Free Will & Determinism (iii)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) without the Spirit 

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

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

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

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

10Ephesians 4:13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Debate In Eden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Free Will & Determinism (ii)

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lewis continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lewis continues:

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

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

Lewis continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

a) God would be freely loved and chosen, and 

b) good acts of creatures would be possible and 

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

Lewis continues:

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

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

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

 

Free Will & Determinism (i)

As I promised to do some months back, I want to give some of my views and observations on this question concerning "determinism" and "free will." For those two previous postings see On Determinism and On Determinism Again. 

Back in the early 1990s I had a debate with Thomas Thrasher and Pat Donahue of the "Church of Christ" on this subject and it was held in Atlanta, Georgia at "Nancy's Creek Primitive Baptist" church building. Since then I have continued study on this subject, for now over fifty years.  

Like the study of Predestination (upon which I wrote much years ago), it requires great care. This is what the 1689 London Confession warned about in its remarks upon it, as I observed in that series. The last two years of college I wrote much upon this, reading a lot of what Jonathan Edwards and Martin Luther wrote upon the subject. I have read what both sides of the issue have said. I do not believe now what I was first led to believe but have grown in my understanding of the doctrine and of the debate over the subject. It is in many ways akin to the debate over what is called "the problem of evil" or "theodicy," for sin is an evil. However, my increase in knowledge and fine tuning of thoughts on this area of theology has been within the Calvinistic, Predestinarian, or Determinism paradigm. 

So, how do I begin such a presentation of my convictions on this area of theology and philosophy? What is my answer to those who would ask me why I believe in Calvinism and Predestination and Determinism? What would be the Reader's Digest version of an answer? Many Calvinists simply say that boiled down it simply affirms that God is sovereign over all things, and that his will cannot fail of accomplishment. But, many anti Calvinists will respond saying "we also believe in the sovereignty of God." So, the short answer is not sufficient. In fact, it is very difficult to give a mere Reader's Digest answer to such a deep theological and philosophical question. 

Some Calvinists do not believe in the predestination of all things, i.e., that everything comes to pass by God's decree and causation, but would say that God has only predetermined some things, certainly not predetermining sin and moral evil. They would assert that things which occur by a creature's free will decision are not in any way causatively determined by God. In this way they are in agreement with the Arminians (non Calvinists or non Determinists), for they too would say that God has fixed and determined some things, chiefly things outside the acts of the will in choosing. 

However, all five point Calvinists believe in what is called "irresistible grace" or "effectual calling" (being the 4th point in TULIP) and therefore believe that the changing of the will in conversion and regeneration is the work of God and the result of God's predetermination, predestination, or will. The question that is of concern is whether God has in any way caused, predetermined, predestinated, or willed anyone's sin, on the one hand, and whether God has in any way caused, predetermined, predestinated, or willed anyone's act of choosing Christ (or act of believing), on the other hand. In other words, does God "force" or "compel" anyone to will or choose anything, either good or bad, acting as the lone efficient cause? If he cannot, why can he not? What are the ramifications for saying that God cannot compel or effect a creature's choice? If God cannot determine or make certain the choices of his rational creatures, then it seems that he cannot control the world nor say for certain what shall be in the future. But, the scriptures show him making events certain by decreeing them to be and stating what shall certainly be done in the future. Prophecy fulfilling often involves God's control over the choices of his creatures.

One of the other problems in discussing this subject is to define words and ideas. What do we mean by "free will"? What do we mean by "predestination"? What do we mean by "the will of God"? What do we mean by "responsibility" or "accountability"? Oftentimes the devil is in the definition of such terms. 

Further, those who deny that God has decreed or willed to come to pass, or into existence, all that does come to pass or into existence, are often seeking to keep God from being guilty or responsible for the existence or occurrence of evil (either choices or acts), and so are protecting, they think, the moral goodness of God, his omnibenevolence, his justice and righteousness, his holiness, and all the moral acts of God. God is judged to not be a God of love did he in any way decree, determine, or will the occurrence of moral evil. On the other hand, those who are like I am want to do the same, but we also do not believe that we have to embrace indeterminism, dualism, free will-ism, and a denial of God's pervasive providence and sovereign control of things to do so. The fact is, to my thinking, the bible shows God taking responsibility for all things and thus this fact renders efforts to justify his doing so to be futile. It is also against the belief of some who say that God is not responsible for all things. So, in this series, it will be necessary to see whether scriptures say that all things are of God, coming to pass because he has willed that they come to pass. For now we will save that for later. So, generally speaking, the motives of both sides seem to be motivated by a desire to defend some attribute of God.   

Why Did I Do That? 

Every rational human being has asked himself "Why did I choose that?" Or, "Why did I make the wrong decision?" Or, simply "Why did I do that?" Those questions reveal that we see it as a self evident fact that human choices have causes or reasons for their occurrence. Obviously the person made a choice or decision, but it was not made as in a vacuum, or so freely as to be without reason or cause, or independent of external influences. So we ask questions also like "Why am I here?" And "What is my purpose in life?" And "Why did that happen?" And "Why God?" "Why did you let that happen?" And "Why is there evil in the world?" And "Why does God not stop the evil?"

