Calvin on free will (Inst 2.2.7)

[John The Baptist]

I’m Was reading the institutes this morning and Calvin started going on about freewill, so I didn’t want to put it down until I came to his conclusion; I think it’s rather great:

“In this way, then, man is said to have free will, not because he has a free choice of good and evil, but because he acts voluntarily, and not by compulsion. This is perfectly true: but why should so small a matter have been dignified with so proud a title? An admirable freedom! that man is not forced to be the servant of sin, while he is, however, έθελόδουλος (ethelodoulos, a voluntary slave); his will being bound by the fetters of sin.”

If this is indeed what we mean by free will, that there is no compulsion in our decision making, why are we so proud of it?

And again:

“but I think we ought religiously to eschew terms which imply some absurdity, especially in subjects where error is of pernicious consequence. How few are there who, when they hear free will attributed to man, do not immediately imagine that he is the master of his mind and will in such a sense, that he can of himself incline himself either to good or evil? It may be said that such dangers are removed by carefully expounding the meaning to the people. But such is the proneness of the human mind to go astray, that it will more quickly draw error from one little word, than truth from a lengthened discourse.”

Phenomenal. Luther had the same sentiment in Bondage of the Will, saying that (paraphrased) the term is so confusing and people consider it so many different things that it is practically useless.

Reflecting on my post about Anselm earlier this week, I think he is in the same stream of thought, but as Calvin mentions, his definition has so many twists and turns to it, it tends to be rather unclear.

Thanks for reading, friends.

A little humor:
My wife and I have the day off today so as I read Calvin and get excited about his writing on free will, she sits there making a grocery list nodding her head as if she’s listening. It keeps the peace. I told her I don’t care if she actually listens as long as she pretends she is

 

[No Other Name]

I told her I don’t care if she actually listens as long as she pretends she is

Thus allowing her to at voluntarily and not under compulsion. Taking what you read to heart. Hahaha

I have always disagreed with Luther on the "practical uselessness" of free will, but rather free will is an attribute of God that makes his holiness holy ie if God himself had no free will then ...

" there is no virtue, nor any thing of a moral nature, in the most sublime and glorious acts and exercises of God's holiness, justice, and faithfulness; and he never does any thing which is in itself supremely worthy, and, above all other things, fit and excellent, but only as a king of mechanical medium of fate; and in what he does as the judge and moral governor of the world, he exercises no moral excellency, exercising no freedom in these things, because he acts by moral necessity, which is, in effect, the same with physical or natural necessity; and therefore he only acts by an Hobbistical fatality" (Edwards, Freedom of the Will)

I get that Luther is only mentioning other humans and their wildly erratic chaotically-changing meanings as to "free will" and I completely agree that no non-glorified human has free will like God has free will but that there is in every image-bearer an ability to make a choice - to have an inclination or desire to do one thing or not to do another. It is a distorted "free will" fallen in nature - but as Gerstner growled we have never done anything we did not really want to do.

 

[John The Baptist]

I get that Luther is only mentioning other humans and their wildly erratic chaotically-changing meanings as to "free will" and I completely agree that no non-glorified human has free will like God has free will but that there is in every image-bearer an ability to make a choice - to have an inclination or desire to do one thing or not to do another. It is a distorted "free will" fallen in nature - but as Gerstner growled we have never done anything we did not really want to do.

I agree with this, the point being that humans do choose what they want under no compulsion, and if that is what people mean when they say free will, good and well.

The issue is that they don’t mean that. I often converse with rather ardent Arminians (Wesleyan Holiness) and they will say things like this:

Of course God wants to do X, but God also gave everyone free will so it’s up to such and such person…

Or they will pray that God will work in someone’s heart and then post prayer mention how they hope said person ‘allows’ God to change them, or worse yet that such person changes their mind/heart.

These are the issues with ‘freewill.’ Most people who use the term propagate pelagian or semi pelagian ideas using freewill as a bludgeon.

And the ever-infuriating, ‘God is a gentleman…’

 

[dsanch1120]

Reading through Calvin and Sproul (who’s basically just easy to read Calvin) was tremendously helpful when I was learning about reformed theology. I had heard that Calvin didn’t believe in free will, but had never considered that the meaning of free will itself is incredibly subjective. I believe Calvin says somewhere else that he thinks the term “free will” is unhelpful, or something similar. Regardless, I had the same reaction when I read that chapter of institutes (including a similar interaction with my wife).

 

[John The Baptist]

Reading through Calvin and Sproul (who’s basically just easy to read Calvin) was tremendously helpful when I was learning about reformed theology. I had heard that Calvin didn’t believe in free will, but had never considered that the meaning of free will itself is incredibly subjective. I believe Calvin says somewhere else that he thinks the term “free will” is unhelpful, or something similar. Regardless, I had the same reaction when I read that chapter of institutes (including a similar interaction with my wife).

We certainly are blessed men!

This type of distinction is certainly helpful in conversation with non-reformed Christians. I have, in the past, been too zealous and absolutely denied free will. I would then go on to articulate the Reformed view of free will, namely that we are not coerced into making our decisions.

Probably would be better to push the Arminian on their view if free will and then question its logical conclusions.

Oh whale

 

[RamistThomist]

Reading through Calvin and Sproul (who’s basically just easy to read Calvin) was tremendously helpful when I was learning about reformed theology. I had heard that Calvin didn’t believe in free will, but had never considered that the meaning of free will itself is incredibly subjective. I believe Calvin says somewhere else that he thinks the term “free will” is unhelpful, or something similar. Regardless, I had the same reaction when I read that chapter of institutes (including a similar interaction with my wife).

Part of the problem is that pop-Reformed theology has done a generally terrible job in explaining the nature of free choice. We know deep down inside that we are not robots, but we have not always been able to explain why we are not robots.

Free choice isn’t identical to free will. Will has to do with potency. Arbitrium is the means to be chosen

 

[VictorBravo]

Part of the problem is that pop-Reformed theology has done a generally terrible job in explaining the nature of free choice. We know deep down inside that we are not robots, but we have not always been able to explain why we are not robots.

Free choice isn’t identical to free will. Will has to do with potency. Arbitrium is the means to be chosen

This is a good point, and ought to be recognized when relating to, for example, Muslims.

I worked in a Muslim country and the most common phrase was (my bad transliteration) "Ensch Allah." Which meant "by the will of Allah." It was applied to everything. There's a flat tire on the tractor. "Ensch Allah, it will be fixed."

The Eastern Orthodox Christian farm manager said, "Maybe Allah wills that you get off your behind and find the tractor jack!"

Too much reliance on "God willing" ignores the real responsibilities of self-direction that Scripture lays out for his servants.

 

[John The Baptist]

This is a good point, and ought to be recognized when relating to, for example, Muslims.

I worked in a Muslim country and the most common phrase was (my bad transliteration) "Ensch Allah." Which meant "by the will of Allah." It was applied to everything. There's a flat tire on the tractor. "Ensch Allah, it will be fixed."

The Eastern Orthodox Christian farm manager said, "Maybe Allah wills that you get off your behind and find the tractor jack!"

Too much reliance on "God willing" ignores the real responsibilities of self-direction that Scripture lays out for his servants.

I think at times the Reformed fall for that too, especially those who get fed a more narrow Calvinism by men like John Piper. God bless that man for his commitment to the gospel, but he certainly contributes to the narrow view of sovereignty that many have.