Replies

I did enjoy the article and you certainly hit the thumb on the nail with this:

”Clearly a lot of this argument (all of it, maybe) hangs on how you define "free will."”

While Plantinga writes with a gentle, light wit, he actually confuses the issue. There are at least four definitions used of “free will” in his article, muddling the real questions. I’ll see if I can set them out (and their proponent), then isolate the real questions:

1. Harris

Free will means the capacity to identify and control all factors in the universe which might impact a person’s decisions. There is no God so these are undirected factors caused by an unthinking universe governed only by chance, time and partially understood random inputs. Free will requires “maximal autonomy”.

2. Plantinga

Free will means the capacity to recognize that in most situations a man intentionally selects a given path of behavior. The man does not need to know exactly what inputs brought the selection about; he only needs to be aware that he contributed to the selection. In the event physical maladies exist, the person may not be free.

3. Ascribed to Calvin

Free will means the capacity to choose between good and evil, or specifically the capacity to select a given path of performing good acts in either a sinful manner or performing them in an utterly good (righteous) manner. It does NOT mean one is not completely free to select Merlot over Cabernet Sauvignon.

4. Ascribed to Edwards

Free will means the capacity to believe/think/act entirely without influence by God. God could not be the real cause of everything if free will is to exist.

Mrs. Don-O, you have rightly implied that unless two (or more) agree on what “free will” actually is, the discussion is fruitless. My point to Pope Pius XII was that the only really valuable definition is Edwards’. The others, whether they represent enjoyable discussions or not, simply do not get to crux of the matter.

I can dismiss Harris’ definition out of hand as the product of an athiest. I find Plantinga’s definition missing the mark, also. The red sox, green sox definition does not get behind the “choosing”. I have read Calvin’s Institutes and find both Plantinga’s & Muller’s remarks too abbreviated to be seriously considered representative. As Plantinga said, however, “…much ink has been spilt on this topic,…” so I won’t go there.

But, with Edwards I believe we can extract a definition that is sufficiently distinctive to begin a discussion. I am not asking Pope Pius XII to agree that there is no such thing as free will, only to recognize that Edwards’ definition gets to the heart of the matter. And, if we limited our discussion temporarily to just “salvation”, the picture sharpens:

Are we free from God enough that it is entirely up to us to determine whether we alone decide to trust Jesus Christ, the Rescuer from Israel? Is each man/woman the captain of his ship, the master of his/her destiny? Or is each person who trusts Him guided/managed to that place by God’s active work in that specific person’s life? This second option implies that the person would not have faith were it not for this active work by God, and not all people are given this active work.

Here is where the real sparks fly.

I would agree with you Dutchboy that Edwards definition of "free will" has to be correct; that it "...means the capacity to choose between good and evil" apart from God. Cynicalbear was also correct. I find that people often uses this in the context of salvation and/or in the context of being a Christian.

As far as free will is concerned prior to be saved, this view was determined to be heretical by the early church. One simply cannot make a free choice to save themselves. No matter how one slices that cookie, it still comes out that we would be the savior of our souls. One can readily see how blasphamous that is.

Many Protestants believe that once a person is saved this "free will" is restored by God. Once restored they are free to make choices of things for God. This is what Calvin believed (not that we are free to choose God). I personally believe this view also is heretical. Rather scripture is very clear that Christians are led by the Holy Spirit for good works. Thus Jonah was not free to go to Tarish but to Nineveh. One is either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. As Augustine put it,

When, therefore, the apostle says," Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works," [Eph. 2.9,10.] it is grace; but what follows—"which God hath prepared that we should walk in them"

All Christians do some amount of good works. It's the preacher's responsibility to give us a good swift kick in the pants to do so.

IMO it is prideful to think we "freely" do good works or that good works are the results of our "free will". I suspect what we consider a "good work" is really not so and those things we wouldn't even consider, those are things wroth by the Spirit. As scripture tells us before the judgment throne we'll all be saying, "Eh??? When did we do this???"

There is no such thing as "free will". There is either God's will or man's will. I am absolutely convinced that Adam fell in the garden simply because God needed to show Adam that he and his descendants do have a will. And that will is bent to not do the things that God wants. His taking of the fruit proved that point very clearly.