Board index ‹ Free Will

[Woman Here]

The concept of free will and sin are logically incompatible. Not all Christians believe in the concept of free will, but it is a very common part of Christian theology and a key rebuttal to the problem of evil. However, even more foundational to Christian theology is the concept of sin.

Here we have two propositions:

1. Humans have the free will to choose to sin. That's why evil exists in the world. It's the fault of humans, not God.

2. Humans are born sinners and there's nothing we can ever do to stop sinning and be perfect people. That's why we need the Salvation of Jesus.

See how contradictory these two arguments are? Christians state that we are all sinners and we can't just choose to stop sinning on our own, yet when confronted with the problem of evil also claim we have free will and the choice to sin. Christians also bring up free will when the issue of how a loving God could send his people to Hell is raised, claiming that we send ourselves to Hell through our own free choice to sin.

If humans are born with the condition of sin that they never asked for, and are incapable of being sin-free through their own choices and efforts, then God is to blame not only for the evil in the world that exists through the sin he allowed to exist but also to blame for sending people to Hell for what they cannot control.

[jimwalton]

Excellent question. It shows you are thinking well. What a pleasure to have this conversation. What you are saying, if I can dare to venture an analogy, is that we were born dogs, with the nature of a dog, so how is it fair to judge me for acting like a dog? Perhaps some clarity lies (a) first, in a brief historical overview, and (b) second, in some theological conversation.

First, the first humans didn't have a sin nature, and therefore no predisposition to sin. The first sin (original sin), was a pure act of the will that was totally free and not skewed in either direction.

Second, what happened at that point in time, theologically, is that humans became separated from the presence of God. The real loss for Adam and Eve was not the garden, but God's presence. They were separated from Life, and therefore that day they were doomed to die (When you eat of, you shall surely die).

Every human after that point (original sin) was born separated from God. We are not born evil, but neither are we born innocent (in the lyrics of Sarah McLaughlin). We are born separated from God with a sin nature—a nature that doesn't have the presence of God to protect it from sin.

Therefore, as soon as we are able to choose, we choose sin. We use our free will to select sinful behavior. We are separated from God by nature, we have a sin nature (predisposed to sin and unprotected by God), and because of those orientations we use our free will to choose to sin. We have a sin nature, and we choose to sin by behavior.

We need to be forgiven by God for our sins of willful choice, and we need to be changed in our nature by God from the nature of sin to the nature of Christ.

So it's true that we all have a sin nature, and the result of that is that we are born separated from God and the protective armor, so to speak, of His presence. But we are guilty because of our own choices to sin.

But, I hear you saying, if you're a dog by nature, you have no choice but to act like a dog, and therefore how can you be condemned for acting the only way it is possible for you to act—which is like a dog?

The answer is this: You are not condemned for acting like a dog, but for failing to respond to the invitation to have your nature changed and your behavior voided. So let me rephrase your faulty premises:

1. Humans had the free will to choose sin, and did. That's why evil exists in the world. It's the fault of humans, not God.

2. Humans are now born with a sin nature, but all we have to do to escape that state of being is to accept the free gift of God that offers us a total change—new creation. (So it's not true that there's nothing we ever do to stop the sinning. There's an offer on the table. It doesn't rest with our capabilities, but with a gift based on the actions and capabilities of another: Jesus Christ.)

3. We used our free will to get into the mess, and we can use our free will to opt out of it. While we have a sin nature, God offers us the free gift of a new nature in the salvation of Jesus. The only reason anyone would not be able to stop sinning is if they use their free will to reject the offer that is universally and freely available. Therefore to continue in sin is a culpable act of rebellion.

[Chef Random]

> but all we have to do to escape that state of being is to accept the free gift of God that offers us a total change—new creation.

Therefore once you have accepted Jesus from that point you can be sinless. Is this correct? If so it begs a couple of questions.

1. Have you been sinless from that point? If not do you know anybody that has remained sinless?
2. What happens when you do sin from that point and why would you?

[jimwalton]

> Therefore once you have accepted Jesus from that point you can be sinless. Is this correct?

No, that's not correct. Sinlessness is not achievable by effort. Though we are made new, what that action does is free us from that sin nature to be able to operate in a new sphere. It's not a new ontology, psychology, or neurology, but a new sphere of operations. They belong to a new creation. The old has passed away, the new has come.

[Communist Crab]

> Sinlessness is not achievable by effort.

Can you elaborate on this? I disagree very strongly.

[jimwalton]

Sure. The Bible says that "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" (1 Jn. 1.8). The OT also condemns false protestations of innocence as self-deception (Ps. 14.1-3; Jer. 2.35; Hos 7.2; cf. Prov. 30.12); God required instead both admission of the sin and repentance (Lev. 5.5; 16.21; Ps. 32.1-5; Prov. 28.13; Jer. 3.13). Perfectionism is a heresy. It is impossible to eradicate the sin nature from ourselves. Christian doctrine doesn't say that sin is extracted from us, but instead that we are set free from having to obey its power.

