What Would Martin Luther Say to “Free Will”?

Theology
344

Caveat: It is with great hesitaiton that I venture into this conversation again. But I am “making a choice of my own free will”, even if it is not a good one.

@PeterC You suggest: "Nothing makes sense if free will is a farce". “Free-will” is not a “farce”, but neither is it the vehicle that brings a sinner to faith. Math is logical;let’s do the math.

This “free will” you cling to is really synonymous with “autonomy” (Gk: autos=self, nomos=law), and it means to be “free” from undeniable influences, irresistible coercion, or dictation. Autonomy is “self-rule”, a law unto yourself, and as such you are “free” to make your own choices without someone else forcing you to make any certain choice. If someone else forces you to make a certain choice it is not “free” anymore. Autonomy is “independence”; “not-dependent” and to be independent is self-rule. So, “free will” = autonomy = independence.

The math here is that if someone else gave you your “free will” then it is no longer “free”, you are no longer independent. Your ability to choose anything is dependent on the willingness of someone else to allow you to choose it by “giving” you the ability to do so, so your sense-of-autonomy is not “free” but “constrained”. The recipient of a gift is only free to accept/open the gift because it was offered to them. The gift may be free, but the ability to apprehend the gift is constrained on the willingness of the giver to offer it. Here’s the tricky part; logically autonomy cannot be given, by the very definition of the word. One’s autonomy must come only from one’s self, otherwise it is not autonomous. If someone feels they have received autonomy (“free-will”) as a gift, then that is absurd, they believe in a logical impossibility; it’s like saying you are above something that is above you. Autonomy cannot be received, because it is dependent on the willingness of the giver, and anything dependent on another is not autonomous.

To have a true “free-will”, one must have never received it, one must be dependent on nothing but self and have nothing higher than self that could control the freedom of choice. To have true “free-will” one must be God. So, if one says they have free will, i.e.“God cannot make them choose anything”, but then also accept that God gave them their free-will, they are accepting a logical impossibility. They are saying God gave them something that God can no longer control. That, of course, is impossible, even for God. If God “allows” you to make choices, then God is still in control of those choices, and you are not “free”.

The autonomy mankind loves, and tightly clings to, is their very destruction. God DID give mankind the ability to make their own choices, and the experience feels like free will to the recipient, but one’s ability to make choices is also God’s choice which He continues to choose to give. God has stated that in every case, when He allows His creatures to make their own choices, they 100% of the time chose to abandon Him, they chose to challenge Him, they choose to think they are autonomous, they choose to not need Him anymore; they choose to be separated from His oversight, they choose to sit on their own throne. 100% of mankind wants to be their own boss, their own God; Unless God of Ultimate Love, chooses to make the judicial payment that permits Him to righteously constrain you into choosing to abandon your self, and to choose Life in Him, you remain forever separated.

The Gospel tells us that every one of our “free-will” choices separated us from our creator, and every one of those errant “choices” had to be judicially atoned for. Sanctification tells us that as long as one maintains their personal autonomy, God’s sacrificial atonement remains actively covering their destructive desire for self-rule. This covering continues until eventually the creature is constrained to realize his unholy creaturely state, and resign his desire for autonomy. Infinite resignation may be the very last step in sanctification.

Offered in brotherly love, and in The Spirit of Unity
KP

1 Like
345

For you to consider Peter.

ἐκλογή (eklogē) – “election”
Romans 9:11 – God’s purpose according to election before birth.
Romans 11:5 – The remnant according to the election of grace.
Romans 11:7 – The elect obtained righteousness, the rest were hardened.
1 Thessalonians 1:4 – Paul knows their election because they were converted through the gospel.

κλῆσις (klēsis) – “calling”
Romans 11:29 – God’s calling is irrevocable (within the context of His saving purpose).
Ephesians 1:18; 4:1, 4 – The believer’s heavenly calling.

πρόθεσις (prothesis) – “purpose”
Romans 8:28 – Those called according to His purpose.
Romans 9:11 – God’s purpose according to election.
προορισμός / προορίζω (noun/verb, “predestination”)
The noun προορισμός does not occur in the NT.
The verb προορίζω does:
Romans 8:29–30 – Predestined unto glorification.
Ephesians 1:5 – Predestined to adoption.
Ephesians 1:11 – Predestined according to His purpose.
The clearest salvation terms are:
ἐκλογή (election)
κλῆσις (calling)
πρόθεσις (purpose)
προορίζω (to predestine, verb)

Of these, ἐκλογή is the strongest noun for our discussion because, in Romans 11:7, Paul explicitly says.