Nearly every Psychologist, Psychiatrist, Neurologist, reject the idea that the will is "free" in the way it is oftentimes defined in Non Determinism ideology (or indeterminism). They believe that there are causes for the choices humans make. They all believe that it is possible to predict what people will choose to do in given situations. Philosophically, if future choices are predictable, then they are the effects of prior causes. This proposition is accepted overwhelmingly in the social sciences. 

If exercising free will means choosing without any influence or pressure, without force or coercion, then we can safely say, in my view, that there is no absolutely free choice. I choose to eat because my hunger pains are forcing me (or strongly urging me) to make that choice. And even if I choose not to eat when starving, it is because another cause (reason) is competing with, and succeeding, against the force of hunger. Jonathan Edwards mammoth work of the "Freedom Of The Will" looks closely at the psychology of human choice within a biblical framework and concluded that a choice represents the greatest desire. I would say greatest influence, power, or force, or desire. 

For these reasons I say that "free will" in actual practice is a myth, like Martin Luther said, if by "free will" we mean a will that acts without a cause or reason. Even those who promote a version of "free will" where there is no causal link to a prior reason have to admit that such a "free will" is rarely, if ever, really seen in operation in the world. The word "free" often involves the idea of being "independent." When Americans declared "independence" from England and king George, they were saying that they were "free" of the rule of such. So, whose will is independent of all the stimuli operating upon the will? My view is to say that man has free will relatively speaking. That is, I can say that it is free in relation to one thing, but not free in relation to another thing. Paul spoke in this manner in Romans, writing thus: 

"For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness...But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." (6: 20,22)

Slave (not free and independent) in relation to one thing but a freeman in relation to another thing, all at the same time. So, it is a relative freedom, relative to one thing or another. I see the subject of "free will" in the same way. In relation to one thing I can validly say that there is no pressure on me to choose one way or the other, but in relation to another thing I can say "X forces or compels me to choose Y." I can say "my parents gave me liberty to do this or that but my friends would't allow me to do it." Again, relatively free.

There are of course, varies kinds of Determinism and Indeterminism within other of the sciences too. In a writing titled "Types of Determinism," J. R. LUCAS (see here) wrote:

 

"Four sorts of determinism have at various times been put forward, and have been felt to threaten the freedom of the will and human responsibility. They are: 

1. logical determinism, 

2. theological determinism, 

3. psychological determinism, and 

4. physical determinism. 

"Logical determinism maintains that the future is already fixed as unalterably as the past. Theological determinism argues that since God is omniscient, He knows everything, the future included. Psychological determinism maintains that there are certain psychological laws which we are beginning to discover, enabling us to predict, usually on the basis of his experiences in early infancy, how a man will respond to different situations throughout his later life. Physical determinism is based on there being physical laws of nature, many of which have actually been discovered, and of whose truth we can reasonably hope to be quite certain, together with the claim that all other features of the world are dependent on physical factors."

Through the years I have studied all of the categories of this subject, but chiefly theological determinism, and secondly, psychological determinism. I wrote a thesis paper on this in my Advanced Composition class and we discussed it in my "Philosophy of Religion" class. In that class we discussed "hard" vs. "soft" determinism, and such things as "strict liability," and free will. The subject of free will was also deeply discussed in my class on Existentialism. It was also discussed in a Summer class I had in "The Philosophy of Law."It was the subject of a debate I had with two ministers of the "Church of Christ" in Atlanta Georgia in the early 1990s. 

God Can't Mess With Free Will?

Again, I repeat, we are trying to understand "why," why we do what we do, why we choose the way we do, and what is God's role in the exercise of my free will? Is my will off limits with God? I recall one of the famous lines in the movie "Bruce Almighty" where Bruce (Jim Carrey) is given by God (Morgan Freeman) all God's power with one exception. God says to Bruce "you can't mess with free will." Bruce later asks "can I ask why?" (why I can't mess with free will) And God responds with an exuberant "yes you can." 

So, why can't God mess with "free will"? Why is God's operating on the will taboo? If we say such, what are the ramifications of affirming that the human will is outside of God's control? Many will say, based upon the bible, that God does operate on the will by "influence," and by "persuasion," and by providential means, by bringing about circumstances in the life of the one being influenced, etc., but absolutely not by "forcing" or "compelling" the will. Such folks think this is horrible for God to do. They think that God cannot mess with free will beyond that of unforced influence. But, who can so limit God? Where is the authority for saying that God's influence "crosses the line" at some point? 

Another issue in this discussion and which has been an important factor with me in bringing me to my present views on this vast subject; It is the idea that God cannot fail. I believe the bible to teach that God cannot fail in any of his attempts to do a thing. God does not know defeat, failure, disappointment, or frustration. His will and pleasure are always done. This is what was learned by Nebuchadnezzar so that he said that God "does according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him,  What doest thou?" (Dan. 4: 35) I take that to mean that God can do whatever he wants when he wants and that no creature can frustrate him in his purposes and that none have a right to question him or to charge him with injustice. 

