FREE WILL OR BONDAGE OF WILL?
FREE WILL OR BONDAGE OF WILL?
Few religious issues have been debated more heatedly than the free will of man. In my opinion this debate has been somewhat misguided, and has caused both sides to drift from the issues, concepts, and terms presented in the scriptures. The Arminian position may be true in its basic premise that man has a free will; however, the inferences drawn from this premise practically ignore scriptural statements regarding the depravity of man. On the other hand, Calvinists are sometimes confusing when they deny that man has free will, yet claim that man is personally responsible for his sinful behavior. The explanations they offer for this apparent contradiction are often lengthy, complex, and sometimes contradictory within themselves.
It is interesting that the Bible never says that man is with free will, nor does it say that he is without it, or at least not in such terms. I concede that the scriptures teach that natural man is in bondage to sin; however, it is also clear that he is in such bondage willfully -not because he is without the capacity to choose otherwise. Should we describe such a man as being without free will? I believe this description is misleading, and I further object to it because it does not use scriptural terminology. On the other hand, if we are to characterize such a man as having free will, we should not jump to the conclusion that this freedom can contribute toward his own salvation.
Arminians believe that if man has freedom of will, then this freedom offers some possibility he will choose good, and therefore some possibility he will choose Christ. This reasoning does not follow. Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that God has free will, but this freedom offers no possibility that God will choose evil. God consistently chooses good, but His adherence to good is not because His will is in any form of bondage, but because He has a good nature. Now if a man has a bad nature, we might expect him to choose evil as predictably as God chooses good, even though this man may have freedom of will.
Jesus said: Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. {Matthew 12:33} Clearly, the tree is not bad because it brings forth bad fruit; rather, it brings forth bad fruit because it is a bad tree. Likewise, a man with a bad nature brings forth corrupt behavior as predictably as a tree with a bad nature brings forth corrupt fruit. This man’s behavior will be consistently corrupt either in that it violates God’s law, or in that it derives from improper motives. For example, the Pharisees acted properly when they gave alms to the poor, but their actions were motivated by self aggrandizement -not by a desire to please God.
Paul said that we were (prior to spiritual quickening) by nature children of wrath even as others. {Ephesians 1:3} Again Paul said, But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither indeed can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. {1 Corinthians 2:14} Since the gospel is a spiritual thing, it follows that a natural man will never receive it, regardless of how long and how persuasively it is preached to him. This is not because he is without the freedom to accept it, but because it is his nature to reject it. The same truth is expressed inRomans 8:5, For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit...For the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. These texts plainly teach that a man with an exclusively carnal nature will reject the truth of God with complete consistency. However, this is not because of an inability to choose otherwise; rather, it is because of a carnal nature which is repelled by all spiritual things. It is not a question of what he can do, but a question of what he will do, and this question is conclusively resolved upon examination of his nature.
There are four ways in which we can logically combine nature and will:
(1) Good nature without freedom of will (e.g. a good tree) (2) Bad nature without freedom of will (e.g. a corrupt tree) (3) Good nature with freedom of will (e.g. God) (4) Bad nature with freedom of will (e.g. natural man)
God does not condemn bad trees to hell for the obvious reason that they do not have freedom of will. The condemnable state occurs when a bad nature is combined with a free will. This is precisely what man has. The choices a man makes are determined by two things: 1. the feasible alternatives presented to him, and 2. the nature of his preferences and logic. All men have freedom of will in that both good and evil are feasible alternatives to them, but all natural men do in fact choose evil because their preferences and logic are so inclined. A natural man will never choose a spiritual thing because such choice is unreasonable in his perception. Paul said that the things of the Spirit will be foolishness to this man, {1 Corinthians 2:14} because his carnal mind is not subject to the law of God. {Romans 8:7} Yea, it is enmity against God.
Since man’s actions are bound to his nature, it might be said that he is not truly responsible for his actions. However, this does not follow because the corrupted nature in man both produces sin and is produced by sin. Jesus said, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. {John 8:34} Paul clarifies this inRomans 6:16, ...to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness. Commission of sin leads to corruption of nature, which leads to yet more commission of sin. Alcoholism both causes drinking and is caused by drinking. All other sins are the same in principle. Therefore man is responsible both for his sins and for the nature which produces them. An examination of man’s nature exposes the foolishness of those who think that gospel persuasion can be used to move natural men to belief in Christ. Since belief in Christ is a spiritual thing, natural man will invariably reject it. Paul said, The preaching of the cross is unto them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. {1 Corinthians 1:18} How can preaching deliver a man from the perishing state when it is the nature of perishing man to reject preaching as foolishness? How can preaching persuade a man to salvation when only a saved man will hear it? It must therefore be the case that gospel can succeed only when preached to an individual who has obtained a spiritual nature through the quickening power of God.
I conclude therefore that man has a free will in combination with a bad nature. The former explains his accountability. The latter explains his utter dependence upon grace for salvation.