A Pressing Question

Whoever has read Genesis knows it starts out with God giving a choice to Adam and Eve, which results in their falling from grace and being cast out of the Garden of Eden. From this then follows a whole lot of sinning by their many descendants. Things get so out of control and so bad that God chooses Noah and his family to save humanity from the imminent destruction he is going to flood the earth with–literally, to flood the earth. This brief synopsis gives us a kind of overview of the accounts represented in Genesis 1-9.

The account of Adam and Eve apparently demonstrates the freewill God granted them and, with them, all humanity. Indeed, we all presumably have a choice to choose between good and evil, between God and ourselves. The freewill that Adam and Eve had pre-fall, however, may not have been like ours, seeing as theirs was in a state of a kind of innocence and purity, as yet untainted by sin. Still, the mechanisms of freewill seem to be the same, not having changed, even after the fall.

Freewill seems to work like this: a choice of two options is presented to us, we can “freely” choose between the two options, and then we have to live with the consequences of that “free” choice between the two options. It can be as simple as choosing to eat plain Wheaties or Frosted Mini Wheats; or it can be choosing either to eat or not to eat Wheaties: it can be a choice to choose this or that, or it can be a choice to choose something or not to choose that something. Whether before or after the fall, that is, whether before or after sin, freewill seems to have maintained its basic makeup of affording us the opportunity to make a choice between two given options.

As the Genesis account goes, God seemingly grants humanity freewill, which humanity uses to oppose God and his will, so God condemns humanity with a huge, possibly worldwide, flood that destroys all humanity for their sin, which was really just a matter of exercising their freewill to choose for or against God.

Now, if you’re anything like me, you might be wondering: why start the whole thing to begin with? I mean, c’mon, God! You’re all-knowing, so didn’t you foresee this coming? Wouldn’t you have a contingency plan in place, especially since you knew it was going to happen, all the rebellion in sin? And why are you destroying humanity for exercising the freewill you had granted them? And even though they exercised it in direct contrast to what you would have willed for them, how can it be “free” if they cannot oppose you, if they have to do exactly what you will?

From this comes a rather pressing question: why would God condemn people for doing the very thing he wanted them to do, namely, exercise their freewill?

Questioning the Pressing Question

Before we do anything else, however, we must first question the pressing question. Here are a number of questions to consider before we can even begin to consider the pressing question rightly:

1. Does freewill even exist?
2. If freewill does exist, how do we know it does?
3. If freewill exists, how does it exist? That is, how is it activated or exercised?
4. Did God really grant people something called “freewill”?
5. Did God really want people to exercise their freewill?
6. If so, how did God want people to exercise their freewill?
7. Was God really condemning people for exercising their freewill?
8. With all his foresight and foreknowledge, why would God want to start this whole thing off, knowing it would end in the slaughter of his innocent Son?

These questions barely begin to scratch the surface of the issue. I hope, however, that these questions will help us to better understand how and why God might grant freewill, in addition to why he might send the flood to destroy humanity for seemingly exercising the freewill he gave them and wanted them to exercise in the first place.

Does freewill exist?

Suffice it to say that there is great debate over this question. Some affirm that freewill of some sort exists, while others deny that any freewill of any kind at all exists. Those who deny that freewill exists in any kind at all whatsoever, may either appeal to a God so completely sovereign over all that he moves everyone and everything around like pieces on a chessboard, or appeal to a godless naturalistic world that is made up of nothing but physical and chemical processes and procedures that blindly move along without the help or hinderance of any will at all.

Then there are those who affirm that freewill does, in fact, exist in a godless naturalistic world, where the only being that has any real freewill is the human. This, however, puts both humanity and freewill in a particularly strange environment, for if the world is sans God, being a wholly godless and only closed naturalistic system, then all is but matter, and matter is but material, and material only gives rise to material. Hence, the will is but a matter of natural processes and procedures, both physical and chemical and the like; the will, then, is not free in the least bit, being constrained by the causes and conditions of those natural processes and procedures: “freedom” of the will is only an illusion or useful fiction to help describe what we might imagine to be the case.

