@TomPettinger and I have been discussing free will and God’s sovereignty on twitter, resulting in an agreement that Tom (Pettinger – we’ll take his surname as read from now on) would write a blog post about sovereignty and I would write one about free will. Tom has beaten me to it with his offering, which is here, and should be read as a counterpart to this post. Reading it myself, I kept thinking “that’s not fair, he keeps using all those Biblical passages I don’t entirely know how to handle”, which is about the best comment I can make on why Tom’s post really must be read alongside this one.

Tom begins his post by defining some broad boundaries, i.e. the meaning of “free will”, approach to Biblical interpretation and scope of argument. As the second poster, I will add one further constraint: in this post I will attempt not to reply to Tom’s post, but rather just to make the case I promised to make. So, within these constraints, my task is to argue from the Bible for the existence of human free will. Or, put differently, to argue that God is, in some way, constrained by choices we human beings make.

As I consider this, I think I really only have one point to make, which is that there is a recurring theme throughout the Bible that God calls us to make choices and allows us to face the consequences of our choices even if the consequences are not what God wants. The obvious starting point, in this regard, is the bad choice made by Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, but I think that would be jumping the gun.

Well before Genesis 3, right back when mankind is created in Gen 1:26-30, God gives them “dominion” (all Bible quotes from the NRSV) over all living things. This is reflected in the second creation story in Genesis 2, where God actually involves the man in the creation both of animals and of the woman: it is the man who gives them all names. Before we ever get to questions of “good” and “bad” choices, God is giving mankind free rein to make all kinds of choices which are not “good” or “bad”, but just choices. It would not have been right or wrong to call the antelope “ant” and the ant “antelope” (yes, I thought that was clever, too), it would just be what it was. But, importantly, the entire history of creation is guided by the choices of mankind, with no hint that God in any way directed these choices. Indeed, “whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.” (Gen 2:19).

Already, then, in Genesis 1 and 2, God is giving man choices. Many of these choices have no specific moral value attached to them. But some of the choices quite clearly are good or bad choices and, in these cases, God generally holds people to account for their choices. Specifically he tells us that these choices lead either to life or to death: “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Gen 2:17). And, we do, indeed see this happening in the fall story in Genesis 3, which concludes with the dramatic separation of Adam and Eve from the tree of life as a direct consequence of their choice. Even though the Bible is clearly about God’s extreme preference for life, God allows the man and woman to choose death. It is as though God, himself, believes they were free to act of their own volition.

Might we argue that God intended the fall to happen? That the man and woman never really had the choice to refrain from eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? That God always intended the Bible to be somewhat longer than its first two chapters? I suppose we might, but we do not find this in the text. As far as Genesis 1 and 2 are concerned, creation was complete, it was not just “good”, but “very good”. The text “and they lived happily ever after” is entirely consistent with all that had gone before.

In fact, it is only in the light of the end of Revelation that we finally, clearly see the completion of a recreation of the heavens and the earth. To be sure, this is a far more glorious creation than ever there was in Genesis – a city now, not just a garden – but its glory chiefly stems from how amazingly God transforms the disaster and loss of Genesis 3 into victory. It is the glory of a master chess player who wins after taking over from a novice who has lost his queen, rooks, bishops and knights. This glory would dim significantly if it turned out that God had, all along, been controlling both the novice and the opponent.

I think the most natural interpretation of both the creation and the new creation, then, is that God created with the potential that the first creation would be all that ever happened. However, in doing so, he opened up a possibility over which he had no control: that the creation might rebel. God, in his sovereignty, chose to surrender some of his sovereignty. From God’s perspective, it could have gone either way from this point. I’m not saying that the chances were 50/50, though. In fact, if God were a betting man (which I suspect he is), I think he’d have had a reserve plan up his sleeve. I suspect rebellion was the far more likely outcome. But, critically, it was not certain. Creation just might have chosen not to rebel for ever. The text reads to me as though this is how it is supposed to be understood – as though we really did have the choice.

Moving along, the theme of choices in general and, more specifically, accountability for good/bad choices keeps reoccurring. Cain is held accountable for the murder of Abel, the majority of mankind were annihilated in the flood because of their choices, Sodom and Gomorrah, likewise. Then God formed a people and gave them a choice, summarised (after a long rehearsal of what had gone before) in Deut 30:19, “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live…”. The ensuing history of Israel gives witness to the continued ebb and flow of choosing life (seldom) and choosing death (often). And, all along, the prophets cry out both the call into God’s life and judgement on those who reject this call. Examples are far too numerous to quote comprehensively, but here are a few random samplings:

“Zion shall be redeemed by justice, and those in her who repent, by righteousness. But rebels and sinners shall be destroyed together, and those who forsake the Lord shall be consumed.” (Isaiah 1:27-28).

