Yeah But….Answering Common Objections Earlier we listed some of the common reasons given for man having a free will. We will now attempt to answer them and further refute the unbiblical notion that human beings have a free will. (Objections shown in bold.) 1. The most common objection to man not having a free will is that without it man cannot be held responsible for what he had no ability to do. We will again quote Norman Geisler who, yet once more, clearly describes the thinking behind this objection. Not only are evil moral actions ones that could have been done otherwise, but they should have been otherwise…..Here too, logic seems to insist, that such moral obligations imply that we have self-determining moral free choice. For ought implies can. That is, what we ought to do implies that we can do it. Otherwise, we have to assume that the Moral Lawgiver is irrational, commanding that we do what is literally impossible for us to do. Good reason appears to insist that if God commands it, then we can do it. Moral obligation implies moral freedom.9 Notice that Dr. Geisler does not quote Scripture but appeals to “logic” and “reason” which seem, to him at least, to insist that what he is claiming is true. (We might ask, “who’s reason and who’s logic?”) This kind of language is common among writers who have no real proof of what they are stating but are merely sharing with us their basic presuppositions. Geisler (an avid Arminian) is merely assuming that what does not conform to his own notions of rationality is false. The notion that “ought implies can” immediately runs into problems with the Bible. Throughout the Bible we are commanded by God to do what is holy and just and we are held accountable for doing do so (Matt 5:48). Yet nowhere in the Scriptures are we ever given the idea that our moral responsibility to God is based upon an inherent ability within ourselves. To take this notion to its logical conclusion would mean that because we are commanded to be perfect, and will be held accountable to God’s standards, we must have the ability to do so. Such an idea is obviously ridiculous and contradicts the teaching of Scripture as we have demonstrated. John Calvin is again worth quoting: “In the place they inquire, by what right is the lord angry with His creatures who had not provoked Him by any previous offence; for that to devote to destruction whom He pleases is more like the caprice of a tyrant than the lawful sentence of a judge; that men have reason, therefore, to expostulate with God, if they’re predestined to eternal death without any demerit of their own, merely by His sovereign will. If such thoughts ever enter into the minds of pious men, they will be sufficiently enabled to break their violence by this one consideration, how exceedingly presumptuous it is only to inquire into the causes of the Divine will; which is in fact, and is justly entitled to be, the cause of everything that exists. For if it has any cause, then there must be something antecedent, on which it depends; which it is impious to suppose. For the will of God is the highest rule of justice; so that what He wills must be considered just, for this very reason, because He wills it. When it is inquired, therefore, why the Lord did so, the answer must be, because He would. But if you go further, and ask why He so determined, you are in search of something greater and higher than the will of God, which can never be found.”10 A thorough examination of the Biblical basis for responsibility can be found in Dr. R.K. McGregor Wright’s book, No Place for Sovereignty. Wright explains that our responsibility is not based on some theory of free will but rather upon the fact that we are God’s creatures. The potter has a right over the clay to call it into question for anything. God is His own and our standard for morality - and not some free will theory that God and man must adhere to. The first chapter of Romans also informs us that responsibility is linked to knowledge rather than free will. 2. The idea that God had to create man with free will because it is a part of the image of God is also used as an objection to divine predestination. This idea is absurd. First of all, God does not have to do anything. There is no law higher than God Himself which He must adhere to. Secondly, God can do what He wants according to His own nature. He cannot ever choose to lie or to not be God; He simply is not “free” to do those things. Thirdly, God created Adam with the ability to sin or not to sin, if this is an inherent aspect of the image of God then God too must have this ability which clearly He does not. Lastly, when the last sinner is saved and all the saints are in glory with new immortal bodies they will be unable to sin (I John 3:2). Will we suddenly stop being human and no longer reflect the image of God? Of course not, to assert such a thing would be sheer lunacy. 3. Another extremely common objection to man not having a free will is that without it God is the author of sin. Free will is seen as a necessity to deliver God from being the author of sin. Arminians (and those who deny being Arminians but in fact still are because of the beliefs they hold), cannot get past the idea that if God predetermines everything He is directly responsible for everything that happens. Scripture is clear in asserting that God is not the author of sin and there is no darkness in Him at all (1 John 1:5). Scripture is also equally clear that God works all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11). Since all things would include evil, and given the fact that God does not Himself do evil, there must be a non-contradictory relationship between these two truths of Scripture because the Word of God can never contradict itself. Those who hold this view need to remember the answers raised by point 2 which state that God is not obligated to do anything. They also need to come to grips with the fact that evil is a part of God’s eternal plan as so many scriptures illustrate (Gen 50:20; Acts 4:28; Eph 1:11). Free will is not needed as an answer to deliver God from the charge of evil because evil is not a problem for God, but for man, and man is in no position to question God about its existence (Rom 9:20). For the sake of argument let’s suppose that the omniscient God of the Bible did give man libertarian free will as the Arminians teach. In that case, evil came about not as a part of the predetermined plan of God, but by the intrusion of man’s sinful use of free will into the universe God created. However, the problem with that line of thinking is: because God is omniscient, He knew that evil would eventually come into existence - along with all the death, suffering, and destruction that followed. Therefore, if God had chosen not to create, then evil would never have existed. Thus we see that the Arminian answer is no answer at all, but rather a shallow shelving of the problem of evil. (For a thorough discussion of the relationship between the totally sovereign God and evil see chapter five of Gordon Clark’s “Religion, Reason, and Revelation.”) Below are several points from Scripture that show God’s relation to evil as being non-contradictory as well as revealing that while God is the ultimate cause of all things, He is in no way responsible for sin, or sinful for having determined evil’s existence. God is the Creator of everything (Gen. 1:1; John 1:1-3). God knows everything and has all power to do as He pleases (Jer. 32:17; Rev. 1:8; 1 John 3:20; Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:28). All that God does is righteous and just (Psalm 33:10-11; 111:7; Dan. 4:37; Rom. 11:36; Rev. 15:3). God works all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11; Heb. 1:3; Isaiah 8:9-10). God has ordained that evil would exist (Acts 4:27-28; Luke 22:22; Isaiah 45:7; Jude 4, 12-13; Prov. 16:4; Psalm 46:8; Rom. 9:17; John 12:39-40). Therefore it was righteous and just for God to ordain that evil, in all its forms, would exist. 4. Love demands a choice. This is yet another unproven assumption that free will defenders have come up with as an appeal to the emotions. It is often stated by men like Dave Hunt and Chuck Smith that love cannot be forced but rather it must be a free will decision in order to have any meaning. This “answer” fails to recognize man’s bondage to sin. God must give life to a person through regeneration so that a person becomes able to love God and desire to follow Him (John 3:3-5). God does not ask those whom He regenerates for permission! Rather, He does it according to His sovereign will and grace. Thus He Himself (not a free will decision by man), sovereignly brings about the new life whereby believers are inclined to love and please God. This objection is often couched in terms of a marital relationship. It is argued that a husband cannot demand that he be loved by his wife. However this analogy fails to adhere to Scripture. Love is a moral obligation and an explicit command of Scripture (Deut 6:5; John 15:12) not a free will choice. The value of love lies in the character of God. Love’s inherent value and meaning are found in God who is holy, true, and righteous, and not in the idea that we could have done otherwise. 5. Without free will we would be robots. No, without free will we are lumps of clay in the Potter’s hands that are made either as vessels of wrath or honor. We exist to glorify God and therein lies our purpose. (Those who make such an objection should carefully study Romans 9.)
Posted on: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:39:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015