Question about Free Will

[callmeMurph]

I'm trying to figure out what Calvinists believe about free will, or the lack of it. Do I make any free choices? Am I like a puppet and God just makes be do what he wants?

I guess I'm kind of confused because I know I work through decisions in my head and make choices. Can you explain to me how it "works"? Thanks

 

[BrotherMatthew]

So far as I understand(I've not fully studied the writings of Calvin) our ability to make decisions is not lacking. We are not simply robots being forced to do things. However our free will is a slave to sin, the natural inclination of our will is to sin. That is until we are set free by Christ; our spirit reborn. So while we can choose, naturally we choose things contrary to God.

 

[Anoetos]

We are perfectly free to will and to do according to our nature.

Dogs act like dogs, they make the choices that a dog would make. Cats behave like cats and make feline choices. Sinners sin and do so according to their own will.

Often when people speak of free will, they mean the ability to choose to believe. But according to the bible, for a sinner this is not possible without God first giving them a new heart and making them into a new creation. In biblical terms, for a sinner to choose to believe the Gospel without God regenerating them is something like a cat choosing to behave like an ape or some other animal.

The analogy is simplistic, we are not made into a different order of creature when we are born again, but we are fundamentally changed. Our will is no longer in bondage to sin as the Bible describes it. We are now adopted sons and daughters and coheirs with Christ and at the same time His subjects and servants, repurposed to His will.

 

[callmeMurph]

What about people who choose not to sin but aren't Christians?

 

[Tallen]

What about people who choose not to sin but aren't Christians?

This is not possible. How can a non-believer not sin?

 

[Tallen]

Here it is in a nut shell, from the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Chapter IX:

Of Free Will​

9:1 God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil (Deu_30:19; Mat_17:12; Jam_1:14).

9:2 Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good, and well pleasing to God (Gen_1:26; Ecc_7:29); but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it (Gen_2:16, Gen_2:17; Gen_3:6).

9:3 Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation (Joh_15:5; Rom_5:6; Rom_8:7): so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good (Rom_3:10, Rom_3:12), and dead in sin (Eph_2:1, Eph_2:5; Col_2:13), is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto (Joh_6:44, Joh_6:65; 1Co_2:14; Eph_2:2-5; Tit_3:3-5).

9:4 When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin (Joh_8:34, Joh_8:36; Col_1:13); and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good (Rom_6:18, Rom_6:22; Phi_2:13); yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil (Rom_7:15, Rom_7:18, Rom_7:19, Rom_7:21, Rom_7:23; Gal_5:17).

9:5 The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone, in the state of glory only (Eph_4:13; Heb_12:23; 1Jo_3:2; Jud_1:24).

 

[Hammster]

What about people who choose not to sin but aren't Christians?

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

 

[callmeMurph]

This is not possible. How can a non-believer not sin?

I didn't mean never sinning. I just meant when you have a choice to sin or not and you choose not to.

 

[Hammster]

I didn't mean never sinning. I just meant when you have a choice to sin or not and you choose not to.

Unless one is doing something for the glory of God, they are sinning.

 

[Tallen]

I didn't mean never sinning. I just meant when you have a choice to sin or not and you choose not to.

Within Calvinism/Reformed thought it is the ability to do spiritual good to merit salvation that is impossible for man. All men may do some good deeds, for instance a mother who cares for her child. This is a good deed and comes from her own will. But it does not merit salvation for that mother. An unbeliever may stop the murder of another person, but again, it doesn't earn that person's salvation even though it was a willful act against sin and consider extremely good. All actions of man, although they may have good intention and be morally responsible, can not earn him salvation. IOW, any person can will to do good, and they should, but no one has merited YHWH's salvation based upon their good intentions and actions.

It is not the Reformed position that man has no will of his own. It is the Reformed position that man is a limited, fallible being, and his will acts according to his nature. It is only when YHWH converts a sinner, and transforms his nature, that he is then freed to do spiritual good keeping him in the favor/blessing of YHWH. Obedience being the covenant response to conversion and faith being what is pleasing to Him. But still, until The Resurrection, the converted wrestle with sin and the fallen nature.

 

[awakened777]

If you are a non christian all you choose is sin

Romans 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; for it does not submit to God's law; indeed it cannot.

 

[kenrapoza]

Romans 3 quoting from the Old Testament:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
"Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
"Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known."
"There is no fear of God before their eyes."

 

[BrotherBob]

I believe that "free will" is a misnomer. By definition "free will" is
that human beings are able to choose their actions without being
caused to do so by external forces. We know without the influence
of God we cannot be saved. I will admit to self will.

 

[theseed]

2 Thess. 2, The Holy Spirit holds back lawlessness, which will no longer be after the rapture. If when a sinner does not sin, it is because of God's grace.

 

[BrotherBob]

The God and Lord of all things, who created all things exceedingly good, and foreknew that evil would rise out of good, and also knew that it pertained to His most omnipotent goodness to bring good out of evil things rather than not to permit evil things to be ..., so ordained the life of angels and men that in it He might first of all show what free will could do, and then what the blessing of His grace and the verdict of His justice could do.

