As Christians, free will is often something we take for granted. Not so much if you're a Calvinist, but if you are not of that particular persuasion, the chances are you not only believe in free will, but do so without even questioning it. You might not even know what it actually means.
When we stop to think about free will, however, we do find it to be quite the puzzling concept. Outside the Christian faith, it doesn't seem to exist - and certainly not with such development. In Islam, Allah decrees all, there is no free will. In Materialism, we are a slave to natural forces, just as everything else. Free will is an illusion. Even within the Christian faith, there is the aforementioned Calvinism, which would contend that, if free will exists, we are only free to choose to which degree we will participate in sin; only God can decide whether or not we will practice righteousness.
This discussion leads to interesting questions, such as whether or not Peter, having been told by Christ Himself "...Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times" (Matthew 23:34) could use his free will to defy this prophecy? This seems like quite the dilemma. If we say yes, then God's sovereignty is in question. He could easily be foiled by man. If we say no, then Peter did not actually have free will, at least in this instance.
As major as this dilemma seems, I don't think it's quite so complicated. To begin with, I don't think free will could ever truly impede the sovereignty of God. In fact, ask yourself this: Who puts more faith in the sovereignty of God? He who believes God cannot create a free agent without freedom, or he who believes God cannot create a free agent? The obvious answer is the former. Scripture does tell us that God cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13), and thus He cannot do the logically impossible. A free agent without freedom is logically impossible, and thus according to 2 Timothy 2:13, God cannot do it. However, a free agent is logically possible (and I would of course contend around 8 billion of them exist on this Earth as I write these words). Thus, God can do it. If you say otherwise, then what you are saying is God is not sovereign, because there is something preventing Him from exercising His power within His creation.
But then coming back to the question of whether or not Peter could have chosen to confess Christ that night, rather than deny Him. How, if Peter could have used his free will to confess Christ, would this not impede the sovereignty of God?
First, let us consider just how powerful God really is. God's sovereignty is such that He is, first of all, fully aware of all possible alternatives. We see this many times in Scripture. In the Old Testament, He tells Jeremiah "Perhaps they will listen and return — each from his evil way of life — so that I might relent concerning the disaster that I plan to do to them because of the evil of their deeds." (Jeremiah 26:3). They did not. In the New Testament, He speaks of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, and how, if He had made different choices, they also would have. These are both examples of God knowing not only what will (or did) happen, but also that alternatives were possible.
This strongly suggests that although Jesus knew that Peter would (and of course, in hindsight we know he did) deny Him, but would also have known that he could have made different choices.
But He also knew the relevant circumstances. See, we often misunderstand free will. We all have the understanding that it doesn't mean we can do the impossible. You cannot choose, for example, to just sprout wings and fly. There are physical constraints on our choices. But what we don't tend to think about is that there are other pressures. There are things that influence our choices, up to and including our consciousness of them.
Thus, we can say it was simultaneously possible and impossible for Peter to have chosen differently in this scenario. It was possible in the sense that nothing was forcing Peter to deny Christ at that moment. But just because a choice is possible doesn't mean it is likely.
Throughout my life, as I'm sure is the case with many of you, I have had the opportunity to hold babies. Babies are rather precious, and fragile beings. How you hold them is important. Their weight must be appropriately supported. In particular, their necks are not yet strong enough to hold their own heads. Thus, when holding a baby, it is essential that you support the head.
It's also quite important not to drop the baby. Doing so can cause lasting damage. But when you hold a baby, you always have the choice to drop it. But it is my hope and prayer that such a choice is so repugnant to everyone reading this article that to even read the words "when you hold a baby, you always have the choice to drop it" feels strange.
Now, I am quite grateful to say I have never dropped a baby, even by accident. But the choice was always there. Why, then, did I never take it? Simply because that is a repugnant choice to me. There is no world in which I, in my current state of mind, would willingly drop a baby.
But obviously, there are worlds in which Peter would willingly die with Christ. In fact, ultimately, he did die for Christ. Tradition even holds that he was crucified upside down, a request he, himself, made, not believing himself worthy to die in the same manner as his Lord. So was it a coin toss here? Heads, Peter denies, tails, Peter confesses?
In reality, no. Christ had already decreed, at this point, that Peter would deny Him, and when God says something will happen, there's no going back from that. Your best option is to simply accept that it will.
But Peter was not compelled. It's a difficult concept, one which I do not believe we will get our heads around until we "know, even as we are known" (1 Corinthians 13:12). But while we see dimly, as in a first century mirror, what I think we can say is it was simultaneously possible for Peter to confess Christ in theory, but impossible in practice. Peter, while not compelled beyond his ability to choose otherwise, was lead by the circumstances to freely deny Christ, though not without internal conflict. We see that he warmed himself by the fire (Mark 14:54; John 18:18). Could he have chosen not to? Of course. But he was cold, so he chose to warm himself. In the same way, he could have chosen to admit "yes, I know Jesus", and I'm convinced part of him wanted to. However, courage was a gift God denied him in this instance. So, he made a choice he regretted, but at the time, he willed it quite freely.
But praise be to God, he was restored just as freely by a warm and loving, resurrected Christ. I believe Peter's example is a lesson we can all learn from. He talked a big game, but when it came time to put his money where his mouth was...
We talk a big game, too. And I mean "we" on a very personal level. I know I've said, on more than one occasion, that I will never deny Christ. But what if Satan asks to sift me like wheat? Would the Lord permit him? Perhaps, in this scenario, I will deny as Peter did. And perhaps you would too.
But just as Jesus restored Peter, He restores us. We must assume, as 1 Corinthians 10:13 very clearly tells us, that every sin we commit, we could have made a different choice. But there is a choice Christ will always make: To restore those who love Him, in spite of our many failings, in spite of our terrible decisions, in spite of the roosters in our own lives. Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more. Therefore, regardless of how Peter used his free will that night, let us rejoice that Christ obeyed the will of the Father, and drank the cup we never could: The full wrath of God for sin.