Free Will Redux

Confession: i have read none of the threads or back story on this topic, so i might repeat what others have said.

To start with the bottom line, like my pastor once shared with me years ago and has held me in good stead, lo these many years: on the one hand we have God's sovereignty; on the other hand we have man's free will; and where the line is drawn between the two, we cannot clearly see in this life.

Just to take the steam out, it's ok not to be certain about some stuff and accept the tension the Bible leaves us with.

The first "deed" necessary for any good deed to be done is faith in Jesus Christ, that He is the Son of God, the Messiah of the world.

We don't gain eternal life b/c of our works before or after repentance. This is essential to salvation.

Men can obey the law in a sense, but never perfectly (in that we never sin). I think this is talking about, for example, people's general idea that murder is wrong, so most people don't commit murder.

no, these verses are not saying that.

gospel of john, Jesus says several times that the Father draws those who come to Jesus. doesn't mean our free will is passive, but where to draw the lines btwn sovereignty and free will . . . well it's like trying to pull one thread out of a spider's web-- it just ruins the whole thing.

the thing is this, if a man wants to be saved by keeping the law, he has to keep the law absolutely perfectly with no mistakes. and Gal, 2:16--no flesh is justified by the law. God never set up the system of laws in order to justify or save a person.

faith in Christ justifies a man (and a woman . . . )

I have been moving away from defining monergism/synergism precisely this way because it risks making it sound like the human is entirely passive, or even uninvolved, in the salvation process. I would rather say that monergism holds that there is only one source for the power (energeia, ενεργεια) manifested in salvation. So, the human truly does believe, and it is his belief rather than God believing through him (which is nonsensical), and it is his believing that results in justification, yet the sole source of that believing is God. The same holds for repentance (minus unto justification).

I think we Calvinists need to be careful, because of the strangeness of our doctrine to those who have never heard it, to avoid giving the impression that the Holy Spirit forces the individual to salvation or somehow substitutes for the individual's will. Of course, your definition is traditional and not in any way incorrect, but I've found that explaining it as I did above often results in greater clarity in my communication.

Also, I don't think anyone can know whether Anne's pastor is a monergist or synergist based on that one quotation.

Introductory Comments
After about a million (hyperbole) internet forum conversations over this topic, it is absolutely essential to state definitions at the beginning, so here is my attempt at giving meaning to statements that people often make without thinking. These statements include what is meant by "freedom" when discussing "free will". In what way is man's will free? What is the essence of freedom? What is coercion and forcing? What is a choice? It is my hope that in voicing the often unsaid philosophical assumptions that are brought to the table, that then we can talk past one another less.

Libertarian Freedom
Vocal proponents of this view will include the Open Theist crowd, but often many follow this form of the will without knowing that they are. Hence, this is an exceedingly brief attempt at defining it. The definition of "choice" involves several things. Choice, in this version of the will, means that one must have an uncaused ability to do otherwise amid the options of "a" and "not a". Sometimes this is called the power of contrary choice. To take things from the abstract to everyday life, it means that a choice to have the uncaused ability to decided to go upstairs or not go upstairs. "Freedom" has already been stated, but it is understood as the uncaused ability. If someone or something causes the will, to choose one option over another, then it is said that "freedom" has been lost, and then the person is "forced" or "coerced". Therefore, the essence of freedom in this model of the will is an ability born from a lack of causation, and forcing is any time that this freedom is taken away through causation. (This gets more complex, for for sake of simplicity at this point, I'm just going to leave it at that.) Hence, it is no wonder that the Open Theist is greatly offended by any kind of predestination, precisely because it takes away his idea of freedom, and hence it takes away his idea of a legitimate choice. This is because predestination makes one option certain, which must mean that one's choice was determined, which must mean that an uncaused freedom was destroyed. Then it becomes quite obvious why people then find offense, it is because when the freedom is removed, then responsibility for the action is removed and placed in the hands of the person or thing that determined the will. Freedom is essential to responsibility here. If freedom is lost, and one is forced to do something, then he is no longer responsible. So responsibility rests upon this conception of freedom. In closing, this is the most common or popular understanding of what is meant by "free will".

Compatibilistic Freedom
Too often, Libertarian freedom is just simply assumed in discussions involving salvation, perseverance, sovereignty, etc. At this point, it is essential to understand that there is another option. Often only the above understanding is assumed without giving any credence to what is to be described below. This is to commit the fallacy of "false dichotomy". The most common is the following: either man is free or God is sovereign. This is a false dichotomy that absolutely governs some people's thinking, so the reader is greatly encouraged to consider the following understanding of human freedom.