If we think he is acting unjustly, we need not jump to conclusions about God and his decisions. It would have been easy for Job to have done so. He experienced the paradox or cognitive dissonance that resulted from his thoughts upon his situation in light of God's sovereign control over his life and of the world. God no doubt seemed to be unjust to Job at times. Yet, he clung to the belief that God was just though it seemed otherwise (for he did not know all the facts behind the scene). 

Also, from the words of Daniel 4: 35 we see one way in which the "will" of God is used in scripture. According to these words God's will is never resisted, never kept from fruition. This is the same way Paul used the words "the will of God" in Romans 9 when he asks rhetorically "for who has resisted his will?" (Verse 19) Of course, there is another usage for the "will of God" seen in scripture. It is used to denote what God has commanded of creatures to do. Thus, for instance, the ten commandments may be called the will of God. But, that will is not always obeyed; So though God says his will is that Jack or Jill not steal, his will is not always effectual in that way. Some Calvinist haters scoff at such, denouncing the idea of "two wills in God." But, it is not that there are two wills in God, but two senses in which the term "will of God" is used in scripture. If we had time we could show this to be true by looking at all the texts that speak of the will of God. Even words in all dictionaries list several usages for a single word. There is often a primary meaning and one or more secondary meanings. So too in scripture with words like the "will" of God. 

To read my previous writings on this subject see these postings:

JUL 6, 2008 Baptist Gadfly

Free Will & Determinism Debate (here)

Free Will & Determinism Debate II (here)

Free Will & Determinism Debate III (here)

Free Will & Determinism Debate IV (here)

Free Will Theodicy (here)

Cute! Ben Witherington (here)

Another Question for Ben (here)

Back in 2008 when I wrote these posts and had these exchanges I argued more from the Hard Determinism perspective. I am now, however, more of a Soft Determinist, which is what most Compatibilists are.

Twelve chapters title "Hardshells and Predestination" from Oct. - Nov. 2011 (see archives)

The opposite of determinism, strictly speaking, is not libertarian free will, but is rather some kind of indeterminism (otherwise called non-determinism). Determinism is often contrasted with free will and free will is identified with indeterminism. In other words, it is the thesis that affirms that the will can only be said to be free if it is in no way determined. 

It must be acknowledged by all, at the outset of any discussion on this deep subject, that even the most fervent advocate of "libertarian free will" must admit that some things are determined. Likewise, the most fervent advocate of determinism must admit that angels and humans possess some degree of freedom as respects choice or the power to will.

It must also be acknowledged that the bible posits both divine determinism and creature free will and in a way that demonstrates that they are shown to be somehow compatible, without explaining the minute mechanics of how that works. Perhaps this is because the bible authors did not affirm a kind of "free will" as do many theologians and philosophers (by those who espouse creature freedom of will in its highest sense). 

This subject is also interconnected with "the problem of evil." If there is only one God, and that God is both good and all powerful, why does he not stop or prevent the evil in the world? The atheist believes that the existence of evil proves that there is no god, or at least no good god. Advocates of determinism will offer solutions to this riddle differently than those who offer what is called the "Free Will (FW) Defense." 

Said Jesus: "And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined..." (Luke 22: 22) Jesus had a destiny. So too do we.

We will continue our thoughts on this subject in the next posting in this series.

 

Divine Justice Issues (XXXI)

Is eternal punishment fair?

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels...And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Mattt. 25: 41, 46 esv) 

"when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.  They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed." (II Thess. 1: 7-10 esv)

These are two of the many texts of scripture which uphold the teaching of eternal punishment. Some who deny eternal punishment will sometimes argue that the word "eternal" (Greek "aiōnios") does not mean unending but simply means for a long time. But this is totally untenable. The same word is used for "eternal life" that is used for "eternal punishment." So, if we say that the punishment comes to an end then we will also have to affirm that the life will also come to an end. Also, the same Greek word is used when it speaks of God as being eternal. 

Some also want to say that "eternal punishment" denotes annihilation or extermination. But, again, this is not tenable. Dr. Robert Peterson at Ligonier (See here or here) writes under the heading "Annihilation or Eternal Punishment" that there are "six main arguments" that annihilationists use to prove their proposition. He gives those arguments in these words (emphasis mine):

"First is an argument based on the Bible's use of fire imagery to describe hell. We are told that fire consumes what is thrown into it, and so it will be for the lake of fire (Rev. 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15; 21:8)—it will burn up the wicked so that they no longer exist.

Second is an argument based on texts that speak of the lost perishing or being destroyed. Examples include unbelievers perishing (John 3:16) and suffering "the punishment of eternal destruction" (2 Thess. 1:8).

Third is an argument based on the meaning of the word eternal. In hell passages, it is claimed, eternal means only pertaining to "the age to come" and not "everlasting."

Fourth is an argument based on a distinction between time and eternity. Annihilationists ask: how is it just of God to punish sinners for eternity when their crimes were committed in time?

Fifth is an emotional argument that God Himself and His saints would never enjoy heaven if they knew some human beings (let alone loved ones and friends) were perpetually in hell.

