I'm referring to this article: [What Is Free Will?](https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/chosen-by-god/what-is-free-will) , which is a transcript of a sermon by Reformed Theologian [R.C. Sproul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._C._Sproul) (a video recording of the sermon is available in the same article). I highly recommend reading the article (or watching the video) before posting an answer. The article contains the following sections: - Spontaneous Choice - No Moral Significance - A Rational Impossibility - The Mind Choosing - The Strongest Desire - Your Money or Your Life - “What I Want, I Do Not Do” - Free and Determined - Sinners Want to Sin - In Bondage to Sin Notice that Sproul doesn't exactly use the term "[libertarian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)) free will", but he argues against what he calls "Spontaneous Choice", which for all practical purposes appears to be equivalent to the libertarian understanding of free will. **Question**: How do Christians who believe in libertarian free will respond to R.C. Sproul's critique in the article "What Is Free Will?"? _____ **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89782/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/48979/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/54588/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83687/50422 _____ **Appendix - Quotes from the article** Below relevant quotes from the article (emphasis mine): > **If God predestines people to salvation, then what about free will? Doesn't the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination override human free will? What about choice?** Considering the doctrine of divine election in this message, Dr. Sproul discusses some of the fundamentally wrong assumptions people have when they think of free will. > I want to direct our attention to an examination of what we mean by the words free will. What does it mean to have a free will? **What does it mean to be a free moral agent, a volitional creature under the sovereignty of God?** > > First of all, let me say that there are different views of what free will comprises that are bandied about in our culture. I think it’s important that we recognize these various views. > ### Spontaneous Choice > The first view is what I’m going to call the “humanist” view of free will, which I would say is the most widely prevalent view of human freedom that we find in our culture. I’m sad to say that, in my opinion, it’s the most widely held view within the church as well as outside the church. > > **In this scheme, free will is defined as our ability to make choices spontaneously**. **That is, the choices we make are in no wise conditioned or determined by any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Let me say that again: this view says that we make our choices spontaneously**. Nothing previous to the choice determines the choice—no prejudice, prior disposition, or prior inclination—**the choice comes literally on its own as a spontaneous action by the person**. > > **I see at the outset two serious problems that we face as Christians with this definition of free will. The first is a theological, moral problem and the second is a rational problem**. I should really say that there are three problems because the whole lecture will focus on the third one, but, at the outset, we immediately see two problems. > ### No Moral Significance > The first is, as I said, a theological, moral problem. **If our choices are made purely spontaneously, without any prior inclination or disposition, then in a sense we’re saying that there is no reason for the choice. There is no motive for the choice; it just happens spontaneously.** > > **If that is the way our choices operate, then we immediately face this problem: how could such an action have any moral significance at all? This is because one of the things the Bible is concerned about in the choices we make is not only what we choose, but also what our intention is in the making of that choice.** > > We recall, for example, the story of Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers. When he has this reunion with his brothers many years later, and they repent of that former sin, what does Joseph say to his brothers? When he accepts them and forgives them, he says, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20). God made a choice in the matter. God had chosen, at least, to allow this to happen and to befall Joseph. His brothers made a choice about what to do with Joseph. Their inclination in the making of that choice was wicked. God also made a choice in allowing it to take place, but God’s intention in this activity was altogether righteous and holy. > > So God, in considering a good deed, not only examines the outward deed itself (the action), but He also considers the inner motivation (the intent behind the deed). But if there are no inner motivations, if there is no real intentionality (to use the philosophical term), then how could the action be of any moral significance? It just happens. > ### A Rational Impossibility > **Even deeper than that problem, the humanist view immediately faces the question of whether or not such a choice could actually be made. That is, the question is not simply whether it would be moral if it were made, but whether a creature without any prior disposition, inclination, bent, or reason could even make a choice**. > > Let’s look at this by way of a couple of examples. What is attractive about the idea that I have no prior inclination or disposition is that my will would be neutral. It is inclined neither to the left nor to the right. It is neither inclined toward righteousness nor toward evil but is simply neutral. There is no previous bent or inclination to it. > > I think of the story of Alice in Wonderland when Alice, in her travels, comes to the fork in the road, and she can’t decide whether to take the left fork or the right fork. She looks up, and there is the Cheshire Cat in the tree, grinning at her. She asks of the Cheshire Cat, “Which road should I take?” And the Cheshire Cat replies by saying: “That depends. Where are you going?” Alice says, “I don’t know.” Then what does he say? “Then I guess it doesn’t matter.” > > If you have no intent, no plan, no desire to get anywhere, what difference does it make whether you take the left or the right? In that situation, we look at it and think, “Alice now has two choices: she can go to the left, or she can go to the right.” But really she has four choices: she can go to the left, she can go to the right, she can turn and go back where she came from, or she can stand there and do nothing until she perishes from her inactivity, which is also a choice. > > So, she has four choices, and the question we’re going to ask is: Why would she make any of those four choices? If she has no reason or inclination behind the choice, if her will is utterly neutral, what would happen to her? If there is no reason to prefer the left to the right, nor to prefer standing there to going back, what choice would she make? She wouldn’t make a choice. She would be paralyzed. > > **The problem we have with the humanist notion of freedom is the old problem of the rabbit out of the hat, but without a hat and without a magician. It is something coming out of nothing, an effect without a cause. A spontaneous choice, in other words, is a rational impossibility. It would have to be an effect without a cause**. > > **I would add that, from a biblical perspective, man in his fallenness is not seen as being in a state of neutrality with respect to the things of God. He does have a prejudice. He does have a bias. He does have an inclination, and his inclination is toward wickedness and away from the things of God**. I just say that in passing as we look at various Christian views of the freedom of the will.