“The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened.”

That is difficult to interpret as merely vocational, because the context is obtaining the righteousness and salvation that Israel was seeking (Romans 9:30–10:4).

I would urge great caution against citing selective verses from Romans in isolation. Paul’s argument can only be understood by reading each passage in its literary context and in light of the Old Testament allusions that underpin his reasoning.

J.

346

@KPuff feel free to jump into the conversation if you’d like, unless you feel I’m not approaching it in the spirit of unity.

J.

347

any years ago, the apologist Greg Bahnsen said casually, “The key problem in all of life is autonomy.” John Frame, over a decade ago, wrote, “The spirit of autonomy underlies every sinful decision of every human being” (Doctrine of the Word of God, 15). And Richard B. Gaffin Jr. claimed in Word & Spirit, “human wholeness cannot be recaptured unless every vestige of autonomy is abandoned in submission to the Triune God of the Bible" (491). Gaffin’s long-time colleague, Vern Poythress, echoed that sentiment: “Much in the history of Western philosophy has been driven by underlying religious desire for autonomy” (Redeeming Philosophy, 238). These are profound statements about a big problem—the biggest problem: autonomy.
The biggest problems we have are so prevalent and pervasive that we’ve grown to unsee them. These sorts of problems love to hide, like centipedes under stones. They slink around in the dark as we walk on top of them. And yet they are thriving because we aren’t aware of them. Or, what’s more often the case, we don’t want to be aware of them. Let me explain what autonomy is, how it affects us, and how Christ responds to it.

What Is Autonomy?
Autonomy is a construct of two Greek roots: autos (self) and nomos (law). Taken together, it means “self-law” or “self-governance.” Poythress notes that autonomy “alleges that human beings are most free and most fulfilled when they are on their own, when they obey only the internal law of their own desires and dreams” (Making Sense of Man, 359). We look to the inside to determine what we do on the outside. Christopher Watkin notes that autonomy arises in Genesis 3, when Adam and Eve reject God’s law (delivered through his word) and try to go their own way. He says, “In the context of Genesis 3, autonomy manifests itself as deciding for oneself what is to be counted as good and evil. It is not, of course, deciding for oneself what is good and evil, because God has already settled that question, and any new legislation that Adam and Eve pass down from their DIY parliament does not annul God’s royal decrees” (Biblical Critical Theory, 133). Given that we all live in a God-governed world (and not a self-governed one), D. A. Carson described autonomy as the attempted “de-Godding of God.” Autonomy is our futile effort to make ourselves lords when there is already a cosmic King.

In more popular language, autonomy is our continual decision to “go our own way.” That decision is deeply problematic. As image bearers of God, Kelly Kapic calls us to “learn the value and truthfulness of our finitude, eventually getting to the point where we might even praise God for our limits” (You’re Only Human, 11). “Going our own way” as finite and limited creatures doesn’t bode well in a hostile world. We need to cherish and trust in how God made us and how he governs us. And one of the ways we can continually learn the value of our finitude is by relying on God’s trustworthy revelation. We lean on God’s revelation for everything. But when we act autonomously, we reject that basic truth. We refuse to acknowledge or submit to God’s authoritative revelation, at our peril. In our hearts, we say, “I know better than God” or “What I want is worth more than what God wants.” This never ends well.

Worth the read.

Autonomy is not biblical freedom. The Bible gives man authority under God, never autonomy from God (Halcomb, Watkin).

Autonomy is the essence of the fall. Adam’s sin was precisely the assertion of self-law over God’s law (Van Til, Watkin, Genesis 3).

The will is free but not autonomous. The Westminster Confession teaches “natural liberty” (not coerced) while denying that fallen man has any ability to will spiritual good apart from grace (WCF 9.1, 9.3).

Reformed theology rejects every form of human autonomy. Not because it hates freedom, but because it insists that true freedom is found in submission to God, not independence from him (Van Til).

J

.

348

@Johann, I wouldn’t know. My validiction was (always is) a comment on my own motives, and not the motives of anyone else. Your Spirit of conversation is yours alone. You need not look for double-entendre in my comments.

Peace.
KP

349

Anyways, your contribution on Free Will much appreciated.

