Expensive Will

David is begging for it, so ...

We talk about "free will" like there is an expensive version. Okay, no. We talk about it as if we do or don't have the ability to make choices. That is, do humans make choices on their own, or are they forced somehow? There is a growing number of atheists who argue that free will is a myth. All our choices are chemical reactions in the brain or something. Actually choosing freely is a lie. In the world of philosophy, there is a debate about just what "free will" is. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy lists a variety of possibilities, from "the freedom to do otherwise" to "Libertarian free will" with "theological wrinkles" throughout. Libertarian free will means our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. They reject God's foreknowledge because if God knows in advance what we will choose, our choice isn't free, is it? Compatibilism argues that it's possible to have both "determinism" where something outside of ourselves determines the choices and "free will" where we make uncoerced choices. And there's that "determinism." That, of course, is the view that ... no ... you don't have free will. God makes all your choices for you.

There are nuances and shades and variations, but ... what does the Bible say? How do we determine which is true? Don't count on philosophy or atheism or "feels right to me" for a suitable confirmation. Do we find anything in God's Word? I think we do. We know, for instance, that "Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them" (Psa 139:16). Just one example of proof of God's omniscience, so "Libertarian free will" is out. This is the difference between "free will" and "autonomy." Autonomy requires "I have no controls, no master." It just ain't so. I mean, obviously I can't wish for wings and flap my way to the Moon. There are controls and limitations. My will is not The Ruler. Autonomy doesn't exist. There are, then, limitations to human free will and our ability to choose. Scripture, however, calls on us to make choices and holds us responsible for them. If all our choices were coerced by God, we couldn't be held responsible. Paul writes, "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts ..." (Rom 6:12). How can that be if we have no choice in the matter? In fact, every command of Scripture implies we have a choice to make. Despite the well-meaning but totally confused hyper-Calvinists who argue that God's sovereignty precludes human free will, Scripture affirms that we can and do make choices and are held responsible for them ... even when they are "determined" (Luke 22:22). When Joseph's brothers set out to kill him, then sold him into slavery, their intent was evil and they bore the responsibility, even though God's intent was for good. God intended their evil actions that they made of their own free will to produce a good outcome (Gen 50:20).

I came up with an illustration. Imagine you wake up in a dark room. You've been kidnapped! Then you notice one ray of light ... coming from under a door. Saved! You creep over to the door, not sure if it will open or if someone is there guarding it. You push ... and it opens. You look out and see a long alley with cars at the end passing by. You step out, ready to run ... but then you think, "What if someone is down there, waiting?" You hesitate. "Do I go back in or do I run for it?" You set your jaw and run for it. And you escape. Your choice was the right one. What you didn't know was that the door closed behind you and locked. If you had decided to go back, you couldn't have. But you never knew that. So the question is, was that a free will choice, or not? I would argue it was. You were not coerced. You made your own choice. I see the reality of humans making choices without coercion as "free will" and the certainty that God knows all things, and I see them as compatible. Biblically. But, hey, that's just me.
________
For more musings on free will, see this listing from my prior entries.

Freedom of the Will

Philosophers have banged away at the concept of "free will" for ... well, forever, it seems. "Free will" -- the ability to choose without constraint or coercion. But definition seems elusive. There is "libertarian free will" which requires, for it to be "free will," to be completely without influence (a patent impossibility) and "deterministic free will" that says all of our "free choices" are actually determined by something besides us (and, thus not "free will"). Somewhere in between is the "compatibilist free will" that allows some influence but includes the ability to make choices anyway. So just how free is our will?

The most reasonable conclusion I can come to -- the one most in connection to facts and experience and other info -- is the version that says that we make choices based on our own ideas, preferences, opinions, and nature. Is that completely free? No, maybe not, but it is more free than "You don't get to actually choose anything" (Determinism) or "All your choices are random" (Libertarian free will).

