Page 1 of 2

Free Will

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:48 pm
by Turgonian
This thread will focus (I hope :lol:) on the essay Human Freedom by GC Berkouwer, found here:
http://www.the-highway.com/freedom1_Berkouwer.html
and here:
http://www.the-highway.com/freedom2_Berkouwer.html

I notice there is much talk of 'free will' on these forums, and this essay may be very thought-provoking. I wholeheartedly agreed with it. This is, in short, what it says:

Most people who defend free will are conscious that there is a degenerated freedom. So when you define free will, you have to ask: free from what? True freedom apparently has limits.
Often the discussion about human freedom has centered around determinism and indeterminism. However, these concepts are religiously neutral and should not play a part in a theological, Bible-centered discussion.
What a theological discussion of freedom should be about, is the slavery of man to 'the dark powers of apostasy, which overpowered and ruled him in all his ways'.

Is man under this slavery, or does he have the freedom to accept divine grace 'negatively as well as positively, so that the decision as to salvation lay in man's own hands only'?

The Reformation said: no. Catholics and humanists saw this as an attack on free will, which they saw as part of man's essence.
They saw in the denial of freedom of the will a proclamation of a divine grace which was overwhelming and which could affect human life only in irruptive and mechanical fashion, overpowering defenseless and enslaved man. The Reformers' teaching on the will of man was interpreted as coactio, as necessitas, and over against this the so-called physical freedom of the will was stressed, a freedom not destroyed through the power of sin because it belonged to the essential structure of man's nature.
The Reformation did not want to defend determinism. There was no compulsion involved. They stressed that man was active and willing, only his activity and will were bent on evil.

Calvin said that man had 'free will', but he thought the term confusing. Man has the psychological freedom to do as he pleases, he said, but 'why give such an unimportant thing so proud a title'? It's nice man isn't compelled to sin, but he is still a sinner.
Before the Fall, there was free will, so Calvin has certainly no deterministic view. After the Fall, man lost the freedom of his will.
And this distinction also marks Calvin's judgment of the term. If freedom of the will means that man sins with his will and not through compulsion, then Calvin has no objection; but he considers that the term must be used with great caution, and would prefer that it not be used at all (Institutes, II, II, 8 ). For, he says, he has found that the usual connotation of the term is not merely that the will is not externally compelled but also includes the idea that man can freely determine his own path and the direction of his whole life in autonomy, as if the man who wills is not a fallen and falling man, whose life's direction is already decided because of the fall.
There is something in here which is the basic thought of the entire article: Sin enslaves man.

In the New Testament, freedom is not a formal power, but an actuality that is only found in Christ. God's actions in man's life do certainly not compete with free will.
If we place divine power and human freedom in a relation of opposition — even if we refer to a mystery in connection therewith — we are actually operating with a secularized and autonomous concept of freedom. When such a concept, which implies some sort of competition in the relation between God and human freedom, is held consistently, one cannot but conclude that the divine greatness and power rob man of his due, and threaten man in his true humanity. But such a concept actually involves a serious misapprehension of freedom, a misapprehension that really presupposes the idea of the jealousy of a God who begrudges man his proper nature, viewing it as a threat to His own power.
According to the NT, freedom is actualized in Christ.

So there are different kinds of 'freedom'. There is a lust for lawlessness posing as 'freedom'. There are false teachers promising 'freedom' but bringing slavery. But the only true freedom is found in submission to God.

From here, it starts to get really interesting.

