“Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen” – 2 Timothy 2:14
It’s important before broaching such a divisive topic to agree on some fundamentals. It must first be said simply that one’s belief about free will is not salvific—whether one believes it exists or not, it is not an essential quality to the Christian—one’s belief on the subject is certainly not a prerequisite for an attachment to God. The opposite is sadly true as well: many who believe strongly in one or the other are not in correct relationship to God.
Whenever there is a legitimate difference of opinion between Christians, we must be careful not to allow it to lead to a breakdown in communication. It is essential that the first things be made the first things and the second things be named as second things. What we are discussing now is a second thing.
If you are not a Christian, however, then I don’t have the ability to tell you how to read what I say or how to respond to it, but I hope that you would give me the benefit of the doubt and ask me questions where you see holes in my argument.
Just because we may hold differing opinions does not mean we must worship in different congregations or that we can’t enjoy the conversation. At least for me, many of the best conversations I’ve had are with people who hold violently different beliefs from me.
I write below with confidence because I feel strongly about my position. But I’m very much open to you feeling very strongly about your’s.
Why talk about difficult things
Anything contained within the Scriptures is worth mentioning. And nothing that is clearly within the scope of the New Testament should be left outside of the scope of dialogue. [Deut viii.] This means that all of us who identify as Christians must think deeply about the essential, or even peripheral, points of the New Testament message. It does not matter whether we are a pastor or minister or theologian, these questions essentially deal with us.
Secondly, the questions that follow from this subject deal with every aspect of life, from questions of justice and salvation to questions about responsibility and anxiety. If we do not have a developed and thought-through Christian theology—if we do not attempt to answer these difficult questions—we will have even greater difficulty answering the more pressing and practical questions that naturally spring from life. In summation, by escaping hard thinking, one finds great difficulty living.
Where should I to look for answers
“To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this Word, they have no light of dawn.” – Isaiah 8:20
The answer to this question is almost never addressed solely on the evidence of the Scriptures. Emotional and personal philosophical speculation tend to reign supreme during most discussions. It seems to me highly problematic to build a theology that either disregards or even openly contradicts Paul’s theology. Doing so, to whatever extent, feels antithetical to the very definition of Christianity. What type of Christianity can we intelligibly develop that does not derive from canonical Christian texts?
The sole basis for any answer regarding things that belong to the metaphysical must be derived from revelation, not by logic or empiricism. And when we begin to discuss these matters as though our limited physical reality offers enough information, we are deluded.
(But why must we simply suspend our own emotions and experiences to the Scriptural account? To some extent, this is what it means to have Faith. To place one’s trust on an external rational statement rather than within the self. But we’ll discuss this in a later post.)
A definition of terms
Before we progress further into the specific arguments, we must come to an agreement of terms. Free will has traditionally been defined as the belief that a person can choose other than what they do. In essence, a person has legitimate choices between A or B (or C or D). The deterministic position is a complete negation of this position; though one may maintain the perception of choice, the choice is illegitimate as it is a result of previous conditions; it will always be A (or always be B).
Determinism can be approached from a few perspectives, theologically or philosophically, but ultimately it is the idea that given complete information regarding causes, all human action and choice is predetermined.
(Another option outside of philosophical libertarianism (the belief in free will) and determinism is the compatibilist approach. The compatibilist believes that free will is defined as any action that stems from motivation rather than coercion. I see the compatibilist position as sidestepping the essential question and misunderstanding a position that is mutually exclusive. It is ultimately redefining free will to mean something that neither libertarians or determinists are actually discussing, which is why this will terminate our discussion about the compatibilist position. I at least don’t take it at all seriously.)
The problem is mutually exclusive because the construction of the two positions logically exclude one another. The libertarian believes that an individual has legitimate choices while the determinist believes that there is no choice, only the perception of choice.
Does the Scripture speak into this point?
Yes. And I would argue that it does so emphatically. It is impossible to read the entirety of Romans and be in any state of confusion as to Paul’s position.
Paul writes, in chapter 9 of Romans:
Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand; not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” [vv 10–13]
He goes on further:
It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. [vv 16–18]
I want to make a concession here: this is a difficult passage. It isn’t impossible to be thrown off by the fierceness of Paul’s message and his delivery of it. But, to be as honest as possible, we must deal as directly as we can with the content of the New Testament, and Paul found this to be necessary information related to his message.
In light of this, it is impossible to read Romans through its entirety without coming to the conclusion that Paul is a determinist. The argument, as simply articulated as possible, states that God was the one who chose the outcome of the lives that had yet to be lived. Paul supports this statement with passages elsewhere: Ephesians: 1:4–5, 1:11, 2:8, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, and 2 Timothy 1:9, among others.
