One thing we all know for sure; humans have free will. Or ... do we? I mean, do we all know it? As it turns out, the question can get quite difficult. At one end of the spectrum are those who argue, "No, in no real sense do humans have free will at all." Of course, the most ardent on that end are the atheists, the materialists that believe we are biochemical machines and, therefore, all emotions and all choices are mechanical -- hormones, mechanical triggers, chemicals, whatever -- but not "free". On the other end there is the "Absolute Free Will" side. At the very extreme they even argue that we can do anything we choose to do, as if that's even reasonable.
And then there is the problem of defining free will. Dictionary.com defines it as "free and independent choice", with a philosophical definition of "the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces." After that it gets sticky. Characterize "free" and "independent", for instance. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has multiple definitions. There is choosing on the basis of desires, but is that "independent" or is it dependent on one's desires? Another is deliberately choosing on the basis of desires and values. Is that "free" and "independent"? The third is "self-mastery, rightly ordered appetite". Now is that "free" and "independent"? One study suggested that we decide to do something shortly before we will to do it. Now that's strange. And there are different kinds of free will. There is Libertarian Free Will, the idea that we can choose without coercion, cause, or interference, internal or external. There is Compatibilist Free Will, the notion that humans freely choose what God has determined they will choose. And, of course, from there it just gets more and more confusing.
Good news! I'm not going to solve the question! What I am going to do is lay down the structures we have to work with and then you can decide what is and is not the case. Do we have free will? If so, in what sense? And various other questions. So let's look briefly on what we know to be true and you can work from there.
We know from Scripture that God is Sovereign (1 Tim 6:15; Eph 1:11) -- He does whatever He chooses. The same cannot be said about us. We have limitations, from the inability to flap our arms and fly away to the inherent problem of sin and the inability to please God without faith (Heb 11:6). God has no such limitations. We also know that God is perfect (Matt 5:48). In that perfection the Bible is clear that God is Omniscient. He knows all things (John 16:30; 1 John 3:20). No exceptions. No contingencies. And He knows it all perfectly -- no errors.
"So, then, apparently we do not have free will." Not so fast.
On the other side of the ledger there is the certainty that we are culpable for sin. Now, no one who is forced to commit an act can be legally liable for that act. So clearly from our side of the picture we have some sort of capability to choose or not choose sin. We know that God does not tempt anyone to evil (James 1:13). We know that sin is the product of our own desires (James 1:14-15). We are not coerced into sin, and certainly not by God. In fact, Scripture is full of references to commanding us to make choices (e.g., Psa 25:12). If no free will existed, these would be manifestly pointless. So there is something that is "free will" in human beings.
It seems, then, that on the topic of free will we run into a conundrum. On one hand, it is impossible for God to not know all things and not know them perfectly. As such, it is not possible for any of us to choose that which God did not foresee we would choose. On the other hand, we are culpable for our choices and make them, so it is not possible that there is no free will. We have this collision, then, of God's view and Man's view. As a prime biblical example, consider Judas Iscariot. Scripture is not unclear; Judas was predestined to betray Christ. Scripture is also not unclear; Judas was responsible for his choice. These two ideas collide in a single verse (Luke 22:22).
If free will is defined as autonomy, the ability to choose to do anything at all without coercion by others, God or self, then I have to say that this is manifestly nonexistent. All choices have limitations, even without factoring in God. We do not get to choose anything at all ... ever. As such, free will, as it exists, is limited. On the face of it, it is limited to the possible. We cannot choose the impossible. After that, the question of what is possible becomes the issue, starting with both the question of our capabilities as spiritually dead sinful people (Eph 2:1-3; Rom 3:12; etc.) and the influence and Sovereignty of God (Prov. 21:1; Prov 16:4; Prov 16:9; Prov 20:24; etc.). But we can know for sure that some form of free will exists. In the end, then, we have to eliminate the two extremes -- "There is no free will" and "It's all about our own free will." -- and find that middle ground that keeps God as Sovereign and Man as culpable and making choices. When your definition of free will allows for that, you're closer to the truth.
8 comments:
when the question is posed " do men have free will? " the answer is somewhat paradoxical. yes and no.. but would it help if we turned the question around? Can a man keep himself from sin?
Can a man live a perfectly sinless life, by the power of his own will? we know that by the time someone is at an age to even consider the question, he/she has already failed that test.
so in short, the simple answer is NO.. we know that a skunk is not a skunk simply because it smells bad, but rather; it smells bad because it is a skunk. when we consider the true nature of man, then the question of weather he has free will becomes mute. he is a slave to his nature and his nature is to sin against God. the judgement of God is not against our incapacity to reason, but rather against what our nature considers reasonable.
Which certainly brings you to the answer that Man does not have unlimited free will. But does it leave you with NO free will? At this point we start exploring the limits of free will instead of demanding autonomy where it is not available.
"We know from Scripture that God is Sovereign."
Did the person who originally wrote that have enough free will that he could have written the opposite and had that version wind up in the canon?
{Meant as a fun question to ponder.}
i guess i was just trying to narrow the scope. by doing so i could at least provide an answer a more fundamental question. man does not have free will to change his nature.
"But does it leave you with NO free will? At this point we start exploring the limits of free will instead of demanding autonomy where it is not available."
what if all autonomy was forfeit due to the sin nature? if we did not have the sin nature then the question becomes a non thing. because what ever choices we made would be in accordance to the will of God. autonomy and providence are only a problem for men, not angles that love to do the will of God. the question of freewill is only pertinent to the impertinent.
If one approaches the question from a materialistic/naturalistic/Darwinian viewpoint, the logical conclusion is that free will is an illusion.
This also raises the question for those who claim we’re born sinless, then it is theoretically possible to use free will to choose to never sin. Given the lack of evidence, it seems that those who take that position have a bit of a problem reconciling that with real life.
Actually, Bob, I was agreeing with you.
Craig, I think you just illustrated the two extremes. Nothing or everything.
Always glad to help. It is interesting when people argue that we must follow Science and assume materialism, yet also insist that we’re born sinless. Seems contradictory.
Post a Comment