The Bible and Free Will: Answering Objections (part 5 of 5)

Part 4: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-bible-and-free-will-monergism-vs.html

    “God gives us a choice”

One of the most common objections to the biblical view of free will and God’s sovereignty laid out in the last three posts is the argument that “God gives us (humans) a choice to follow Him or not, and He allows us to exercise free will in this matter, because He would not force Himself on us.” Now, it should be clear that this is not a proper argument, but instead an assertion, one which I believe is unsupported by the scriptural evidence which I have meticulously laid out over the past few weeks. However, there are a number of specific passages thought to teach this. Here are some of the most commonly used:

“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving Yahweh your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding close to Him.” (Deut. 30:19-20)

“But if it is disagreeable in your sight to serve Yahweh, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served, which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve Yahweh.” (Josh. 24:15)

Yet however many received it [God’s word], it gave to them authority to become children of God, to the [ones] believing in its name. (Jn. 1:12)

For God loved the world thus: that He gave the only-begotten Son, so that all the [ones] believing in Him may not perish, but may have age-during life. (Jn. 3:16)

Now, these passages (among many others) certainly show that humans have a choice to follow God or not, and that our choice must arise from within ourselves (that is, our will must align itself with God’s preceptive will; Matt. 7:21, 12:50, Rom. 12:2). But it is simply begging the question to say that this requires libertarian free will as opposed to compatibilist “free” will. After all, the very definition of free will according to classic compatibilism is that the outcomes of one’s choices align with one’s inner desires. But this does not require that, per libertarianism, the possibility to have chosen otherwise must be legitimate. Thus, these passages are just as compatible with monergism and compatibilism as they are with synergism and libertarianism.

    Furthermore, the surrounding context of these passages is far more supportive of a monergistic interpretation. Deuteronomy 30:19 is in the context of a much larger prophecy in which God states that the Israelites would, one day, turn away from God and be destroyed, but eventually would turn back to Him and be restored (Deut. 29:27-30:9; 31:14-32:43). This implies that, though the choice to follow God was theirs alone, God was still ultimately in control and had predestined the future rebellion (and restoration) of Israel.

    Likewise, John 1:12 must be quoted entirely out of context to support a synergistic interpretation. The very next verse states that the children of God “were born not out of blood, nor out of the will of flesh, nor out of the will of man, but out of God.” Clearly, then, the passage as a whole supports monergism, not synergism. The same out-of-context quoting can be seen in John 3:16, since earlier in the same discourse, Jesus made it clear that in order to be saved one must be born from above, of the spirit of God (Jn. 3:3-8).

    Therefore, the idea that God gives us alone a choice to follow Him using libertarian free will, without involving Himself in our decision at all, is extremely unbiblical. Like so many other aspects of the debate surrounding free will and monergism, this idea stems from a confusion of libertarian and compatibilist free will. Although nobody doubts that our decision to follow God must arise from within ourselves, this view is consistent with both compatibilist and libertarian accounts of salvation. And as shown above, the surrounding context of the verses which are oft-quoted by Arminians actually supports compatibilism and monergism over against libertarianism and synergism.

    “God is not the author of sin”

Another argument often used against theological determinism is the assertion that “God is not the author of sin,” and therefore He cannot be the ultimate cause of anyone’s sin or evil actions. This statement has been quoted so often that many people actually believe it is from the Bible. But this statement is not from the Bible; it is from the Westminster Confession (5.4), a Reformation-era confession of faith [1]. Furthermore, this statement - if taken to mean that God is never the cause of anyone’s sin - would seem to contradict the many instances in scripture where God is explicitly shown to be the ultimate cause of certain evil actions, which I documented in my earlier post on God’s two wills.

    Although the statement that “God is not the author of sin” is not directly biblical, it does stem from legitimate concerns which non-determinists have about God predestinating evil actions. One passage of scripture which is usually pointed to as supporting these concerns is James 1:13, which states that “God is not tempted by evils, and He tempts no one.” However, if taken to mean that God never causes temptation in any way, this would directly contradict 2 Samuel 24:1 which states that God tempted David to sin, as well as 1 Corinthians 10:13 which implies that God provides us with both temptation and escapes from temptation. This contradiction only be resolved if Jas. 1:13 is stating that God never directly causes temptation, but instead acts through agents to cause temptation [2].

