Determinism or Free Will?

On Method

I use the terms “calvinist” and “arminian” as a shorthand for the two basic positions. Not to say that those two people believed or taught these specific things, but that their names have become associated with these positions. Even within the two major positions there are a number of variations.

In choosing to support one of these positions, I do not mean to assert that those who support one of the other positions are heretical or not christian. It appears that there have been godly and fruitful people holding each of these positions. This in itself should give us pause to consider whether (or how much) this argument is important.

Indeed, in considering these things, I have begun to wonder whether the desire to calculate or state a systematic theology may itself be a less than holy enterprise. It is right and proper to study and consider the testimony of Jesus and the apostles. Their words have been found instructive and lifegiving over many centuries. But we cannot avoid the fact that even among theologians who assert the inspiration and authority of Bible, that many alternate theologies have been derived from this same source text. If God chose not to give us a systematic theology in the Word, then we might legitimately question whether one is really necessary.

To some extent, the theology one holds, is dependent on which verses you choose to use as your interpretive key (also known as your “hermeneutical centre“). If you start with Romans 8:29,30 then you can make most other texts line up around that verse and derive the calvinist viewpoint. But if instead you start with Ezekiel 18:25ff as your central proposition, then most other verses can be aligned into the arminian position. It should be noted, that as weak human beings, we have a tendency to choose the answer we want to find, and then go hunting for verses which support our prejudice, and to ignore the other verses which dont fit that scheme.

What is agreed upon

There are several theological propositions which are agreed upon by both calvinists and arminians. It is the interaction of these principles which is subject to debate.

• Justification by faith, and not by works.
• The saving power of the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross.
• The omnipotence and ominscience of God.

The sovereignty of God

Arminians and calvinists are agreed on the capabilities of God. He is omnipotent, omniscient and sovereign. He knows everything, sees everything, is all powerful and can direct the affairs of the created universe from the macro galaxy-spanning level down to the fall of a single petal, or even down to the radioactive decay of a single atom. Where the arminians might choose to depart from the calvinists, is the extent to which God chooses to exercise these capabilities. Clearly if God is all-powerful and also personal, then He can choose whether or not to exercise his power. Scripture is clear that God hates evil and sin, but nevertheless we see those things endemic within the creation. If God is all powerful, then he must have the capability to eradicate evil and sin from his creation. Indeed we are promised in Revelation that that will someday occur. However the fact that evil and sin are present now, suggests that in some way God has chosen for them to remain. This demonstrates that God is capable of some things, which nevertheless he does not choose to do. He is still omnipotent, omniscient and sovereign, but he is choosing not to exercise that power, or at least not now. The question of why God chooses to let evil remain, is one to which we will return.

Time as part of the creation

Genesis starts with “in the beginning”. There was a beginning to creation, and to speak of what went before that, appears to be meaningless. A matching singularity occurs in at the other end of time. In Revelation 21:6 the voice from the throne states “It is done”. In Rev 21:4 “the old order of things has passed away”. The fate of the wicked in Rev 20:10 will persist “for ever and ever”. And the reign of Gods servants in Rev 22:5 is also “for ever and ever”. Another way of stating this, is to say that there is no longer any concept of time after these events. Thus it appears that time is itself a part of the created order, just as much as things and places; the relativity physics of the 20th century has come to a similar conclusion. If God created time, then he is outside it and not subject to it. Having understood this, it becomes clearer how God can know the future of his creation, and even provide his prophets with a glimpse of what is yet to come. He sees it all. It also sheds some light on how God’s decisions and actions may take effect on a timescale which seems odd to us humans, subject as we are to the constraints of time: “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” 2 Peter 3:8.

Having understood this, we can now ask ourselves how the accuracy of the foreknowledge of God comes about. If the destruction of the Temple is predicted by God’s prophets, then, is that because God has specifically chosen that it will occur, or merely that he has looked ahead and seen that it will occur? Perhaps there are actually three options:

• God has not chosen one way or the other; but he has seen the outcome
• God has specifically chosen that outcome
• God has not specifically chosen that outcome, but in not choosing against, it, he effectively chooses for it.

