The Irony of Free Will: A Christian X-Ray of Western, Eastern, and Arminian Faith Perspectives
In a world captivated by the allure of individual autonomy, the concept of free will reigns supreme. Yet, the very freedom so prized by Western secularism and Eastern philosophies alike is, ironically, a deep and deceptive bondage—one that only the truth of Christianity can expose. As modern culture, driven by self-determination, pridefully exalts the sovereignty of the self, and as Arminians within the Christian fold misconstrue biblical doctrine, the question arises: Are we truly free? Or is it only through Christ, as revealed by Calvin and Scripture, that humanity can be liberated from the chains of its own illusions?
Today, freedom of choice, independence of will, and self-determination have become the defining marks of our modern world. In a society dominated by secular values, these concepts have not only shaped the cultural landscape but have been elevated to near-sacred status. To be free, according to modern Western secularism, means to be untethered from all external authority, to live autonomously, and to determine one’s own destiny. This notion of personal sovereignty resonates deeply with our desires and offers a seductive image of self-sufficient human flourishing. But beneath this façade lies a deeper truth that Christianity reveals: true freedom is not found in autonomy but in submission to God’s sovereignty, and bondage is the natural state of the human will without God’s redeeming grace.
As followers of Christ, we are called to ask a deeper question: Are we truly free? And if so, what is the nature of this freedom? Is freedom simply the ability to make choices, or is it something more profound—a restoration of the soul to its right relationship with God?
This question is not merely theoretical. It touches the heart of what it means to be human and what it means to be redeemed. Throughout history, the Christian faith has answered this question with clarity and conviction: without God's grace, human beings are enslaved by sin. True freedom—the ability to choose good and to serve God—comes not from self-determination but from God's saving work in Christ.
Yet, this biblical truth is constantly challenged by both secular and Eastern philosophies. Western secularism, as represented by thinkers like Susan Wolf, posits that freedom lies in the rational autonomy of the individual, while Buddhism, as presented by Jay Garfield, denies the self altogether, claiming that freedom comes through transcending the very notion of selfhood.
In this article, we will examine the Christian understanding of free will as laid out in Scripture and the works of John Calvin, contrasting it with both Western secularism and Buddhism. Along the way, we will see why the Arminian interpretation of free will falls short of the biblical data, and why Calvinism—which is simply the faithful exposition of Scripture—provides the only coherent and truthful resolution to the problem of human will. More importantly, we will show why Christianity offers the only hope for true freedom—the freedom that comes not through human effort but through God's sovereign grace.
The False Freedom of Western Secularism
The modern Western world exalts the idea of individual autonomy. In this worldview, freedom means the ability to pursue one’s desires, define one’s identity, and live without the imposition of external moral authority. The deep self theory, championed by Susan Wolf, embodies this view. According to Wolf, we are truly free when our actions are aligned with our most rational and deeply considered desires. In other words, freedom is found when the deep self—the rational core of who we are—acts in accordance with what it judges to be good.
For Wolf, the key to moral responsibility lies in sanity. A person is morally responsible, she argues, when they are sane enough to reflect on their actions and desires and align them with their deepest values. This version of freedom emphasizes self-correction and rational autonomy. In the Western secular mindset, reason is seen as the liberating force that allows us to transcend our baser instincts and choose the good.
But here lies the fatal flaw of secular thought: it overlooks the fundamental spiritual enslavement of the human will. While Wolf and the secular world assume that human reason is capable of guiding us toward freedom, Christianity reveals that human reason itself is corrupted by sin. Rationality alone cannot free us from the bondage of our fallen nature. As the Apostle Paul says in Romans 7:18-19:
"For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing."
