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.

As I've come to understand calvinism after speaking with open calvinists, I understand that God has intentionally planned everything. That is, if the plan were a document that existed right before creation occurred, then there would be nothing that has EVER happened that would not be in that planning document. Satan's rebellion, Adam's sin, Christ's crucifixion.

Xzins do you believe that God did not foreknow the fall? If He did ..did He make a plan to remedy it? When ?

One of the constants I see here on FR is a refusal to believe that God has any authority here on this globe..Everything is an accident outside of Gods control..

I am beginning to think that Arminians are diests at heart

The Calvinist brethren here have told me for over a year that God wanted it all to happen for His good pleasure.

The Arminian system is no different. For you guys God also is concerned with an overall 'good pleasure,' that of being loved by His creation. He tolerates the sin of the wicked to gain the love of His elect, right? The big problem you have logically is that you never consistently differentiate between the immediate and the overall. You can't seem to deal with God working something immediate that He takes no pleasure in for the purpose of His overall pleasure. You also don't seem to have a consistent concept of how God works in His restraint of evil. Whether He restrains it or not, He is not the author of it.

I'm still waiting for your answer on whether you agree that man's will chooses according to desire.

Rn, you know that I think God has absolute foreknowledge. Of course He foreknew it all.

The open calvinists I've talked to said that God PLANNED everything, barring nothing, and that His Plan was NOT based on His foreknowledge. You either subscribe to that with these other calvinists or you don't. I see their viewpoint reflected in the Westminster Confession.

Rn, I don't see any difference between what you're saying here and what Arminians teach. Perhaps you didn't say it the way you wanted to.

There is a very large difference xzins . You will grant God some foreknowlege..but you do not allow Him to have authority over it..man is sovereign..Gods hands are bound by the will of man..God must work within the system , design and desires of HIS creation..

BTW Most Wesleyans do not even grant Him foreknowlege..at least they are consistant..because for God to foreknow something is the same as predestination..

At least they do not try to have it both ways..

That's my understanding of Calvinism as well. And I simply can't read that any other way than to believe that it means God decides what sins people will commit and then causes them to commit.

Your understanding of Calvinism is correct then at it's initial point. Your second statement shows the problem in your understanding. It would be correct if you said "it means God decides what sins He will allow people to commit and follows through on permitting them to do so." God doesn't have to author sin in man at all...man quite ably does so himself. God's omniscience allows Him to both restrain specific acts of evil and actively allow others, both according to His purpose.

Again, if you would return to the discussion at hand regarding man's will and how choices are made, I could better explain why Calvinists can believe in the above statement without man being an automaton and God being a sinner. It seems to me that it's only your obstinate refusal to discuss this rationally that's keeping you from at least having a proper understanding of Calvinism. Whether or not you agree with it is another matter, but at least you'll have a correct understanding of it. You seem to have no interest in even trying to understand Calvinism at this point, which makes your outright denunciation of it rather rediculous. I can't speak to the effectiveness or patience in other Calvinists who've attempted to 'answer your questions' but I can offer my willingness to do so as long as your actually interested in understanding the position and not just determined to refute anything I say simply because it's "Calvinism."

I would cautiously agree with that. The analogy could easily be pushed to far in terms of "authorship" and since the authorship of sin is a primary point in this argument, I'd tend to shy away from that analogy. I would submit however that your analogy could be applied equally to Arminianism unless you maintain that God is reactive within our time frame instead of pro-active from outside it. It seems to me the 'document' is nothing more than a snapshot reference of God's omniscience, in which case I would agree that nothing has EVER happened outside God's omniscience.

Arminius believed in absolute foreknowledge, therefore,you are correct that the analogy also fits arminianism.

Some advocate viewpoints that I see as inadequate

One viewpoint has God authoring this plan as if He doesn't have foreknowledge. To them it is just straight-up decisiveness. It's 100% decree.

Another is that God authors this plan as if He isn't reflective. To them He simply knows everything and based his decisions on other people's future decisions.

I believe his foreknowledge, reflection, and decisiveness worked in concert.

Arminius believed in absolute foreknowledge, therefore,you are correct that the analogy also fits arminianism.

Xzins absolute foreknowlege IS Predestiantion.

The problem is that most look at God like he is a man and not the author of all events.

God can prohibit any event that is outside of His plan. If he did not want Corins daughter to become pregnant (as in his example) she would not become pregnant..If God did no plan to have the twin towers destroyed they would not have been..

Even the sinful acts of men are subject to His authority

I believe his foreknowledge, reflection, and decisiveness worked in concert.

