Is "free will" really free?

Being the Calvinist that I am, I don't believe in what is commonly understood to be "free will" but this thread isn't about the Calvinist view vs. the Arminian (or, more accurately, Pelagian) view. What I want to explore is this: Let's just say for the sake of argument that there is this thing called "free will." What does that mean?

I've had some of this discussion with a couple of the elders in my home church and they haven't been able to come up with an answer.

First of all, there is not one passage in the Bible that says humans have "free will." Instead, it is an INTERPRETATION of various passages that have been thrown together - passages saying such things as "choose you this day who you will serve" or "whosoever believeth." So, if anyone tries to say the Bible says man has free will, that person is bearing false witness against the word of God. But, let's just set that aside.

What does it mean for humans to have "free will"? To answer this, let's look at the first word in that phrase - the word "free." Americans associate the word "free" with the word "freedom" and, thus, have a cultural concept of liberty and of having certain rights. It follows logically that if someone has certain rights that he cannot be punished for exercising those rights, since punishment implies the person does not have the rights that he has exercised. If we say, for example, that a person has the right not to incriminate himself (part of the fifth amendment of the American Constitution) then the government has no authority to punish him for exercising that right. So, in the American sense, to be free implies having certain rights and a certain degree of individual sovereignty. But is this what is meant by "free will"?

When we say someone has "free will," are we saying - as in the American sense - that an individual has the RIGHT to exercise his will as he sees fit: that he has the RIGHT to choose or not choose? The way the term is commonly used, it sounds as if this is exactly what people mean - that we have the right to choose or not choose. Now, applying this to the Pelagian doctrine of free will, are we saying that God gives human beings the RIGHT to choose not to obey Him, to choose not to respond to the gospel call, etc.? Further, if we are saying humans have the RIGHT to choose or not choose, then on what basis does God have the right to punish humans for exercising a right that He supposedly gave them? If "free will" means the right to choose or not choose, if "free will" means humans have a certain degree of absolute sovereignty, then there is no basis for God to punish sin (transgression against the law of God) since "free will" in the American sense of being "free" implies having the right to exercise one's will as one chooses.

However, since God clearly does punish sin, and is perfectly righteous and just in doing so, this contradicts the notion of "free will" as it was discussed in the previous paragraph. So, how do we reconcile the seeming contradiction? We must say either that man does not have "free will" or that "free will" means something other than the right to choose or not choose. Could "free will" in this context mean merely having the capacity or ability to choose without necessarily having the right to choose? If we say, for example, that someone has the capacity or ability to rob a bank, that doesn't mean he has the right to rob a bank and, if caught, he will surely be punished for it. If what we're really talking about here is having the inherent capacity to choose or not choose the things of God, then is what we're talking about really free will or is it simply the state of having a will? Does having the capacity to choose mean that we also have the right to choose and, thus, that we have absolute sovereignty over our own lives? If so, then God has no right to punish humans for exercising that right. If not, then we really can't say the human will is "free."

Before you respond to this post, make sure you've read it carefully. THIS IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE CALVINIST POSITION OR THE PELAGIAN POSITION ON FREE WILL! Also, do not confuse the capacity (or capability) to choose with the right to choose.

[Michael The Disciple]

I think I get it. We have the ABILITY to choose but not the RIGHT to choose. I think I would be more comfortable in a discussion about Sovereignty and predestination in general. But keep posting. Will see if I am drawn in.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I think I get it. We have the ABILITY to choose but not the RIGHT to choose. I think I would be more comfortable in a discussion about Sovereignty and predestination in general. But keep posting. Will see if I am drawn in.

Well, I did suggest that we needed to avoid confusing the ability to choose with the right to choose. However, I'm simply raising the question. Note the following from the original post:

When we say someone has "free will," are we saying - as in the American sense - that an individual has the RIGHT to exercise his will as he sees fit: that he has the RIGHT to choose or not choose? The way the term is commonly used, it sounds as if this is exactly what people mean - that we have the right to choose or not choose. Now, applying this to the Pelagian doctrine of free will, are we saying that God gives human beings the RIGHT to choose not to obey Him, to choose not to respond to the gospel call, etc.? Further, if we are saying humans have the RIGHT to choose or not choose, then on what basis does God have the right to punish humans for exercising a right that He supposedly gave them? If "free will" means the right to choose or not choose, if "free will" means humans have a certain degree of absolute sovereignty, then there is no basis for God to punish sin (transgression against the law of God) since "free will" in the American sense of being "free" implies having the right to exercise one's will as one chooses.

However, since God clearly does punish sin, and is perfectly righteous and just in doing so, this contradicts the notion of "free will" as it was discussed in the previous paragraph. So, how do we reconcile the seeming contradiction? We must say either that man does not have "free will" or that "free will" means something other than the right to choose or not choose. Could "free will" in this context mean merely having the capacity or ability to choose without necessarily having the right to choose? If we say, for example, that someone has the capacity or ability to rob a bank, that doesn't mean he has the right to rob a bank and, if caught, he will surely be punished for it. If what we're really talking about here is having the inherent capacity to choose or not choose the things of God, then is what we're talking about really free will or is it simply the state of having a will? Does having the capacity to choose mean that we also have the right to choose and, thus, that we have absolute sovereignty over our own lives?

