Yet another free will question...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Der Pilger

Puritan Board Freshman
A small group I'm in had a discussion about free will last night. The big problem with such discussions, as I've found, is that people tend to jump right in without first defining what "free will" is. In what sense is the will "free"? I did some searching in PB for threads that would answer this question, and while I found some helpful results, I am still wondering about it. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. My understanding of free will has been for some time as follows:

The will is both free and bound. It is externally free in that there are no external constraints placed upon the will to do anything. Nobody ties us down and keeps us from going to church, neither does anyone hold a gun to our heads to make us sin.

On the other hand, the will is internally bound because the sinful nature makes it go in one direction--away from God. Our desires cannot rise above our sinful nature apart from grace. We cannot arbitrarily desire one day to change our desires and start seeking God unless God first regenerates us. This very inability to change our desires indicates the will is in bondage to sin.

Hopefully I articulated it well. Does that make sense?
 
That is how I view it.

Man is free by the choices he or she can make; example I can choose to eat the grape or choose to eat the apple. Where as mans will is bound by I can not choose God or His ways if I'm not reborn by the spirit.

I use to think free will and predestination were a contradiction of scripture but really they both play right into one another.
 
Man is free to choose whatever he wants, however, due to the fall, man will never want to choose God unless the Spirit regenerates him.
 
Man is free to choose whatever he wants, however, due to the fall, man will never want to choose God unless the Spirit regenerates him.

I agree, and that's pretty much what one person said at our group last night. That answer, however, kind of begs the question: Why will man never want to choose God apart from regeneration? I don't see any other answer than that his will is in bondage to sin. He will not choose God because he can not.
 
Drawing on Edwards, I usually introduce the Reformed understanding by saying that we (in our natural state) have free will to do whatever we want to do, to believe whatever we want to believe, etc. There is no natural inability; there is, however, a moral inability. That is, apart from grace, we will never want to believe in Christ because our "wants" are morally corrupt.
 
You always choose what seems good to you. But, because men "love the darkness," what is evil will always seem good to them. Once God, if He is so pleased to do, changes their hearts and natures, that which is pleasing to God seems good to them, and they are now able to choose that.
 
And there is often confusion of freedom with ability. I am free to touch my nose to the cieling while standing on the floor, but with 8' cielings in my house, I am not able to do so.
 
And there is often confusion of freedom with ability. I am free to touch my nose to the cieling while standing on the floor, but with 8' cielings in my house, I am not able to do so.

Brad nailed it. We are free, but we are limited in our ability. The unregenerate man is dead, so despite all of his freedom, he is unable to seek God. He must be made alive.
 
I always define 'free will' as the ability to choose freely that which we desire the most. This has already been explained in the previous threads, this is just my shorthand to capture all the terms. Apart from a 'quickening', from conversion, from a vital connection with Christ through the Spirit, we will NEVER DESIRE God.
 
Mr. Vigneault,
Do you think a regenerate Christian can desire Christ more than sin? In other words as Christians are we still bound in sinful desires on this side of the Kingdom?
 
I don't see any other answer than that his will is in bondage to sin. He will not choose God because he can not.

I would say that it works the other way round. Edwards talks about the will's decisions being rooted in the affections. Thus, because our affections are sinful, we will never choose God, and therefore cannot unless God Himself changes them.
 
I don't see any other answer than that his will is in bondage to sin. He will not choose God because he can not.

I would say that it works the other way round. Edwards talks about the will's decisions being rooted in the affections. Thus, because our affections are sinful, we will never choose God, and therefore cannot unless God Himself changes them.

I agree, and our inability to choose God indicates a severe limit on the will, in which case the will is not free. I'm using the word "free" in the sense of being unfettered by sin. Taken in that sense, the only ones who have free will are Christians, since the tie to our flesh has been severed. We still desire sin, but now we also desire righteousness.

---------- Post added at 11:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 AM ----------

And there is often confusion of freedom with ability. I am free to touch my nose to the cieling while standing on the floor, but with 8' cielings in my house, I am not able to do so.

