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.”

The Bible and Free Will: Monergism vs. Synergism (part 4 of 5)

Part 3: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-bible-and-free-will-open-theism-and.html

     In the last post of this series on theological determinism, we looked at the view of open theism (the belief that God does not have perfect foreknowledge of the future regarding human ‘free will’) and found it lacking, based on a number of prooftexts which open theists fail to recognize are employing the literary device of anthropopathism. However, there is another, more common view at odds with theological determinism: synergism, or as it is more commonly known, Arminianism. Synergism (or Arminianism) is the view that salvation is a joint action between God and humanity, and that humans must exercise their (libertarian) ‘free will’ to make a choice to be saved. In contrast, monergism (or as it is more commonly known, Calvinism) is the view that salvation is a unilateral act of God. In this post, we will see why monergism is a much more scriptural and correct view than synergism.

    “I will give you a new heart”

One major synergist/Arminian talking point is the idea that God would not ‘violate’ human free will by ‘forcing’ anyone to love and follow Him. According to them, if God unilaterally acted to save any human being (as proposed by monergism), it would actually be an unloving action because He would be bypassing the ‘free will’ of those people [1]. As one major Christian website, “Got Questions,” states,

God respects what He has created to such an extent that He will not allow even His overwhelming love to violate our free will... [God] won’t force the love, because forced love is not love at all.. He won’t force salvation on the unwilling. [2]

Although this view is extremely common among Christians, it also goes entirely against what the Bible says about God’s complete sovereignty even over the human will. I discussed most of the pertinent passages in the first post of this series. Most notably, God is said to fashion “the heart” and “all the deeds” of “all the inhabitants of the earth” (Ps. 33:13-15), and He is said to have the ability to “turn [the heart of man] wherever He desires” (Prov. 21:1), as He “gives to everyone... everything” (Acts 17:25), which necessarily includes thoughts, emotions, desires, etc. 

    Keeping in mind that God is in absolute control of the human will at all times, it should be a simple task for Him to naturally cause someone to love and follow Him without ‘forcing’ their love, or ‘violating’ their (compatibilist) free will [3]. And indeed, according to several passages, God is quite able to cause someone to love Him without ‘forcing’ that love:

“And Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your descendants, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart and all your soul, that you may live.” (Deut. 30:6)

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me... Restore to me the joy of Your salvation, and uphold me by Your generous spirit. (Ps. 51:10, 12)

“And I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am Yahweh, and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.” (Jer. 24:7)

“And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you, and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh, and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and My judgments, and you will keep and do [them]... Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and your abominations.” (Ezek. 36:26-27, 31)

Here, we are told in no uncertain terms that God has the ability to give someone a “new heart,” to cause them to “love Yahweh [their] God with all [their] heart,” and to “walk in [His] statutes and [His] judgments.” The sequence of events here is quite clear; it is not that one makes a choice to follow God, and then He gives them a new heart, but that God gives them “a heart to know [Him]” which causes them to “return to [Him] with their whole heart.” These passages make it absolutely clear: salvation is a unilateral act of God, and can only be considered synergistic in the sense that a person must choose to come to God because He caused them to do so.

    And really, who could ever doubt God’s ability to do so in the first place? In the human realm of events, we have only an imperfect knowledge of our fellow human beings, and so any attempt to cause another person to ‘love’ us will inevitably fail; they must come to that love organically, on their own. But when it comes to God, who “is greater than the heart and knows all things” (1 Jn. 3:20), would He not know the exact set of events and circumstances needed to bring one of His own creations to organically love Him? Even granting the existence of libertarian free will, God’s total knowledge of our hearts means that He has the ability to naturally bring us to love Him without ‘violating’ our free will. But a better question would be, does God do this?

    Salvation: an act of (God’s) will

Most Christians (specifically synergists/Arminians) see salvation as a gift which God grants to those who first seek Him. Contrary to this view, Paul states that “there is none seeking out God” (Rom. 3:11), and David writes that

Yahweh looks down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, they have become corrupt together; there is none who does good, no, not one. (Ps. 14:2-3)

In light of this, it should be clear that anyone who seeks God and does good only does so because God has granted it to them to do so. No one can do good of their own accord. John writes that “we love because He first loved us” (1 Jn. 4:19), and Paul says that there is nothing we can give to God that He has not first given us (Acts 17:25; Rom. 11:35-36), and that spiritual things can only be discerned if given by the spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14). Based on this information, it should be clear that salvation must be a unilateral act of God; otherwise, no one would ever seek God or be saved.

    This idea, that salvation can only come if God first draws the sinner to Himself, was explicitly taught by Jesus during His earthly ministry. In one of His dialogues with the Jewish leaders, found in the gospel account of John, He tells them that

“No one is able to come to me, unless the Father, the [One] having sent me, may draw him.” (Jn. 6:44)

At the end of the same discourse, Jesus privately confides to His disciples,

“There are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from [the] beginning who are the [ones] not believing and who it is who will be betraying him. And he was saying, “Because of this I have said to you that no one is able to come to me, unless it may be having been given to him from the Father.” (Jn. 6:64-65)

Now, Jesus’ statement that only those drawn by the Father can come to Jesus would be a strong enough statement by itself to, at the very least, prove monergism a very real possibility. However, the fact that Jesus then cites this very statement as the reason why some of His disciples did not believe proves monergism virtually beyond a doubt. Some of His disciples did not believe simply because it had not been granted to them by the Father.

    These statements of Jesus correspond well with the what we find throughout the other gospel accounts. At the beginning of his gospel account, John writes that believers are “born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God” (1:13). Jesus’ disciples did not choose Him, but He chose them (Jn. 15:16). No one can receive anything, including faith, unless it is given to them from God (Jn. 3:27). Jesus praised God for revealing the truth to “infants” while hiding it from “the wise and prudent,” stating that only those “to whom the Son determines to reveal [the Father]” may know God (Matt. 11:25-27), and later explained to His disciples that the reason they were able to understand His teachings while the crowds were not able was simply because “to you it has been given... but to them it has not been given... lest they may return and may be forgiven” (Mk. 4:10-12 cf. Matt. 13:10-11).

    Although it is clear all throughout the Bible, monergism is nowhere taught more clearly than in the epistles of Paul. As he wrote in his first letter to the Corinthians,

Yet [it is] out of Him [that] you are in Christ Jesus, who has been made wisdom from God to us, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it has been written, “The [one] boasting, let him boast in [the] Lord.” (1 Cor. 1:30-31)

According to Paul, it is God who “has allotted a measure of faith to each” (Rom. 12:3). He may have mercy on whomever He wills, and He may harden whomever He wills (Rom. 9:15-18). God placed each believer in the body of Christ “according as He willed” (1 Cor. 12:18, 15:38), and so the mystery of the gospel has only been revealed “to whom God willed to make [it] known” (Col. 1:26-27). Although evangelists and ministers aid in the spread of the gospel, analogous to “planting” and “watering,” it is ultimately only God who “gives the growth” and brings people to Christ (1 Cor. 3:5-9). So then, in Paul’s eyes, salvation is an act of God’s will, not anything that the believer themself does.