Among those who affirm that some sort of freewill and God exist, there are seemingly two polar opposite positions on the matter, which might be categorized as God alone is sovereign versus we alone are sovereign. The caricature of the first says that God is sovereign and so whatever he wants goes: we might have a will of some sort, but it’s so overshadowed by God’s will that no matter what we do or choose to do, it is really God who makes us do it, so complete is his sovereignty. The caricature of the second says that while God has a will of his own, we each define our own destiny: whatever we choose to do is what will be done, so long as no one else counters or hinders our will; but God is not going to or not able to force his will on us. Between these two opposites are a myriad of hues of opinions, views, and perspectives. Basically, if one or the other of these is true–either we are sovereign in and of ourselves or God is completely sovereign in and of himself–then the one ousts us and the other ousts God.

What are we to make of all this? Do we have freewill? Is the world ruled by God or us or naturalistic processes and procedures? Let us consider the following: if the world is a closed and godless place of naturalistic processes and procedures, then there would be no will at all, whether free or otherwise. Indeed, if there is no will at all and everything is but a matter of naturalistic processes and procedures moving things along on a predetermined path, then I would be writing this article by predetermination, as would you be reading it; that is to say, I would have no recourse or choice or real say in this matter of writing this article and neither would you in reading it: all would be predetermined and foreordained by naturalistic processes and procedures.

However, as we seem to have a real will that seems to be at the very least partially free, then we cannot be living in a predetermined and closed system of naturalistic processes and procedures, of only physical and chemical processes that move us along like marbles in a maze. Additionally, as we do not determine ourselves by our own wills, that is, we do not create or cause ourselves to be, we must be living in a world where some power other or greater than ourselves is at work.

Thus, somewhere in the middle of all this seems to be an appropriate place to land: God exists and has a will, and we also exist and have a will; God exercises his will and we exercise our will. Indeed, if God exercised his own will only and forced us to do one thing or another, then he would be responsible for all of our actions, including evil acts, which would make the good God of creation the author of evil and therefore also somehow, someway evil himself. But if God is wholly good, then he cannot be evil in the least bit. Furthermore, if the author and creator of reality were evil even in the least bit, then reality would be established upon that which would undermine reality and so would cause reality to cease to exist from the get-go.

Moreover, God cannot do certain things, as, for instance, go against his nature, sin or commit evil, or do anything that is nonsensical or illogical. Similarly, God cannot both force people to act in a certain way and also to give them freedom to choose: either we can choose to do or not to do something, or make a choice between this or that option. Thus, he can’t make us do anything, if he also wants us to choose of our own accord “freely” between two options. That being said, he might be able to persuade or convince, even coerce, us to do something, but he cannot both force us to do something and not force us to do that same thing.

Thus, either God, who is good, is completely sovereign–and thereby also evil–or God is limited in his sovereignty and we, too, are sovereign of our own accord, over our lives in some manner or other, however limited we are in our own sovereignty.

This brings us to our next question: how can or how do we know that we have freewill, providing that, in fact, we actually do?

How do we know freewill exists?

One way in which to determine whether freewill exists is to think about what has already been stated: if God is good and is the cause of all things, including everything we will and choose, which would include our evil actions, then God is also evil; for as the author of us and our actions, of which at least some are evil, God would then be the cause of evil, of at least a little evil, at best. God, of course, cannot be both good and not good, both good and evil. Since God is good, he cannot be the author of our evil choices, let alone perhaps any of our choices; thus, our own agency seems to reside within each one of us and not with God.

Furthermore, God cannot both force us and not force us to act, as that would be impossible, logically impossible as it is. Neither can God make us free and bound, that is, free and not free. Thus, if we are free, insofar as God has made us as such, we are then free. But if we are not free, insofar as God has made us as such, we are then not free. But again we cannot be both free and bound. As God does not bind us to do what is evil, since he is no author or cause of evil, but we choose evil howsoever we do, then God is at least not the cause of our evil choices. If he is not the author or cause of our evil choices, then we are free to choose of our own accord, at least, for or against evil.

Additionally, we seem to have a will and it seems to be free; so if we put these two together, we might as well say we seem to have freewill. Seeing as we seem to have freewill, it seems to be something by which we are able to make decisions and choices, for or against something, but not both: we cannot both choose for and against something; we can choose this or we can not choose this, but we cannot both choose and not choose this. If that’s the case, then we might be able to choose God or not choose God, in very much the same way that we might choose to breathe or not to breathe, to saw the branch on which we sit or not to saw the branch on which we sit, if such were the choices we had to make.

