Free Will

For better or worse, the question of free will continues to be a perplexing and unanswered question for all people across all worldviews. Whether religious or secular, spiritual or rationalistic, none have ever received a clear answer to the question of human free will. Many answers are available, but none have reached consensus even within the narrow bounds of their own worldview, let alone a universally accepted answer amongst all worldviews.

Pick one of these answers and you'll find schisms with two or more camps debating the issue. There will be those that deny any notion of human free will (leaving man to a kind of fatalism), and there will be those that affirm man's absolute and total freedom. And of course there will be plenty in between (from nuanced interpretations to various slippery slope arguments). Pick any era in history in any culture and in any worldview and you will find this exact pattern (albeit framed within the lexicon of that specific worldview).

Christian Views

Christians (in all the various denominations) have debated this topic from the first century to the present day. They'll refer to predestination and will often define free will to fit their nuanced theological interpretations. Yet even within the subtle nuances of the Greek word synergoi the core debate rages on. And if we detour back to our pre-Christian history, this exact question of free will and predestination is what divided the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.

Early Church

One of the earliest Christian free will debates was the Pelagian Controversy. In this historic debate Pelagius wrote against the predestination views of Augustine, and these objections later became known as Pelagianism. The Pelagians reacted to the perceived lack of free will within Augustine's writings -- this reaction introduced anti-Biblical views (that original sin did not taint human nature). And all of this was an attempt to allow for human free will in a Christian context. In the end, the Pelagian view was deemed heretical (see Canon V from the Council of 418). However, the debate continued afterwards in a reactionary cycle producing various semi-Pelagian views.

Semi-Pelegianism

Broadly speaking, a semi-Pelegian view is any that grants humans some ability for salvation independent of God's grace. Even in the most rationalistic terms, if the Pelagian view was 100% man choosing to be good, the semi-Pelegian view is anything greater than 0%

E.g., if one is to say that man possesses some small ability to do good and reach salvation independent of God, just 0.1% man and 99.9% is God, then this a semi-Pelegian view.

The contrary view is not necessarily 0% for man (although that view exists), but rather an insistence that 100% of goodness and salvation is due to God.

From these semi-Pelagian debates over free will, synergism became the agreed upon solution by orthodox Christians. This view was reinforced in the fourth ecumenical council determining that the person of Christ has both a human and divine will, that Christ is both God and man -- a view that was further reinforced in the sixth ecumenical council. As time went on, this orthodox view of synergism has occasionally drifted, often times with deliberate misrepresentations into semi-Pelagian views, resulting in renewed debates that parallel those from early church history.

For example, the protestant debates around sola fide or the Calvinist debates around Arminianism vs Monergism, these mimic the centuries old Pelagian debates, including nuanced in-between views such as Molinism.

Calvinism

As if to re-tell the early Pelagian controversy, there arose in the 16th century a reaction to the writings of John Calvin who was heavily influenced by the writings of Augustine on predestination. This reaction -- which started with Jacobus Arminius and became known as Arminianism -- was especially concerned with Calvin's views of reprobation (or what is otherwise known as double predestination), which is a logical conclusion to the denial of human free will, that the non-elect were chosen for damnation (that God "adjudges others to eternal death").

Calvin's continued influece

While it's tempting to think that Calvinism is only a topic for theology classrooms, the idea of moral determinism, of the elect / unelect, is very much alive in modern academia and amongst postmodern "intellectuals".

The belief in a predestined elect, with an unquestioned moral rightness continues to pervade today's political discource -- including every social justice activist, critical race theorist, and so on -- all are assured of their own moral supiority over the uneducated (unelect).

While the nomenclature changes, and this is definitely a perversion of theological Calvinism, the spirit is the same. These are the inevitable consequences of moral determinism, of denying human free will.

These strict Calvinist views are known as monergism. The antithetical reaction to monergism came from the writings of Jacobus Arminius whose views led (inevitably) to a schism within the Dutch Reformed Church, such that the Remonstrant Brotherhood split from their parent church. Later, the Remonstrant Arminian view was explicitly condemned at the Synod of Dort which is what led to the articulation of the five points of Calvinism known by the mnemonic acronym TULIP and is generally what we mean by Calvinism today.