Is God’s Creation deterministic?

Is God’s Creation deterministic? Are all the outcomes chosen and fixed by God in advance, regardless of any superficial appearance of human choice or randomness? Some calvinists would have us believe this. Their view of the sovereignty and providence of God allows no other option. In this view, God is continually creating and upholding the universe and personally directing the outcome of every event, even down to the atomic level. When a die roll comes up as a 6, that is God’s choice. When a radioactive atom decays, God chose that moment for it to do so. When an earthquake causes a tsunami which kills 200,000 people, that was also God’s direct choice. When a human denies their creator and remains apostate, that is also what God decided would happen. This is a grim view. To some detractors, this view of God describes an evil tyrant. But ironically, in this system, it doesn’t actually matter what our opinion of it is, because our opinion, either for or against, is also pre-determined. There is a possibility that this deterministic extreme form of calvinism (“hyper-calvinism”) is true. However, if it is true, then nothing else actually matters. Not your choices, not your faith, not your works, not your actions, not your prayers, not your repentance, not even the death of Christ. All these things are trumped by that sovereign will, which chose this outworking of creation but could just as easily have chosen any other. Including one which had no humans, no incarnation and no redemption.

Predestination also has uncomfortable consequences for the incarnation of Christ. Hebrews 4:15 reminds us that “we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin.” If Jesus is truly a man, and the calvinist doctrine is correct, then the incarnated Jesus did not have free will, in which case his sinlessness isn’t all that impressive. But if he does still have free will because of his divine nature, and yet remains sinless via predestination, then he has not experienced the true shame of humanity because our “total depravity” somehow did not stick to him.

Are there multiple possible outcomes?

Set against the deterministic option, we can also envisage a creation which is not fully pre-determined.

For example, God may have created randomness, as a specifically chosen quality of certain things, as per Eccles 9:11 “time and chance happen to them all”. The radioactive decay of atoms appears unpredictable as far as 20th century science can determine. If God is omnipotent, then randomness, at least at the microscopic level, is a possible created feature. However, even though the radioactive decay of a specific atom is unpredictable, the average rate of decay is actually quite predictable. So randomness at the micro level appears to lead to predictability on a macro scale. Alternatively, it may be the case that truly random events are not permitted by God, even at the microscopic level : “But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.” Luke 12:7. However, to our human perspective, there are many events which nevertheless appear unpredictable, due to insufficient knowledge, such as the fall of a dice, or tomorrow’s weather. In this case, we have sovereignty at the micro level leading to apparent randomness at the macro level. I don’t find either of these possibilities to be in conflict with the providence of God stated in the Word. Even if randomness is a created part of His design, he can still intervene whenever he chooses, and particularly with regard to furthering his plan of salvation. However, if you hold that there is no randomness at any level, and God chooses everything, then He is also directly accountable for all the consequences of earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, and floods.

The capability to make moral choices may be another specifically chosen feature for some creatures in the creation, which could also lead to a non-deterministic outcome. When Genesis tells us that God creates man in his own image, a central contender for that image likeness, is the capacity to know good from evil and to choose between them. A recurring feature of the entire Biblical history is the call to do good and avoid evil, to serve God and not yourself or the enemy, to accept the gospel call or reject it. This call appears to assume that its hearers have the capability to make that choice. The free exercise of such choices, would introduce a non-deterministic element to the Creation. The story of the world and the fate of its souls becomes alive: the ball is in play, both sides can advance and retreat, and the score is uncertain until the final trump. However, if you assert with the Calvinists, the doctrines of total depravity and unconditional election, then the call of the Word is just background noise, falling on deaf ears and stony hearts. It doesn’t really matter whether you hear the Word or preach it, nor whether you pray or curse, because those things are having no effect and the outcome is already decided.

