The nature of human free will

PREDESTINATION seems to cast a shadow on the very heart of human freedom. If God has decided our destinies from all eternity, that strongly suggests that our free choices are but charades, empty exercises in predetermined playacting. It is as though God wrote the script for us in concrete and we are merely carrying out his scenario.

To get a handle on the puzzling relationship between predestination and free will, we must first define free will. That definition itself is a matter of great debate. Probably the most common definition says free will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. For the will to be free it must act from a posture of neutrality, with absolutely no bias.

On the surface this is very appealing. There are no elements of coercion, either internal or external, to be found in it. Below the surface, however, lurk two serious problems. On the one hand, if we make our choices strictly from a neutral posture, with no prior inclination, then we make choices for no reason. If we have no reason for our choices, if our choices are utterly spontaneous, then our choices have no moral significance. If a choice just happens—it just pops out, with no rhyme or reason for it—then it cannot be judged good or bad. When God evaluates our choices, he is concerned about our motives.

Consider the case of Joseph and his brothers. When Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, God’s providence was at work. Years later, when Joseph was reunited with his brothers in Egypt, he declared to them, “You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20). Here the motive was the decisive factor determining whether the act was good or evil. God’s involvement in Joseph’s dilemma was good; the brothers’ involvement was evil. There was a reason why Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery. They had an evil motivation. Their decision was neither spontaneous nor neutral. They were jealous of their brother. Their choice to sell him was prompted by their evil desires.

The second problem this popular view faces is not so much moral as it is rational. If there is no prior inclination, desire, or bent, no prior motivation or reason for a choice, how can a choice even be made? If the will is totally neutral, why would it choose the right or the left? It is something like the problem encountered by Alice in Wonderland when she came to a fork in the road. She did not know which way to turn. She saw the grinning Cheshire cat in the tree. She asked the cat, “Which way should I turn?” The cat replied, “Where are you going?” Alice answered, “I don’t know.” “Then,” replied the Cheshire cat, “it doesn’t matter.”

Consider Alice’s dilemma. Actually she had four options from which to choose. She could have taken the left fork or the right fork. She also could have chosen to return the way she had come. Or she could have stood fixed at the spot of indecision until she died there. For her to take a step in any direction, she would need some motivation or inclination to do so. Without any motivation, any prior inclination, her only real option would be to stand there and perish.

Another famous illustration of the same problem is found in the story of the neutral-willed mule. The mule had no prior desires, or equal desires in two directions. His owner put a basket of oats to his left and a basket of wheat on his right. If the mule had no desire whatsoever for either oats or wheat he would choose neither and starve. If he had an exactly equal disposition toward oats as he had toward wheat he would still starve. His equal disposition would leave him paralyzed. There would be no motive. Without motive there would be no choice. Without choice there would be no food. Without food soon there would be no mule.

We must reject the neutral-will theory not only because it is irrational but because, as we shall see, it is radically unbiblical.

Christian thinkers have given us two very important definitions of free will. We will consider first the definition offered by Jonathan Edwards in his classic work, On the Freedom of the Will.

Edwards defined the will as “the mind choosing.” Before we ever can make moral choices we must first have some idea of what it is we are choosing. Our selection is then based upon what the mind approves or rejects. Our understanding of values has a crucial role to play in our decision-making. My inclinations and motives as well as my actual choices are shaped by my mind. Again, if the mind is not involved, then the choice is made for no reason and with no reason. It is then an arbitrary and morally meaningless act. Instinct and choice are two different things.

A second definition of free will is “the ability to choose what we want.” This rests on the important foundation of human desire. To have free will is to be able to choose according to our desires. Here desire plays the vital role of providing a motivation or a reason for making a choice.

Now for the tricky part. According to Edwards a human being is not only free to choose what he desires but he must choose what he desires to be able to choose at all. What I call Edwards Law of Choice is this: “The will always chooses according to its strongest inclination at the moment.” This means that every choice is free and every choice is determined.