Sixth is an argument that an eternal hell would tarnish God's victory over evil. Scripture declares that God will be victorious in the end; He will "be all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28). We are told that this idea seems hard to reconcile with human beings suffering endlessly in hell."

Dr. Peterson responds to these arguments and shows how they are not valid. He cites texts which speak of people being "tormented forever." (Rev. 14: 10-11; 20: 10) You cannot torment a person who no longer exists. Nor can you separate torment from consciousness. A person who has no cognition cannot suffer torment. We see this fact verified in the story of the rich man and Lazarus and of their conscious experience and condition in the afterlife (Luke 16) where we find the rich man in the fires of Hell (Hades) saying that he is "tormented in this flame." (Luke 16: 24) 

I like these words of Dr. Peterson:

"Fourth is the argument that it is unjust of God to punish sinners eternally for temporal sins. It strikes me as presumptuous for human beings to tell God what is just and unjust. We would do better to determine from His Holy Word what He deems just and unjust."

In answer to the question in the heading above, Google AI gives this Overview:

"Whether eternal punishment is fair is a complex theological and philosophical question with no universally agreed-upon answer. Some argue that it is a just punishment for sin, reflecting the gravity of offending a holy and infinite God. Others argue that it is an unfair disproportionate punishment, as a finite sin does not warrant an eternal penalty." 

In answering this question we must resort to the syllogism I offered in chapter three.

1. All that God wills and does is just. 

2. God willed and did A. 

3. A is just

This is essentially the same thing that Dr. Peterson stated in the above citation which I particularly liked. 

Transgression of God's law must be punished. That is a foundational principle of God's government and of his law and order. Forgiveness of sin cannot be given apart from satisfaction to law and justice. The question then becomes whether eternal torment in the fires of Hell is a just recompense. The scriptures teach that "every transgression and disobedience" receives from God "a just recompence of reward." (Heb. 2: 2 kjv) God is the lawgiver and the judge of all and therefore it is his right to dictate what is criminal and what is the punishment for crimes committed. So the scripture says:

"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us." (Isa. 33: 22 kjv)

"There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?" (James 4: 12 kjv)

Since God is the Creator of all, he has the sovereign right to make law and to command all to keep it. He also has the right to decree what the punishment will be for any violations of his law. Most believers in God will acknowledge this much. But some will object that God is being too harsh and cruel in sentencing sinners to unending punishment and torments. Some even criticize God by saying that he should be more lenient, perhaps only giving a slap for violations or put sinners on probation. 

The doctrine of eternal (or endless) punishment will rarely be accepted by those who are condemned by God. To them it will always appear to be a case of "cruel and unusual punishment" and which makes God to be cruel, harsh, severe, and tyrannical. This reminds me of that old hymn by hymnist Isaac Watts wrote titled "Show Pity Lord" where he writes these lyrics:

Should sudden vengeance seize my breath, 

I must pronounce thee just in death; 

And if my soul were sent to hell, 

Thy righteous law approves it well.

Like the penitent thief on the cross on the right side of Christ who said to the other impenitent thief "we are suffering justly for our crimes" (Luke 23: 41), so all those who go into Hell's eternal prison should confess the same as Isaac Watts says in league with the words of the penitent thief. 

The denial of eternal punishment gives the wicked hope; For even if he goes to the prison of Hell for his crimes, he will eventually "serve his time" and be able to leave Hell and enter Paradise. Or, if the wicked believes in annihilation at death, he will have no fear of judgment in the afterlife to deter him from sin. The denial of eternal punishment is the actual belief of all those who believe in universal salvation. It is also the belief of most Muslims and of other religions. One Muslim web page says this (See here):

"If the Qur’an and Hadith taught eternal hell, I wanted to know. So I dove into a study of both. I arrived at an undeniable conclusion: Islam does not teach eternal damnation for anyone. Here are seven reasons why Islam rejects the concept of eternal hell — for Muslims and everyone else." (emphasis mine)

Interesting is the fact that this Muslim is arguing against other Muslims who affirm that the Koran teaches endless punishment. Therefore it seems that Muslims are divided on the question as are Christians, except that eternal punishment in Islam seems to be a minority view whereas in Christianity it is the major view.

If everyone who goes to Hell will eventually serve his or her time and then be given release and right to enter Heaven, then it seems that the atoning sacrificial death of Christ becomes unnecessary. This is in fact the view of Muslims who reject the idea of Christ's sacrificial death, arguing that Allah has provided no substitute for any and that Allah is able to forgive sin apart from any satisfying of justice for those sins. They believe that it is unjust for a person to be punished for another persons' crimes, a question we have already addressed.

Matt Slick at CARM writes (See here - emphasis mine) under the heading "How just is the God of Islam?":  

"If a person commits a sin such as murder or theft, should that person be punished? The obvious answer is yes. But why should he be punished?

There are two primary reasons we can offer why someone who commits a sin should be punished. First, he has broken the law of God; and if God does not exercise punishment, then what is the purpose of the law? To not exercise punishment for sin is to permit the sin to exist without consequence. Second, he has harmed others; and if he is not punished, others will be encouraged to do the same.

Therefore, we can conclude that it is proper to exercise judgment/punishment for the crimes committed by individuals.