It is often then taken up that this is purely Paul’s theology and does not accord with the New Testament message as a whole, especially the Synoptic Gospels. But all three texts contain the same language of election, using the Greek word ἐκλεκτός, which derives from the same word as Paul’s (used in Romans 9:11), the Greek word ἐκλογή. All of these words express the free choice of God as opposed to the agency of persons.
Jesus says in Mark, “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them” [Mark 13:20]. Unsurprisingly, essentially the same thing is said in Matthew 24:22. And Luke 18:7, though in a different context, uses the same word for similar purposes.
Passages in John are much more overt on the subject and are in complete agreement with Paul. John quotes Jesus, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” [John 6:44]; “My father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand” [John 10:29]; and, “You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit” [John 15:16]. It is difficult to read these passages as defenses for human agency.
Furthermore, though it is not as overtly articulated in the Old Testament, the concept of election itself springs from this text. Paul himself quotes Moses, “But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart” [Exodus 9:12] David himself, albeit poetically, writes, “All the days ordained for me/were written in your book/before one of them came to be” [Psalm 139:16]. And earlier, Joseph says to his brothers, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” [Genesis 50:20]. The concept, though not fully fleshed out, is certainly contained in the Old Testament as well.
Arguments for libertarianism tend to lean heavily on the idea that choice is a prevalent theme within the Scriptures. Passages include: “This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life” [Deuteronomy 30:19]; “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gather her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing” [Matthew 23:37]; “Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life” [Revelation 22:17].
All of these passages have in common that choice is assumed by the one who hears these statements. And the second passage from Matthew even contains Jesus communicating his will as opposed to the will of the people. All of these passages support the idea of choice, obviously, but in no way are they concerned with the concept of free will. Choice is something that can be subsumed in a determinist framework as no determinist believes that humans do not make choices.
James writes, “He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created” [James 1:18]. This passage suggests that the way in which we grow, or choose right actions, is through the external force of the word of truth. Although this passage is not meant as an argument for determinism, it helps draw out the idea that we are not free agents, but rather that God exerts influence over our wills through different means, especially through the Scriptures.
An argument from prophecy
The Scriptures themselves speak clearly and simply on the subject, but the very nature of prophecy becomes incoherent to the libertarian vision. It is impossible to suggest that the future can be known outside of a deterministic framework. The prophecies concerning the life and death of Jesus themselves negate the concept of free will.
If Pilate or Judas had the freedom to not hand Jesus over, then prophecy was not a certainty but rather a matter of luck. One could argue that foresight is distinct from choice, but this only creates more problems for proponents of free will. If God orchestrates events to allow free will, but he places people in exactly the right places at the right times, one is really just arguing for a complex deterministic position, the exact one that I’m arguing for myself. One certainly has the perception of choice, but in a world that is so overwhelmingly orchestrated, is it meaningful to defend free will as a legitimate concept? Could Pilate have really chosen B? Could Judas have?
(I felt that the essential argument should be made solely from the Scriptures and from a Christian perspective, but I will discuss the philosophical later and possibly leave The Atlantic to discuss the scientific angle.)
Why would the Scripture answer the question?
The only reason Scripture would answer this question is because God found this information necessary in order for us to live rightly [2 Peter 1:3]. And though it is ultimately impossible to guess at God’s motives for His choice of what to reveal, there are possibilities as to why this is essential.
- Regarding salvation, if the individual holds freedom of choice, then the ultimate work belongs to the individual and not to God. Therefore, the individual saves himself rather than requiring an outside force to intervene. In a deterministic framework, only God can be attributed to be good, as He is the one who gives faith to the individual, removing the person entirely from the responsibility for salvation. Jesus says, “No one is good—except God alone” [Mark 10:18]. I think this is an essential theological statement.
- There can be no meaningful emotional reason for peace within the libertarian framework. If all things are ultimately in the hands of free agents, all possibilities are open, including ones that result in an individual’s separation from God. In modernity, we often separate the intellect from the emotion, but meaningful emotional realities are grounded in intelligent rational positions. The only rational position that could result in an acceptance and peace regarding external conditions is one that trusts that God is in control, and this is only maintained if we live in a deterministic world.
It is impossible to understand the full mind of God, but there are certain things He has made known to us. Moses says, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of the law” [Deuteronomy 29:29]. I argued that the argument between determinism and libertarianism is one of the things God has revealed. And I think that it is an essential position in building a coherent and cohesive theology and philosophy.
I know Christianity is not a monolithic system, and part of its beauty derives from the diversity of its parts, its people. I hope you would consider continuing the conversation in a way where all of us might be encouraged and built up. God did not leave us absent of the essential answers to life, and I think part of the way that we discover these truths is in dialogue with one other.