We are not "robots" by any stretch of the imagination. One of the fallacies of "predestination" is that once "predestinated", your on a path and there is no way to deviate from it. If you come to a fork in the road, you go left, God predestinated that.
Bunk!
Man indeed has a "will". But the heart of the matter is just how "free" it is.
Arthur Pink shows us just how this works. There are three types of people.
- Adam
- Jesus
- Descendants of Adam
The debate hinges around just how free our will is. In Adam, he was created in a state of innocence. He was able to be swayed towards evil.
Jesus, God in the flesh, knew what evil was, and therefor, could not sin. He was perfect.
Pink puts it this way:
"In unfallen Adam the will was
free, free in
both directions, free toward good and free toward evil. Adam was created in a state of
Innocency, but not in a state of holiness, as is so often assumed and asserted. Adam’s will was therefore in a condition of moral equipoise: that is to say, in Adam there was no constraining
bias in him toward either good or evil, and as such, Adam differed radically from all his descendants, as well as from "the Man Christ Jesus." But with the sinner it is far otherwise. The sinner is born with a will that is
not in a condition of moral equipoise, because in him there is a heart that is "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked," and this gives him
a bias toward evil. So, too, with the Lord Jesus it was far otherwise: He also differed radically from unfallen Adam. The Lord Jesus Christ
could not sin because He was "the Holy One of God." Before He was born into this world it was said to Mary, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also
that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). Speaking reverently then, we say, that the will of the Son of Man was
not in a condition of moral equipoise, that is, capable of turning toward either good or evil. The will of the Lord Jesus was
biased toward that which is good because, side by side with His sinless, holy, perfect humanity, was His eternal Deity. Now in contradistinction from the will of the Lord Jesus which was biased toward good, and Adam’s will which, before his fall, was in a condition of moral equipoise—capable of turning toward either good or evil—the
sinner’s will is
biased toward evil, and therefore is free in one direction only, namely, in the direction of evil. The sinner’s will is
enslaved because it is in bondage to and is the servant of a depraved heart."
Source
The descendants of Adam, you and I, were born in sin. We are told that prior to salvation, we were in bondage to sin. This is where "depravity" comes into play. Man is depraved, totally, but not utterly. There is something that causes us to choose the left or right.
Pink puts it this way:
"What is the Will? We answer, the will is the faculty of choice, the immediate cause of all action. Choice necessarily implies the refusal of one thing and the acceptance of another. The positive and the negative must both be present to the mind before there can be any choice. In every act of the will there is a preference—the desiring of one thing rather than another. Where there is no preference, but complete indifference, there is no volition. To will is to choose, and to choose is to decide between two or more alternatives. But there is something which
influences the choice; something which
determines the decision. Hence the will cannot be sovereign because it is the servant of that something. The will cannot be both sovereign and servant. It cannot be both cause and effect. The will
is not causative, because, as we have said, something causes it
to choose, therefore that something must be the causative agent. Choice itself is affected by certain considerations, is determined by various influences brought to bear
upon the individual himself, hence, volition is the effect of these considerations and influences, and if the effect, it must be their
servant; and if the will is their servant then it is not sovereign, and if the will is
not sovereign, we certainly cannot predicate absolute "freedom" of it. Acts of the will cannot come to pass of themselves—to say they can, is to postulate an
uncaused effect.
Ex nihilo nihil fit—nothing cannot produce something.
In all ages, however, there have been those who contended for the absolute freedom or sovereignty of the human will. Men will argue that the will possesses a
self-determining power. They say, for example, I can turn my eyes up or down, the mind is quite indifferent which I do, the will must decide. But this is a contradiction in terms. This case supposes that I choose one thing in preference to another, while I am in a state of complete indifference. Manifestly, both cannot be true. But it may be replied, the mind was quite indifferent until it came to have a preference. Exactly; and at that time the will was quiescent, too! But the moment indifference vanished, choice was made, and the fact that indifference gave place to preference, overthrows the argument that the will is capable of choosing between two equal things. As we have said, choice implies the acceptance of one alternative and the rejection of the other or others.
That which determines the will is that which causes it to choose. If the will is determined, then there must be a determiner.
