Member elopez has posted a nicely thought out defense of his position. I enjoyed reading it, but not necessarily agreeing with it.
For example, elopez notes:
What free will does not mean then is that man has the ability to save himself. This is a indeterminist position known as libertarianism, and preaches man does have the ability to do such. I find that view on free will to be false as it is not Biblical.
As stated, prior to his defining exactly what he views "free will" to mean, the above resonates well with my own and all Reformed believers.
But, when considering regeneration—"re-birth", "born again"—elopez goes on to observe (
emphasis below is my own):
So God bestows us with the Holy Spirit who brings conviction, and this is an external factor, yet we notice it does in fact force us to do something we do not want, which is the natural desire to sin. This has a huge ramification as we realize in this occurrence it appears that even by the definition I supplied one would not have free will, yet this does not mean free will all together ceases to exist. What this does mean is that there are instances in which one's free will is meddled with. I believe this imposing of the will is only in the instance of God first making 'contact' with an individual, and from there on out one sustains free will. Notice that when the Spirit comes to us we are not free because it forces us to do something we do not desire, to abstain from sin.
In the above elopez reveals a nuance that I would disagree with. Regeneration, as I understand it from Scripture, is an instantaneous singular act via the ordinary means of the hearing of the Good News by which the Holy Spirit replaces the heart of stone of the lost (Eze. 36:26) such that the lost is now morally capable of choosing the righteousness of God and in fact will do nothing but choose as such. Contrary to elopez, at the moment of regeneration, there is no forcing of the will for that will no longer is captive to its former state of inability to do anything but sin more or sin less. Elopez affirms a view that has God spiritually assaulting the lost in an overwhelming display of power of the Spirit versus affirming the view I see from Scripture that the lost, prior to regeneration
- is
deceitful and
desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
- is
full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
-
loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19);
- is unrighteous, does not understand,
does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12);
- is
helpless and
ungodly (Rom. 5:6);
- is
dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1);
- is by nature a
child of wrath (Eph. 2:3);
-
cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); and
- is a
slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).
It seems to me from the above small sampling of the many teachings in Holy Writ about the
total inability of the lost, that they have
no moral ability to seek after the righteousness of God. It is only
when God the Holy Spirit
regeneratively replaces their lost hearts of stone with one of flesh (Eze. 36:26) that the lost are given the moral ability to believe and then
irrevocably evidence
the fruit of their regeneration—faith and repentance.
Lastly, elopez later provides the reader with a definition of "free will":
free will is defined as the freedom of the mind and freedom to act, not in a libertarian sense
I struggle here to reconcile what on its surface looks as a solid starting point, but clashes with what has come earlier. For me, the state of the lost as I have noted above, in no way limits there freedom to act, especially in the sense of being able to choose contrary to what they have so chosen (libertarianism). Indeed, the lost are free to act, but all their acts are at enmity with God, even their acts of civil good, such as giving to charity, helping the old lady across the road, etc., for these acts are done with the wrong motive—not for the glory of God.
From what I state above about the moral state of the lost, that is, they are quite spiritually dead, elopez will have to flesh out what he believes to be the state of the unregenerated person. For me, the lost and the regenerated believer are only able to choose according to their greatest inclinations at the moment they so choose. In the case of the unregenerate, their inclinations, as I have noted above, are bound by their state of moral inability to in any way choose what is "good" in the eyes of God. The lost, fallen in Adam, possess no remnant of prevenient grace, such that they can cooperate with their own moment of re-birth. To claim otherwise is to argue those that hear the Good News are somehow more wise, more informed, more willing, than their neighbors. This makes God a debtor, enables means of boasting, and robs God of all the glory for our salvation.
I would ask elopez, "What exactly is this sustained free will after 'first contact' with God that exists after regeneration?" I get a sense he is closer to my own and the Reformed views than he realizes, but is encumbered with some inchoate notions of what "free will" means in the face of a sovereign God.
The definition expressed in the post is essentially chalking our free will up to nothing more than a perception...an illusion if you will.