If the same person who has committed a sin, such as murder or theft, says that he is sincerely sorry for what he has done and that he would never do it again, should society excuse him from punishment? Maybe, maybe not.

God is holy and righteous; and if he didn’t carry (out) a punishment for sins, he would be allowing evil to exist without consequence. The result would be, essentially, to condone evil; and since God cannot do that, His justice requires that a proper punishment be incurred for each sin.

Likewise, if God did not punish someone because that person said he was sorry and would not do it again, then is God being just? After all, if he did not exercise the punishment for breaking his law, he is then permitting evil to exist without proclaiming its error or dealing with its consequence."

This is a good summation of the biblical teaching on forgiveness and on punishment for sin (or crime). 

Slick writes further:

"In Islam, a Muslim who commits murder and thievery can ask Allah for forgiveness and receive that forgiveness without Allah exercising any punishment whatsoever. According to Islam, Allah may forgive that person–if he so chooses. But doesn’t that mean the righteous judgment of Allah is not satisfied? Doesn’t it mean that the sin has essentially been ignored by forgiving it; and that the Law of God, though broken, has resulted in no punishment? Is this just–not to exercise punishment for the sins committed? It is not. No, for we have already established that punishment is the proper and righteous response to sin. Declining to punish is to avoid satisfying the law of God."

This is the teaching of the Christian scriptures. God is not only a God of love, mercy, grace, compassion, longsuffering and forbearance, but he is a God of justice and wrath against sin, one who hates iniquity and who will in no instance "clear the guilty." (Exo. 34: 7) Habakkuk says "Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing." (1: 13 niv) God cannot simply overlook sin, for it would be against his holy and righteous character and would encourage people to break his laws and to have no fear of divine retribution. And, as we will see, the "punishment will fit the crime" in God's sentencing sinners to eternal punishment. 

There are really only two options. Either God is 1) overreacting and "flying off the handle," or "making a mountain out of a molehill," for breaking God's law or 2) sin is extremely heinous and deserves eternal punishment. God is viewed by many as either too severe or too lax.

He writes further:

"In Christianity, every sin is dealt with by God in one of two ways. Either God satisfies the law by exercising his punishment upon the sinner by sending him to eternal damnation, or he places the sins of the person on Jesus Christ who suffers the punishment in place of the person. Either way, the justice of God is never ignored. It is proper that sin be dealt with by a punishment relative to the sin. To neglect to do so is to avoid being just. Therefore, we see that the God of Christianity is just because no sin goes unpunished."

 

Every religion that has the Creator forgiving sin without any satisfaction to divine justice has the adverse consequences that Slick points out. If there is no such satisfaction, and every criminal is forgiven and given no punishment every time he repents or says that he is sorry, then there will not be any respect for God's law, and people will be encouraged to sin for they will say to themselves "I will sin and then say 'I repent' and go on and do it again and again." There will be no fear of God. The same is true in regard to human government as Paul said.

"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." (Rom. 13: 3-4 nkjv)

But this is also superlatively true when it comes to fearing God and his authority. God is also "an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." People who have no fear of God or punishment in the afterlife lack restraints upon their evil ways. Fear of punishment by citizens for breaking the laws of the nation is a restraint upon criminal activity, and the easier it is for crimes to be committed without being caught and without severe judgment the easier it is to choose to commit crime. 

Saved Without Satisfying Justice

Unlike Islam and other religions that show the Deity forgiving sins apart from any punishment for sin or satisfaction to justice, Christianity does not. God justifies sinners on the basis of the law being satisfied by the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ. Notice how this is what Paul affirms in these words:

"For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Rom. 3: 22-26 nkjv)

Barnes Commentary says:

"That he might be just...refers to the fact that God had retained the integrity of his character as a moral governor; that he had shown a due regard to his Law, and to the penalty of the Law by his plan of salvation. Should he forgive sinners without an atonement, justice would be sacrificed and abandoned. The Law would cease to have any terrors for the guilty, and its penalty would be a nullity. In the plan of salvation, therefore, he has shown a regard to the Law by appointing his Son to be a substitute in the place of sinners; not to endure its precise penalty, for his sufferings were not eternal, nor were they attended with remorse of conscience, or by despair, which are the proper penalty of the Law; but he endured so much as to accomplish the same ends as if those who shall be saved by him had been doomed to eternal death." 

Under "Arguments Against Eternal Punishment as Fair" we have these points given by AI:

 

"Disproportionality: Some argue that a finite sin should not warrant an eternal punishment.

Lack of Opportunity for Redemption: The concept of eternal punishment may be seen as eliminating the possibility of redemption for those who repent later.

God's Love and Mercy: The concept of eternal punishment may be seen as contradicting God's love and mercy.

Unnecessary Cruelty: Some argue that eternal suffering is cruel and unnecessary, even if it is a consequence of sin." 

The only way to prove that eternal punishment is too severe is to lesson the heinousness of sin. But, it is the other way around for eternal punishment demonstrates the greatness of rebellion against God, which all transgression of God' law is.

