At some point in nearly every debate about “who does what” in salvation a certain phrase is dropped which strikes fear into the heart of all involved. “I believe men have free will.” Like a triple dog dare issued on a schoolyard, people back up to give the concept space. The discussion of free will is an intensely polarizing subject. It’s more often put forward as a theological trump card against Calvinism than any other concept. “More moderate” theological constructs may take refuge within its walls. For many it is the final and insurmountable fall back defense against the logical minions of Reformed theology. Free will is the mother of all theological comebacks.
In the realm of debate the issuance of free will is a classic emotional appeal intended to play upon the sympathies of the listener. For certain, it is palpable. Within this discussion it is the emotional equivalent of setting a basket of puppies in front of an oncoming and uncaring steamroller of hard determinism. Who would dare advance against a reality as noble as man’s capacity to freely choose and love God? Who would dare trample over the treasured premises that underlie free will?
Free will as a doctrine (men have/retain the capacity to choose God) is intended to protect the quality of love between God and sinner. If it is not a free choice it cannot be real love. If it is not real love it was not a real choice. This sequence eventually leads to the five-finger death punch of theological debate, “Are we just a bunch of robots?” Free will and its corollaries pin the opponent down in an (apparent) inescapable contradiction between sincere love and unfeeling predestination. How can one possibly object to freewill without appearing as the Ebenezer Scrooge of theology? Debate over. Right? Not hardly. “Bah humbug!”
When that moment comes – and people are expecting you to hand over your doctrinal pink slip – simply say the following: “No one believes in free will. Not even you. You simply haven’t thought about what you’re saying.” Then sit back and enjoy the look on your friend’s face as you move the goal posts of the debate to an undisclosed location. He won’t see it coming. I love that moment. I realize this sounds presumptuous and arrogant (How can I possibly know what someone is thinking?), but it’s true. Those who refer to freewill in such context usually haven’t thought through the concept. If they understood it properly, they would not offer it in such ways. There is no basket of puppies. There is no steamroller. It’s a false dilemma.
Fact is, free will is one of the more notorious misnomers in church history. Most Christians, even those who hold it, misunderstand it. This is relatively easy to prove. Consider the following illustration. You know the expression, “She eats like a bird?” When we use it we think we’re saying something like, “She’s rail thin and barely eats anything.” We intend it as a compliment. But, birds actually eat ten times their body weight on a daily basis. They are the virtual “pigs” of the sky. Believe me, it’s not a compliment. Point is – we think we’re saying one thing, but are actually saying the exact opposite. We simply don’t understand what we are talking about. If we did, we’d stop saying it. It’s the same way with “I believe men have free will.” We think we are defending the essence of grace and the Gospel, but are actually denying it. We’ve simply not thought it through.
No one, not even secular philosophers, believe in the freedom of the will. Technically speaking & from the materialistic perspective, freedom of the will is an impossibility. You only need to consider the premise for a moment. “Freedom of the will” is the belief that the human will is uninfluenced by anything other than itself. When it comes to freedom of the will no external circumstance is involved. The will is free. It is self-determined. It is moved purely by its own inclinations. Which ultimately means your will is not inclined to make any decision based on a preference, or the surrounding environment. It is uninfluenced. Therefore, it is “free” to choose whatever it desires without consideration of any particular object, or its quality. In fact, it has to be this way for free will to actually exist. Otherwise, if it’s not uninfluenced, some other force would have sway over the will. It would not be free.
If your will is truly free, it simply chooses without concern for any given object. If it faces two objects, it may choose either without partiality. Philosophers and theologians refer to this as the Law of Contrary Choice. In order for the will to be free, (and a choice to be legitimate) it must have the opportunity to refuse, or choose between two objects without a preference for either.
Imagine you have two bowls before you. One is full of your favorite flavor of Haagen Dazs (“favorite” is impossible according to free will, but we’ll go with it anyway). The other is full of cottage cheese. According to the premise of freewill, you must not only be able to choose either, but you must also be able to desire them equally. Of course, this would never happen. This scenario is a logical absurdity. So is free will in the truest sense of the concept. You will have a preference. You can’t avoid having one. There’s no way you could. Even if you’ve never tasted either, there would be something influencing your decision. You will prefer one more than the other and will choose one based on your preference. In this sense, your will is not absolutely free. Fact is, every choice we make is partly determined by something outside of our will. Speaking exclusively from the materialistic perspective, it’s the way the universe is designed.
Given the above reality, it seems odd that the most ardent defense of free will surrounds man’s participation in his own salvation. If it’s an impossibility on the temporal level logically, how much more impossible with regard to salvation on the spiritual? The scriptural message of impossibility is undeniable. (Romans 3:9-18; Eph 2:1-5) This is the very reason the Bible also uses the images of “new birth” and “resurrection” to describe what takes place. It had to be done to us. Our wills had to be brought back to life.
By proposing free will in salvation we may think we are defending the essence of the Gospel, but we are in fact denying it. Most who hold to free will assume they are preserving the quality of love between Savior and sinner, but are in fact diluting it. If you add free will to the equation it actually marginalizes the Gospel. The Gospel was necessary- exactly and specifically – because man did not have the capacity to bring himself to God. Such is God’s love. Jesus died because we could not save ourselves in any sense of the word. The Gospel is about a rescue mission and not about lending man a helping hand in his search for God.
To state it completely, it was the absence of freewill (total depravity) which necessitated the incarnation, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no Gospel where there is free will. He came into the world to save us principally because we lacked the free will to save ourselves, not because we possessed it. We were “dead in our trespasses.” Free will does not assist in defending the Gospel it does away with the need for it.
Pingback: Treading Grain » Post Topic » Around the Horn – 10.27.11
Pingback: Free Will… is that the question? « The Tells of Tim
Pingback: The fallacy of a free will
Pingback: Devotions & Teaching 10/28/11 « Robert J Furber