In light of the foregoing article on the freedom of the will, some may object to its criticism of libertarianism by saying that the technical definition of “libertarian free will” is simply the denial of determinism. Although this is in a sense partially correct, it is ultimately too weak of a definition for reason of its being too vacuous. Proving an apple wrong doesn’t prove a banana right. In other words, the purported wrongness of determinism is not proof positive of libertarianism. It’s an argument from silence, i.e. silencing the opponent. This leads to the libertarian’s tendency towards dismissive triumphalism. At best, however, such libertarianism would be a false dichotomy, reducing free will to either libertarian free will or nothing.
Libertarianism itself, in reality, makes positive claims about its own position, which then get smuggled in alongside their bare negation of determinism (or compatibilism or what have you): that human acts of will are not constrained in any way by prior conditions, i.e. undetermined. As O’Connor and Franklin state in their Stanford Encyclopedia article (Summer 2019) on free will regarding what is said to be agreed among Libertarians:
In this light, it would seem that Libertarianism does not mean merely that a person be able to choose between more than one choice. That would be the idea of free will, not libertarian free will. In other words, man, according to libertarian anthropology, possesses radical self-mastery, and requires it in order to be said to have freedom and responsibility. According to Biblical and Patristic anthropology, however, fallen man apart from Christ is overmastered by sin and enslaved to the passions, and that these are beyond fallen man’s control and infect every element of fallen man’s choosing and acting. Man, moreover, cannot free himself apart from God’s grace. Apart from grace there is zero possibility of libertarian free will, and yet free will remains in fallen man, together with responsibility, despite fallen man’s enslaved state - since that state is ultimately grounded in an autodoulia. Thus, even in the face of his own slavery, man paradoxically retains his freedom of will and responsibility, since any given sinful act was not forced, for fallen man could have, by virtue of his fundamental nature, done otherwise than commit any particular sin.
Obviously, libertarianism is a complex field with much internal debate, but at minimum it affirms that the fallen human will is fundamentally unconstrained by the effects of sin. In other words, the Fall does not infect man's ability to freely choose the good, and the root passions do not radically exploit man’s will, for man’s will is not metaphysically “disturbed.” Robert Kane, in his lauded defense of libertarianism, states the position: “Free will is the power of agents to be the ultimate creators (or originators) and sustainers of their own ends or purposes” (The Significance of Free Will, pg 4).
True sourcehood—the kind of sourcehood that can actually ground an agent’s freedom and responsibility—requires, so it is argued, that one’s action not be causally determined by factors beyond one’s control.
In this light, it would seem that Libertarianism does not mean merely that a person be able to choose between more than one choice. That would be the idea of free will, not libertarian free will. In other words, man, according to libertarian anthropology, possesses radical self-mastery, and requires it in order to be said to have freedom and responsibility. According to Biblical and Patristic anthropology, however, fallen man apart from Christ is overmastered by sin and enslaved to the passions, and that these are beyond fallen man’s control and infect every element of fallen man’s choosing and acting. Man, moreover, cannot free himself apart from God’s grace. Apart from grace there is zero possibility of libertarian free will, and yet free will remains in fallen man, together with responsibility, despite fallen man’s enslaved state - since that state is ultimately grounded in an autodoulia. Thus, even in the face of his own slavery, man paradoxically retains his freedom of will and responsibility, since any given sinful act was not forced, for fallen man could have, by virtue of his fundamental nature, done otherwise than commit any particular sin.
Obviously, libertarianism is a complex field with much internal debate, but at minimum it affirms that the fallen human will is fundamentally unconstrained by the effects of sin. In other words, the Fall does not infect man's ability to freely choose the good, and the root passions do not radically exploit man’s will, for man’s will is not metaphysically “disturbed.” Robert Kane, in his lauded defense of libertarianism, states the position: “Free will is the power of agents to be the ultimate creators (or originators) and sustainers of their own ends or purposes” (The Significance of Free Will, pg 4).
Now, in a theological context this is simply Pelagianism (or a kissing cousin) or perhaps even Sartrean existentialism. It is certainly not Christian. To say that man as such is the ultimate creator or originator of his own ends or purposes is to either subtly or explicitly deny that God created man in God's image, with an end and purpose determined by his Creator. Man, having fallen from his created end and purpose, separated from God and spiritually dead, enslaved and in bondage to sin, is of himself unable to will himself into, much less sustain, a position of righteousness.