I said it was tricky. This sounds like a blatant contradiction to say that every choice is free and yet every choice is determined. But “determined” here does not mean that some external force coerces the will. Rather it refers to one’s internal motivation or desire. In shorthand the law is this: Our choices are determined by our desires. They remain our choices because they are motivated by our own desires. This is what we call self-determination, which is the essence of freedom.

Think for a minute about your own choices. How and why are they made? At this very instant you are reading the pages of this book. Why? Did you pick up this book because you have an interest in the subject of predestination, a desire to learn more about this complex subject? Perhaps. Maybe this book has been given to you to read as an assignment. Perhaps you are thinking, “I have no desire to read this whatsoever. I have to read it, and I am grimly wading through it to fulfill somebody else’s desire that I read it. All things being equal I would never choose to read this book.”

But all things are not equal, are they? If you are reading this out of some kind of duty or to fulfill a requirement, you still had to make a decision about fulfilling the requirement or not fulfilling the requirement. You obviously decided that it was better or more desirable for you to read this than to leave it unread. Of that much I am sure, or you would not be reading it right now.

Every decision you make is made for a reason. The next time you go into a public place and choose a seat (in a theater, a classroom, a church building), ask yourself why you are sitting where you are sitting. Perhaps it is the only seat available and you prefer to sit rather than to stand. Perhaps you discover that there is an almost unconscious pattern emerging in your seating decisions. Maybe you discover that whenever possible you sit toward the front of the room or toward the rear. Why? Maybe it has something to do with your eyesight. Perhaps you are shy or gregarious. You may think that you sit where you sit for no reason, but the seat that you choose will always be chosen by the strongest inclination you have at the moment of decision. That inclination may merely be that the seat closest to you is free and that you don’t like to walk long distances to find a place to sit down.

Decision-making is a complex matter because the options we encounter are often varied and many. Add to that that we are creatures with many and varied desires. We have different, often even conflicting, motivations.

Consider the matter of ice cream cones. Oh, do I have trouble with ice cream cones and ice cream sundaes. I love ice cream. If it is possible to be addicted to ice cream then I must be classified as an ice cream addict. I am at least fifteen pounds overweight, and I am sure that at least twenty of the pounds that make up my body are there because of ice cream. Ice cream proves the adage to me, “A second on the lips; a lifetime on the hips.” And, “Those who indulge bulge.” Because of ice cream I have to buy my shirts with a bump in them.

Now, all things being equal, I would like to have a slim, trim body. I don’t like squeezing into my suits and having little old ladies pat me on the tummy. Tummy-patting seems to be an irresistible temptation for some folks. I know what I have to do to get rid of those excess pounds. I have to stop eating ice cream. So I go on a diet. I go on the diet because I want to go on the diet. I want to lose weight. I desire to look better. Everything is fine until someone invites me to Swenson’s. Swenson’s makes the greatest “Super Sundaes” in the world. I know I shouldn’t go to Swenson’s. But I like to go to Swenson’s. When the moment of decision comes I am faced with conflicting desires. I have a desire to be thin and I have a desire for a Super Sundae. Whichever desire is greater at the time of decision is the desire I will choose. It’s that simple.

Now consider my wife. As we prepare to celebrate our silver wedding anniversary I am aware that she is exactly the same weight as she was the day we were married. Her wedding gown still fits her perfectly. She has no great problem with ice cream. Most eating establishments only carry vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry. Any of those make my mouth water, but they offer no enticement to my wife. Aha! But there is Baskin Robbins. They have pralines and cream ice cream. When we go to the mall and pass a Baskin Robbins my wife goes through a strange transformation. Her pace decelerates, her hands get clammy, and I can almost detect the beginning of salivation. (That’s salivation, not salvation.) Now she experiences the conflict of desires that assaults me daily.

We always choose according to our strongest inclination at the moment. Even external acts of coercion cannot totally take away our freedom. Coercion involves acting with some kind of force, imposing choices upon people that, if left to themselves, they would not choose. I certainly have no desire to pay the kind of income taxes that the government makes me pay. I can refuse to pay them, but the consequences are less desirable than paying them. By threatening me with jail the government is able to impose its will upon me to pay taxes.