Theologians have tried to distinguish between 'true freedom' and 'formal freedom'. True freedom is freedom in God, while formal freedom is the power to choose good or evil. This formal freedom is manifest at the Fall, where Adam uses this gift of God for bad purposes, according to many theologians (and people at the forum who use the term 'free will').
Such a formal freedom has often been posited alongside true freedom, and as an illustration thereof reference is often made to the situation before the fall and especially to the “probationary command” given to man in paradise. Does not this “test command” clearly imply formal freedom? And how must we then view the relation between the positive nature of true freedom and this “uncertain” freedom, with which man faced a choice? For we can hardly describe true freedom in terms of standing at a crossroad; it means, rather, walking along one road, and being continually reminded thereof by way of the gospel of freedom. And how is this to be understood when we see next to it freedom as choice, as a power not to sin (posse non peccare) but also as the power to sin (posse peccare)? Do we not face here a dual concept of freedom, implying an unmistakable antinomy?
The origin of sin is also explained this way. God wanted man to be free, so He gave man the possibility to sin. As Berkouwer puts it,
Men tried, within this antinomy, not so much to explain the origin of sin as to indicate the sphere within which it could arise, the sphere of human freedom of choice. This formal freedom was thus generally so defined that man was created free to choose for himself between good or evil, placed before a crossroad, in a situation which was still open. Against the background of the contrast between freedom and compulsion, a further idea was often added, that man was necessarily created with this freedom of choice because God did not wish compulsion and desired this kind of freedom.
Heard that before?

Berkouwer strongly disagrees!

Because, he says, freedom can be found in God. Free will is the will that is not enslaved to sin. This is what freedom is. So if God loves freedom so much, why does He give man the opportunity to get rid of his freedom? That is why you can't say, 'Man could / We can choose to do evil instead of good because God has given us free will.' Free will is the choice to do good.
In spite of the undeniable problems which in this manner are always revived, theologians have time and again asked the question whether when we examine man's originally good nature we do not encounter de facto an ability to sin, a posse peccare, and if so whether we should not honor this possibilitas with the name of freedom. Can we escape postulating a formal concept of freedom — an ability to choose at the crossroads — along with true freedom? As answer to such questions, it has often been said that God created the “possibility” of sin, that He created man so that he could fall and then let man choose, freely, whether he would follow God's way or his own way.
Berkouwer devotes attention to the way in which Julius Muller, Emil Brunner and Herman Bavinck tried to solve the problem. Berkouwer himself thinks you can't have both 'real freedom' and 'formal freedom': either man is free because he obeys, or he is free because he has the power not to obey. Not both.

Berkouwer comes to the following conclusion:
Man — the man of God — must seek inventions because they are not there, because he does not see them before him, neither in communion with God nor in his own good life. Thus sin is the senselessness of unjustified rebellion dashing with God's own work, clashing with the richness and goodness of the human nature created by Him. In that sense, sin is a riddle. This riddling character occurs again in every sin, as in Israel, where it led to the question of divine concern for His sinful people: “O my people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wearied thee? testify against me” (Micah 6:3, and see 4, 5). That is more than simple unintelligibility or simple riddle.

The depth of man's guilt is here revealed, which Christ Himself with respect to the sin against Him described thus: “They hated me without a cause” (John 15:25. See Ps. 35:19 and 69:5, and John 15:22: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin”). This is a different description of the “riddle” of sin than that given when men try to escape its force in the “tragedy” of evil or the “fatality” of freedom or in an ineluctable dualism.

The darkness of this “without cause,” this contra voluntatem Dei, can only be understood and confessed in the light of the love of God, which is not an answer to our love but to our enmity: “God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us even when we were dead in sins . . .” (Eph. 2:4-5).

These fatiguing cogitations on the origin of sin, on unde malum, can never find rest except at the point where there is vision — without reason — that penetrates sin in all its riddling character; and this vision is from within the freedom of the sons of God. This freedom in its fullness is an eschatological fruit of salvation. It is the fruit of the Holy Spirit in the power of the “once” of Hebrews, of the revealed mysterion (Rom. 16:25) and the deep content of the profession of the perseverance of the saints.
For me, this was a new and rather refreshing view on 'free will'. Still, is there anyone here who thinks that Adam's sin -- and yes, our sins today ARE manifestations of free will? I'd like to hear comments.

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 8:40 pm
by Jac3510
Still, is there anyone here who thinks that Adam's sin -- and yes, our sins today ARE manifestations of free will? I'd like to hear comments.
I do. Interesting essay - I didn't have time to read it in detail, but I will later. But, from your comments and the brief snippets you posted, it seems the same error is made here as commonly is when discussing this issue, and that is a strong misunderstanding of the effects of the Fall. That misunderstanding is rooted in a misunderstanding of the role of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. In short, the traditional view holds that when man ate of the tree, he fell, and then became enslaved to sin, losing his ability to do good. Thus, we have the Reformed doctrine of total depravity - man is totally incapable of doing anything good, his will is totally subjected to his now sinful nature, and thus the things he freely chooses to do are evil.

