Is it proper to speak of man as having a free will?

In view of the preceding, it seems necessary to assign to man freedom of spontenaeity in that he is not coerced to choose anything contrary to his own nature, purposes, and governing desires. That is, he chooses ever according to his own nature, but due to the depravity of his nature possesses no chaste intentions. As such it may rightly be said that he cannot please God (Rom 8:6–8, etc.), while at the same time maintaining man’s freedom of spontenaeity and attendant culpability.

Jonathan Edwards’s distinction between natural and moral inability is informative on this point. Man’s native ability to make choices (natural freedom) remains intact after the fall, but his affections are so thoroughly corrupted as to suggest only corrupt choices to the will (moral inability).

The mystery of man’s freedom and God’s unalterable decree is not an easy one to unlock. Man is never coerced to choose anything contrary to his nature, but it is apparent that God’s all-inclusive knowledge dissects men so thoroughly that he may predict with absolute certainty what man’s “free” acts will include. However, no theological explanation has ever been able to fully satisfy this question.