J.

1 Like
350

Also:

Consider: **

By what various metaphorical-monikers does The God Creator refer to His redeemed people?**

They go by “Sheep”: harmless cattle who depend on The Great Shepherd. “For God’s sake we are killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.” (Psalm 44:22, Romans 8:36) Sheep are wholly owned, they have no free will.

God calls them His “Children”: innocent, dependent, obedient beloved infants. “Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God!”(1 Jn 3:1) & “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt 18:3) Children look to their parent, and have no free will.

We go by the name “Branches”: attached representatives, growing from and responsible to the vine. No independent free will.

We are called a “Building”: Bricks of dirt and water formed into a glorious Temple, a very housing of God, interconnected interdependent God-made blocks. Dependent on the builder; not autonomous, no free will

We are a “Body”: A Living organism, who Live by one Spirit, symbiosis, cooperating to meet common needs, an obligate mutualism. No free will.

He calls us His “Bride”: Submissive, a suitable mate, called out - made of rib not dust, the bride is a beautiful extension of her origin designed to expand His Glory: She claims No free will.

Honored to be “servant” / “slaves”: bondservants, purchased at a large price, pierced and branded with The Holy Spirit of God. Slaves have no expectation of free will.

Are there others?

Notice in every way The Redeemed are referred to, it is always of some entity that has no choice of its own, often wayward, unable to sustain itself, did not ask to be in the situation they are in, and is fully dependent on someone else.

Just an observation.
KP

1 Like
351

The Elect (ἐκλεκτοί) – Chosen by God (Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12; Titus 1:1).
The Called (κλητοί) – Called by God (Romans 1:6–7; 8:28; 1 Corinthians 1:24).
Saints (ἅγιοι) – Holy ones, set apart for God (Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:1).
The Flock – Christ’s flock under one Shepherd (John 10:16; Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2–3).
Living Stones – Built into a spiritual house (1 Peter 2:5).
A Holy Priesthood – Offering spiritual sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5).
A Royal Priesthood – Serving as God’s priestly people (1 Peter 2:9).
A Chosen Race – God’s covenant people (1 Peter 2:9).
A Holy Nation – Set apart to God (1 Peter 2:9).
God’s Possession (λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν) – A people for His own possession (1 Peter 2:9; Titus 2:14).
Citizens of Heaven – Members of God’s kingdom (Philippians 3:20; Ephesians 2:19).
Fellow Citizens – Members of God’s household (Ephesians 2:19).
God’s Household / Family – The family of faith (Galatians 6:10; Ephesians 2:19).
Heirs – Heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17; Galatians 4:7).
Ambassadors – Representatives of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20).
The Firstfruits – The first portion belonging to God (James 1:18; Revelation 14:4).
The Wife of the Lamb – The glorified bride (Revelation 19:7; 21:9).
The New Creation – Those recreated in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15).
The Light of the World – Reflecting Christ’s light (Matthew 5:14).
Salt of the Earth – Preserving and witnessing (Matthew 5:13).

Nearly every metaphor describing believers highlights God’s initiative and our dependence. Sheep are gathered by the Shepherd. Branches receive life from the Vine. Stones are built by the Builder. A body is united by one Head. A bride is loved by the Bridegroom. Children are born into a family, not self-adopted. Even believers are called “the elect,” “the called,” “God’s workmanship,” and “His possession.” Collectively, these metaphors consistently emphasize that salvation originates with God and that believers continually depend on Him.

J.

352

Imperatives & Indicatives.

Repent (μετανοεῖτε) – “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:17)
Believe (πιστεύετε) – “Believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1:15; John 3:16)
Follow Me (ἀκολούθει μοι) – Matthew 4:19; John 21:19.
Abide in Me (μένετε ἐν ἐμοί) – John 15:4.
Love God – Matthew 22:37.
Love one another – John 13:34.
Keep My commandments – John 14:15.
Deny yourself (ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτόν) – Matthew 16:24.
Take up your cross – Matthew 16:24.
Seek first the kingdom of God – Matthew 6:33.
Watch and pray – Matthew 26:41.
Make disciples – Matthew 28:19.

Notice something significant.

Jesus never says, “Exercise your free will.” Nor does He make “free will” a doctrinal category. Instead, His commands assume human responsibility while calling people to trust, repent, obey, and depend upon Him.

