Posted on 02/24/2003 9:12:32 AM PST by Frumanchu
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.
Sproul, R. (. C. 1986. Chosen by God. Tyndale House Publishers: Wheaton, IL
Then prove me wrong! You've spent all your time attacking others here, let's see you state your beliefs in full, so that we may perform an assessment of your beliefs. At least I have the cajones to state what I believe...do you?
Is that supposed to be clever and witty? Put me down all you want, but leave my son out of it. He is quite able to speak for himself, as you have already found out. In fact he has already shown that you cannot defend your position, and will not do so. And I have just done the same. Either state and defend your position, or be silent.
Mine...BUT a born again man has something an unregenerate man does not have . A choice NOT to sin
You make a smart@$$ comment about your cajones to say what you believe yet your profile says you echo your son's belief. You brought him into it. Not me.
Okay. I believe what my son believes. And, as a testicular cancer survivor it only took me one to say that.
I'm only coming back here to respond to posts. So if I'm tickin' you off, don't ping me.
Look yourself. I had no way of knowing about your bout with cancer, so I apologize if that remark offended you. However, I did not bring my son into this particular discussion, you did. I am not ticked off, just baffled by your incessant demand for Calvinists to explain what you consider to be contradictions, and then refusing to accept the explanations, or to come to terms with the fact that your understanding is flawed concerning Calvinism in particular, and the nature of God's Will, man's will, and the nature of man in general. You defend, or at least seem to believe, a position that we have shown by logic and scripture to be contradictory, flawed, and ultimately Gnostic. This isn't about "winning" an argument, it's about coming to better understanding of God's Word.
Go back to your monitoring of the War...obviously that is more important to you right now...I won't bother you again unless you address me.
Corin did God "want" or "plan" the sin of Judas?
No apology necessary. That's not a sore spot (so to speak).
However, I did not bring my son into this particular discussion, you did.
You made a statement about expressing your beliefs. I read your profile. You've been around here long enough to know that if you post it, it's fair game.
You're right. This argument will be here when the war is over.
Peace.
Of course I did. You said that since you are regenerate you can choose whether or not to sin.
If God doesn't want you to sin, yet He knows you will, why doesn't he take that choice away from the regenerate?
However, I did not bring my son into this particular discussion, you did. should've been italicized.
did you get mail from X?
Check your freepmail.
i thought that particular example might have been used for another purpose, That is why i "hedged" a bit in my comments.
The fact of the matter is that it was never a question of how you or i understood the example, rather how the intended reader of your post did so.
Perhaps i committed a breach of FR ediquette (spell?) when i replied, and apologised for the clarity of somebody else's post. If this is the case, i offer you my apologies for getting tangled up in your feet.
Oh, I'm quite sure he understood it perfectly, but didn't like how it pointed out the fault in his reasoning. It wasn't hard to understand. The fact that several other posters referred to it is proof that it was understood by anyone who read it. That the intended recipient chose not to is his problem.
Hey, we all have stepped on someone else's toes in here, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. No harm done!
Amazing how no non-Calvinist 'understands' Calvinism.
The problem in understanding Calvinism is that they want anything to mean anything.
Calvin stated very clearly that it was by God's will that Adam sinned, (and Calvin rejected the notion of a permissive will,it was all directive)
I admit that by the will of God all the sons of Adam fell into that state of wretchedness in which they are now involved (Institutes, Book 3, chapter 23)
I guess Calvin himself did not understand Calvinism!
;-)
It sounds like a permissive will since something is happening that God does not desire.
Now, can someone do something that is against God's desire?
If that is the case, then someone could resist God's will to be saved, even though God desires all to be saved (2Pet.3:9)
Exactly.
Ah, yes, ftD returns, and his faithful sidekick is in the amen corner. Reminds me of the two guys in the jail cell with Eddie Murphy in Trading Places. One guy asks all the questions, and the other guy just says "YEAH!"
I see that the same old tired arguments are being raised, despite much having been written to explain and answer said tired arguments. Once again, the idea that someone "could" resist God's desire, even though God supposedly wants "all" to be saved. I have already explained once why the greek word "pas" translated as "all" in this passage does not mean the same thing as our English word "all". Our word "all" is used to mean "every one", and carries the idea that none is left out. The Greek word "pas" carries the idea of "all sorts", "all kinds", and implies the idea of "some". Of course, since the Greek doesn't support their theology, the Arminians ignore it. And, to argue that mere man could resist God's will is a straw man argument. Oh, God will let you sin, but even that is within His Plan, and will result in no good to you. Since Adam fell, man has had the exact opposite problem: He cannot DO what God commands! What is that command? Repent, and believe the Gospel, and you shall be saved. As for God's Will, nothing happens that God has not already known about, and incorporated into His Plan. He isn't waiting to see IF you will do any certain thing, He already knows with absolute certainty that you will do everything that you have done, are doing, and will do, clear to the end of time and beyond. And He knows that with a certainty that you can't even begin to fathom.
You want man's will, his so-called ability to choose (from a morally neutral position, which is patently false), to be the one thing that God must yield to, the one thing that He cannot override without being "unfair". You don't understand God's Soveriegnty, His Omnipotence, or His Omniscience. If you did, you wouldn't argue for such a stupid thing!
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.