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.