I was watching this video on YouTube by R.C. Sproul and it discussed the Sensus Literalis, and how genre matters. One comment that surpised me was that, Sproul says it may take a lot of technical work to work out what the genre a book is in. The example that he uses for this is Jonah. Sproul discusses how this has elements of fable or elements of poetry, but then he comes down onto the bog-standard historical position. Are there any books that seem historical where Sproul did not come down onto the historical position? Job is the obvious candidate, but I haven't been able to find anything on it.

In "How Should I Think about Money?" Dr RC Sproul states on page 41: >God instituted in the nation of Israel a law against the debasing of currency He further gives the example of coin clipping, which is reducing the actual metal content of a coin, thereby debasing it's actual value. However, he provides no scriptural reference for this statement. The only prohibition that comes to my mind is that condemning dishonest scales, like Proverbs 11:1, among many, but that is very different from debasing a unit of exchange (aka, currency).

In discussions of theologians who take the continental Reformed view of the 2nd commandment (as opposed to the Westminster / Puritan view), people often point out this brief quote by R.C. Sproul: > Yet Scripture allows for images that depict the humanity of Jesus as well as pictures of redemptive events and themes in our churches. I have not found where he elaborates on this view. Does anybody know in what work he goes into detail on what depictions of Christ in art he would or would not allow and specifically what Scripture he would cite as allowing it? Secondarily, citations of other Reformed theologians1 taking this position and defending it would be of interest as well. 1 Note I'm specifically looking for arguments and Scriptural defense by notable and generally respected Reformed theologians, not just any logical arguments. I can come up with plenty of reasoning myself.

In *What Is Reformed Theology?* R. C. Sproul attributes the following quote to [Roger Nicole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nicole) , a 20th century Reformed theologian: > We are all born Pelagians. ([source](https://books.google.com/books?id=fYoLvbuIOUgC&pg=PA180&dq=sproul+ "we+are+all+born+pelagians")) By this, Sproul means to say that all people naturally have [Pelagian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism) tendencies, that is, we innately believe we have the ability to choose to do good without God's aid. My question, however, relates not to Pelagianism itself but to the origin of this quote. Was Roger Nicole the first to say it? Or did some earlier theologian say it first?

[R. C. Sproul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._C._Sproul) discusses and defends the Trinity in this book, [*What is the Trinity?*](http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-trinity/) He explains that God is one *essence*, composed of three *persons*, and that the existence of three persons in one essence does not contradict the law of non-contradiction. Now, what does he mean by 'essence'? Why does he use the term 'essence' instead of 'entity'? Does he use the term 'essence' in the same way he would use it in 'the essence of a squirrel' or 'all the squirrelness about the squirrel that makes up the squirrel'? I realize that there is a similar question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15659/what-do-we-mean-by-person But this one is more focused on the word, *essence*, which I believe is a technical term in Christianity, not the word *person*.