And exactly as the condemnation of Pelagianism resulted in the emergence of semi-Pelagianism, the condemnation of Remonstrant Arminianism led inevitably to a rationalistic Arminianism. In the century after Dort there was a migration away from strict monergism but not stopping at rational Arminianism, instead it inevitably produced deism, itself a stepping stone into the postmodern malaise and meaning crisis. As a result, and as astute Calvinists have maintained, any view that takes away from the complete sovereignty of God (and irresistable grace) inevitably leads to deism, naturalism, and ultimately to what Nietzsche described as the death of God in the hearts of man.

Arminianism is semi-Pelegian

In rationalistic terms, the Arminian view grants to man a small ability to choose good (a step towards salvation) that is independent of God. Even if we say this is only 0.01% man and 99.99% God, this is semi-Pelegian by definition.

Importantly this view emerges inevitably as a reaction to the strict monergistic doctrine of reprobation. In rationalistic terms, monergism insists that God is 100% responsible for man's salvation, but reprobation is to say God is 100% responsible for man's condemnation. Thus man's will is not sufficient to participate in his own salvation, because all was predetermined.

The orthodox view of synergism is to say God is 100% responsible for man's salvation while conversely man is 100% responsible for his own condemnation. And thus man willfully participates in his own salvation.

While we can easily dispense with the semi-Pelagian views of Arminianism, if we are truly concerned with truth, then we are left with an ongoing debate between strict monergism and orthodox synergism. It seems as if either John Calvin and the reformers were wrong, or John Chrysostom and all of the church fathers were wrong. And while both sides have plenty of scriptural support, all it takes is one counterexample to show an interpretation as false.

Arminianism

Arminian synergism, which is similar to the Roman Catholic view of synergism, contains plenty of scriptural support. However, there are many passages that must bend or break with this interpretation, e.g.,

Romans 8:29-30

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Any semi-Pelagian view that weakens God's absolute sovereignty, or denies irresistible grace, will have a particular hard time with this passage. And in fact, the only way to reconcile passages such as these with a semi-Pelegian view is to weaken the passage into something unrecognizable. We can confidently conclude that all forms of semi-Pelagianism are false.

Additionally, we have historic hindsight into the bad fruits from even the most agreeable forms of rational Arminianism. In particular the risks of deism (which is simply a logical conclusion of semi-Pelagianism more generally) -- a slippery slope into the horrors of the postmodern "enlightenment" that denies God, truth, morality, and any defensible epistemology -- leaving man disintegrated into the dark waters of chaos, unable to justify any such thing as goodness or even hope.

Monergism

There is plenty of scriptural support for monergism and all five points of Calvinism. However, as with Arminianism, all it takes is one counterexample in order to falsify, e.g.,

1 John 2:2

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

It's difficult to reconcile the above with limited atonement, the L in TULIP which states that Christ died only for the sins of the elect. Additionally, we are forced to bend much of scripture to remove man's free will, e.g.,

Hebrews 12:25

See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven

And more troubling, we must bend the very words of our Lord, who is very clear about the free will of man concerning salvation, providing explicit moral instruction as if we have free will, e.g.,

Matthew 7:1-5

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Without any actionable free will on the part of man, Christ could have simply said "follow your heart, for God has absolute sovereignty."

Instead, he speaks and teaches with authority to all of us, as if we were creatures possessing a God-given free will.

Matthew 7:7-8

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Perhaps the most egregious flaw of strict monergism is that it necessitates reprobation (double predestination), despite the fact that there is no direct support for double predestination in the Bible nor in any orthodox tradition. Importantly, double predestination is impossible to act within. One cannot preach nor pray in harmony with double predestination.

As a consequence, monergism begets its own antithesis, which in turn begets a classic cycle of revolution and reaction. We see the seeds of this reaction continue to this very day.

To the degree the reactions produce revealed truth they can be said to be good (as all truth is good), but to the degree they create schisms and deception, including bad faith arguments and misrepresentations of the opposing view; this is the work of the adversary, the bad fruits of demonic influence. And unfortunately, one can find bad faith arguments and straw men on both sides of this debate. We ought to tread carefully here, and remember that if this issue was unimportant we likely wouldn't find such demonic interference.