This is all well and good and I find it a usable platform, but then I realize something horrifying. They want to determine our ideas, preferences, or opinions. Are you aware of that? In our time, there are forces at work that want to tell you what to think and what to prefer. Our ideas, preferences, and opinions are dictated to us. They come from the media, the Internet, Facebook, Instagram, blogs (yes, even blogs like this one.), telvision, entertainment ... all those forces bobbing about outside our skulls, knocking to get in. Maybe we lean toward this particular set and reject that particular set, but lean we do because it is poured down our throats. And in the current set of forces, if you don't comply with their current ideas, preferences, and opinions, you will be canceled. There is force behind these influences. Hey, "influences." Don't they even refer to these Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube types as "influencers"? The question becomes less one of free will and more of "Who has your attention?" In former times when media didn't rule and our lives weren't thoroughly immersed in it, there were other possibilities. There were discussions and pondering where we had time and opportunity to think about stuff. No more. The noise doesn't stop. Our music, our entertainment, our news sources, our politics, all of it demands to be let in and to dictate to us our ideas, preferences, and opinions. And, most importantly, we let it. With precious little means of determining "true or false," "moral or immoral," or even "what does that even mean?", we're rushed headlong into "think this way" and "like this over that" and "believe what we tell you" which then inform our choices ... limited to the ideas, preferences, and opinions we've imbibed.

It's true; to some extent this has always been the case. We've always had inputs and been given ideas and been told what to prefer and such. It's the nature of interpersonal relationships and community. But at no time prior to ours has there been such a concerted torrent of effort to manipulate your will as there is today. Facebook and Google intentionally guide you away from Idea X in favor of Idea Y. They innundate you with ads for the "accepted" products and pour the "approved" news over your screens while blocking the rest. We even encourage it, calling other things "misinformation" and "hate" because, well, they've told us so. Supposedly neutral sources like Wikipedia or our ever-popular "fact checkers" turn out to be not so neutral. And you will actually believe that men can have periods and all white people are racist and "Why shouldn't a man who believes himself to be a woman compete in women's sports?" And if you don't, expect consequences. Perhaps severe consequences. Because we're getting manipulated enough to get to the point where we will consider legislating your ideas, preferences, and opinions.

Is there such a thing as free will? Sure, I think so. Without it, it wouldn't matter what we chose. God couldn't hold us responsible if we didn't make any actual choices. Neither could you nor I nor even the law. "Your honor, I was coerced." I think we do indeed make choices without coercion based on our own ideas, preferences, and opinions. The question becomes "Are you going to have your own ideas, preferences, and opinions, or are you going to let someone else dictate them to you?" If free will is a product of your own choices from your ideas, preferences, and opinions, we are surely less free today given the conscious assault on your ideas, preferences, and opinions and the magnitude of that assault. Our free will is less free today because of the fear our culture has imposed if we disagree. When you can be banned, barred, or canceled for holding views opposed to "the allowed positions," you are no longer free. When I am no longer allowed to determine what I believe to be right, true, or reasonable, I am no longer free. And calling the side "tolerant" that makes these our current conditions is the height of foolishness.

The Problem of the Will

We've examined the concept of "free will" before, not always with agreement, but I'd like to discuss the problem of the will. You see, if a will is to be considered free, it goes without saying that it must be allowed to choose what it wants. Sounds silly, perhaps, but surely we can all agree that a will that chooses what it does not want is the actual opposite of a "free will."

And this is where we run into the problem of "free will". You see, we think that humans have "free will" by which we mean to convey that humans are able to choose anything at all. Now, of course, this is manifestly false. I mean, you can't simply choose to sprout wings by your own will and fly. So we can't actually choose anything at all. Besides, if it is to be "free will," it must be that which we want to choose. If you're choosing that which you don't want to choose, that can't be considered free will. And therein lies our basic limitation. The primary block to a free will that chooses "anything at all" is the limitation of our own desires.

What does Scripture say about humans and their desires? We know "the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked" (Jer 17:9), so we know from the outset that our desires are skewed at best. We know that "the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God" (Rom 8:7), so we know that whatever we desire it isn't God and His ways. We know that without God we are slaves to sin (Rom 6:6, 17, 20) and that "the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21), so our desires, by virtue of our natures, are not virtuous. This is what Paul suggests when he says, "'None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.'" (Rom 3:10-12).

Do you see the problem, now, with our free will? It is free -- we can choose what we want -- but our "want to" is broken and what we want is not good. As a result, our free will cannot choose what is good because that would be the opposite of what we want.

This is why there is more than a "self-help program" required. More than a reform school training program. Our problem isn't a lack of discipline; it's a lack of "want to". God calls us to obey, and we don't want to, so we cannot. This is why what we need is a new birth, what we need is a new heart, what we need is an entire transformation.

Fortunately, that's exactly what God has in mind for us.