Or consider the case of armed robbery. A gunman steps up to me and says, “Your money or your life.” He has just restricted my options to two. All things being equal I have no desire to donate my money to him. There are far more worthy charities than he. But suddenly my desires have changed as a result of his act of external coercion. He is using force to provoke certain desires within me. Now I must choose between my desire to live and my desire to give him my money. I might as well give him the money because if he kills me he will take my money anyway. Some people might choose to refuse, saying, “I would rather die than choose to hand this gunman my money. He’ll have to take it from my dead body.”

In either case, a choice is made. And it is made according to the strongest inclination at the moment. Think, if you can, of any choice you have ever made that was not according to the strongest inclination you had at the moment of decision. What about sin? Every Christian has some desire in his heart to obey Christ. We love Christ and we want to please him. Yet every Christian sins. The hard truth is that at the moment of our sin we desire the sin more strongly than we desire to obey Christ. If we always desired to obey Christ more than we desired to sin, we would never sin.

Does not the Apostle Paul teach otherwise? Does he not recount for us a situation in which he acts against his desires? He says in Romans, “The good that I would, I do not, and that which I would not, that I do” (Rom. 7:19, KJV). Here it sounds as if, under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, Paul is teaching clearly that there are times in which he acts against his strongest inclination.

It is extremely unlikely that the apostle is here giving us a revelation about the technical operation of the will. Rather, he is stating plainly what every one of us has experienced. We all have a desire to flee from sin. The “all things being equal” syndrome is in view here. All things being equal, I would like to be perfect. I would like to be rid of sin, just as I would like to be rid of my excess weight. But my desires do not remain constant. They fluctuate. When my stomach is full it is easy to go on a diet. When my stomach is empty my desire level changes. Temptations arise with the changing of my desires and appetites. Then I do things that, all things being equal, I would not want to do.

Paul sets before us the very real conflict of human desires, desires that yield evil choices. The Christian lives within a battlefield of conflicting desires. Christian growth involves the strengthening of desires to please Christ accompanied by the weakening of desires to sin. Paul called it the warfare between the flesh and the Spirit.

To say that we always choose according to our strongest inclination at the moment is to say that we always choose what we want. At every point of choice we are free and self-determined. To be self-determined is not the same thing as determinism. Determinism means that we are forced or coerced to do things by external forces. External forces can, as we have seen, severely limit our options, but they cannot destroy choice altogether. They cannot impose delight in things we hate. When that happens, when hatred turns to delight, it is a matter of persuasion, not coercion. I cannot be forced to do what I take delight in doing already.

The neutral view of free will is impossible. It involves choice without desire. That is like having an effect without a cause. It is something from nothing, which is irrational. The Bible makes it clear that we choose out of our desires. A wicked desire produces wicked choices and wicked actions. A godly desire produces godly deeds. Jesus spoke in terms of corrupt trees producing corrupt fruit. A fig tree does not yield apples and an apple tree produces no figs. So righteous desires produce righteous choices and evil desires produce evil choices.

Why don't we stop at that and both agree to it.

I find it hard to even "agree to disagree" with someone who doesn't really address clear teaching that refutes his patchwork view. You have suddenly dug in your heels and refuse to address the issue directly, but instead retort with "yea, but what about..." and keep changing the focus of the discussion. You steadfastly refuse to directly address or answer when someone shoots down your view, exposing its unscriptural roots. You whine about a lack of proof texts, and you have whined in the past about too many proof texts. I have avoided the standard Calvinist Rhetoric you so despise, and have in fact not quoted Calvin or Augustine even once, yet you still accuse me of Calvinist Rhetoric. That's your cop-out, and I won't let you take it. I have approached this from a logical and thoroughly scriptural frame of reference, attempting to engage you in clear debate of the issues, and you show either an unwillingness or an inability to engage in serious debate. You still argue for a choice that man does not have the ability to make, as though that were the be-all and end-all of salvation, and have totally missed the truth of Election, the Justice of God, and His absolute soveriegnty over man and all of creation. You've put your treasure in a basket with no bottom.

