Photo by Akuppa (via Flickr)
Category: Theology 101
Doctrine of Man
When discussing the freedom of the human will, I believe that there are two extremes that are biblically and logically false. One false view is fatalistic determinism. This position denies any and all freedom. Men are like complex computer programs that can only do what they are preprogrammed to do. There is no actual thinking, motivation, desire, or volition going on. There are no real choices.
The other false view is indifferent liberty. This belief suggests that a person is utterly free to make any choice at any time without any pre-inclination whatsoever. When a man comes to a fork in the road, he chooses which direction to go free of any previous influence. His will is a perpetual tabula rasa.
I believe that man is free to do anything he wants to do, but that his desires determine what he will choose. Or as Edwards put it, man will always choose according to his strongest desire at the moment of choosing; but he will make this choice freely. Here freedom means "without external coercion." No one outside of the chooser is compelling him to make this choice or that one. The determining factor will be his internal desire.
For example, when I arrived home last night after an elder meeting, I was welcomed with the aroma of freshly baked chocolate chip friendship bread. I don’t particularly care for cakes and pastries, except this kind. I was immediately drawn to the bread. However, I also remembered my desire to abstain from such things until I become a little leaner. A choice is going to be made! Even not choosing is a choice. If the fatalistic view is correct, then it does not make any difference anyway, I have no freedom in any sense. If the indifference view is correct, then my desires for the bread and for leaning-up are irrelevant. My choice has nothing to do with those things. But the reality is that I have two conflicting desires competing for my allegiance: I want to eat the bread; I want to abstain from the bread. Which desire won? I freely chose to surrender to my craving. I ate the bread (…a small piece!) (…relatively small). From the perspective of external coercion, this choice was free. No one forced me to eat the bread. Yet, my free choice was determined by my desire to taste the delectable treat.
One’s view of free will has serious ramifications for one’s view of man’s sinfulness. According to the fatalistic view, men sin by coercion. God compels them to sin. According to the indifferent view, men sin without any desire to sin. They just do. The Bible indicates that sin is both predetermined by God and freely chosen by men. For example, when Joseph’s brothers left him for dead, they were freely acting according to their desires. However, when Joseph addressed them about it, he expressed that what they intended for evil, God intended for good. They acted freely; God acted freely. No outside force compelled them to abandon their brother, they willingly committed this act of treachery. However, it was part of God’s plan that they commit this sin, and therefore it was predetermined. Nevertheless, this foreordination did not remove their freedom to choose.
Another example is the crucifixion of Christ. The Apostle Peter explains that the Romans were the material means used for the execution. Yet he extends blame on the Jews who freely desired, and clamored for, His death. But, he also attributes the cross to the foreordained plan of God. God did not force the Jews to kill Jesus against their will. But His will determined that it would come to pass. And so it did, freely.