The purpose of prayer is of particular relevance to this question of whether there are multiple possible outcomes. In a deterministic creation, prayer doesn’t work. Because it cannot change anything. God remains sovereign over the consequences, and even over whether you prayed or not. His will is done regardless. The only prayer you need is “Your will be done” (Matt 6:10, 26:42) which encompasses everything else, and is answered every time. The only possible effect of such a prayer is to change the one who prays, and help them to know better what that will is. However, this model of prayer doesn’t fit well with the scriptural exhortations to pray, which seem to expect that different outcomes can be achieved. We will return to the purpose of prayer in a moment.

A middle way?

There is a set of moderate calvinists, who seek to find a middle path between the full determinism of the hyper-calvinists and the free-will of the arminians.
For example, in responding to this conundrum, some would suggest that humans have the appearance of freewill choice in this life, only to discover in the eternal reality of heaven, that God predetermined everything. This position has free-will as merely an illusion of perspective, and is therefore more properly classed with the mainstream calvinists who deny free-will.

Wayne Grudem, while otherwise following a calvinist line supporting the doctrines of total depravity (Systematic Theology, p497) and unconditional election (p679), nevertheless declines to be classed as a determinist. Instead, he asserts that “God brings many people across our paths and gives us the responsibility to act towards them in eternally significant ways – whether for good or ill” (p334) and “Scripture repeatedly affirms that our choices are genuine choices, that they have real results, and that those results last for eternity” (p344). When discussing conversion, he says that “true saving faith […] comes only when I make a decision of my will to depend on, or put my trust in, Christ as my saviour” (p712), but then contradicts that when discussing predestination: “Election is an act of God before creation in which he chooses some people to be saved, not on account of any foreseen merit in them, but only because of his sovereign good pleasure” (p670). His conclusion is “that God has made us in such a way that (1) he ordains all that we do, and (2) that we exercise our personal will and make real voluntary choices” (p344). As a systematic theologian, Grudem is more faithful to the full range of biblical teaching, but still ends up with this contradictory conclusion. He goes on to ask “Because we cannot understand this, should we therefore reject it?” to which my answer is Yes – if your theology produces a nonsense result, then it’s probably wrong.

Iain Murray, considering Spurgeon on repentance and conversion (The Forgotten Spurgeon, p99) also accepts a contradiction when he writes: “The point at which [Spurgeon] diverged from both Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism is that he refused to rationalise how men can be commanded to do what is not in their power. Arminians say that sinners are commanded, therefore they must be able; Hyper Calvinists say they are not able, therefore they cannot be commanded. But scripture and Calvinism sets forth both mans inability and his duty.” He quotes Spurgeon (Sermons 56, p294) saying “this is not a subject for understanding, it is a matter for believing” The direct contradiction inherent in this view is noted by Murray on page 8: [Spurgeon believed Scripture teaches..]” that man is responsible to believe the gospel, yet on account of sin wholly unable to do so” and “The only reply which true Calvinism can make to the rational deductions of the Hyper-Calvinist and the Arminian is to assert, as Paul asserts in Romans 9, the inadmissibility of man’s reasoning processes when they are applied to subjects which God has not chosen to explain. “

This is a bit cheeky, in that human reasoning is being used by both Grudem and Spurgeon in writing their systematic theologies to assert the inadmissibility of human reasoning, when applied to this specific issue.

Romans 9:19-21 says : “19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
Romans 9 is the ground zero, the hermeneutical centre, of the calvinist position. Unassailable on its own, but not quite so definitive when taken alongside the rest of scripture. So let us now review the relevant scriptural passages for both calvinism and arminianism.

The Calvinist position

The Wikipedia page is a useful introduction to Calvinism. For our discussion, the key idea is the sovereign will of God in salvation. The “TULIP” mnemonic reminds us of the five key tenets of that viewpoint, although this well-known formulation was actually set out after Calvin’s death, in response to the Five Articles of the Arminians.