Truth does not compromise, and "agreeing to disagree" is, at best, a cop-out. We disagree, and as long as that situation exists, we do not agree, even to disagree. I will continue to proclaim the truth, and to speak of it whenever it is appropriate. I can do nothing else and be faithful to the truth.

How come God can get people saved if they are the 'Elect' but not if they can make a choice? there you go again, with your insistence on choice! let me ask you something. Do your realy care that much about the heathen, that you would forfeit your own salvation just because you don't agree with the way God chooses to save those He has chosen, and to not save others? Do you mean to tell us that you would not accept salvation from a God who wouldn't save everyone?

No, that was not the issue in that post.

The rejection of the Arminian view is that God is somehow letting millions of heathen die without the Gospel, so fairness must not be an issue.

So, I asked, are there no elect among those millions?

The reply was that if they were elect God would get the Gospel to them!

Well, that is our opinions also.

If God knows that they will respond to the Gospel, the 'heathen' will be reached with it. (Jonah)

Why don't we stop at that and both agree to it. I find it hard to even "agree to disagree" with someone who doesn't really address clear teaching that refutes his patchwork view. You have suddenly dug in your heels and refuse to address the issue directly, but instead retort with "yea, but what about..." and keep changing the focus of the discussion. You steadfastly refuse to directly address or answer when someone shoots down your view, exposing its unscriptural roots. You whine about a lack of proof texts, and you have whined in the past about too many proof texts. I have avoided the standard Calvinist Rhetoric you so despise, and have in fact not quoted Calvin or Augustine even once, yet you still accuse me of Calvinist Rhetoric. That's your cop-out, and I won't let you take it. I have approached this from a logical and thoroughly scriptural frame of reference, attempting to engage you in clear debate of the issues, and you show either an unwillingness or an inability to engage in serious debate. You still argue for a choice that man does not have the ability to make, as though that were the be-all and end-all of salvation, and have totally missed the truth of Election, the Justice of God, and His absolute soveriegnty over man and all of creation. You've put your treasure in a basket with no bottom.

Well, then just move on!

You have done nothing but repeat tired old Calvinistic cliches.

You have not dealt with the real issue, Truth does not compromise, and "agreeing to disagree" is, at best, a cop-out. We disagree, and as long as that situation exists, we do not agree, even to disagree. I will continue to proclaim the truth, and to speak of it whenever it is appropriate. I can do nothing else and be faithful to the truth.

Amen! Go tell it to someone else, since I have heard the illogical, non-scriptural, God dishonoring rhetoric over and over again, it is no better when you say it, then when Calvin, Sproul and Pink states it.

Your system makes God the author of Sin and then expects to have man glorify him, for saving some, when He could have saved all.

That is not the God who stated that He had come to 'save the lost' (Lk 19:10).

The god that Calvinism advances is from Platonic philosophical speculation, dreamed up by Augustine and refined by Calvin.

How come God can get people saved if they are the 'Elect' but not if they can make a choice? The point is that IF God wanted all saved without exception that all men would have the opportunity to hear the gospel dec..their presence outside of the hearing of the gospel makes clear that God had no plan to save them. If that heathan is elect God will see to it he hears the gospel no matter where he is..

Hey that is what we say also!

So, why do you keep telling us about the 'heathen' who did not hear the Gospel!

Our will is a funny thing..what did Paul say he did what he did not want to do? You may not like that job..but you do "will" to be "responsible" and support you family . That greater will out weighs the lesser one..

Our wills are "formed" by our preferences..you prefer to eat and live in a house rather than live on the street and beg:>)

Our preferences are God given Corin..(we see that in some of the genetic studies) They are based in who we are..

Because they were a part of our creation God knows the choices you will ..will to make.

