Page 17

Scott Warren, ETS National Conference, November 17, 2005

Page 17

certainly will persist in sin in their natural condition. I think there is a better chance

of making progress in this historic debate with the language of inclination that I

believe lends clarity to the critical issue.

On a more contemporary note, I find that significant aspects of open theism

reflect a failure to distinguish inclination from ability. Open theists tend to focus

almost exclusively on the matter of human freedom, and as such are subject to the

flaw in Erasmus' argument discussed above. I have excluded from the scope of this

present work a clear justification of the notion that free actions can be known with

certainty in advance. I do believe, however, that such a case begins most

effectively with a clear distinction between ability and inclination. Exhaustive,

certain foreknowledge, I would contend, is an entirely plausible notion with respect

to the mind of God, who perfectly understands not only our abilities but also our

inclinations and the fundamental disposition of our hearts.

I believe that the simple distinction between inclination and ability can

refocus the historic debate between Arminian and Calvinistic theologies, by

resolving at least some of the attendant issues, such as responsibility without

capability. Further, I believe we can embrace more common terminology. It is my

opinion that Calvinists have too often

surrendered the language of freedom to

Arminians. While we do need to have careful discussions about the nature of

freedom, we should be able to agree that humans enjoy a critical degree of spiritual

freedom in any plain sense of the word.

The focus of the debate should be on

human inclination, rather than human ability. Once it is, I believe that our dialog

will be more likely to proceed in a profitable manner. For the sake of sound and

comprehensible theology, and for movement toward the increased theological unity

of evangelicals, that is my hope.

This is not intended as a blanket assessment. There are many notable exceptions, and much of the

disagreement does focus on the meaning of the terms. Calvinists have however, not infrequently,
allowed Arminians in the debate to persist in their definition of freedom, and as a result claimed that
humans are not free, at least in that sense. While this may be expedient at a certain particular
moments, it obscures the position Calvinists generally intend to make.

I believe that Arminians often use the idea of freedom in a way that is logically absurd; an

unreasonable leap from the plain sense of freedom as it is used in ordinary language (and some who
identify themselves as Calvinists accept this usage). Edwards makes a case for absurdity along these
lines in Freedom of the Will (op. cit. p. 171-74).