Likewise, the apostles never preach, “Use your free will.” They preach:

“Repent.”
“Believe.”
“Be reconciled to God.”
“Walk by the Spirit.”
“Submit to God.”

The Bible is concerned with moral responsibility, not with defining or defending libertarian free will. It affirms that people are accountable for their response to God, while also teaching that salvation is ultimately the work of God’s grace (e.g., John 6:37–44; Romans 8:29–30; Ephesians 2:8–10; Philippians 2:12–13).

So if someone asks, “What does Jesus command instead of free will?” the biblical answer is:

Jesus commands repentance, faith, discipleship, obedience, love, and abiding in Him, not the exercise of an autonomous free will.

Paradoxical?

J.

353

Nor to you, my Brother. Nor to you. The reason is, I do not see it from your perspective, and you seemingly cannot see it from mine. However, allow me to respond again, even though I do not believe you will see it.

I appreciate how thoroughly you’ve engaged with the text and your desire to anchor everything in Scripture. That is the exact standard we should both hold.

You’ve asked direct exegetical questions, so let me answer them directly from the text of Romans 9–11, 2 Thessalonians 2, and John 6 & 17.

  1. Romans 9: What is the “Purpose According to Election”? You correctly point out that Paul opens Romans 9 with deep sorrow over Israel’s unbelief. But notice why Paul brings up Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Esau in verses 6–13.

Paul is answering a specific objection: “Has the word of God failed?” Romans 9:6.

The implicit Jewish assumption was: “We are physical descendants of Abraham; therefore salvation belongs to us by right.” Paul refutes this by showing that God’s covenant promise was never distributed based on natural descent or human works, but according to God’s sovereign right to choose the line of promise. Isaac, not Ishmael; Jacob, not Esau.

When Paul quotes Genesis 25:23, “The older shall serve the younger,” and Malachi 1:2–3, neither original OT passage is about the eternal salvation or damnation of individual infants. Genesis 25 explicitly refers to two nations/peoples: “Two nations are in your womb”, and Malachi 1 discusses the nations of Israel and Edom centuries after Jacob and Esau died.

God chose Jacob over Esau to be the covenant lineage through whom the Messiah would come. It was an election to covenant agency or vocation, not an unconditional decree that Esau was going to hell and Jacob to heaven.

  1. Romans 11: What did the “Elect” obtain? You asked: What is the “it” that the elect obtained in Romans 11:7? Paul answers this explicitly in Romans 9:30–32:

“What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone.”

What did the remnant obtain? Righteousness. But how did they obtain it? By faith.

Notice the condition Paul explicitly sets down: The remnant obtained righteousness. They responded in faith, whereas the rest of Israel was hardened because they stumbled over the stumbling stone, Jesus Christ, through unbelief (Rom 9:32, 11:20).

In Romans 11:20–23, Paul writes:

“That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.”

If election in Romans 11 is an immutable, individual decree of salvation settled before the foundation of the world, how can a hardened, broken-off Israelite be “grafted back in” if they do not continue in unbelief? The text makes the condition clear: Unbelief leads to being broken off; faith leads to being grafted in.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 & 1 Thessalonians 1:4 The means of Election. You brought up 2 Thessalonians 2:13, where Paul states God chose them “to salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.”

We completely agree that election is unto salvation here! But look at the mechanism: “through belief in the truth.”

Scripturally, God’s election is not unconditional in the sense that it bypasses or causes human faith prior to choice; rather, God’s eternal plan chose a specific class of people: those who are “in Christ” through faith. Ephesians 1:4: Christ Himself is the Elect One. Isaiah 42:1, 1 Peter 2:6. When a sinner believes the gospel, they are incorporated into Christ, the Elect, and thus share in His election and salvation.

What Does the “trembling sinner” rest upon? You asked: If salvation hangs on the will of man, upon what does the trembling sinner rest his hope?

The trembling sinner does not rest his hope upon his own will. He rests his hope upon the finished, all-sufficient work of Jesus Christ on the cross, who died for the sins of the whole world 1 John 2:2, John 3:16.

In the unconditional election framework, a trembling sinner must ask: “Am I one of the secretly chosen ones? Did Christ actually die for me?” Since Christ only died for the elect in that view.

In the classical biblical framework, a trembling sinner looks at the Cross and knows: “Christ died for my sins, He invites ‘whoever will’ to come, and His promise to save all who trust in Him is absolute.”

