Do human beings truly have a free will?

At any rate free-will has no sense, because there is no will till it be determined; free to will as to external compulsion is another thing, in that sense the will is free; but if I have a sinful nature, it is de facto inclined to evil, till I am born again. Conscience is another matter.

No being can have a will free, unless it can create, for otherwise it is always acted on by, i.e., is the result of, motives; hence, to say the will is in bondage is strictly true; morally, man unfallen had no will, for creature perfection is obedience; man, fallen, is governed in disobedience by corrupt motives, and thus is merely a sinner, and his will is under sin.

I have already spoken of free-will, but there are one or two points perhaps not clearly and shortly stated, if I remember right; nor the difference of sense in the word free, i.e., free from external constraint, and free morally and internally; in the latter sense it is pure nonsense. If it be meant merely that God does not hinder man from choosing the good, surely he is free enough, or that He did not force him to remain obedient when he was innocent, that is true - it would not have been a test thus, nor any real obedience at least proved - he might have been obedient without its being shown, or disobedient in will without its being shown. Man is free, if by that is meant that God does not hinder his choosing good, or force him to choose evil. But an interiorly free will is all nonsense for a creature determined by motives, and that is what is meant by free to choose. And were he what is called, free, he would be in the most absolute state of degradation. It never was, nor could be so; man was never a blank sheet, good and evil being before him, neither when innocent, nor now - but besides, to be so, he must be perfectly indifferent to good and evil, i.e., in the most degraded state possible (and if he be so, what is to determine his will?), or have no moral existence at all.

All men speak about freewill is nonsense - free and will do not go together - there is no will till a person is decided and determined. Man is perfectly free to will, as far as constraint by another goes; in truth, as far as man's faculties go, he cannot be otherwise, i.e., it is his own will where he has one - his body, his acts may be constrained, and fear may make him will as other inclinations would not have led him, but his will as will is always his own. The moral part of the matter does not lie there, save as having one's own will is sin, i.e., determining without reference to God, instead of obeying - the claim of independency to have a right to act supremely, without reference to another having authority over us - it is what determines the will, and makes it what is called "free," i.e., our own, in which sin lies - the power of such and such things over the heart. I admit this alleged freedom, i.e., the pretension to be independent of God, to be the very principle of sin - it is rejection of God and His authority, but the ally of this is "pleasant to the eyes, good for food, a tree to be desired," etc. - confidence in God making us happy lost, and so objects desired, and then will in activity. Only, lust having thus come in when will is set right, the lusts remain as a hindrance, and power is needed to deliver. Does not this amount to the will not being a proper faculty of the soul at all? Something existing, even when inert? Will is "I" in the determination of activity - there is none when it is not determined; when choice is made, then there is will (i.e., may be), the lust or desire, which has gained the mastery over "I," leads "I" to intentional activity towards the object desired. And it is the same in God, only the objects of intentional activity are not, of course, any desire which moves Him in the object - save Christ - but the creatures of His own wisdom. He is Author from Himself.

I may be told that I may be inclined to a given thing, and conscience arrests me. Very right; but then I am not free to choose, but bound and rightly bound. Man being governed by motives, all may be and is foreknown, he being perfectly free, constrained to nothing - if absolutely originated, it would be hard to say so - but I do not believe man capable of originating anything.

Inclination without necessity, is not tenable ground. Absolute indifference, to make man free, is absurd, for then will cannot be determined, but is a partially determined will - determined to good or evil; if to evil, it is a hard case to set it so, and make it responsible as a free person; nor is it more so if to good. It is not simple probation. Besides, if there be already an inclination, it shows that such inclination is a nature, not a will, and hence the whole ground taken is false.

But further, choice has nothing to do with freedom. A nature in perfect accordance with the order in which I am set, is free - such is called, morally, the law of liberty, when I will in nature what God wills in authority - so Adam, setting aside the forbidden fruit, was free in the garden, but had no choice to make; God chose to put a matter of choice before him, as a probation or test, but His doing it specially, and by this ordinance, proved it was not so otherwise. Nor is there any difficulty in God's full foreknowledge, only it supposes what is - our nature - and He supplies the occasion in which man shows himself without any influencing at all, and then God shows Himself in grace.

But "free" needs to be examined; willkuhr (absolute will) and wahl (choice) are given as the elements of freedom or freewill, but it is said it is not an indifference which supposes no inclination more to one than another. Freedom, it is said, is in not being compelled, and in taking counsel and choosing. Now the absence of compulsion is clear, but choice is another thing.