• Total Depravity – Humans are incapable of not sinning, and are incapable of turning to God of their own will. There is no free-will choosing possible, because sin automatically causes a choice against God.
• Unconditional Election – God chooses his people (his “elect”) unconditionally, and not by their merit or choice. Those who are not elect are predestined to damnation.
• Limited Atonement – Jesus’s atoning death only works for the elect.
• Irresistible Grace – The elect will get saved, having no choice to deny or resist the call of God.
• Perseverance of the Saints – Those who are saved, cannot fall away. Those who fall away, were never saved, or will return to faith.

Verses which could be used to support a Calvinist position:

Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honoured the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed to eternal life believed.
The word “appointed” suggests an external decision, rather than the choice of those who believed.
Rev 17:8 …The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life from the creation of the world….
Eph 1:4,5 4 For he chose us in him, before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ in accordance with his pleasure and will.
Conceivably, “before the creation of the world” in verse 4 refers to the timing of the “holy and blameless” state, rather than the timing of the choosing. However verse 5 is seems clear in its use of “predestined”, which suggests that verse 4 also refers to a pre-creation decision about those who will be adopted as His sons.

1 Thess 1:4,11 4 For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you [….] 11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will
Solid support for election here.

Rom 8:28-30 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew, he also predestined […..] 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
These verses are intriguing. The predestined/called/justified trio strongly supports the calvinist argument. God’s predestination leads inexorably to a call and to justification. But what then does “foreknew” add? As we noted earlier with regard to the omniscience of God, we can assert that even before the creation of the world, God had perfect knowledge of how it would play out. This is not necessarily the same thing as saying that God completely determines the history of the world, but rather that he can look ahead and see what will happen, even if those happenings are not pre-determined. Foreknowledge again appears in 1 Peter as prior to election.

1 Peter 1:1,2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father
Romans 9 : “11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
{quoting the words of God to Moses (Exodus 33:19), after the golden calf, in forgiving the Israelites}
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

But then later in Romans 9, Paul seems to assert a righteousness that is obtained by faith rather than election.
30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.
Although Romans 9 is normally taken as supporting a calvinist view of election, we should consider that Paul’s object (like the Refomers) was to combat justification by works, rather than arminianism.
John 6:65 (Jesus speaking) This is why I told you that no-one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him
Although supporting a certain amount of predestination, this verse can also be interpreted in an arminian way, if we accept that we all need a measure of God’s assistance to overcome sin and pride, and find faith.
John 10:26 (Jesus speaking to Jews) ….you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them and they follow me
This verse might be about election. But it could equally be a differentiation between those who had freely chosen God and those who had denied him.
Eph 2:4,5,8,9,10 4 But because of his great love for us, God who is rich in mercy 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions – it is by grace you have been saved. [….} 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of god – 9 not by works, so that no-one can boast. 10 For we are Gods workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
2 Tim 1:9 … God 9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life – not because of anything we have done, but because of his grace.
James 1:18 He chose to give us birth through the word of truth that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all that he created
1 Peter 1:23 But you have been born again [..] through the living and enduring word of God
These four passages certainly assert salvation via grace. Which could imply election, but does not rule out free will.

One point to note about these verses used to support the calvinist view is that they are all from the New Testament. Apart from the two verses in John, there is nothing from the Old Testament or the Gospels. This will be seen as a contrast with the verses in support of the arminian view, which come from a rather broader selection of biblical texts. If the calvinist perspective is considered to be contingent on the new covenant, then we should be concerned that the gospels do not bear consistent witness to it.

The Arminian Position

The Five Articles of Remonstrance asserted that:

• Election (and condemnation on the day of judgment) is conditioned by the rational faith or nonfaith of man;
• The Atonement, while qualitatively adequate for all men, is efficacious only for the man of faith;
• Unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will;
• Grace is resistible;
• Believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.