 

Some want to know why Jesus needs not to suffer eternally to save from eternal punishment. Dr. John Piper responds to this we these words (See here):

"Now, the Bible does not say explicitly how this works. But just as we learned the demerit of sin by looking at God’s appointed penalty for it — namely, eternal punishment — so also we learn the merit, or the worth, of Christ and his suffering by looking at the achievement of it — namely, salvation for millions of hell-deserving sinners. So, the question becomes, What is it about the worth of Jesus and his suffering that makes it sufficient to remove the punishment of millions of sinners?" (Emphasis mine)

Though we may not fully grasp how it is so, nevertheless we are assured by the scriptures that Christ suffered the equivalent of eternal torment in his sufferings as a substitute for the sins of others.

Next he writes the following and cites from the learned Jonathan Edwards.

"Let me read you the answer given by Jonathan Edwards and then say a word about it. This comes from a sermon he preached in 1729 entitled “The Sacrifice of Christ Acceptable.” Here’s what he says: 

 

'Though Christ’s sufferings were but temporal [that is, not eternal], yet they were equivalent to our eternal sufferings by reason of the infinite dignity of his person. Though it was not infinite suffering, yet it was equivalent to infinite suffering, for it was infinite expense. His blood which he spilled, his life which he laid down, was an infinite price because it was the blood of God, as it is expressly called. Acts 20:28, “The church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” His life was the life of that person that was the eternal Son of God, though it was the life of the human nature. Now, upon this account, the price offered was equivalent to the demerit of the sins of all mankind, [and] his sufferings equivalent to the eternal sufferings of the whole world. (Works of Jonathan Edwards, 14:452)'"

That is the way Christian apologists answer the objection.

With this chapter we end our series on issues that people have with God's acts and judgments. Though there are several ways where many think God is being unfair, they are wrong to think that way. God is just and whatever he does is right and just even if we cannot fully grasp it completely.

 

Divine Justice Issues (XXX)

In this chapter we will look at question number nine given in our opening chapter. It asked: "Was it right for God to create beings who he foreknew would rebel and be punished forever for it?" 

To some extent we have already made several observations as the question is connected with several of the other questions in the list, especially with the problem of evil. To answer this question one must first show that God does have absolute foreknowledge of all future events and things. Then we may proceed to consider whether having this ability to foresee the future makes God responsible for everything that comes into existence or occurs, and why God chooses to prevent some possible occurrences but not others. If we had the power to see into the future (a theme or plot in many books and movies such as in the movie "Paycheck" or movies involving the concept of a "time machine"), what burden or responsibility would that put on us? 

The claim that divine foreknowledge makes God culpable for human actions is a complex theological issue rooted in the tension between God's omniscience (all-knowing) and human free will. It arises from the argument that if God knows everything that will happen, including human choices, then those choices are predetermined, and God, not the individual, is ultimately responsible. If God knows and therefore determines every action, including evil, does that make God the author of evil and thus culpable for human actions? 

By the same reasoning we may ask whether God is responsible for the sins of his creatures because he made them capable of sinning by giving them free will. We have already asked whether it would be viewed as just for God to bring into existence people such as Hitler, Stalin, or Judas since he knows what evils that they would do and whether it would be better if God had not brought into existence all who he foreknew would reject his offers of mercy? We spoke of this difficulty when we applied "product liability" laws to God. God made a product (angels and humans) who he knew would cause harm. We also looked at it from the legal reasoning that uses the "but for" argument. But for God making creatures with the ability to sin, with free will, there would have been no sin and no sorrow and death.

We might ask everyone who studies this subject - "what would you do if you had foreknowledge of the future?" Some no doubt would try to make money from the stock market or by betting on games (as was a theme in the movie "Back To The Future"). Would you use it to prevent any and all crimes? Or, would you use that ability to commit crime, the perfect crime? 

If you did know the future, does that mean you can change it? Most movies on this theme suggest yes. In the movie "Terminator" a man and a android go back in time for the purpose of changing the future. In fact, the man who comes back from the future ends up becoming his own father! Another similar question asks whether God's foreknowledge is causative. Or, does God foresee only what he has first determined shall come to be? Or, does he see some things that he does not cause or predetermine to be? Or, does God foresee things that might have been but are not? This is called "middle knowledge" by theologians. 

"Perhaps the strongest scriptural support for middle knowledge, and therefore for Molinism, comes from the use of counterfactuals in the Bible. Counterfactuals are “if-then” statements about situations or choices. For example, Jesus explicitly says, twice, that under different circumstances certain people would have made a different free choice of whether or not to repent (Matthew 11:21–23; Luke 10:13). Jesus also refers to different outcomes under different circumstances (Matthew 26:24; John 14:2). God also references different choices leading to different results in the Old Testament (Exodus 9:15; Isaiah 48:17–19). Further, the Bible clearly states that God allows us to make choices contrary to His preferences (Matthew 23:37; 2 Peter 3:9; Psalm 5:10; Isaiah 30:1)." (From Got Questions - See here - emphasis mine)

In other words, God not only sees what shall be but what could have been. He sees all possibilities. Notice this passage:

"Then He said to me: “Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak with My words to them. For you are not sent to a people of unfamiliar speech and of hard language, but to the house of Israel, not to many people of unfamiliar speech and of hard language, whose words you cannot understand. Surely, had I sent you to them, they would have listened to you." (Eze. 3: 4-6 nkjv)

This passage is an instance that supports the theological concept of middle knowledge. God knows what creatures would do in various circumstances, even if those circumstances never actually occur (counter factuals). 

