what is free will

I usually like how Michael Patton shows agreement between theological positions and then clearly defines what is typically the smaller area of disagreement. His post on A CALVINIST’S UNDERSTANDING OF “FREE-WILL” is no exception.

Patton first offers the following 5 possible definitions:

• That a person is not forced from the outside to make a choice
• That a person is responsible for his or her choices
• That a person is the active agent in a choice made
• That a person is free to do whatever they desire
• That a person has the ability to choose contrary to their nature (who they are)

He rightly asserts that a Calvinist would affirm the first three and reject the fourth. And that this is likely the position of all believers, Calvinist or not. It is on the fifth point that we typically have issue.

To analyze this further, he then defines "Libertarian Free-will" or "Libertarian Freedom". This is "the power of contrary choice". That is, in the Libertarian Freedom camp, one would argue that a person could make choices against their nature. The problem is that one's nature makes up who they are and who they are determines their choice. That makes their choice self-limited. Therefore the choices are free, but they lack liberty. Said differently, a person does not become a sinner because they sin, they sin because they are a sinner. It is about the nature of the person first. To quote Patton, "If people are identified with the fallen nature of Adam, then they will make choices similar to that of Adam because it is who they are. Yes, they are making a free choice, but this choice does not include the liberty or freedom of contrary choice." Conversely, those in Christ have a new nature and can make choices consistent with that nature.

Even if one denied the doctrine of total depravity, libertarian freedom is untenable. Patton offers some examples:

• You did not choose when you were to be born.
• You did not choose where you were to be born.
• You did not choose your parents.
• You did not choose your influences early in your life.
• You did not choose whether you were to be male or female.
• You did not choose your genetics.
• You did not choose your temperament.
• You did not choose your looks.
• You did not choose your body type.
• You did not choose your physical abilities.

Simply put, one is on shaky ground if they want to argue that we choose against our nature. In fact, both Arminians and Calvinists agree still at this point. Neither openly affirm the Libertarian Free-will position. The difference isn't the above, but that the Arminian holds to the doctrine of prevenient grace, a grace from God that neutralizes the will so that the inclination toward sin is relieved such that the person can make a true free will decision.

This now is where we differ. The Calvinist would ask what does neutralized look like? Does it erase everything? If so, what within you then makes the choice? How then does responsibility fit into that? The argument would be that a neutralized being would end in perpetual indecision. R.C. Sproul uses the following illustration of a "neutral-willed" mule in Chosen By God.

The mule had no prior desires, or equal desires in two directions. His owner put a basket of oats to his left and a basket of wheat on his right. If the mule had no desire whatsoever for either oats or wheat he would choose neither and starve. If he had an exactly equal disposition toward oats as he had toward wheat he would still starve. His equal disposition would leave him paralyzed. There would be no motive. Without motive there would be no choice. Without choice there would be no food. Without food soon there would be no mule.

In the best case, a neutral will results in arbitrary choices and where then is responsibility?

Therefore, in the end, the Arminian overcomes the Libertarian issue with prevenient grace for all while the Calvinist would say effectual grace for some but not for all. That leads us to a different argument but at least one that's based on the real difference as opposed to something, when thought through, most would already agree to.

Technorati Tags: Calvinism