Verses which could be used to support an Arminian position:

Ezekiel 18:25ff, recording the word of the LORD to the Israelites: 25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26 If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will die for it; because of the sin they have committed they will die. 27 But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life. 28 Because they consider all the offenses they have committed and turn away from them, that person will surely live; they will not die. 29 Yet the Israelites say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Are my ways unjust, people of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?
30 “Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live! “
These verses are an interesting parallel and contrast to Romans 9. But instead of asserting election as Paul does, the word of the LORD to Ezekiel asserts the capability of the Israelites to repent and live, even anyone who repents.

And again in Ezekiel 33:11ff 11 Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’
12 “Therefore, son of man, say to your people, ‘If someone who is righteous disobeys, that person’s former righteousness will count for nothing. And if someone who is wicked repents, that person’s former wickedness will not bring condemnation.

Which seems to be quite clear that it is repentance and righteousness that leads to salvation, and not election. These verses are difficult to interpret from a calvinistic viewpoint, because both the groups of people envisaged here, are unable to exist within the calvinist theology. The perseverance of the saints idea says that the righteous cannot disobey and lose their salvation. The calvinist view of total depravity says the wicked cannot repent. But here is the LORD, via Ezekiel, stating the opposite in each case.

Acts 3:19 (Peter says, speaking to Israelites ) 19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out
Matthew 28:18ff 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
No mention of the elect, and no limit to the mission.

Matt 23:37-39 quoting Jesus: 37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
These verses invite us to consider whether Israel is part of the the elect according to the calvinist formulation. The Torah suggests they are. But somewhere in the Kings era they lose their way, and are no longer assured of His favour. Yet here in the gospels, the offer of salvation is back on the table for those who acknowledge the Messiah. The only thing standing in the way is that the people of Jerusalam “were not willing”. This doesn’t fit well with unconditional election or irresistible grace or the perseverance of the saints. But is a much better fit to the arminian proposition of justification by freely chosen faith.

Joshua 24:15 (Joshua speaking to the Israelites) But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the Gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.
Joshua appears to assert that it is not being part of Gods chosen people which matters, but whether each person or family chooses to follow God.

Jeremiah 36:3 recording the words of the LORD: Perhaps when the people of Judah hear about every disaster I am about to inflict on them, each of them will turn from his wicked way; then I will forgive their wickedness and their sin.

1 Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.
This appears to contradict the doctrine of total depravity. Or at least that for God’s people, He will provide a way for them to avoid sin.

Matt 11:28 quoting Jesus: Come to me all you who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest.
Matt 18:14 quoting Jesus: In the same way, your father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish {although the flock could be seen as analogous to the elect, rather than humanity}
Mark 16:15,16 quoting Jesus: Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptised, will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

In a definitive statement like this, if election was the key factor, then surely Jesus would mention it. He doesn’t and therefore we should take His words at face value and assert that belief is key, and not election.

John 3:16 quoting Jesus: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

This is probably the key verse for arminians. No mention of election, just a choice available to everyone.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied “Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call. 40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
Verse 38 has hints of both views in it. The offer of salvation is to “every one of you” and “for all who are far off”. But the concluding phrase is less clear. “all whom the Lord our God will call” could be everyone, on the strength of the earlier part of the verse, or could imply that there is another category of those whom the Lord our God will not call. Verse 40 indicates that it was the choice of each hearer which determined whether that person was added to the believers.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
1 Tim 2:4-6, 4:10 …God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men…
…we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men and especially of those who believe
Romans 5:18,19 18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
Each of these three passages points to salvation being available to everyone and not just a predetermined elect.

Revelation 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.
Overall, the witness of the verses in this section, including the words of Jesus, is that our salvation is at least partially dependent on our choices, and not merely pre-determined.