Thinking about Free Will

One thing we all know for sure; humans have free will. Or ... do we? I mean, do we all know it? As it turns out, the question can get quite difficult. At one end of the spectrum are those who argue, "No, in no real sense do humans have free will at all." Of course, the most ardent on that end are the atheists, the materialists that believe we are biochemical machines and, therefore, all emotions and all choices are mechanical -- hormones, mechanical triggers, chemicals, whatever -- but not "free". On the other end there is the "Absolute Free Will" side. At the very extreme they even argue that we can do anything we choose to do, as if that's even reasonable.

And then there is the problem of defining free will. Dictionary.com defines it as "free and independent choice", with a philosophical definition of "the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces." After that it gets sticky. Characterize "free" and "independent", for instance. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has multiple definitions. There is choosing on the basis of desires, but is that "independent" or is it dependent on one's desires? Another is deliberately choosing on the basis of desires and values. Is that "free" and "independent"? The third is "self-mastery, rightly ordered appetite". Now is that "free" and "independent"? One study suggested that we decide to do something shortly before we will to do it. Now that's strange. And there are different kinds of free will. There is Libertarian Free Will, the idea that we can choose without coercion, cause, or interference, internal or external. There is Compatibilist Free Will, the notion that humans freely choose what God has determined they will choose. And, of course, from there it just gets more and more confusing.

Good news! I'm not going to solve the question! What I am going to do is lay down the structures we have to work with and then you can decide what is and is not the case. Do we have free will? If so, in what sense? And various other questions. So let's look briefly on what we know to be true and you can work from there.

We know from Scripture that God is Sovereign (1 Tim 6:15; Eph 1:11) -- He does whatever He chooses. The same cannot be said about us. We have limitations, from the inability to flap our arms and fly away to the inherent problem of sin and the inability to please God without faith (Heb 11:6). God has no such limitations. We also know that God is perfect (Matt 5:48). In that perfection the Bible is clear that God is Omniscient. He knows all things (John 16:30; 1 John 3:20). No exceptions. No contingencies. And He knows it all perfectly -- no errors.

"So, then, apparently we do not have free will." Not so fast.

On the other side of the ledger there is the certainty that we are culpable for sin. Now, no one who is forced to commit an act can be legally liable for that act. So clearly from our side of the picture we have some sort of capability to choose or not choose sin. We know that God does not tempt anyone to evil (James 1:13). We know that sin is the product of our own desires (James 1:14-15). We are not coerced into sin, and certainly not by God. In fact, Scripture is full of references to commanding us to make choices (e.g., Psa 25:12). If no free will existed, these would be manifestly pointless. So there is something that is "free will" in human beings.

It seems, then, that on the topic of free will we run into a conundrum. On one hand, it is impossible for God to not know all things and not know them perfectly. As such, it is not possible for any of us to choose that which God did not foresee we would choose. On the other hand, we are culpable for our choices and make them, so it is not possible that there is no free will. We have this collision, then, of God's view and Man's view. As a prime biblical example, consider Judas Iscariot. Scripture is not unclear; Judas was predestined to betray Christ. Scripture is also not unclear; Judas was responsible for his choice. These two ideas collide in a single verse (Luke 22:22).

If free will is defined as autonomy, the ability to choose to do anything at all without coercion by others, God or self, then I have to say that this is manifestly nonexistent. All choices have limitations, even without factoring in God. We do not get to choose anything at all ... ever. As such, free will, as it exists, is limited. On the face of it, it is limited to the possible. We cannot choose the impossible. After that, the question of what is possible becomes the issue, starting with both the question of our capabilities as spiritually dead sinful people (Eph 2:1-3; Rom 3:12; etc.) and the influence and Sovereignty of God (Prov. 21:1; Prov 16:4; Prov 16:9; Prov 20:24; etc.). But we can know for sure that some form of free will exists. In the end, then, we have to eliminate the two extremes -- "There is no free will" and "It's all about our own free will." -- and find that middle ground that keeps God as Sovereign and Man as culpable and making choices. When your definition of free will allows for that, you're closer to the truth.

The Freedom of the Will

Anyone who knows of Jonathan Edwards will know that he wrote the definitive work, The Freedom of the Will. I am not writing any such thing. I just want to examine, for a moment, what we know about the human will and its freedom and lack thereof.

Free will is important. We know that because if there is no free will, there is no free choice, and if no free choice, no accountability. That is, if humans do not have free will, they can't be held responsible for their sin or credited with their successes and Christianity falls apart. But what exactly is this so-called "free will"?

