The chief objection I have encountered over the years to the Reformed doctrine of Predestination is that it is incompatible with free will. And my latest encounter with an Arminian was no different. He was convinced that free will and predestination were incompatible (a point he never proved, only assumed to be true) and therefore rejected Calvinism outright. However, as I soon discovered, his rejection of Calvin was based in large part on a misunderstanding of Reformed theology in general and free will in particular.
When I asked him to define free will, he explained that it was the ability to make choices without any prior prejudices, inclinations, or dispositions. In other words, in order to be truly free one must have neutrality.
Now on the surface this may sound appealing for it absolves God of all human objections of being unfair and turning His creatures into puppets. But there are several underlying problems that make this position untenable. If our choices are not based on prior inclinations and come as the result of neutrality, then our choices come for no reason. They are merely spontaneous actions apart from our desires and do not carry any moral weight. Therefore, they can neither be said to be good or bad. God evaluates our choices based on our motives, and He will not accept the answer that our sinful actions resulted from spontaneity.
The classic, Biblical example of God's predestinating power and man's free will working synergistically is the case of Judas and his betrayal of our Lord Jesus Christ. Judas acted freely when he delivered his master to the Roman authorities for 30 pieces of silver. It was not a spontaneous act but a deliberate, self-serving action "that the Scripture might be fulfilled," (John 17:12). Even though God predestined the life, betrayal, death, and resurrection of His son, Jesus Christ, it would not have happened without the free decisions of everyone involved from Judas who freely betrayed his master to the Roman authorities who crucified Jesus without coercion.
Another example is when Joseph was sold into slavery by his siblings. God's mighty hand was evident. Joseph declared to his brothers, "Ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive," (Gen 50:20). The brothers' actions were not spontaneous, or without prior inclination. Rather, their actions were premeditated, deliberate and evil, yet God used their wickedness for a greater purpose. God's sovereignty was upheld throughout the entire situation, as were the free will decisions of Joseph's brothers demonstrating that God is in control of every decision, yet leaving man with the ability to make choices according to the desires of his heart.
A second problem with the neutrality of the will theory is the irrationality of it. If the will acts apart from any motive, then how can a choice even be made? What would cause someone to choose between the simplest of matters such as going left or right, stopping or starting, eating or not eating?
An illustration to the problem is found in the neutral-willed mule. Two baskets were presented before the mule, one basket full of wheat and the other filled with oats. Now here was the dilemma. His neutral-will left him paralyzed, unable to choose between the wheat and the oats. Since he had no prior inclination or disposition to wheat, to oats, to feast or to starve, he eventually withered away from lack of food. The donkey was unable to choose at all because without motive there was no choice, and without a choice to eat, there was no food consumed for his subsistence.
This, of course, is a manifest improbability, because we know from experience alone that living creatures do in fact eat and are not paralyzed from indecision. But this is the absurdity of neutrality. In fact, not only is it illogical, it is unbiblical. But before I give attention to the Scriptural view of the will, I think it is important to first define what free will is.
Plainly stated, free will is "that by which the mind chooses any thing". Before one can choose to do anything, he must first have some idea of what he is choosing. Our mind must first accept or reject a notion before we can choose. The mind shapes our inclinations and desires, just as your mind shaped your desire to read this letter. To put it another way, free will is the ability to choose for ourselves. In fact, we must always choose what we desire in order to choose at all. Every choice we make is a choice made according to the strongest inclination at the moment. Again, the very fact that you are reading this letter is an example that your desire to read this letter was greater than your desire not to read this letter. Your choice was not spontaneous, but in fact, a deliberate act following the desire of your heart.
Consider the case of a thief who wields a gun and demands your money or your life. Now granted, your options have been severely restricted, but his instrument of persuasion still cannot coerce your will. You still have the choice to deliver your money to him, or to refuse stubbornly and risk losing your life. If you hand him your money, then your strongest inclination at the moment was to live, but you still maintained the freedom to refuse and risk losing your life. This is an extreme example, but it illustrates the point that we always make a choice according the strongest inclination at the moment. Just as when we sin. Christians have a love for God, but yet when a sinful act is committed, it is because the desire to please ourselves is greater than our love and obedience to God at that moment.
Every decision we make is made for a reason without coercion from any one else or from God. "Not even almighty God, once he has given me this faculty of choice, can make me, coerce me, force me to choose. If God forced the will it would no longer be a will. Just as if he squared the circle it would no longer be a circle."
We all choose according to the desires of our heart all the time. This is what makes us free beings, and it is this freedom that prevents us from being automatons. So it is irrational to think that humans can make choices in a state of neutrality. It is impossible in light of the overwhelming evidence to believe the contrary.
Now the question stands, if we choose according to our desires what exactly are those desires? Does man, in his natural state, have any inclinations towards God? When we turn to Scripture to find the answer, we learn that fallen man has only wickedness in his heart (Gen 6:5).
Before one can come to Christ, he must first have the desire to please God. However, fallen man does not have the moral ability to choose the Lord and "will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts," (Ps 10:4). "They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one," (Ps 14:3). Furthermore, "As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one," (Rom 3:10-12).
How is it that man has reached such utter despair? This state came as a result of the fall of Adam. For we read, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned," (Rom 5:12). This is what Reformed thinkers mean when they say man is in a desperate plight. If one asks if there is hope, apart of God, the answer in an emphatic, "No!" If God does not implant the desire in the human heart, then when left with nothing but natural inclinations, no one will ever choose righteousness, because natural man does not have a desire for God. Man will always and freely reject Christ, because the carnal mind is at enmity with God (Rom 8:7).
At this point one might be confused with the language, which appears contradictory. I argue that man has free will, but then go on to conclude that man can not choose God. Both statements are in fact true, and in order to understand better this problem I point out that Augustine addressed this issue by saying that man has a free will but lacks liberty. This peculiar distinction sounds confusing, but in reality makes perfect sense.
Fallen man has not lost his ability to make choices. Nevertheless, he still maintains the ability to choose what he wants according to his desire. The problem is that his desire is corrupted, and he remains in a state of bondage to sin, and therefore has no inclination or desire for righteousness. This ability to choose evil freely but inability to choose God is what Augustine meant by saying man has free will but not liberty.
One passage of particular importance that confirms Augustine's idea is found in the statement of Jesus. In the sixth chapter of John the author writes, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him," (John 6:44). The point Jesus was making was that the necessary condition under which one is eventually able to come is Christ is by the drawing or irresistible grace of God. In other words, one cannot come to Christ without first being compelled by God.
The Biblical concept of free will is that man retains the freedom to choose what he desires, but his desires are only wicked, and if left in an unregenerate state he will never choose Christ. He cannot choose Christ, because there is no desire in his heart for God. The fall left mankind in this desperate state, and it is only through the effectual grace of our Lord, working in the hearts of man, that he can come to a saving faith. Once God works His grace in the hearts of His chosen, their desire is changed, and then they freely choose God as their personal savior. When one accepted Jesus as his Lord, he only did so, because the Lord first took away his stony heart and gave him a heart of flesh (Ezek 36:26).
