Is It Free Will? Or Is It New Nature?

[cupotea]

Need some theological response from you on this one.

One of the most difficult aspects of Reformed theology (for me at least) is trying to understand predestination in terms of free will. I'm not sure if I have a handle on it or not, but some have recently given me some insights. Which is why I'm asking your assistance.

Steve Hartland, a *great* preacher/theologian (you can find him on sermonaudio.com and I HIGHLY recommend him and his congregation) once explained it in terms of his dog's nature. Steve noted that when his dog got hungry he could place in front of him either a salad or his favorite dogfood. Nothing would be stopping him from choosing either. He would be free eat either one. But because of his dog nature he would choose the dogfood everytime.

Later on I was reading Dabney and he came up with a similar - though slightly different - illustration.

So that got me thinking ... is the issue really one of free will? Or is it nature? In other words, Calvinism holds that *everyone* has free will. But the unregenerate will freely choose death; freely choose against God, grace and eternal life. Nothing forces them to choose the way they do, just as nothing hinders them from the opposite choice. Rather, it's simply their nature to choose as they do.

God though, has predestined to give some of us a *new* nature whereby we will choose for Him.

So I'm asking: Should the questions regarding election and free will be re-directed into a more appropriate "election and new nature" issue? Right now this is the only thing that seems to make sense to me.

Thanks ahead of time for your assistance with this.

 

[ReformedWretch]

I have no in-depth comments, but that is a very intresting thought!

 

[Casey]

I don't know if this will help, but . . . It seems to me the election / free will "tension" is one that exists for Arminians, and not Calvinists. In other words, you may freely (pun intended) choose to modify where that tension lies, but an Arminian will want to return to the free will issue again. The whole question is how to define "free will." Your focus on the sinful nature brings out the Calvinist understanding of the term.

WCF CHAPTER 9
Of Free Will

1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.

2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.

3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.

5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.

An Arminian would take issue with this Calvinistic definition.

I hope this helps! (Though it's possible I completely misunderstood your post!)

 

[CalsFarmer]

It was explained like this to me:

Its free will versus ability.

Example, a man is stranded on an island...he WILLS to get off of the island but he does not have the ABILITY.

The Holy Spirit gives us the ABILITY (irresistible grace) to believe.

 

[VictorBravo]

Grace, I don't think I'd go that far.

Hijacking your analogy, I think I'd put it more like the stranded guy has an occasional thought that perhaps he should leave the island, but, he enjoys being there so much that he cannot muster even the will to leave.

Vic

 

[Herald]

I have often found 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:1-10 helpful in providing clarification on the nature of man. We know that the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, nor can he (1 Cor. 2:14). Furthermore we see that same natural man is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1). With a fallen nature man can only act accordingly. Before addressing whether man has a free will, the real question should center around the nature of man. In a mathematical sense W=(N+I) (will = nature plus intent).

The choices (will) of the natural man are born out of this nature and are held captive to it, just as a rock thrown into the air is held captive to the law of gravity. The person of a fallen nature will freely choose, but he will always choose to act according to his nature. In fact, he MUST choose that way. It is impossible for him to act otherwise.

I believe we fail to appreciate the organic change that takes place when a person passes from death to life. Nothing short of a miracle occurs. Imagine if we witnessed an inorganic object suddenly take on breath and come to life. We would not soon forget it. It is an apt description of what happens to a person who has their heart of stone replaced with a heart of flesh (Ezk. 36:26). This person is not just experiencing a change of mind. They have passed from death to life. Their very nature has changed. For the first time in their life they are able to please God and walk in the light. They can no longer walk in darkness. Even when they sin, they cannot sin in darkness which is the likeness of the old nature (1 John 1:5-10). The same principle applies to the natural man who does a "good deed." Even though he may peform a deed that is viewed as good by the world, he does so while walking in darkness (the fallen nature). Therefore all his deeds, regardless of substance, are derived from sinful motives.

In summary, our will is held captive by our nature.

[Edited on 12-29-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]

 

[ReformedWretch]

In summary, our will is held captive by our nature.

Thus the dog with the salad and dog food choice.