Wolf’s theory, grounded in human autonomy, cannot account for this spiritual reality. It assumes that sanity and rational reflection are sufficient to lead us toward the good. But Christianity teaches that without God’s grace, even our most rational desires are tainted by sin. Our wills are not merely weakened by sin—they are enslaved to it. As Calvin explains in his Institutes:
“Man, by his fall, was deprived of this freedom of will, and instead of the self-command which he enjoyed, was reduced to a state of miserable bondage.” (Book II, Chapter 2, Section 5, p. 259)
In other words, our freedom is an illusion. We might act on our rational desires, but those desires themselves are bent toward sin. No amount of self-reflection can untangle the spiritual enslavement of the will. This is why Christianity insists that true freedom is not found in rational autonomy but in spiritual redemption. Without the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, human beings are incapable of choosing good. The secular pursuit of freedom, rooted in the exaltation of the self, is ultimately a false freedom—a freedom that leads not to liberation but to deeper bondage.
The Illusion of Non-Self in Buddhism
On the other side of the spectrum lies Buddhism, which presents an entirely different challenge to the Christian understanding of free will. Whereas Western secularism exalts the self, Buddhism denies the self altogether. In Jay Garfield’s articulation of Mādhyamaka Buddhism, the self is not an independent entity but an illusion, a construct that arises from the dependent origination of various causes and conditions.
In Buddhist thought, what we perceive as free will is nothing more than the product of an intricate web of causality. There is no autonomous self making choices; instead, our thoughts, actions, and desires are shaped by the chain of events that precede them. The goal of Buddhism, therefore, is not to assert the autonomy of the self but to transcend it. Freedom, in the Buddhist view, is found in the realization that the self does not exist. Once we accept this, we can free ourselves from the illusion of choice and the attachment to desires.
But here too, Christianity stands in stark contrast. Far from denying the self, Christianity affirms that the self is real, valuable, and created by God for the purpose of relationship with Him. The problem, according to Scripture, is not that the self is an illusion, but that the self is fallen. The self is bound by sin and in need of redemption.
Where Buddhism calls us to dissolve the self, Christianity calls us to restore the self through the redeeming power of Christ. The Buddhist path may promise relief from suffering through the rejection of desire, but Christianity offers a far greater hope: freedom from the bondage of sin and the restoration of our will to its rightful place through the grace of God. As Jesus said in John 8:36:
“So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.”
This is not the freedom that comes from denying the self but from having the self restored to its proper relationship with God. The Buddhist view of free will ultimately fails because it misunderstands the nature of the self and human responsibility. The self is not an illusion, and human actions have real moral consequences. Christianity teaches that we are created in the image of God, endowed with the capacity for moral responsibility, and called to live in relationship with our Creator. The problem is not that we need to escape the self, but that we need to redeem it.
True Freedom in Christ
Both Western secularism and Buddhism fall short because they misunderstand the true nature of free will and human responsibility. Wolf's deep self theory suggests that humans can reason their way to freedom, but Christianity reveals that without God's grace, the will is bound by sin. Buddhism, by denying the self, misses the profound truth that we are real beings, created by God, and are truly responsible for our actions.
Christianity presents a more profound and complete understanding of the human condition: we are responsible for our actions because we are made in the image of God, yet our wills are enslaved to sin and cannot be freed by any effort of our own. As Paul says in Romans 8:7-8:
“The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.”
Only through the sovereign grace of God can our wills be truly liberated. True freedom is found not in autonomy or the rejection of the self but in submission to God's sovereignty and the freedom to serve Him.
In this sense, Christianity presents not just an explanation for the human condition, but the only real hope for true freedom. Our wills, though enslaved by sin, are not beyond redemption. Through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we are set free—not only from the penalty of sin but also from its power over our lives.
Freedom Within the Faith
While Western secularism and Eastern philosophies offer external challenges to the Christian understanding of free will, an internal debate has long raged within the Christian Church itself. This debate centres on how to interpret the biblical data concerning human responsibility and God's sovereignty. The Arminian perspective, which emphasizes human free will to choose or reject salvation, stands in stark contrast to the Calvinist (and thus Christian) understanding of human depravity and divine grace.