“I will utter my judgements against them, for all their wickedness in forsaking me” (Jer 1:16).

“Say to them, As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezek 33:11).

“Your love is like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes away early. Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets, I have killed them by the words of my mouth, and my judgement goes forth as the light.” (Hos 6:4-5)

“on the day of the Lord’s wrath; in the fire of his passion the whole earth shall be consumed; for a full, a terrible end he will make of all the inhabitants of the earth.” (Zeph 2:18)

In all of this, the impression is given that we have a choice to make between life and death. God calls us to choose life. He exhorts us. He pleads with us. He demonstrates the advantages and disadvantages. He lets us face the consequences of our actions hoping that these might teach us. Sometimes he even acts directly, physically constraining our actions. And all along he says, “Look! See! This is how it is, you have a choice between life and death. Choose life!” You have a choice, you have a choice, you have a choice! We’re definitely meant to get the impression that we get to choose and that we really can choose to do what God does not will.

The NT continues the same themes, but with a clearer emphasis on what choice it is we have to make: whether to believe and trust in Jesus and follow him. John 1:12 says “to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.” But this power is given only to those who “received” and “believed”. Romans 8 picks up this theme, saying that those who are specifically “in Christ Jesus” are sanctified by the work of the Holy Spirit and there is no condemnation on them. In the gospels, Jesus repeatedly calls us to “repent” and he says “I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish” (Luke 13:3). And he tells parables about judgement for making the wrong choices. Those who choose to “abide” in Jesus will grow, flourish and bear fruit but those who don’t will be cut off from the vine and destroyed in the fire (John 15). He speaks of a day of judgement to come when he will “separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats” (Matt 25:32). Those on the wrong side of the judgement will be told to “depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt 25:41).

Paul, too, distinguishes between an old life and a new life and speaks of the choices we make and judgement. So, for example, “Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure person, or one who is greedy (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” (Eph 5:5).

And, ending it all off, with repeated and clear references all the way back to Genesis, Revelation speaks of the new creation in which only the good will be saved, whilst the bad will be destroyed: “Those who conquer will inherit these things, and I will be their God and they will be my children. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.’” (Rev 21:7-8).

Again, in all of this there is a sense that we have moral choices to make and they are our own choices. It may be that we don’t really have free will in these matters, but that is not what is presented.

Still, we have to guard against Pelagianism. We are not saved by our own actions. We cannot be. Only Jesus can save us by his atoning work and through the Holy Spirit. So where is the choice? I think it lies in the countless small offers of grace which God holds out to us every day. Every time we have the option to sin, God also holds out the offer of the Spirit’s way. Sometimes we make good choices and we align ourselves with the Spirit, allowing the Spirit greater dominion in our lives, giving the Spirit greater control over our future choices. We become “slaves to the law of God” (Rom 7:25). Sometimes we make bad choices and we align ourselves with the flesh (or whatever Paul meant by sarx), allowing the flesh greater dominion, giving the flesh greater control over our future choices. We become “slave to the law of sin” (ibid.). This is reflected in Paul’s theology of justification by faith. We choose to trust in Jesus and his saving work: “to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Rom 4:5). To trust Jesus is our choice.

This, at any rate, is approximately where I was in my thinking before my conversation with Tom. God is, of course, sovereign – but in his sovereignty he chooses to surrender some control to us human beings. He forms us as volitional agents, “in our image” (Gen 1:26). He chooses to share his free will with us. But there are consequences to this. A use of free will for evil has no future. It leads to death and God allows that to happen even though he is all for life.

The trouble with this view is that it casts God as someone who is willing to allow vast numbers of his beloved creatures to end in destruction. Neither Tom nor I are comfortable with this idea and questions about universalism hover clearly in the background of our conversation. Could it be that God will eventually save all? Maybe God is just that good a chess player (to return to an earlier metaphor). To be sure, all are separated from the tree of life in Genesis 3, but perhaps, when all is said and done, God will have opened the way back to the tree of life for all of us. I’d like to think that.