    Another passage which is thought to support the view that God can never cause sin is 1 John 1:5, which states that “God is light, and there is absolutely no darkness in Him.” However, the fact that God is light and love does not preclude the belief that He predestined or created darkness and evil. Consider the following passages, some of which were quoted earlier in this series:

And I set my heart to seek and search out concerning all that is done under the heavens. It is an evil experience that God has given to the sons of men, to humble them by it. (Ecc. 1:13) 

“I am Yahweh, and there is no one else. I form light and create darkness, make peace and create evil; I, Yahweh, do all these things.” (Isa. 45:6-7)

“Shall we accept good from God and not evil?” In [saying] all this, Job did not sin with his lips. (Job 2:10)

Who speaks, and it comes to pass, if Yahweh has not commanded it? Does not the evil go out from the mouth of the Most High along with the good? Why should a living man complain about his sins? (Lam. 3:37-39)

If a trumpet is blown in a city, will not the people be afraid? If there is evil in a city, has not Yahweh caused it? (Amos 3:6)

All these passages clearly teach that God is the ultimate cause of evil actions. Indeed, there is nothing that a person can say or do without God having predestined it (such is the nature of determinism).

    The problem that many people see with this view is that this makes God Himself seem evil and unloving. This causes Him to be responsible, directly or indirectly, for all manner of horrors throughout history - from slavery to genocide, and even the original introduction of sin into the world - all of which were bound to occur from the moment God created the universe. However, this apparent difficulty only occurs when we try to project human attributes onto God. After all, scripture makes clear that all of the evil which God creates in accordance with His will is, ultimately, for a greater purpose:

For the Lord will not cast off forever. For though He causes suffering, yet He will show compassion according to the abundance of His goodness. For He does not afflict from the heart, nor suffer the sons of men. (Lam. 3:31-33)

...having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His pleasure, which He predetermined in him [Christ], for the administration of the fullness of the seasons, to sum up the all things in the Christ, the things upon the heavens and the things upon the earth. (Eph. 1:9-10)

From these passages, we can see that the evil which God causes to be perpetuated in the current wicked age (Gal. 1:4) all works toward a greater purpose, the mystery of God’s (providential) will, which is to bring all things together in Christ. The suffering which God temporarily brings is not “from the heart,” that is, God does not cause us to suffer out of His own morally evil condition, but for the fundamentally good purpose of later showing mercy. We must have faith that every evil which we suffer now will make our experience of eternity that much better [3]. This shows that God can create evil without compromising His own perfect goodness and light.

    One possible objection to this view is the idea that, if all sin works toward an ultimate greater good, then sin cannot be considered morally wrong when committed by humans. However, this ignores what the actual meaning of “sin” is. According to the apostle John, “sin is lawlessness” (1 Jn. 3:2). Sin occurs when we fail to follow the laws to love God and our neighbor (Matt. 22:34-40; Rom. 13:8-10), regardless of how this comes about. Even though our actions are predetermined, when we fail to act in the best interests of others and are unloving, we are sinning. In contrast, God cannot sin, because His very nature is love (1 Jn. 4:8, 16 cf. Matt. 5:43-48). Even though He causes humans to sin, this is in the best interest of others, due to the greater ultimate purpose - the “mystery of His will” (Eph. 1:9-10). Thus, sin is still morally wrong, and God is still morally good, even if theological determinism is true [4].

    God’s Sovereignty vs. God’s Love, or Both?

Although Arminians do use some biblical arguments for their position, the weight of the biblical argument is clearly in favor of monergism. Instead, virtually all Arminian arguments against the validity of Calvinism (such as this one or this one) boil down to an argument that, if God is truly sovereign and salvation is monergistic (as the Bible states), then God must not truly be loving, because He chooses to save some and not others in an apparently arbitrary fashion. This can be represented in the following way:

Premise 1. The God of Calvinism predestines who will be saved and who will not be saved according to His will.

Premise 2. Not all will be saved.

Premise 3. The God of Calvinism does not will all to be saved [P1-P2].

Premise 4. The God of the Bible loves all people and wills all to be saved (Matt. 5:43-48, 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9).

Conclusion. The God of Calvinism is not the God of the Bible [P3-4].

Calvinists usually respond by arguing that “all mankind” in 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 doesn’t really mean every human without exception, but instead all of the elect. However, this stretches the meaning of the Greek text to its very limits, and ignores the context of these passages which shows that “all mankind” truly does refer to all people without exception. Furthermore, this answer does not satisfactorily answer the fact that God also states elsewhere that He does not delight in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11) and that He loves even His enemies [5], indeed, His love of all people without exception is integral to His very perfection (Matt. 5:43-48) and being (1 Jn. 4:8, 16).

