If man's will is free and yet not divorced from his nature then does it make sense to assert a free will. I think the answer is yes. The reason why is that we must distinguish between the ability to exercise our will and the actual exercising thereof. That we have the ability to freely choose left or right, up or down, red or blue paint is undeniable, but the choosing of left or right, up or down and blue or red paint is not free in the sense that it is not divorced from our preference toward those things. A man who likes blue more than red will freely choose blue paint while the person who prefers red will freely choose red. A person who is in a hurry to reach their destination may turn left at the intersection while the person who enjoys country drives will turn right in stead. What is the difference? Preference.

Johnathan Edwards said that a man will do that toward which he is most inclined. That is a person will turn left not because they are compelled to but because they want to. A person will choose blue paint for the same reason. It is also true that a person will go to work each day, even if he dislikes his job because he enjoys having heat, a roof over his head and food in the fridge more than he hates his job. He goes to work because he prefers to. It is a pleasure pain, risk reward, preferential choosing which all of us make thousands of times each day without thought or need of thought.

That is why our will seems capricious even to us. We make decisions so fast and with little to no examination of the self that very often those decisions seem to be random, but they are not. In fact it is the job of behavioral therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists to do this close examination of our wills and motives which we, if we were willing and honest enough, could do on our own. We are not honest however and thus do need others to help us in this sort of examination. However the very existence of twelve step programs, accountability groups etc I think proves that this sort of examination need not be done by trained professional in most cases, but by people who have shared experiences and are open and honest enough to help each other out. The reason why is that there is not some sort of great magical power at work in such things, but the examination of motive and desire which is common to us all in general if not in the specifics. That is why the Priest will heartily say that confession is not for God, but for the confessor. For the truly penitent will examine his own heart in so doing and find in himself the reasons for his sin.

So it is our volition that is free, but the exercising of that volition is constrained by our natures. That is why knowledge, nature and desire shape our decisions because all that we do we do by choice, but not by a will which is neutral.

I want to take one second here to digress. I have spoken to many who believe that any and all decisions are random. That the will is only free if it is also divorced from all influence. However I think such an assertion is ridiculous given the fact that all men are a composite of all they have been, seen and done. No one is free from his past and neither is he free from his inclinations and therefore to say that free will is random is to assert uncaused effects. Our will is free and yet it is determined, but that determination is one of self determination and not from the divine puppet master in the sky.

So in our choosing of daily mundane things we find ourselves over and over again doing things which seem to us to be random, and yet if we could fully break down our motives, desires etc we would find that the exercising of our will is the result of direct causal links which are born out of our knowledge, experience and nature.

So how does this apply in the question of a Sovereign God who overrules our self determination?

More on that later.

Just Thinking