I think that's a fairly accurate position. I think God's foreknowledge works on different levels. Obviously unless one is an open theist it is agree that God knows everything that is going to happen from creation to judgement (not just what could, but what IS). That overall foreknowledge encompasses both God's actions and ours. God knows what He's going to do and what we are going to do. God's foreknowledge also works at lower levels. God knows that you will act a certain way when He does a certain thing (not just if, but WHEN). It is this knowledge that allows Him to act sovereignly within the universe without being the author of evil. "You meant it for evil but I meant it for good." This speaks to me a great deal regarding how limited our vision and perception is in what we do. Clearly in the statement God's intentions and our intentions are at odds, and yet look whose intentions ultimately win out. Also to note is that it doesn't say that He 'allowed' it for good, but that He 'meant' it for good. This goes back to what I said earlier about active permission versus passive permission.

God knows that you will act a certain way when He does a certain thing (not just if, but WHEN). It is this knowledge that allows Him to act sovereignly within the universe without being the author of evil. "You meant it for evil but I meant it for good."
Joseph story. Yes I agree with this. Different intentions on the part of humans and God over the same event. The argument is over "allowance" versus "appointment" on the part of God. Some events will be God's allowance, some will be God's appointment. Everything will have been both reflected upon and everything will have been foreknown.
This speaks to me a great deal regarding how limited our vision and perception is in what we do. Clearly in the statement God's intentions and our intentions are at odds, and yet look whose intentions ultimately win out. God's intentions MUST win out or omnipotence means nothing.

Also to note is that it doesn't say that He 'allowed' it for good, but that He 'meant' it for good. This goes back to what I said earlier about active permission versus passive permission. This goes back to "allowance" versus "appointment." As a reflective being God will have appointed some events for specific intentions and will have allowed some events for specific intentions.

Could I have stopped the wreck? After all, I could've prevented him from driving the car, couldn't I? So I must've wanted him to have the wreck and must've wanted the daughter to get pregnant. Right?

Are you just being deliberately obtuse, or don't you get it? You know very well what I'm saying, and you also know that Calvinists don't believe that God is the originator and author of sin. You know that! You have a hatred in your heart for the Calvinist position that tells me that you've been burned by someone of the Calvinist persuasion, and now you're out to cause any Calvinist you meet as much trouble as you can. Is that what Jesus would do? Your posts back to us drip of hatred and strife. You aren't interested in debating or learning anything, you just want to disrupt. I can't stop you from doing so, but I can point it out when I see it.

You know that! You have a hatred in your heart for the Calvinist position that tells me that you've been burned by someone of the Calvinist persuasion, and now you're out to cause any Calvinist you meet as much trouble as you can. Is that what Jesus would do? Your posts back to us drip of hatred and strife. You aren't interested in debating or learning anything, you just want to disrupt. I can't stop you from doing so, but I can point it out when I see it.

Nice rant. But you don't know me well enough to level those charges. If I really wanted to disrupt, I assure you, you would know it. I have witnesses.

For the record, I wasn't burned by Calvinism. I had the good sense to get out. But I saw it destroy a young family. The wife, a new believer, was told her husband was not one of the elect. When they were having marital troubles, she wasn't counseled, just told she couldn't sing with the praise and worship team, so she left. They haven't been back in a church, any church in over four years. He forbids her to go or to take their two children.

But even that isn't the point.

I'm stuck on what Calvinism tells me. I'm sorry you don't like it. That's not my problem.

And yeah, Jesus pointed out the shortcomings of the religious leaders. They didn't like him either.

So if you can't post to me without being snippy, don't bother. I'm off to watch the war.

For the record, I wasn't burned by Calvinism. I had the good sense to get out. But I saw it destroy a young family. The wife, a new believer, was told her husband was not one of the elect. When they were having marital troubles, she wasn't counseled, just told she couldn't sing with the praise and worship team, so she left. They haven't been back in a church, any church in over four years. He forbids her to go or to take their two children.

What you have here is quite obviously something that never should have happened, done by some little pinhead of a preacher that is completely out of step with the Word, and God. You blame the entire Calvinist theology for the stupid actions of one idiot who never should have been put into the ministry. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I wasn't trying to be snippy, just trying to get to the root of your attitude. If you want to engage in serious discussion, with a view to truly understanding, I am happy to oblige, as well as many others. If it's just going to be more inflammatory Calvinist-baiting to derail discussion, I want no part of it. You have your opinion, and I have mine, and we both know what opinions are like. I have been blasted by some Calvinists for not being Calvinist enough, but I am still here. The truth always wins out in the end.

***If you define strongest inclination as your choice, then your conclusion becomes simply a restatement of your premise.***

If you choose contrary to your strongest inclination then either the term "strongest" is meaningless or there are inclinations not really being considered.

I hate brussel sprouts, I am strongly inclined to refuse them. Place a 44 magnum up to my head and I am choosing to eat those sprouts. Why? I am inclined to survival.

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.