Can I Really Make Free Choices? pt. 2
Christians generally agree that man has a will and is morally responsible to God for the choices he makes. Many also believe that God is sovereign and nothing, not even human freedom, can keep Him from accomplishing His will (Is. 46:9-10). How can these two truths be reconciled?
Man’s free will has been viewed in two different ways: compatibilism (soft determinism) or incompatibilism (libertarianism). To illustrate the difference, I want you to look up at the ceiling right now. Just now, you chose to look up or not to look up; no one forced you either way. Of course, added to this mix is God’s omniscience; He knew what you were going to do before you did it. A compatibilist would say your choice was not completely free; it was conditioned by a lifetime of cultural influences, personal character, and present state of mind. An incompatibilist believes your choice to look up or not to look up was completely free; nothing determined your ultimate choice.
The incompatibilist position seems to be the most popular, especially among choice-loving Americans, but there are some inherent weaknesses with incompatibilism. Incompatibilists say that our will is only free if our choices are not pre-determined by any internal or external conditions. This means our choices have an element of pure chance, and given the same set of circumstances, we might choose differently every time. But how can one be sure that our choices are free of any internal or external influences, since one of the determining factors in the choices we make seems to be derived from our personal character? Jesus makes this point in Luke 6:45: “The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.”
If the incompatibilist theory is correct, then our choices are based upon uncaused, random events beyond our control. Philosopher Richard Taylor writes, “The conception that now emerges is not that of a free man, but of an erratic and jerking phantom, without any rhyme or reason at all.” We typically don’t associate a mad man with being free. If our choices are based on pure random chance, beyond any internal or external influences, how can we be held responsible for our actions? Even insane criminals can be found not guilty by reason of insanity!
In order to maintain man’s freedom (complete independence from God’s influence), incompatibilists must also limit God’s sovereignty. However, this is impossible, since Paul said, “In Him we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17:28) Life, including all choices we make, is only possible under God’s sustaining power.
Finally, an incompatibilist must reinterpret or ignore passages like Ephesians 1:11, “…having been predestined according to the purpose of him [God] who works all things according to the counsel of his will.”
Man’s free will has been viewed in two different ways: compatibilism (soft determinism) or incompatibilism (libertarianism). To illustrate the difference, I want you to look up at the ceiling right now. Just now, you chose to look up or not to look up; no one forced you either way. Of course, added to this mix is God’s omniscience; He knew what you were going to do before you did it. A compatibilist would say your choice was not completely free; it was conditioned by a lifetime of cultural influences, personal character, and present state of mind. An incompatibilist believes your choice to look up or not to look up was completely free; nothing determined your ultimate choice.
The incompatibilist position seems to be the most popular, especially among choice-loving Americans, but there are some inherent weaknesses with incompatibilism. Incompatibilists say that our will is only free if our choices are not pre-determined by any internal or external conditions. This means our choices have an element of pure chance, and given the same set of circumstances, we might choose differently every time. But how can one be sure that our choices are free of any internal or external influences, since one of the determining factors in the choices we make seems to be derived from our personal character? Jesus makes this point in Luke 6:45: “The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.”
If the incompatibilist theory is correct, then our choices are based upon uncaused, random events beyond our control. Philosopher Richard Taylor writes, “The conception that now emerges is not that of a free man, but of an erratic and jerking phantom, without any rhyme or reason at all.” We typically don’t associate a mad man with being free. If our choices are based on pure random chance, beyond any internal or external influences, how can we be held responsible for our actions? Even insane criminals can be found not guilty by reason of insanity!
In order to maintain man’s freedom (complete independence from God’s influence), incompatibilists must also limit God’s sovereignty. However, this is impossible, since Paul said, “In Him we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17:28) Life, including all choices we make, is only possible under God’s sustaining power.
Finally, an incompatibilist must reinterpret or ignore passages like Ephesians 1:11, “…having been predestined according to the purpose of him [God] who works all things according to the counsel of his will.”
Next week we’ll discuss compatibilism.
Labels: free will, sovereignty
posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 |
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home