Some would like us to believe that it is the ability to choose what we want free from determination or constraints of human nature. It is ultimate self-determination. Others argue that the will merely needs to be able to make choices without coercion to be classified as "free". There is, of course, a continuum of definitions between these two from various points of view.

Now, I always contend that we must get our reality from God's Word (rather than asking God's Word to conform to our version of reality), so that's what we ought to do here. Unfortunately, you can't turn to the back of the Inspired Word for God's definitions on this one. Nowhere do we find a suggestion that "Free will means ..." So we can only figure out what it means biblically by biblical implication. For instance, we know that Scripture is plain about God holding us responsible for our choices to sin. We know that there are rewards for those who do right. Thus, there must be some form of free will. Those who deny it must necessarily remove our culpability for sin and credit for obedience. At a minimum, then, we can say that humans have the ability to make some choices without coercion.

What about all choices? What about all influences? This is the Libertarian Free Will, the notion that humans have the capacity to choice whatever they want without God's determinism or limitations of human nature. This requires, necessarily, the view that God cannot be actually Omniscient. He can be really, really knowledgeable and all, but He cannot know the actual selections that any one person will make before they make it. If the classical, traditional, long-held understanding of Omniscient is true, then God knows all things in advance and knows them perfectly. If this is so, then He knows what choices you and I will make. The problem with this is a conflict with the Libertarian Free Will. You see, if He knows in advance what choices you will make, then you cannot decide otherwise ... and your will is not free. Thus spake the Libertarian Free Will. This idea holds God's will in check, requiring that human will supersedes God's will leaving God with the task to "clean up" after us to accomplish His plans. Now, I'd suggest that all of this is impossible to believe, but what does Scripture say?

The Bible has examples of God intervening in human choices. In Genesis, Abraham told Abimelech that his wife was his sister (Gen 20). As a result, Abimelech took Sarah into his harem. Shortly thereafter, God visited Abimelech with a warning. He had taken Abraham's wife, and for that he would suffer. But Abimelech assured God he was innocent. God answered, "Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against Me. Therefore I did not let you touch her." (Gen 20:6) Abimelech believed what Abraham and Sarah told him and, therefore, was not culpable for taking Abraham's wife, but notice that God prevented Abimelech from carrying through to the logical conclusion of having sex with Abraham's wife. God interrupted Abimelech's choice ... according to God.

The Bible also lists areas of inability in human choice. Now, logically, it would stand to reason that free will cannot mean that people are able to choose anything at all that they desire. They cannot choose, for instance, to flap their arms and fly away. It is not in their nature to fly unaided. In this sense, then, it is reasonable to say that people cannot choose to fly unaided. And instantly we have a limitation to free will, a limitation of nature. We cannot choose to do that which is not in our nature to do. The Bible has other things that we cannot choose. For instance, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor 2:14) This says that Natural Man lacks the ability to simply choose to understand the things of the Spirit. It is outside of his nature. Conversely, "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God." (1 John 3:9) Again, because of the new nature of the one born of God, it is outside of the realm of possibility to choose to keep on sinning. Another example is faith. We are often told to "choose to believe" in Christ. But Jesus, explaining why it was that some people not believe in Him, said this. "This is why (because some did not believe - John 6:64) I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father." (John 6:65) The language is clear. "No one can." Humans lack the capacity to come to Christ -- believe -- without the express gift of that coming given by the Father.

These are a few examples. It is not a comprehensive list. Still, it demonstrates that Libertarian Free Will cannot exist in a biblical framework. Humans do not have the ability to make choices without influence of God or human nature. Human nature prescribes our choices. God's Sovereignty prescribes our choices. Within the realms of these two arenas, we have the freedom to make choices without coercion, but this concept of ultimate self-determinism cannot fit into a biblical worldview. So, you decide. Is Libertarian Free Will -- the ability to choose in all cases apart from God's determination and Man's nature -- the only possible definition of free will? If so, you'll need to discard biblical texts. If you let Scripture apply its input to your definition of free will, I think you'll find a different version that 1) keeps culpability and uncoerced choices available yet 2) limits our choices to the framework of God's Omniscience and ultimate Sovereignty. If that's not satisfactory, you're always free to come up with another version. Just be sure that it can align with Scripture rather than vice versa -- twisting Scripture to align with your view.

