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
nobdysfool's profile: I respect the right of others to disagree with me, and ask only that you state your case in an honest and thoughtful way, and not resort to personal attacks, or argument just to argue.
One of these things is not like the other...
If God wills something, shall it not come to pass?
So, it's God's will that you sin?
And exactly when have you stated your case in a thoughtful, honest way? Your whole style has been to argue just to argue, dropping bombs, and I have yet to see you present your belief with the reasons why you believe that way (and by that I don't mean "because I used to be in a Calvinist church, and left because I saw abuses". That's not a reason, that's a reaction). Defend your belief with scripture, and logical reasoning. That's what we have been doing.
Is it His Will that YOU sin?
I'm sorry if my attempt to better understand your theology is offensive to you.
At last, an answer! You do not offend me, but I am baffled by the fact that all you do is nit-pick at stuff, in the hopes of tripping someone up. That's the only reason I can see why you do that. It is not debate. It is not a sharing of ideas. As much as you want to understand my theology, I would like to understand why you believe as you do. We can't do that unless we are both engaged in debate over issues, instead of dealing with little booby-trap bombs lobbed in to derail the discussion.
As for your question, God does not will that I sin in the sense that He commands me to sin. Is the fact that I do sin taken into account in His Design? Yes. But the responsibility for my sin is mine, not His.
To the contrary, it is the elements of Calvinism that I stumble over, because they don't fit. That's why I question them.
Take a look around, of the Christians around here, the Calvinists have the strongest (and most prolific) contingency. They say I don't understand Calvinism, when I think I do.
Then they get offended when their explanations don't convince me.
That is no longer true:>)
Corin I think that you understand Calvinism as far as you choose to..and that is fine with me..
I say I have free will..and you say no you believe that it is all predestined ..and I say that is correct..it is predestined..But that does not mean that I have not chosen what was predestined..
All of our choices are limited by the will of God..You can not will that which is against the natural laws God put in place for the earth ..you do not have a problem with that ..but whne God is personal you kick against the goad
Re-read what I said... of the Christians around here...
but when God is personal you kick against the goad...
To the contrary Rn, it is the fact that God is personal that I cannot understand your concept of Him.
I think you better check with Calvin on that, since he stated that God did want all men to be saved.
The reason why they are not, (according to Calvin) was a secret will, not revealed in Scripture.
Spurgeon said the same thing in 1Tim.2:4.
So, if Scripture states that it is God's will that you do not sin, why do you?
We acknoweldge that nothing can happen unless God lets it happen, but not everything happening is happening because God desires it, rather they are happening despite what God desires.
Yet, because God has given man some choices to make, that free will is allowed to operate, even to the rejection of God's own desires.
God knows what those choices will be, so He is in complete control of history, but nevertheless, the rejection by man of God's desires are real.
Must be one of those secret will deals
And what does this 'Pas' mean in Rom.3:23?
Is it 'all sorts' in that case also?
In Romans 5:18 you have that same 'pas' in both statements, which equally refers to those who born under the 1st Adam and then fall under the grace of the Second Adam.
Moreover, the Calvinist Spurgeon admitted that 1Tim.2:4 did refer to God's will that all (every) man be saved.
And, to argue that mere man could resist God's will is a straw man argument.
Not if it is God who allows it.
Oh, God will let you sin, but even that is within His Plan, and will result in no good to you.
Well, 'let' implies a permissive will, which means you doing something against the desire of God, but God is allowing it despite that.
This is not the position of Calvinism, which states that everything is happening because of God's directive will, to bring about God's glory.
Since Adam fell, man has had the exact opposite problem: He cannot DO what God commands!
And according to Calvin, why did Adam fall?
Was that not God's will for him?
What is that command? Repent, and believe the Gospel, and you shall be saved.
True.
As for God's Will, nothing happens that God has not already known about, and incorporated into His Plan.
True.
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.
True.
And He knows that with a certainty that you can't even begin to fathom.
True.
That is not the issue, the issue or question is why are things happening that God clearly states He does not want, but nevertheless are still happening.
Wesley believed God controled history as did Arminius.
Some Arminians have gone off track with the view of 'open theology' in an attempt to defend free will.