Arminianism suggests that while human beings are weakened by sin, they still retain enough freedom to choose salvation. In this view, God’s grace is resistible, meaning that humans have the final say in their own redemption. But this interpretation fails to grasp the full depth of human depravity, as presented in Scripture, and undermines the sovereign nature of God’s grace.
The Calvinist position, by contrast, asserts that man is spiritually dead in his sins (Ephesians 2:1) and completely incapable of choosing God without divine intervention. Free will, as imagined by Arminians, does not exist in the ultimate sense because the human will is enslaved to sin. Paul is explicit about this in Romans 8:7:
"The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so."
Calvin addresses this very issue with great clarity in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. He explains that, while human beings have desires and make choices, their will is utterly bound by sin and cannot choose the good of its own volition:
“Man had received the power if he had the will, but he had not the will, which would have given the power.” (Book I, Chapter 15, Section 8, p. 191)
This statement underscores a crucial theological point: free will, as Arminians conceive it—a completely autonomous will that can choose either good or evil without divine intervention—is a myth. The will, though active, is corrupted by sin and can only be freed by God's grace. Therefore, any choice for God must be the result of God’s prior work in the heart.
Arminians, by positing that man can choose God of his own free will, diminish the role of God’s sovereignty and overlook the clear biblical teaching that salvation is entirely a work of God. As Jesus emphatically states in John 6:44:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them."
This passage refutes the idea that humans can make the first move toward God. It is God’s sovereign act of drawing individuals to Himself that initiates the process of salvation, not human decision-making. This is why Calvinism—which is simply the most faithful exposition of Scripture—insists that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and not through human choice. Paul underscores this truth in Ephesians 2:8-9:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast."
The Arminian insistence on preserving human free will, despite its well-meaning intention, ultimately undermines the sovereignty of God and introduces a semi-Pelagian view that dangerously places human will above God’s will. In this perspective, man becomes the ultimate decider of his salvation, which is contrary to the full biblical teaching that salvation is entirely God's work from beginning to end.
Calvinism, on the other hand, maintains the biblical tension between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility without compromising either. Man is indeed responsible for his actions, but his ability to choose God comes solely through divine grace. As Calvin writes:
"Man had received the power if he had the will, but he had not the will, which would have given the power to continue in righteousness. Adam was free to choose good or evil, but his will was not sovereign. God, in His providence, permitted the fall for reasons that remain hidden in His counsel." (Book I, Chapter 15, Section 8)
This demonstrates that any ability to choose God is not a product of human effort or decision, but entirely of God’s sovereign grace. Arminianism falls short in its failure to account for the totality of human depravity, while Calvinism upholds both the reality of human moral responsibility and the necessity of divine intervention for true freedom.
Human Responsibility and God’s Sovereignty
One of the greatest tensions in Christian theology is the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. Scripture consistently teaches both that God is sovereign over all things and that human beings are morally responsible for their choices. This raises an apparent contradiction: how can humans be held accountable for their actions if God ordains all that occurs?
The resolution to this dilemma lies in understanding the distinction between human desire and outcomes. Calvin’s theology, deeply rooted in Scripture, demonstrates that while humans retain freedom at the level of desire, this freedom is enslaved to sin due to the Fall. As Paul explains in Romans 7:19, “For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.” Here, Paul captures the essence of the fallen will: we continue to desire evil voluntarily, even though we are fully aware of the good.
Calvin affirms that human beings have a real will, but this will is bound by sin, a result of humanity’s fallen nature. He writes, “Man had received the power if he had the will, but he had not the will, which would have given the power to continue in righteousness.” (Book I, Chapter 15, Section 8) This highlights that while humans are free in the sense that they act out their desires, those desires are so corrupted by sin that they cannot will what is good.
Yet, it is on the level of outcomes where God’s sovereignty reigns supreme. While humans plan and act according to their sinful desires, God, in His providence, directs the actual outcomes. As Proverbs 16:9 puts it, “In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps.” Similarly, Proverbs 19:21 states, “Many are the plans in a person's heart, but it is the Lord’s purpose that prevails.” These verses affirm that while people may plot and pursue their own ways, it is ultimately God who sovereignly orders the course of history.
