Free Will & Determinism (v)

My Thesis

I believe that all has been determined by God and that nothing occurs apart from his will (which includes his permissive will). I also believe that angels and humans have limited free will. I also believe that divine determinism and human free will are compatible (though we may not know how to properly show it to be so). The great Charles Spurgeon said:

"Think, first of all, of the way of God in relation to predestination and free agency. Many have failed to understand how everything, from the smallest event to the greatest, can be ordained and fixed—and yet how it can be equally true that man is a responsible being and that he acts freely, choosing the evil and rejecting the good. Many have tried to reconcile these two things and various schemes of theology have been formulated with the objective of bringing them into harmony. I do not believe that they are two parallel lines which can never meet, but I do believe that for all practical purposes, they are so nearly parallel that we might regard them as being so. They do meet, but only in the Infinite mind of God is there a converging point where they melt into one! As a matter of practical, everyday experience with each one of us, they continually melt into one, but, as far as all finite understanding goes, I do not believe that any created intellect can find where they meet! Only the Uncreated as yet knows this." (From "The Way of Wisdom" sermon - see here)

From these words we see how Spurgeon may be designated as being a "Compatibilist," supporting what is called "Compatibilism."  That is defined by Britannica as - "Thesis that free will, in the sense required for moral responsibility, is consistent with universal causal determinism." What Spurgeon affirms is also what is expressed in the 1689 London Baptist Confession. 

All Things Are Of God

I dealt with this, along with showing weakness in the typical "free will defense" (FWD) in the context of debate about "the problem of evil" (theodicy) "Chapter 100 - Hardshells and Predestination III" (See here). That whole series of articles gives my views on the subject. In fact, I had forgotten how much I had already written on this subject through the years. My memory is not too sharp any more. I read things now that I wrote years ago and forgot I had ever written them. When you have written thousands of articles you forget much of what you have written. 

Any time I debate with those who take the Libertarian view of free will, which says that God does not cause nor determine angel or human choice, I simply point to the scriptures that say all things are of God, which says he is the cause of all things and is responsible for all things being as they are. I then ask the advocates of free will, and the deniers of God being in any sense a cause of evil, to explain those texts to me and how they harmonize with their proposition that says that some things are not "of God." In the above posting from that series I cited these texts which affirm that God is the cause of all things, and that this causality is in several respects. There are many kinds of causes, but for the purpose of this writing we will limit it to Aristotle's four main causes (pictured above). Here are those texts:

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."  (Rom. 8: 28)

"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."  (Rom. 11: 36)

^"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will."  (Eph. 1: 11)

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."  (I Cor. 8: 6)

"For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."  (I Cor. 11: 12)

"And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation."  (II Cor. 5: 18)

All these texts affirm that "all things" are "of God." If "all things" excludes nothing, then we must say that sin, or evil, is included in those "all things." But, if we do exclude it, where is the warrant to change "all things" to "some things"? Or to change "all things" to "all these things"? Does "all things" include every person's thoughts, choices, and actions? If so, how are they "of God"? Does "of God" mean all a person's thoughts, words, choices, and deeds are what God creates or causes to be? Does that not take away from angels and men any "free will," or "moral responsibility," and make them into robots? In addressing such questions, let me focus on the text in Romans 11: 36 and make some observations upon it. The text says:

"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen." (Rom. 11: 36)

I see no reason why this text, or the others cited above, in speaking of "all things," should be limited so as to mean "some things." That "all things" does sometimes mean "all things in context" or "some things" I do not doubt. The question is, however, whether that is what it means in the above texts, as in Romans 11: 36. 

Those who deny God's having predetermined all things (without exception) will not have an easy time dealing with the above texts and their affirmation that all things, including evil, is "of God." When I have introduced these texts in debate with the advocates of Libertarian free will I have seen how they struggled to reconcile their beliefs about free will and divine determinism in lieu of these affirmations. 

I see Paul affirming how God is the cause of all things, without exception, and that this causality is in three areas. When Paul says that all things are "of" or "from God" his affirmation or proposition would fit the definition for God being both the "material" and the "formal" cause of all things as given by Aristotle. All things can be traced back to God and God is the reason for any and all things. Nothing would ever have come into existence unless God willed it. Nothing would ever occur without God making it possible. He is the source for all things, including all the evil in the world. God is the "material cause" of human beings. Man's body is made of the dust of the earth, but the earth is God's creation. Man's spirit is from the breath that God breathed into his physical form. Thus, both man's body and spirit are "of God." God is the material cause of all that is, and also "the first cause," as we have spoken about previously.

Who can deny that he is also the "formal cause" of all things? I think that when Paul says that all things are "of God" that he comprehends God being both the material and formal cause of all that is. Is this world not the design of God, at least in some sense? Though he does not will the existence of evil as an end in itself, or out of necessity (as Lewis affirmed), yet he designed a world where evil was possible and actually foreseen prior to God's creating it. So, we may say that God is also the formal cause of all things. He is the architect of the whole cosmos and governs every minute aspect of it. Notice this verse:

"For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." (Heb. 11: 10)

The Greek word for "builder" is "technitēs" (from which we get our word "technician") and the Greek word for "maker" is "dēmiourgos," which identifies God as both architect and builder, the planner and the constructor. Two verses in the New Testament refer to God as a “builder.” In Hebrews 3:3-4, “the builder of all things is God,” the word for “builder” is kataskeuazo. This is a verb meaning “to prepare, establish, make ready, construct.” It reads literally “the one having built all things is God.” Notice also the reference again to "all things" in Paul's statement that God is the builder of "all things." Has God built evil buildings and things? There can be no question that these verses identify God as being the "formal cause" of all things. 

Paul's next proposition is that "all things" are "through him" (God) as well as "of" or "from" him. Here we see what is called the "efficient cause," and God is identified as being the efficient cause of the same "all things" of which he is the material and formal causes. This works out to mean such things as "in him we live and move and have our very being" (Acts 17: 28). Every movement of anything in God's universe, from the largest star to the smallest particle, is only possible because God wills it. Does that include the movement of our thoughts and emotions? The movement of our will? It also works out to mean that by Christ, or by God, "all things are held together" (or "consist" - Col. 1: 17). It is also why theologians like Thomas Aquinas referred to Deity as "the prime mover." 

Obviously, all things being of God, the material, formal, and first cause, does not mean that something cannot be "of God" in one sense and not "of God" in another sense (as we will shortly see). Further, all things being "through" God and Christ as "efficient causes" does not exclude or preclude other agencies, or "second causes," also being involved as "efficient " or "instrumental" causes. There is a sense in which God is the efficient cause of a man's sin, and a sense in which the man is the efficient cause of his sin. Did God no longer give life and breath, an evil man would do no more evil. Yet, as we will see, God does not entice or tempt a person to sin. He is not the direct efficient cause of any sin, though he be so indirectly. 

When the text says that "all things" are "unto him" we see God identified as the "final cause." This entails what we call "the finished product," or "the end design fulfilled," or "destination reached," etc. We know from numerous scriptures what that "end design" is, being God's manifested and revealed glory, for his praise and for his pleasure. It was also to reveal things about his nature and character, for each person in the holy Trinity to express love for each other in their unity of being. The Father created all things "for" Christ and "through" Christ. In bringing all things into existence, and in suffering sin to enter the world, a way was opened for God to manifest both his holiness and his goodness. In manifesting his holiness he shows his wrath against sin. In manifesting his mercy, grace, kindness, and benevolence he designed the scheme of redemption through the work of Christ and his sacrificial death. In sending transgressors to hell God manifests his righteous character. In saving undeserving sinners God manifests his grace. There are things about God that would not be known apart from his punishment of transgressors and of his salvation through the Son of God. Wrote Paul:

"For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (Col. 1: 16-17)

Here we have another reference to "all things" and are forced to discern whether "all things" includes evil, human choices and actions, and sin. Notice that Christ, as the Son of God, before his incarnation at the time of the creation, is identified as both the efficient cause and the final cause for all things being created. All things were created "by him," making him the efficient cause. All things were created "for him," making him the final cause, the reason for creation. 

