Free Will
The biblical versus humanist view
by
Roger Smalling, D.Min
This article corresponds to the book
Available on Kindle
The Biblical View: Part One
Free will has been the storm center of
controversy for centuries. Volumes have been written on it and heated debates
continue in theological circles.
Much of the heat dissipates when terms
are clearly defined.
á
What is a will?
á
What is meant by
free?
á
Is there a
connection between free will and responsibility?
á
Free from what?
á
Free to do what?
Does the will govern us or are we
governed by some other faculty?
We find little controversy over the
definition of will. It is the faculty by which we make choices. The
disagreements concern the meaning of free.
One must distinguish between natural
liberty and moral liberty. Natural liberty refers to ordinary decisions
involving our material welfare and human relationships; What we eat for
breakfast, who we marry, whether to continue reading this page, all fall into
the category of natural liberty.
The term natural can also include
religious activities. Unsaved people can memorize Scripture, sing hymns or join
a church. Sinners have a conscience and daily make positive moral choices. They
can choose between telling the truth or a lie. No one can deny the natural
freedom of the will.
Moral freedom is where controversy erupts.
The following questions highlight the issue:
á
Apart from sovereign
grace, is fallen man able to submit to God, trust in Christ and desire holiness
as his supreme value?
á
Can his free will
generate faith and repentance?
In Genesis 1:27 we read, So God
created man in His own image. The Bible defines a human being as a creature
made in God's image. In reverse, we can say image of God means a human
being. Suppose two angels were talking and one asked what God is like. The
other might reply, Over there is an example. It's called a human being.
The term image of God defines our
essence as beings. As the image of God we are responsible to reflect what He
is. Since this is the reason for human existence, our responsibility can never
change... no matter what else happens. God does not have a body. He is
infinite. So the image of God must refer to His nature as holy.
Is God absolutely holy? Does God have a
free will? Of course! He is the most free being in existence. Can God lie? No.
Why not? Nothing in His holy character finds a lie attractive. He cannot desire
falsehood.
Moral free will means absolute purity
and freedom from sin because of a holy nature. From this, we see what cosmic
treason it is to be anything but holy. Ungodliness is a denial of our core
essence and the supreme insult to our Creator. The notion of moral free will as
a faculty suspended between good and evil is fiction. Moral neutrality does
not exist.
But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. Romans 6:17-18
The will is tied to the true nature of
the person. In this sense, the will is not the ruling faculty in man. It is not
free in the sense of autonomy.
This explains why God tells the truth,
the devil does evil and sinners love sin. They like it that way because of
their respective natures. Each chooses freely according to their desire,
without compulsion, tied to their true nature.
Second, the will of man is not morally
neutral. If it were, we must assume his character is also morally neutral.
Nothing in Scripture, reason, or human experience supports such an assumption.
Would you like to see your free will?
Stand in front of a full-length mirror. The reflection is your free will. It is
you, the totality of everything you are. Now look at the mirror itself, not
just your reflection. Your will is like the mirror. It reflects what you are.
If it functioned independently of a person's nature, then how could it be said
to reflect the person himself? This may explain why the Bible speaks volumes
about issues of character and so little about the will.
As a person moves away from God, he moves
away from freedom. His bondage increases. By the very definition of bondage,
he becomes unable to return to God. His will still exists and functions though
it is aimed toward more slavery.
Question: Can God
rightly hold him responsible for turning back to God although he cannot? Should
God command him to do right even though he can no longer will to do it? Man is
still the image of God even though the image is marred.
Answer: No. Man's responsibility is based on
his identity, not his current moral ability.
Additionally, fallen man retains some
knowledge of God through the creation and the conscience. Everyone has some
degree of light although they choose to suppress it.
The Bible never suggests our
responsibility is based on free will. No logical connection exists between
responsibility and free will. One might as well say a debtor is not responsible
for his debt if he cannot pay.
Bible teaching on the moral state of the
carnal mind indicates the will is as bound by the fall as any other faculty. It
is dominated by the carnal reason, cannot submit to God's law, follows the
thought-forms of the world, is God's enemy, under the dominion of Satan and
defiled. Religious humanists who declare the moral freedom of the will must do
one of two things: Either show from Scripture that the will is not a function
of the mind, or show how the will was the only human faculty to escape the
fall.
This is a consequence of our bondage to
the carnal nature. By grace, God changes the direction of a sinner's will
without forcing it.
The will of man is free to act according
to his own desires without compulsion from anything outside. God does not force
our will in conversion, but works indirectly through influences in our nature.
It is never free, however, from the overruling providence of God.
In him we live and move and have our being. Acts 17:24
God works indirectly. One of His
tools is the free will of man. God uses man's choices, even the fall into sin,
to accomplish his plan for history. This involves His ultimate glory and the
demonstration of His attributes, such as grace, judgment and love.
The will is never autonomous, either
from God or from the person himself. By falling into sin, man lost the ability
to will or do anything to convert himself or submit to God's authority. He did
not lose, however, his responsibility to God.
The will is the mental faculty that
chooses according to the nature of the being it represents
á
Moral freedom of the
will and holiness are inseparably linked.
á
The will is not the
governing factor in man. His nature is.
á
Man is essentially
the image of God, fallen or not. As such, his responsibility to obey God cannot
change however much his will may be in bondage.
á
God is perfectly
just in commanding fallen man to do what he cannot do.
á
Scripture and reason
require us to reject any definition of free will involving autonomy.
The Humanist View: Part Two
Humanism takes two forms, secular and
religious. Both assume the will of man is autonomous. According to humanism,
man's will is the ruling faculty in his nature, independent from any influences
outside of itself. If the respective parts of human nature were a train,
humanists would identify the will as the engine. They see the will as the
driving force of human nature. In their thinking, man's will drags the other
faculties behind it by its autonomous power.