Insofar as we are able to make a choice for ourselves, whether for or against another, even God, the Creator of all, who is ultimately and wholly good, then we might just have a thing commonly called “freewill.”

One way in which to determine whether we actually have freewill is so obvious that we might just overlook it: try exercising your will as freely as you can and test out whether or not you actually can do whatever you want to do whenever you want to. For the most part, you will be able to do this, though, of course, not without consequences or limitations: for we can choose whatever we like whenever we like whatever is in our limited power, but we must also accept the consequences of our actions; we can control ourselves and what we do, but we cannot control the outcome or others. Indeed, we can affect or influence the outcome and others, but we can only control what is ours: our will, which is as free as it ever will be now.

How do we exercise freewill?

Simply put, the way in which we exercise our will is by making a conscious choice between at least two options, based on our desires or inclinations for or toward something or other. Indeed, it is a conscious decision we make, as opposed to some knee-jerk reaction or impulse, though even these might be habituated by conscious decisions we make on a regular basis.

We exercise our will by intending a thing in our mind, which somehow relays some communication to the brain, which then sends some electrical impulses throughout our nervous system to enable us to act in a certain way. Though there is more to say on the matter, suffice it to say that this is a very basic way in which to understand the matter. We exercise our will by moving along the intention from a mere mental state to an event of action.

What is it for me to exercise my will freely or with freedom? When I am given a choice between two options, that is, between doing or not doing something or between choosing A or B, I must determine which is most appealing or pleasing to me, in accordance with my values, my desires, my aims and ambitions–in short, in accordance with my will. I make this choice by aiming or focusing my will on toward an object or decision, intending to do this or that or intending to pursue this or that object.

On the face of it, the will may seem very strong–indeed, we call some people “strong-willed.” But, the fact is that the will is very weak, as weak as a flimsy blade of grass blown about this way and that in the wind. Being so weak, the will is not free, in the sense that it is bound by and to any number of various objects or to the wills of other persons. It is bound inasmuch as it is turned this way and that by one whim or emotion or another, as it is directed by the will of another person, as it is impacted by the experience of circumstances beyond our control, etc.

In order to freely choose, the choice must be a real one that I am presented with, in that I must be able to actually cause some effect in terms of the option(s) presented to me. I cannot really freely exercise my will if I am hampered by great limitations or forced in some way to act one way or another. For instance, I have no free choice to fly like a bird because I am limited in that regard and have no ability in that regard; while I can fly like a human in an airplane, helicopter, or glider, I cannot in any way fly like a bird, for I am not a bird and to say that I can is to go against logic, reason, and nature. I can, however, freely choose whether or not to fly like a human, whether in a plane or glider.

Thus, the choice for which I am making a decision must be one that is not beyond my comprehension or ability: a newborn baby cannot choose whether to provide for their family because the baby is incapable of making such complex decisions, limited as they are by their age, experience, and the like.

Now, in order to be free in this process of decision-making, I must not be bound by anything or anyone. Truth be told, we are all bound or beholden to someone or something, whether to or by ourselves or another. But though bound all around by various parties, objects, or persons, when we are in the presence of a real choice, we can decide for or against that choice by affirming or denying that choice. We do this by not merely acknowledging the option or choice, but by either moving toward or ahead with the choice or moving away from or against that choice. We move toward with assent and action in line with the option; we move away from with dissent and action out of line with the given option.

Did God really grant people “freewill”?

Whether or not God has granted people freewill is also a matter of great debate. The Bible seems to clearly teach that God created people, namely, Adam and Eve, from whom all people and peoples have presumably come. To be sure, if God is Creator of all, then he must have created all humans, all people, past and present, and into the future. The question, though, is whether God actually gave people a will and a free will at that. If God created Adam and Eve and if, as Genesis 3 seems to indicate, God gave Adam and Eve a choice between the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, then it might stand to reason that by virtue of the transmission of heredity that all the descendants of Adam and Eve, that is, all humans, also have a choice.