This text also is important to keep in mind in regard to several other questions we have already addressed in regard to God's justice. Why did God not send Ezekiel to those other peoples? If he wanted them to have listened to Ezekiel's message from God, then why did he not send Ezekiel to them? Obviously God did not want them to hear the message, which message is a means of salvation. God could just as well have said the same thing to other peoples, such as to the American Indians in the centuries before the white man brought the word of God to them. So, it could be said of them "surely, had I sent you to them sooner, they would have listened to you." 

In another case we see something similar. Said God to Jeremiah the prophet: "So you shall speak all these words to them, but they will not listen to you. You shall call to them, but they will not answer you." (Jer. 7: 27 esv)

In the Ezekiel case, God does not send Ezekiel to other nations even though he knew that they would listen to his message and heed it, but in the case with the Jeremiah passage, God sends Jeremiah to preach to those who he knows in advance will reject his message. Also, we see another instance where God does foresee the free choices of his creatures, although some deny that God foresees the free choices and acts of his creatures. But more on that shortly.

We see another instance of the same in this text (referenced in the above citation from Got Questions):

21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." (Matt. 11: 21-24 nkjv)

This is another instance of middle knowledge and of counter factuals. This text, along with the previous one from Ezekiel, show that God does not equally desire the salvation of all, for he does not give all equal opportunities to be saved, or have equal means. It is obvious that God did not sufficiently desire the repentance or salvation of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, and that he did not give them the same means as he did to Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum. 

These texts reveal the fact that God knows what it will take in any given case to bring a person to repentance and faith and hence salvation. He can engineer events and circumstances in the lives of people to get their attention and to make them believers. I have previously affirmed that God desires that all men be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (as Paul stated), but also affirmed that such a fact does not mean that he desires this end to the same degree in every case. All are not given equal means towards salvation. 

We must also affirm that what God foresees as actually coming to pass in the future must come to pass for God cannot be wrong about anything. If that is not true, then no God given prophecy can be relied upon. The bible is full of examples where God revealed to his rational creatures what was sure to come to pass in the future. Many of these prophecies have been fulfilled, while others await fulfillment. Sometimes these prophecies are contingent. In other words, God says A will come to pass if B happens, but if B does not happen, then A will not come to pass. We see this type of foreknowledge in God's numerous warnings in scripture. God says "if you do A, then B will occur." These are the counter factuals that the above citation calls attention to.

Got Questions web page also has these comments (see here - emphasis mine):

"It may be hard to see how Adam and Eve’s falling into sin could bring glory to God. In fact, some might even wonder why, if God knew ahead of time all the trouble they would cause, He made them in the first place.

God is omniscient (Psalm 139:1–6), and He knows the future (Isaiah 46:10). So He definitely knew that Adam and Eve would sin. But He created them anyway and gave them a free will with which they chose to sin.

We must carefully note that Adam and Eve’s falling into sin does not mean that God is the author of sin or that He tempted them to sin (James 1:13). But the fall does serve the purpose of God’s overall plan for creation and mankind."

The traditional belief in God's omniscience (all-knowing) suggests that he has perfect knowledge of the past, present, and future. All scripture that asserts God's omniscience asserts his foreknowledge of all things. Also, omniscience cannot be divorced from God's immutability. God is therefore not adding to his knowledge nor is his knowledge ever decreasing.

God's rational creatures also have some limited ability to see the future. This is due to knowing cause and effect, and something of the laws of nature. So, we have weather forecasters, economic forecasters, etc. So Solomon wrote: "A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, But the simple pass on and are punished." (Prov. 22: 3; 27: 12 nkjv)

Jesus spoke of those who could foresee (or predict or forecast) the weather of the future, saying:

"He answered and said to them, “When it is evening you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red’; “and in the morning, ‘It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Hypocrites! You know how to discern the face of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the times." (Matt. 16: 2-3 nkjv)

Interesting is the fact that the Greek word translated "foreknowledge" (kjv) is "prognosis," the thing we want doctors to give us regarding symptoms of an illness. In medicine, it's the prediction of the probable course and termination of a disease. It's also used more broadly for predicting the outcome of any situation. 

What responsibility comes with such foreknowledge? And, if you had foreknowledge, could you change it? Or, would you? And, if you could change it, then is it not the case that you really did not see the future in the first place but only one possible version of it? 

Jesus foretold the thrice denial of knowing Jesus by Peter during the trial of Christ. 

"31 Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: 'I will strike the Shepherd, And the sheep of the flock will be scattered.' 32 But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee." 33 Peter answered and said to Him, "Even if all are made to stumble because of You, I will never be made to stumble." 34 Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times." 35 Peter said to Him, "Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!" And so said all the disciples." (Matt. 26: 31-35 nkjv)

Here Peter and the other apostles were told what was going to come to pass and yet that foreknowledge did not keep it from coming to pass. One could argue that this was because they did not believe Jesus' prophecy. However, even if some of them believed it, none of them prevented it from coming to pass just as Jesus said.

