Maybe this should clear it up: I see it as this order ground motives--->desires--->will--->action. I speak of the will as free here because for the non-believer his will is naturally able to choose to follow God---it's a real option (ie: he could choose it if he wanted---nothing stopping him). However, because of corrupt desires stemming from corrupt ground motives, he will not and therefore cannot. You cannot do what you will not do. Our will is free in all the ordinary senses---that is, to fulfill its function of choosing.
Yet another free will question...
- Thread starter Der Pilger
- Start date
- Status
Maybe this should clear it up: I see it as this order ground motives--->desires--->will--->action. I speak of the will as free here because for the non-believer his will is naturally able to choose to follow God---it's a real option (ie: he could choose it if he wanted---nothing stopping him). However, because of corrupt desires stemming from corrupt ground motives, he will not and therefore cannot. You cannot do what you will not do. Our will is free in all the ordinary senses---that is, to fulfill its function of choosing.
Boosterseat_91
Puritan Board Freshman
NB3K
Puritan Board Sophomore
I absolutely abhor this heresy of "free will" Get Calvin's Institute's Book 2 Chapter 4 & 5 would pave the right path.
---------- Post added at 10:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 AM ----------
God only gives the ammount of liberty that His creation needs to accomplish His purpose. Man is governed totally by the God of the Bible.
---------- Post added at 10:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 AM ----------
God only gives the ammount of liberty that His creation needs to accomplish His purpose. Man is governed totally by the God of the Bible.
And this contradicts freedom of the will exactly how?
The fact is that when Calvin is talking about "freedom" he is talking about something quite different than what we are speaking of. Freedom here, would be moral freedom: the ability to, from our own strength of moral rectitude, not sin or to do good. This does not, however, negate the fact that we do choose and that our will is free, at any moment, to choose the good if we so desired (and of course without regeneration, we never will because our fundamental ground motives are totally corrupt). There is no fundamental disagreement between Calvin and Edwards on this point.
Der Pilger
Puritan Board Freshman
So, then, in what sense is the will not free? Or are you saying that the will is not in bondage to sin?
Bondage to sin is deeper than the will. The will is bound to the desires, which are bound to ground motives. The will, though, is completely free to perform the function for which it was created---the function of choosing.
Der Pilger
Puritan Board Freshman
But if the will is bound to desires, as you say, and those desires are corrupt by sin, then it must follow that the will is also in bondage to sin.
Technically yes. However, do you call a thing in bondage if it does what it was designed to do?
Is there a correct definition of "free will"? Some people say that it means to have the ability to act according to one's desires whereas others say it means to choose otherwise all other things being equal. Other people think it means to have the ability to choose either good or evil. Anselm taught that it means being able to preserve the rectitude of will for its own sake.
If we say that people have free will, then we should use the definition that would not contradict the Biblical teaching that man is either a slave of sin or righteousness and that the unregenerate do not have the ability within themselves to come to Christ.
If we say that people have free will, then we should use the definition that would not contradict the Biblical teaching that man is either a slave of sin or righteousness and that the unregenerate do not have the ability within themselves to come to Christ.
In an ultimate sense, yes. In an immediate sense, we do make real decisions and have real live options.
I'm actually working on a study tracing the definition found in Anselm, Luther, and Edwards.
moral necessity
Puritan Board Junior
Free will was not what was argued for by many of the good, ancient writers on the subject, but rather free agency. There is a vast difference. When they spoke of having an ability to choose, they referred to the cause of this, their being a free, moral agent. When they spoke of the restriction of what they choose being limited by indwelling sin, or by whatever affection is leading at the moment, they do not refer to their will being free, but rather a follower or a slave to their affections.
Blessings!
Blessings!
Where? All three of these gentlemen were firm believers in the sovereignty of God.
This is where we get a bit of historical confusion. Following the affections, for a person before about 1650, was not binding or limiting at all---it was rational. Freedom is defined then as ability to do good. Anselm actually makes this argument, taking it as a given that since God has free will (and man does too) that free will does not necessarily entail the ability to do evil. It was actually Anselm who first defined free will in terms of natural ability---a tradition carried on by Luther and Edwards.
The heresy that began to appear in the late Middle Ages that has confused the issue is that of moral ability---that is, the ability to, at a given moment, choose apart from one's nature. Edwards addresses this and exposes it for the nonsense that it is, but nonetheless, it's the implicit view of free will that most Arminians have subscribed to.
I think he's speaking in terms of natural ability, since he also clearly holds to a compatibilist view of the will itself. The best way that I can describe Anselm's view is that he views the human condition as such that in our natural state, we possess the freedom to do right and choose God, but due to our sinfulness we are morally unable to exercise it.
Are you responsible for your choices or are you not? Are you responsible before God for what you desire or are you not? If you are not free in your choices, then the answer to both of these questions is that you are not responsible.
NB3K
Puritan Board Sophomore
That is a question that I have not the answer for. My reasoning for that is:
Rom 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.
Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
Job 12:24 He takes away understanding from the chiefs of the people of the earth and makes them wander in a pathless waste.
Job 12:25 They grope in the dark without light, and he makes them stagger like a drunken man.
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-
These are some of the many passages of Scripture for why I do not believe in "free will".
Than in Romans 7 Paul says a great bit about his own evil nature.
Rom 7:15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
And than Job say's
Job 2:10 But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
So while I do not believe in a free will, I cannot answer that question that you asked. Because I do not know.
---------- Post added at 12:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------
I can say this though, if God does not produce the works of faith, than all I can do is sin. My thoughts always run towards the flesh. Without His Spirit I am destitude to destruction. I deserve death, but Paul says what if God desired to show His wrath and make known His power and endured with great patience vessel of wrath prepared for destruction. In that Romans 9 passage, who does Paul give the credit to for what we have in the world?