However, it might also stand to reason that there is no such choice present for the descendants of Adam and Eve–at least, we cannot necessarily presume such is the case from the account of Genesis 3. However, Genesis 4 seems to indicate that, given the choice that God says is before Cain–whether to master sin or be mastered by it–humanity after the Fall has a choice to make, has a will to exercise. The will after the Fall of Adam and Eve may not be exactly the same as the will prior to the Fall, for the choice granted humanity is not a choice between the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life, but is a choice between whether to sin or not to sin, whether to master evil or be mastered by evil.

Thus, it seems that God granted Adam and Eve a kind of free will, and after the Fall, there was another kind of free will, though, perhaps, not as free or not free in the same kind of way as prior to the Fall.

Did God really want people to exercise their freewill?

It seems that with the permission God gives to Adam and Eve to eat from whatever tree they liked and the command God gives them to not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, he is wanting them to really exercise their wills freely. Additionally, the call that God gives Cain to overcome sin seems to indicate that God at least wanted Cain to exercise his will freely, however much it was impacted by the Fall into sin.

Furthermore, the commands in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy seem to indicate that God expects at least his people Israel to exercise their will freely, albeit to freely choose life in accordance with his commandments. Throughout the Bible, the implication is that the call to repent of sin and turn to obedience to God is a call to God’s people and all the surrounding nations to exercise their wills freely to turn toward God and away from sin.

Additionally, the command of the New Testament to place one’s faith in Jesus as Christ and Lord implies that one can choose to place their faith in Jesus or not. That implies that there is a choice is at hand. That implies that a will is freely being exercised for or against accepting Jesus as Christ and Lord. This call of faith is one not just for God’s people Israel and all the nations surrounding Israel, but for all peoples everywhere.

Thus, the specific command to Adam and Eve, and then to Cain, and then to all Israel, and then to all the nations and peoples indicates that all are under the provision of having a will that is free to obey or not to obey God in his call to us to have faith in and obedience to him.

As has been said before, a command is an “ought,” and “ought implies can”; as “ought implies can,” then a command implies that we have the ability to fulfill or obey that command. If we can obey a command of God, but do not obey the command, then we have exercised our will freely, having chosen against the command. Indeed, ought implies can and can implies choice and choice implies a will that is free enough to choose for or against the command.

How did God want people to exercise their freewill?

The commands that God gives his people and all peoples are in accordance with his nature, which is the goodness of reality, that is, reality itself, since God is the ground of being, the nature of existence, the very foundation of reality, being reality itself and all that which comes forth from himself is real. Since God is reality and therewith life and existence and since he is against death and the destruction of existence, he calls and commands all peoples to submit in obedience to his command to live in accordance with his way of life. Of course, being all-wise and therefore all-knowing, he knows that not all people will obey his commands or follow his way of life.

In fact, everyone is an enemy of God in their sin; each one of us is a sinner, subject to the power of sin, in need of God’s sovereign power to rescue and redeem us. This indicates that God wants us to exercise our will in accordance with his will, since we are created by him and therefore dependent upon him for life and existence. Even as we are dependent upon air for our very breath of life, so we are dependent upon God and his Spirit for our very breath of life and our very existence. Being so dependent and God being so good, God calls and commands us to be dependent upon him in obedience.

Thus, God wills for us to will our wills in accordance with his will.

So then, in the time of Noah, God wanted the people to repent and obey and be saved from the flood, since he does not delight in the death of even the wicked. But they would not believe and repent.

Was God condemning people in the Flood for exercising their freewill?

The consequence of the exercise of the freewill of all people, save for Noah and his family, prior to the Flood was the imminent and massive flood that flooded their world. Now, the world had gotten so bad that there was no end to the life-sucking evil that everyone, save for Noah and his family, was committing. It was so bad that God didn’t just want, but in some sense needed, to push the reset button on the world and all creation in the world. In a very real sense, the Flood was a recreation of the world, a kind of starting over. Think of it like this: you’ve got a computer filled with viruses and malware so bad that you can’t use it anymore; you need to reboot, reset, rebuild the computer, wipe it clean and start over. Then you will have a computer that is good and useable.

Now, people are not computers and have infinite worth, seeing as they are created in the image of God. How can a good God like God condemn all these people of infinite worth along with all creation that is apparently suffering because of humanity and not because of its own volition or action?

