Scott Warren, ETS National Conference, November 17, 2005
Page 1
Inclination and Ability:
A key to resolving debates over personal freedom
Scott C. Warren
All Rights Reserved
Theological history is full of discussion and debate about the nature and
limits of human freedom and its relationship to such matters as the origin of sin, the
helplessness of sinners and moral responsibility. In this paper, I suggest a
straightforward way to conceptualize the critical ideas involved and their inter-
relationships that I believe sheds helpful light on the matters at stake in these
debates and can resolve some of the related issues in order to refocus the dialog
between the broadly Arminian and Calvinist schools of theological thought on the
essential differences between them.
Perhaps the doctrine that most evidently distinguishes an Arminian
theological framework from a Calvinist framework can be found in the ordo salutis
specifically in the question of whether faith precedes or follows regeneration.
Here, we avoid the difficulties of nuanced definitions and subtle distinctions.
Instead, we have a clear-cut matter of which of two conditions precedes, and
precipitates, the other. In an Arminian framework, some combination of natural
humanity and common grace provides sufficient conditions for faith, upon which
regeneration is conditioned. In the understanding of a Calvinist, on the other hand,
natural humanity is fundamentally depraved so as to certainly preclude genuine
faith apart from a prior, special and personal work of regenerating grace. When
faced with the question of the likelihood of unregenerate human sinners embracing
the grace of God in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, traditional Arminian theology says
that some will and some will not; Calvinist theology says that certainly none will.
The question of personal freedom is commonly seen as closely related to
this matter in the ordo salutis. In response to the question of whether natural
humans are able to repent and believe the gospel prior to regeneration, or whether
they are free to do so, Arminians have commonly responded affirmatively, and
Calvinists negatively. So it is that many in both schools have characterized the
Calvinist understanding of natural humanity as "not free" in this way. It is my