It seems likely that by "all things" in the text are the things created in the six day creation narrative of Moses in Genesis' opening chapters. If this is so, then "all things" would not include the acts of creatures. Paul speaks in the past tense saying "who created," rather than "who has been creating," which it would say if God is still creating, i.e. creating the choices and acts of creatures. 

However, I do not think that "all things" in the other texts at the head of this post are limited to what was created during the six days of God's work of creating the cosmos and man. When Paul makes his conclusion in Romans 11: 36 about "all things" being "of" God, and "through" God, and "to" God, the "all things" cannot be limited to what was created in the six days. The context of Romans eleven, and of the first eleven chapters, deals with matters of salvation, and these must be included in the "all things." The virgin birth of Christ is therefore included in the all things. Also, the work of Christ in atoning for sin is "of God," as is the work of justifying and sanctifying sinners. As stated, I do not see why "all things" cannot mean literally everything, including evil. God says he creates "evil" (Isa. 45: 7). Yes, I know how some will say "evil" does not mean sin but calamity. Yet, as they should know, the Hebrew word "ra" is often translated as wickedness in the Old Testament. Also, who can deny that the sin of Adam was a calamity? Also, the syntax of God's statement of "I create evil" implies that all evil is his creation. So we read where God, by Amos, asks "is there evil in the city and the Lord has not done it?" (3: 6) That says all the evil or calamity within the city was the result of God's working. Just saying "evil" means "calamity" to solve the cognitive dissonance really does not effect a solution. First, sin is a calamity. Second, a problem still remains by saying "ra" means calamity, for who wants to affirm that every calamity in a city is a result of God's doing? Every car wreck the result of God's doing? Every fall? Every loss? 

God did create evil when he chose to create a world of free choosing creatures who he knew would become evil and spread evil. We ought to at least be able to affirm such an obvious truth and say that in this sense God did create all the evil in the world. 

Another Problem

How do we reconcile Paul's several statements that "all things" are "of" God with verses that say something in particular is not "of" God? Let me give some examples.

"But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” (Matt. 16: 23)

Here Jesus seems to say that some things are "of" men and not "of" God. But if all things are "of" God, it would not be correct to say of anything that it is not "of" God. We will need to affirm that the "all things" that are said to be "of God" in the above texts of scripture do not include some things, and must therefore mean "all things" in the context. Or, perhaps there is another way of harmonizing the texts. But more on that shortly. First, let us notice some additional texts that affirm that some things are not "of" God.

“He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” (John 8: 47)

"And every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God." (I John 4: 3)

We could cite many other scriptures that say that something is "not of God." But, one more I will cite, especially since it is one that is often mentioned in the debate over whether God is in any sense a cause of sin.

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death." (James 1: 13-15)

First of all, there are temptations which God is the cause of. Let us make that clear. Notice these texts:

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. Then He said, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (Gen. 22: 1-2)

Many who are strongly opposed to the idea that God could be any kind of a cause of sin, or one who could or would tempt creatures to sin, will say that the word in Hebrew means to "test" or to "try" and not to entice or allure (same in the NT Greek). I do agree that this is so. However, a "trial" or "proving" may indeed be an allurement to sin. Some of my worst trials have been battles with sin or some particular fault. I have often been tested when thus tempted. Further, though God does not directly entice anyone to sin, yet he does in his providence permit, for good predetermined reasons, his children to be tempted to sin. So we read in the gospel that "Jesus was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil." (Matt. 4: 1) The Devil not only was testing Jesus, he was also enticing him to sin. The Father and the Spirit both wanted Christ to be tempted to sin so that Christ might be shown to be the sinless perfect man, the very Christ and Son of God. The Spirit did not do the tempting. Yet, it was God's will that Satan tempt Christ; And, of course, it was not that God wanted Satan to succeed! He wanted to demonstrate the holiness of Christ. 

Further, the testing or tempting of Abraham cannot be made to be such a test that did not involve a temptation to sin. Was it a sin for Abraham to kill his son and offer him as a sacrifice? All through the OT human sacrifice was denounced as being abominable to God. So, why does God tell him to do what is morally wrong? 

Further, who can deny that God's suffering of the Serpent (Satan) to be present in the Garden of Eden and his tempting of Eve to sin made God an indirect cause of the temptation? In the same way the Spirit was an indirect cause of Christ being tempted to sin by the Devil? We also see this same kind of divine testing described by God himself. Wrote Moses of this oracle:

“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deut. 13: 1-2 ESV) 

Here God's testing of his people is seen by his willingly, knowingly, and purposefully suffering false prophets to have a presence among the people and to tempt them to sin. 

So, it is simply a way to avoid the issue, the cognitive dissonance, that many bible believers have with the fact that God does will for us to be tempted, for them to say that the word "tempt" means to "test" or to "try" in a non sin enticing way. It was, however, that very exact way with Eve's temptation, with Abraham's temptation, with Christ's temptation, with the covenant people's temptation in the above text, yea, with many others, including ourselves as ordinary believers. All our temptations to sin are tests and trials.  

So, we should not view the words of James as meaning that God is in no ways a cause of temptation. So, what then does James mean when he says God "tempts no one"? 

The Greek word for "tempted" in the text is "peirazō" and may mean to test or to try but it may also mean to entice to sin. 

It is interesting that the same Greek word is used not only to denote enticement to sin, as in the James passage, and when Satan is called the "Tempter" (Matt. 4: 3) and when his enticements for Christ to sin are so called, but also to denote mere trials of adversity. Such a fact destroys attempts to say that the Greek word only means trials which are unconnected with temptations to sin. Actually, there are several passages in the new testament where the Greek word refers to a test resulting from some enticement or allurement, in addition to the ones already mentioned.  

So, there are two things that I am emphasizing. First, God does not directly tempt anyone, though indirectly he wills that we be not free from temptations to sin but that we prove ourselves by them. It is by resisting allurements to sin that we prove our metal. The same is true of trials which are not temptations to sin, such as adversities, losses, disappointments, etc. They try and prove us also. So we may say that the Spirit led Jesus to Satan to be tempted and tried and yet it would not be correct to say that the Spirit tempted Christ. Satan did the tempting, yet it was the will of the Father and Spirit, and Christ too. So, we could say also, using the language of James, that the temptation of Christ was not "of" God directly, but only indirectly was "of" God by his suffering it to occur. 

Further, since "all things" are "of" God, how can James be correct to say temptations to sin are not "of" God? Do we make "all things" to exclude the temptation of the James passage? Or, do we see a way in which the temptations to sin by Satan (or other agents such as our own fleshly carnal nature) are both "of" God and "of" something else all at the same time, in different senses? 

"For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God." ( Cor. 11: 12) 

Here we see a case where "the woman" is both "of the man" (Adam) and also "of God" because 1) she is of Adam immediately and directly, and 2) she is of God indirectly and mediately through Adam, and because "all things are of God."  We see the same thing in this text:

“Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” (Luke 3: 38)

All through this genealogy of Christ in Luke chapter three, the words "the son" are in italics because they are supplied by the translators to bring out the meaning of the Greek. Literally it is simply "X was of Y." I am focusing again on the preposition "of" in the text. Thus we may say that Seth was "of" Adam directly and "of" God indirectly.

So, my whole point is that the passage in James is not denying that our enticements are "of God" in some sense, yea, in the sense I have explained. 

It is often a difference between God, the first cause of all causes and effects, and of what are called "second causes." 