The same categories seen before will be explored once again; these categories include freedom, choice, forcing, and responsibility. The essence of freedom will be stated first. "Freedom" consists in making a choice in accord with one's highest preference. As Edwards was fond of saying, "To choose is to prefer". Restated, freedom consists in one's ability to choose what he wants. The difference is remarkable between this version of the will's freedom and the previous. The prior version consisted in a lack of ultimate causation or causation altogether, while in this version of the will causation IS the essence of freedom. Doing as one wants is the essence of freedom; one cannot do otherwise than what he most prefers. So one's will is determined by what is most preferred, wanted, or desired. A "choice" is not understood too differently than libertarian freedom except that the issue of freedom differs. A choice can be between alternatives, like going up the stairs or not going up the stairs. However, a person will choose what is most preferred. The person with a recent knee surgery, may with great hardship ascend the staircase, but he will not want to. So the option is present to the mind, but the desire to ascend is absent because of the great pain it will cause. The individual prefers not to ascend, and so the person chooses to stay on the same level. Now, it is granted that other conditions may factor into the scenario that may change the person's preferences, but the point is still the same. A choice is the ability to make a decision based upon one's highest preference, to do what one wants to.

With "freedom" and "choice" covered, "coercion"/"forcing" and "responsibility" will be now explained. It is quite simple; a person is "forced" to do something when he is made to do something contrary to his highest preference, when he is made to do something that he does not want to do. Consider an illustration of two brothers. One is older than the other. The older brother is being mean to the younger brother. Older brother has grabbed younger's arms, and older is making younger hit himself with his own hands. Obviously, the younger brother does not want to hit himself, so he is trying to keep from doing so, but the older brother is stronger, and so the younger brother ends up doing something that he does not want to do. In this cased it can be said that the younger brother is "forced" to do something that he does not want to do. And once again, it is assumed that freedom is essential to responsibility (but a different freedom), and because he was forced to do something that he did not want to do, then his freedom was violated, and he could not be held responsible for his actions.

So then what about "predestination"? Is God like the older brother making mankind do something that he does not want to do? Two points will be mentioned in response. (1) God is not on the same level as mankind with respect to this universe. This just simply means that God is not on the same level as the older brother because His level/nature of existence is beyond man's level/nature of existence. The final section will cover this in more detail. (2) An opposition of the will cannot be introduced. This just means that if God ordains that man does something willingly, then that person will do what he wants to do, and he will be acting in freedom, and the idea that he could "not" want to do it is completely out of the question. Hence, in a compatibilistic model of the will, a person's willing, choices, and freedom are completely "compatible" with predestination.

Ontological Critique of Libertarianism
Libertarian freedom simply cannot be said to exist, and now the rest of this paragraph will explain this point. To illustrate, a few highly generalized models of the universe will be mentioned. (so that I give credit where it is due, this comes from sermon/lecture from D A Carson) (1) The materialistic atheist sees only matter. Everything is reduced to naturalistic explanations. Matter is all that there is. The universe has no Creator. The universe is completely independent of God (from a theistic perspective). Most, if not all Christians, will agree that this is completely wrong, terrible, and a heretical view of the universe. (2) Deism is another way of looking at the universe. God is thought of as the great cosmic watch maker. He creates the laws of nature, and then He steps back and lets it run it course. God is certainly involved with the universe in its beginning, but from then on the universe is completely independent of God. A Christian (following Biblical authority) need not think too hard to realize that this view of the universe is wrong. The most serious problem, among many, with deism is that it does not allow Jesus to be both God and man, and so the cross is destroyed, or horribly marred through redefinition. (3) In varying degrees, most Christians hold to a sort of "God of the gaps" idea of the universe. God has certainly created the universe, and He has set up the various natural laws much like the deist. God is, for the most part (in varying degrees) not involved with His creation, but on certain occasions He comes and does something. He interacts with His creation on various occasions. Sometimes, He comes and does a miracle, and this is how many Christians view God's interaction with His creation. He is definitely more involved than the deist, but creation is still seen to be an autonomous/self-sufficient entity that is interacted with by God to one degree or another. (4) The Biblical idea of the universe that God has created is much different than that. Certainly, He has created the universe, and "yes" there are scientific laws, but those laws are only a description of how God "regularly" works. The main point here is that God is also the universe's Sustainer. Apart from His continuous sustaining hand, the universe would cease to exist. The Bible speaks of Jesus holding all things together and upholding all things by the word of His power. In short, the universe is not autonomous or self-sufficient. It never was, and it never will be. God does not need, but creation is always in need of the sustaining hand of the Creator. Hence, in a Biblical universe, God's causal hand is everywhere. The biblical writer knows that seeds, when planted, germinate and grow, and they need soil, sunlight, and water; but he prefers to say that God clothes the grass of the field. The same can be said about the water cycle. The biblical writer knows about how water evaporated, goes up into the air, condenses into rain, and comes back to the earth; yet he prefers to say that God sends rain on the just and the unjust. About a million more examples could be stated, but this argument needs to get to the point.

Libertarian freedom assumes the existence of a universe that does not exist Biblically. If freedom is built upon a lack of causation, then there can be no sustaining hand of God to support its existence. If there is no sustaining hand of God to support its existence, then it cannot be said to exist. Hence, libertarian freedom has no place in a Biblical worldview and must be rejected as aberrant.