The security rests entirely on the faithfulness of the God who promises, not the merit of the sinner’s faith.

Paul does not redefine election as “merely vocational”; rather, Scripture shows that God elects nations and individuals for specific roles, like Israel or Apostles, and He elects corporately all who believe in Jesus unto salvation.

Where in Romans 9–11 does Paul say God unconditionally chose specific individual souls for salvation and unconditionally passed over others before they were born, when Paul explicitly attributes their hardening to their own unbelief in Romans 9:32, 11:20?

That is the core question the text leaves us with.
Peter

354

Join in anytime. You’ve raised a really interesting premise, but I think the argument rests on a straw man definition of “free will.”

You define “free will” as total, absolute autonomy. Being entirely self-caused and unconstrained by a Creator. But classical Christian theology has never defined human free will as ultimate autonomy.

Saying God gave us free will does not mean God gave up His power or created something He can’t control. It means God, in His ultimate sovereignty, delegated responsibility to human beings. God remains supreme while choosing to grant us genuine, creaturely choice. Specifically, the ability to respond to His offer of grace or to reject it.

Gifts don’t destroy freedom; they enable it: Your gift analogy actually proves the opposite point. If a father hands his child a gift, the child didn’t create the gift, nor did they create their own hands to receive it. But the child still possesses the real, unforced choice to either open the present or push it away. The gift being dependent on the Giver doesn’t mean the recipient’s choice is an illusion.

When Scripture says “Whosoever will may come” Revelation 22:17 or laments “You refused to come to me to have life” John 5:40, it assumes that God has given humans a real, accountable choice.

We don’t claim to be autonomous gods; we claim to be accountable creatures whom God genuinely invites to choose Life. If our ability to respond to God’s conviction is completely forced or constrained by Him, then human responsibility disappears. Grace isn’t God forcing us to surrender; Grace is God enabling us to choose Him.

Appreciate the iron-sharpening-iron discussion, brother!
Peter

355

The source is the biblical text:

5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 6 “Am I not able, house of Israel, to deal with you as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, house of Israel. 7 At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot it, to tear it down, or to destroy it; 8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I planned to bring on it. 9 Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; 10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will relent of the good with which I said [a]that I would bless it. 11 So now, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘This is what the Lord says: “Behold, I am forming a disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Now turn back, each of you from his evil way, and [b]correct your ways and your deeds!”’ 12 But they will say, ‘It’s hopeless! For we are going to follow our own plans, and each of us will [c]persist in the stubbornness of his evil heart.’

To read that and wonder how can it be that God says “He will deal with Isreal according to their obedience or disobedience” is kind of baffling. I don’t think we need a verse to say what I did. God deals with Israel according to whether they turn from sin or harden themselves against it. God gives them the choice in the text.

The potter represents one activity shaping as we go. Not forming a complete pot set baked and dried and completed with destiny. But active moist clay on an active wheel. It is pretty straight forward though brother. Blessings.

1 Like
356

No offense, brother, but I don’t think we’re having a meaningful conversation anymore. We keep getting lost in analogies instead of staying with Paul’s argument. That’s often what happens when Romans is interpreted through illustrations rather than through careful exegesis of the text itself.

J.

357

@PeterC

Not to nit-pick, but it can’t actually be a “strawman” because I was not creating something I am capable of defeating. I was only providing a perspective from logic. I get your point, however. I understand your position.

You said:

I don’t think I said that; I didn’t mean to say that. What you say I said is hyperbole, I think.
You say:

…and I surely understand this dynamic. I am not arguing against it, I experience the same thing you do; I decided to choose Him same as you did. It is how we must experience it from within the maze (as we have spoken privately). There is no harm in it.

I do say that logically, the “free-will” to make any single decision is the same as autonomy over that single decision. Either you have “total control” over the decision, or you don’t. If you do have total control, then no one else does. If someone is intervening and allowing you to make the decision, or controlling the outcome of the decision, then you don’t have total control; you don’t have “free-will”.