    The reason that God willed to bring us to salvation is solely because He predestined it to be so before the foundation of the world, “according to the good pleasure of His will” (Eph. 1:4-5, 11 cf. 2 Tim. 1:9). And so, when the appointed time came, because of God’s selection (ekloge) of us, the gospel came to us “not only in word, but also in power and in holy spirit” (1 Thess. 1:4-5). God then grants us repentance to be able to know the truth (2 Tim. 2:24-25 cf. Acts 5:31; 11:18; Rom. 2:4), resulting in our salvation - not because of anything righteous that we did, but because of God’s kindness and mercy, we have been regenerated and renewed by holy spirit (Titus 3:4-7). For we are saved by grace, through a faith which is not of ourselves, but was “freely given” to us (Eph. 2:8-9, Php. 1:29). In every step of the salvation process, it is God, not the (future) believer, who is completely in control.

    Furthermore, even after God graciously saves us, the good works which we do are also from Him and not out of ourselves. Paul states that “[we are] created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God predestined that we may walk in them“ (Eph. 2:10), and that “God is the One working in [us] both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Php. 2:12-13 cf. Gal. 2:20). He predestines us for glory (Rom. 9:23 cf. 8:29-30), sanctifying us and qualifying us for “the inheritance of the saints” (Col. 1:12; 2 Thess. 2:13-14). Furthermore, it is only possible for us to move on to spiritual maturity if God permits us to do so (Heb. 6:1-3). Thus, both our salvation and good works are graciously given by God, and ultimately not out of ourselves.

    Paul’s entirely God-centered view of salvation is generally confirmed throughout the epistles of Peter and John. As previously noted, John makes the statement that “we love [both God and neighbor] because He first loved us” (1 Jn. 4:19-21), showing that even our love for God - which results in salvation - also essentially amounts to a God-given gift. Both Peter and John refer to the believers that they are writing to as “elect” (eklektos), a word which literally means “chosen” (1 Pet. 1:1; 2:9; 2 Jn. 1, 13 cf. Rev. 17:14). Peter also says that all unbelievers have been appointed to that unbelief (1 Pet. 2:7-8), a statement which necessarily implies the opposite, that all believers have been appointed to that belief.

    All of these passages demonstrate beyond a doubt that salvation is a unilateral act of God, and that He may cause the salvation of whomever He wills. Some are appointed to age-during life, while others are appointed to unbelief (Acts 13:48; 1 Pet. 2:7-8) [4]. But if this is true, why does there appear to be a legitimate offer to all people to repent, if He only grants repentance to a few (Acts 5:31; 11:18; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:24-25)? And how can unbelievers truly be considered responsible for their unbelief, if that also is predetermined by God [5]?

    The human vs. the divine perspective

One helpful way to think of these apparent contradictions is to view them from two different perspectives: the human (or relative) perspective and the divine (or absolute) perspective. Although from our limited, human perspective, we have the ability to choose freely, from God’s perspective, our choices were already predetermined (since He knows everything at the present time, and given determinism, this means that He can extrapolate everything at any future time). Both of these perspectives appear throughout scripture, which can sometimes cause confusion due to apparent contradiction.

    For example, consider Jesus’ words from His sermon on the mount: “Seek, and you will find... for the one seeking, finds” (Matt. 7:7-8). This gives the impression that humans can seek God and thereby find Him. Yet the Psalmist, and Paul quoting him, says that there is not a single person who seeks God (Ps. 14:2-3; Rom. 3:11). Is this a contradiction? No; the Psalmist is speaking from God’s perspective, as he makes explicitly clear in v. 2, whereas Jesus is speaking from the human perspective. Although no one is able to seek God of themselves, God does draw some people to Him (Jn. 6:44), and so from the human perspective (without intimate knowledge of God’s workings) it appears that they are seeking God.

    Another good example of the human perspective is Revelation 3:20, in which Jesus says, “Lo, I have stood at the door and I knock. If anyone may hear my voice and may open the door, I will come in to him, and will eat with him, and he with me.” This is commonly appealed to by Arminians (and synergists in general) to prove that humans can either accept or refuse God’s calling for them. However, this verse does not explain why someone would open the door; is it necessarily an act of ‘libertarian free will’ to do so? Not according to other passages like Mk. 4:11-12, which states that God actively keeps the truth from unbelievers “lest they may return and may be forgiven,” and 2 Tim. 2:24-25, which states that God provides repentance to certain individuals. Therefore, one only has a ‘free choice’ to open the door from the human perspective; if we pull back the curtain to look at the inner workings, it is God who brings someone to ‘open the door,’ so to speak.

    Finally, let’s take a look at one last passage. In Matthew 23:37, Jesus states that Israel was unwilling to be gathered together under Him “as a hen gathers together her chicks under her wings.” Yet in Romans 11, Paul states that it was God who gave Israel “eyes to not see and ears to not hear” and hardened them. Again, this is an example of the difference between the human and divine perspective. Although from the limited, human perspective, it appeared as though Israel was resisting God’s will, if we examine what God has revealed about His providential will, we see that their rebelliousness was actually brought about by God.

    A good analogy to think of God’s relationship to human beings is that of a playwright to his play [6]. For a specific example, think of Shakespeare and his play Macbeth, in which the main character Macbeth commits regicide by killing King Duncan of Scotland. From the limited perspective of the characters in the play, who was it that killed King Duncan? Of course, it was Macbeth who killed King Duncan. But if we ‘zoom out,’ so to speak, and look at the play from the perspective of the outside world, it was in fact Shakespeare who killed King Duncan. It is equally true that Macbeth and Shakespeare killed the king, depending on which perspective you look at it from. It is likewise equally true that God causes everything that happens (including salvation), as well as that humans cause certain things to occur, but in different ways and from different perspectives.

    Furthermore, though it is true that Shakespeare killed King Duncan from the perspective of the outside viewer, it is not true that Shakespeare shares any of the ‘blame’ in this regicide. In contrast, Macbeth certainly is blameworthy for this evil act, despite the fact that he was ultimately ‘caused’ to do so by forces outside of his control (namely, Shakespeare’s playwriting). In the same way, God can predestine humans to commit evil acts without sharing any of the ‘blame’ in those acts, especially because He causes it to happen for a greater purpose (although we may not yet fully understand that purpose).

Part 5: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-bible-on-free-will-answering.html

___________________________________

[1] It is also sometimes argued that true love requires the existence of libertarian free will. This assertion is answered in my post, “Can free will exist?”

[2] https://www.gotquestions.org/God-save-everyone.html

[3] See my post, “Can free will exist?” for the difference between libertarian and compatibilist notions of ‘free will.’

[4] Which is not to say that all mankind will not eventually be saved, for it is the salvation of all mankind which God wills (1 Tim. 2:4 cf. Eph. 1:9-11). However, He will not save the rest of the non-elect until the end of the ages (1 Cor. 15:22-28, Heb. 9:26).

[5] This question actually ties back into the solution to the problem of evil which I offered at the end of the second post in this series, “The Two Wills of God.”

[6] After all, according to Psalm 139:16, every one of our days is written in God’s ‘book’ before we are even formed. So imagining God as the author of a book, or the playwright of a play, is a very scriptural analogy.