That was basically my distinction in the OP. There is nothing externally keeping you from touching your nose to the ceiling: There are no physical obstructions of any kind. Rather it's your own limitations/inability that keep you from doing so.
 
Our wills, and souls generally, haven't been metaphysically damaged by the fall but morally damaged.

This means that we are responsible for our sin. The fact that fallen man can't do good, is also that he won't do good, because the problem is a moral one in his will. The "can't" is a "won't" and the "won't" is a "can't".

If e.g. - hypothetically - the reason the unregenerate person can't believe was because of some disability in his body or removal of some aspect of his essential humanity in his soul by the Fall, then God would be unjust to hold him to account for that.

But with sin and the Fall, the moral - or rather immoral - chill is in the will.

E.g. Would a judge e.g. judging a person accused of murder, take as a reasonable defence, "I did murder her, but my defence is that I am a dirty, rotten scoundrel and I'm so wicked that I couldn't but murder her." ?

Of course not. Because each of us are responsible for our own wills, if nothing else.

Regarding free will at the, in a sense, deeper level, metaphysically though, atheism, and unbelief in the absolutely sovereign God of the Bible paradoxically but logically leads to a denial of any free will in Man at all

(a) Because to the extent that there is not an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God, Man's will is at the whim of chance and fate.

(b) If Man is in a closed Universe with fixed laws and no God, his every action is the product of the laws of nature and nurture.

This is what the more consistent expressions of atheism, like Marxism, held to.

(c) In the atheist world Man does not have a true soul - or at least a soul that is not a product of and dependent on the body. How can he be free and responsible in any meaningful sense?

It is the Calvinist doctrine of God's total sovereignty that preserves the doctrine of Man's metaphysical freedom, even although it is somewhat of a mystery - a great mystery - how God does it. We have a God Who can do it.

And He is also necessary that His people become morally free at regeneration.
 
Last edited:
A simple illustration I once heard was: a prisoner in a jail cell has free will bound by his prison. He is free to do what he wants within the walls of his prison, but it takes the act of another to free him.
 
A simple illustration I once heard was: a prisoner in a jail cell has free will bound by his prison. He is free to do what he wants within the walls of his prison, but it takes the act of another to free him.
However, the prisoner wants to get out (presumably); the unregenerate man has no similar desire to escape from his sin. Again, it is more about the desires of the unregenerate - which stem from the moral depravity - as being what keeps him from "choosing" God. Choosing God, in fact, is the very thing most odious to him apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.
 
I'm using the word "free" in the sense of being unfettered by sin.

That is not the ordinary sense of the word "free." The "fetters" of sin are metaphorical not actual. What it means is that I desire sin and its pleasures. It does not mean that I could not choose to not sin, did I so desire.

A simple illustration I once heard was: a prisoner in a jail cell has free will bound by his prison. He is free to do what he wants within the walls of his prison, but it takes the act of another to free him.

That illustration pertains only to physical limitations. Sin does not have us bound in the sense that a prisoner is bound, but in the sense that an insane man is bound. It's not that we are constrained and wish to be free---we are like Winston Smith at the end of 1984: we love "Big Brother." We are free to do as we please---and we want to sin.
 
I'm using the word "free" in the sense of being unfettered by sin.

That is not the ordinary sense of the word "free." The "fetters" of sin are metaphorical not actual. What it means is that I desire sin and its pleasures.

I'd also add that you desire only sin and its pleasures before regeneration. That limitation of desire must be itself a form of bondage. If the desire were free, it would not be so limited but could rather swing toward God or away from Him.

It does not mean that I could not choose to not sin, did I so desire.

And your desires are governed by your nature. Prior to regeneration, our will is bent in one direction--away from God. It is unable to reverse that course on its own; hence it is in bondage.

A simple illustration I once heard was: a prisoner in a jail cell has free will bound by his prison. He is free to do what he wants within the walls of his prison, but it takes the act of another to free him.

That illustration pertains only to physical limitations. Sin does not have us bound in the sense that a prisoner is bound, but in the sense that an insane man is bound. It's not that we are constrained and wish to be free---we are like Winston Smith at the end of 1984: we love "Big Brother." We are free to do as we please---and we want to sin.

