibility with ability. God commands all people everywhere to repent. That is what the Scripture declares. The context of the declaration is on Mars Hill to a mass of people (not just certain people – “the elect”). God commands things which are impossible. God commanded Lazarus to “come forth.” Did Lazarus have the ability? No! He was dead! But he came out of the grave because the Lord brought him to life.
The Bible teaches both that fallen man is without spiritual ability and that he is obligated to repent and believe. Only by the powerful, regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is man given the ability to fulfuill his duty to repent and believe.” And though this may seem unreasonable to rationalistic minds, there is no contradiction, and it is precisely the position the Bible teaches. -Tom Ascol
James, does this mean that Ascol’s interpretation of the Bible is inerrant? If I take the reasonable view does that mean my inerrant view is up against Tom’s inerrant view? Where is Adrian Rogers when we need to resolve this inerrancy?
Seriously, how can you have a discussion with a person that thinks that the Word comes only to him or comes only from him?
Ability is a gift of God (new birth) and duty is then imperative. My view is hyper-Calvinistic with the exception that I am aware of: general declarative witness of Christ as Lord and God to everyone, without any imperatives to the sinner. The Holy Spirit give the particular imperative to the new-born and they cleave to the witness and believe. Acts 17:34
“That is what the Scripture declares.”
In one sense, hyper-Calvinism, like Arminianism, is a rationalistic perversion of true Calvinism. Whereas Arminianism destroys the sovereignty of God, hyper-Calvinism destroys the responsbility of man. The irony is that both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism start from the same, erroneous rationalistic presupposition: Man’s ability and responsibility are coextensive. That is, they must match up exactly or else it is irrational. If a man is to be held responsible for something, then he must have the ability to do it. On the other hand, if a man does not have the ability to perform it, he cannot be obligated to do it.
The Arminian looks at this premise and says, “Agreed! We know that all men are held responsbile to repent and believe [which is true, according to the Bible]; therefore we must conclude that all men have the ability in themselves to repent and believe [which is false, according to the Bible].” Thus, Arminians teach that unconverted people have within themselves the spiritual ability to repent and believe.
I understand, “hyper-Calvinism destroys the responsbility of man.” But can’t we discuss what hypo-Calvinism destroys? Hypo Calvinism dishonors God. It points the sinner to himself for a remedy against sin. It also is calculated to mislead and deceive.
“It is a historical fact that when true evangelical Calvinism comes alive and active, Hypo-Calvinism will soon raise its ugly head.”
Rev
Thanks for reading and commenting to my blog.
Please read my follow-ups to your comment. Thanks
Charles
Will do, Charles.