The Bible and Free Will: Open Theism and Anthropomorphism (part 3 of 5)

Part 2: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-bible-and-free-will-two-wills-of.html

     In the first two posts of this series, we examined the scriptural evidence for theological determinism and the total sovereignty of God. We saw that, according to the Bible, absolutely everything (including human choice and action) is brought about by God in His providential will (Ps. 33:13-15; Eph. 1:11). We also saw many examples throughout scripture in which God brought about a sin, in apparent contradiction to His commandments or ‘preceptive will.’ Furthermore, we saw how the perfect moral character of God is compatible with the evil that He causes if (and only if) He does it for the greater good of all people, and thus out of the love which forms the basis of His preceptive will (Matt. 22:37-40).

    However, despite the vast scriptural evidence for this view that God’s plan and will is all-comprehensive, there are a number of passages that are thought to support the alternative view of open theism [1]. Open theism is the view that God does not have comprehensive control over or knowledge of the future, but instead has chosen to give us free will, out of love for us, limiting His sovereignty and foreknowledge in the process. This is largely based on passages like Exodus 32:14 which appear to demonstrate that God can change His mind, which according to open theists rules out the idea that He has perfect foreknowledge.

    The idea that God is not able to know the future with perfect accuracy seems to be refuted by passages like Isaiah 46:10, which states that God is “declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done” (cf. Isa. 41:23; 42:9; 44:7; Dan. 2:28; 1 Pet. 1:2). God has demonstrated this knowledge of the future (including the ‘free choices’ of humans) many times; for example, in 1 Sam. 23:10-12, God tells David that Saul and the citizens of Keilah would conspire to hand him over (which requires foreknowledge of the future ‘free choices’ of those people), and in Rom. 8:29 and 1 Pet. 1:2 we are told that God foreknows who will become a believer (likewise). Despite this, a good case can still be made for open theism based on a number of verses which appear to support it. In this post, we will be taking a look at that evidence and seeing why it does not really support open theism.

    Does God change His mind?

The case for open theism is largely based on several passages which state that God changed His mind, or relented (Hebrew nacham), regarding certain actions. See the following examples of this:

And Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man in the earth was great, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil, all the time. And Yahweh relented [nacham] that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. (Gen. 6:5-6)

And Yahweh said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed, it is a stiff-necked people. Now therefore leave me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them, and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.” And Moses pleaded with Yahweh his God, and said, “Why, Yahweh, does your wrath burn hot against your people Israel, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should Egypt speak and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth?’ Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent [nacham] from this harm to Your people”... So Yahweh relented [nacham] from the harm which He said He would do to His people. (Exod. 32:10-12, 14)

And the word of Yahweh came to Samuel, saying, “I relent [nacham] that I have established Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments.” (1 Sam. 15:11)

And when the angel stretched out his hand over Jerusalem to destroy it, then Yahweh relented [nacham] from the destruction, and said to the angel who was destroying the people, “It is enough! Now restrain your hand.” And the angel of Yahweh was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. (2 Sam. 24:16)

“And if that nation turns back from its evil, against whom I have spoken, then I will relent [nacham] of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it... And if it does evil in My sight, so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent [nacham] concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.” (Jer. 18:8, 10 cf. 26:3, 13, 42:10, Ezek. 33:13-16)

I said, “Lord Yahweh, forgive, I pray. How can Jacob stand? For he is small.” So Yahweh relented [nacham] concerning this. “It shall not be,” said Yahweh... And I said, “Lord Yahweh, cease, I pray. How can Jacob stand? For he is small.” So Yahweh relented [nacham] concerning this. “It also shall not be,” said the Lord Yahweh. (Amos 7:2-3, 5-6)

And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way, and God relented [nacham] from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. (Jon. 3:10)

According to these passages, God occasionally relents concerning disasters - and even blessings - which He promised would come upon an individual or nation. Because of this, the prophet Joel urged the people of Israel to repent in light of the fact that “[God] relents from the evil. Who knows if He will turn back and relent?” (Joel 2:13-14) Open theists point to passages like these to support their claim that God does not know the future perfectly. After all, if God is able to change His mind due to the choices that humans make, this shows that (1) He does not know in advance what choice they will make, and (2) He does not know in advance what choice He will make.

    Now, if these verses were all that we had to go on, it would be a valid inference that God does not perfectly know the future. However, as it so happens, there are several other verses which indicate that God is in fact unable to change His mind, for with Him there is “no change or shadow of variation” (Jas. 1:17). Consider the following passages:

God is not a man that He should lie, or a son of man that He should relent [nacham]. (Num. 23:19)

And also the Glory of Israel will not lie nor relent [nacham], for He is not a man that He should relent [nacham]. (1 Sam. 15:29)

For I, Yahweh, do not change; therefore you, sons of Jacob, are not consumed. (Mal. 3:6)

Every good giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the lights, with whom there is no change or shadow of variation. (Jas. 1:17)

This appears to present a clear contradiction. We are explicitly told that God does not relent (nacham), while being told elsewhere of multiple instances in which God did relent (nacham). How can this possibly be resolved?

    Anthropomorphism and anthropopathism in scripture

Open theists suggest that this contradiction should be resolved by applying the principle that “God does not relent” only to these two situations; namely, His covenant with Israel and His having taken the kingdom away from Saul (Num. 23:19-21; 1 Sam. 15:28-29). However, this does not fully explain these two passages - they do not merely say that God will not relent in these two situations, but that He cannot relent because He is fundamentally not a human.

    Rather, I believe that these instances in which God is said to relent are examples of the literary devices of anthropomorphism and anthropopathism, in which God is described using human attributes in order to make Him more relatable to human readers. For example, although “God is spirit” (Jn. 4:24) and so does not have a physical body, He is said in the Old Testament to have hands and arms (Exod. 6:6; 7:5; Deut. 4:34; 5:15; Isa. 23:11; etc.), feet (Exod. 24:9-10; Isa. 66:1 cf. Gen. 3:8), a face (Exod. 33:20; Lev. 20:6; Num. 6:25; Ps. 27:8; etc.), eyes, ears (Deut. 11:12; 2 Kings 19:16; Neh. 1:6; Ps. 34:15; etc.), nostrils (Exod. 15:8; Deut. 33:10; Job 4:9), a mouth (Num. 12:8; Josh. 9:14; Job 11:5; Isa. 11:4, etc.), and many other physical human characteristics.

    Likewise, scripture also describes God as having human emotions, despite that, seeing as He is outside of time and emotion is a reaction to events in temporal succession, He does not experience emotion in the same way that humans do [2]. For example, He is said to delight or rejoice (Deut. 28:63; 30:9; Ps. 104:31; Jer. 32:41; etc.), be sorrowful and grieve (Judg. 10:16; Ps. 78:40; etc.), remember past events (Gen. 9:15-16; Exod. 2:24; 6:5; 1 Sam. 1:19; etc.), forget past events (Ps. 9:18; 13:1; 42:9; Hos. 4:6; etc.), have anger, vengeance, and hatred (Exod. 15:7; Ps. 5:5; Isa. 1:14; Jer. 9:9; etc.), jealousy (Exod. 20:5; Num. 25:11; Nah. 1:2; Zech. 1:14; etc.), zeal (Isa. 9:7), pity (Joel 2:18), and ignorance (Gen. 3:9; 4:9; Num. 22:9; 1 Kings 19:9, 13). These are all examples of anthropopathism, or the attribution of human emotion to God [3].