In order for us to think about the concept accurately, we don’ t need to think about “absolutes” or “entireties” as you suggest. It is surely easier to manage our thoughts if we think about a single decision at a time. Think of any single decision you might make, and consider who has control over that decision. Surely it feels like you are in control; you have the “free will” to decide either way. Now take one step back and consider if there is someone else, someone greater, who has given you the ability to make the decision; someone who gifted you with the ability to even consider the decision. Consider also if the outcome of your decision isn’t actually dependent on someone else, a gatekeeper, someone who silently must either allow or disallow the results of your decision before the decision can come to fruition. If God is who He says He is, then even as you felt yourself make the decision, both your ability to make it, and the allowance for it to come to fruition are in His loving jurisdiction. If the ability to decide, and the outcome of your decision is in the jurisdiction of God, then you don’t truly have free-will, you have a will that is dependent on another.

You said:

“God Delegated to human beings”, “God remains supreme”, God grants us choice”, and “God grants us the ability to respond to His offer” are all antithesis to the idea of “free will”; they all admit God has his finger on the scale, and chooses to make your decision go in either direction. You and God simply cannot both have the final say, and the one with the final say, has total say.

I know this is not easy to accept, but it is actually very good news. The reason it is good news is that God, our loving creator, never makes a bad decision. He can’t! And, God is able to judicially redeem the bad decisions He allows us to make. It is patently obvious that all of mankind would be in great peril if God were to hand over “free will”, and force Himself to submit to the will of man. If God submits to the decisions of men, then men are God and God is subservient. That can never be.

Respectfully, this is also true when we pray. Often when men pray, they ask God to do their will; to do their bidding; they ask God to perform according to their inklings. What they may not realize is what they are asking is truly the last thing they should actually want to happen. The absolute worst thing would be to have God bend His will to ours; the most perilous thing we could desire is to ask the perfect (Holy) to accept the feeble requests of the imperfect. Perfect prayer consists of “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven”

That’s a lot, maybe too much for now.
In Jesus with You
KP

1 Like
358

Well articulated. I was tempted to respond by walking through the relevant Scriptures, along with the Greek and Hebrew grammar behind them, but I think I’ll refrain and simply let the discussion stand.

Shalom.

J.

359

In short, you are saying @KPuff …

That what you wrote aligns with the Augustinian and Reformed distinction between liberum arbitrium (the will’s freedom to choose according to its nature and desires) and libertas (absolute liberty from God’s decree). Hence, if I read you correctely, you are arguing that the former exists, but the latter does not, and that once you acknowledge God’s role as both the giver of the faculty and the governor of the result, libertarian free will collapses logically.

Or you are saying that human choosing is real, but it is never autonomous. Our choices are genuine, yet they occur within God’s sovereign governance. Therefore, what many people call “free will” is better described as a dependent or compatibilist will rather than an autonomous or libertarian will.

Human beings make real choices
Genesis 2:16–17
Genesis 3:6
Deuteronomy 30:15–20
Joshua 24:15
1 Kings 18:21
Proverbs 1:29
Isaiah 1:18–20
Isaiah 55:6–7
Ezekiel 18:30–32
Matthew 7:13–14
Matthew 23:37
Mark 1:15
John 5:39–40
John 7:17
Acts 2:37–41
Acts 17:30
Romans 10:9–13
Revelation 22:17

Yet…

God’s sovereign rule
Genesis 50:20
Exodus 4:21
Exodus 9:12
Exodus 10:20, 27
Exodus 11:10
Exodus 14:4, 8
Deuteronomy 32:39
1 Samuel 2:6–8
1 Chronicles 29:11–12
2 Chronicles 20:6
Ezra 6:22
Nehemiah 9:6
Job 12:10
Job 23:13
Job 42:2
Psalm 33:10–11
Psalm 103:19
Psalm 115:3
Psalm 135:6
Proverbs 16:1
Proverbs 16:9
Proverbs 16:33
Proverbs 19:21
Proverbs 20:24
Proverbs 21:1
Isaiah 14:24, 27
Isaiah 40:13–14
Isaiah 45:5–7
Isaiah 46:9–11
Daniel 4:34–35
Lamentations 3:37–38
Amos 3:6
Matthew 10:29–31
Matthew 28:18
John 19:10–11
Acts 2:23
Acts 4:27–28
Acts 17:24–28
Romans 8:28–30
Romans 9:15–24
Romans 11:33–36
Ephesians 1:3–12
Philippians 2:13
Colossians 1:16–17
Hebrews 1:3
James 4:13–15
Revelation 4:11

image
image169×254 52.3 KB

Overview
In How Free Will Works, Steven M. Duncan provides not merely discussions of, but potential answers to two of the most vexed questions discussed by philosophers concerning free choice. First, supposing that the mind and the body are separate substances of opposed natures, how is it possible for them to interact such that an entirely non-physical immanent mental act can give rise to changes in the external world? Second, supposing that there is free will, how is it possible for our acts of volition/free choice to be neither causally determined nor merely chance/random events?

