Sovereignty establishing free will

[Afterthought]

From another thread...

Man could not have a free will unless God was totally sovereign.

Do any of you mind explaining/pointing me to something that explains that statement? I've seen something similar to that intriguing statement in the Westminster Confession but never understood how that works out.

 

[MarieP]

If man had free will and, at the same time, God was not sovereign, God wouldn't be God at all. Man would.

 

[steadfast7]

Man's freedom is the closest analogy to God's freedom, as we are the only ones created in his image and likeness. It is the one thing that could (if it were possible) be a challenge to his sovereignty. That man does indeed have a free will shows that God's sovereignty is uttermost.

 

[MW]

The contingency of second causes can only be established by a Sovereign which guarantees their perpetual function. The ability to make wise and prudent choices depends on the constancy of second causes. If jumping off a cliff might result in death or the ability to fly, it would be impossible to choose whether to jump off a cliff or not. We see the same in human government; monetary policy, for example, is designed to encourage investors by means of maintaining stable markets.

 

[Michael]

Man is free to choose whatever he wants. However he is not free to want whatever he wants. Since man has no want other than that which God allows him, God's sovereignty establishes the freedom of man's will.

 

[KMK]

The contingency of second causes can only be established by a Sovereign which guarantees their perpetual function. The ability to make wise and prudent choices depends on the constancy of second causes. If jumping off a cliff might result in death or the ability to fly, it would be impossible to choose whether to jump off a cliff or not. We see the same in human government; monetary policy, for example, is designed to encourage investors by means of maintaining stable markets.

That is extremely helpful, Rev Winzer. We always tend to think that 'Mother Nature' guarantees the perpetual function of second causes. But, that viewpoint makes 'Mother Nature', God. That brings us right back to square one: something/someone must be sovereign for man to make choices.

 

[moral necessity]

Luther and others make the point that man does not possess free will, but is rather a free agent. God himself does not even have a free will, but it is constrained to always choose according to his character or being, and so is not "free". See "Bondage of the will" by Luther.

 

[Peairtach]

I'd be interested in reading what Reformed theologians and philosophers have said on this subject myself.

I'm no philosopher and only an armchair theologian.

Atheistic philosophy tends to move in the direction of Man's will being determined by chance/fate, the more consistent that philosophy is with its atheism.

Therefore if God is not completely sovereign, to the extent that so-called impersonal "chance/fate" are calling the shots, to that extent Man's will is impinged upon deterministically by chance/fate.

Therefore for Man's will (either regenerate or unregenerate will) to be truly free and responsible (within its own moral condition, regenerate or unregenerate) God must be totally sovereign to prevent the existence of chance/fate which would deterministically infringe/impinge on Man's will.

For Man's will to be truly free and responsible we need a totally sovereign and personal God (and Man also needs a soul (?); but that would be another topic).

Of course this doesn't explain how God's decree isn't deterministic for Man's will as well. I would suspect that this cannot be understood by our puny minds since it involves the fact that both God and Man are personal and constantly in either positive or negative relation to one another and it also involves the fact that God can sovereignly ordain Man's free and responsible actions because He is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

But we can certainly understand that belief in chance/fate leads to determinism as the atheist philosophers - the most consistent being the Marxists - have found.

Where are such things discussed in the literature of Christian and/or Reformed theologians/philosophers? Any further light/discussion would interest me as much as Raymond.

I've seen something similar to that intriguing statement in the Westminster Confession

Where is this?

 

[Willem van Oranje]

God's Sovereignty establishes free agency in the sense that God has determined that man would make free choices. He has determined the ends and the means, that is, the end results of the choices, and the means by which they would be chosen, I. E. freely, without compulsion. If God had not afore determined it to be so, man could not even have free agency, and furthermore the choices could not even be made. As the first causal agent, God determines the nature of all secondary causes, as well as their ends.

 

[captivewill]

From another thread...

Man could not have a free will unless God was totally sovereign.

Do any of you mind explaining/pointing me to something that explains that statement? I've seen something similar to that intriguing statement in the Westminster Confession but never understood how that works out.

Only after God regenerates a person does that person have free will.

 

[Afterthought]

Luther and others make the point that man does not possess free will, but is rather a free agent. God himself does not even have a free will, but it is constrained to always choose according to his character or being, and so is not "free". See "Bondage of the will" by Luther.

Oh, I agree. I suppose it depends on the definition we make of free will to begin with.

Where is this?

It isn't too much, but it is similar to the question posed. It's found in chapter 3 paragraph 1.

"I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

Interesting thoughts you bring up there. If God were not absolutely Sovereign then we would be completely determined by our environment. However, I am not sure what bearing quantum mechanics would have on this explanation. I am often told that it isn't a deterministic model, but perhaps they use "deterministic" in a different way than we mean (which to us would be being controlled by physical factors and chance?)?


It seems besides this explanation there are a few unique ones such as being regenerated giving you free will again. The other one that armourbearer gave is similar to what you said and seems to me to explain the WCF's statement (i.e. God's Sovereignty ensures that the physical world is predictable enough for us to make choices).

(btw, your profile picture matches your statement about being an armchair theologian perfectly! xD)

 

[Peairtach]

When we talk about human freedom and responsibility as here we are talking about it at a more fundamental level than whether or not the individual's will is bound by sin - the ethical level. We are looking at the metaphysical possibilities .

