The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination states that God has chosen who will live and who will die. That Christians are unconditionally elected for salvation or damnation.
However, how does this fit the idea of Free Will? If it's God that is choosing whether we turn to him or not, do we not really have free will?
(Please, Calvinistic views only.)
First of all, Calvinists do believe in free will. This point is often mis-understood by non-Calvinists; but the position that men don't actually have free will and control over their own choices is not Calvinism but hyper-Calvinism -- a deterministic view that goes far beyond that of it's namesake Calvin and the general constituency.
With that out of the way, the most important thing about the Calvinistic understanding of free will is that men are free to make choices, but only capable of making choices according to their nature. We can make any choice we like inside the scope of the kind of beings that we are but cannot make choices outside the scope of that nature or that defy it.
This is essentially the same sense in which we are limited physically. As humans we have finite power. The ability to levitate or spontaneously generate fire is reserved for the heroes of the Silver Screen. As humans we can affect our surroundings only insofar as we have the power to do so. But that power cannot change our nature. We can choose to eat healthy and exercise and not jump in front of moving trains -- and thus possibly extend our lives -- but we are still mortal and we cannot prevent our own eventual death. Whether through old age or sickness, we will die. Statistics are clear on this point. Our free will may allow us to live longer than if we had made other choices, but it will not allow us to not die at all. It is according to our nature.
In a similar sense, Calvinists believe that man has free will and is sovereign over the aspects of his life insofar as he has been granted these rights by God. However, we believe that man is, by nature, dead in sin. This means that it is not within the realm of possibility to "choose" salvation. A sick man may choose to take medicine and thus affect his own healing, but a dead man can do nothing to change his fate. This is the doctrine of total depravity and outside the scope of this question.
Calvinists believe that God is sovereign over salvation. That is his domain and for him alone to choose. The how that God chose to use, however, is quite interesting. First he extends us Grace. He sent his Son, he paid the price, he made a propitiation, he died for the ungodly, he ... he ... he. Then he holds all this out in front of us and he calls us. This call may be heard by many but only those who have been chosen are given the grace to respond to it, and through the hearing of the call are given faith and literally made into new beings -- resurrected from death to life -- born again as spiritual sons. This birth process isn't something we choose, it's something that is done for us. It's grace: unmerited favor. Something we could not do and would not choose to do had not God done something on our behalf first.
Calvinists may believe that God predestines people to be saved but they believe that man's limited scope means that we don't know who those people are. Furthermore as recipients of Grace we are called to share this news -- this free grace -- the Gospel, with all. We don't only preach to some. We preach it to all. Who God chooses to change into people that respond to the call is his business, but our business is inform everyone of the choice. Jesus called people to make choices, so do we.
In Calvinism, it's a paradox. God absolutely chooses whether a person can be saved, but a person is also responsible for his choice to serve and obey God.
Obviously, it's crazy to deny any free will at all - Christian or Non-Christian, we make choices every day, some good and some bad. Total Depravity tells us that we will always (and effectively this means we can can only) make bad choices left to our own devices. See Romans 8:5-8 (NIV):
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
So we do have a sort of free-will (a limited free will, really, that limits us to doing evil). Calvinism differs from Arminianism in that Arminianism holds that the decision to serve Christ isn't a work but a choice, and hence the above passage doesn't preclude people from choosing Christ, even though they do have sinful inclinations.
Then, once God has enlightened our minds with the Gospel and given us His Spirit, we have more free will - to do good and to do evil - but we are to remind ourselves that we ARE God's children and should limit ourselves to doing good only (as we were limited to doing evil before we believed): Romans 6:16 - 18:
16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
In summary for your question, we can't use what free will we have to turn to God (according to Calvinism), since we're using all of our free will to rebel against God. God must do all of the work. If this seems unfair, consider that all deserve God's Wrath and yet God chooses to save any at all.
According to the definition of free will that you provide, Calvinists do not believe in free will. The basic text for this question is Calvin's Treatise against Pighius, but it is also addressed in his Institutes:
7. That man is necessarily, but without compulsion, a sinner establishes no doctrine of free will
In this way, then, man is said to have free will, not because he has a free choice of good and evil, but because he acts voluntarily, and not by compulsion... (Institutes 2:2:7)
Calvin here outlines two definitions of free will:
Calvin accepts the first definition and rejects the second. Your question asked about the freedom to be able to turn to God, which is a good act. For Calvin, fallen man does not have this freedom and therefore does not have free will as understood by your question. In general Calvin eschews the label "free will," as is seen in the same section of the Institutes.
Definition 1 may give the impression that Calvin understood our acts to be free in the colloquial sense of libertarian free will, but this would be a mistaken impression. Calvin believed that the will was necessitated--that every act of human will was necessary and could not be otherwise than it in fact was. That was his battle cry against Pighius: the will is necessitated but not coerced. For Calvin, necessitation by external forces is coercion, but necessitation by internal forces is not. So while he believed that our actions are fully determined by our nature and inclinations, because these things are not external to us no coercion occurs. Pighius retorted with common sense that if our acts are necessary and thus unable to be changed, then they are not free. (Cf. Bondage and Liberation in Calvin's Treatise against Pighius and Did Calvin believe in Freewill?, each by Anthony N.S. Lane)
Im very impressed with Caleb's explanation of God's Sovereignty and Calvinism as opposed to hyper-Calvinism and those who hold to Man's Free Will choice. God has put it into my heart to delve into this apparent paradox for the last few years. Ive heard the TULIP view and the Man's Free Will views. Both have support in the Scriptures, and both can be taken to a hyper extreme to the point where they become useless.
H.A. Ironside, {In the Heavenlies (Ephesians), pages 27-28} handles this apparent paradox with his Door to Salvation analogy. Its purpose is to find a way to simplify this debate, but as with most analogies do, loses some of the resolution along the way. Caleb helps with that loss of signal integrity.
I cannot improve Caleb's comments, but I can hopefully add another perspective. That being that the doctrine of Sovereignty is best taught to believers as a blessing to know that their salvation is secure, and that the responsibility of who we shall serve is a call to those who have ears to hear the call of God so that they can exercise their faith through grace. Everything God does is done with love, grace and mercy. At judgement day, no one will be able to righteously claim that God was not just. Now human "fairness" is not exactly aligned with God's plan. For His ways are not Man's.