Free Will

It's interesting. Two Christian scholars wrote two books on one subject -- the human will. Martin Luther wrote The Bondage of the Will and Jonathan Edwards wrote Freedom of the Will. Both agreed. "Oh, now, hang on!" you'll want to protest, "Aren't 'bondage' and 'freedom' opposites?" Indeed, they are. But, as it turns out, both "bondage" and "freedom" are valid descriptors of the human will.

What is the will?

It is generally the ability of the human mind to be able to choose or initiate action. It is voluntary, in opposition to fate or coercion. For someone, walking off a cliff may have been a choice (will), but the fall that occurred was not; that was gravity.

Free will assumes certain conditions. There must be a mind associated with it. Blind choices are not "free will". There must be a reason, a motive. Random choices are not "free will". There must be culpability. A person who makes choices by means of a free will is responsible for those choices; a person who makes choices because they were coerced is not.

Note, then, that the will is not a "power source", so to speak. That is, it isn't generating itself; it is the product of something else. And we know this to be true. For example, you cannot simply will to fly without some apparatus to fly because you lack the inherent ability and no amount of willing makes it so. Instead, your choices are determined by your desires, your preferences, your values, your appetites. Put simply, choosing what you don't desire, prefer, or want would clearly not be classified as "free will". Thus, free will is driven by what the Bible refers to as "the heart" or "the mind" or "the inner man" (Eph 3:16). Jesus said, "From within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery ..." (Mark 7:21). Solomon wrote, "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he" (Prov 23:7). The will, then, is driven by the heart or mind of its owner.

Do we have free will?

Lately there has been a rise among materialist atheists that demand that humans actually do not possess free will. Since everything in their worldview is rooted in the material world, any choices made are the product of DNA, chemistry, hormones, whatever physical agents are acting on the person at the time. Thus, to them, free will is an illusion. On the other side, there is an entirely different set of people that argue that humans make no real choices at all. It is all fate. Everything is not simply determined, but hard-coded. You make no free choices.

In between these two are the two "softer" views. One is the "Libertarian Free Will". The other is "soft determinism". And, of course, there are gradations between these two. Libertarian Free Will declares the ability for a human being to make selections without any determination of the nature of the person or any divine agent. They argue further that if there is any determination of choices based on human nature or divine determination, it is not free will. Loosened slightly from this absolute (and illogical) freedom is the more reasonable concept of free will that assures us that humans can choose whatever they want. Pelagius suggested that this would include the ability of the will to reject evil and to seek and to serve God. You could choose to be moral enough to make it to heaven. Pelagius argued for Libertarian Free Will and was condemned as an heretic. Soft determinism suggests that humans make uncoerced choices, but always within the confines that God allows.

So apart from some atheist views on one end and some fatalist views on the other, most believe we have "free will", at least in some sense.

How free is it?

Ah, now, here's the rub. Are you going to answer based on how you would like it to be or how you think it should be, or are you going to answer as God says it is? Important first question. You see, the Bible isn't unclear.

I've already offered (yesterday) several examples of times in the Bible in which God intervened in human will. And still does (Phil 2:13). While this doesn't eliminate free will, it certainly requires that the will is not perfectly free. Solomon wrote, "The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps." (Prov 16:9). This is in keeping with the overall biblical claim that "Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases." (Psa 115:3).

In other texts we read of the inability of Man. For instance, "The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Rom 8:7-8)^[1]. That's "cannot". That is an inability. In John 12 we read that the Pharisees "could not believe" (John 12:39). Inability. Paul wrote, "Natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor 2:14). "Not able." Inability. We cannot choose to do that which we are unable to do.

The will is free, but only so far as it is ... willing. To violate what you want is not "free will". And what the Bible says the unregenerate person wants is not obedience, repentance, agreement with God, etc. We always choose according to our strongest inclinations ("free will"), and God says, "The inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth." (Gen 8:21). How free, then, is your will?

I need to mention, here, what "cannot" means. Using biblical examples, there are various versions of "cannot". For instance, "Isaac was old and his eyes were dim so that he could not see." (Gen 27:1). This is a physical inability. He could not see. But a few chapters later we read, "When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him and could not speak peacefully to him." (Gen 37:4). This is a different "cannot". Isaac lacked the physical ability to see; these brothers of Joseph did not lack the physical ability to speak peacefully to him. They lacked ... the inclination. Without the inclination, they lacked the ability. In Genesis 41:49 it says that Joseph stopped measuring the stored grain because "it could not be measured." He lacked the physical capability of measuring all the grain. On the other hand, just a couple chapters later we read "They served him (Joseph) by himself, and them (his brothers) by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians could not eat with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians. (Gen 43:32). "Could not eat with Hebrews." Clearly this isn't a lack of physical capability. Their mouths still opened, their teeth still chewed, their throats still swallowed ... they had the ability to eat with Hebrews. They did not have the inclination and, as such, lacked the ability ("could not").

