FREE WILL: “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.”
Calvinists, including this one, generally believe in ‘free will’ as the ability to act at one’s own discretion. In other words, people are not robots that can only do what they are told and they are free to do what they want. Where we differ from our anti-Calvinism brothers and sisters is that we do not believe in “libertarian free will”.
LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL: “our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.”
An example of free will in action is a homeless drug addict. They can determine where they will sleep and which house they will rob and which arm to inject the needle in. What they cannot choose is to stop taking drugs because they are a slave to their addiction. That addiction controls their mind and body and eliminates some choices from their ability to make. They have not lost free will, but their free will is not free of all outside influences and, thus, libertarian.
[1 Corinthians 2:14-16 NASB]
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
- Is an unsaved man a natural man or a spiritual man?
- Does an unsaved man have the mind of Christ?
This is why links to the internet are not really supposed to be posted here.
You posted what YOU liked about the above, your O.P.
Here is the entire article...we could go over it for each part and be here for the next few months.
Maybe we should use the bible instead?
...............................................................................................................
Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All "free will theists" hold that
libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.
Compatibilist vs. libertarian views of free will
The Compatibilist believes that free will is "compatible" with determinism (as in the sovereignty of God). The incompatibilist says that the free will is "incompatible" with determinism. The Libertarian is an incompatibilist who consequently rejects any determinism associated with the sovereignty of God. Hence, Libertarian Free Will is necessarily associated with both
Open Theism, which maintains that God does not foreknow or predetermine the free choices of man, and
Arminianism, which admits that God in his
omniscience foresees man's free choices and reacts accordingly. Libertarian freedom is the general view of liberal Protestantism and a growing number of evangelicals.
The Compatibilist view - This view affirms that man freely chooses what God has determined that he will chose. In this way, the idea that God is in charge, and the idea that man can be held responsible for his actions are compatible ideas. Free will is affected by human nature and man cannot choose contrary to his nature and desires. This view acknowledges man as a free moral agent who freely makes choices. But due to the effects of the fall, as contained in the doctrine of
total depravity, man's nature is corrupted such that he cannot choose contrary to his fallen nature -- He cannot discern spiritual things or turn to God in faith apart from divine intervention.
The Libertarian view - According to libertarianism, the idea that God causes men to act in a certain way, but that man has free will in acting that way is logically false. Free means uncaused. Man has free will, and his decisions are influenced, but not caused. God limits the actions of men, but not their mind or will. Man has the ability to turn to God in Christ and sincerely ask for help, selfishly perhaps, apart from specific (special) divine enablement. According to Arminianism, God, in his freedom, not only sets a condition on salvation and wills only to save those who would ask Him to rescue them. God, then, predestines those who He "foreknew" to salvation. Or, according to Open Theism, God is anxiously waiting to see what each person will do, for he cannot know ahead of time what the choice might be.
Objections
\1)
Causality — If causes are understood as conditions prior to an effect that guarantee an effect, and all events have causes, then it follows that all events were preceded by conditions that guaranteed those events. But this is the same as saying all events are determined. Since the choices of humans are events, it follows that the choices of humans are determined.
\2)
Responsibility — Rather than salvage human responsibility, some maintain that libertarian freedom destroys it. If our choices have no causes, in what sense are they our choices? Is it any more agreeable to reason to hold humans responsible for choices they didn't cause than to hold them responsible for choices that were caused and thus determined?
\3)
God's Freedom — Some have maintained libertarian freedom on the basis that all things done of necessity are not worthy of praise or blame. But what are we to think of God's actions? We believe that God does good, and that God cannot do evil. Does God's moral inability to do evil make His good actions unpraiseworthy? If God must do good, is He then unpraiseworthy? Some have said that God must do good because God's nature determines His choices. God is still free, some say, because God can act in accordance with His choices, but God's choices are determined by His nature. If God's choices are determined, and God is worthy of praise, this is a clear case, some say, of actions that are determined and thus necessary while also being morally praiseworthy.
