I thought I was done for the night, having published two new articles, and so I sat down and opened Facebook. One of the first posts I saw, a meme by The Reformed Sage. The meme begins with the phrase "Computer, find free will in the Bible please." It then says "(3 hours later) Loading...", and prominently displays a huge "buffering" icon. The implication? Free will cannot be found in the Bible. But one thing I found hilarious, and too good an opportunity to pass up, is that this meme, asking for free will in the Bible, yet saying none could be found in 3 hours, crossed my timeline 3 hours after it was posted. I then proceeded to make a Biblical case for free will, after which I presented them with my own article "A brief defence of free will in scripture".
Of course, having previously written that article, and having absolutely no desire nor intention to remove it, I also have no desire to re-write it. But there's no harm in capitalising on this hilarious coincidence to have an in-house discussion on the existence of free will.
The first thing to do here is to define free will. Free will is often taken for granted in the Church. Those who believe in it are rarely equipped to explain it, if indeed they ever find themselves in a position where they are required to do so. Similarly, those who attack it rarely understand it, and of course only usually encounter resistance from those who are ill equipped to define it. But if free will is to be defended, Biblically or otherwise, it must be defined. So, what is free will?
First, free will is not, as it is often misunderstood to be, the unlimited ability to make any and all choices without force or influence. A man held at gunpoint may have free will, but with lack of realistic options, is all but guaranteed to do whatever the gunman says. Similarly, gravity just will not permit men to fly unaided; we have no freedom of flight. Even deception will affect our choices in ways the deceiver intends. The existence of free will is entirely unaffected by the existence of force or influence.
Similarly, free will is often misunderstood as freedom of desire. We may choose not only what we want to choose, but whether or not we want to choose it. This, likewise, is incorrect. Indeed, one influence of our choices is our desires. In some cases, we may even have two sets of conflicting desires, and we simply choose what, in that moment, we perceive as the greater desire.
Free will, in reality, is the ability of the one who possesses it to choose between a set of options. If you think of it like a chain, God is obviously the source of all things, up to and including free-willed beings. Yet, He is not in direct control of us. We are, effectively, on "auto-pilot". As we will see later on, this is a Biblical fact that compels us to accept free will. We, as humans, carry out our own will, which often conflicts with God's. This conflict is called "sin", and because it is against God's perfect and Holy will, it provokes Him to anger, and invites His wrath.
With free will explained, we can begin to show, even without the Bible, that it is a fact. As with many things, the Bible is not 100% necessary to show something exists. You will never find planes, trains, cars, email, iPhones, Social Media, Australia, even The Reformed Sage, in the Bible. At least, not directly. Why should free will be any different? If I can show, without the Bible, that any being other than God, is able to choose between a variety of options at any given moment, I have proven free will. Yet, every time we wake up, fully regaining conscious control over our bodies, we experience free will. At that moment, we may choose to get up, or stay in bed. If we are still sleepy, we may even choose to surrender to the urge to go back to sleep.
Of course, our bodies are designed in such a way that sleep is all but inevitable. There is only so long we may choose to resist it. But to attempt is a choice we can make. Between sleep, there are other choices we can make. Coincidentally, I am actually choosing to stay awake and write this article at 11 minutes past midnight right now. I could as easily choose to save it as a draft, or even delete it.
So free will is clearly demonstrable just from our every day experiences. Nevertheless, The Reformed Sage did ask for free will in the Bible. Can this challenge be met? Contrary to another meme shared on the page shortly after this one, this can be done without eisegesis.
Let us begin with the simplest and most obvious, which was oh so eloquently illustrated by a comment on the latter meme: "How can I insert my biases if I don't have free will?"
Eisegesis, often motivated by temptation towards another sin, is a sin in and of itself. It is a mishandling of the word of God, twisting scripture as Satan does in an effort to further tempt humanity. Yet, scripture tells us "Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed." (James 1:13-14) and "No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it." (1 Corinthians 10:13).
Now, if free will does not exist, how can one be "drawn away by His own desires"? And if God will not allow you to be tempted beyond your abilities, and promises to make a way of escape so we can bear the temptations we do face, how does one account for sin if there is no free will?
Let's put it this way: God promises we are able to resist temptation. Yet, we do not. Not as often as God promises to provide an escape. So, there are three choices. The first, which feels abominable to even write, much less believe, is that God is not as faithful as His word claims. He does allow us to be tempted beyond our abilities, indeed tempting us Himself, forcing us to sin with no way of escape. Yikes, that just doesn't sound Biblical.