    I believe that Arminians have correctly identified this as a fatal point of weakness for Calvinism. God’s love for all people is integral to His perfection and being. If God failed to always act in the best interests of others, He would be sinning (Matt. 22:34-40; 1 Jn. 3:4), and yet God cannot sin; therefore, God must always act in the best interests of others. This is incompatible with the belief that God predestines some to salvation and not others. However, Arminianism is just as incompatible with the fact that God loves all people and wills all to be saved. Consider the following syllogism:

Premise 1. The God of Arminianism foreknows who will choose to be saved, and who will not.

Premise 2. Not all will be saved.

Premise 3. It is impossible for a being to have a choice in their own creation.

Premise 4. The God of Arminianism creates beings whom He foreknows will not be saved, without their own choice in the matter [P1-P3].

Premise 5. The God of Arminianism does not will all to be saved [P4].

Premise 6. The God of the Bible loves all people and wills all to be saved.

Conclusion. The God of Arminianism is not the God of the Bible.

Therefore, although Arminians claim to have a doctrine which is more compatible with God’s love for all people, the fact is that the God of Arminianism - in creating beings which He foreknows will not choose to be saved - is still incompatible with the God of the Bible who actually wills all to be saved. And although Open Theists, who believe that God does not foreknow the decisions made by humans with free will, claim to have the upper hand in this matter because they believe God did not foreknow who would choose not to be saved, they actually have the exact same issue. Consider the following syllogism:

Premise 1. The God of Open Theism, before creating, would have either expected all to be saved or not.

Premise 2. Not all will be saved.

Premise 3. If the God of Open Theism expected all to be saved, He is a fool for believing so.

Premise 4. If the God of Open Theism did not expect all to be saved, He must not will all to be saved.

Premise 5. The God of Open Theism is either a fool, or does not will all to be saved [P1-P4].

Premise 6. The God of the Bible is not a fool and does will all to be saved.

Conclusion. The God of Open Theism is not the God of the Bible.

From these logical syllogisms, we can clearly see that, regardless of which soteriological position one assumes - whether Calvinism, Arminianism, or Open Theism - their God does not love all people without exception and is therefore not the God of the Bible. Although it is true that Calvinism compromises God’s love in favor of His sovereignty, both of the alternatives to Calvinism end up compromising God’s sovereignty and His love.

    So where did we go wrong? Is God an unloving monster who changes His will on a whim? Of course not. Instead, I believe that this demonstrates an even greater underlying problem in Christian theology, and that is the assumption that not all people will be saved. If we reject this premise, then it again becomes possible to affirm God’s love for all people, even along with God’s sovereignty. And in fact, one would be hard-pressed to find evidence for this premise in scripture; although the Bible definitely says that many will be judged and found guilty, it does not state that anyone’s punishment will be without end (and any translation which makes it appear as such is a mistranslation [6]).

    Once we reject the premise that not all people will be saved, the testimony of scripture to God’s nature as being simultaneously sovereign and perfectly loving becomes self-consistent. After all, there is nothing contradictory about saying that, “God opened the hearts of myself and others to believe the truth, but He has not yet opened the hearts of all,“ or that “God granted myself and others repentance and faith, but He has not yet granted this to all people.” Because of this, I believe that the only position which is consistent with God’s self-revelation and logic is the position that I myself hold, namely Monergistic Universalism.

______________________________

[1] Although even the authors of the Westminster Confession believed that God is the ultimate cause of all sin (see chap. 5), so one wonders what they meant by “God is not the author nor approver of sin.”

[2] For example, comparing 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1 demonstrates that God was acting through Satan to tempt David to sin.

[3] Of course, this balancing act between God’s sovereignty and goodness only works in a universalist worldview. In order for God’s actions to be justified, the eventual good must outweigh the good which would have resulted had there been no evil. Yet in traditional Calvinism, there remains an unregenerated humanity whose suffering continues into eternity. Since, under this view, evil continues to be perpetuated by God infinitely, the good can never finally outweigh the evil.

[4] This also solves the “problem of evil” which has been sometimes considered to be insurmountable for Abrahamic theism. The traditional solution, Platinga’s free-will defense (which argues that evil must exist in any universe with libertarian free will), has certain documented problems, not least of which is the issue that libertarian free will itself is logically impossible due to the “luck problem.” The solution of theological determinism advocated here has no such problems, but has been ignored by the vast majority of Christians due to the necessary consequence of universalism.

[5] Since love does no harm (Rom. 13:10), and God does not cast off those whom He loves forever (Lam. 3:31-33), God’s love for all people is incompatible with the Calvinist view that God arbitrarily assigns some to eternal torment or annihilation.

[6] See my previous posts on the meaning of the Greek words αιων and αιωνιος, which are the words used in scripture to describe punishment, and which are not properly translated “forever” or “eternal” but instead “pertaining to/of the ages.”