God is the material cause of all things. The bible says this. In fact, that is part of what is meant when many passages of scripture say "all things are of God." Philosophy also acknowledges a "first cause" and often identifies it with Deity. God is the source of all things. He is also the formal cause of all things, being the result of the way he ordered the worlds he made, the result of his design as architect and builder. He is also the efficient cause of all things, though it is in this aspect of causality where the actions of God's creatures becoming secondary and efficient causes in executing the formal design of God. God is also the final cause of all things. All things are "to him." They exist or occur because God has a purpose to glorify himself and to make known himself more fully to his creatures who have his likeness and image. The final cause, or the end purpose, is not my eternal delight, but the glory of God revealed in saving me from sin and to such a destiny. 

So, I can keep saying of certain immoral behavior "that is not of God," or "that is of flesh," or "that is of the world," etc. The apostle John used the same language, writing: 

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." (I John 2: 16)

We just need to remember that we are talking about how "all things" can be "of God" and yet certain things said to be "not of God." 

Every man can look for the immediate cause of his sin in his own heart, and can see its source in what James called inward "lust" or depravity. Jesus taught the same, saying:

"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." (Matt. 15: 19 nkjv)

Free Will & Determinism (iv)

There are four leading reasons that men like C.S. Lewis hold to their ideas about absolute and unfettered "free will": 

1) Free will is necessary for a creature to do either good or evil

2) Free will is necessary in order to truly love God, being the love God desires

3) Free will is necessary to exonerate God from the charge of being unfair, unjust, and not good (or to totally shift responsibility for evil from God to creatures alone or to "justify the ways of God to men")

4) Free will is necessary for creatures to be justly accountable and responsible for their crimes against God (and thus justly punished) or for them to merit any praise or receive credit in doing good

I have dealt with some of these points already in as condensed a manner as I could. In this posting I will try to condense my beliefs on the fourth point above. Those who have studied this area of philosophy, science, and theology (for the subject area touches each of these) will recognize how I am striving for brevity. I certainly could never be as expansive on this subject as Jonathan Edwards was in his mammoth work on the Freedom of The Will or Martin Luther in the verbose work titled "Bondage of the Will." One could write books of many pages on each of the points above. Actually there are numerous writings and debates of these points of discussion.

I certainly do agree, as a Soft Determinist, that some degree of free will must be possessed by the one accused of a crime in order to be held liable or "legally" responsible. It would seem to many to be an act of injustice to create a creature, then make him into a criminal, and then punish him for being a criminal. But, before jumping to conclusions, perhaps we should ponder that proposition and the consequences arising from it being the truth. 

To my mind there is a sense in which it may be truly applied to God, and a sense in which it cannot be applied to God. I would also ask if it made a difference if we substituted the words "willingly and knowingly permit him to become a criminal" for the words "make him into a criminal"? Further, is it not true that God created creatures who he knew would sin and spend eternity in Hell? And, is it not true that he created such creatures who he knew would sin and so is a material cause of them becoming sinners?  

God does not make anyone to sin, though he could prevent the sin of any, and does prevent many, but that does not mean that he is no cause at all, or is in no way responsible, as I have before demonstrated. Further, as I have shown, God creates people who he knows will sin and who will die in their sins, having rejected God and any offers of pardon. Further, God can in judgment remove providential restraints upon a wicked man and this removal leads to more wickedness. This is called "judicial hardening" of the hearts of certain sinners, which hardening is a punishment for sin and which is not remedial but rather leads to greater sins. God is thus the just cause of those greater sins. (See Acts 28: 26-28; John 12: 39-40)

"But for" God not judicially hardening, they would have been less wicked. God had that right to bring on greater judgment even though that judgment makes the wicked even more unrestrained to do evil. How many who have a "dead" or "cauterized" conscience sin more as a result of their consciences becoming so? How many drug addicts lost much of their free will when they became a slave to drugs? The point is this: in some sense God caused the hardening and the hardening brought more sin and wickedness. The ones being hardened were the blameworthy cause of their being punished with a hardened heart or dead conscience. There is a just cause and an unjust cause for doing anything.

 

Someone who was forced to do a crime, against his will, cannot be held to be guilty and liable for the crime. Our legal system is based upon this principle. Where there is no free choice to do a thing, the doer is not judged to be guilty. Yet, there still remains a kind of responsibility that cannot be removed or invalidated. Even the doer of the crime, though not found to have acted freely, say in a murder, nevertheless did kill. He may have, however, a valid excuse or justification. But, nothing can change the fact that the doing of the killing was a cause of the person being murdered. This is because "cause" is another word that is often used to mean the same thing as "responsible." Thus, even inanimate things are responsible in this sense. As when I say that the battery in the car being dead is responsible (is the reason) for the car not starting. In the sense of causation, the above person is responsible for the death, no matter what may have been the circumstances. Yet, in being declared in court as "not guilty," he will not be judged to be legally responsible. 

Defining "responsibility" (and its kindred words like blame, guilt, liability) is similar to defining "free will." Both have their difficulties and lack of agreement. Lucifer, the angel who fell from heaven and became the Satan and the Devil, even has his own definition of what it means to have "free will." He faults God for not giving him more freedom, freedom to question his Maker, freedom to do what one wants without God finding fault with it, etc. The kind of "free will" that many Existentialists speak of is similar to that of Satan. It is the idea behind the words of the creature to his Creator - "why did you make me this way?" That idea is one that says "I ought to have the right to tell God that I am not happy with how he made me and that I want him, or perhaps demand him, to do it again with changes that I choose." These say God did not give them enough free will and self determination. We also see this very thinking among the devilish folks supporting "transgender" ideology, who think that they have the right and freedom to decide whether they are male or female, rather than nature or the Creator deciding. Many of those also in the "trans-humanism" camp have the same ideology, believing that we are destined to have the technology to recreate ourselves with implants and become semi immortal hybrids, half human and half machine (of which many movies today have as a plot). All these have a definition of "free will" and "self determination" that is condemned in scripture. Satanists today promote a kind of "free will" also, which is the freedom to do evil and to not have God to interfere. 

I believe there are levels and degrees of responsibility. So too does our legal system. This is because we believe that there are degrees of "free will" and multiple causes of an act. There are what are called "mitigating factors" that are used in court in assigning guilt, responsibility, and causation. Such factors call for leniency and mercy at times in apportioning responsibility and punishment. This is why we have the legal concept of "mens rea." It  refers to criminal intent. The literal translation from Latin is "guilty mind." It is the state of mind statutorily required in order to convict a particular defendant of a particular crime. In other words "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty." Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes. In civil law, it is usually not necessary to prove a subjective mental element to establish liability for breach of contract or tort, for example. So we hear people say "it is more your fault than mine" and this shows that people generally recognize degrees of guilt and responsibility. 

I also believe that I am responsible for the sin of Adam ("original sin") and believe in what is called "vicarious responsibility." That is the case when a supervisory party is liable for the negligent actions of a third party for whom they are responsible. We see this kind in employers being responsible for the negligent acts of employees or parents being responsible for the acts of their children. It is the kind of responsibility we see in both Adam and Christ (the second Adam). Christ takes responsibility for the elect, that is, for everyone who believes. He takes their punishment and pays their debts. Responsibility for others is therefore connected with the concept of "imputation" or "reckoning" (as Paul wrote about, especially in Romans), which are both accounting and legal terms. 

God too, as we have seen, has in some sense claimed responsibility for the world being the way it now is. But, he is not to be blamed or declared guilty of doing evil or acting unjustly because he created creatures who he knew would be evil and evil eternally. C.S. Lewis would excuse God and say "God couldn't help it for that is the only kind of thinking creature he could create, one who was capable of becoming evil." But, as we have seen, God could have helped it. But, he chose not to create creatures who possessed free will and the power of self determination along with the attribute of immutability. Heaven is now a place where it is not possible for the elect angels and elect men to ever sin and yet they are free to do what every they want. But, they will have no desire to do evil. In this state they will not be robots or puppets, though righteousness will be their ingrained nature and habit.