I think you're missing the point of the analogy. The man in the "prison" represents the will in bondage to sin; the prison represents sin itself. The man (the will) is free to make choices, but it can make only sinful choices because it is confined to the boundaries of that "prison" of sin. It cannot make choices "outside" those confines.
 
That limitation of desire must be itself a form of bondage. If the desire were free, it would not be so limited but could rather swing toward God or away from Him.

Again, this isn't bondage in any ordinary sense.

It is unable to reverse that course on its own; hence it is in bondage.

I am also unable to fly on my own---does this make me in bondage?

It cannot make choices "outside" those confines.

My point is that the prison analogy is misleading to the person who the analogy is supposed to convince. The analogy connotes that the prisoner has no real options outside the prison. But he does. Sinners are given the opportunity to choose God all the time and they reject it---it's a live option, but they reject it because they don't want God. The Winston Smith analogy works better because it shows that their bondage to sin is not about their natural abilities (which the prison analogy connotes) but about the heart.
 
That limitation of desire must be itself a form of bondage. If the desire were free, it would not be so limited but could rather swing toward God or away from Him.

Again, this isn't bondage in any ordinary sense.

I don't see why. The will (desire) is governed by the nature, which is sinful. Therefore, it's in bondage to sin. Are you trying to say that the will is not in bondage to sin?

It is unable to reverse that course on its own; hence it is in bondage.

I am also unable to fly on my own---does this make me in bondage?

Yes, it does. You are bound to your non-flying nature. In the same manner, the will is bound to the sinful nature before regeneration.

It cannot make choices "outside" those confines.

My point is that the prison analogy is misleading to the person who the analogy is supposed to convince. The analogy connotes that the prisoner has no real options outside the prison. But he does. Sinners are given the opportunity to choose God all the time and they reject it---it's a live option, but they reject it because they don't want God. The Winston Smith analogy works better because it shows that their bondage to sin is not about their natural abilities (which the prison analogy connotes) but about the heart.

What you say here makes sense. The opportunity you speak of is related to the external freedom I mentioned in my OP: Sinful man is offered a choice, and nothing outside of him keeps him from responding favorably to that offer. It is his own sinful nature that keeps him from responding favorably. Simply saying, "Man is free to do what he wants but he will always want to reject God," while completely true, begs the question: Why will the natural man always reject God? The adverb "always" indicates bondage, as far as I see it. He always desires rebellion because that is all his nature allows him to do. That is bondage. If not, then the will is truly free in the libertarian sense and we can throw the doctrine of total depravity out the window. But I'm not ready to do that. :)
 
Our desires cannot rise above our sinful nature apart from grace.

It would be more accurate and helpful I think not to differentiate here between our desires and our sin nature, because they are one in the same. I do not want to pick hairs here, however in a discussion of this magnitude it is always more helpful to be as clear and specific as possible.
 
Jeremy, here's my concern about the "bondage" language:

To most people, "bondage" is the state of imprisonment where we want to choose God but are unable to do so. That's the connotation that most people associate with the phrase "bondage of the will." That's the common usage of the word "bondage."

He always desires rebellion because that is all his nature allows him to do. That is bondage.

Not in the ordinary sense. If that's what you call bondage, then freedom is a meaningless concept. I reject libertarian freedom because it's nonsense. It's playing dice with our choices.
 
Philip,

If that is indeed the common usage of the word bondage, I would say that connotation is simply mistaken. I would have no problem saying are wills are in bondage to sin. Now, I would say we have freedom of action, or freedom to act as we desire, but our desires themselves (or our wills) are not free, they are captive to sin. I think the Bible is very clear that we are slaves to sin (John 8:34, Romans 6:20-22), which would thus make us in bondage to sin.