Being capable of receiving that word to this extent (that is, being intelligent), man was bound to acknowledge it as the expression of God's will, as supreme, and was not consequently responsible for any further measure of knowledge as an authoritative guide for himself. The word — the witness or testimony of God — was, and is, thus the measure of all direct responsibility, and is inseparably connected with the principle. Moreover, the fact that obedience to it was demanded and looked for, on God's part, from man, shows plainly that man had the power of doing what was contrary to that word, and that he was left free as to the possibility of exercising that power. This indeed, as we have seen, is inherent in the nature of responsibility, and it shows us that a responsible being is one to whom failure is possible — a principle which is abstractly true in all cases, except of course strictly in that of the Lord Jesus Christ, though it may on some occasions be subject to some limitations.

There is a very great distinction between man and the lower creation. The lower creation is not responsible. Their lives are purely animal, governed by instinct, and therefore without responsibility. Man, the highest creation of God on this earth, was created with a will, and therefore carrying with it responsibility, and capable of communing with his Creator. If God had created man in such wise that he were unable to depart from the path of dependence and obedience, He would have created mere automatons, will-less creatures, with no power of choice. Man so created would have been merely a superior animal with no responsibility attaching to him. We shrink from the thought of such a creation as unworthy of God, and entailing terrible loss to mankind.

Thus the tree of knowledge of good and evil was no arbitrary or cruel test applied to an unsuspecting, guileless being. It was absolutely essential, if man was to be man in any true sense of the word. He was to be bound to God, not by the rigid links of a blind necessity over which he had no control and to which he could not say aught. He must be left to the exercise of the freedom of a will which separates him from the beasts about him. These indeed may and do act in accordance with the instincts implanted within them, may devour flesh or feed upon the herb according to their natural endowment, but they are irresponsible because devoid of that individuality and freedom of will which distinguishes man from them for, as a matter of fact, it is not merely reason which distinguishes man from the lower animals, but that moral endowment which enables him to choose, which makes him to a certain degree the master of his surroundings and of his future.

While man is responsible, God is sovereign: ‘in him we live and move and exist’ (Acts 17:28). It is impossible for us to do anything against His determined will (although, as discussed above, this does not negate man’s responsibility, nor should we use it as an excuse for inaction, weakness or failure). We should never underestimate God’s sovereignty. He is so great that He gives man liberty to make his own decisions and at the same time directs all things in a way that corresponds with His purpose. God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are like two sides of a coin. We can never see the two sides at the same time. Only God can. Human philosophy tries to explain this mystery but always fails. ‘The hidden things belong to Jehovah our God; but the revealed ones are ours and our children’s for ever’ (Deut. 29:29). We should distinguish these two matters but not seek to separate them.

Man is responsible

God not only uses circumstances or events in order to accomplish His purposes, He also uses people — whether godly people like Mordecai and Esther or ungodly and wicked people like Haman. Even king Ahasuerus (the mightiest man on earth at that time) was just an instrument in His hand. God’s dealings with people never contradict or take away man’s responsibility. Man is not a puppet in His hand. He has created us in such a way that we can make our own decisions, and we bear the full responsibility for what we do. Those who killed the Lord Jesus fulfilled God’s counsels, yet they bear full responsibility for what they did (Acts 4:27–28). In the book of Esther this is seen in connection with the great enemy and hater of the Jews called ‘this wicked Haman’ (7:6). At the end, his wickedness resulted in his own destruction and their salvation. Man may call this irony, but this is far from the case. It was God’s hand and purpose but also the consequence of the free decision of Haman, who was fully responsible for all of his decisions and actions.

Throughout the word of God two mighty truths run side by side - God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Man, in the narrow grasp of his little mind, is ever prone to lose sight of one or other; or, deeming them irreconcilable, to fill his eye with the one to the exclusion of the other; it is faith's office to maintain the balance; accepting truth in its completeness, as given forth by God, without pausing first to bring all down to the level of man's own small standard. From the plan of God's revelation; as from His counsels, neither of these truths is ever omitted; while in the fulness of His sovereign power and far-reaching wisdom, He governs all, orders and shapes according to the counsel of His will, giving no account of His matters unto any; triumphing over all the workings of evil; bringing forth higher and higher blessings out of the deepest falls and failures of the creature; everywhere gracious and righteous. At the same time, He ever gives to the responsible creature his full place in responsibility, throughout his actings; never treats him as a mere machine, nor fails to leave scope for the freedom of his choice; and for us to do other wise, in the interpretation of His Word, is of necessity to miss its teaching and go astray.