Further, there are lots of scriptures that do seem to affirm that God may be a cause of people sinning. For instance there is that text where the Psalmist speaks of the relationship of Egyptians towards the Hebrew slaves, testifying that God "turned their heart to hate his people, and to deal subtilly with his servants." (Psa. 105: 25) It seems that God was the cause of the Egyptians hating his people and dealing with them in the cruel manner they did, and it seems that such was sinful behavior. So also we have God hardening of the heart of Pharaoh so that he refused to keep his word and promise and to obey God. It would take some time to deal with such texts and is not appropriate for such a condensed statement of my views on this subject. Such verses, however, do show that it is an error to say that God is in no way a cause of sin. 

Also, we should keep in mind that the word "responsible," though often provoking negative thoughts and emotions, nevertheless may as well be used in respect to good things occurring. There is a valid giving of credit to those who do good, even though God gets the greater credit, for without him and his aid and providence no one could do any good. Thus, though God gives crowns to his people based upon merit, yet they all cast their crowns at the feet of Christ. They are rewarded for good service rendered and yet all their rewards are due to God's grace. 

Responsibility, Causality, Blame, & Guilt

Does moral responsibility require free will? That is another reason why God gave the ability to freely will or choose between things having to do with right and wrong, and with pleasing God. Not only is free will a necessary attribute of rational creatures for them to love and choose God and the things of God and right, but is necessary to justly condemn those who choose sin and reject God's rule. 

Britannica Dictionary definition of Responsibility (See here) is as follows (highlighting mine): 

1) the state of being the person who caused something to happen 

2 a) a duty or task that you are required or expected to do  

3) the state of having the job or duty of dealing with and taking care of something or someone 

4) the quality of a person who can be trusted to do what is expected, required, etc. 

◊ To do something on your own responsibility is to do it without being told to and to accept the blame if it has a bad result. He changed the schedule on his own responsibility.

Britannica also, in an article written by Peter Singer and Maya Eddon and titled "free will and moral responsibility" (See here) wrote (emphasis mine):

"Free will and moral responsibility, also called problem of moral responsibility, the problem of reconciling the belief that people are morally responsible for what they do with the apparent fact that humans do not have free will because their actions are causally determined. It is an ancient and enduring philosophical puzzle."

"An ancient and enduring philosophical puzzle" indeed! Those who have studied and mused much upon it will no doubt confess the same. The same thing may be said about "the problem of evil" and "theodicy" for the philosophers and theologians. Some of course say that free will and determinism are contradictory and irreconcilable (thus Incompatibilism and a denial of Compatibilism). Others say both are true although very few are able to satisfactorily demonstrate how both are true. My belief is that one can find both free will (as I have defined it) and self determination on the one hand and divine predestination and predetermination on the other hand, to be taught and affirmed in holy scriptures. We also do not find where the bible writers wrote in order to explain the minute mechanics of how all this works. 

Kevin Timpe wrote the following under "Free Will" (See here emphasis mine):

"Most of us are certain that we have free will, though what exactly this amounts to is much less certain. According to David Hume, the question of the nature of free will is “the most contentious question of metaphysics.” If this is correct, then figuring out what free will is will be no small task indeed. Minimally, to say that an agent has free will is to say that the agent has the capacity to choose his or her course of action. But animals seem to satisfy this criterion, and we typically think that only persons, and not animals, have free will. Let us then understand free will as the capacity unique to persons that allows them to control their actions. It is controversial whether this minimal understanding of what it means to have a free will actually requires an agent to have a specific faculty of will, whether the term “free will” is simply shorthand for other features of persons, and whether there really is such a thing as free will at all."

Agreed. 

Do people lose their free will in that area where they lost "self control"? If free will is equated with self control, then we must say that there are degrees of free will and that it is relational to particular things. 

Timpe says further:

"Whether or not one can have freedom of action without free will depends on one’s view of what free will is. Also, the truth of causal determinism would not entail that agents lack the freedom to do what they want to do. An agent could do what she wants to do, even if she is causally determined to do that action. Thus, both Hobbes and Hume are rightly characterized as compatibilists."

And,

"Some philosophers do not believe that free will is required for moral responsibility. According to John Martin Fischer, human agents do not have free will, but they are still morally responsible for their choices and actions. In a nutshell, Fischer thinks that the kind of control needed for moral responsibility is weaker than the kind of control needed for free will. Furthermore, he thinks that the truth of causal determinism would preclude the kind of control needed for free will, but that it wouldn’t preclude the kind of control needed for moral responsibility. See Fischer (1994). As this example shows, virtually every issue pertaining to free will is contested by various philosophers."

Indeed, this is a subject area where there is much disagreement. So, I repeat, these are my thoughts on this subject. I do not force them on anyone but only ask for an honest hearing.

Timpe says further:

"However, many think that the significance of free will is not limited to its necessity for free action and moral responsibility. Various philosophers suggest that free will is also a requirement for agency, rationality, the autonomy and dignity of persons, creativity, cooperation, and the value of friendship and love [see Anglin (1990), Kane (1998) and Ekstrom (1999)]. We thus see that free will is central to many philosophical issues."

We could write at length on many of these points but forbear for brevity's sake.

Charles H. Spurgeon in his sermon "A Safe Prospective" (See here) expresses my views. He said:

"Now, I believe in predestination, yea, even in its very jots and tittles. I believe that the path of a single grain of dust in the March wind is ordained and settled by a decree which cannot be violated; that every word and thought of man, every flittering of a sparrow’s wing, every flight of a fly, the crawling of a beetle, the gliding of a fish in the depth of the sea — that everything, in fact, is foreknown and foreordained. But I do equally believe in the free agency of man, that man with acts a will as he wills, especially in moral operations – choosing the evil with a will that is unbiased by anything that comes from God, biased only by his own depravity of heart and the perverseness of his habits; choosing the right, too, with perfect freedom, though sacredly guided and led by the Holy Spirit, yet in such a way that his disposition is trained to choose and prefer the right and the true, not violently driven in the teeth of his own reluctance; free in his agency, for the Son of God has made him free. I believe that man is as free as if everything were left to chance, and that he is as accountable as if there were no destiny whatever. Where the two truths meet I do not know, nor do I want to know. They do not puzzle me, since I have given up my mind to believing them both. They are thought by some to be antagonistic, the one contrary to the other. I believe them to be two parallel lines. They run side by side, and perhaps even in eternity there is no point of contact between these two grand truths. But if the predestination were a revealed thing, and we could see it, it would then become utterly impossible for human nature to receive the idea of freedom, or to believe itself to be at all independent in its action. Man would, to repeat the line of Longfellow’s, feel himself to be but one of a herd of “dumb, driven cattle,” made to do, whether he willed or not, just what had been ordained."

Free Will & Determinism (iii)

The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 9, on the subject of "Free Will" wrote the following (please note the places in bold letters which I have made):

1. God has endowed human will with natural liberty and power to act on choices so that it is neither forced nor inherently bound by nature to do good or evil.

Matthew 17:12; James 1:14; Deuteronomy 30:19. 

2. Humanity in the state of innocence had freedom and power to will and to do what was good and well-pleasing to God.2 Yet this condition was unstable, so that humanity could fall from it.3 

 2-Ecclesiastes 7:29. 3-Genesis 3:6.  

3. Humanity, by falling into a state of sin, has completely lost all ability to choose any spiritual good that accompanies salvation.4 Thus, people in their natural (a) state are absolutely opposed to spiritual good and dead in sin,5 so that they cannot convert themselves by their own strength or prepare themselves for conversion.6 

(a) without the Spirit 

4-Romans 5:6; Romans 8:7. 5-Ephesians 2:1, 5. 6-Titus 3:3–5; John 6:44.

4. When God converts sinners and transforms them into the state of grace, he frees them from their natural bondage to sin7 and by his grace alone enables them to will and to do freely what is spiritually good.8 Yet because of their remaining corruption, they do not perfectly nor exclusively will what is good but also will what is evil.9 

7-Colossians 1:13; John 8:36. 8-Philippians 2:13. 9-Romans 7:15, 18, 19, 21, 23. 

