Freedom of Choice Question

[Calvin87]

Hello Brethren,

I have always been extremely interested in the idea of free will concerning our actions. As I am reformed of course I reject man's freedom of ultimate self-determination. However, "free will" as it pertains to man's choices is a constant point of argument which never seems to go away, and creates quite a bit of heat in conversations these days. It also happens to be a fascinating little piece of doctrine, So, I would like to share with you some thoughts I have had concerning "free-will" these last days.

I would first like to admit that I do not believe in "free-will". My pastor has always said, "we have been granted freedom of our wills for the purpose of making choices in this life. You make choices everyday, therefore you have free will." But this explanation holds no water for me, and is nothing more than a sophistical refutation. Its the same as saying, "the ground is wet...therefore it rained recently"

I was reading from D.Martyn Lloyd-Jones' sermon series on Romans chapter 6 the other day and came upon a wonderful little quote that I think fits the problem quite well. He said, "We must make a distinction between the truth of man's position, and his experiences." Now, this quote in chapter 6 had nothing to do with "free-will". But as I meditated on this quote, it suddenly seemed applicable to this never ending debate of freedom of choice.

1. The truth concerning our position with God in this area is that he is sovereign. Now, I know that denying freedom of choice in the face of sovereignty implies certain uncomfortable aspects, but bear with me. I think that sovereignty covers all corners of the board when it comes to freedom of choice. You cannot say that man has freedom in the face of sovereignty. It is a paradox. It makes God little, steals his glory and causes us to say that God has knowledge of something that he didn't decree. Thus I say it is a paradox. If we begin to push freedom of choice into his divine realm we are guilty of fallacy of logic, and also heresy. So when we say that God is sovereign, it means he is sovereign. That is the truth of man's position concerning this doctrine.

2. Speaking in terms of experience, man makes choices every day. We must choose between the good and the evil. we are held accountable for those choices and are either rendered punishment for them, or are else rewarded for them. So in terms of experience, man has a certain freedom that he exercises under the ultimate rule of sovereignty.

3. I think the problem is that way impose our experience on the overall truth of our position. Which I would reiterate is God's sovereignty. Thus we say, that man has "free-will" and God works out any inconsistencies. I think however it makes more sense to say that we yield to the truth of our position rather than our experience.

I guess what I would like you guys to comment on is whether or not we take the truth of man's position concerning "free-will" over our experience.

 

[Pergamum]

Both in my experience and also in my belief I belief that man chooses as he pleases and that man has the freedom to choose as he pleases; and that he is pleased with things that are in accordance with his nature.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Both in my experience and also in my belief I belief that man chooses as he pleases and that man has the freedom to choose as he pleases; and that he is pleased with things that are in accordance with his nature.

What about Pharaoh?

 

[Calvin87]

Both in my experience and also in my belief I belief that man chooses as he pleases and that man has the freedom to choose as he pleases; and that he is pleased with things that are in accordance with his nature.

But are his choices ruled over by God's sovereignty? Does God have knowledge of these choices before they happen? Even from the beginnings of the universe? If so, I answer that whatever God foreknew he foreordained. This makes experience no more than an instrument. We say God is sovereign. But by what you have just said here, how sovereign is sovereign? And at what point does our experience cross the line and invade God's attributes? I am saying that the truth of man's overall position triumphs over his experience. basically, sovereignty over choice. I am not denying choices are made. But because we are forced to recognize the truth of our position, should it not change our understanding of experience? Mainly freedom. It does not mean that we do not act or make decisions. But if we take sovereignty as a truth, we must deny freedom as a truth, and mark is as a convenience in our experiential understanding. Freedom should be pressed by sovereignty. Sovereignty should never be pressed by freedom.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What is "freedom"? Is it mere action bereft of motive? Are we more "free" as believers than the unbeliever? Discussions of freedom go sideways quickly when the notion of autonomy is underlying them. The autonomy item always arises when sovereignty is being discussed. To date no one has proven a truly autonomous creature exists.

Thus we should all drop the pretense that such a person is possible and deal with the reality of one's existence. God is sovereign, man is responsible. These two things are indisputable from Scripture. To deny either is to deny too much.

So, being the finite persons we are, we start to equivocate on either point. God is sovereign, but he gave up some sovereignty so man may have the liberty of indifference (libertarian free will). Or, man is responsible, but only so long as God is not meddling behind the scenes to orchestrate the circumstances of the decisions that we make. The former seeks to dilute the very word sovereign, the latter the word responsible.

That we cannot objectively reconcile God's sovereignty and our responsibility in no way excuses us of our existence under both assertions. For me, and I think for the Reformers, we must always bow to the sovereignty of God, trusting, knowing, and faithfully believing, that the God of all things will do right. God has not deemed it necessary for us to know exactly how he reconciles the apparent dichotomy (in our eyes, but not God's) we may see in the teaching from Scripture God is sovereign, man is responsible. But for me to question how God pulls it off, and to regale you with discourse in compatibilism, first and second causes, etc., especially in the face of so much evidence from Scripture that he does, is for me to attempt to ascend to a lofty height that I have no right or warrant from which to do so.

The fear and trembling we should feel, but often do not, should give us pause and cause to think that if anyone knows what they are doing it must be God Almighty. I rest comforted at this point, borrowing from Aristotle, that is the mark of an instructed mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits, and not to seek exactness when only an approximation of the truth is possible.

AMR

 

[Pergamum]

Calvin,

We do as we please according to our natures. We are bound by our natures, but we willingly sin as we please within those natures. No sinner sins against his will, but sins because he wants to. Only when God changes our wills do our affections then change. Read Jonathan Edwards' Freedom of the Will where he develops this theme.