This book spells out a new way of envisaging the mind/body relation and the nature of mind/body causal interaction that avoids the traditional “interaction problem.” It also explains how it is possible for free choice neither to require an efficient cause nor to act as an efficient cause while nevertheless affecting the processes in the physical world through which intentional action is realized in human behavior. In the second half of the book, the theory developed in the first part of the book is applied to the difficult issues arising from the Christian doctrine of salvation: sin, grace, and redemption.

Correct?

J.

360

And I think I now fully understand your position. Because your ability to choose is granted by God, and the outcome is gated by God, calling human agency “free will” is a misnomer. At best, we have a “dependent will” operating within delegated boundaries.

Although I can understand it and nearly agree with it, I would say this. Perhaps we are talking about two different things? Freedom of choice (the internal act of willing) and freedom of execution (the power to force an outcome).

I would define “free will” as the moral ability to choose between alternatives, not the omnipotent power to guarantee the result. If a person in handcuffs decides with all their heart to jump out a window to save a friend, but the handcuffs prevent them, their will was still free, even if their action was thwarted. God acting as the ultimate “gatekeeper” of reality doesn’t negate human moral agency. It just means humans aren’t omnipotent.

Just because a father gives his child permission and the physical ability to paint a picture doesn’t mean the father painted it. The gift of ability does not equal coercion of choice. God can sovereignly choose to create a space where human volition is genuinely independent in its micro-choices, even while remaining fundamentally dependent on God for existence.

So you are saying that humans are flawed and make bad choices. So if humans had genuine, un-gated free will, we would ruin everything, and God would be powerless to guarantee a good outcome. Therefore, total divine control is a relief, not a restriction? Human autonomy is a threat to cosmic safety. Safety and redemption require that God remains the sole author of all outcomes.

However, to this I have a question. You say prayer cannot be an effort to change God’s mind or influence His actions, because that would mean the imperfect creature is directing the Perfect Creator. True prayer is strictly aligned with God’s pre-ordained will (“Thy will be done”).

I can think of a couple of examples where this is actually displayed.

“Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel…” Exodus 32:12–13

The Result:

“Then the Lord relented [nacham] and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.” Exodus 32:14

“Go and tell Hezekiah, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will add fifteen years to your life.’” 2 Kings 20:5–6 / Isaiah 38:5

The Result: Before Isaiah had even left the middle court of the palace, God instructed him to turn around and deliver a completely new message. Adding 15 years to Hezekiah’s life.

Continued…

361

Oh, then you have Abraham. Remember this.

“Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city?” Genesis 18:23–24

The Result: Abraham progressively negotiated the countdown from 50 to 10. Each time Abraham asked, God agreed to adjust His judgment based on Abraham’s plea: “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it” Genesis 18:32

I do not believe that if God allows a human to choose, God is “submitting” to man. A king who gives a governor the genuine authority to make local laws is not “subservient” to the governor. The king remains supreme precisely because he has the power to grant and revoke that authority.

Allowing humans genuine moral choice doesn’t make God subservient; it demonstrates a God so powerful and secure in His sovereignty that He can allow genuine freedom without fearing He will lose control of history.

Let me try to put it another way than I did with Johann. The problem with evil. If God has “total say” and “chooses to make your decision go in either direction,” a massive theological dilemma arises: Who is responsible for human sin and evil?

If human free will is an illusion and God holds the only “final say” on every single decision, then human beings cannot truly be held morally responsible for doing what God decreed they must do. I believe that while God permits evil through human free choice, He does not cause or author it.

Real love requires the possibility of rejection. If a person is causally determined to love or obey God, it is an execution of programming, not a genuine response of the heart. God desires a genuine relationship with humanity, which inherently requires the freedom to choose Him or turn away.

May God be with you,
Peter

362

When you say we are not forced to choose between God’s sovereignty and man’s choice in unbelief, its not AI.