John Calvin - Institutes of the Christian Religion

 

[Kennesaw42]

Note to CallMeMurph:
I agree with what my brothers/sisters have said above re free will and the reformed understanding of what the scriptures teach on it.
Let me just add a thought which has helped me on this and like points of tension (what some mistakenly call contradictions) in biblical teaching.
If God is who He declares himself to be in scripture, if his ways are not our ways and his thoughts not our thoughts, if he is, as the Westminster Catechism declares, "a Spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth," then it stands to reason (the reason He has given us, part of our being "made in his image") that there will be many points of theology that involve paradox. This is true of the doctrine of the trinity, one God in three Persons. It is true of the incarnation, Christ being made in the form of sinful man, God in the flesh. And it is true of the tension between election (God's sovereign grace in choosing a people for himself) and man's free will.
We get into trouble (and heresy) when we try to rationalize these paradoxes. Look at the cults (JWs, Mormons) who deny the deity of Christ and thus the Trinity. Look at the liberal churches that deny the incarnation, virgin birth, resurrection, etc.
I would almost go so far as to say this, of any supposedly Christian teaching: If it isn't paradoxical, if it doesn't go beyond our powers of understanding, if we can figure it out and spell it out like elementary arithmetic, then it's suspect. I know. That's probably an overstatement, as so much in scripture is plain enough for all to understand, like God's commandments to "seek Him while He is near, and call upon Him while He may be found." But even then, that a sinful creature may truly seek his Creator, and call upon Him, that is a marvelous thing, a wondrous thing.
And on any point of truth, God's understanding of it will be infinitely greater than ours. We need to remember that, and not fall into pride, thinking we have the power to understand anything completely.
So, to sum up my point: Don't get hung up on "reconciling" Christian teachings that, on the surface, seem to be in tension. Rather embrace these teachings.
Jesus said, in Matt 13:11, "It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." This is a humbling thing. But God delights to humble us, to make us see how it is by his revealing Himself and his truth to us, by opening our eyes and giving us faith, and not by our own wits or wisdom or powers of reasoning that we come to know anything.
You might even want to do a word study on the word "mystery" as used in the bible.
Paul said, "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery." 1 Cor 2:7ff.
Oh, and BTW. We are, in truth, in scripture, and in Calvinist teaching, anything but robots, or puppets. If we were, we would not get into so much trouble. If we were, we would not be made in God's image. God called David a "man after his own heart." He would hardly say this if David were a mere robot, serving his Creator according to some preprogrammed computer code.

 

[Shulamite]

We are perfectly free to will and to do according to our nature.

Dogs act like dogs, they make the choices that a dog would make. Cats behave like cats and make feline choices. Sinners sin and do so according to their own will.

Often when people speak of free will, they mean the ability to choose to believe. But according to the bible, for a sinner this is not possible without God first giving them a new heart and making them into a new creation. In biblical terms, for a sinner to choose to believe the Gospel without God regenerating them is something like a cat choosing to behave like an ape or some other animal.

The analogy is simplistic, we are not made into a different order of creature when we are born again, but we are fundamentally changed. Our will is no longer in bondage to sin as the Bible describes it. We are now adopted sons and daughters and coheirs with Christ and at the same time His subjects and servants, repurposed to His will.

Good post and excellent explanation. Simplistic and easy to grasp.

When Jesus spoke of the "goats" and the "sheep", they are two distinct creations/animals. Goats are born goats and do not BECOME sheep and sheep are born sheep and do not become goats.

Goats are the lost and act according to their nature/will.
Sheep are the Lord's, elected from eternity past, to be His and when the Lord died for the sheep, He awakened and revealed IN them what was chosen for them from all eternity.

An unbeliever who is born a goat has NO ability of his own effort to choose God. "You did not choose Me, Jesus said, I chose you and appointed you."

 

[heymikey80]

OK. To the OP:

Calvinism doesn't deny that you voluntarily make choices from your will. Simple as that. If that's all you mean by "free will", you get no complaint from Calvinists. The issue only comes up when the short-circuit is made that a sinful will makes good choices, right choices, choices that are contradicted by the will's own sinful nature.

Consider that someone who believed everything except that the world was flat instead of round. They just didn't believe it.

That'd color some of their thinking about travel, right? About space? About cosmology. About tides. When you get right down to it, neglecting one reality changes a whole lot about the way someone thinks about everything.

But they'd still be functional. They could still live their lives with that idea. They might not go on a 'round the world trip, but everything they do within immediate reach is much the same.

So -- consider the normal non-religious "Joe". They think a certain way -- they're probably pretty pragmatic, don't waste their time with this God thing, sermons are at best "nice thoughts", and at worst swindling gullible people. This form of thinking is termed "fleshly" by Paul. And by that Paul doesn't exclude the possibility these people are religious. Paganism flourished throughout the Empire.

What'd Paul say about this way of thinking?

The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Rom 8:7

The question Calvinists would then ask is, how is a mind that can't submit to God's law, free to submit to God's law?

It ... can't.

It's not so much an imprisonment, a prevention of some muscle strength or entertainment of an outlandish thought either. It's a defect of the will, a "blind spot" that precludes submission. That's because submission presupposes the One we submit to. And without recognizing that, someone's not gonna submit.

It goes further. But that's the description of a depraved will.

 

[Samuel Coleridge]

I'm trying to figure out what Calvinists believe about free will, or the lack of it. Do I make any free choices? Am I like a puppet and God just makes be do what he wants?

I guess I'm kind of confused because I know I work through decisions in my head and make choices. Can you explain to me how it "works"? Thanks

So if you pay for the choices you make with the consquenses.

Is it free?

 

[Kennesaw42]

So if you pay for the choices you make with the consquenses.

Is it free?

Of course. All actions resulting from moral choices have consequences. That as-yet future condition, however, does not impinge anti-chronologically on the freedom exercised when the choice was made.
I know, for example, that if I choose to indulge my appetite, I will become obese. That knowledge may affect my decision, whether to indulge or not, but it in no way constrains it.
What this all boils down to is that ignorance of certain or possible consequences of a choice is no necessary condition for the will to be free. In fact, one could plausibly argue the converse, that ignorance, not knowledge, is destructive of the freedom of choice. But I'll leave that one to the hardier logicians among us.