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.