John (in 1 John) was dealing with two separate kinds of misunderstanding: (a) the Gnostics, who said that matter was evil but the soul was untouchable, and therefore they didn't have a sin nature, and (b) Christians who were claiming that the blood of Christ made them perfect, i.e., sinless. John is saying that in both cases they are wrong. Sin is an inescapable part of our being, and the way to deal with it is to confess it and be cleansed (1 Jn. 1.9).

[Jaw Johnny]

> ...the first humans didn't have a sin nature, and therefore no predisposition to sin. The first sin (original sin), was a pure act of the will that was totally free and not skewed in either direction.

This doesn't make sense. They didn't have a sin nature, yet they sinned. They weren't predisposed to sinning, but they chose to anyway.

You're saying God created them with the ability to sin (free will), but with the inclination to not sin? If He attempted that level of fine-tuning, then not only did his fine-tuning not work, but it also shows He attempted to impede their free will by programming them to not be inclined to sin.

> humans became separated from the presence of God.

Those first humans had the power to separate themselves from their Creator despite His (perfect) efforts?

> Humans had the free will to choose sin, and did. That's why evil exists in the world. It's the fault of humans, not God.

This is also a big problem. If God wanted to grant us free will, why punish us for using it? If He refuses to accept our choices, then why give them to us? Clearly, He created his own mess and didn't really want us to be free in that way.

To suggest that humans somehow developed a sin nature is to suggest that we created something within God's perfect Creation. If we corrupted His Creation with our choices, then His Creation was not perfect to begin with as it contained the capability to be spoiled.

[jimwalton]

> They didn't have a sin nature, yet they sinned. They weren't predisposed to sinning, but they chose to anyway.

Yep. Free will has a full circle of choices at its disposal. Suppose you're in Greece for the first time, and you go to a cafe, and have no clue what loukoumia or kaimaki are, so you pick you. You have no predisposition, but you are still able to make a choice—even an informed choice if the menu describes them to you. Just because you don't have a predisposition doesn't mean (a) you are unable to choose, (b) your choice is meaningless, or (c) you are not responsible for your decision.

> You're saying God created them with the ability to sin (free will), but with the inclination to not sin?

I didn't say that. They didn't have an inclination one way or the other. they were free to choose.

> Those first humans had the power to separate themselves from their Creator despite His (perfect) efforts?

Yep. They were free agents with free will. They could honestly choose whatever they wished. God encouraged them to choose the right and avoid the wrong, but He couldn't make the decision for them, because if he did, then they didn't really have free will.

> If God wanted to grant us free will, why punish us for using it?

He didn't punish us for using it, but for using it wrongly. He gave us free will, encouraged us to choose the right, and let us know the consequences for choosing wrongly. Your teachers, parents, and counsellors do the same thing. "Here are your choices. These ones represent the best decisions. This one would be horrible for you. But it's up to you."

> Clearly, He created his own mess and didn't really want us to be free in that way.

That's not clear at all, but a blaming of God because he didn't make you a robot. God didn't create the mess at all. God created it right and told the people, "Here's how you can keep things humming smoothly. Just follow the HR manual." They chose differently, made a mess, and you blame God? But if He had forced them to choose the right, over and over, then you'd scream He was a tyrant.

> To suggest that humans somehow developed a sin nature is to suggest that we created something within God's perfect Creation.

Yep. You got it. We were created in His image, but since we were created, we were not on the level of God who is uncreated by definition. Therefore we were less than God by necessity. Therefore we were free to create, as God had created, and yet the choices for us included wrong choices, since we are not God or on His level of perfection.

> If we corrupted His Creation with our choices, then His Creation was not perfect to begin with as it contained the capability to be spoiled.

Right. The Bible never says creation was perfect. It was good, meaning functional in the way God ordered it, but it wasn't perfect. Only God is perfect. I could create the most flawless crystal goblet, without any imperfection, but it can still be dropped and broken because of its nature. It can be "good," but still capable of breakage.

[Chef Random]

What does it mean to operate in a new sphere when it looks just like the old sphere?

[jimwalton]

Oh, it doesn't look just like the old sphere at all. The new sphere is a new perspective made possible by regeneration. An odd analogy might be someone who takes drugs for the first time. It may be the same old world, but, wow, it's completely different. (I don't mean to relate Christianity with drug euphoria, but only to speak of a whole new world.)

It's described in 2 Corinthians 5:17. Notice that v. 16 says "So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view." We think differently, perceive things differently, and live with a different set of values and priorities. Though we still live in the world, inevitably ( 1 Cor. 5.10), we don't live by the standards of the world (2 Cor. 10.2), we don't follow the ways of the world (Eph. 2.2), and we set aside regular passions (Titus 2.12). We aren't bound by the limited way of thinking that is normal human thought, because there is so much more now that is of access to us. It's like a new president who now gets briefed on everything that was previously classified. He or she sees a whole new world of what's really going on. Same world, new sphere of operations.