I Chose to Write This Blog. ...OR DID I? -Will Brady
Alright, so kudos to Dr. Olsen for dropping what might be the deepest and most controversial topic thus far touched upon in my Honors experience--and right when I thought the end was in sight. I suppose it's fitting to go out this way, tackling what might be theology's biggest controversy before getting into one of the most famous plays from one of history's most famous authors. Of course, I could cop out of predestination and talk about how Calvin said people who dance funny should go to jail...
...Who am I kidding, his thoughts on God causing man to fall into sin are much too interesting. I hear a lot of people answer the question of why God allowed man to sin with the argument, "It's about free will. If God didn't give people the ability to sin, man wouldn't have had free will." Yet Calvin raises a counterargument that's all too thought-provoking: we say that if mankind found himself in a position where he were incapable of living a sinful and rebellious life, he wouldn't truly have free will. Yet at the same time, man currently lives a life bound by his sin nature; as a result, even if man WANTS and CHOOSES to live a one-hundred-percent godly and sinless life, he can't. It's not a matter of being physiologically incapable of this life, or psychologically incapable, but spiritually incapable--even if he wants to choose it, he can't keep himself from falling into sin. If man living in a world without the option to eat the fruit had no ability to sin and therefore no free will, how does man with no ability to choose a perfectly sinless life have free will? What we're seeing is basically a glass ceiling between man and God. Man can say, "I'm going to live a sinless life," but if he tries, he can't get far. He can try to do what he desires, but only to a certain degree, as the glass ceiling of sin nature acts as an inhibitor if he tries to ascend via the Grand Ladder of Sanctification. The ladder can take man higher off the floor of this sinful earth, but only so far. He can't get past the glass ceiling before he dies and is taken up into Paradise.
While this isn't a definite cancellation of free will, it looks to be a clear limit. That brings a question to my mind: how much can free will be limited and still be free will? I don't have the free will to declare myself capable of flight and take to the skies with nothing more than the flapping of my bare arms. A prisoner has no free will to take a trip downtown and get coffee. The prisoner and I can both choose to want these things and choose to try them, but we have no ability to choose to perform our desires. We're dependent on the limits placed on us--my physiology, his imprisonment. Do we still have free will in those cases, or does the definition of lacking free will extend deeper than the incapability of doing what we please? If you say we lack free will because of that inability, we can apply that to God and man and argue that a sin nature seriously hampers man's free will (possibly to the point of near-eradication, as men live their entire lives under this sin nature in a sin-dominated world). If you say that free will is more than having the ability to do what we please, how could we instead define it?
Disclaimer: I'm hardly sure what to make of this myself, so don't accuse me of implying that we lack free will, please. Calvin's viewpoint simply intrigues me, and I can't blog about it without the urge to look through his lens.
P.S. I commented on Breanna and Cody’s posts.
...Who am I kidding, his thoughts on God causing man to fall into sin are much too interesting. I hear a lot of people answer the question of why God allowed man to sin with the argument, "It's about free will. If God didn't give people the ability to sin, man wouldn't have had free will." Yet Calvin raises a counterargument that's all too thought-provoking: we say that if mankind found himself in a position where he were incapable of living a sinful and rebellious life, he wouldn't truly have free will. Yet at the same time, man currently lives a life bound by his sin nature; as a result, even if man WANTS and CHOOSES to live a one-hundred-percent godly and sinless life, he can't. It's not a matter of being physiologically incapable of this life, or psychologically incapable, but spiritually incapable--even if he wants to choose it, he can't keep himself from falling into sin. If man living in a world without the option to eat the fruit had no ability to sin and therefore no free will, how does man with no ability to choose a perfectly sinless life have free will? What we're seeing is basically a glass ceiling between man and God. Man can say, "I'm going to live a sinless life," but if he tries, he can't get far. He can try to do what he desires, but only to a certain degree, as the glass ceiling of sin nature acts as an inhibitor if he tries to ascend via the Grand Ladder of Sanctification. The ladder can take man higher off the floor of this sinful earth, but only so far. He can't get past the glass ceiling before he dies and is taken up into Paradise.
While this isn't a definite cancellation of free will, it looks to be a clear limit. That brings a question to my mind: how much can free will be limited and still be free will? I don't have the free will to declare myself capable of flight and take to the skies with nothing more than the flapping of my bare arms. A prisoner has no free will to take a trip downtown and get coffee. The prisoner and I can both choose to want these things and choose to try them, but we have no ability to choose to perform our desires. We're dependent on the limits placed on us--my physiology, his imprisonment. Do we still have free will in those cases, or does the definition of lacking free will extend deeper than the incapability of doing what we please? If you say we lack free will because of that inability, we can apply that to God and man and argue that a sin nature seriously hampers man's free will (possibly to the point of near-eradication, as men live their entire lives under this sin nature in a sin-dominated world). If you say that free will is more than having the ability to do what we please, how could we instead define it?
Disclaimer: I'm hardly sure what to make of this myself, so don't accuse me of implying that we lack free will, please. Calvin's viewpoint simply intrigues me, and I can't blog about it without the urge to look through his lens.
P.S. I commented on Breanna and Cody’s posts.
Calvin didn't receive the nickname "The Theologian" because he decided to beat around the bush and avoid controversial topics. Instead, he presents a very strong argument in regards to election that he deeply roots into scripture. Free will is a very touchy subject, and is near and dear to people, but this systematic teaching on the doctrine of election is worth reading for every individual. It is very important to understand something if you choose to disagree with it, just as it is crucial to understand something that you claim to agree with. I would venture to say that the argument for a totally free will is dangerous, as it gives us a reason to boast in our salvation- attributing conversion wholly to our decision and disregards regeneration altogether- yet the idea of our actions not carrying any weight due to us being robots forced to do every action throughout our lives carries implications that are just as problematic. Great Post!! The debate over free will should be handled with great love, care, and respect- all of which are found in your words.
ReplyDeleteAs a five-point Calvinist, I strongly believe in imprisoning people who dance funny.
ReplyDeleteThat was a joke. Haha. We actually excommunicate them.
Free will, God's sovereignty, man's sin nature, and how they all fit together is a mystery beyond comprehension. Every denomination has its own view. I've found myself in many debates in high school just to find that we were arguing two points that are equally true. Man does have free will, and God is sovereign over all. The two don't negate each other. In the end, it's not important whether predestination exists or not. What matters is that you put your trust in God alone for salvation and understand that there is nothing you can do to earn it. It is a free gift given to sinful people at the price of Jesus Christ, God's only son, because humanity sucks without God.
Interesting analogy of the glass ceiling. I liked it!
I have thought about this question a lot and have never really come to a satisfactory conclusion. All I know is that free will and God's sovereignty somehow work together (there was actually an interesting analogy about that in Moby Dick. Chapter 47 I believe it was). Another thought that I have often considered is slavery to sin. Most people think that freedom is getting to do whatever they want, however this isn't the case. When people choose to follow their own desires again and again, they are just becoming more and more enslaved to sin. This is most evident in cases of addiction, but it's true of every sin. When you have the "freedom" to do these things, it's actually not true freedom. I'm not really sure why I'm talking about this. Suffice it to say that perhaps free will isn't what we think it is.
ReplyDelete