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by houseparent

In summary, our will is held captive by our nature.

Thus the dog with the salad and dog food choice.

Yep. I could have saved a lot of typing my just saying, "ditto."

 

[historyb]

If I put a bowl of salad and a bowl of dog food in front of my dog, he would eat both. It's his nature to be on a see food diet.

 

[ReformedWretch]

 

[Scott Bushey]

The choices (will) of the natural man are born out of this nature and are held captive to it, just as a rock thrown into the air is held captive to the law of gravity.

The will is never free; it is always answering to either the flesh or God.

Rom 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

[Edited on 12-29-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[CalsFarmer]

Originally posted by victorbravo
Grace, I don't think I'd go that far.

Hijacking your analogy, I think I'd put it more like the stranded guy has an occasional thought that perhaps he should leave the island, but, he enjoys being there so much that he cannot muster even the will to leave.

Vic

Since it was explained like that to me..... free will versus ABILITY by a Pastor I think I will stay with that ...
.... the word used was stranded......meaning no physical way off the island

How about an analogy using Christopher Reeve? He may have willed to walk again but he did not have the ability...




[Edited on 12-30-2005 by CalsFarmer]

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by CalsFarmer

Originally posted by victorbravo
Grace, I don't think I'd go that far.

Hijacking your analogy, I think I'd put it more like the stranded guy has an occasional thought that perhaps he should leave the island, but, he enjoys being there so much that he cannot muster even the will to leave.

Vic

Since it was explained like that to me..... free will versus ABILITY by a Pastor I think I will stay with that ...
.... the word used was stranded......meaning no physical way off the island

How about an analogy using Christopher Reeve? He may have willed to walk again but he did not have the ability...




[Edited on 12-30-2005 by CalsFarmer]

The difficulty I have with this analogy is that it insinuates Christopher Reeve's desire to walk and the sinners desire to please God are similar. But in fact the sinner cannot please God, nor does he desire to do so because of his fallen nature.

"None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God." Romans 3:10b-11



[Edited on 12-30-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]

 

[Larry Hughes]

1. Luther: The will is never free. It is not like a mule deciding between two piles of hay. Information would help this mule.

No it is like a mule ridden by either Satan or God.

2. The idea of "free-will" betrays, ironically, the fallen nature and its rider, the reality of man desiring to be sovereign from God.

3. Determinism & libertinism are intellectual doodlings & philosophical leprechauns. For the knowledge of, assertion of or idea of determinism no more in reality "more restricts" one's will than does the same of libertinism free a man's will to do what he will do any way in any given decission as it presents itself. The issue is bondage of the will to self, to know good & evil for ones self apart from God.

L

 

[Greg]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

The will is never free; it is always answering to either the flesh or God.

Rom 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

[Edited on 12-29-2005 by Scott Bushey]

The will is simply that faculty of our being that acts upon and brings to fruition that which we desire most.

Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed -John 8:34-36

Apart from Christ, mankind is a slave to sin. There simply is not one part of us that is truly free, including (especially) our will. The term "free"will cannot, nor does not, apply to spiritually dead humanity. In exercising our human will, we do what we want most. And that is to revel in our bondage and insist that we are free.

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. -Romans 8:7-8

Notice that this passage speaks of those in the flesh as not submitting to God (speaking of their own willful choice), and it says that they cannot submit to God (speaking also of their ability).

Bill said it well:

In summary, our will is held captive by our nature.

Spurgeon once said:

I do not come into this pulpit hoping that perhaps somebody will of his own free will return to Christ. My hope lies in another quarter. I hope that my Master will lay hold of some of them and say, "You are mine, and you shall be mine. I claim you for myself." My hope arises from the freeness of grace, and not from the freedom of the will.

The Unregenerate Will: Self-Determined But Not Free: Coercion vs. Necessity

[Edited on 12-30-2005 by Greg]

 

[non dignus]

I don't even feel like I have free will.

When I go to the ice cream parlour I suppose I'm free to order anything in stock. And yet I am not free because for some reason I only want chocolate/coffee.

So I am free to choose, but not free to prefer.