What is it that determines the will? We reply, The strongest motive power which is brought to bear upon it. What this motive power is, varies in different cases. With one it may be the logic of reason, with another the voice of conscience, with another the impulse of the emotions, with another the whisper of the Tempter, with another the power of the Holy Spirit; whichever of these presents the
strongest motive power and exerts the
greatest influence
upon the individual himself, is that which impels the will to act. In other words, the action of the will is determined by that condition of mind (which in turn is influenced by the world, the flesh, and the Devil, as well as by God), which has the greatest degree of tendency to excite volition. To illustrate what we have just said let us analyze a simple example—On a certain Lord’s day afternoon a friend of ours was suffering from a severe headache. He was anxious to visit the sick, but feared that if he did so his own condition would grow worse, and as the consequence, be unable to attend the preaching of the Gospel that evening. Two alternatives confronted him: to visit the sick that afternoon and risk being sick himself, or, to take a rest that afternoon (and visit the sick the next day), and probably arise refreshed and fit for the evening service. Now what was it that decided our friend in choosing between these two alternatives? The
will? Not at all. True, that in the end, the will made a choice, but the will itself was
moved to make the choice. In the above case certain considerations presented strong motives for selecting either alternative; these motives were balanced the one against the other
by the individual himself, i.e., his heart and mind, and the one alternative being supported by stronger motives than the other, decision was formed accordingly,
and then the will acted. On the one side, our friend felt impelled by a sense of duty to visit the sick; he was moved with compassion to do so, and thus a strong motive was presented to his mind. On the other hand, his judgment reminded him that he was feeling far from well himself, that he badly needed a rest, that if he visited the sick his own condition would probably be made worse, and in such case he would be prevented from attending the preaching of the Gospel that night; furthermore, he knew that on the morrow, the Lord willing, he could visit the sick, and this being so, he concluded he ought to rest that afternoon. Here then were two sets of alternatives presented to our Christian brother: on the one side was a sense of duty plus his own sympathy, on the other side was a sense of his own need plus a real concern for God’s glory, for he felt that he
ought to attend the preaching of the Gospel that night. The latter prevailed. Spiritual considerations outweighed his sense of duty. Having formed his decision the will acted accordingly, and he retired to rest. An analysis of the above case shows that the mind or reasoning faculty was directed by spiritual considerations, and the mind regulated and controlled the will. Hence we say that, if the will is
controlled, it is neither sovereign nor free, but is the servant of the mind.
It is only as we see the real nature of freedom and mark that the will is subject to the motives brought to bear upon it, that we are able to discern there is no conflict between two statements of Holy Writ which concern our blessed Lord. In Matthew 4:1 we read, "Then was Jesus
led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil;" but in Mark 1:12, 13 we are told, "And immediately the Spirit
driveth Him into the wilderness. And He was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan". It is utterly impossible to harmonize these two statements by the Arminian conception of the will. But really there is no difficulty. That Christ was "driven", implies it was by a forcible motive or powerful impulse, such as was not to be resisted or refused; that He was "led" denotes His freedom in going. Putting the two together we learn, that He was
driven, with a voluntary condescension thereto. So, there is the liberty of man’s will and the victorious efficacy of God’s grace united together: a sinner may be "drawn" and yet "come" to Christ—the "drawing" presenting to him the irresistible motive, the "coming" signifying the response of his will—as Christ was "driven" and "led" by the Spirit into the wilderness.
Human philosophy insists that it is the will which governs the man, but the Word of God teaches that it is the
heart which is the dominating center of our being. Many scriptures might be quoted in substantiation of this. "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for
out of it are the issues of life" (Prov. 4:23). "For from within,
out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders," etc. (Mark 7
:21). Here our Lord traces these sinful acts back to their source, and declares that their fountain is the "heart," and not the will! Again; "This people draweth nigh unto Me with their lips, but
their heart is far from Me" (Matt. 15:8). If further proof were required we might call attention to the fact that the word "heart" is found in the Bible more than three times oftener than is the word "will," even though nearly half of the references to the latter refer to
God’s will!
When we affirm that it is the
heart and not the will which governs the man, we are not merely striving about words, but insisting on a distinction that is of vital importance. Here is an individual before whom two alternatives are placed; which will he choose? We answer, the one which is most agreeable to himself, i.e., his "heart"—the innermost core of his being. Before the sinner is set a life of virtue and piety, and a life of sinful indulgence; which will he follow? The latter. Why? Because this is his choice. But does that prove the will is sovereign? Not at all. Go back from effect to cause.
Why does the sinner choose a life of sinful indulgence? Because he
prefers it—and he
does prefer it, all arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, though of course he does not enjoy the
effects of such a course. And why does he prefer it? Because his
heart is sinful. The same alternatives, in like manner, confront the Christian, and he chooses and strives after a life of piety and virtue. Why? Because God has given him a
new heart or nature. Hence we say it is not
the will which makes the sinner impervious to all appeals to "forsake his way," but his corrupt and evil
heart. He will not come to Christ,
because be does not want to, and he does not want to because his
heart hates Him and loves sin: see Jeremiah 17 :9!"
Source
yes, man has a will, and he exercises it most well. But according to scripture, man follows his heart, and at the heart of man, before salvation, is evil. It is only after salvation that free from the bondage to sin.
No, man is not a robot, and man is not predestinated to go left when he should have gone right. And no matter what, before salvation, and after, man has to answer for his actions. The exception is, after salvation, all the sin of the past is forgotten, forgiven, never remembered again, cast as far as the east is from west.
After salvation, we certainly will sin, try as we might not to, we are still in this body of flesh where sin and holiness are at war with each other, if we sin, we can ask for forgiveness.
God Bless
Till all are one.
