I am looking to see what others on this forum believe as to the title of this thread.
This subject will tie back to what one believes if they are born in sin or not, are we born with a corrupt or good nature.
In short, is man basically good and able to choose to be saved.
Of course we can debate as civil Christians, using Biblical and theological positions on the subject.
I will leave out the three positions held in apologetics that include determinism, indeterminism and self-determinism to keep it simple for all of us.
John Piper on free will.
A Definition of ‘Free Will’
Now, where does “free will” fit into this biblical picture of our condition in the world?
To answer that question we need a clear definition of “free will.” It may be helpful to offer three definitions — one from popular usage, one from common biblical usage, and one from the more technical discussion.
A Popular Definition
Popularly, what do most people mean when they wonder about free will? I think most people mean something like this: Our will is free if our preferences and our choices are really our own in such a way that we can justly be held responsible for whether they are good or bad. The opposite would be that our preferences and choices are not our own, but that we are robots or puppets with no meaningful acts of preferring or choosing.
On that definition, free will exists both in fallen and redeemed human beings. For what the fall brought about was not that we cease to be authentic preferring and choosing persons, but that our rebelliousness inclines us to prefer and choose badly. Everyone prefers and chooses in accord with his nature. If the nature is rebellious and insubordinate, as Paul describes in Romans 8:7–8, we prefer and choose accordingly. If our nature is being set free from its rebellion, it begins to prefer and choose what is truly beautiful. In either case, our preferring and choosing are “our own,” and we are “held responsible” for whether they are good or bad.
A Biblical Definition
A second definition of free will reflected in the language of Jesus and Paul is this: The human will is free when it is not in bondage to prefer and choose irrationally. It is free when it is liberated from preferring what is infinitely less preferable than God, and from choosing what will lead to destruction. The opposite of this view would be that such irrational preferences and suicidal choices should be called “freedom.”
Based on this definition, only those who are born again have free will. This is the way Jesus saw the idea of freedom in John 8:32: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” And this is the way Paul talks about freedom in Romans 6: “Thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness” (Romans 6:17–18).
A Technical Definition
The more technical definition of free will that some people use is this: We have free will if we are ultimately or decisively self-determining, and the only preferences and choices that we can be held accountable for are ones that are ultimately or decisively self-determined. The key word here is ultimate, or decisive. The point is not just that choices are self-determined, but that the self is the ultimate or decisive determiner. The opposite of this definition would be that God is the only being who is ultimately self-determining, and is himself ultimately the disposer of all things, including all choices — however many or diverse other intervening causes are.
On this definition, no human being has free will, at any time. Neither before or after the fall, or in heaven, are creatures ultimately self-determining. There are great measures of self-determination, as the Bible often shows, but never is man the ultimate or decisive cause of his preferences and choices. When man’s agency and God’s agency are compared, both are real, but God’s is decisive. Yet — and here’s the mystery that causes so many to stumble — God is always decisive in such a way that man’s agency is real, and his responsibility remains.
I personally lean to towards the following quotes.
Bondage of the Will: The view that because of human sinfulness, the human will is bound to act according to its sinful nature and is therefore captive to it, unable to choose to do anything good apart from its liberation by the Holy Spirit.
- Westminster Dictionary of Theolgical Terms
"...we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man's innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined.
- John Calvin from Bondage and Liberation of the Will, pg. 69-70
Grace and peace to you.
This subject will tie back to what one believes if they are born in sin or not, are we born with a corrupt or good nature.
In short, is man basically good and able to choose to be saved.
Of course we can debate as civil Christians, using Biblical and theological positions on the subject.
I will leave out the three positions held in apologetics that include determinism, indeterminism and self-determinism to keep it simple for all of us.
John Piper on free will.
A Definition of ‘Free Will’
Now, where does “free will” fit into this biblical picture of our condition in the world?
To answer that question we need a clear definition of “free will.” It may be helpful to offer three definitions — one from popular usage, one from common biblical usage, and one from the more technical discussion.
A Popular Definition
Popularly, what do most people mean when they wonder about free will? I think most people mean something like this: Our will is free if our preferences and our choices are really our own in such a way that we can justly be held responsible for whether they are good or bad. The opposite would be that our preferences and choices are not our own, but that we are robots or puppets with no meaningful acts of preferring or choosing.
On that definition, free will exists both in fallen and redeemed human beings. For what the fall brought about was not that we cease to be authentic preferring and choosing persons, but that our rebelliousness inclines us to prefer and choose badly. Everyone prefers and chooses in accord with his nature. If the nature is rebellious and insubordinate, as Paul describes in Romans 8:7–8, we prefer and choose accordingly. If our nature is being set free from its rebellion, it begins to prefer and choose what is truly beautiful. In either case, our preferring and choosing are “our own,” and we are “held responsible” for whether they are good or bad.
A Biblical Definition
A second definition of free will reflected in the language of Jesus and Paul is this: The human will is free when it is not in bondage to prefer and choose irrationally. It is free when it is liberated from preferring what is infinitely less preferable than God, and from choosing what will lead to destruction. The opposite of this view would be that such irrational preferences and suicidal choices should be called “freedom.”
Based on this definition, only those who are born again have free will. This is the way Jesus saw the idea of freedom in John 8:32: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” And this is the way Paul talks about freedom in Romans 6: “Thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness” (Romans 6:17–18).
A Technical Definition
The more technical definition of free will that some people use is this: We have free will if we are ultimately or decisively self-determining, and the only preferences and choices that we can be held accountable for are ones that are ultimately or decisively self-determined. The key word here is ultimate, or decisive. The point is not just that choices are self-determined, but that the self is the ultimate or decisive determiner. The opposite of this definition would be that God is the only being who is ultimately self-determining, and is himself ultimately the disposer of all things, including all choices — however many or diverse other intervening causes are.
On this definition, no human being has free will, at any time. Neither before or after the fall, or in heaven, are creatures ultimately self-determining. There are great measures of self-determination, as the Bible often shows, but never is man the ultimate or decisive cause of his preferences and choices. When man’s agency and God’s agency are compared, both are real, but God’s is decisive. Yet — and here’s the mystery that causes so many to stumble — God is always decisive in such a way that man’s agency is real, and his responsibility remains.
I personally lean to towards the following quotes.
Bondage of the Will: The view that because of human sinfulness, the human will is bound to act according to its sinful nature and is therefore captive to it, unable to choose to do anything good apart from its liberation by the Holy Spirit.
- Westminster Dictionary of Theolgical Terms
"...we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man's innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined.
- John Calvin from Bondage and Liberation of the Will, pg. 69-70
Grace and peace to you.