However, one can understand God's understanding of free will as being factored in, God knowing all the possiblities and what decisions would be made for or against him, and still be in complete control of human history with man having real choices to make.
For a discussion on the different views you might want to get a book on the Divine Foreknowledge, four views, edit. James K.Beilby and Paul Eddy .
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!
And you do not understand God's Holiness and Love, or you would not argue that God is really the one who wants sin and death in the world (for His glory!)
God brings about His glory despite the wicked actions of men, not because of them.
No because in this case Paul is obviously talking about "all" in an individual sense, and the context bears this out. In 2Peter3, Peter is talking about "all" in a collective sense, which carries the meaning of "all sorts". The King James translators got it wrong, because they inserted their own theology into the translation. Words mean things, and context helps to establish precise meaning. Unfortunately, English doesn't always have the precise word to translate the idea without resorting to a phrase, which the translators sometimes don't (or won't) do.
In Romans 5:18 you have that same 'pas' in both statements, which equally refers to those who born under the 1st Adam and then fall under the grace of the Second Adam. Moreover, the Calvinist Spurgeon admitted that 1Tim.2:4 did refer to God's will that all (every) man be saved.
In1 Timothy 2:4, the sense is obviously collective, therefore the "all sorts" sense is correct. In Romans 5:18, The same word is used in both parts of the verse, that is true. But, in a situation like this, you must also compare scripture with scripture to see whether "all" in both halves of the verse are in the same sense, or are to be understood in the same way. When that is done, it can be seen that the preponderance of scripture indicates that only "some" will actually be saved. The free gift is sufficient for all, but only efficacious for those whom God has chosen, which is part and parcel of the doctrine of salvation and election. That is why it is dangerous to build a doctrinal position from one, two, or three verses, and ignoring the whole of scripture regarding said doctrine. Even Spurgeon and Calvin could be wrong, sometimes.
Well, 'let' implies a permissive will, which means you doing something against the desire of God, but God is allowing it despite that. This is not the position of Calvinism, which states that everything is happening because of God's directive will, to bring about God's glory.
Let's define Will, shall we? Because I think you're using some terms interchangeably with Will as it refers to God, trying to find leverage for your unscriptural view. Let's start by asking some questions. Does God command people to sin? No! That would be a Directive, wouldn't it? Now, Does God permit sin to exist? Obviously yes, so we have a situation where God permits something to exist, while not commanding anyone to actually do it. You want to call that God's Permissive Will. Sin is not something God created, it is something that his creation brought about by disobedience to the Directive Will of God. It is an aberration in the creation that He allows to exist. Therefore, God is not the creator (author) of sin, but He can use it as a tool to direct the affairs of men and angels, simply by the fact that He, being God, knows what choices his creatures will make, and directing events in such a way that His purpose is accomplished while at the same time not actively causing or directing the individual decisions that lead to those events. It's simple cause and effect. He knows what action will trigger what reaction, and can bring people and events together in such a way that everyne freely chooses what they will do, and God's purpose is fulfilled. Just because we don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
And according to Calvin, why did Adam fall? Was that not God's will for him?
It happened within the framework of God's Will. Did God CAUSE Adam to fall? NO! Adam fell, and paid the price for his disobedience. Nothing happens that is outside of the Will of God, but that does not mean that God actively caused it to happen.
And you do not understand God's Holiness and Love, or you would not argue that God is really the one who wants sin and death in the world (for His glory!)
I do not say that. You mischaracterize what I have said. God uses those things (sin and death) FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES. In that way, He brings Glory to Himself out of that which He hates. You argue for an ideal that is obviously not possible here and now. There will be a day when those things will not exist. They will cease to exist when they have served their usefulness in God's Plan. Do you not believe this? I think that's the thing you have a problem with. You can't see how God can use sin and death to bring Glory to Himself, so you try to explain it away by other means.
God brings about His glory despite the wicked actions of men, not because of them.
Not entirely true. God said that Joseph's brothers meant their actions for evil against Joseph, but God meant their actions for good to Joseph. So which is it? Man may mean evil, but God may use man's evil deeds to bring about good.
He thinks he does better than you or I do...
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.