    When we read that God “relented” of certain actions, we should understand it as another type of anthropopathism. This is especially clear in light of Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29, both of which state that “relenting” (nacham) is an emotion limited solely to humans and is not experienced by God, by virtue of the fact that He is not a human. Therefore, it can only be said that God relents in the sense that it can also be said that He has human physical characteristics and is ignorant or even able to ‘forget’ past events; not that those attributes actually belong to God, but that He describes Himself in that way in order to condescend to our level and make Himself more relatable to us [4]. God’s foreknowledge of the future is, therefore, not jeopardized by these passages which state that He “relented.”

    Instances where God ‘didn’t know’ the future

Apart from the passages which state that God changed His mind or relented concerning certain actions, there are a few other instances in scripture where open theists believe that God demonstrated His lack of knowledge about the future. Two of the most commonly cited examples are found in the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah:

“Let me sing now for my well-beloved, a song of my beloved concerning his vineyard. My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill. He dug it all around, removed its stones, and planted it with the choicest vine. And he built a tower in the middle of it and also hewed out a wine vat in it; then he expected it to produce good grapes, but it produced only worthless ones. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between Me and My vineyard. What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones?”... For the vineyard of Yahweh of hosts is the house of Israel and the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress. (Isa. 5:1-4, 7)

Then Yahweh said to me in the days of Josiah the king, “Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there. I thought, ‘After she has done all these things she will return to Me’; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.” (Jer. 3:6-8)

In both of these passages, God states that He expected Israel to return and remain faithful to Him, producing “good grapes,” but instead they remained unfaithful and produced “worthless grapes.” If taken at face value, these passages would indicate that God does not have perfect foreknowledge of the future, since He expected one result while getting another. However, if this is the meaning of these passages, it would directly contradict the book of Deuteronomy in which God actually prophesies the coming Israelite apostasy and subsequent exile (29:19-28; 32:25-26). Surely, if God actually prophesied that this apostasy would happen, He could not have expected the opposite to occur.

    To properly understand these passages, it is important to note that both of them are part of extended metaphors in which God is presented as a man, and Israel as His vineyard (in Isaiah) or adulterous wife (in Jeremiah). Obviously, poetic metaphors and parables are not meant to be sources of absolute doctrinal truth. Since God is a man in these parables, some amount of anthropopathism - which includes ignorance of present and future events (cf. Gen. 3:8; 4:9; Num. 22:9; 1 Kings 19:9, 13) - is to be expected.

    Another possible interpretation of the Isaiah passage is to see it as a reflection of God’s preceptive will rather than His providential will (see my recent post on “The Two Wills of God”). The word which is translated “expected” here, qavah, can also mean “to look for” or “to search eagerly.” If that is the sense in which it is being used, then it might not saying that God actually expected Israel to do good, but rather that He wished them to do good rather than evil.

    Another passage, which open theists also argue demonstrates that God does not know the future, is from the book of Jeremiah:

They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My mind. (Jer. 7:31 NASB cf. 19:5; 32:35)

Since God, in this passage, says that this particular sin of Israel “did not come into [His] mind,” it is argued that He could not have foreknown its occurrence. Furthermore, this verse is seen as particularly challenging to theological determinism, since if God actually predestined the occurrence of this sin, it would certainly be a lie to say that it never even entered His mind. However, even under open theism, God knows all truths both possible and actual (which is the very definition of omniscience), so if we interpret this verse as saying that God did not even think that this could occur, it would be incompatible with open theism as well. Because of this, there must be another more valid interpretation of this passage.

    The key to properly understanding this verse is to look at the original Hebrew text, which states that the sin did not come into God’s leb - a word which more properly means “heart” than “mind.” (In fact, the LXX translates the last word of this verse as kardia, the Greek word meaning “heart.”) As far as I can tell, leb is only ever used to describe God's preceptive will, and not His providential will; this would also better correspond to the previous clause of the sentence, which states that "[God] did not command [it]" (assuming that synonymous parallelism is being employed here). Thus, this verse is only saying that God did not command it in His preceptive will, not necessarily that He could not have providentially ordained it. After all, His preceptive and providential 'wills' do often conflict (again, see my recent post, "The Two Wills of God").

    In summary, open theism is a shaky position built on equivocal passages that do not necessarily support it. Open theists fail to consistently apply the literary device of anthropopathism, accepting that it is used elsewhere in the Old Testament but not applying it to the instances in which God is said to "relent." Furthermore, they entirely ignore the fact that God created (and is thus outside of) time, which makes it impossible that He could be completely ignorant of the future, as well as ignoring passages that explicitly describe God's foreknowledge of the future. In the next post of this series, we will take a look at the debate between monergism/Calvinism (the belief that salvation is a unilateral act of God) and synergism/Arminianism (the belief that salvation is a joint act of both God and humans).

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

______________________________

[1] Although the main opposing view to theological determinism is Arminianism, most of the prooftexts for this view center around God’s love for all people and desire for all to be saved, which (as a universalist) my position has no difficulty with.

[2] Which is not to say that He is limited in any way. Jesus, who is “the image of the invisible God,” certainly experienced emotion, and so God must in some way be an emotive being. However, seeing as He is outside of time, His emotions cannot be comparable to human emotions (cf. Isa. 55:8-9; Rom. 11:33-34).

[3] For even more examples of both anthropomorphism and anthropopathism, see https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/bullinger/a/anthropopatheia-or-condescension.html

[4] This is also how it can be said that God does not know the state of the human heart (Gen. 22:12; Exod. 13:17; 16:4; 2 Chron. 32:31; Judg. 2:21-22; Ps. 26:2; Jer. 17:10). This is not because He is ignorant, but because He is describing Himself in anthropopathic ways when He talks about “searching the hearts” of humans. After all, even open theists believe that God knows everything at the present time, which necessarily includes the thoughts of humans (1 Jn. 3:20), so how could it be that He does not know the state of the human heart?

The Bible and Free Will: The Two Wills of God (part 2 of 5)

Part 1: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-bible-on-free-will-theological.html

     In the first post of this series, we looked at the scriptural evidence for theological determinism, the view that all events which take place (including human choice) are predestined by God. According to the Bible, God “works all things in accordance with the purpose of His will” (Eph. 1:11) and individually fashions “the heart” and “all the deeds” of “all the inhabitants of the earth” (Ps. 33:14-15), as well as “giving to everyone... everything” (Acts 17:25), which necessarily includes thoughts, desires, feelings, etc. Along with many other passages that teach the same thing, these show that humans do not have a true libertarian free will, but choose and act in accordance with the sovereign will of God.

    But how could it be possible that God is in control of all the choices and actions of humans? Wouldn’t this mean that His sovereign will somehow contradicts the commandments that He also gives? This view, that God can command one thing while ordaining the opposite action, has been ridiculed as making God out to be a liar and a hypocrite. However, though it may be confusing, scripture is indeed very clear that God in some way has two ‘wills’ which can conflict and even contradict one another. In this post, we’ll look at the evidence for these two differing ‘wills’ of God, as well as the problems that come along with it.