Libertarianism cannot be encapsulated as the mere ability to do otherwise. At best, libertarianism requires a non-fallen anthropology in order to work, for as the Fathers agree throughout their teachings, fallen man is enslaved to the passions. For example, among many possible, St. Maximus states that the fallen soul is "held in bondage to the passions" (Ad Thalassios 54.11, cf. 54.12). Since fallen man is enslaved and requires liberation, every single fallen, graceless choice of his is mixed with evil, which is to say mixed with some element that is beyond fallen man's control, and that influences and subtly manipulates his act of willing - even if it does not utterly dominate it so as to compel any given act of sin. Natural virtue, in other words, is still available to fallen man. Grace, therefore, is absolutely required for true freedom, and this is precisely what fallen man lacks as a given condition of his fallenness. He requires God's intervention through faith and the sacraments. God, however, is not required for libertarian anthropology, nor His grace for freedom. That is why libertarianism is essentially a form of Neo-Pelagianism.
Although created in and for righteousness, and although he may even want or will to be righteous, true righteousness as such is not “open” to fallen man, not accessible to his free choice. His natural, fallen righteousness is but filthy rags. Therefore, fallen man absolutely requires God's unilateral intervention (i.e. the entire cruciform economy of the Incarnation) and “leading grace” (via a new, divine nature received in baptismal regeneration and holy Communion) to renew him, and to light and energize his way. Man does not create himself, his own ends, or his own ultimate purposes, and apart from Christ and enslaved to sin he is and can only be a tool of Satan's ends, free but lost at sea. He can sail and he can fish, but he cannot find safe harbor in the tumult of his passions and the blindness of his heart (Ephesians 4:18). Only after regeneration is the rightful freedom of man’s created nature restored.
Immediately - and purposefully - following his teaching on Baptismal Regeneration, St. Paul treats with God-inspired mastery the paradox of free will and bondage:
Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine (διδαχή) to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:16-23)
St. Paul's doctrine indicates clearly that man is enslaved to what he presents himself to obey. This is the essence of autodoulia. Having presented himself a slave to sin, man requires communion with Christ, whose death and resurrection become the instruments of man’s liberation. Man was delivered to the doctrine (διδαχή) of grace in Christ, receiving its freeing effects through baptismal regeneration, co-crucified and co-resurrected with Christ, and even now ascended and sitting at the Father's right hand, our life hidden in Christ in the heavenly places (Colossians 3:1, 3). Man thus had to be set free from sin. He could not set himself free from it, even though sin involves the will. This is the death knell of libertarianism. Although he was not forced to commit any sin, yet man could not extricate himself from its grip. Thus St. Paul exposits the paradox of the bondage of the free will.
To affirm a libertarian free will in light of man’s enslavement to sin is utterly misguided. If man had such freedom he would not require Christ to set him free, for such would be redundant; he would merely require Christ as his spiritual coach and cheerleader. The reality, however, is that man presented himself to sin, and thus sin became his master, and he its slave. After the Fall, although man's freedom is preserved in his ability to “choose otherwise,” his will is enthralled in such a way that apart from Christ he will not choose in a way that is not preconditioned by egotism, pride, lust, anger, etc. These passions or “constraints” acting on man's will, therefore, deny the libertarian position, but do not deny the reality of free will. If fallen human nature is self-constrained in autodoulia to sin, then it is folly to assert that the fallen human will is not correspondingly constrained and in bondage.
In conclusion, the will is free, but it is warped in a virtual reality projected by the passions onto the screen of the world, and so the will is warped or "bent," free but "bent." Because of fallen man’s willing agreement with the passions, he is responsible for what he chooses. Despite the seeming paradox, he is both free and bound. In short, man’s fallen will is free but there is no freedom in fallen man. Without Christ and the liberating energy of His leading grace, there is no authentic freedom, for Christ is our freedom just as He is our wisdom, our life, our righteousness, and our sanctification, and only in Christ can a man be truly free, for “if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed (ὄντως)” (John 8:36). Otherwise, freedom is only another name for bondage, for in that sense even in hell everyone is "free," for its punishment does not destroy man's nature, hence the tragedy of its everlasting torment. For who is more free than the immoral man, yet who more bound? Man's will is thus a battle ground, and even with true (ὄντως) freedom in Christ, the regenerate man must still strive to mortify the passions, for the desires that indwell the flesh ever war against the Spirit:
For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want (θέλω, meaning to will, intend, desire, or purpose, etc.) to do. (Galatians 5:17)
-Fr. Joshua Schooping