If God knows that they will respond to the Gospel, the 'heathen' will be reached with it. (Jonah)

Oh, puh-lease! You make it all dependent on man's receptiveness, totally ignoring the fact that unregenerate man is NOT receptive to God's message. In your world, it's all about man, and his ability to respond. If man will respond, God will save him...so who's in control here? Sounds to me like man is, in your view. Well, that's WRONG!!! God is in control, He determines, He is the one who has already made the decision. Man, by birth, is unregenerate, and has by default rejected God already. I made this point several times, and you don't want to apply its full implications: That God is totally justified in punishing sin, and that God is totally justified in saving some, and not saving others. You can't handle the implications of that, and want to twist it around to make it somehow unfair of God to exercise His Sovereignty in choosing some and not all. That is your error, you are basically charging God with being arbitrary and unfair, and building a theory that puts man in the driver's seat, makes man the deciding factor in salvation, and by implication, saying that the heathen who never ever heard of Jesus are somehow treated differently than you and I, who have heard about Him since we were old enough to understand words.

The charge to us is to preach the Gospel to every living creature. It is not for us to know who is Elect and who is not, except in retrospect. Those that hear and do not respond, the Gospel stands as a further witness against them, in addition to God's general revelation of Himself in nature. Those that hear and respond, are those whom God has chosen from among the heathen. Those that have never heard the Gospel still have God's general revelation of Himself in nature as a witness against them, so they are without excuse, and rightly sentenced to death for their sin. If you're so worried about the heathen not getting a chance to hear the Gospel, get off your a@@ and take it to them, instead of whining about how it's not fair that they never heard! In a real sense, if they have not heard, it's your fault, not God's!

You have done nothing but repeat tired old Calvinistic cliches.

No, I have repeated to you the Word of God, I have tried to reason with you, and you won't listen. You refuse to face the implications of what you believe, and you elevate man's place and reduce God's Sovereignty. You don't see that because you don't want to see that. I'm not making a case for Calvinism, I'm making a case for the Word of God. It is you who want to characterize what I say as Calvinist Rhetoric because it gives you an easy way to dismiss what I have said without addressing it. You don't want to address it because you can't. If anyone should move on, it should be you, because it is you who are out of step here, not me.

Your system makes God the author of Sin and then expects to have man glorify him, for saving some, when He could have saved all.

My system?? MY SYSTEM??? What in blazes are you talking about? I do not make God the author of sin, and there is no theological system named after me, thank God! Man sinned, in direct disobedience to the command of God. God did not authorize it, He did not cause it, and He did not sanction it. God knew that it would happen, because He is omniscient, and knowing what man would do, He made, before the foundation of the world, a Plan to redeem the man He knew would sin. That does not make God the author of sin in any way. That is your cop-out to avoid the clear truths of scripture regarding man's utter depravity and inability to seek God, and God's Sovereignty over His creation, to save some and not others, in order to magnify His Glory in His Righteousness and Holiness, showing all of creation that He is a Just God who punishes the wicked and rewards the righteous. You don't understand it, so you think it's unfair. You construct a system wherein man is the center, and it is God who must cater to man's decisions, man's desires, and man's will.

This is all about God, it always has been, and it always will be. It's not about man. Man is the creature, not the Creator. The sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be.

I'd agree as well. With all due respect to nobdysfool, unless he didn't express himself clearly, he differs here from Classic Reformed theology.

The Bible teaches that God actively pre-determines (as opposed to permissively allows) the actions of all men.

He predetermined and ordained the decisions and actions of Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery -just like the Bible explicitly declares in Gen 50:20.
He predetermined and ordained the decisions and actions of those who physically carried out the murder of Christ -just like the Bible explicitly declares in Acts 2:23 and Acts 4:27,28.

The Bible also clearly teaches that men themselves are soley responsible for the sin which they freely commit.