2 Peter 2:1

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Moving past the deceptions, it would be fair to view Arminianism as a Calvinist dressing around rationalistic synergism, which inevitably lead to semi-pelegianism and deism. Yet the culprit, the cause, is the rigid views of reprobation within Calvinism, that is, ignoring the infinite love and mercy of God, and instead focusing on a rationalistic system, will inevitably create rationalistic Arminianism.

We cannot condemn Arminianism while blamelessly clinging to strict monergism (a monergism that logically affirms reprobation).

Monergism Begets semi-Pelegian Reaction

From a transcendent perspective of God's absolute sovereignty, monergism is impossible to deny, however, if we attempt to deduce reprobation (double-predestination) we must conclude that God is 100% responsible for the salvation of the elect, and 100% responsible for the condemnation of the unelect, making God the author of evil.

The traditional view of orthodox synergism strongly rejects any notion that God is or can be the author of evil, positing that God is 100% responsible for our salvation, and that man is 100% responsible for sin and condemnation.

Most all Christians agree with this, even the strict Calvinists will declare that God is never the author of evil -- and this demonstrates a deeper truth that is difficult (if not impossible) to properly articulate in rational terms. It is a truth that is lived, in particular a truth that was lived in the life of Jesus Christ. Attempting to rationalize this fundamental truth with monergism creates the inevitable semi-Pelagian / Arminian reaction.

Revolution and Reaction

Ultimately, if we look at the pattern of these debates about free will, we find a predictable cycle of revolution and reaction. From Pelagianism to Arminianism to the various councils/synods condeming them -- the pattern is as timeless as Christianity itself. Importantly, this confirms the observation that Arminianism is contained with Calvinism. These are clearly two sides of the same coin. The five points of Calvinism contain within their strict dogma a seed of semi-Pelagianism, be it Arminianism or Molinism or whatever the -ism.

This is necessarily true because the five points of Calvinism (TULIP) are true from a transcendent level of analysis, and not the particular level of human behavior and consciousness. Rationality itself is contingent upon this transcendent level of analysis, and while we can make sense of TULIP through transcendent categories, we cannot apply it to particulars, say, to your own prayer life (other than as a reminder of God's absolute sovereignty, which is also affirmed in orthodox synergism).

This is in fact what it means for Christ to be the mediator between the high and the low, between fallen man and God the father -- because He is unifying the particular (man's will) with the transcendent (divine will).

Resolving this ongoing reactionary cycle requires Christ. The revealed truth of Christ with His divine will and human will, is the unification of the truths of monergism (e.g., of irresistable grace) acted out in the truths of synergism. Traditionally this is what is meant by orthodox synergism.

Ephesians 2:8-10

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Orthodox View

The Biblical narrative is very clear on two points:

1 - God has ultimate sovereignty, and

2 - man has free will.

The structure of the Biblical narrative affirms both points. God is a character in the Bible, as is man, who was created in the image and likeness of God. This is not an impersonal God of deism. God is not only personal, but our very notion of personhood is from God, that is, we possess personhood because we were made in the image and likeness of God. Our free will exists in that we participate in His will. And His will is done. He is the transcendent source of all creation. Even God hardening (strengthening) Pharoah's heart, this is what allowed Pharoah to follow his own free will into certain destruction.

These two revealed truths, of God's sovereignty and man's free will, create a potential dilemma, as effectively both sides of the free will debate are strongly affirmed in the Bible. And thus any interpretation of scripture which denies one side can be declared false. And the question of reconciling these seemingly contrary views is left as a divine mystery, one that parallels the life and character of Jesus Christ.

This in effect is affirmed in the Chalcedonian Definition (from the fourth ecumenical council) that Christ has two wills and that Christ is both God and man. This necessarily implies that man's free will not only exists but that it can be redeemed in Christ. Note also how the human will of Christ not only was tempted by Satan, but also participates in the will of the father, with perfect obedience so as to glorify God (the father). Christ's human will participated harmoniously with His divine will, and did so in a way that makes it possible for us to participate harmoniously with His divine sovereign will. By coming to Christ we find in Christ an answer to the free will question; and we find affirmation that any interpretation that denies or compromises free will or that denies or compromises God's ultimate sovereignty, any such compromised views are as heretical and false as denying that Christ is both God and man.