Calvin also addresses this in his Institutes, where he explains that God’s providence governs all events, but human responsibility remains intact. He writes, “The will of God is said to be the cause of all things that happen. But is man, on this account, to be excused, because he cannot be exempted from the divine predestination, or because he is under the influence of God’s providence? Not at all; for the arrangement of divine providence is such that the instrumentality of man, in respect of his voluntary actions, is not less than in regard to those actions which are said to be contingent.” (Book I, Chapter 16, Section 2, p. 207) This statement underlines that, although God’s will controls all things, humans still act freely and voluntarily, even when their choices are sinful.
This interplay between human desire and divine sovereignty is perhaps most profoundly demonstrated in the crucifixion of Christ. Human agents acted with wicked intent, yet their actions fulfilled God’s preordained plan for redemption. Acts 2:23 explains, “This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.” This verse illustrates the paradox of divine sovereignty and human responsibility: while the men who crucified Christ acted of their own will, their actions ultimately fulfilled God’s plan of salvation.
Thus, Calvinism affirms that God’s sovereignty does not negate human responsibility; rather, it affirms that every human action fits within His divine, providential plan. While people are morally responsible for their voluntary choices, the outcomes of those actions are under God’s sovereign control. This dual reality allows for both human accountability and divine sovereignty without contradiction.
God's Sovereign Use of Evil for His Good Purposes
The Christian understanding of God’s sovereignty includes the profound truth that God can use evil to accomplish His good purposes without being the author of evil. While human beings and secondary agents act with evil intent, God permits and directs these actions in such a way that they ultimately fulfil His divine will. This concept is beautifully encapsulated in Genesis 50:20, where Joseph says to his brothers, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” Even the wickedness of Joseph’s brothers was used by God for a greater redemptive purpose, demonstrating His ability to overrule evil.
As J.I. Packer explains, “He orders and controls all things, human actions among them, in accordance with His eternal purpose.” This includes the actions of evil agents, which God sovereignly orchestrates to bring about His righteous ends, though He Himself remains untainted by the evil. Calvin emphasizes this in his Institutes, writing, “God is not the author of sin, and yet by his providence he so overrules all the events of life, that nothing happens without his permission. Not only so: but what happens through the will of man, or in consequence of human deliberation, is governed by his secret counsel, in such a way that it does not happen without his direction.” (Book I, Chapter 16, Section 6, p. 213)
A key distinction in the Christian understanding of providence is that while God is directly responsible for all that is good, His involvement with evil is indirect. James 1:17 affirms this truth: “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.” God stands directly behind every good thing in the world, as the source of all good. Yet, in the same letter, James distances God from being the direct cause of evil, explaining: “When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone. But each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.” (James 1:13-14). This shows that God does not directly inspire evil, but allows it to occur within the realm of human and spiritual rebellion.
D.A. Carson, in his work How Long, O Lord?, articulates this as the asymmetry of God’s sovereignty. Carson explains that while God controls all things, He is not symmetrically involved in both good and evil. God directly causes good—this can be attributed to His Holy Spirit, His direct actions in the world, and His nature. However, God uses evil indirectly, allowing it within His providential plan while remaining untainted by it. Evil actions stem from secondary agents—whether human sinful desires or demonic influences—and God permits these actions but overrules them for His own good purposes.
This asymmetry is crucial to understanding how God can be sovereign over all things while maintaining His holiness and purity. While He is behind all events, good is directly attributable to God through His Spirit, whereas evil is attributable to secondary agents, such as humans or spiritual forces like demons or Satan, though still under God's ultimate control.
Thus, God sovereignly uses evil to achieve good, but He remains untouched by evil’s corruption. This is the heart of divine providence: God overrules all things, even the sinful acts of human beings and evil agents, to bring about His perfect and righteous will. He is the direct cause of all good, while He permits and overrides evil to serve His redemptive purposes.