If God predetermines who will be saved, and He is also all-powerful, then he would appear to be choosing that some will not be saved, despite asserting the opposite on several occasions (Matt 18:14, John3:16, 2 Peter 3:9, 1Tim 2:4, Romans 5:18 etc). However, if he desires that all should be saved, but some are not saved, then it would also appear that He has constrained His own power in some way, and not fully predetermined the outcomes. One might therefore conclude that He does not predetermine who will be saved, which implies that our choices or actions are somehow involved.

Do we have free will?

Almost everyone would agree that human beings have at least the perception of free will. For example, it appears to me that I can type whatever I choose here, and even get the spellung wrung if I want to. But underlying that appearance, there may be two possibilities:

• we may have no free will. Although subjectively we believe we do, it could be an illusion: a consequence of causality and brain chemicals, or of specific divine intervention, means that there is always only one choice we could ever have made.
• or we do have free will, unconstrained by God, and it is the providential outcome of His specific gift of godlikeness, to be a moral being, able to choose, between good and evil, and between serving God or rebelling.

If free will does exist, we should note that, given the omniscient power of God, this free choice can only be enacted in our lives, if God specifically chooses not to intervene against our free choice. Moreover, given that God is outside time, and sees it all, his decision not to intervene predates the moment of our choice from since before the world began. So in a sense, God decides first. But only with the perfect fore-knowledge of our moral decisions. This could look a lot like predestination, but is actually subtly different. Although God chooses that all the other options won’t happen, and in fact never could have, our choice at the time remains real. We could truly have chosen the other option, in which case, the fore-known history would also have been different. Now the beginning of Romans 8:29 makes more sense: “For those God foreknew, he also predestined….” and 1 Peter 1 has a different spin where he says that the elect are “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God“.

The existence of free will would bring genuine accountability. Because now the eternal plan of a just and loving God makes sense. In justice he condemns the wicked, and in love he offers a way back to righteousness. Although we inherit a sinful state from Adam, and are assailed by the enemy, we are no longer bound to that sinful state. Our Lord offers the strength to avoid sin, to make real our choice to repent, and the grace to be regenerated and made new. Whether we enter into those things is our choice, but the power to enter into them is from the Lord; without His grace, even that choice would soon be overtaken and corrupted by sin.

Free will also begins to make sense of the problem of evil. In a creation without free will, God is accountable for the evil that men do, for He chose that outcome and was the only one who could have made it turn out differently. But in a creation with free-will, the co-existence of a good God with evil outcomes becomes explicable. If God chooses not to thwart free will choice, then consequentially He will have to tolerate the evil created by the choices of the servants of the enemy. Or at least until the years of this creation are done. But that is not the whole story. For ranged against the schemes of the enemy are the free will choices of God’s people. Where we choose to do good, He is able to recognise that free will choice too, and put His power at our disposal to overcome evil.

Perhaps the purest form of this is in prayer. The “Your will be done” universal prayer is a great place to start, in that it reminds us of the highest standard we are called to. It’s in the Lords Prayer (Matt 6:10) and Jesus prays it at Gethsemane (Matt 26:42). But it remains insufficient. In both of these examples from Jesus, there is prayer for specific outcomes as well. Perhaps our specific prayer on behalf of just and righteous outcomes, in specific situations, is what unlocks the power of God to combat the enemy. Maybe he is always willing and desiring to intervene, yet chooses not to override human will. So if an evil person chooses a bad thing, but “two or three are gathered in my name” to pray for the righteous opposite, then perhaps now He can intervene, without overriding free will.

att 18:19,20: 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

Similarly, the angel who comes to Daniel in Daniel 10:12 is dispatched in response to Daniel’s prayer, humility and fasting:[the angel] continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them.

In Conclusion

Having covered the issues, it’s time to take a view.

My view is that foreknowledge does not mandate predestination, and that the appearance of election is caused by foreknowledge of a freely chosen faith.

I find that the arminian view supporting free will has broader scriptural support, articulates a more compelling purpose to creation, and animates the meaning of prayer.

RJ7: May 2023