In conclusion, then, I think it is abundantly clear that humans have free will. But unless we are careful with that, we can follow that "free will" term down a false trail. The Bible clearly indicates that God intervenes at times in human choices, and this demonstrates less than a totally free will. The Bible clearly indicates that God works all things after the counsel of His will, and this demonstrates less than a totally free will. The Bible plainly states that there are things we cannot do, either by physical inability or by a counter inclination, and this demonstrates less than a totally free will. Thus, Luther's claim that our will is in bondage is in agreement with Scripture in that we are bound by our nature and the nature of sinful man is sinful, and Edward's claim that our wills are free is in agreement with Scripture in that we are free to choose, but only in accordance with our nature. Can we choose? Biblically, yes. But don't understand that to mean that we are totally autonomous, completely without limitations. It is not, in fact, a contradiction to call a limited free will "free will". It is a contradiction to claim an unlimited free will in light of both Scripture and logic.
________

^[1] Note that the text goes on to indicate who is "in the flesh" and who is "in the Spirit". "You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you." (Rom 8:9). Natural Man, then, before the indwelling of the Spirit, is in the category of "the mind that is set on the flesh".

"God is a Gentleman"

"God is a gentleman and does not force Himself on anyone." How many times have I heard that one? Maybe not word for word, but certainly sentiment for sentiment. God doesn't want robots. God wants us to be free. Whatever God does, He does not interfere in human free will.

Of course, that all sounds well and good ... unless you hold it up against the Scriptures.

In Genesis we read of Abraham going to Gerar where, fearing for his life, he told his wife to tell people she was his sister. Abimelech, the king, liked that and took her for his own. Soon thereafter God visited Abimelech in a dream, threatening to kill him for taking Abraham's wife. "I didn't!" he assured God. And here's what God told him. "Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her." (Gen 20:6). God claims that the underlying reason that Abimelech didn't have relations with Sarah was that God stopped him. Interesting, isn't it, that Abimelech thought he did it himself? But there is no room for question. God intervened in Abimelech's will.

It's not like he was the only one. In Exodus God commands that the people of Israel go to Jerusalem to worship three times a year. Then He says, "No man shall covet your land when you go up three times a year to appear before the LORD your God." (Exo 34:24). See that? "Look," He told them, "don't worry about your property while you're away. I'll see it that no one around has any desire for your things while you're coming to worship Me." That is divine intervention in human choices.

Take Pharaoh. Before Moses even started the work of freeing God's people, God told him, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go." (Exo 4:21). "I will harden his heart." And He did ... over and over. "Oh, no," you will assure me, "that just means that He pushed Pharaoh in the direction he already was going." Well, okay, if you want to think that, but He pushed Pharaoh. That's intervention in human choices.

Take the story of Joseph. His brothers sold him into slavery where "the LORD caused all that he did to succeed in his hands" (Gen 39:3). Not Joseph; the Lord. Joseph was imprisoned on false charges and we read, "The LORD ... gave him favor in the eyes of the chief jailer." Not Joseph; the Lord. When it was all said and done, Joseph assured his brothers, "God sent me before you to preserve life." (Gen 45:5). Not them; God.

Or how about when Israel moved out of Egypt? Did you know they went away rich? Why? Because "The LORD gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians." (Exo 11:3). That's intervention in human choices.

Some of the clear passages are in the New Testament. We read without batting an eye of Lydia in Acts, "The Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul." (Acts 16:14). There was no permission granted on her part. It simply says He did it. He opened her heart. One of the more disturbing passages is in John's gospel. Lazarus has been raised (John 11) and this is causing a stir (read "making the Pharisees really, really mad"). Jesus comes into town and receives a victor's welcome (John 12:12-19), angering the Pharisees further. And then we read, "Though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him." (John 12:37). Odd. But John doesn't fail to explain why. He says,

Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them." (John 12:39-40).