Christ as the Climax of Sovereignty and Freedom
The ultimate resolution to the problem of free will and God’s sovereignty is found in Jesus Christ. His crucifixion is the most climactic example of God using human wickedness to fulfil His divine purposes. At the cross, we see human will operating in its most depraved form—the rejection and rebellion against the Son of God—while at the same time, God’s sovereign grace is at work, bringing about the redemption of the world.
Acts 2:22-23 makes this tension abundantly clear: “This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.” Here, we see that human evil, expressed in the crucifixion of Jesus, was fully a part of God’s sovereign plan, predetermined by His foreknowledge. Evil men—Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel—acted of their own wicked desires to crucify Christ, but God’s sovereign hand was at work, using their very rebellion to bring about redemption.
This is not an isolated proof text. The entire biblical narrative is at pains to demonstrate that the suffering of Christ, though caused by human sin, was also God’s sovereign will. This is reinforced in Acts 4:26-28, where the early church prays: “The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against his anointed one. Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.”
These passages echo and emphasize that both divine sovereignty and human responsibility are at work in the crucifixion. The Gentiles and the Jews—acting out of wicked motives—gathered against Jesus, but they only did what God’s hand and purpose had determined beforehand. Their rebellion was real and culpable, but it was also within the bounds of God’s sovereign decree.
This is not a new concept. Isaiah 53, written centuries before, prophesied that the suffering of Christ would both be caused by human sin and ordained by God. Isaiah 53:3 says, “He was despised and rejected by mankind,” and Isaiah 53:7 says, “He was oppressed and afflicted.” These verses attribute the direct cause of Christ’s suffering to human agents—people who rejected, oppressed, and afflicted Him. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 reveals that this suffering was also the Lord’s will: “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer.”
The suffering of Christ was both the Lord’s will and the result of human sin. This dual reality is the heart of the biblical narrative. Luke 11 reinforces this by explaining that “the Christ must suffer,” but that suffering was always under the sovereign control of God. The cross was no accident; it was part of God’s eternal plan for the salvation of His people, even as human sin played an active role in carrying it out.
In Christ, the paradox of human freedom and God’s sovereignty finds its perfect resolution. The crucifixion is the ultimate display of human sin and divine grace working together to bring about the redemption of the world. While human agents—Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and the Jews—acted out of their own evil desires, they only did what God had foreordained. In this way, Christ’s death is not just the result of human wickedness, but also the fulfilment of God’s redemptive will.
In Christ, we are set free from the bondage of sin, but this freedom is not for the sake of autonomy or self-rule. It is the freedom to serve God in righteousness. As Paul exclaims in Romans 11:33-36:
“Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! ‘Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counsellor?’ Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them? For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.”
The Irony of Free Will: Why Christianity Makes Better Sense of the World
The Christian doctrine of free will not only explains the paradox of the human condition but also reveals a profound irony: human autonomy, the Western secular ideal of independence and self-determination, leads not to freedom but to slavery and death. This same irony exists in the Eastern perspective of detachment, where the denial of the self leads to a rejection of the very image of God in which we are created. Arminian Christianity, in its attempt to preserve free will, similarly misinterprets the human will by underestimating the depth of sin’s bondage and overestimating human power to choose God. But it is Christianity—properly understood—that offers the only satisfying solution to this dilemma by revealing that true freedom comes only through submission to Christ.
In the secular vision, freedom is defined as independence—the right to live according to our desires, to pursue our own path, and to construct our own identity. But Scripture shows that this kind of freedom is an illusion, because it ignores the reality that the will is enslaved to sin. When we act in supposed autonomy, we are in fact enslaved to our sinful nature. As Paul writes in Romans 6:16, “Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?” Our autonomy is, in truth, nothing more than slavery to sin, leading ultimately to death.
The Eastern rejection of the self as an illusion only deepens this irony, for the self is not something to be denied or dissolved, but something that must be redeemed. We are real beings, made in the image of God, but our will is broken. Rather than detaching from ourselves, Christianity calls us to restore our true selves through the transformative power of Christ. Freedom, therefore, is not about denying the self but about finding our true selves in Christ.