As others have pointed out, sin is a place that not only are we unable to get out, but we have no desire to. Even though when you think of a person who is in bondage, you assume that person wants to get out of bondage, I think it is still the biblical picture we are given. Only ignorance or stupidity causes one to not want to be released from the chains of death (as your analogy of the insane imprisoned supposes), yet for those who recognize sin and desire to mortify sin, no help will be given them unless they first are regenerated and given faith and repentance. There are those who have looked upon the means of mortifying sin as the fountain; things such as praying, fasting, and meditating...they turn their meat into medicine and thus must expect no great operation. They are always mortifying yet never able to come to any sound mortification because it is their master, they are in bondage to it. A slave to sin.
 
As others have pointed out, sin is a place that not only are we unable to get out, but we have no desire to.

You see, I would say that our inability rests precisely in our desire for sin. Only regeneration can give us freedom from our desire to sin.

Only ignorance or stupidity causes one to not want to be released from the chains of death

You make my point precisely---this is what sin does.

yet for those who recognize sin and desire to mortify sin,

You speak here of works-righteousness, which is not true recognition of sin, neither would I count self-pity. Both of these are simply wallowing in sin. Only through regeneration would one ever see a way out or have a desire to take it. This is simply pride masquerading as virtue.

If that is indeed the common usage of the word bondage, I would say that connotation is simply mistaken. I would have no problem saying are wills are in bondage to sin.

I would say that our desires are in bondage to sin. Our will is that which chooses---and it does so based on the desires. The connotation is not mistaken---it is a fact of our language. If you wish to communicate what you mean, you must use language as ordinarily used.
 
yet for those who recognize sin and desire to mortify sin,

You speak here of works-righteousness, which is not true recognition of sin, neither would I count self-pity. Both of these are simply wallowing in sin. Only through regeneration would one ever see a way out or have a desire to take it. This is simply pride masquerading as virtue.

If that is indeed the common usage of the word bondage, I would say that connotation is simply mistaken. I would have no problem saying are wills are in bondage to sin.

I would say that our desires are in bondage to sin. Our will is that which chooses---and it does so based on the desires. The connotation is not mistaken---it is a fact of our language. If you wish to communicate what you mean, you must use language as ordinarily used.

When I speak of someone recognizing their sin and a desire to mortify it, I only speak of it in the same sense that John Owen does in his book the Mortification of Sin. There are people who carry the guilt of sin (perhaps because of the consequences or for the plain fact that they recognize it as sin and their conscience bears them witness, I don't think it matters for our purposes here), yet they do not realize the extent of their depravity. Thus, "attempting rigid mortification, they fell upon the natural man instead of the corrupt old man; upon the body wherein we live, instead of the body of death" (John Owen, Mortification of Sin, p.42). If indeed the unregenerate can feel guilt over sin, I think perhaps there is a deeper root of sin then our desires.

I would say the connotation is mistaken like people are mistaken about what it means to be a Christian. It doesn't require us to change our definition, only to carefully explain any word that could be misunderstood. Besides, you say our desires are in bondage, meaning we only desire sin and can do no other. However, we also only choose sin, whether in thought, word, motive, or deed. This would also make our wills in bondage to sin if you were to be consistent it seems.

I would say that not only do our desires need to be changed, but our very nature which extends beyond our desires but includes our choices and actions; each of those need to be fundamentally changed when the Holy Spirit regenerates us. I think our sinful nature is ultimate rather than our desires and it encapsulates each of these. So when we put on the new man as a Christian, it is not only our desires that are changed but we shed our sinful nature, which made our soul dead in sins and trespasses, and God makes us alive. Any time a Christian sins, it is not because of our sinful nature as if we have two natures, it is called the "flesh" by Paul. If we simply choose evil because we always desire evil, then we should always choose right if we desire right as a Christian. Yet if this were the case, Paul would not lament as he does in Romans 7:18-25 over his struggle with sin. Thus, I think it is because we are not fully glorified that we continue to sin, not ultimately because our desires haven't been fully changed.
 
If indeed the unregenerate can feel guilt over sin, I think perhaps there is a deeper root of sin then our desires.

Attempts at mortification through one's own effort would be pride.

However, we also only choose sin, whether in thought, word, motive, or deed.

Your will only chooses what the desires dictate.

I maintain that you have never done anything that you did not want to do.

not ultimately because our desires haven't been fully changed.