5. Only in the state of glory is the will made perfectly and unchangeably free toward good alone.10 

10Ephesians 4:13.

I am in near 100% agreement with these words. However, I would word things differently regarding the first proposition. For instance I would rather add the word "particular" or "single" for the words "not forced by nature to do good or evil" and say "not forced to do any particular good or evil." If we have a depraved nature, we will certainly do evil (sin), though not necessarily any one particular evil/sin. Likewise, if we have become partakers of the divine nature (II Peter 1: 4), which is a holy righteousness loving nature, we will certainly do good. Also, what the confession calls "natural liberty" I would call "relative freedom." 

Indeed the will of humans is changed by God when he converts and transforms (regenerates) the heart of the sinner (the "heart" includes the mind, will, and emotions), as the confession affirms. If the will is changed so that it chooses God and Christ as Savior and Lord and to believe the right and gospel truth, to what or to whom do we credit for it? Did the will change itself? Or was it changed by something else? Could it be that the will was changed and turned in a new direction by both itself and by God? Or by self and something else? 

Notice also how the above confession denies the proposition of C.S. Lewis that I examined in the previous post which said that a world where the will was free would always have the possibility of doing evil. Those Old Baptists affirmed what I have been affirming on that area of our subject. They said that eternal life will find the redeemed "unchangeably free toward good alone,"

To whom or to what do we give credit for our having differentiated ourselves by believing God and his holy word and trusting in Christ for salvation? I do not credit myself in any way nor my having rightly used my "free will." That is why many Old Baptist confessions of faith affirm in their articles of faith that sinners cannot save themselves "by their own free will and ability." I rather give God the credit for my believing and do not at all credit my own use of my own free will and ability.  

First, I believe faith is a gift of God, one that God efficaciously produces in the hearts of the elect. Second, I believe this requires special or extra grace, more than the common grace he gives to all men, elect or not elect. Third, I believe God wants all to believe the truth and to be saved by it. (I Tim. 2: 4) However, I believe that God may be said to have degrees to his "want to" like we do. I believe that he wants some things "especially" and it is that "especially" that makes the ultimate difference, or guarantees salvation for at least some, for those who are called in scripture the "elect," or the favored ones.  

It is argued by many theologians that God himself cannot act freely and without limitation upon the wills of his creatures. It is argued that God cannot mess with free will, as we have stated. Many of these theologians say that God can or may mess with free will, but again, within limits. He can "influence" the will or exert power on the will, but such power, they affirm, must not go too far. The influence and force that he exercises upon the will must not cross the line of becoming "irresistible," or "forced," or "coerced." We can say many more things in response to this line of argument, but will save expanding upon it till a possible later posting, the Lord willing. But, let me say a few things now. 

Let me ask this question - "do parents not interfere with the free will of their children?" Do they not "violate" or "mess with" the free will of their children? Do they not force them to do things at times? Do they then turn into robots when they are denied freedom in their choosing and doing? Further, do not military leaders (like drill instructors) mess with the free will of the soldiers? Do not wardens mess with the free will of prisoners? Do they all become puppets when their free will is messed with? 

If you gave a sinner, or someone who made a lot of bad choices in life, a choice to take the blue pill which will take away their free will to do wrong or to make future mistakes (especially in morals or ethics), or to take the red pill and continue a life of making mistakes and choosing to do evil at times, which would he take? Which would you advise him to take?

Of course, if God has these self imposed limits to his working upon the will, then why would he place such restrictions upon his own actions? The only thing that some theologians can say in response is to say that God's giving of free will necessitates this self imposed restriction. But, that is a begging of the question. Can a will be free and yet be under the control of God? Further, it assumes that God could not make free choosing creatures whose wills were so fixed and determined to good, and immutable, that doing evil is impossible. This is the world that Christians envision that they will live in throughout eternity, with the exception of those who share the view of C.S. Lewis.

Another movie that delves deep into the question of free will versus fate or destiny (or divine Determinism vs. Self Determinism) is seen in the movie fittingly called "The Matrix" as well as in the follow up movies in the series. Also highlighted in the movie is the nature of reality or ontology. 

In "The Matrix Saga: Does Neo Have Free Will?" (here) the tension between foreknowledge and free will are seen as incompatible. The author says that "Early on in Reloaded" (name of one of the last in the series), "Neo meets The Oracle—a program from “the machine world” that knows the future. When she offers him a piece of candy, Neo asks, “Do you already know if I’ll take it?” To which she replies, “Wouldn’t be much of an oracle if I didn’t.” Neo rightly responds, “But if you already know, how can I make a choice?”

That presents a conundrum, or a paradox, or seeming contradiction. The author continues (all emphasis mine):

"But the threat to free will doesn’t stop there. Later, Neo meets another program named the Merovingian, who argues that “choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without. There is only one constant, one universal.” He continues, “Causality. Action, reaction, cause, and effect.” And to prove his point, he elicits the exact sexual response he wants from a nearby woman by giving her a piece of cake."

Next, under the sub-heading "Unconscious Decisions Aren’t Free Either" the author says further: 

"But such grandiose knowledge and abilities might not even be necessary to predict human behavior. When Neo meets the Architect—the program who designed the Matrix—he presents Neo with a choice: Save all of humanity or save Trinity (the woman Neo loves). The Architect observes:

“We already know what you’re going to do, don’t we? Already I can see the chain reaction, the chemical precursors that signal the onset of emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic, and reason. An emotion that is already blinding you from the simple, and obvious truth: She is going to die, and there is nothing that you can do to stop it.” 

By looking at the structure and activity of Neo’s brain, the Architect correctly predicts what Neo will do. Worse still, the part of Neo’s brain that makes his decision isn’t conscious. The choice Neo makes sure doesn’t seem free."

The proposition that choices are predictable, and that they are made first on the subconscious level by stimuli designed to elicit thought, choice, and emotion, before they are consciously stated and affirmed, is a fact that is proven by observing the brain when choices are made. There are videos on YouTube by neurologists that demonstrate this fact just as the "Architect" in the above movie also affirms. (See for instance the video by Sam Harris on "Free Will" here) "We already know what you are going to do" said the Architect to Neo. To me the movie leaves the question unanswered, i.e. is free will an illusion and the result of mere cause and effect (determinism) as says the Merovingian? It seems to say that both are true (Compatibilism) but it leaves figuring out of how both can be true as a paradox, and calls each person to a search for a solution or reconciliation. 

The Debate In Eden

Who or what caused the evil of Adam's (and Eve's) disobedience? Who was responsible? Who was guilty? Adam blamed (attributed causation) both Eve and God. Eve blamed the Serpent and God. However God blamed them all. He held accountable Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. Each was a cause of the transgression. It was not the result of a single cause. Adam and Eve, though able to attribute some responsibility to God and the Serpent, or to each other, could not excuse themselves from being responsible. Both of them ate the forbidden fruit. They may argue that they were innocent because of other factors, or were justified in committing transgression, but they cannot deny that they broke the commandment and rebelled against God. Thus, strictly speaking, they were the immediate cause of their own transgression. Could they have chosen not to transgress? Yes, there was nothing in their nature that made them to sin. It was done by a relatively free choice. Guilt is appropriate because 1) they had the power to choose not to transgress, and 2) nothing was acting upon them that compelled them to transgress, and 3) they had been forewarned of the consequences for transgressing. 

Adam and Eve ascribed their choices and acts to other causes, and even to God the first cause. So, they did not believe in a free will that was defined as being a choice that is not caused. Eve tried to shift responsibility to the serpent who tempted her and also to God for making the forbidden fruit look so appetizing and for allowing the Serpent a presence in the garden to tempt her. Adam tried to blame both his wife and God, seeing them both as contributing causes of his choice to transgress. The fact is, they were each responsible, or a cause, of the action (eating the forbidden fruit). But, more on that later when I talk more about responsibility and guilt. Eve says "the serpent beguiled me and I did eat." Those are the words of one who believed that her choice was not in every way freely made, but was caused by something or someone else. She blames the serpent directly, and her lack of wisdom to recognize the evil of the tempter indirectly, which is to shift blame to God who did not give her enough wisdom or a specific warning concerning the serpent.