Joseph's brothers were sinful and soley responsible in their decision and actions to sell Joseph into slavery, but God's actions in those same events were pure and just -just like the Bible explicitly declares in Gen 50:20.
Those who carried out the physical murder of Christ were sinful and soley responsible for their decisions and actions to murder Christ on the cross -just like the Bible explicitly declares in Acts 2:23 and Acts 4:27,28.

Classical Reformed theology accepts ~BOTH~ Biblical truths.

Arminians appeal to mere philosophical objections to deny the clear and explicit Biblical truth of God's active pre-determination of men's actions.

But, the Bible is rather clear on these two points. And, contrary to the Arminian objections to the Calvinist position, the Calvinist strongly believes, as the Bible clearly and explicitly teaches, that God is NOT the author of sin.

Classical Reformed theology strongly believes this point, despite the "straw man" objections of our Arminian "friends"

Jean

What I call Edwards Law of Choice is this: “The will always chooses according to its strongest inclination at the moment.”

That would make us automatons, subject to whim of the strongest inclination. We wouldn't have to take any responsibility for our own actions. "The devil made me do it."

It takes courage and integrity to choose contrary to what may be the strongest inclination. Yet people somehow manage to do it, often in the face of incredible odds.

Christ set the prime example. He was tempted by the strongest inclinations of every kind. But he chose to ignore them all.

But I make the choice to go because I have to support my family. Not because I want to go there.

Thank you, Corin. You have proven in two sentences what I couldn't seem to get dec to commit to: that will is governed by desire. Your desire to support your family is stronger than your desire to stay home. Even when, as dec said before, you sometimes choose against a desire, it is always in favor of another, more powerful desire.

Desire operates on two levels. There is an overall desire and an immediate desire. On the average, the two coincide much more often than not. As you said, your desire to support your family is what keeps you going to work every day despite your desire to not go. Every now and then however, that desire may win out and you decided to "call in sick" for that day. That choice on that particular day does not mean that you've decided you no longer want to support your family. It just means that at that particular moment your desire to stay home trupmed your desire to go to work.

Compare that to your walk with Christ. On the whole, your desire is to have faith in Christ and follow His commandments. Often, this means struggling against the sinful human desires you have. Occasionally, your desire to sin wins out at some moments and you do sin. That by no means indicates a radical paradigm shift in which you no longer desire Christ. It simply means you chose according to your strongest desire at that moment.

The position I've been trying to explain in regards to the human will is that it is essentially governed by desire. If you will, consider the will as being in the head and desire as being in the heart. An unregenerate man has an evil, sinful heart. His heart seeks not after the Lord but after self-gratification in some form or another. God's grace changes that heart from one that runs from Christ to run that runs TO Him. It does not become neutral. There is evil and there is good. There is no in-between, morally neutral state. God renews our heart, placing within it an overarching desire FOR Christ. The Holy Spirit works with our heart to renew our mind, making it better able to discern the moral and spiritual implications of our thoughts and actions.

Does this make sense to you?

That would make us automatons, subject to whim of the strongest inclination. We wouldn't have to take any responsibility for our own actions. "The devil made me do it." It takes courage and integrity to choose contrary to what may be the strongest inclination. Yet people somehow manage to do it, often in the face of incredible odds. Christ set the prime example. He was tempted by the strongest inclinations of every kind. But he chose to ignore them all.

Christ indeed set the prime example, for His desire to please the Father (and the fact that by definition, if Christ is God Incarnate then ALL of His desires MUST be good) was greater than His desire for the things presented Him.

I submit that you cannot find a single example in your life of a choice that was not made according to a desire. Your statement about courage and integrity in choosing contrary to a strong inclination carries some baggage. First of all, it could be that their desire to be courageous was greater than the other desire. Second, the term integrity implies a decision between right and wrong. Therefore, their desire to do what's right was stronger. Third, an 'inclination' isn't necessarily a desire (although I'm assuming that's what you meant) as it could be something of habit or instinct.

Again, my point is that every choice we make is governed by a desire. My desire to respond to your post was greater than my desire to get offline and proceed with installing RedHat 8 on my main system (I think dread played a part:).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.