    The preceptive and providential wills of God

Throughout the Bible, we are repeatedly told of the “will of God.” This phrase is consistently used in two different ways, which, though they are never explicitly differentiated, are nevertheless clearly distinct. The first way in which the “will of God” is spoken of is referring to the precepts or commandments of God - this can be called God’s “preceptive will.” This will comprises the standard which God expects humans to live by, and is summed up in the two commandments, “Love the Lord your God” and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:37-40; Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14; Jas. 2:8). For examples of this ‘will,’ see the following passages:

“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will go in to the kingdom of the heavens, but the [one] doing the will of my Father in the heavens.” (Matt. 7:21)

“For whoever may do the will of my Father in the heavens, he is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matt. 12:50)

“We know that God does not hear sinners, but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, He hears him.” (Jn. 9:31)

And do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewal of the mind, for you to test what is the will of God, the good and acceptable and perfect. (Rom. 12:2)

Do not be foolish, but understand what [is] the will of the Lord. (Eph. 5:17)

For this is the will of God, your sanctification... (1 Thess. 4:3)

In everything give thanks, for this [is] the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. (1 Thess. 5:18)

In each of these passages, the “will of God” is presented as an ideal which is “good and acceptable and perfect,” a standard of precepts (to love God and neighbor) which can be either obeyed or disobeyed. People go against this ‘will’ all the time. Indeed, that is what sin is: a failure to follow the precepts of God (1 Jn. 3:4 cf. 5:17). 

    However, there is another way which the “will of God” is spoken of throughout scripture, as referring to the sovereign or providential will of God which absolutely cannot be violated. If something is part of God’s providential will, it is certain to come to pass. For examples of this ‘will’ being spoken of in the Bible, see the following passages:

But He is unique and who can turn Him back? For what His soul desires [LXX: thelo, “wills”], that He does. For He performs what is appointed for me, and many such decrees are with Him. (Job 23:13-14)

I know that You can do all things, that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You. (Job 42:2)

[God is] saying, “My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My purpose.” (Isa. 46:10)

For I, Yahweh, speak, and whatever word I speak will come to pass. (Ezek. 12:25)

You will say to me, then, “Why does He still blame? For who has withstood His purpose?” Rather, who are you, O man, contradicting God? Will the formed thing say to the [One] having formed [it], “Why did you make me thus?” (Rom. 9:19-20)

According to all of these passages, the “will” (thelema) or “purpose” (boulema) of God is unable to be thwarted; it is always fulfilled, no matter if the inhabitants of the heavens or the earth try to resist it (Dan. 4:35). This cannot be the same as the first “will of God” described above, which is possible to be thwarted (and indeed is thwarted all the time). Thus, there must be two senses in which God can be said to “will” something: either in a preceptive sense, which can be resisted, or in a providential sense (by which He works “all things;” Eph. 1:11) which cannot be resisted.

    For examples of God’s providential will in action, see the following passages:

For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of His Son, that I incessantly make mention of you always, imploring in my prayers if somehow, by the will of God, I will prosper to come to you. (Rom. 1:9-10)

Yet I will come soon to you, if the Lord may will... (1 Cor. 4:19)

Yet now, God placed each one of the members in the body as He willed. (1 Cor. 12:18)

...having made known to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He predestined in him for [the] administration of the fullness of the seasons, to head up the all things in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth, in him, in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of the [One] working the all things according to the purpose of His will. (Eph. 1:9-11)

Instead you [should] say, “If the Lord may will, we will live and we will do this or that.” (Jas. 4:15)

For [it is] better to suffer doing good, if the will of God might will [it], than doing evil... (1 Pet. 3:17)

You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because You created all things, and because of Your will they existed and were created. (Rev. 4:11)

This providential will of God, in contrast to the preceptive will of God, can never be thwarted. It controls absolutely everything (Eph. 1:11), from salvation (1 Cor. 12:18) to the success or failure of human plans (Jas. 4:15). Furthermore, unlike the preceptive will of God (which is known from passages like Matt. 22:37-40), the providential will of God cannot be known until it has come to pass, unless God chooses to reveal it in prophecy. Once God has revealed His providential will for the future via prophecy, He makes sure that it comes to pass (for example, see Matt. 26:54; Lk. 24:44; Acts 1:16; 3:18; Rev. 17:16-17).

    When the ‘two wills’ conflict

However, the providential will of God does not always coincide with the preceptive will of God. Indeed, all sin (which is a violation of God’s precepts) is part of God’s sovereign plan. As Peter states in the passage quoted above, even the persecution of believers is ultimately part of the providential will of God (1 Pet. 3:17 cf. Php. 1:29). And although God exhorts “all people everywhere to repent” according to His preceptive will (Acts 17:30), we know that all unbelief is nevertheless appointed by God in His providential will (Rom. 11:32; 1 Pet. 2:8).

    Although some object to this view that God allows, and indeed directly causes, all sin, this is undeniably taught all throughout the Bible. Even in the very first chapters of Genesis, we are told of God’s control over whether one sins:

And God said to [Abimelech] in a dream, “Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart. I also kept you from sinning against Me, therefore I did not let you touch her.” (Gen. 20:6)

According to this passage, God has the ability to prevent a person from sinning against Him. This means that the inverse is necessarily also true; for an omniscient God such as Yahweh, who is apparently able prevent sin, a failure to prevent someone from sinning would be tantamount to a conscious decision to cause that person to sin. For this reason, any time that anyone sins, it must be in accordance with the providential will of God - otherwise, He would simply prevent that sin from occurring.

    In line with this assessment, there are many times in the Bible where it is made clear that a certain sin was brought about by Yahweh for a specific purpose. This essentially constitutes a contradiction between God’s preceptive and providential ‘wills.’ See the following examples of contradictions between God’s commandments and the events which He has ordained:

“For [the Israelites] are My servants... they shall not be sold as slaves.” (Lev. 25:42)

And he said, “I am your brother Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt. But now do not be grieved or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life... So now it was not you who sent me here, but God... you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.” (Gen. 45:5, 8, 50:20)

And He summoned a famine in the land; He destroyed all the provision of bread. He sent before them a man, Joseph, who was sold as a slave. (Ps. 105:16-17)

The selling of Joseph into slavery was unequivocally an evil and sinful action, provoked by hate and jealousy against a brother (Gen. 37:4, 8, 11 cf. Matt. 5:21-22). Furthermore, it went against the precept that God later revealed against selling a fellow Israelite into slavery. However, in a turn of events, Joseph later reveals to his brothers that his being sold into slavery was ultimately caused by God, for the purpose of averting the disastrous consequences of a famine. Indeed, according to the Psalmist, both the famine and Joseph’s enslavement were caused by God! This is a clear example of God’s providential will going against His preceptive will.

And Yahweh said to Moses, “Rise early in the morning, and stand before the pharaoh, and say to him, ‘Thus says Yahweh God of the Hebrews, “Let my people go that they may serve Me.”’” (Exod. 9:13)

And the heart of the pharaoh was hardened, and he would not let the sons of Israel go, as Yahweh had commanded by Moses. And Yahweh said to Moses, “Go in to the pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his servants, that I may show these signs of Mine before him.“ (Exod. 10:1 cf. Rom. 9:17)

We are first told that Yahweh commanded the pharaoh to let the people of Israel leave and serve Him. Yet at the beginning of the very next chapter, Yahweh states that He has hardened the heart of the pharaoh to prevent him from following His commandment. This is another clear contradiction between the providential and preceptive wills of God.

“Honor your father and mother, so that your days may be long in the land that Yahweh your God is giving you.” (Exod. 20:12)

So he said to them, “Why do you do these things? For I hear of all your evil dealings from all these people”... Yet they did not heed the voice of their father, because Yahweh desired to kill them. (1 Sam. 2:23, 25)

In the first passage, God commands the Israelites to honor their parents. Yet in the second passage, we are told that He caused Eli’s sons to ignore their father’s warning, which led to the continuation of their “evil dealings,” precisely because He desired to kill them. This is yet another example of God’s providential will contradicting His preceptive will.