Adam says "the woman you gave to me offered me the fruit and I did eat." He blames, or ascribes the reason for his eating the fruit to both God and Eve. "The women you gave to me" seems to say to God "I would not have done that had you not given this woman to me." 

What if Adam had not sinned? What if no man sinned? Well, first, there would be no evils, no death. But, there also would be no story of redemption. And, if no story of redemption, then no glory to God in redemption, and no discovery of much knowledge about God, and no Christ, no Incarnation, and we might add, no knowledge of both good and evil. It could also be said that there would not be as great an appreciation of the good without a knowledge of the evil.

Suppose God made Adam and Eve and then, after stating the rules for staying in Eden and its blissful condition to them, and giving them warning of death for transgressing, said these things:

"I want you to know that I know the future, and I know that you are going to sin and be condemned to eternally die. I can show you a vision or preview of your future as a result of giving you the ability to become wicked by my giving you free will. This choice of yours to sin I can prevent you from committing, but in doing so I would be making you less free, less self determining; However, my programming you to always obey and to always love me will keep you from dying eternally. Now, do you want me to program you to not sin or do you want to be made with free will to sin and die? In other words, do you want me to give you free will or not?"

Just like Adam and Eve and God all talked about responsibility and blame, and the attribution of guilt, and who was to be found at fault, and to what degree, so do we today do the same every day in the home, within families, in courtrooms, in Congress, etc. Attorneys for both the prosecution and for the defense of alleged criminals argue all the time about responsibility and guilt. Sometimes it is easy. Other times it is very difficult trying to place blame. But, we will save expanding on this part of our subject in the next post. Further, I am still trying to give as short an apology as possible for those who want my views in a highly condensed writing.

Free Will & Determinism (ii)

Can God interfere with free will? If not, why not? There is a scene in the movie “Bruce Almighty” where God (played by Morgan Freeman) is chatting with Bruce (played by Jim Carrey) and discussing the rules of Bruce’s impending tenure as God for a week. I referred to this in the previous chapter. God says to Bruce "you can’t mess with free will.” Bruce responds - “Well, can I ask why?” God, laughing with delight responds - “Yes you can! That’s the beauty of it!”

The thing about it is, we never got an answer to the question in the movie. We are never told why God cannot mess (interfere) with creature free will. It seems to be implied, however, that it is because God wants to be loved freely and without compulsion. He wants people to love him, it is argued by theologians and philosophers, because true love cannot be forced or extorted. That sounds like a nice theory, but it does not solve the problem and raises more questions than it answers by such a response. The thing is, God commands that all love him with all one's heart, strength, and mind. That is the essence of the first commandment. If God wanted to be loved freely as defined by advocates of free will, then he would not command men to love him and threaten them with eternal death for not loving him! God's commanding men to love him under such threat shows that God is not wanting the kind of love that advocates of free will advocate! If that view were correct, then God would rather say to his creatures (angel or human) - 

"I want you to love me and to choose me. I will woo you and persuade you to love me, but I will not force you to do so and will not fault you if you choose someone other than me. Let the best god win your affection and heart." 

Further, if God is simply wanting to win the love and affection of his creatures, to woo and attract the objects of his love, can he not do so? Does God not know how to charm the object of his love? Better than some of the best charmers of all time? Such as Casanova? What are called the "lady killers"? God is all knowing and he knows all about the object of his love and the one whose heart he intends to win and so would know what it would take to win the heart. The story of Hosea is one in which God is seen as winning the hearts of those he has set his love upon via Hosea and Gomer. Notice the text in Hosea 2: 14:

“Therefore I am now going to allure her; I will lead her into the wilderness and speak tenderly to her." (NIV)

 

“But then I will win her back once again. I will lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her there." (NLT)

God does not seem to doubt his ability to win the heart of the one he has chosen to love in an especial way. He does not say "I will allure her and I hope it succeeds." Is not God's alluring of sinners an instance of God messing with free will? Do not suitors try to win the heart and move the will of the one to whom they desire to show love and to unite (i.e. mess with free will)? 

On this line of reasoning C.S. Lewis, the well known Christian apologist, said (highlighting mine):

“God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go wrong or right." 

I certainly do agree with this, as far as Adam and Eve are concerned (and with the angels too). But, this should not mean that every man today has this same degree of free will since the fall of man. Adam lost much of his freedom because of sin. He came to possess a sin nature, a depraved nature, called by several terms in scripture, such as lust, sin, nature, carnality, spiritual death, etc. From then on all his posterity, the whole race of man, was condemned on account of this sin and received from Adam by divine imputation or reckoning both guilt and a rebellious nature and disposition. He became what the Bible calls a "slave of sin" (Paul in Romans). 

The will of fallen men is in bondage, as acknowledged to be the teachings of scripture by Martin Luther in his famous work "The Bondage of The Will," being his discussions with Roman Catholic apologist, monk, and Classicist, Desiderius Erasmus. It is also true that it can be said of anyone who comes into the world - "he or she can go wrong or right." There will be no physical reason why they cannot go right. They lack no faculties for going right or doing right. But, man lost his "will to" power to always do right by having experienced a degeneration of his nature, of his heart, soul, and mind. His craving for the pleasures of sin has taken away his freedom to will and to do what is right. He now has an inbred bias and predisposition to not do what God wants, yea, to hate God. (Rom. 1: 30; Titus 3: 3)

Lewis continues:

"Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong, but I can't. If a thing is free to be good it's also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will?" 

There is a lot to unpack in these words of Lewis. First, I must oppose the proposition of Lewis that says that God cannot create a world of relatively free choosing creatures where it will not be possible for them to choose to sin. If what Lewis affirms is so, then we are faced with untenable and unacceptable consequences. It means that we will never be secure in heaven forever. It means there will always be possibility to sin; And, we can infer, based upon Lewis's reasoning, that where it is possible it is also likely that some will sin. 

The idea of being free and yet programmed to do always right is reckoned not to be possible according to Lewis and other advocates of absolute and unlimited free will. Yet, I see it as possible, and say that Lewis is giving a definition to "free will" that is not biblical nor desirable and gives a picture of life in eternity that is far from comforting. "The possibility of going wrong" will be always true while we live our eternal and immortal lives? Of course too, there is the matter of what is called the "power of contrary choice." It is argued that there is no free will or choice when there is not more than one option (choice). Well, that is not absolutely true in every respect. How many times in life has a person said "I have no choice but to..."? Or, "you leave me no choice"? Or, "I am forced to do this"? Or, "my love for you compels me to say no"? Etc. 

Also, I agree that angels and men have choices, and they make many of them rather freely, without caring or knowing anything about what may have been the cause or reason for those choices. Men may feel like they are making totally free choices when they really are not. Further, many people feel as if their behavior is determined in some way, by genetics, environmental factors, social and political factors, and divine providence. All this mystery about choice and free will versus determinism and causality was explored in the movie series "The Matrix." I will refer to it later. 

Second, is it true that for a person to be good or to do good he must have the possibility of doing bad? Where is that taught in scripture? In fact, I find Lewis giving no scripture to prove his propositions to be biblical and is rather reasoning in his own mind about what to him seems right. Good is only possible as long as evil is possible? Where is that proposition in scripture? The picture the scriptures give of life for the righteous in eternity is one where they are free superlatively (in relation to evil things) and yet they are "slaves to righteousness" as Paul referred to in Romans. They will be slaves to righteousness throughout eternity and will not be free to sin any longer. Slaves to righteousness carries the idea of not being free to sin. In the world to come we will be fully "enslaved" to God and right, which denotes not being free to sin any longer. Christians are now slaves to Christ and right, but not so completely as it will be in the world to come.