On the flip side, the TKGE was God's way of ensuring that man would come into maturity - knowledge, if you will - in one way or another. It was a door, if you would like to view it that way. When Adam ate of the tree, he became of evil by experience. Howeve,r had Adam not eaten of the tree, he would have become aware of evil in contrast to good, and this by experience. Just as God is aware of evil/sin without experiencing it, so Adam would have been as well. Adam took the former route, and thus experiencing sin, his fellowship with God was now broken. God then set about the path of redeeming manking by providing a second Adam who would live the righteous life necessary, provide Atonement, etc. (Hi, Jesus!).

So, to say that man is incapable of doing good is to assume TP, which is to misunderstand the nature and extent of the Fall. There is a sense in which man is depraved. Left to himself, he does not seek God. However, God draws all men, first by general revelation and then by special revelation. He opens their heart that they may receive. They have the completely free will to respond to the revelation granted to them. Thus, to the extent a man is given revelation, he may respond. He is not free to respond to revelation not given any more than he is free to fly unaided by technology!

Besides all of this, the Bible clearly states that fallen man does do good (Rom 2:14). However, all of their goodness is as filthy rags, because their state is one of deadness/separation from God.

So, as it relates to free will . . . yes, man can and does do good, and it is from his free will. He can because he is still in the image of God, as marred as that image may be. However, regardless of the amount of good he does, he is still dead in sin, being in Adam, until he trusts Christ to save him. Thus, he is reborn, no longer enslaved to his sin nature, and now capable of pleasing God through faith.

My view anyway . . .

God bless

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:13 am
by Turgonian
I know it's your view...I've read what you posted here and there. But I do believe in total depravity.
JP Holding, who has kind of become a tutor for me personally, has independently examined the TULIP. He agrees neither with Calvin nor with Arminius, but on Total Depravity, he comes to the following conclusion:
I affirm that the T in TULIP is valid. However, I must qualify by saying that while it is valid, it is not supported by as many Scriptures as some are wont to think. Originally this essay was to explore the doctrine as expressed in the epistalory literature, but since it seems that "T" is clearly affirmed (in the first verse to be examined below) I see no need, at present, to proceed further. One may as well ask whether the Bible teaches that "God so loved the world..."
About good deeds (when simply stating what the doctrine is about), he says,
Any good deeds we do (outside of Christ) is merely a "relative" good deed. A truly good deed is done for the glory of God; unbelievers are incapable of this.
So, Jac, do you think sins are acts of FREE will? That God wanted to give his creatures freedom and therefore gave them the possibility of unfreedom? That's what the essay attacks, bad TD view or not.

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:21 pm
by Jac3510
edit:

Short answer: yes, sinners sin of a free will. It is a biased will, and that bias came about as a result of the Fall, but it is still free to do as it would. I also disagree with the idea that unbelievers are incapable of doing good deeds. How would you define "good"?

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:29 pm
by Turgonian
Uh-uh. How would I define 'good'? How did I make you think I am as sharp as Aristotle?
Any definition of a 'good deed' except Holding's, which is a few lines above your post, is a secular definition, not a theological one.

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 8:18 pm
by Jac3510
1) If you are going to make an assertion about a person's ability or inability to do "good," then you have to tell me what you think "good" is. You've told me what a "good act" is. What is "good"?

I'll disagree with you that any definition besides Holding's is secular, but we'll get what I think good is after you clarify what you are thinking of.

2) How do you justify Holding's definition . . . an act done for the glory of God. Do you have any Scripture to back that up? What is his reasoning?

3) What about Paul, preconversion? He set about persecuting Christians because of his zeal for the Law. He genuinely thought he was doing the work of God. He certainly would have given God the credit. If Holding is right, how could Paul have done something for the glory of God?