Similarly, the Arminian insistence on free will misreads the human condition. While Arminianism seeks to preserve a sense of human agency, it fails to grasp that true freedom cannot be a matter of human choice alone. The will is enslaved to sin, and we do not have the power to choose God unless God first chooses us. In striving for freedom, Arminianism ironically underestimates human sin and places too much weight on human effort.
Here lies the ultimate paradox and irony of the Christian gospel: it is only by surrendering our independence to Christ—by becoming His slaves, belonging to Him as His possession—that we are truly set free. Human subordination to Christ, which the world views as slavery, actually leads to freedom. In Christ, we are freed not only from the penalty of sin but from slavery to sin itself. As Paul writes in Galatians 5:1, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.”
The Christian message is not about autonomy or independence but about freedom through dependence on God. It is about acknowledging that we cannot save ourselves, and that true freedom comes only through God’s grace. In Christ, our bondage to sin is broken, and we are free to live in righteousness.
This is why Christianity makes sense of the world. It offers the only coherent and satisfying explanation of our experience: we are created by God, we are responsible for our actions, and yet, apart from Christ, our will is enslaved to sin. True freedom, however, is found in submission to God’s will, through grace alone, and in Christ alone.
The irony is profound: we gain true freedom not by claiming independence, but by submitting ourselves fully to Christ. It is only through Him that we can be freed from the bondage of sin and restored to the freedom we were created for.
As Jesus said in John 8:36, “If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” This is the freedom we were made for—not autonomy, but joyful submission to the Lord of life. The paradox of free will is thus resolved in the person and work of Christ, and through Him, we find the true freedom we so desperately seek.
Further Reading: Extended Quotes from Calvin
For those interested in a deeper dive into Calvin's teachings on free will and human responsibility, here are key excerpts from his Institutes of the Christian Religion, with full-length quotes and page numbers based on the John T. McNeill edition.
These extended quotes provide essential insight into Calvin's understanding of human will and God’s sovereignty. By recognizing the depth of human depravity and the necessity of divine grace, Calvin's theology highlights both our responsibility and God’s providential control over all events, demonstrating the biblical balance between these two truths.
Book I, Chapter 15, Section 8 (p. 191):
“Man, at his creation, received the power if he had the will; but he had not the will, which would have given the power to continue in righteousness. Adam was free to choose good or evil, but his will was not sovereign. God, in His providence, permitted the fall for reasons that remain hidden in His counsel. For our will is not forced, so as to be reluctant, but we are of our own will inclined to evil. But it does not follow that we are free, because of necessity the servitude of sin and bondage to corruption are properly parts of our nature, which we cannot escape unless God rescues us by His grace. Therefore, in this sense, man had freedom of will, because if he had had the will, he would also have had the power to choose good; but having lost the will, he has also lost the power."
This demonstrates that while Adam was created with the capacity for free will (desire and choice), it was not an absolute sovereignty over his fate. God’s sovereignty remained paramount, and the allowance of the Fall is attributed to God's mysterious will, which Calvin argues is beyond human comprehension. Adam’s will was free, but it was not perseverant, and this lack of perseverance was not a defect in God's creation but part of His greater plan, the reasons for which are hidden in divine mystery.
This quote also demonstrates that while humanity was initially created with the power to choose good, the Fall resulted in a loss of both the will and the ability to continue in righteousness. Calvin argues that human will is inclined to evil by its own nature, and true freedom can only be restored through God's grace, as sin has enslaved human nature. Thus, while humans are responsible for their choices, they are incapable of choosing good without divine intervention.
(Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter 15, Section 8, p. 191)
Book I, Chapter 16, Section 2 (p. 207):
"The will of God is said to be the cause of all things that happen. But is man, on this account, to be excused, because he cannot be exempted from the divine predestination, or because he is under the influence of God’s providence? Not at all; for the arrangement of divine providence is such that the instrumentality of man, in respect of his voluntary actions, is not less than in regard to those actions which are said to be contingent."
