Question about Free Will

[Samuel Coleridge]

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.

I cannot rebuke an elder.

 

[Ron Wood]

First, no one denies that man has a will, answering the robot argument. Second, man's will is the weakest apart of his nature. He can't, by his will, even stop a germ from giving him a cold. I find it amazing that man elevates the very weakest part of his nature to the point of determining his eternal destiny.

God has determined that our choices have consequences. We see that even in the Garden. Adam made a choice knowing full well what he was doing ( The Scriptures clearly tell us that Adam wasn't deceived, 1Tim. 2:14) and the consequence affected not only him but all of us. That is the reason infants die, Rom. 5:14. One of the consequence of Adam's choice is that we all have a nature that is sin. Notice that I didn't say that sins. Sin isn't what we do sin is what we are by nature. It is a principle within not an outward act. It is a matter of the heart not of the hands.

So then what is sin? Most folks like to use a passage of Scripture that says sin is transgression of the law but that isn't a definition of sin. Certainly it describes one aspect of sin but there is also the passage that says that sin is whatever is not of faith. Neither are a definition of sin. Technically sin is missing the mark. That mark is perfection. Anything other than perfection, not only once but a whole life of perfection, is sin. Duet. 18:13. Sin isn't a an act performed in a specific time period but a fundamental driving force that is our nature. Even the good we do we do in order to bring glory to ourselves rather than to God.

Sin is described in the Scriptures as disobedience. Adam's disobedience wasn't eating the fruit, while it certainly was the outward act of disobedience, but desiring the woman more than God. The sin was in his heart before it ever came to reaching forth and taking the fruit. Man looks on the outward appearance but God looks on the heart. 1Sam. 16:7

Therefore sin is much more than just a choice we make but it is the very makeup of who we are. And it affects our will. Our will is controlled by who we are. If we are a theif we act like a theif. If we are a liar we act like a liar. If we are a glutton we act like a glutten etc. We don't control ourselves the way we think we do. In reality we are all those things and more. We are the very center of our universe and everything revolves around me. I may do what men call good for others but it is really about me. I do it to get the admiration of other men. Everything is about me in some way. That is the sin nature. Adam displayed this very well when he blamed God for the woman who gave him the fruit.

Now since we find that our wills are the weakest part of us and we are sin in our very natures it follows that our wills are nothing but sin. Frre to act according to what we are to be sure but what we are is sin.

That is why we must, and I stress the word must, be made a new creature in Christ. The old nature isn't reformed or made better we are made to be a new man. We are not recreated out of the old flesh but made a spiritual man. Now our wills are, just as before, subject to our nature. Just as we did what comes naturally in the old nature we do naturally that which is our new nature.


So what men call free will is an imaginary sovereign.

 

[Samuel Coleridge]

"So what men call free will is an imaginary sovereign."

To which they pay for

So what men call free will is an imaginary sovereign.

Is not even free to them.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

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

I think in any discussion of the will, it is helpful to be familiar with the terms. The Calvinist view of the will in technical terms is called..

"Compatibilism (also known as soft determinism), is the belief that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. In light of Scripture, human choices are believed to be exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). It should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism - be clear that neither soft nor hard determinism believes man has a free will. Our choices are only our choices because they are voluntary, not coerced. We do not make choices contrary to our desires or natures. Compatibilism is directly contrary to libertarian free will. Therefore voluntary choice is not the freedom to choose otherwise, that is, without any influence, prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Voluntary does mean, however, the ability to choose what we want or desire most. The former view is known as contrary choice, the latter free agency. (Note: compatibilism denies that the will is free to choose otherwise, that is, free from the bondage of the corruption nature,for the unregenerate, and denies that the will is free from God's eternal decreee.)

Christ dwells within us not for the purpose of sinking our being into His being, nor of substituting Himself for us as the agent in our activities; much less of seizing our wills and operating them for us in contradiction to our own immanent mind; but to operate directly upon us, to make us good, that our works, freely done by us, may under His continual leading, be good also." - B.B. Warfield Monergism :: Compatibilism



We acknowledge both the sovereignty of God and voluntary choices of humans as we see the tension between both in Scripture. Another issue, tied directly with this discussion, is the doctrine of the knowledge of God. Also, tied to this discussion is the will of God ("two wills of God") and the relationship between his will and ours. For example, said and done, can anybody truly oppose the will of God, or is it his will be done either way?

Here is a link to a handy chart on the subject: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/DeterminismXFreeWill.jpg (found in a Science vs free will thread)

If I had created the chart, I would have designed it slightly different, but it does help illustrate the different views of the will.

The free online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has several interesting articles on the will.

In my mind, this topic is extremely challenging and complex, but rewarding. Historically the debate over free will goes as far back as Early Church Father St. Augustine and his writings "Against the Pelagians". During the time of the Protestant Reformation, in a response to Catholic scholar Erasmus, Martin Luther wrote "The Bondage of Will". Reformer John Calvin wrote "The Bondage and Liberation of the Will" in response to Catholic theologian Albert Pighius and his Ten Books on Human Free Choice and Divine Grace. Another important historical work on the subject (especially to Reformed believers) is "Freedom of the Will" written by Jonathan Edwards. Some modern books on the topic include: "Willing to Believe" by R.C. Sproul, "Chosen By God" by R.C. Sproul and the beloved "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" by Loraine Boettner.