Secular and religious humanism arrive at
the assumption of autonomy from different approaches. The secular humanist
holds to autonomy simply because he believes there is no God. He sees the glory
of man as the only worthwhile pursuit because nothing else is supreme.
These assumptions pervade modern
culture. In films, the hero lifts himself to victory by the force of his will.
He may have a few character flaws but he has even these under control. The
power of the mind to control reality permeates science fiction. The message is
clear: Man's potential is limitless. All he needs is to reach into the depths
of his own being and draw upon the goodness and power hidden there, and the
victory will be his.
For the purposes of this study, secular
humanism concerns us little because it is atheistic. We are more concerned with
religious humanism because of its insidious influences on evangelicals today.
More theological errors stem from wrong views about free will than any other
teaching.
People would rather change God than
themselves. The religious humanist looks on the will as a special ground on
which God never treads. He feels it is a contradiction to call the will free
unless it is exempt from divine control. This would be a kind of cosmic
cheating.
A common teaching is, God is a
gentleman, He does not violate our free will. Secular humanism views man's
will as morally neutral. They see babies as morally neutral. They then deduce
that their environment and parental influences explain human behavior, not
innate tendencies. Because of the doctrine of the fall of Adam, religious
humanists have difficulty holding to a view of man's will as morally neutral.
They come close to it though, by saying man is born with a mere bias toward
sin. This allows them to accommodate biblical teaching about sin without
abandoning the basic assumption of autonomy.
The Bible explodes this notion with many
texts like, There is none who does good, no, not one. Romans 3:12
This is why legalism among Christians is
so despicable. Like a flower it may impress at first glance. Then we notice its
roots feeding off the muck of humanist presuppositions.
The assumption of autonomy is the
default setting of human nature. The fall of Adam programmed human nature to
assume its own autonomy because autonomy was the whole idea behind the fall in
the first place.
The fall produced not only sin but a
syndrome of delusions regarding man's own righteousness and his power to
produce it. This is why all religions, except biblical Christianity, are
works-righteousness systems.
With the influence of modern culture and
the default setting of human nature, it is no wonder religious humanism permeates
large sectors of Christianity. As a result, an entire theology has grown up to
defend it. Some arguments sound plausible until we examine them closer. It is
important for Christians today to be aware of these influences and know how to
refute them so believers can be sound in the faith.
RELIGIOUS HUMANIST ERRORS
This error assumes responsibility
proves ability. One hears, God would never command a person to do
what he could not do.Or, God would never tell a person to repent and
believe if he could not do it. We might as well say a debtor is not
responsible for his debt unless he can pay.
As we pointed out, God will never lower
His standards of holiness just because His image fell into sin. Man's inability
always stems from his own corruption, not from any unreasonable demand of his
Creator. Did God give the Ten Commandments to the Jews thinking they would obey
them? Did He suppose they could?
There are two reasons why God gave commandments
to fallen man:
á To vindicate
the righteousness of God
á To expose the
sinfulness of man.
Neither proves man's moral free will.
But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world? 20-... for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Romans 3:4-6 & 20
Even more striking is Paul's statement that the carnal mind is unable to submit to God's law. If the will is part of the mind, then fallen man, without grace, is unable to choose submission to God.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. Romans 8:7
Paul is saying the entire Old Testament
was given to prove man's inability to obey God. It hardly makes sense,
therefore, to quote from any moral law to prove an ability to obey.
The commands to repent, and believe, are
as much a part of the Law as any other. Fallen man is likewise unable to obey
these without grace.
This objection assumes the will is
morally neutral, neither good nor evil. If so, we would have to say the will of
God, as well as the will of Christ, angels and believers in heaven are not free
since they are predetermined to good only. Likewise, we would have to say
demons are not responsible for their actions because their wills are entirely
determined to evil.
Choosing our breakfast or which car to
buy falls within the realm of natural liberty. Conversion to Christ, though, is
a uniquely spiritual experience without precedent in the natural world, which
we can hardly equate with a breakfast menu. Nor does choosing a car involve
surrendering the ego to the Supreme Authority. Comparing the miracle of
conversion to natural liberty is inappropriate.
That is correct. He does not. If God
were to grab a person's will and twist it by direct physical force, this would
be a violation. It is not a violation of the will to change the person's
inner nature to generate new perceptions and desires.
Some teachers claim man's status as
God's image must include moral free will. If God is free then man must
be free also. This confuses free with autonomous or uncaused. God is the
only autonomous Being in the universe. He is uncreated. It is a contradiction
to say man is a creation of God and then claim masn's will is uncaused or
autonomous. The Bible shows man is still the image of God even though fallen.
Yet elsewhere the Bible shows man's entire nature is bound by sin. Apparently
Bible writers saw no necessary connection between free will and image of God.
Fallen man's basic assumption about
himself is his own autonomy. This results in two forms of humanism: secular and
religious. While the secular form presents a challenge in the public domain,
the religious form is even more insidious. The devastating effects of the
autonomous view leads to legalism, liberalism and other theological errors.
Christians need to be aware of the arguments for religious humanism and how to
refute them.
á
Fallen man
invariably assumes he is autonomous. This means he thinks his will is free from
God and free from any cause beyond himself, as though he were a god himself.
á
All forms of
humanism, whether secular or religious, stem from the delusion of autonomy.
á
Commands and
exhortations from the Bible do not prove moral free will.
á
Predetermination of
will does not contradict the idea of freedom.
á
Natural freedom of
will does not prove moral freedom.
á
God's influence on
man's nature to change the direction of his will is not a violation of free
will.