Look, I didn't write that. It's not some odd translation. John wrote both "They could not believe" (a failure of ability) and gave the reason that "He [God] has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart." Why? "Lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them." John says that God blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts specifically to prevent them from repenting.

Now, we can do a variety of dances to try to mitigate that. "It was their choice" or "Like Pharaoh, they were already blinded and He just reinforced it" or whatever. But no matter what we do with it, the fact remains that God claims to have intervened in their lives in a way that affected their choices ... as He has in so many others.

Still not convinced? One last passage. You know, if you are a Christian, that you seek to please God, that you try to obey, right? So, how do you do that? "By my will," you might say. Here's what Paul says.

It is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. (Phil 2:23).

According to Paul, you do indeed "work out your own salvation", but you do it by means of God working in you to will and to do. However you choose to see that, it is undeniably true that God is affecting your will.

There is no shortage of passages in Scripture where God explicitly and directly intervenes in human free will. By no means is it every time. But it is undeniable that He does it. We may like that "God is a gentleman" concept and hang our hats on the whole "God doesn't want robots" thing, quite confident that God does not intervene in human free will, but it's not a safe place to stand when it is in direct opposition to the explicit teaching of Scripture. Do we have free will? Yes, certainly, but not as free as you might think. Not if the Bible is to be trusted.

On the Question of Free Will

I wanted to do a brief thought experiment.

You're in a dark room. You want to escape. You don't feel safe. You notice light under a door, so you go to the door and open it. It leads outside. You step out and close the door behind you. Then you notice that you're in a narrow alley with no openings for a hundred yards. You're torn. Do you go ahead, or do you go back to the room? You debate with yourself for a bit, then decide to head on down the alley.

Now, here's the question. Was your decision to go down the alley free will or not since you didn't realize that the door had locked behind you and you had no other options? You could not do anything but what you did, but you didn't know it. Does that mean you didn't make a free choice?

Biblical Free Will

I gave you my understanding of free will. I'd like to look for a few moments at the biblical input on the topic. After all, we know that "the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked", so getting God's input on a subject is always a good idea.

The question is whether or not actual Ultimate Self-Determination exists. Is there such a thing as Libertarian Free Will? We all agree that Man makes choices. There is no question about that. We also agree that God doesn't (necessarily) coerce those choices. We're all on the same page there. Because if we didn't have the ability to make some choices or if those choices were coerced, there is no sense in which God could hold us responsible for our choices -- for our sin. So let's all agree that human beings do, in fact, make choices without external coercion.

But does this necessitate Libertarian Free Will? Is it necessary, agreeing that humans make choices, that there be no influence, no inclination, indeed, no predestination? Does that kind of free will (which would, in the end, be Free Will with capital letters) actually exist among mankind? The argument is that God has committed Himself to that kind of Free Will and does not interfere. And what I'm asking is, is that what we find in the Bible?

A very famous passage in Proverbs assures us of this:

The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will (Prov 21:1).

Now, that's a problem to the Libertarian Free Will concept. If God turns the king's heart wherever He will, then it cannot be argued that, at least, the king has Ultimate Self-Determination. The text requires that God is influencing the king.

If we wanted to limit this to "the king", we'd run up against other passages:

I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps (Jer 10:23).

The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps (Prov 16:9).

The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He frustrates the plans of the peoples.
The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations (Prov 33:10-11).

Well, now, that puts a crimp in things, doesn't it? It appears that God influences everyone's choices. Routinely. Solomon wrote, "A man's steps are from the LORD; how then can man understand his way?" (Prov 20:24).

At this point you have to decide. Am I going to remain committed to Ultimate Self-Determination/Libertarian Free Will or am I going to give in to Scripture? Your choice.

Some may say, "Okay, fine, God influences choices, but is completely outside of Man's sin. He does not ordain sin." Is that so? In Revelation we read:

And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the prostitute. They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire, for God has put it into their hearts to carry out His purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled (Rev 17:16-17).

It is abundantly clear here that the efforts of "the beast" here and "the ten horns" are not godly efforts. They are sin. And yet it says here that "God has put it into their hearts to carry out His purpose", and that purpose is accomplished by their evil.

"Now, wait! Are you saying that, in some sense, God ordains evil?" Well, no, I'm not. That's what I find in the Bible. It's the Bible that says, "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble" (Prov 16:4). I'm simply pointing it out.