But imagine a world in which there is nothing but purely evil people who don’t do anything good at all in the least bit. They are destroying themselves and all creation along with them. They are not doing a shred of good anywhere.

In an effort to save humanity and all creation on planet earth, God redeems humanity from the consequences of the Fall with the Flood, saving humanity in and through Noah and his family.

To be sure, Noah and his family presumably exercised their freewill, albeit contrary to the way in which those around them were exercising theirs; but Noah and his family were saved, not because they exercised their will, but because of the way in which they exercised it. Indeed, God was condemning the way in which people were exercising their freewill. But he was not condemning that they exercised their freewill.

Why would God start what he knew would end so badly?

The question of why God would begin creation, creating all that which he made, when he presumably knew it would all go so wrong, so badly is a good question.

To answer that question, we must start with the character of God, which is essentially good, as his goodness is his defining characteristic from which come all his other attributes, as love, justice, mercy, righteousness, and the like. God created because he is good. It was the goodness he shared within himself with the other persons of his essential being, namely, the love, joy, peace, righteousness, etc., that he wanted to share with others: hence, he created heavenly beings, angels and the like, to share in his glorious goodness. But he didn’t stop there: he also created all the universe in which we live and the world we call Earth. He did that to share the goodness he had within himself with others, because it was too good to keep to himself alone.

That’s why he started the whole project to begin with.

He knew, of course, it would end in the horrible suffering of his one and only Son, who freely gave himself as a sacrifice so that we and all creation could share in the glory of his goodness. He, of course, also knew there would be many other atrocities along the way, too, but the weight of the glory of his goodness is so profound that it outweighs the light and momentary affliction we face this side of eternity.

Now, a cost/benefit analysis might seem a trite tool to utilize when weighing the weighty things of God and eternity, but lest we fail to properly analyze the question at hand, let us employ such an analysis.

To not create could mean that God would not be good, in that he would selfishly be afraid to share his goodness with others (as yet uncreated) because he would foresee the trouble ahead, primarily for himself, let alone all the others as well. But God is essentially and fundamentally good, so in one sense, he almost had to create, not out of neediness or compulsion but out of love for beings as yet uncreated: God is so good that he loved everyone even before they were created and born into the world; and he loves each one so much that he intends for them to experience his goodness, whether they like it or not, whether they experience his gentle kindness or his exacting justice. Indeed, it is not God who causes one to go astray, for he is wholly good and seeks for all to go aright, but each one by his or her own folly seeks to go astray; God, however, is in the business of bringing his lost children back to himself.

Then again, to create could mean that God would not be good, in that he would be subjecting many, including himself and his beloved Son, to much trouble, pain, and suffering. Now, not all pain and suffering is bad or evil, as the pain or suffering of a good workout exercise routine benefits a person much, but much of the kind of pain and suffering that comes of God’s creation is evil and bad.

Thus, for God not to create, he may not be good; and for him to create, he may not be good. What a bind! This, of course, is a larger question of the problem of evil. Suffice it here to say that whether or not God created the universe, the world, and all in each, God is, and as he is, he is good, for the essence of existence is goodness: God is the essence of existence, being, indeed, existence itself; hence, being goodness itself.

Then is it better to create or to not create? To put it another way, is it better to give life or to destroy life? While it is important to “do no harm,” even more important is to do good and only good. Now, God, being goodness itself and so good, is a force for good, seeking to achieve good in all things, working all things together for good, even using evil for his good purposes! Thus, for God, who is existence, essence, goodness, life itself, he is on a personal mission to create and cause life, regardless of how much the creatures or creations of that life oppose him. Yes, he will have his way and his Day; and whether we go along is the choice of our freewill.

Answering the Pressing Question

By now, I hope it is a bit more clear as to how to answer the pressing question: it is not a matter of God being mean, unkind, or cunningly clever and slightly evil; it is a matter of us being out of sync with the being who is being itself, who gives being to our being, and if we cut ourselves off from him, we will find that we are out dead in the water, as the people in Noah’s day found themselves. We shall sink, if we do not have the power of God to uphold us and keep us safe in the ark, rising above the floodwaters raging all about us. We today also have a choice: will we get in the ark and be saved, or will we try our best to ride the waves of destruction?