---------- Post added at 12:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 PM ----------
By the way, I am not excusing anyone, or even myself, for sin, nor am I placing the blame on God. But nothing can take place out side of God's Providence.
Rom 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.
Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
Job 12:24 He takes away understanding from the chiefs of the people of the earth and makes them wander in a pathless waste.
Job 12:25 They grope in the dark without light, and he makes them stagger like a drunken man.
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-
These are some of the many passages of Scripture for why I do not believe in "free will".
Than in Romans 7 Paul says a great bit about his own evil nature.
Rom 7:15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
And than Job say's
Job 2:10 But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
So while I do not believe in a free will, I cannot answer that question that you asked. Because I do not know.
---------- Post added at 12:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------
I can say this though, if God does not produce the works of faith, than all I can do is sin. My thoughts always run towards the flesh. Without His Spirit I am destitude to destruction. I deserve death, but Paul says what if God desired to show His wrath and make known His power and endured with great patience vessel of wrath prepared for destruction. In that Romans 9 passage, who does Paul give the credit to for what we have in the world?
---------- Post added at 12:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 PM ----------
By the way, I am not excusing anyone, or even myself, for sin, nor am I placing the blame on God. But nothing can take place out side of God's Providence.
I would say that our choices are free exactly because they are rational and conditioned by our desires. Freedom is just the ability to do what you want.
What Paul is describing here is a battle between competing desires. We have a new regenerate will, yet because the old man is still there, we often fail to act in accordance with our new self and instead revert to acting by sight and not by faith.
What God does in regeneration is to change our heart, upon which the will acts. You must go deeper than the will to find our bondage. Just because all things are predetermined does not mean that we are not free. Otherwise, we really could blame God for our sinful choices.
NB3K
Puritan Board Sophomore
No I don't believe we could ever blame God for our evilness, but I believe God will be glorified on the day of judgment for all the evil that took place in His creation.
---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:54 PM ----------
Here is a deeper question on this discussion, was Pharoah free in his actions during the exodus? God told moses that He would harden Pharoah's heart that they will not let His people go.
Then there is Job.
Job 2:3 And the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason."
They key phrase in Job that someone pointed out to me was this " although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason" So God doesn't even give Satan any credit for all the evil that happened to Job.
---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:54 PM ----------
Here is a deeper question on this discussion, was Pharoah free in his actions during the exodus? God told moses that He would harden Pharoah's heart that they will not let His people go.
Then there is Job.
Job 2:3 And the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason."
They key phrase in Job that someone pointed out to me was this " although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason" So God doesn't even give Satan any credit for all the evil that happened to Job.
Amen.
Indeed he was. God gave him over to sin by taking away the ordinary restraints of common grace (Romans 1).
This is natural not moral evil.
NB3K
Puritan Board Sophomore
In Calvin's commentary on Isaiah 45:7 i think it is, the Lord states that He creats light & darkness, good & evil, Calvin states the evil that here is spoken of is the evil of punishment and not the evil of guilt.
Now here is my thought on that verse.
God is so glourius and great that anything that is compared to him rots and is depraved because God is only good. God has asked his people whom will you compare me to?
Again, natural evil---God is free of blame.
Read Genesis 1. The things that God makes are good.
moral necessity
Puritan Board Junior
This is where the hangup is, in my opinion. Investigate Luther's thoughts on this, as well as Melanchthon's Loci Communes.
Blessings!
I did. Luther does not deny that our choices are free and responsible.
moral necessity
Puritan Board Junior
Are you saying that our wills are not bent and governed by God to choose one thing or another?
Our wills are perfectly free to do that for which they were designed. Yes, God ordains our choices, but we are no less free and responsible agents. Reformed theology has historically held to a compatibilist view of freedom (ie: the human freedom of the will necessary for moral agency is compatible with the fact that our choices are predetermined).
moral necessity
Puritan Board Junior
Okay, but in what sense is that a freedom of will? The will chooses out of necessity, not out of freedom. And so, our wills are not primary causes, but secondary causes, that are first pushed by the prime mover to fall into a decision. And so, man is responsible, not because he could have chosen otherwise, but because his affections are bent and inclined the way that they are. And so, the man is led to cry out, as is Romans 9, "why have you made me like this?" When our theology leads us to ask this question, I think we're on the right track. And so, the proper response by God is not, "well you could have chosen otherwise", but rather, "who are you to question how I molded your lump of clay?"
Anyway, I didn't mean to sidetrack the thread, if I so did. I'm glad the Lord's prompting you to pursue this historical study. I just have a hard time using the word "freedom" to describe such a thing.
Blessings and warm fellowship!
The will is free to do exactly that which it was intended to do.
But I could have chosen otherwise. There are possible worlds in which I did choose otherwise. There's nothing contradictory about an existence where, for example, I did not eat an omelet for breakfast this morning. I could have been otherwise disposed---no one was compelling me to eat an omelet. What's not free about that? Just because God chose to actualize a world in which I ate an omelet does not mean that my choice to eat it was constrained.
Freedom of the will, again, just means the ability to do what you want (Romans 7, as I have shown, is precisely about the complexity that this brings for regenerate persons).
But there's the rub: I don't think we should be asking this question---that's the point. I will give glory to God when I do good, I thank Him for the strength and grace to live day to day. I cannot, however, assign to Him the blame or responsibility for my sinful actions. I and I alone am responsible for those, which is why I cry out for mercy that God would change my heart.
- Status