4) What do you think of Romans 2:14?
  • Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law (NIV)
Unbelievers do things required by the, don't they? Doesn't the law require honoring and glorifying God? Did not the Athenians have an altar "to an unknown god" (Acts 17:23), and did they not worship at that altar?

5) Finally, what is the difference in glorying God and doing something to glorify God, or is there a difference at all?

God bless

Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:35 pm
by Turgonian
1) An act done from agape. And that is only possible through the operation of the Holy Spirit in the believer's life, says this site.

2) Psalms 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:12.

3) You can think that you do something for the glory of God and yet be wrong. Conversely, when a believer does perfectly 'neutral' acts (eating, drinking), he can do them for the glory of God (I Corinthians 10:31).

4) The Law puts down rules. It is sometimes commanding, sometimes restrictive. However, it is not concerned with the motives of the human heart. It's relatively easy to keep the commandment 'Thou shalt not murder'. But what Jesus said -- who hates, has already committed murder; who lusts, has already committed adultery -- is more difficult...
The Athenian altar was for any unknown god, not for YHWH specifically.

5) I believe the saved believer glorifies God with everything he does in his life except sin.

I'm a bit hurried and might be pressed to alter these views. ;)

Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:56 pm
by Jac3510
1) An act done from agape. And that is only possible through the operation of the Holy Spirit in the believer's life, says this site.
No, no . . . I asked what "good" is, not what a good act is. I know that a good act is, in your view, one done from a love which glorifes God. But, what is GOOD - what is goodness? Jesus said no one is good but God. So, again, what is good?

And, just to pick on your wording, you don't want to say that a good act is one done from agape. Are you aware that the LXX uses the word agape to translate Absalom's "love" for Tamar? ;)
2) Psalms 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:12.
OK, let's see what these say:
  • The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

    There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.

    All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
First off, in the interest of honesty, both of the Psalms passags are word-for-word the same. Also, the Romans passage, as you see, is a quotation of that same Psalm (only from the LXX). So, we actually have two references: Ps. 14:1-3 and Ecc. 7:20.

Secondly, both of these are poetic expressions of the depravity of man, and the first is in special reference to the "fool" (the morally deficient person). So . . . I'm not really sure how these teach that the only good acts are those done to glorify God.
3) You can think that you do something for the glory of God and yet be wrong. Conversely, when a believer does perfectly 'neutral' acts (eating, drinking), he can do them for the glory of God (I Corinthians 10:31).
Hmmm . . . suppose I saw an old woman stumbling to get across the street. I kindly go and help her to the other side. After all, I am a Christian, and it brings God glory for me to be kind to my fellow man, right? You would think that I've just done good.

But and however, unbeknownst to me, this nice old lady has just robbed a bank and is trying to get to her get-away driver, and she does, thanks to me. So, in actuality, I've just helped a lady rob a bank - totally on accident of course.

So . . . here is an example of me thinking I was doing something for the glory of God and I was wrong. Or was I? Does God judge the action or the intent?

Secondly, Jesus said that the entire Law is summed up in the commands to love God and to love each other. If we treat one another how we would like to be treated, then we have done good (or, at least, we have done what God requires). Do not unbelievers, at times, do unto others as they would have done unto them? Yet, are you saying that their actions are not good, even though Jesus says that they have just done what is required by the Law?

Finally, what about Matt. 7:11? How does this fit with your view?
4) The Law puts down rules. It is sometimes commanding, sometimes restrictive. However, it is not concerned with the motives of the human heart. It's relatively easy to keep the commandment 'Thou shalt not murder'. But what Jesus said -- who hates, has already committed murder; who lusts, has already committed adultery -- is more difficult...
The Athenian altar was for any unknown god, not for YHWH specifically.
You are being too restrictive of Paul's meaning in Romans 2. In that passage, he is attacking moralists who think they can get to heaven by doing good (not by just not doing evil). The Gentiles, he said, also do those things by conscience. Therefore, just as the moralists did good (but it wasn't enough to save them), so the Gentiles did good (and it wasn't enough to save them). Besides, if the Gentiles didn't have the Law, how could the keep it except by motivation? It is simple to not murder when you have the Law saying "Don't murder." You have a choice: I can follow or reject it. However, if you don't have that law, and yet you follow it anyway, it is because you are keeping it by conscience - that is, by motivation.