---------- Post added at 05:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:44 AM ----------

Atheism can be shown logicaly to destroy true human freedom /responsibility. Of course the atheists will seek to vigorously deny this, as they do with all aspects of the atheist world they don't like - which is most of it, since it is a sort of Hell.

 

[Calvinus]

I'd be interested in reading what Reformed theologians and philosophers have said on this subject myself.

I'm no philosopher and only an armchair theologian.

Atheistic philosophy tends to move in the direction of Man's will being determined by chance/fate, the more consistent that philosophy is with its atheism.

Therefore if God is not completely sovereign, to the extent that so-called impersonal "chance/fate" are calling the shots, to that extent Man's will is impinged upon deterministically by chance/fate.

Therefore for Man's will (either regenerate or unregenerate will) to be truly free and responsible (within its own moral condition, regenerate or unregenerate) God must be totally sovereign to prevent the existence of chance/fate which would deterministically infringe/impinge on Man's will.

For Man's will to be truly free and responsible we need a totally sovereign and personal God (and Man also needs a soul (?); but that would be another topic).

Of course this doesn't explain how God's decree isn't deterministic for Man's will as well. I would suspect that this cannot be understood by our puny minds since it involves the fact that both God and Man are personal and constantly in either positive or negative relation to one another and it also involves the fact that God can sovereignly ordain Man's free and responsible actions because He is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

But we can certainly understand that belief in chance/fate leads to determinism as the atheist philosophers - the most consistent being the Marxists - have found.

Where are such things discussed in the literature of Christian and/or Reformed theologians/philosophers? Any further light/discussion would interest me as much as Raymond.

I've seen something similar to that intriguing statement in the Westminster Confession

Where is this?

This book just came out. It is part of the series edited by Richard A. Muller, "Texts & Studies in Reformation & Post-Reformation Thought." The book's title is "Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology" and edited by Willem J. van Asselt, J. Martin Bac, and Roelf T. te Velde.

Some of the statements made here on this thread are paralleled by Sunni Muslim writings especially by Ibn Taymiyya of Damascus, Syria who lived during the late 13th and early 14th centuries.

Of course the Muslims are bereft of Christ and their idea of God is monolithic or as a monad and hence anti-Trinitarian. Their continued denial of Christ and the need for his atonement condemns them all. That is why I salute the work of Christians like James White who debates them and confronts them with the fact that without the mediation of Jesus the God man (more than any mere prophet) they cannot see God.

 

[puritan628]

A simplistic analogy that G.I. Williamson gives in The Shorter Catechism for Study Classes, Volume II, page 153 is this: a person carrying a fishbowl with one fish in the fishbowl. The person carrying the fishbowl is God, I am the fish. I'm as free as I can be swimming around that fishbowl, and since I don't comprehend that there is even anything outside the fishbowl, I have an illusion that I have complete freedom within my entire domain. However, the truth is that I'm only free within the fishbowl. There is still God's constraining nature to keep me inside the fishbowl.

 

[Calvinus]

Simplistic analogies tend to smell fishy after a brief examination. ;-)

 

[Peairtach]

I'm sure there must be more - in some Reformed systematic theologies - on this subject of atheism (and materialism) logically leading to the denial of Man's free will and responsibility, whereas Theism, and in particular Reformed Theism, can be shown, at least to some extent in a way that can be understood, to uphold Man's free will and responsibility.

No doubt people like Edwards, Van Til, Gordon Clark, or others of that ilk have expatiated on the subject at greater length.

It does have strong apologetic potential, as well as being an important truth in itself.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

A simplistic analogy that G.I. Williamson gives in The Shorter Catechism for Study Classes, Volume II, page 153 is this: a person carrying a fishbowl with one fish in the fishbowl. The person carrying the fishbowl is God, I am the fish. I'm as free as I can be swimming around that fishbowl, and since I don't comprehend that there is even anything outside the fishbowl, I have an illusion that I have complete freedom within my entire domain. However, the truth is that I'm only free within the fishbowl. There is still God's constraining nature to keep me inside the fishbowl.

The illusory "free will" analogy or argument is fodder for the Arminian "robot" pejorative. I have no illusions about my freedom to choose according to that which I desire the most at the moment I so choose. The illusion of those that think they have the liberty of indifference is that they are autonomous from our sovereign God.

AMR

 

[schwarzeneggerchia]

Absolute Sovereignty, encapsulated Free-will

I would rather express it as such 'free-will encapsulated in sovereignty'.
No matter how free man thinks they are, their freedom because it is established by God's sovereignty, is encapsulated to serve His sovereign purpose. After all,
". . .who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Romans 9 v. 20.

Is the freedom genuine?
Yes!
By looking at the historical movements in missiology, missiologists does not deny but affirms the fact that God orchastrates the spread of the Gospel by means of human err, Jesus' genealogy includes women who conceived through means of men's depraved free-will.

 

[Peairtach]

Here's another thread that touches on these things:-

http://www.puritanboard.com/f50/causal-determinism-human-responsibility-63037/

Here's a Douglas Wilson article that deals with these things:-

Antithesis at Reformed.org

This is no endorsement of Wilson's subsequent Visionista ("Federal Vision") and "New Perspective on Paul" views.