They will be confirmed in righteousness and grace and given the attribute of immutability. I would ask C.S. Lewis and those who agree with him - "Is it possible for God to do wrong?" "Does God have free will?" If God can be free and have free will and yet have no possibility of doing wrong, or wickedly, then so may his children and the elect angels. I would also ask Lewis: "Did Jesus in his humanity have free will?" And, "was it possible for Jesus to have sinned?" I would argue that it was not possible for Christ to sin and yet he had free will. He was not free to do evil. Yet he was free to do good. This disproves the proposition of Lewis and other promoters of creature "free will" who say that there is no possibility of choosing and doing only good for "free" creatures. 

Consider also the opposite idea. Can some of those who are evil by choice become unable to choose what is good? Is this not the case with Satan and the demons? Is it not the case with those who will be put in the prison of eternal hell? While they are in hell, will they have free will? Will they be able to repent and do good? (I think not, because the record is "he who is filthy let him be filthy still" etc. - Rev. 22: 11) Or, perhaps some would say that those in Hell have lost their free will. They certainly no longer have the ability to desire or choose what is good and righteous and pleasing to God. Further, if they have lost their free will, do they then become machines or robots? When the will becomes "fixed," so to speak, or "fixated," for either doing only good or only evil, does the person then become a robot? Do the scriptures not affirm that some sinners have become such slaves to sin that they cannot resist sin and lust and doing wrong? 

Third, Lewis says that "free will is what made evil possible." He then asks "why then did God give them free will?" Since the attribute of 'free will' was given to human beings by God, he then is responsible for what effects and consequences come from human beings as a result of having free will given to them. Affirming that God gave free will to man makes God a material cause of all the consequences arising from giving that attribute. How anyone can keep saying things like "God is not in any way responsible, or a cause, for sinful choices" in light of such facts shows a bias and a denial, an unwillingness to acknowledge a truth that they find hard to reconcile with their ideas about God. To deny that he can create free creatures who cannot do wrong is a supposition I cannot accept. 

Further, since God has absolute foreknowledge of the future, he created Adam and Eve, and every other human being, knowing in advance that they would sin, and yet he created them any way. Why did he not then opt rather to not create anybody? Especially to not create those whom he foresaw would die in their sins as doomed souls? All I am affirming is that God claims responsibility for creating a world that he knew would be filled with so much evil and yet he did it for good reasons. I just don't think that the reason was that Lord God wanted people to choose him and the right, and to love him freely, by the kind of "free will" that many non Calvinists describe. 

Keep in mind too that we must not view God as looking for a mate in a romantic sense as did many of the heathen gods. The love that people have for God their Creator, and the love God has for people he creates and chooses, is not a love between equals (as in human mating and romance). 

It is a sin not to love God but it would not be sin for a person to refuse the offer of marital love from a courter who is his or her equal.    

Lewis continues:

"Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." 

This gets to the heart of the matter. As stated, if we accept as true the above propositions, then we will have to say that evil will always be possible for us throughout eternity. But, that is not the picture the scriptures give of the safety and security of the eternal state. Sin and wrongdoing will no longer be possible and yet men and women and angels will be free in the highest and best sense of the term. 

Lewis continues:

"A world of automata - of creatures that worked like machines- would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they've got to be free." 

As a Calvinist I have had to deal with this argument many times and I get tired of answering it. First in reply I ask - "who can deny that we are in many ways like machines"? Certainly our physical anatomies may well be called machines or mechanisms or systems, etc. Who can deny that much of what our bodies do regularly is done because it is predetermined, caused, or programmed to do so? Our various bodily systems being programmed to operate in a certain way does not seem to bother us. Determinism in this respect is good. 

Further, who can deny that even our mental and psychological lives likewise show signs of also having been programmed or determined by nature, or by prior causes? Some also say "Determinism makes men and angels into mere puppets." In many respects we are puppets, God controlling our lives by the strings of his providence. Do those who make such statements deny that God has strings over men? That he has restraints in place to check men? Yes, we have relative free will, but it is circumscribed by the limits God has placed upon it, and also by the fact that the nature and habit of sin has enslaved us, so that we rarely make free choices any more, at least morally speaking. 

Someone once compared this paradigm by an illustration.  Envision cows within a large fenced pasture area. The cows have freedom to move anywhere in the fenced area to eat grass but they cannot eat grass outside the fence. So God has placed providential limits for our exercise of free will. That kind of providence Paul refers to when he says to the Greeks in Athens that "God has determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation." (Acts 17: 26) The Greek word "proorizo" (translated as "predestinated" - kjv) means to set limits, or boundaries, being the compound of "pro" and "orizo" (from which we get our English word "horizon").

Again, Lewis attempts to compare the kind of love God desires to have from his rational and free choosing creatures as a love of which he cannot be the determinative cause. However, if that is so, then God cannot be the one who gets the credit for a man coming to love God, or coming to choose and to trust and obey him. We cannot even say that God "won" the love and affections of anyone; Nor, as previously observed, can we reconcile Lewis' idea of "free love" with the fact that God commands or orders the very love he desires to be freely given to him by his creatures, and even threatens with eternal punishment those who refuse to love and trust him, or refuse to choose him to serve and worship. 

I have no problem saying that God "wins" the heart and mind of those he wants to win. If God chooses to pour out special grace and power on particular persons to effect such a conquering of the heart, mind, and will, he will win the battle for the heart every time. I am sure that this is supported by such statements in scripture, such as Paul's proposition which says that God is one who is "able to subdue (conquer or defeat) any and all things." (Phil. 3: 21) "All things" in the text cannot exclude the heart, mind, and will of any of his creatures. Man's will is at war with God naturally speaking. This is the nature with which he is born as a result of original sin. (See Rom. 8: 7) 

God can make himself appear so attractive to a sinner that he finds God irresistible, and thus "falls in love" with God. So, as we observed above, God says of his chosen would be bride, "then I will allure her and win her back once again." Many people have testified that they were so attracted to their future mate that they found it easy to love that person, and would even say they were irresistibly drawn to that object of affection and desire, and passively "fell in love." Of course, this brings us to that old question whether "love" be a choice or not. I think it may be one or the other at times and sometimes even both. It is both passive and active.

Think of the word "charmed." Does God not effectually "charm" those upon whom he especially "pours on the charm"? He certainly is witty! He knows how to win each and every person for he knows everything about every person. He knows what Saul needed to make him a believer and appeared to him on the Damascus road for the purpose of making him a believer. 

Now some will respond by saying - "okay, I see where you are going, but if you say that God is able to win any heart at any time, then why does he not do that for everyone? Why does he only give common grace to most and special grace to a few others? If you give him all the credit for a heart turning to him, then does he not get blamed for not doing the same for everyone?" 

I have written on that point many years ago. It is a favorite of the atheists who mock the idea of the providence of God. Every time someone is saved from a tragedy in a wonderful or miraculous manner, and we say "thank God," we hear the atheists say - "yea, well, if you give God the credit for saving one such person from trouble, then you must fault him for not doing the same thing for everyone else. Those who God chose not to deliver must blame God for not favoring them with the same deliverance or help." 

I wrote on this in this posting (here). The argument would have weight if we were talking about equally deserving people. However, in regard to any good God does for any fallen sinner, we are dealing now with rebels and haters of God, and who are condemned, and who deserve nothing but ill from God.

This is why I do not make a god of human logic and reasoning. Though there are no real contradictions in God's thinking and in his word, yet there are what seems to us things hard to understand and to reconcile, what we would call conundrums, paradoxes, seeming contradictions. But, we accept those seeming contradictions because they are both affirmed in scripture, without comprehending how both can be true. Further, we must realize that the ways of God are "beyond finding out." (Rom. 11: 33)

There is still much mystery to many things taught in the bible; And, there is certainly much mystery, much we do not understand, about the science of psychology. We often do not know why we think, will, choose, and do the things we do. We often find ourselves asking ourselves "why did I do that?" Psychologists seek to know the causes for patients doing the things they do, often by compulsion and without self control. It often remains a mystery what is the cause for abnormal behavior. The belief is, if we can know what caused the behavior, we can effect a change by removing that cause or putting in place a stronger cause to counteract the abnormal behavior. Neurologists have proven that very often, if not always, we make choices and decisions on the physical subconscious level a split second before we make the conscious decision. I will perhaps have more to say about that later. But, who can deny that many of our choices are the result of self programming? The things we do regularly we come to do spontaneously, without deliberation and thought, because that has become our habit. 