“Do not make marriages with [uncircumcised Canaanites]. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son. For they will turn away your sons from following Me to serve other gods, and the anger of Yahweh will be aroused against you and suddenly destroy you.” (Deut. 7:3-4) 

Yet [Samson’s] father and mother said to him, “Is there no woman among the daughters of your brothers, or among all my people, that you must go and get a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines?” Yet Samson said to his father, “Get her for me, for she pleases me.” But his father and mother did not know that this was from Yahweh, for He was seeking an occasion to move against the Philistines. (Judg. 14:3-4)

In the second passage, we read that God caused Samson to take a wife from among the uncircumcised Philistines, against the better judgment of his parents. However, this clearly goes against the commandment not to marry uncircumcised Canaanites, as well as the injunction to honor one’s father and mother (Exod. 20:12). Thus, this is another instance in which God’s providential will contradicted His preceptive will.

And again the anger of Yahweh was aroused against Israel, and He moved David to say to them, “Go, number Israel and Judah”... And David’s heart condemned him in what he had done. And David said to Yahweh, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done.” (2 Sam. 24:1, 10)

This passage is especially interesting, because not only are we told that Yahweh caused David to commit a “great sin,” but in the parallel passage from 1 Chronicles (21:1), we are told that it was the Adversary (Satan) who caused David to sin! This shows that God is, in some way, the ultimate cause of the Adversary’s evil actions. For other passages that demonstrate God’s sovereign control over the Adversary, and the fact that He uses his evil actions for good, see Job 1:6-11 (cf. vv. 20-22); 2:1-8 (cf. v. 10); Lk. 22:31-32; 1 Cor. 5:5; and 2 Cor. 12:7-9.

“You shall not murder.” (Exod. 20:13)

And  a messenger came to Job and said, “The oxen were plowing and the donkeys feeding beside them, and the Sabeans attacked and took them. They also slew the servants with the edge of the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell you”... While he was still speaking, another also came and said, “The Chaldeans formed three bands and made a raid on the camels and took them and slew the servants with the edge of the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell you”... Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head, and he fell to the ground and worshiped. He said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I shall return there. Yahweh gave and Yahweh has taken away. Blessed be the name of Yahweh.” Through all this Job did not sin nor did he wrongly charge God. (Job 1:14-15, 17, 20-22)

In the second passage, Job attributes the murder of his servants by the Sabeans and Chaldeans to the work of God, and we are told that he did not “wrongly charge God.” Yet the actions of the Sabeans and Chaldeans were without question sinful, going against one of the most basic moral injunctions of the Old Testament, “You shall not murder.” This shows that God is even in control of the death of humans by the instrumentality of other humans (see also 2 Chron. 22:7-9; Isa. 10:5-15).

    Furthermore, earlier in this chapter we are told that it was the Adversary (Satan) who caused these sinful and evil actions for the purpose of trying to make Job curse God (1:9-11; 2:4-7). Yet, Job twice attributes the evil that is afflicting him to God Himself, and both times we are told that Job did not sin nor wrongly charge God (1:20-22; 2:10). This demonstrates that even the evil actions of the Adversary are ultimately caused by God, in His providential will.

“God now commands all mankind everywhere to repent, because He established a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom He designated, having provided confidence to all [by] having raised him out of the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)

For God shut up the all in disobedience, that He may have mercy on the all. (Rom. 11:32)

And they stumble at “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense,” disobeying the word, to which they were also appointed. (1 Pet. 2:8)

According to the first passage, God commands all people everywhere to repent and turn to Him. Yet elsewhere, we are told that God is the ultimate cause of all disobedience, and appoints certain people to become unbelievers. This is yet another clear contradiction between God’s preceptive will and His providential will.

    Finally, perhaps the most important instance in which God’s providential or sovereign will conflicted with His preceptive will is at the crucifixion of Jesus. One of the commandments in the Law states, “Do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty“ (Exod. 23:7). Therefore, the death of Jesus, who was the most innocent and righteous man to have ever lived (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:21-22), must have been entirely against the preceptive will of God. Indeed, this evil act is said to have been inspired by the Adversary himself (Lk. 22:3), and the apostles repeatedly exhorted the people of Jerusalem to repent of it (Acts 2:36-38; 3:17-19; 4:10-11; 7:52-53).

    However, though the crucifixion of Christ was certainly against the preceptive will of God, scripture repeatedly states in no uncertain terms that it was also predestined and ordained by God in His preceptive will. See the following passages:

Yet Yahweh delighted [LXX: boulomai, “purposed”] to crush him; He has wounded him. (Isa. 53:10)

Again, having gone away for a second time, [Jesus] prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is not possible for this to pass unless I drink it, Your will be done.” (Matt. 26:42)

“Jesus of Nazareth... given up by lawless hands in the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, having crucified [him], you put [him] to death.” (Acts 2:22-23)

“For in this city both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with Gentiles and peoples of Israel, were truly gathered together against Your holy servant, Jesus, whom You anointed, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose had predetermined to happen.” (Acts 4:27-28)

According to these passages, the crucifixion was predestined and brought about by the providential will of God, despite being contrary to the revealed, preceptive will of God. Indeed, the death of Jesus was entirely crucial to God's redemptive plan (Jn. 3:14-16; 12:32-33; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; Eph. 1:9-11).

    So... how is God good?

    All of these many, many examples demonstrate that it is possible for the providential will of God to run contrary to His preceptive will. Indeed, if it is true that God "works all things according to the purpose of His will" (Eph. 1:11) and that He fashions "all the deeds" of "all the inhabitants of the earth" (Ps. 33:14-15), then there can be no doubt that all sin is brought about by God's sovereign will. Both good and evil find their ultimate source in God. Although many Christians are uneasy about this idea, it is explicitly taught in several passages:

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 theological determinism). However, this raises a very important question: if God is the source of both good and evil, obedience and disobedience, then how is God good or praiseworthy? And how is it possible for God to repeatedly contradict Himself? And how can humans be considered responsible for their sin, if it is actually God causing them to break the commandments that He Himself made in the first place?

    If you take a look at most of the passages quoted in the above section, you can see that they are written in such a way as to absolve God of all guilt (despite stating that He is the source of the sinful action) while affirming that the humans who committed the sin are guilty, evil, and/or lawless. For example, when God brought about the death of Jesus, it was for the much greater purpose of salvation, while the humans involved killed Him for their own shortsighted, hateful goals. When He hardened the pharaoh's heart, it was to show His glory throughout the earth and mightily save the Israelites, while the pharaoh kept the Israelites out of selfishness. When Yahweh caused Samson to disobey his parents and marry an uncircumcised Philistine, it was for the purpose of bringing down the oppressive Philistines, while Samson did it out of disobedience.

    All of these instances exemplify a rule which, I believe, is best illustrated by the words of Joseph: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20). Although the sin of humans is evil because it comes from a place of hatred and jealousy, God's goodness is not compromised when He brings about this sin, because He does it in the best interest of the people involved. Indeed, without the experience of evil, we would be unable to fully understand and appreciate goodness. If we had never fallen into sin, we would never have known God's perfect love and grace.

