The Doctrine of Free Agency Examined (Part 4 )

Man has a certain amount of freedom to act, and is a responsible being, but is he a free moral agent? In the common import of that term, “No.” There is no such thing as a free moral agent on earth. I will admit – nay, I will affirm – that man is free to act in the realm of life in which he lives. I mean by this that he is free to act as far as environment, laws and ability enable him to act.

As we will see later the natural man, or the man of nature, can act in the realm of natural life, but he cannot act in the realm of Spiritual life. The man with Spiritual life can act in either, but the man in nature, destitute of Spiritual life, cannot act in the realm of Spiritual life. This is not because there is a written law against it, but because he does not have the ability.

At this point, I should like to refer again to my good friend and the church bulletin. When I say, “good friend,” I mean just that. I have known this young man for nearly all of his life, and I respect him very highly. He is honest and devoted to what he believes to be right. He is highly educated, but I sadly fear, somewhat like Paul mentioned, “ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

I copy as follows:

“Some have difficulty in accepting what the Bible says in Romans 8:28-30, 9:4-24, 11:5-7, and Ephesians 1:3-6. None of us fully understand how that God can have an inexorable plan and yet man be a free moral agent; but for simplicity’s sake, let us see that in the eighth chapter of Romans verses 28-30, Paul indicates” (1) that since God foreknows all future events including the conduct of each individual man, he takes into account his repentance and faith; (2) he then predestinates him to be “- conformed in the image of His Son…” (3) and that in order to bring this about “…all things work together for good to them that love God…” This being true these are called and then justified, and these same ones He has promised to glorify. The part that is predestined is that all those that believe in Christ shall be “…conformed to the image of His Son…” and shall have complete victory in their Christian life.”

I believe I have copied this exactly as it appears in the bulletin, and I sincerely hope the reader has given it careful attention. “Some have difficulty in accepting what the Bible says in these several texts,” says my good friend. Correct. And to me it is quite obvious that my friend is one of those that is having trouble in accepting what they say. In fact he is not accepting what they say. In fact he is not accepting what they actually say, but is trying to mould them to fit his theology of free moral agency. Thus, he will never be able to do.

He mentions God’s inexorable (which means not to be moved by prayers or entreaties, unyielding; unrelenting) plan, alongside with the proposition that man is yet a free moral agent. Thus he bases his interpretation upon the premise of free moral agency. I say let these, and all other texts, stand in their own context and mean what they say and then determine from that as to whether or not man is a free moral agency. This, he will never be able to do.

What is a free moral agent? Nearly all my life I have heard men preach that man is a free moral agent, but I have never heard one of them define the term ‘free moral agent’, so I will attempt a definition of it myself. Webster’s says that an AGENT is an active power or cause, or one who acts, especially if he acts for another. He says MORAL means, conformed to right, virtuous, practically sufficient, and that FREE means, without restraint, independent.

From these definitions we see that a free moral agent would be one who acts, especially if he acts for another; one who is conformed to right, virtuous and practically sufficient, independent and without restraint. If this is not a reasonable and fair definition of the term ‘free moral agent’, then I readily confess that I am unable to define the term. If this is not correct, then I hope one of its advocates will come forth with a proper definition.

Is any respectable clergyman prepared to go before the public and argue that man in nature is conformed to right, virtuous and practically sufficient within himself; that he is vested with power and authority to act, and that independently and without restraint? Are we ready for that? I readily confess that I am not. Does this properly describe man as he is by nature? I do not think it does.

The simple truth of the matter is, no agent is free. And agent can only act within the realm that ability; environment, authority and laws enable him to act. He can act no farther. If a certain party should make me his agent and give me power and authority to act independently and without restraint, I could destroy him, and legally there would not be anything he could do about it. As a matter of fact, rather than explaining anything, the term “free moral agent” is a contradiction within itself – nothing more, and nothing less.

According to the theology of my splendid young friend, whose writing I have been copying, man cannot in any sense believe in God unless and until he hears the gospel preached. If this be true then the multiplied millions of folks who live in lands where they do not have access to the gospel are limited and restrained in a state of unbelief by environment. Are such people free moral agents? Is a person who cannot believe a free agent? I hardly see how he could be.

On this point, if the Arminian doctrine  (LINK)  be true, then those people are not free agents. Thus the doctrine of free moral agency does not even harmonize with Arminianism. In fact the doctrine of free agency can not be harmonized with anything. It is a contradiction statement within itself. If man cannot in any sense believe without the gospel then the multiplied millions of folks who are living beyond the gospel realm are consigned to eternal misery and woe without so much as ever having had a chance of being saved. Again I ask, “are you ready for that?” Frankly I am not.

This is a serious matter, and in all sincerity, I ask: Is man by nature conformed to right? By nature, is he virtuous? Is he practically sufficient? Is he independent and unrestrained? IS HE? Is that the way the Bible describes him? The Bible speaks of man as being a sinner. Paul wrote that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. Moses wrote: “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Genesis 6:5.

David wrote: “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.” Psalm 58:3. And Paul says, “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.” Romans 5:6. And he further speaks of man, both Jews and Gentiles, as being dead in trespasses and sins, and by nature the children of wrath. Now again let me ask” If the wickedness of man is great in the earth and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually, and if the wicked are estranged from the womb and go astray as soon as they be born, can it be truthfully said that they are conformed to right, virtuous and practically sufficient?” I should hardly think so.

Once more, if man is by nature the children of wrath, dead in sin and without strength, can it be truthfully said that he is independent and unrestrained? Perish the thought! How far from the truth can men get? How any Bible student can believe such things is not quite clear to me. Thinking on these things causes me to sympathize with Solomon when he says that God made men upright and he has sought out many inventions. Free moral agency is one of these inventions. The man who builds upon free moral agency can build nothing more than a baseless fabric that will not stand inspection.