As for the Athenian alter, I'd simply say you were wrong here. There weren't "Athenian" gods. Athens was they place that they discussed religion and philosophy. Some of the gods were of Greek origin, but not all of them. This alter existed for the worship of another god that they were unaware of. Nothing says (s)he had to be rooted in Greek mythology.

Here's the point: these people knew there was something else, and they wanted to worship Him so as to avoid His wrath. Is it not good to worship God?
5) I believe the saved believer glorifies God with everything he does in his life except sin.
So everything I do in my life is either good or sin? There is no middle ground? There seems to be some equivocation going on . . . James says that the person who knows what is good and doesn't do it sins (would this not apply to unbelievers as well? How would that verse fit in your theology?). Now, if a good act is one done for God's glory, and that is the only good act, and if I know that is what is good and therefore not doing it is sin, then what about all those "neutral" acts that aren't done for His glory? If I take a drink or eat a meal and it isn't "for His glory," have I just sinned? Where does that stop? What about breathing, walking, blinking, or thinking?

Like I said - it would be very helpful if you would flesh out your ideas of how good and goodness work on a practical level.

Thanks,

God bless

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 2:41 am
by roverdisc1
I simply think the point has been missed and garbled with a bunch of crap. simply stated....can I make my own decisions without Gods knowledge?

If you can answer that with a logical one sentence answer, I will lean to the other side of the fence.

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:45 pm
by FFC
roverdisc1 wrote:I simply think the point has been missed and garbled with a bunch of [poop]. simply stated....can I make my own decisions without Gods knowledge?

If you can answer that with a logical one sentence answer, I will lean to the other side of the fence.
An omniscient + omnipotent God can direct and redirect the decisions that we make with our free will, like an aquaduct can direct and redirect water.

Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:11 am
by Turgonian
Okay Jac, I have a book about ethics at home and I have a quote that might help me somewhat. ;) Give me a day.

roverdisc1 -- As God is omniscient, he knows everything, and he also knows what decisions you will make.

Fallen off the fence yet? :lol:

FFC -- Have you taken a look at the thread Puritan Lad's Response?

Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:23 am
by FFC
Turgonian wrote:Okay Jac, I have a book about ethics at home and I have a quote that might help me somewhat. ;) Give me a day.

roverdisc1 -- As God is omniscient, he knows everything, and he also knows what decisions you will make.

Fallen off the fence yet? :lol:

FFC -- Have you taken a look at the thread Puritan Lad's Response?
Oh yes. Very good stuff!

Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:00 pm
by roverdisc1
If I have been on the fence this long it will take much more than a puff of air to blow me either way.

FFC Wrote "An omniscient + omnipotent God can direct and redirect the decisions that we make with our free will". I wonder if FFC is trying to make my point for me?

One thing is for sure, whatever side of the fence I will fall, will certainly depend on a concise lack of contradictions. If god can direct and redirect my decisions, then I have no free will.

Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:00 pm
by FFC
roverdisc1 wrote:If I have been on the fence this long it will take much more than a puff of air to blow me either way.

FFC Wrote "An omniscient + omnipotent God can direct and redirect the decisions that we make with our free will". I wonder if FFC is trying to make my point for me?

One thing is for sure, whatever side of the fence I will fall, will certainly depend on a concise lack of contradictions. If god can direct and redirect my decisions, then I have no free will.
Not necesarily. God's will will always be done, but the real contradiction is a loving God offering salvation to someone who can't accept it.

Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:09 pm
by roverdisc1
Not necesarily. God's will will always be done, but the real contradiction is a loving God offering salvation to someone who can't accept it.

You seem to still be making my point for me. If god's will will always be done....I have no choice in the outcome.....hence, no free will. If what you say is true, why would god even offer the salvation if he knows the person won't accept it? By offering to that sort of person, questions his omniscience. Why offer if he knows it won't be accepted (kind of a waste of time).