    Furthermore, although from our limited perspective, it may seem that the preceptive and providential wills of God contradict, this is only because we are unable to see the larger picture. Remember that the preceptive will of God essentially boils down to two commandments: to love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 22:37-40; Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14; Jas. 2:8). Humans often fail to live up to these precepts by being unloving, which results in sin and evil.

    But when God brings about this sin and evil, He does so out of love (for He loves all people; Matt. 5:43-48), for the greater good, and therefore it does not contradict the central message of His preceptive will. As the author of Lamentations wrote,

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

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. According to Paul, the "mystery of His will" by which He "works all things" is to "head up all things in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth" (Eph. 1:9-11). We must have faith that every evil which we suffer now will make our experience of eternity that much better [1]. This shows that God can create evil without compromising His own perfect goodness and light.

Part 3: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-bible-and-free-will-open-theism-and.html

______________________________

[1] This balancing act between God's sovereignty and goodness only works in a universalist worldview, however. If God fails to save even one person, then the experience of evil is unjustified for that person, and God has failed to truly love that person (since love, although it may punish, ultimately works for the greatest good of the object of love; Heb. 12:5-11). Fortunately, scripture supports the idea that God's providential will works toward the salvation of all, for Paul states that "the mystery of His will" by which He "works all things" is to "head up all things in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth" (Eph. 1:9-11).

The Bible and Free Will: Theological Determinism (part 1 of 5)

In my last post, I examined the philosophical question of whether libertarian free will is a logical impossibility. Although it is certainly possible to choose and act in accordance with one’s inner desires, which is the compatibilist view of ‘free will,’ the libertarian view of free will - which is that, given any decision, there is the legitimate possibility of choosing otherwise - is neither compatible with determinism nor indeterminism (due to the “luck problem”) and is therefore impossible. (For a more detailed explanation, see my earlier post “Can free will exist?”)

    However, another question, which is just as important, is what exactly does the Bible teach about the topic of determinism and compatibilist vs. libertarian free will? Does it teach that, given any decision, there is the legitimate possibility that one could have chosen otherwise (libertarian free will), or that although our decisions are made in accord with our inner desires, they are ultimately determined (determinism/compatibilist free will)? And is our salvation also predestined by God? In this series of posts on the topic of determinism and free will in the Bible, we will examine these questions and more.

    Theological Determinism: Is everything predetermined?

Even among those who affirm a belief in monergism (the view that salvation is a unilateral act of God), Christians are divided on whether the sovereignty of God extends to absolutely all events (the view known as “theological determinism”), or whether there is any amount of indeterminism in the universe. But it is my belief that theological determinism is indeed true - that every event is entirely the result of causes which came before it, leading back to the creation of the world, such that all things that take place are ultimately part of God’s sovereign plan. There is nothing in the history of the universe that has taken place apart from the providential will of God.

    There are multiple lines of evidence in scripture which lead to this conclusion. For example, God demonstrates His absolute foreknowledge of the future many times throughout the Bible (e.g., 1 Sam. 23:10-12, Ps. 139:4, Isa. 42:9, Jer. 1:5, Acts 2:23, 1 Pet. 1:2). Yet if God knows every future event, which necessarily includes the choices which humans will make, this means that there is only one possible future - which is exactly the claim made by theological determinism. Furthermore, if the future choices of human beings are perfectly known by God, it is not legitimately possible to choose otherwise than one will choose, and therefore libertarian free will must be false [1].

    Although there are other scripture-based logical arguments that demonstrate theological determinism to be true, this doctrine is also taught directly in scripture. See the following passages:

“Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, ‘My plan will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure.’” (Isa. 46:9-10 NASB)

The statement that “the end” can be known from “the beginning” (or, in a bit of Hebrew synonymous parallelism, that those things which “have not been done” can be known “from ancient times”) might be represented in more philosophical terms as saying that, given perfect knowledge of the initial state, the final state may be known. Yet this is exactly the claim made by determinism. Therefore, this passage actually teaches theological determinism directly. And since libertarian free will definitionally excludes determinism, we may conclude that the Bible does not teach the existence of free will.

    Now, it could be objected that just because that one passage appears to teach determinism over against free will doesn’t mean that the Bible as a whole teaches determinism (although this objection would throw the law of biblical non-contradiction, and thus scriptural infallibility, entirely out the window). However, though Isa. 46:10 is one of the clearest deterministic passages of scripture, there are far, far more passages that teach that determinism is true. For example,

The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from Yahweh. (Prov. 16:33)

This demonstrates that even seemingly random events, like the casting of lots, are predetermined by God. Thus, any indeterminism in the universe is merely apparent; even that, too, is determined by Yahweh.

...in [Christ] also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of the [One] working the all things according to the purpose of His will. (Eph. 1:11)

In this passage, Paul describes God as “the One working the all things according to the purpose of His will.” If someone were to ask Paul, “What is God working according to the purpose of His will?” Paul could reply, based on this verse, “He is working the all things.” In other words, if God is truly working all things in accordance with His will, then there can be nothing which is not, ultimately, in accordance with His providential will. This teaching of Ephesians 1:11 leads directly to the doctrine of theological determinism.

    Some have objected that the “all things” of this passage could merely be limited to the predestination of believers. However, it would be tautological for Paul to state that “believers are predestined because God predestines believers.” No, the point that Paul is making is far greater; he is saying that we may be confident that our predestination in Christ is secure because God is working all things in accordance with the purpose of His will. Since the scope of God’s will is universal rather than merely limited, our salvation is certain, as is the ultimate “heading-up” of all things in Christ (v. 10).

Come now, the [ones] saying, “Today or tomorrow we will journey into this here city, and will spend a year there, and will trade, and will profit,” who do not know what [is] tomorrow. What [is] your life? For it is a vapor, appearing for a little, and then vanishing. Instead you [should] say, “If the Lord may will, we will live and we will do this or that.” (Jas. 4:13-15)

According to James, both one’s life and the success or failure of one’s future plans are ultimately under the control of God’s providential will. This is only possible if God’s sovereign control extends over the minute details that go into every day, such that one’s plans may either go well or fail.

    Although these are far from the only passages that show God’s sovereign control to extend over absolutely everything, which I will show in the next section, these passages alone (especially Isa. 46:9-10 and Eph. 1:11) still demonstrate the validity of the doctrine of theological determinism. Since God is able to determine the end from the beginning, as He works all things according to the purpose of His will, absolutely all events must be predetermined, which leaves no room for libertarian free will. There is truly nothing that is outside of God’s providential control.

    God’s control over the human will

The above four passages, I believe, show virtually beyond a doubt that God’s providential will does control every event and choice that takes place in this universe. However, this still does not get to the heart of the main question that we asked at the beginning of this post: does the Bible teach that our will is free in the libertarian sense, or that our choices are actually predestined (i.e., by God)? As a matter of fact, scripture teaches very clearly that our will is also subject to God’s providential control. See the following passages which demonstrate the general principle of God’s control over the human will:

From heaven Yahweh looks and sees all the sons of men; from the place of His dwelling He peers and sees all the inhabitants of the earth. He fashions individually their hearts; He establishes all their deeds. (Ps. 33:13-15) 

The plans of the heart are to mankind, yet the answer of the tongue is from Yahweh. (Prov. 16:1)

The heart of a man plans his way, yet Yahweh establishes his steps. (Prov. 16:9)

Many are the plans in the heart of a man, yet the counsel of Yahweh will stand. (Prov. 19:21)

A man’s steps are from Yahweh; how then can a man understand his way? (Prov. 20:24)

Like rivers of water is the heart of a king in the hand of Yahweh; He turns it wherever He wishes. (Prov. 21:1)

“I know, O Yahweh, that the way of a man is not in himself, and it is not in man who walks to establish his own steps.” (Jer. 10:23)

“And all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and He does according to His will among the host of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth; and there is none that can restrain His hand, or say to Him, ‘What have you done?’” (Dan. 4:35)

[God] is not served by hands of mankind, [as though] He is needing anything, Himself giving to everyone life and breath and everything... for in Him we live and move and are. (Acts 17:25, 28)

Note: This passage is especially interesting, because it shows that God gives everything to everyone (cf. Jn. 3:27), which necessarily includes thoughts, desires, feelings, etc. The “everything” that God gives to “everyone” is related to the nothing that anyone can give to Him (cf. Rom. 11:35-36); the reason that no one can give anything to God, even obedience, is because everything (including obedient or disobedient actions) ultimately comes from God in the first place.

So then, He shows mercy to whom He wills, yet whom He wills, He hardens. You will say to me, then, “Why does He still blame? For who has withstood His purpose?” Rather, who are you, O man, contradicting God? Will the formed thing say to the [One] having formed [it], “Why did you make me thus?” (Rom. 9:18-20) 

For God is the [One] working in you, both to will and to work, by [His] good pleasure. (Php. 2:13) 

None of these passages should be difficult to understand; they all state explicitly that the will of man is something that is entirely under God’s control, which God can turn wherever He so wishes. Most notably, the Psalmist writes that God fashions “the hearts” and “all the deeds” of “all the inhabitants of the earth” (Ps. 33:14-15 cf. Dan. 4:35), which can only be true if all of our choices and actions are predetermined by the providential will of God.

    All of the passages quoted above serve to demonstrate the general rule that the human will is under the providential control of God, and to refute the Arminian view that “God does not violate man’s ‘free will.’” But are there any specific examples of God using this power over the human will to directly alter their choices? As a matter of fact, there certainly are. For example:

And Yahweh said to Moses, “Go in to the pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his servants, that I may show these signs of Mine before him.“ (Exod. 10:1 cf. Rom. 9:17)

“Yet Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass through, for Yahweh your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that He might give him into your hand, as he is this day.“ (Deut. 2:30)

There was not a city that made peace with the sons of Israel, except the Hivite inhabitants of Gibeon. They took them all in battle. For it was of Yahweh to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that He might destroy them as Yahweh had commanded Moses. (Josh. 11:19-20)

And Israel came into Egypt, and Jacob dwelt in the land of Ham. And [God] increased His people greatly and made them stronger than their foes. He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal craftily with His servants. (Ps. 105:23-25)

What then? What Israel seeks, it has not attained this, yet the chosen attained [it]. Now the rest were hardened, as it has been written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes to not see, and ears to not hear, until this very day.” (Rom. 11:7-8)

For God shut up the all in disobedience, that He may have mercy on the all. (Rom. 11:32)

In each of these instances, God caused a certain person or group of people to be “hardened,” so that they failed to follow His instruction for some purpose. Indeed, this may be generalized to all people who are in unbelief, as Peter described the unbelievers of his day as “disobeying the word, to which they were also appointed” (1 Pet. 2:8). However, just as God is able to harden the hearts of certain individuals in order to carry out His purposes, He is also able to produce true love and obedience within the hearts of others.

“And Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your descendants, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart and all your soul, that you may live.” (Deut. 30:6)

“And I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am Yahweh, and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.” (Jer. 24:7)

“And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you, and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh, and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and My judgments, and you will keep and do [them]... Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and your abominations.” (Ezek. 36:26-27, 31)

According to these passages, God has the ability to cause one to walk in His statutes and return to Him with their entire heart. This is precisely the sort of change that Arminians argue cannot be effected unilaterally by God. Yet these passages clearly show that a person’s choice to return to God only comes after God changes their heart (cf. Jn. 6:44), rather than the other way around.

    Apart from these examples which show God’s ability to organically produce belief, unbelief, love, hate, obedience, disobedience, and other emotions and mental states within an individual, there are also several instances where we are explicitly told that God caused a person to make a specific choice at a given time, in accordance with the truth that God is able to “turn [the heart of a king] wherever He wills” (Prov. 21:1). See the following passages:

“Shall the ax boast against Him who chops with it? Or shall the saw exalt itself against Him who saws with it? That would be as if a rod could wield itself against those who lift it up, or a rod lifting the one who is not wood.” (Isa. 10:15)

Note: In this passage, God is comparing the Assyrian king and army to merely an ax or saw in His hand that He is using to punish Israel with (see vv. 6 - 14). This emphasizes God’s complete and total sovereignty over the actions of the Assyrian king and army; they have no independent action apart from that which God has imparted to them, just as an ax cannot move without a human operating it.

Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of Yahweh by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, Yahweh stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia so that he made a decree throughout all his kingdom and put it in writing... (Ezra 1:1)

And they kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread with joy seven days, for Yahweh had made them joyful and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria toward them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel. (Ezra 6:22)

“Blessed be Yahweh, God of our fathers, who has put such a thing as this in the heart of the king, to beautify the house of God which is in Jerusalem!” (Ezra 7:27)

"And my God put it into my heart to gather the nobles and the rulers and the people, that they might be registered by genealogy." (Neh. 7:5)

And the ten horns that you saw, and the beast, these will hate the prostitute, and will make her having been desolated and naked; and they will eat her flesh, and burn her in fire. For God has put it in their hearts to do His purpose, even to do one purpose, even to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled. (Rev. 17:16-17)

In each of these instances, God puts a specific purpose in the heart of a person or group of people, causing them to make a certain choice and/or do a certain action. Yet this is precisely the sort of control over human actions that Arminians and (philosophical) libertarians believe that God cannot and does not exert.

    So, do humans have free will? The answer depends on what type of free will is meant. In the compatibilist sense, humans do have ‘free will,’ because they are able to choose and act in accordance with their inner desires. However, in the libertarian sense, humans do not have free will, because there is not the legitimate possibility of choosing otherwise. Every choice or action that a person makes is already determined, because, as the Psalmist wrote, God fashions “the heart” (leb, which refers to the will or center of volitional control) and “all the deeds” of “all the inhabitants of the earth” (Ps. 33:15).

    But if God predetermines every choice and action that a person makes, wouldn’t that make God the author of sin? How could God’s sovereign control over the universe contradict His commandments, such that all sin and evil is also part of His plan? In the next posts of this series on the Bible and free will, we will take a look at all of these questions and more.

Part 2: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-bible-and-free-will-two-wills-of.html

______________________________

[1] Although it is sometimes argued that God’s perfect foreknowledge is compatible with libertarian free will, since His knowledge is based on what human beings will choose, this goes contrary to the doctrine of divine aseity (that God’s attributes are based in Himself alone, and He does not require any outside influence for them; see Acts 17:25). Since God’s attributes cannot be based on any outside influence, it is impossible for His foreknowledge to be contingent on the libertarian choices of human beings.