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Chan

Well, I did suggest that we needed to avoid confusing the ability to choose with the right to choose. However, I'm simply raising the question. Note the following from the original post:

When we say someone has "free will," are we saying - as in the American sense - that an individual has the RIGHT to exercise his will as he sees fit: that he has the RIGHT to choose or not choose? The way the term is commonly used, it sounds as if this is exactly what people mean - that we have the right to choose or not choose. Now, applying this to the Pelagian doctrine of free will, are we saying that God gives human beings the RIGHT to choose not to obey Him, to choose not to respond to the gospel call, etc.? Further, if we are saying humans have the RIGHT to choose or not choose, then on what basis does God have the right to punish humans for exercising a right that He supposedly gave them? If "free will" means the right to choose or not choose, if "free will" means humans have a certain degree of absolute sovereignty, then there is no basis for God to punish sin (transgression against the law of God) since "free will" in the American sense of being "free" implies having the right to exercise one's will as one chooses.

However, since God clearly does punish sin, and is perfectly righteous and just in doing so, this contradicts the notion of "free will" as it was discussed in the previous paragraph. So, how do we reconcile the seeming contradiction? We must say either that man does not have "free will" or that "free will" means something other than the right to choose or not choose. Could "free will" in this context mean merely having the capacity or ability to choose without necessarily having the right to choose? If we say, for example, that someone has the capacity or ability to rob a bank, that doesn't mean he has the right to rob a bank and, if caught, he will surely be punished for it. If what we're really talking about here is having the inherent capacity to choose or not choose the things of God, then is what we're talking about really free will or is it simply the state of having a will? Does having the capacity to choose mean that we also have the right to choose and, thus, that we have absolute sovereignty over our own lives?

We are given "freewill" within the boundaries of our lives. These boundaries--one's nationality and native tongue, hertiage, race, looks and body shape, one's intelligence, the century in which one is born, one's health. These boundaries, one has little or no control over, they are determined by God.

These boundaries determine all of the choices one make in life, so you could say one does not have freewill because these boundaries or influences CAUSE one's choices. Therefore one's will is caused by God.

Originally Posted by crakjak

We are given "freewill" within the boundaries of our lives. These boundaries--one's nationality and native tongue, hertiage, race, looks and body shape, one's intelligence, the century in which one is born, one's health. These boundaries, one has little or no control over, they are determined by God.

These boundaries determine all of the choices one make in life, so you could say one does not have freewill because these boundaries or influences CAUSE one's choices. Therefore one's will is caused by God.

But is that "freedom" the right to choose or the capacity to choose?

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Chan

But is that "freedom" the right to choose or the capacity to choose?

It is the capacity to choose within the previously mentioned boundaries, this capacity carries a "just recompense of reward" that can be interpreted as the refiner's fire or a crown of righteousness. Depending on whether the choices are flesh or enlightened by the spirit (broadway or narrow way, elect or perishing).

This is not "free" will because what we do is caused by factors that we have no control over, as outlined in my previous post.

Originally Posted by crakjak

It is the capacity to choose within the previously mentioned boundaries, this capacity carries a "just recompense of reward" that can be interpreted as the refiner's fire or a crown of righteousness. Depending on whether the choices are flesh or enlightened by the spirit (broadway or narrow way, elect or perishing).

This is not "free" will because what we do is caused by factors that we have no control over, as outlined in my previous post.

Well, this is along the lines of what I'm thinking, i.e. that there is no basis for God to punish sin (whether eternal punishment as I believe or temporary punishment as you believe) if God gave man the right to choose sin. Since God does, in fact, punish sin, one must say either that there is merely the capacity to choose or that God is unjust.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Chan

Well, this is along the lines of what I'm thinking, i.e. that there is no basis for God to punish sin (whether eternal punishment as I believe or temporary punishment as you believe) if God gave man the right to choose sin. Since God does, in fact, punish sin, one must say either that there is merely the capacity to choose or that God is unjust.

We know that God is just, therefore man has the capacity to choose. I believe we are in agreement here.

Originally Posted by crakjak

We know that God is just, therefore man has the capacity to choose. I believe we are in agreement here.

If there is no capacity to choose (I want to make sure others don't confuse this with the right or freedom or liberty to choose) then there is no basis for God to punish humankind for its choices.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Chan

If there is no capacity to choose (I want to make sure others don't confuse this with the right or freedom or liberty to choose) then there is no basis for God to punish humankind for its choices.

Our capacity to choose or our free choices, particularly the bad ones, are obstacles that God must work around as He brings His loving purposes to fruition.

We are not free in our choices to thwart God's purpose to redeem all of His creation (the Arminan view).

To do so would be to deny that God is almighty in the sense that He is able accomplish His purpose.

In other words God has to concede the majority of humans to hell in order have enough to fill heaven. What rubbish!