The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Free Will and Predestination

Yeah, there's a fun one. Here goes.

Since I started reading "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" by Loraine Boettner, I have come to the conclusion that the two cannot peacefully coexist. However, my pastor has been reassuring me that we do have Free Will, but it is in bondage to sin so that we can only choose sin. But it seemeth to this poor ignorant soul that the two cannot exist together. Because if everything is predestined, that leaves absolutely nothing up to chance. But if there is free will, then how can God be sovereign? If I can choose what I'm going to do, how can God know what I'm about to do, without Him having already ordained it and set it unchangeably? And just what the heck are "second causes" anyway?

I'll let Boettner answer your question, which no doubt you will eventually get to in his book. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Here ya go: Objections Answered: THAT IT [Prede...E AGENCY AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY OF MAN.

In His Grace,

Ok, now can someone explain "second causes" to me?

Those things that come after "first causes"! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/flee.gif" alt="" />

There are within the plan of God those areas that God effects by His own immediate agency, without the aid or input of his creation, such as creation and regeneration. Although God has planned all, there are other areas of the plan of God that God brings about by secondary causes, that is by the actions of his creation rather than directly by himself, though He has rendered them certain.


While not without its limitations this example may help:

God is the primary cause of the secondary causes that we observe in the world. For example, consider a man cutting wood with an axe. What is cutting the wood? One can say that the axe (secondary cause) is cutting the wood. Or one can say that the man (primary cause) is cutting the wood by using the axe. The difference between this example and the world is that God has created a very sophisticated axe: the secondary causes (physical laws) can act on their own, unlike the axe wielded by the wood-cutter.

RT,

It is very possible that you and your pastor might be talking past each other. He seems to be referring to natural liberty and moral ability (even speaking in terms of the Westminster Confession of Faith), which is not an exhaustive discussion on the matter. It is more theological than philosophical. Your pastor said that we have "free will" but that our will is in bondage to sin. Presumably he meant prior to conversion, which of course would make his statement soundly Reformed. Just the same, let me try to bring some additional terms into play in an effort to try to make more sense out of all of this.

To have true “liberty” an agent must have both the power and available opportunity to conduct himself as he pleases. When choosing between sin and righteousness, all men have freedom of liberty whether converted or not. An unregenerate man has the opportunity to either sin or not, as well as the power to choose according his own desire with respect to sin. The mere opportunity to choose X or not X, and the power to choose according to one's desire in favor of either of two alternatives defines liberty. An agent’s lack of moral ability (i.e. his bondage prior to conversion), which keeps him from desiring to not sin, does not impinge upon his actual liberty to choose what he wants. Accordingly, man is indeed culpable even without moral ability, simply because he has liberty.

You on the other hand seem concerned with the fact that God predetermines our choices. As far as I can tell, your pastor did not address this as you relayed your brief discussion. Free will, as I believe you understand it, is the alleged ability to choose with equal ease between alternatives. You are indeed correct that such power of contrary choice does not exist. All choices are caused by the strongest inclination at the moment of choice. No matter whether a choice comes from one who is unconverted or in glory, the choice is caused and therefore not free. Moreover, Adam prior to sinning did not have free will! {See link below...}

Although God determines all our choices, this truism might eclipse the discussion if we simply note that "our choices are not free because God determines them." Rather, we ought to say that our choices are not free because they cannot be free from what causes them. Choices are necessary given the inclinations of the heart that cause them, and an uncaused choice would not be a choice at all but a chaotic occurrence, which would have no moral content. God’s foreordination, although germane to the discussion, does not seem to zero in on what is essential. What is most relevant is that our choices are necessary because they occur due to an antecedental cause that is always immediate to the choice. (God is always the ultimate first-cause and we can talk about that if you like. But that he is the Determiner of all things does not bring anything to the discussion. In fact, we might even lose sight of agent-responsibility if we focus on God's decree as opposed to the personal desires that cause our choices.) That God foreordains and, therefore, foreknows our choices certainly ensures that our choices will be caused when they actually occur in time. However, to appreciate that our choices are caused and not free, we might do better to focus on the specific mechanics of choosing as opposed to what God has generally determined in eternity. In sum, God has decreed caused choices, which by definition cannot be free if they are indeed caused. The causes we should be concerned with in an effort to vindicate our position of "no free will" are the causes that immediately precede and necessitate any choice, as opposed to the ultimate cause of God's decree.

It is my personal experience that the discussion of whether we have free will or not is too often confused with the discussion over moral ability and bondage to sin. Please take note of the very last paragraph of this short paper authored by John Frame, linked below. When I read it for the first time it reminded me of a discussion I had with a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary in California. He too made the same mistake that Frame notes in the last paragraph. This professor and I could not seem to agree on such an essential point, which in my estimation should have been rather elementary for a person in his position. http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/t...ponsibility.pdf

Blessings,

Ron

The best way I've heard 2nd causes described is the example of the hammer driving the nail. Is the person using the hammer driving the nail, or is the hammer driving the nail? the answer is, of course, yes! the hammer cannot drive the nail without the person using the hammer causing it to move, yet it is the hammer that is driving the nail also, in making direct contact with it. the person using the hammer could have easily chosen another hammer to get the job done, but in that particular case it is that particular hammer that is used. I hope that makes as much sense to you guys as it did me when I first heard it!
troy

OOH! OOH! I think I get it now! God has predestined the means of things' happenings.








Wow. That just kind of blows your mind doesn't it? What an amazing God, that He can do something like that! I can't even begin to wrap my mind around it.

Wow, Pilgrim. That was just...d'uh! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />