REFUTATION OF THE OBJECTIONS COMMONLY PUT FORWARD IN DEFENSE OF FREE WILL
15. THE “WORKS” ARE OURS BY GOD’S GIFT, BUT GOD’S BY HIS PROMPTING
Hence it appears that God’s grace, as this word is understood in discussing regeneration, is the rule of the Spirit to direct and regulate man’s will. The Spirit cannot regulate without correcting, without reforming, without renewing. For this reason we say that the beginning of our regeneration is to wipe out what is ours. Likewise, he cannot carry out these functions without moving, acting, impelling, bearing, keeping. Hence we are right in saying that all the actions that arise from grace are wholly his. Meanwhile, we do not deny that what Augustine teaches is very true: “Grace does not destroy the will but rather restores it.” f195 The two ideas are in substantial agreement: the will of man is said to be restored when, with its corruption and depravity corrected, it is directed to the true rule of righteousness. At the same time a new will is said to be created in man, because the natural will has become so vitiated and corrupted that he considers it necessary to put a new nature within.
Nothing now prevents us from saying that we ourselves are fitly doing what God’s Spirit is doing in us, even if our will contributes nothing of itself distinct from his grace. Therefore we must keep in mind what we have elsewhere cited from Augustine: f196 in vain, people busy themselves with finding any good of man’s own in his will. For any mixture of the
power of free will that men strive to mingle with God’s grace is nothing but a corruption of grace. It is just as if one were to dilute wine with muddy, bitter water. But even if there is something good in the will, it comes from the pure prompting of the Spirit. Yet because we are by nature endowed with will, we are with good reason said to do those things the praise for which God rightly claims for himself: first, because whatever God out of his lovingkindness does in us is ours, provided we understand that it is not of our doing; secondly, because ours is the mind, ours the will, ours the striving, which he directs toward the good.
16. <010407>
GENESIS 4:7
The other evidence that they rake together from here and there will not much bother even those of moderate understanding who have duly absorbed the refutations just given. Our opponents cite this statement from Genesis: “Its appetite will be under you, and you shall master it”
[<010407>Genesis 4:7 p., cf. Vg.]. This they apply to sin, as if the Lord had
promised Cain that the power of sin would not have the upper hand in his mind, if he willed to work toward conquering it! f197 But we maintain that it is more in keeping with the order of the words that this verse should be applied to Abel. For there it is God’s intention to reprove the wicked envy that Cain had conceived against his brother. God does this in two ways.
First, Cain vainly planned a crime whereby he might excel his brother in the sight of God, before whom there is no honor except that of
righteousness. Secondly, he was too ungrateful for the blessing that he had received of God, and could not bear his brother even though he was under his authority.
But lest we seem to espouse this interpretation because the other one is contrary to our view, well, let us concede to them that God was speaking here of sin. If this is so, then the Lord is either promising or commanding what he here declares. If he is commanding, we have already demonstrated that no proof of human capacity follows. If he is promising, where is the fulfillment of the promise when Cain yields to sin, which he ought to master? Will they say that there is a tacit condition included in the promise, as if it were said: “If you fight, you will achieve victory”? But who can stomach such evasions? For if this mastery refers to sin, no one can doubt that form of speech is imperative, defining not what we can do,
but what we ought to do — even if it is beyond our power. However, both the matter itself and the principles of grammar require that Cain and Abel be compared, for the first-born brother would not have been subordinate to the younger had he not been worse through his own crime.
17. <450916>ROMANS 9:16; <460309>1 CORINTHIANS 3:9
They also use the testimony of the apostle: “So it depends not upon him who wills or upon him who runs but upon God who shows mercy”
[<450916>
Romans 9:16]. From this they derive the notion that there is something in man’s will and effort which, although feeble in itself, when aided by God’s mercy does not fail to yield a favorable outcome. f198 Now if they were soberly to weigh what matter Paul is discussing here, they would not misinterpret this statement so rashly. I know that they can cite Origen and Jerome in support of their exposition, I could in turn oppose Augustine f199 to these. But what these hold makes no difference to us, provided we understand what Paul means. There he teaches that salvation has been prepared only for those whom the Lord deems worthy of his mercy, while ruin and death remain for all those whom He has not chosen. Paul had pointed out the destiny of the wicked by the example of Pharaoh [<450917>Romans 9:17]. He had also confirmed by the testimony of Moses the certainty of free election: “I shall have mercy on whom I shall have mercy” [<450915>Romans 9:15; <023319>Exodus 33:19]. He concludes,
“It depends not upon him who wills or him who runs, but upon God who shows mercy.” [<450916>Romans 9:16.] But if it were understood in this way — that will and effort are not sufficient because they are unequal to such a load — what Paul said would have been inappropriate. Away then with these subtleties! It depends not upon him who wills or him who runs;
therefore there is some will, there is some running.
Paul’s meaning is simpler: it is not the will; it is not the running that prepares the way to salvation for us. Only the mercy of the Lord is here.
Paul speaks in this very way to Titus when he writes: “When the goodness and loving-kindness of God... appeared... not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own infinite mercy”
[<560304>Titus 3:4-5 p.]. Some persons prattle that Paul hinted there was
some will and some running because he denied that “it depends on him
who wills or upon him who runs” [<450916>Romans 9:16 p.]. Yet not even they would grant me the right to reason along the same lines: that we do some good works, because Paul denies that we attain to God’s goodness by virtue of the works that we have done. But if they detect a flaw in this argument, let them open their eyes and they will perceive that their own suffers from a like fallacy, it is a firm reason that Augustine relies on: “If therefore it were said that, ‘It depends not upon him who wills or upon him who runs’ [<450916>
Romans 9:16] because willing or running alone is not sufficient, then one can turn the argument around: that it does not depend upon God’s mercy, because it would not act alone.” Since this second argument is absurd, Augustine rightly concludes: therefore this is said because man has no good will unless it be prepared by the Lord. Not that we ought not to will and to run; but because God accomplishes both in us. f200
Certain persons just as ignorantly twist that saying of Paul’s: “We are God’s co-workers” [<460309>
1 Corinthians 3:9]. f201 This is without a doubt restricted to ministers alone. Moreover they are called “co-workers” not because they bring anything of themselves, but because God uses their work after he has rendered them capable of it and has furnished them with the necessary gifts.