But, look, we don't need to go to some obscure, future version or even guess at what some possibly odd texts mean. How about the singularly worst sin in all the history of mankind -- the murder of the Son of God? There is no worse sin than that. What does the Bible say about that?

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against His Anointed -- for truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and your plan had predestined to take place (Acts 4:26-28).

It is abundantly clear here -- irrefutably clear -- that God "predestined to take place" the murder of His Son and that He planned for "both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel" to carry out His predestined plan. If that isn't a plan for sin, I don't know what is.

The Bible isn't vague on the Sovereignty of God. While there is not doubt that humans have the ability to make choices without coercion, nothing happens without God's permission and ultimate will. Thus, the only being that actually has Ultimate Self-Determination -- Libertarian Free Will -- is God. He allows humans free choices within His plan, choices for which we are responsible either for good or bad, but we do not possess that form of Free Will that is so highly prized among sinful Man. God will even intervene in our choice to sin when it is required. So He told Abimelech, "Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against Me. Therefore I did not let you touch her" (Gen 20:6). That is not Ultimate Free Will.

If you're going to have a biblical worldview, you're going to have to work out in your mind some version of free will that allows humans to make choices, but only within the bounds of God's Sovereign Will and not without His permission. On the other hand, if you're going to remain committed to Man's Free Will as an ultimate good and a requirement on God, you're going to have to do so against the pages of Scripture.

Free Will

One of the most debated concepts in Christianity is the concept of Free Will. One side says that God is Sovereign and Man's Free Will doesn't exist. The other side says that God's Sovereignty is limited and Man's Free Will rules. Between the two extemes are all sorts of shades of variation. Hard determinism eliminates choice, but soft determinism (or compatibilism) allows the two to both exist. Libertarianism demands ultimate self-determination. Incompatibilists argue that neither free will nor determinism exist. (And, by the way, this isn't only a Christian discussion. Some of those most hard over on the side of both hard determinism and indeterminism are atheists who say that free will is an illusion and we're making choices based on the chemicals in our brains, or something like it.)

The difficulty I'm having is trying to pin down a definition. You know me and words. If we're going to argue about something, I think it would be a good idea to argue about the same thing. And, as hard as it may be to believe, "Free Will" does not have a standard definition. There appears to be a range of definitions, and that (obviously) makes it very hard to discuss.

Some argue that it is the power of independent action and choice. Okay. But others argue that it is the power of independent action and choice specifically to the exclusion of compulsion or predestination. That is, "If predestination exists, then there is no Free Will." Some think it's just "the ability to make a choice without coercion" and others think it is Ultimate Self-Determination. There are even some (more than a few) that suggest that it requires the "ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition". I'm actually surprised at how popular this one is, primarily because it's such nonsense. If there is nothing influencing a choice, a choice cannot be made. The best we can do is ... random. And, in fact, no one makes choices without at least internal influences. We always choose according to our inclinations.

If Free Will means that God cannot predetermine anything in any way, then I'm going to have to deny the existence of that Free Will because it contradicts the Bible. If Free Will means "Ultimate Self-Determinism", I'm going to have to deny the existence of that version as well because it contradicts the Bible. But if we're talking about the capacity to make choices uncoerced, I don't see an issue. This must exist if God is going to hold us responsible for our choices (read "sin"). And in order for that version to exist it doesn't even have to be continuous. That is, if God intervenes in Man's free will on occasion (like in Gen 20:6 where God says, "I kept you from sinning."), that doesn't eliminate all free will.

To me, free will is simply the ability to choose to do what you want to do. Clearly this is a limited concept. No one can choose what they want to do when what they want to do is impossible. "I want to flap my arms and fly to the moon" is all well and good, but it ain't gonna happen, and that's not a failure of the will. But here's the concept that makes the most sense to me. If free will is the ability to choose what you want to do -- to follow your own inclinations -- then God doesn't have to coerce anyone in order to change their choices. He simply has to change their "want to do". Here, let's couch this in biblical terms. If free will is the ability to follow your own inclinations and humans are inclined only to sin (Gen 6:5; 8:21), than humans freely and continually choose to sin. The remedy for this problem is a "new heart" (Ezek 36:26). "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature" (2 Cor 5:17) and has God at work in him to will to do His good pleasure (Phil 2:13). If free will is the ability to choose to do what I want to do and God changes what I want to do, then He doesn't have to coerce me to make choices; I choose them because I want to. Is there something wrong with that version of free will?