Free will question

Status
Not open for further replies.

Notthemama1984

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I am reading an article on open theism and the terms "libertine free-will" and "semi-Pelagian free-will" are used in passing.

What are the definitions of these views and how do they differ from Reformed free-will?

Thanks for expanding my theological vocabulary.
 
I think the Reformed version would be called 'compatibilistic free-will'.

From a friend of mine_

Libertarian Freedom
There are some people who believe in what is called Libertarian free will (hereafter called LFW), which means that a person is always able to choose or choose otherwise in a given situation. Being able to choose or choose otherwise, they argue, is the only way to be responsible for your actions. If you couldn't have done otherwise, then you are not responsible for your actions. In this view, a person is absolutely free, even from the determination and constraints of the human nature or the determination of God.

Compatibilism
On the other hand, there are people who believe the Bible teaches what is called Compatibilistic Free will (CFW). This view asserts that man's actions and choices are done freely, but are also in accordance with God's determination and control over the entire situation. Since the man acted freely, he is held responsible for his actions, and yet God remains sovereign. Compatibilistic free will also asserts that the human will is not free from the constraints or the inclination of the human nature, but in fact is a slave to it. In other words, the will does not control itself, nor does the will control the nature, but the nature controls the will and therefore your nature determines your choices.

For example, if you offer a pit bull a bowl of salad or a big juicy steak, his nature is such that he will always predictably and consistently choose the steak over the salad. In this case, the Pit bull cannot really be said to have chosen or chosen otherwise. His choice was determined by his nature. It was not a free choice in this sense, but it was free because it's what the pit bull desired to choose. His choice was in perfect accord with his own nature and desires.

So the will is determined, but it is determined by who you are. This is self-determination. This, CFWillers argue, is the very essence of true freedom.

In like manner, CFWillers say that the Bible teaches that the human nature is wholly ruined and corrupted by sin. The human heart and will are in bondage to the corruption of sin, indeed, slaves to sin and satan himself, always doing his will, until the Lord graciously moves to rescue. The fallen, unregenerate man is completely hostile towards God, finding the gospel foolishness, hostile towards Christ, at enmity with God. He "hates the light and does not come to the light". If offered salvation, he will refuse it consistently because he lacks the spiritual faculties to humble himself before the God he hates so much and give up the sins he loves so much.

The problem is deep down, it is a heart problem. The man needs to be regenerated. He needs to be quickened from death to life, raptured from darkness to light. This, only God can do, and that by grace.

In other words, mankind by nature is not "neutral" towards God, and therefore able to choose either to the right or the left. Rather, mankind is completely opposed to God, and holiness, and does not desire Christ, only desiring to remain in the sins they love, therefore will always consistently and predictably choose to reject Christ and embrace sin.

If any man is ever saved by "choosing" to believe and embrace Christ and humble himself and repent of his sins, it isn't because he is smarter, or more spiritual, or somehow able to escape the constraints of his own evil nature because he is innately better than his neighbor, it is because the Sovereign Lord graciously moved to rescue that man, change his heart, and bring him to faith and repentance, which the Bible teaches are gifts from God.
Not sure what 'semi-pelagian free will' is.
 
Last edited:
I am reading an article on open theism and the terms "libertine free-will" and "semi-Pelagian free-will" are used in passing.

What are the definitions of these views and how do they differ from Reformed free-will?

Thanks for expanding my theological vocabulary.

Libertine free-will is the same as libertarian free-will. Let me give an example that illustrates what libertarian free-will is like. Suppose you made a choice a long time ago and suppose history were rolled back to the date and time that you made that choice. Suppose that everything is the same as it was before. Suppose that God's plan, the circumstances, and your desires are the same as it was before. According to libertarian free-will, you could choose to not make the choice you did. You could have chosen otherwise. There was no sufficient cause of your choice. There was nothing that guaranteed that you would make that choice.

You could choose to do otherwise if your circumstances or your desires were different, but this is not libertarian free-will. Libertarian free-will teaches that you could choose to do otherwise with everything else being the same.

If someone is Reformed and he says that he believes that man has free will, he means that man has desires that were generated in an appropriate way and he acts according to those desires. He acts voluntarily.
 
I am reading an article on open theism and the terms "libertine free-will" and "semi-Pelagian free-will" are used in passing.

What are the definitions of these views and how do they differ from Reformed free-will?

Thanks for expanding my theological vocabulary.

Libertine free-will is the same as libertarian free-will. Let me give an example that illustrates what libertarian free-will is like. Suppose you made a choice a long time ago and suppose history were rolled back to the date and time that you made that choice. Suppose that everything is the same as it was before. Suppose that God's plan, the circumstances, and your desires are the same as it was before. According to libertarian free-will, you could choose to not make the choice you did. You could have chosen otherwise. There was no sufficient cause of your choice. There was nothing that guaranteed that you would make that choice.

You could choose to do otherwise if your circumstances or your desires were different, but this is not libertarian free-will. Libertarian free-will teaches that you could choose to do otherwise with everything else being the same.

If someone is Reformed and he says that he believes that man has free will, he means that man has desires that were generated in an appropriate way and he acts according to those desires. He acts voluntarily.

Thank you for the information. The article mentions libertarian free will. I misquoted. So your information is spot on. Any ideas on semi-Pelagian?
 
Sorry, it is not online. It is An Analysis of Open Theism by W. Gary Crampton Ph.D. in the second edition of the CPJ. p.62. The exact quote is.....

In the middle ages, Thomas Aquinas taught a semi-Pelagian view of free will, but not in the libertarian sense that later Arminians and open theists have fostered.
 
There have been shifts in the view of man's "free will" in the last couple of centuries, mainly due to the influences of humanistic philosophy and its affects on biblical anthropology. Prior to that even many semi-Pelagians would acknowledge that man was a slave to sin, but that all men had been set free (in some sense) by Christ, so the playing field has been leveled (again, in a sense). Man is by nature a sinner, but this has been removed/reverse for all men by Christ, so to speak.

But the doctrine of original sin began to crumble steadily in the 19th century and early 20th centuries. In popular culture, the idea of man as a "noble savage" began to gain traction (this is a theme in the novels Frankenstein and Brave New World, for instance). The notion that man is by nature a sinner and at war against God is no longer popular; hence, a more libertarian view of the freedom of the will is popular today.

I'm not sure, in the end, how much difference exists between the two on a practical level, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top