So I posted Jeremiah 18 itself. The potter determines how to “respond” to the vessel in 18. It is like 3rd grade clear brother. He has a right to do this or that “if” the clay spoils. Does it say that potter “spoiled” the clay? No. It doesn’t. This is not just an analogy. God is literally saying: “If you guys don’t repent and honor where I am coming from, you will get strong reproof.” Not analogy.

I’m not offended. But i think we have perhaps lost some of the childlike beauty in just reading the word for what it says. And it not be an “analogy” of something else in our minds. Not offended. But a bit shocked i guess. Blessings.

363

@PeterC

I hear you, and I genuinely understand your perspective. You raise many good points, and have offered several strong assertions. I would truly cherish the opportunity to address each of your ideas, not in the spirit of contention or argument, but in the brotherly encouragement of Love. I would personally desire to converse about each of your assertions comprehensively, over coffee (or your beverage of choice), one-at-a-time. So I’m not sure this public forum is the best arena for that kind of eye-to-eye in-depth discussion. I am also sensing that I may be needlessly belaboring an unpopular idea, possibly unwisely. My conscripted vocation is not one that is charged with convincing other people of my perspective, but one of faithfully testifying to the eternal perspective of The Perfect One. Your vocation is too. Keep up the GOOD work.

I will offer a couple of points of clarification from your last post. When I say a decision is “brought to fruition”, or speak of a decision’s “outcome”, I’m not talking about the many resultant effects that follow the decision. I am only speaking of the decision itself. i.e. If I show you two bags, one red and one blue and ask you to choose one, the outcome of your decision (as I’m speaking of outcome) is either red or blue. I haven’t considered what is in the bag, or what happens after you choose a bag, or even if I actually allow you to have either bag. The “outcome” (to me) is only “red” or “blue” and nothing else. Unfortunately, in English we use the word “decision” for both the process of choosing (as in, “I am making my decision”), and also for the outcome, (as in “…and the decision is……… Red!) Your examples of the “handcuffed man” and the “generous father” are understood, appreciated, but are not relevant as they do not allow for the incursion of the supernatural element we are dealing with.

The decision of two bags

Philosophically, if I show you two bags that both belong to me, one red and one blue, and ask you to choose one for yourself, but also tell you, “Red is the right choice”, I have influenced your decision. At this point, you are still free to choose either bag, but I have put my finger on the scale; now there is an added weight prejudicing your free decision; by using the word “right” I have added moral weight to your decision. I have also added a new element of trust; I have burdened you with the need to make a prior decision before you make the “bag” decision; I have required you to first ask yourself if you trust me or not. All this happens within the maze. Every truly born-from-above Christian has experienced this decision process within the maze, including you and I.

Now, from the perspective above the maze: consider that I happen to be Holy, perfect in every way. I also made you from dust, earthly dirt which I made from light, which I also made from nothing, and in you I fashioned your very ability to make rational decisions. If I show you two bags that belong to me, one is red and the other one blue, I made both of them too, and ask you to choose one for yourself, but I also tell you, “Red is the right choice”, and “the blue bag is toxic”. As your creator, I absolutely know, without any doubt, you will hear my words,in your mind you will process moral and personal trust issues which will contend for supremacy, and since you are not perfect, you will 100% of the time choose the toxic blue bag. It is not up to chance. Among men there have been no exceptions, (except one Exceptional One, of course.). Even if I were not omniscient, your beautiful faculty to make rational “choices”, your unmatched ability to consider the impinging morality of the situation, your proclivity to self-rule, and your viral aversion to blind-trust, makes your impending decision a foregone conclusion: “Blue bag please”! Never fails. My inside information tells me man’s wonderful gift of “free will” has been infected with destructive sin. His “free will” is thereby conceded, imprisoned (unfree), mortified, and rendered incapable of choosing righteously. His beautiful gift of free will has been forfeited to a state of constrained will. The sin-sick mind of the fallen man impells him into choosing the blue bag, every time. Mankind freely and willfully choosing his own destruction is hard-coded into his new fallen nature. If any man is ever to choose the red bag, he’s going to need supernatural help.

“O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God–through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7:24-25)

You said:

I say:

Humans have had genuine, un-gated free will, and they DID use it to ruin everything. Yet, God is NOT powerless, and God DOES guarantee a good outcome through the judicial atoning sacrifice of His perfect Son. Halleluiah!

Let’s talk about prayer somewhere else, if you don’t mind. I probably should not have muddied the waters with this ancillary subject.

KP

1 Like