Only by affirming that Christ is both God and man, such that man is both free and completely subject to God's sovereignty, can we make sense of the Bible. This is what is traditionally known as synergism from the Greek synergoi, as Saint Paul writes,

1 Corinthians 3:9

Θεοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν συνεργοί· Θεοῦ γεώργιον, Θεοῦ οἰκοδομή ἐστε.

Theou gar esmen synergoi; Theou geôrgion, Theou oecodomê este.

For we are fellow workers with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

Orthodox synergism is notably different from Roman Catholic synergism as well as rational Arminian synergism, in that the orthodox view affirms God's absolute sovereignty through Christ's divine will, while simultaneously affirming man's free will through Christ's human will. This does not compromise on irresistible grace nor total depravity, nor any of the five points of Calvinism (though it does disagree with reprobation). In fact, it becomes clear that Calvinism speaks of Christ's divine will while making no claims about Christ's human will and the necessary implications to man's free will. Or rather, this is why Calvinists find reprobation (double predestination) so controversial.

Ultimately, the creator of the universe became flesh, became man -- the divine Logos incarnate. And as such lived with sinless perfection, participating in the divine will through His human will.

While orthodox synergism has often been maligned and misrepresented (conflated with Roman Catholic synergism or Arminian semi-Pelagian heresies), the core doctrine of orthodox synergy remains crucial and necessary to the truth of the Biblical narrative.

In fact, there were attempts at reconciliation between the early reformed church and the Eastern Orthodox church. Unfortunately this did not lead to unification, although it did bear good fruits in what is known as The Confession of Dositheus which better articulated the Eastern Orthodox positions with respect to reformed theology more generally. This is particularly interesting in hindsight as we can see that the protestants were basing much of their theology on reactions against heresies within the Roman Catholic church (of which there was generally agreement between Protestants and Orthodox Christians).

These attempts at unification continue to this day, and yet, orthodox synergism is well supported by scripture (and without falsification), e.g.,

Acts 17:26-17

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us

Acts 10:34-35

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Divine Love and Free Will

Man cannot fathom omniscience nor the nature of God's will, His divine judgement, His divine mercy, His divine love, nor any of His transcendent characteristics; and while all will one day be revealed, it is foolish to force God into logical constraints, as if to tell the creator of the universe what His timeless essence must be, what His omniscience must mean.

Does God will His creatures to hell and only save the elect according to his will? Logically, His omniscience and divine will mean exactly that. And yet, His divine mercy and love are for all of creation, even the most wretched of sinners. And what is our human will if not an aspect of His divine will (albeit in a fallen state)? What has been revealed is that all, as in all, of us sinners are so loved that He gave His only son.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The supposed unelect, these are His children, they suffer without Him, and He calls to them, and the angels rejoice when one is saved. Are they predestined to hell? Is saying no to this a slight to His sovereignty and omniscience? Is saying yes to this a slight to His love and mercy?

God calls us to participate in His divine will, and thus we have free will sufficient to sin, sufficient to delude ourselves into a belief that we're denying God. Let all sides of this debate remember that man is created in the image and likeness of God.

Can one believe they lack free will? Is it even possible?

It's easy to say, but like a denial of truth it is self-refuting and leads to absurdity.

Either God's sovereignty requires absurd conclusions for human consciousness, or God's divine love grants us free will to chose to worship and glorify Him, to participate in His will, or not. By falling away from Him, we become the playthings of demons, no longer able to exercise our God-given will.

These are difficult and even dangerous questions that if left untempered by truth (by Christ), then they will result in the continuation of the heretical cycles of revolution and reaction that we have seen before (and likely will continue to see till the end of time).

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

In the end, Christ has a divine will and a human will, He is both, and thus through Christ do we affirm the objective knowable truth of man's free will and of God's absolute sovereignty. We affirm the synergoi between God and man, made possible through Christ Jesus.

What would change my mind?

Truth revealed by God.