Free Will: The ability of an agent to make genuine choices that stem from the self. Libertarians argue that free will includes the power to determine the will itself, so that a person with free will can will more than one thing. Compatibilists typically view free will as the power to act in accordance with one's own will rather than being constrained by some external cause, allowing that the will itself may ultimately be causally determined by something beyond the self. Hard determinists deny the existence of free will altogether. Most Christian theologians agree that humans possess free will in some sense but disagree about what kind of freedom is necessary. The possession of free will does not entail an ability not to sin, since human freedom is shaped and limited by human character. Thus a human person may be free to choose among possibilities in some situations but still be unable to avoid all sin.11. C.Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 46-47.
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 46-47.
11 comments:
"The possession of free will does not entail an ability not to sin, since human freedom is shaped and limited by human character."
This statement is contradictory. If the will must sin of necessity then it is in bondage to corruption, and that which is in bondage is not free. SO we must ask freedom from what? Freedom from coercion, yes, but not freedom from necessity.
What if sin isn't of necessity? If someone must necessarily sin, and can't do otherwise, how could they be held responsible?
In Romans 14:23, Paul tells us that "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin."
The lost do not have faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore all that they do is sin. Even the best actions of unbelievers are done for selfish and unrighteous motives. They do nothing out of love for God.
It is not that they are being forced to sin. They do so willingly and without any letup.
Yes, they make choices. They choose between sinful alternatives--because those are the only alternatives that interest them.
They are responsible and will be held accountable for those choices.
Even God's freedom is limited by his nature/character. But we would not say that just because God cannot sin that He is not free.
Brian,
The Bible defines freedom as freedom from sin, not the freedom to do otherwise, as libertarians affirm.
bossmanham you asked
>>>What if sin isn't of necessity? If someone must necessarily sin, and can't do otherwise, how could they be held responsible?
They are held responsible in the same way that someone who owes a debt they cannot repay is still responsible. If someone borrows $100 million from a bank and squanders it in a week of wild living in Las Vegas, his inability to repay the bank does not alleviate him of his responsibility. Likewise all who are in Adam have a debt they cannot repay so Christ comes and does for us what we are unable to do for ourselves.
Also, the fact that we need grace and the Holy Spirit to believe the gospel proves once for all they man has no free will. Left to himself he would never come to Christ. Can a person come to Jesus apart from the Holy Spirit? No, the Scripture says emphatically (John 6:63-65) and "no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' apart from the Holy Spirit. This is because apart form the Spirit we are in the flesh which is by nature hostile to God (Rom 8:7)
Therefore apart from the Holy Spirit sin is a necessity. Any "obedience" in the flesh does not come from a heart that loves God. The heart must be renewed for obedience to be acceptable to God.... Grace is not a reward for our faith ...rather, it is the cause of faith. Jesus provides everything we need for salvation, including a new heart to believe.
If someone is constrained to sin by something, ie made necessary by either past states of affairs or some other causal mechanism that they can't control, then moral responsibility becomes obsolete.
Ex Nihilo,
The lost do not have faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore all that they do is sin. Even the best actions of unbelievers are done for selfish and unrighteous motives. They do nothing out of love for God
This verse is directly addressing believers. Anything believers do apart from faith is sin. Look at the context of Romans 14; this passage is not addressing depravity, nor is it speaking about or to non believers. It is specifically addressing the implications of Christian liberty. You can't take something meant for believers and apply it to all men indiscriminately.
In fact, Jesus says the unbeliever CAN do good (Matt. 7:11). Now, obviously this "good" is not efficacious for salvation in any way, but even unregenerate man retains the imago dei. Look at the firefighters on 9/11. They unselfishly gave their own lives to help others. Were they all regenerate Christians? Do you think if they weren't that God held this act against them as sin in their judgment? I don't think so.
Now, as this applies to free will, there are, as Brian alludes to, certain things that the unregenerate, ungraced man cannot do, such as please or search for God (without His drawing) or fly, as he is constrained by his nature. But does this mean that this man can't not sin? NO! It means there is a limit to his ability to do otherwise, but it doesn't mean he can't do otherwise. If man is mechanically controlled by his nature, as a computer program is controlled by its programming, how do we apply moral responsibility? We don't hold computer programs responsible for what they do, we hold their programmers responsible.
Yes, they make choices. They choose between sinful alternatives--because those are the only alternatives that interest them.
Well I would say they choose between non-meritorious actions. Many sinful, some potentially not.
John,
They are held responsible in the same way that someone who owes a debt they cannot repay is still responsible.
This is demonstrably disanalogous to libertarian free will. First, this person made the decision. which they could have not made, to get themselves into debt. The inability to pay the debt is a consequence of a free action. Second, libertarian free will doesn't entail the ability to do whatever you choose, because some things are just physically or logically impossible. Rather, LFW is the ability to choose between actually possible alternatives.
For instance, in our state of depravity we are unable to choose God. But that doesn't mean we lack LFW, rather our free will is limited. Once the Holy Spirit works on our heart, we are then able to choose God (or choose to reject Him).
In your example, the gambler may not be able to pay his debt, but that doesn't mean his LFW is gone. He just has fewer choices.
I see this misunderstanding of LFW quite often.
The Bible defines freedom as freedom from sin, not the freedom to do otherwise, as libertarians affirm.
And this is equivocation, as it is speaking of two different iterations of freedom.
bossmanham,
Yes, in the context of Romans 14, Paul is addressing what believers eat, and what they avoid eating, and their motivation in eating certain foods and avoiding others, and the sinfulness or blamelessness of these choices. At the end of the discussion, he concludes with the principle that whatever is not of faith is sin.
Now, it would be a mistake to limit this principle to apply only to what is on the menu of Christians. It is a general principle that can be found throughout the scriptures.
If a Christian believer does something that is "not of faith" and is therefore sin, would it not also be a sin for an unbeliever to do the same?
Would you really argue that, although believers cannot commit faithless acts without sinning, unbelievers can?
Yes, unbelievers can and do do things that are good from a purely human perspective. But such acts are not viewed by God as righteous nor in any sense meritorious. Even the plowing of the wicked is sin, as Proverbs 21:4 tells us. The wicked man plows his field. He feeds his family. Yet he sins in so doing because he does not do it as unto the Lord.
If a Christian believer does something that is "not of faith" and is therefore sin, would it not also be a sin for an unbeliever to do the same?
I think the believer is held to a different standard than the unbeliever.
Proverbs 21 seems to be speaking of pride and arrogance as the agricultural product (as the NET Bible puts it) of the person not seeking God.
But such acts are not viewed by God as righteous nor in any sense meritorious.
I agree. But does the converse automatically make it sin? I'm not saying they don't sin; they clearly do. But is every act they commit sin? I'm not so sure.
Even if it were true that everything the unbeliever did was sin, what I said would still apply.
Post a Comment
Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.