The second is that God is not the one deciding if we will sin or not, but neither are we; there is another being with free will. But if we are under the control of that being, then we are still not able to resist temptation, because we cannot take the way of escape provided by God, thereby meaning God still allowed us to be tempted beyond what we are able.
The third, final, and only option is that each time we sin, God was faithful, did protect us from unbearable temptation, did provide a way of escape so we could bear it, but did not force us to take it. We chose, being drawn away by our desire, in direct conflict with His desire, to sin. Scripture even tells us this "grieves" Him! (Ephesians 4:30).
So we see, from scripture, that free will is the only way for God to be incapable of lying (Titus 1:2), and capable of carrying out His promises (Matthew 19:26), while simultaneously promising sinful beings that they do not have to be sinful.
This is also backed up by what can be adequately described as "if/else" scriptures. Multiple times in scripture, God "condescends" to us, appearing to change His mind, when in fact we know God does not do that (Numbers 23:19), and He declares the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10). If God cannot change His mind, why does He seem to repeatedly imply He will? For example, most famously in our political climate, God promises "if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it." (Jeremiah 18:8).
This is an example of "condescension". That is, we cannot rise up to God's intellectual level, and so in order to communicate to us, He comes down to ours. He does not change His mind, knowing full well whether a nation will turn from its evil or not. Thus, that nation's fate, in the ultimate sense, is sealed. Yet, from that nation's perspective, it does have a choice. It can turn from its evil ways and live. Which, coincidentally, God repeatedly tells us He would prefer (e.g. Ezekiel 18:32; 33:11).
Relating to this, and indeed in the same book, God says to Jeremiah "Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may relent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings.’" (Jeremiah 26:3). We know, in hindsight, that they did not. In fact, they persecuted Jeremiah for even suggesting they repent. God also knew this, not only in hindsight, but again, knowing the end from the beginning. Yet, knowing from the beginning that they would not repent, He still said perhaps they would.
Now, if you know something is going to happen, but you say "perhaps it will happen this other way", what are you? A liar. Unless you also know it could happen the other way. I like to illustrate this with Telltale Games. Telltale Games, before they went out of business, produced multiple choice story games. These games always had limited timelines, as in many events are inevitable, but how the player gets to these points is up to them. Some characters within the stories are even "determinant" characters. That is, they may live, they may die, it all depends on the choices the player makes.
Let's take The Walking Dead as the example. In the first game, the main character, Lee Everett, is faced with a choice. On the one hand, Doug is being pulled through a window by zombies, who will eat him alive. On the other, Carly has fallen over and dropped her gun, and is also being pursued. The player is forced to choose who lives and who dies.
In the end, the timeline is unaffected. Whoever is saved takes on the same roles, eventually being shot in the face by Lily, an aggressive survivor who really doesn't like when her leadership is challenged. It would therefore be a lie to say "perhaps Doug/Carly will survive to the end", if indeed you have seen the game played from both perspectives. It is not, however, a lie to say "perhaps Carly will survive the attack on the pharmacy", especially if you know this particular player is likely to choose Doug (which, in this analogy, is the closest possible equivalent to God knowing what will happen while simultaneously knowing what could happen).
You see, then, that when God, in His omniscience, says "perhaps", that can only mean free will is a fact. The only alternative, which cannot be entertained, is that God is lying. And this can be seen numerous other times throughout scripture, most notably with Sodom and Gomorrah, which God explicitly says would have repented if they had seen Jesus' miracles.
This is where the complexities of the discussion really come into play. See, the ability to make a choice does not always correspond with the knowledge of that choice. Sodom and Gomorrah continued in their sin not because they could not choose otherwise, but because they did not necessarily know they should.
This is actually what allows God's sovereignty and free will to coexist. Like a master Chess player, God knows your "moves" before you make them, and acts accordingly. He is able, therefore, to even use the evil choices we freely make for His glory. He knew He could perform miracles in Sodom and Gomorrah in order to convince them to repent, and that if He destroyed them when He did, they would be (justly) condemned. But He also knew the effects, extending infinitely into the future, of those options. Thus, He chose how to respond, bringing about His plan without affecting free will.
Now, I could go on, and of course have already done so in the original free will article. Suffice to say for now, free will is a fact that can be seen both within scripture, and in our daily lives. The existence of free will is inescapable, and to deny it is illogical. But consider this: If it doesn't exist, it doesn't matter. Only if free will exists can we choose to discuss it, and what conclusion we draw about it. If there is no free will, therefore, discussing it is illogical and inevitable. Since Christians do not serve an illogical God, the only logical position for a Christian to take is the position most Christians already do: Free will does, indeed, exist, and it is the only explanation for how a very good God can allow His very good world to become populated by very bad sinners in need of His very good grace.