Calvin here underscores that God’s providence directs all events without negating human responsibility. Humanity is not absolved from accountability simply because their actions are part of God’s eternal decree.
(Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter 16, Section 2, p. 207)
Book I, Chapter 16, Section 6 (p. 213):
"God is not the author of sin, and yet by his providence he so overrules all the events of life, that nothing happens without his permission. Not only so: but what happens through the will of man, or in consequence of human deliberation, is governed by his secret counsel, in such a way that it does not happen without his direction."
In this passage, Calvin balances God’s providential rule with human freedom, clarifying that while God permits sin, He is not its author.
(Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter 16, Section 6, p. 213)
Book I, Chapter 18, Section 1 (p. 233):
"They sin, therefore, with their own evil disposition, and by their own will. But as God, in his righteous judgment, turns all evil actions of men to good, he is said to perform his work by their means."
This reinforces the idea that God allows human sin but uses even evil acts to accomplish His purposes. This is the principle of concurrence—human actions, while sinful, are within God’s sovereign control and are directed to His ultimate plan.
(Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter 18, Section 1, p. 233)
Book II, Chapter 2, Section 5 (p. 259):
"Man, by his fall, was deprived of this freedom of will, and instead of the self-command which he enjoyed, was reduced to a state of miserable bondage. This is not a bondage which compels him by external force to sin, but a bondage which is the result of the corruption of his heart, so that he cannot move or act but in the direction of evil."
This quote demonstrates Calvin's doctrine of total depravity—human beings, after the Fall, are not only weakened by sin but are in bondage to it, leaving them unable to act in any way that pleases God without divine grace.
(Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Chapter 2, Section 5, p. 259)
Book II, Chapter 2, Section 8 (p. 262):
"If any man were to maintain that man is still able to choose good, I would deny it; but that he is unwilling to do good I allow: though in a way not opposed to the view that he has no power, because if he had the will, he would also have the power. However, now that man’s will is bound to sin, he cannot will what is good. That is why he needs to be regenerated, for until the will is corrected by grace, it only wants and chooses evil."
Here Calvin clarifies that while humans retain the ability to will, they lack the desire for good without divine regeneration. Man is free in one sense, but his will is entirely bound by sin, illustrating the need for grace.
(Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Chapter 2, Section 8, p. 262)
Bibliography
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume I. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Edited by John T. McNeill. Westminster John Knox Press, 1960.
Carson, D.A. How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil. Baker Academic, 2006.
Frankfurt, Harry. “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person.” Journal of Philosophy, 1979, pp. 5–20.
Garfield, Jay L. “Just Another Word for Nothing Left to Lose: Freedom, Agency, and Ethics for Mādhyamikas.” In Free Will, Agency, and Selfhood in Indian Philosophy, edited by Matthew R. Dasti and Edwin F. Bryant. Oxford University Press, 2014.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 2nd ed. Zondervan, 1994.
Packer, J. I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. IVP Books, 2012.
Schoeman, Ferdinand, and Susan Wolf. “Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility.” In Responsibility, Character, and the Emotions, edited by Schoeman. Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp. 46–62.
The Holy Bible, New International Version. Zondervan Publishing House, 2011.
Towns, Elijah. "Do We Have Free Will?" HPH105 Essay, University of Tasmania, 2024.
Special Thanks
I'm gratefully indebted to my son, Elijah Towns, for his significant contributions to this article through his foundational work on his essay. His deep engagement with the free will debate has been instrumental in shaping this article. Portions of his original academic paper have been adapted and expanded for this blog post, providing rich insight into the philosophical and theological perspectives discussed here, particularly his research into Susan Wolf’s work on secular morality and Jay Garfield’s interpretations of Mādhyamaka philosophy.
Acknowledgements
I've used ChatGPT to assist in creating and editing this article; however, all insights, arguments, and original content presented here are wholly my own.
