One of the most debated concepts in Christianity is the concept of Free Will. One side says that God is Sovereign and Man's Free Will doesn't exist. The other side says that God's Sovereignty is limited and Man's Free Will rules. Between the two extemes are all sorts of shades of variation. Hard determinism eliminates choice, but soft determinism (or compatibilism) allows the two to both exist. Libertarianism demands ultimate self-determination. Incompatibilists argue that neither free will nor determinism exist. (And, by the way, this isn't only a Christian discussion. Some of those most hard over on the side of both hard determinism and indeterminism are atheists who say that free will is an illusion and we're making choices based on the chemicals in our brains, or something like it.)
The difficulty I'm having is trying to pin down a definition. You know me and words. If we're going to argue about something, I think it would be a good idea to argue about the same thing. And, as hard as it may be to believe, "Free Will" does not have a standard definition. There appears to be a range of definitions, and that (obviously) makes it very hard to discuss.
Some argue that it is the power of independent action and choice. Okay. But others argue that it is the power of independent action and choice specifically to the exclusion of compulsion or predestination. That is, "If predestination exists, then there is no Free Will." Some think it's just "the ability to make a choice without coercion" and others think it is Ultimate Self-Determination. There are even some (more than a few) that suggest that it requires the "ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition". I'm actually surprised at how popular this one is, primarily because it's such nonsense. If there is nothing influencing a choice, a choice cannot be made. The best we can do is ... random. And, in fact, no one makes choices without at least internal influences. We always choose according to our inclinations.
If Free Will means that God cannot predetermine anything in any way, then I'm going to have to deny the existence of that Free Will because it contradicts the Bible. If Free Will means "Ultimate Self-Determinism", I'm going to have to deny the existence of that version as well because it contradicts the Bible. But if we're talking about the capacity to make choices uncoerced, I don't see an issue. This must exist if God is going to hold us responsible for our choices (read "sin"). And in order for that version to exist it doesn't even have to be continuous. That is, if God intervenes in Man's free will on occasion (like in Gen 20:6 where God says, "I kept you from sinning."), that doesn't eliminate all free will.
To me, free will is simply the ability to choose to do what you want to do. Clearly this is a limited concept. No one can choose what they want to do when what they want to do is impossible. "I want to flap my arms and fly to the moon" is all well and good, but it ain't gonna happen, and that's not a failure of the will. But here's the concept that makes the most sense to me. If free will is the ability to choose what you want to do -- to follow your own inclinations -- then God doesn't have to coerce anyone in order to change their choices. He simply has to change their "want to do". Here, let's couch this in biblical terms. If free will is the ability to follow your own inclinations and humans are inclined only to sin (Gen 6:5; 8:21), than humans freely and continually choose to sin. The remedy for this problem is a "new heart" (Ezek 36:26). "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature" (2 Cor 5:17) and has God at work in him to will to do His good pleasure (Phil 2:13). If free will is the ability to choose to do what I want to do and God changes what I want to do, then He doesn't have to coerce me to make choices; I choose them because I want to. Is there something wrong with that version of free will?
6 comments:
Deuteronomy 5:9 speaks of the sins of the fathers, and God “visiting” things onto offspring and offspring of offspring. Do you see that as any sort of “coercion” on God’s part?
Since I've never quite been clear what "visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations" actually means, I have a hard time answering that question. On the other hand, I think we all understand that God does in fact intervene at times in our choices. All Christians, for instance, know of the concept of "the closed door", where we chose to go a particular way but "the door closed" and we couldn't. Just an example.
I can't support the suggestion that there can never be any coercion or intervention on the part of God. Instead what I said (because I can find multiple times that God intervenes in Man's free will) was "if God intervenes in Man's free will on occasion (like in Gen 20:6 where God says, 'I kept you from sinning.'), that doesn't eliminate all free will." In other words, limited free will does not mean no free will. It is, in fact, why I differentiate between "Man's Free Will" (with capital letters) and "Man's free will" (with lowercase letters). In the latter, it is not Man who is sovereign.
Can you please explain how changing your "want to do" is different from coercion? Thanks.
Sure. If "free will" is "the ability to choose to do what I want to do", then changing what I want to do is no subversion of free will. Coercion would be forcing you to do what you don't want to do.
By the way, for further consideration, if we are going to derive our views from Scripture, we will need to admit that the Bible says, "It is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:13). Since, then, the Bible explicitly says that God works to give us the will to do what pleases Him, it cannot be argued that God doesn't affect Man's will in any way.
By changing you're "want to do", God is the cause of you doing what you didn't want to do. Your definition of free will seems like wordplay.
Are the people who God doesn't change their "want to do", still on the hook for their sin? They are just doing what they were hardwired for all time to do?
It seems that you want to admit that free will must exist for true morality to exist, and yet you still want to hold to a picture of God that preordains all that we do.
I totally agree with your last paragraph and I believe that God does affect us through his Holy Spirit.
Yes, yes, as we are all aware, you don't like my definition of free will. "The ability to choose to do what you want to do" doesn't work for you. Please offer your minimum requirements for "free will".
I want to "hold to a picture of God that preordains all that we do"? That's not entirely accurate, is it? It's what the Bible says. (Refer to my post on the following day.)
Human beings (actually all living beings, including God) operate from their nature. Is it your view that this requires that they must be "hardwired" (your word)? And if someone is "inclined only to evil" (Gen 6:5; 8:21) and proceeds to do evil, is it because they are "hardwired"? And does that require the conclusion that "God made them that way"?
Ultimately, what determines reality to you? Is it your experience, observations, reason, and opinions, or is it what the Bible says? Because all I'm giving you here is what the Bible says. And all you're giving me is disagreement without support.
Post a Comment