Consider also that God knows all about Psychology! He knows each of us, what are our likes and dislikes, what is likely to get our attention, how to motivate us, how to move us, how to inspire us, how to provoke us, etc. When human Psychologists and scholars of human behavior know all about you, they know how to control you, to some degree. Con artists are often good at "using psychology" on people to get them to do what they want. So too do marketing and advertising pros, and people who know how to "talk people into things."  

I also see the bible affirming that God gets all the credit for every good in man and done by man. (See James 1: 17; John 3: 27; I Cor. 4: 7) Does that mean we must blame and condemn him as unjust and unfair because he does not give to all his creatures equally? Can the one who God did not specially favor condemn him for not doing so? No, he cannot, for God has no rules imposed upon him to govern what he may choose to create. No creature has standing in the court of Heaven to say "why did you make me thus?" Further, suppose a creature of God were given power to create rational creatures and able to give whatever powers he wanted to that creature (somewhat like we see in Star Trek Next Generation with the Android "Data" or in AI today). Would you program that creature to never lust, covet, or harm a neighbor? So, yes, God gets the credit for men choosing and loving God, but he cannot be blamed for not giving all equal opportunities and gifts. 

There is much mystery surrounding human behavior and the choices or will producing it. Many theologians and philosophers have tried to explain the first sin, both of angel (Satan) and man (Adam). Why did such perfect creatures sin? How was that even possible? To simply say "it is because they had free will" is not sufficient an explanation. We know intuitively that people do things for a reason, or choose to do things. Many say "pride" was the cause of Satan's choice to rebel against God and attempt insurrection. But, if we believe in a kind of "free will" that supposedly is uncaused and undetermined, then to ask why one chose to sin (or to choose anything really) is useless, for asking "why" is asking for a cause or reason. Paul mentions "the mystery of iniquity" (II Thess. 2: 7) and by that expression he refers to something particular and in regard to eschatology, but who can deny that the sin of Satan, the angels, Adam, yea, of every sinner, though understood somewhat in the light of God's word, yet it is still mysterious and unfathomable?  

God gave angels and men relative free will, one that was 1) limited, and 2) for some good purpose. That is not denied. What is denied is 

1) the reason why God gave such a faculty was from necessity so that

 

a) God would be freely loved and chosen, and 

b) good acts of creatures would be possible and 

2) that the will must be free to do both good and evil for it to be free or good. 

Lewis continues:

"Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently, He thought it worth the risk. (...) If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will -that is, for making a real world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings- then we may take it it is worth paying.” ― C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity (As cited from here)

I agree that God had his reasons for creating a world where men had the free will and ability to do evil, to reject God. I just don't think it is for the reason Lewis affirms. I think that God wanted such a world in order that he might demonstrate and reveal his love for good and hatred of evil, to reveal his character in both redemption and in wrath, and to impart a wisdom and knowledge to some of his creatures through the presence of evil. It is like showing off diamonds on a black background. The blackness brings out or magnifies the beauty and grace of the diamonds. What would we not know about God had there been no sin among angels or men?

In the next chapter we will continue our thoughts on this subject. Keep in mind that it is my belief from my study of the scripture. Consider what I say and the Lord give all understanding. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his or her own mind. 

ONE DAY I WILL

   I have been listening to a song called "One Day I Will" for the last two days. I shed tears every time I hear it. The first video link below of some of the elders of the Siloam Missionary Baptist Association at Old Union Missionary Baptist Church in Bowling Green, Ky, brings even more tears to my eyes. At about the 2:13 mark in the first video, you can hear one elder getting overjoyed. That is exactly how I feel! The Old Union Ministers Conference is meant to teach and encourage elders/pastors/missionaries who need refreshing and encouragement from God. The second video is a Missionary Baptist Church in Tennessee. In it you can hear real "Old Baptist" preaching and imploring sinners to come home!

   The Old Union Missionary Baptist church, founded in 1795, went through the missions "controversy" in the 1830's, and came out the other side as a mission minded church. Praise God! All the work and labors of these dear elders will one day be seen by all. I intend to write about this church at some point in detail. For now, though, I hope you will listen to these men of God sing about the day they will see their Savior face to face, realizing that all their work for the Kingdom wasn't really work at all, for when you truly love someone who means all to you, it is all counted as joy!

  One day I will cease from earthly labors, trouble and strife. One day I will understand it all. One day I will be home! I may not always win in this life, or get to see the fruit of my labors, oh but praise His name one day I will!

   

I have never have seen the face of my savior
But serving him has been such a thrill
I never have seen the gates to the city
But one day one day I will

Since the day I first met him he has been all to me
And my life with joy he has filled
And i’m longing for the day when my eyes shall behold him
But one day one day I will 

When I finally reach my home I wont look for friends below cause I'll be looking for the One who rescued me, and I'll fall down at His feet, and I will praise Him eternally, one day, one day I will!

   One day I’m gonna walk on the streets of pure gold
   And they’ll tell me the half that’s never yet been told
   I’ll be united with my loved ones on Zion’s holy hill
   But one day one day I will

Listen here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI7VIya701U or here 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_RPXZu2t14&t=182s

Elder Bradley Calls on the Lost!

Just the other day I stumbled across an old sermon preached by Elder Lasserre Bradley, previous and longtime pastor of Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church. He was gracious enough to send it to me roughly 15 years ago when I was going through a rough time.  I had often thought of it over the years, thinking that I had lost it, but thankfully I had not.

The sermon is entitled Believing In Jesus, the message being drawn from John 3:17-18.  After all these years, I popped it back in the CD player on my way to work.  The impact it had on me was just as profound as it was when I heard it for the very first time. Evangelical messages with appeals to the lost (and that’s what this was) can have a great impact on the saved, as well as the lost, for we are always “coming to Christ”.  Tears of joy poured from me, not only because of the message, but that I was listening to one who has broken free of the shackles which Hardshellism places upon the freeness of the gospel; a freedom that I now enjoy myself.

You will sometimes hear children of God speak of how there are certain men who can say a word or a phrase a certain way and it will have a great impact on them.  I’ve heard this said of Charles Spurgeon and Martyn Lloyd Jones.  And I can say it for those sermons I’ve heard of Elder Bradley.

How refreshing it was to hear a sermon with an introduction, clearly stated heads, growing to a climactic appeal to the lost at the close!  This is preaching.  Sadly, such sermons were few and far between during my time among the Primitives. Most sermons were scattered with no clearly defined topic, hyper-calvinism’s deadly effect of balking at the responsibility of laboring in the Word, and sermon preparation, but rather relying on the Lord to pour it in the top of the head on Sunday morning.

I could not wait till the end of the sermon because I knew what was coming:

“And the wonderful good news of this gospel is that you cannot perish trusting Jesus Christ! You may feel wretched, undone, unworthy, missing the mark, coming short in every possible category, but the scripture declares ‘He that believeth the Son hath everlasting life’.  And so that night in the jail at Philippi when the jailor comes in and cries out ‘What must I do to be saved?’, did they say ‘We’d like to answer that question but there’s a lot of theological issues that will have to be resolved, and we’ll have to give some background and explanation, and only when we have covered a number of things can we get…’

No, they said believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved!

That’s the gospel message recorded by divine inspiration in God’s Holy Word.

If you today see yourself as a needy sinner, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved! And he that believeth is not condemned, but has everlasting life.”

Glorious!