But this isn’t what I find in the Bible. The prophets (especially Isaiah) always speak of God’s good future after all the impending/present unpleasantness of judgement, but they speak of it for a “remnant”, not for all. Jesus tells us the gate is narrow which leads to life (Matt 7:13-14) and most seeds do not take root because the soil is poor and some plants are weeds (both in Matt 13). Paul speaks to those who are “in Christ”, but always in the context of the majority who aren’t. And capping it all off, the end of Revelation, which in so many ways mirrors the beginning of Genesis, concludes with Jesus saying “Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practises falsehood.” (Rev 22:14-15). Not all will be permitted back to the tree of life, after all.

So we come back to my main point. God clearly seems to be calling us to make a choice: to accept his offer of new life or to choose our own path. He warns us that choosing our own path ultimately leads to death and destruction. He expends vast amounts of effort to persuade us to accept his offer. But in the end, the choice whether to “repent and believe” is our own. God, in his sovereignty, seems to have chosen to constrain himself by allowing us this choice. In other words, in this one regard we have free will. That is how the text reads.

Some other thoughts

Personally, I find the arguments above fairly convincing. However, reading Tom’s post, I find he also makes a very strong case. Part of the trouble is that we are both quoting selectively from the Bible. Any full understanding must take into account all that both of us have argued.

As I ponder this, one thought which occurs to me is that we are both making assumptions about the word “all”. When I argue that all those who reject God will die, I assume that this group is not empty. Certainly it is presently not empty, but maybe, just maybe, there will, in the end, be no dogs, sorcerers, fornicators, murderers, idolaters or anyone who loves and practises falsehood (Rev 22:14-15). And maybe the very threat that all such people will be left outside the heavenly city is exactly what is needed for us all to eventually see the light and choose to let God have his way with us.

Alternatively, there is another use of “all” with which we must wrestle. When Jesus says “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32), what does he mean by “all”? Could it be that he is speaking of a time frame in which only those who accept God’s call are left? Traditionally, people understand the Christian message to offer a choice between eternal blessing in heaven and eternal torment in hell. Neither of these understandings is strongly supported by scripture. The much clearer choice is between eternal life and destruction. Could it be that the “all” who God redeems is exactly that set of people who are extant beyond judgement?

Both of these suggestions may seem to be mere semantic games. But perhaps we should take them more seriously. Some of the things the Bible speaks of are beyond any experience we have ever had and they stretch our languages beyond breaking point. It may at least be worth rereading the scriptures with these two possible understandings of “all” in mind.

My second further thought concerns the problem of evil. This also lurks in the background of my conversation with Tom. One of the best ways of dealing with the problem of evil is to respond that the Bible attests that, at the very least, humans and angels have sufficient free will to rebel against God. If, as Tom suggests, we do not really have this free will, if God really is sovereign over all the choices of humans and angels, then the existence of evil seems to be laid at the feet of God himself.

On the other hand, taking the view for which I have argued, we are confronted with a loving God who is willing to allow most of us to go to destruction. Neither of these is comfortable thoughts. It seems to me that a rereading of the Bible with these two questions in the back of our minds is also required.

The moral hazard

Tom and I have briefly discussed the moral hazard implicit in a view that God is sovereign and that it is his responsibility, ultimately, to bring us all to salvation. What, then, is to stop us saying, “In that case, I choose a life of hedonism”? Well, perhaps, this is a rather extreme caricature. But, as a clergyman, I see deep seeds of truth in this concern. It is my almost universal experience in funeral ministry that the bereaved family harbour a vague sense that the world is basically good and providential and that their loved one is now in heaven. Yet they and the deceased have clearly lived with very little sense that there is any need to surrender one’s all to the sovereign God. They have bought the fleshly message that one should live for oneself and they have also bought the Spiritual message that God saves us. And they hold these two views together with no sense of contradiction in their minds.

That is worrying. But perhaps the real moral hazard is in dulling the church’s urgency in rescuing our neighbours from destruction. To listen to our conversations, we are far more concerned about church decline/growth than we are about all the people out there who are walking in darkness. Jesus always had an urgency in his call to “repent and believe”. So did the apostles, especially Paul who spent so much time travelling far and wide and speaking to anyone he could about the call to new life. I do wonder whether the Church’s present malaise stems partly from thinking that God is basically in control and will sort everything out. But, then, perhaps this also stems from a wrong understanding of sovereignty. So often we simply don’t trust God to be good for the promises he makes. We’d like to tell people the good news, but we give up at the first impossibility (which usually involves money or vulnerability). We do not trust God to overcome these obstacles.

Summary

Well, that’s it. Rereading both posts, it seems to me that there is more thinking and praying to be done. Perhaps, also, some of the ensuing conversation will bring further illumination.