Open Theism

"Open Theism is a theological view that suggests God knows everything but doesn't know everything in the future with certainty, especially regarding free choices made by humans. It's a perspective that attempts to reconcile God's omniscience with human free will. Open Theism is a relatively recent development within Christian theology, gaining prominence in the 1990s, and is often debated in relation to classical theism." (AI Overview)

The same survey of the literature on this subject has AI adding these comments:

"The future, according to Open Theism, is not fully settled or predetermined by God. It's a realm of possibilities that is still open to the choices of individuals." 

"God knows the range of possibilities in the future, but He doesn't know with certainty which of those possibilities will actually occur because they depend on human free will choices." 

"While Open Theists believe God is fully involved in the world, they also emphasize that God's actions are influenced by and adapt to human free choices." 

The bible does not picture God as having uncertain knowledge of future events as the open theist affirms. Further, the bible affirms that God foreknows the free choices of his creatures and so the proposition is false that says God cannot certainly and absolutely know what choices a creature will make. Peter made a choice to deny Christ and yet Christ foreknew it. Many examples are in the bible of this truth fact.

Under "Points of Debate and Controversy" AI also gives the following further overview.

"Omniscience: Open Theism challenges the traditional understanding of God's omniscience, which often implies a complete and pre-determined knowledge of the future." 

But the scriptures do assert that God has "a complete and predetermined knowledge of the future." So God says by the prophet:

"Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure." (Isa. 46: 10 nkjv)

"Divine Providence: Critics argue that Open Theism weakens the traditional doctrine of divine providence, which suggests God governs all events, even those that seem to be a result of human free will."

Open theism does in fact deny what the scriptures say about God's omniscience. Also, God is able to control a world where his rational creatures are given choices or a degree of free will.  

"God's Power and Sovereignty: Some argue that Open Theism diminishes God's power and sovereignty by suggesting He is not fully in control of the future."

If God is not able to control the choices and activities of his creatures, then his power and sovereignty would be limited. But, we have already seen in this series where God did cause people to choose a certain way. He hardened Pharaoh's heart and this was behind his choice to go back on his word. We could fill pages with examples where both good and bad choices were made by God's influence, or lack thereof, on the will. God did not give up any of his control over his creatures by giving them free choice.

"The Problem of Evil: Open Theism is sometimes seen as offering a potential solution to the problem of evil by suggesting that God, while omnibenevolent, does not have complete control over events."

But open theism is no solution at all to the problem of evil, a subject we covered in the opening chapters of this series in discussing various theodicies.  

"Biblical Interpretation: Open Theists often rely on specific biblical passages to support their view, while critics counter that such passages are often misinterpreted." 

In my dialogues and debates with those from the "Church of Christ" and with a local group of Baptist churches I argued against their belief that God did not know everything. The former group would say to me "God knows all that he wants to know," implying that some things God does not know because he does not want to know those things. The latter group would cite passages that say that God came to know something as a result of what a creature chose to do or passages that say that God does not remember the sins of those he has forgiven. 

"And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” (Gen. 22: 12 nkjv)

"For now I knew - literally, have known; not caused thee to know (Augustine), but caused others to know (Lange); or the words are used anthropomorphically (Calvin) - that thou fearest God" (Pulpit commentary).

This represents a formal recognition of Abraham's fear of God, such as a trier of facts or judge might utter in a formal hearing. It is another example of God speaking anthropomorphically or after the manner of men and is not implied that God did not know beforehand what Abraham would choose to do.

Gill's commentary says:

"...this is said after the manner of men...or this may be understood of a knowledge of approbation, that the Lord now knew, and approved of the faith, fear, love, and obedience of Abraham, which were so conspicuous in this affair, see Psalm 1:6."

The local Baptist churches referenced above, through their leading elder, use to argue with me that when God says that he will "remember your sins no more" (Jer. 31: 34; Heb. 8: 12) that this literally meant that God had no more knowledge of those sins. I found this a gross interpretation and showed how foolish it was. God does not forget, willingly or unwillingly. I affirmed that the statement means that God will never go back on his word or promise of forgiveness, that he will never formally "charge" those forgiven, as Paul said "who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God who justifies." (Rom. 8: 33) 

I also pointed out how Paul, while writing by the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, enumerated his past sins (all which God had forgiven) in First Timothy 1: 13. So, though God did not know (remember) in a legal sense (Paul's record had been cleaned), he still knew that Paul had committed those sins. If that is not true, then we must say that Paul knew things that God did not know, reductio ad absurdum. 

So, in conclusion we say that God created man in spite of the fact that he knew how evil he would become and that he had good reasons for so doing, even though we may not fully grasp the reasons. As we pointed out in our discussion of the problem of evil, God creates or suffers evil to exist because he intends to use that evil to bring about some greater good, whether that greater good is creature free will or to manifest his mercy, grace, goodness, etc., on the one hand, and his just wrath against that evil on the other hand.