Then why do we sin? If I choose to steal, I do it for reasons, desires, and motives---even as a Christian, it's not an arbitrary choice that I can say "oh that was just my sin nature." I am a responsible rational actor. The two natures are two competing sets of desires---one heaven-focused and the other self/this-world-focused. What you do shows who you love.
 
Attempts at mortification through one's own effort would be pride.

Granted that attempts at mortifying sin through one's own effort is pride, but that only goes to show it is our sin nature that makes it pride and sinful ultimately and not our desires. A child neither desires evil or good, but because of the sinful nature within him, he continually follows after sin.

Your will only chooses what the desires dictate.

I maintain that you have never done anything that you did not want to do.

Then why do we sin? If I choose to steal, I do it for reasons, desires, and motives---even as a Christian, it's not an arbitrary choice that I can say "oh that was just my sin nature." I am a responsible rational actor. The two natures are two competing sets of desires---one heaven-focused and the other self/this-world-focused. What you do shows who you love.

I would ask you where do our desires come from? We do not disagree that a person acts according to their desires nor that a person is responsible for their actions. However, the unregenerate desire sin because of their sinful nature that puts them at enmity with God from birth. When the Holy Spirit regenerates someone, they have the desire to please God and follow Him as Paul expresses in Romans 7:15.

He desired to do good but because of his flesh, he did what he did not want to do even the thing he hated. He was not putting the blame on his flesh, just as he did not call the law sin, though it gave us knowledge of what is sin. Paul knew his responsibility for sin, but undeniably it truly was a body of death, unable to perform that which he desired to do and continuing in that which he hated.
 
but that only goes to show it is our sin nature that makes it pride and sinful ultimately and not our desires.

Pride is a motive like any other. It's a higher-order ground motive, but no less of a desire.

When the Holy Spirit regenerates someone, they have the desire to please God and follow Him as Paul expresses in Romans 7:15.

Indeed---they also have sinful desires, hence the sin.

Paul knew his responsibility for sin, but undeniably it truly was a body of death, unable to perform that which he desired to do and continuing in that which he hated.

It's a battle between two competing sets of desires, one of which will ultimately win (yes we will persevere in faith), but we cannot say "Well I really didn't want to sin" because that begs the question, "Why did you sin, then?"
 
Pride is a motive like any other. It's a higher-order ground motive, but no less of a desire.

Pride carries desire with it. The desire for respect, power, fame, etc...could all be a desire because of pride. You are getting at what I am trying to say, I believe, by calling it a "higher-order ground motive". To follow this example, the desire of fame, power, or respect may come from the root of pride which is inherent in our flesh. We do not desire pride, we are simply prideful. Everyday a person continues to remain unrepentant, they are making themselves to be above God's commands thus setting themselves above God, thus inherent pride. Thus they must be made new and not simply have their desires changed. For instance, the desire for respect is not inherently sinful, thus no need for it to be changed.

Indeed---they also have sinful desires, hence the sin.

Yet, even for a sin we struggle with that we recognize and desire to overcome, we continually fail. If we do not desire that, how then does it occur?
It is true that desires are the immediate cause of sin but not the ultimate. What gives us the desire to sin? People can only sin when God withholds his restraining grace in a moment and He does that for His own purpose, glory, and for their sanctification (for Christians). This is not to say God is unjust or somehow at fault, we are still at fault. To be honest, I don't fully understand it, but from what I can understand, this is what the Bible teaches on this subject.

It's a battle between two competing sets of desires, one of which will ultimately win (yes we will persevere in faith), but we cannot say "Well I really didn't want to sin" because that begs the question, "Why did you sin, then?"

At this moment, I truly have the desire to not sin. Yet, is it possible for me to have absolutely no pride while typing this? I wish it were but because I am still flesh, I have not yet reached the end of sanctification. This in no way takes the blame off of me. I think it is a fact none the less though.

BTW, all this was to say that our wills are captive to sin. Our desires come from our nature which is sinful, making not only our desires but wills captive to sin, or in bondage. Perhaps we are discussing semantics as we seem to disagree on very little, none the less thought provoking though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top