Do we have free will, or are all of our thoughts and actions predetermined? People have debated this topic for thousands of years, without conclusively settling the matter. Determinism has its attractions, but even those who believe in pure determinism act, for all practical purposes, as if they have libertarian free will.
What does the Bible say about the matter? The Bible is inconclusive on the matter, which is strong evidence of scriptural inerrancy, in my opinion. We can look at the stories of Pharaoh and of Saul to see why.
Pharaoh
In Exodus 4:21, before Pharaoh has had any chance to respond to God’s warnings, God says to Moses:
“The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.”
Later, after Pharaoh saw some miracles, the Bible reports, in Exodus 8:15:
“But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said.”
and Exodus 8:32:
“But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go.”
Clearly, Pharaoh seems culpable in these instances. However, after repeated warnings, when any reasonable human would have relented, Exodus 10:20 reports that God takes over:
“But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.”
What happened here? Who is culpable? Is this a contradiction in the Bible?
Did God preordain all of the heart-hardening? Or did He simply utilize His foreknowledge to make an example of Pharaoh in Exodus 10 after Pharaoh had already irreversibly implicated himself somewhere after Exodus 8? Maybe Pharaoh had already condemned himself by some previous sins, long before Moses’s challenge, and the entire thing was a charade meant to bring glory to God?
I think it’s a mistake to try to parse this story out and conclusively decide which explanation applies. Just fear God and pray that you don’t end up like Pharaoh.
Saul
The story of Saul is very similar. Very early in the story, Samuel anoints David, passing the blessing of God from Saul to David. Saul’s condemnation is already predestined, before David is even anointed (1 Samuel 16:1-2):
The LORD said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.”
But Samuel said, “How can I go? Saul will hear about it and kill me.”
The anointing of David is performed surreptitiously, and to the bitter end David refuses to slay Saul, who he still regards as “The Lord’s anointed”. When Saul dies, he apparently does so by his own hand (1 Samuel 31:1-6):
Now the Philistines fought against Israel; the Israelites fled before them, and many fell slain on Mount Gilboa. The Philistines pressed hard after Saul and his sons, and they killed his sons Jonathan, Abinadab and Malki-Shua. The fighting grew fierce around Saul, and when the archers overtook him, they wounded him critically.
Saul said to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows will come and run me through and abuse me.”
But his armor-bearer was terrified and would not do it; so Saul took his own sword and fell on it. When the armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his sword and died with him. So Saul and his three sons and his armor-bearer and all his men died together that same day.
However, the narrative says that he was already critically wounded. His death was already a foregone conclusion, and he apparently hastened it on only out of a desire to avoid “abuse” by the “uncircumcised fellows”. Who killed Saul? God, the Philistines, or Saul himself?
The situation gets even more complicated in 2 Samuel 1:5-10:
Then David said to the young man who brought him the report, “How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?”
“I happened to be on Mount Gilboa,” the young man said, “and there was Saul, leaning on his spear, with the chariots and riders almost upon him. When he turned around and saw me, he called out to me, and I said, ‘What can I do?’
“He asked me, ‘Who are you?’
” ‘An Amalekite,’ I answered.“Then he said to me, ‘Stand over me and kill me! I am in the throes of death, but I’m still alive.’
“So I stood over him and killed him, because I knew that after he had fallen he could not survive. And I took the crown that was on his head and the band on his arm and have brought them here to my lord.”
Whoa! So an Amalekite is now claiming credit for Saul’s death. Again, in this narrative, Saul was already in the “throes of death”, so his death was apparently already a foregone conclusion. And the Amalekite claims the slaying as a “mercy killing”. So who is culpable now?
Clearly, David regarded the Amalekite as being culpable (2 Samuel 1:14-16):
David asked him, “Why were you not afraid to lift your hand to destroy the LORD’s anointed?”
Then David called one of his men and said, “Go, strike him down!” So he struck him down, and he died. For David had said to him, “Your blood be on your own head. Your own mouth testified against you when you said, ‘I killed the LORD’s anointed.’ ”
Did the Amalekite kill Saul after Saul had already initiated suicide? Or was the Amalekite simply lying to curry favor with David (despite this clearly being represented as a mercy-killing)? How do we resolve all of these apparent contradictions?
1 Samuel and 2 Samuel are part of the same original book, so this is not an example of clerical error. These apparent contradictions are essential parts of the story. God pre-ordained Saul’s defeat, while Saul, the Philistines, and the Amalekite are all held culpable in one way or another.
Again, I think it’s a mistake to over-analyze these apparent contradictions. Fear God, and pray that you don’t end up like Saul or the Amalekite.
Conclusion
The Bible is clear that determinism is, at least sometimes, a possibility, but that personal culpability is a reality. This appears to be a contradiction, but regardless of our position on determinism or libertarian free will, it is exactly what we intuitively know to be true.
If the Bible took a strong conclusive stance in either direction (either that determinism is never true, or that culpability is false), the Bible would not be credibly inerrant. Such bickering is the domain of fallen man.
You should try three books. Massive books, difficult–in some ways–books, but it is difficult to walk away from Jonathan Edwards not feeling you have met with something conclusive. It is a shame more people don’t read #1, but I think it is definitive, and it shows up a lot of the mistakes people make about this discussion.
1 Freedom of the Will – the philosophical basis for it all and the ultimate defense of Calvinism.
2 Religious Affections – the practical result and one of the most important books on religion ever.
3 Original Sin – when he has established that the will is determined, he has to answer the question, How could Adam and Eve have sinned? He does.
Yeah, I’m a Calvinist, and I’ve read “Freedom of the Will” all the way through before, finding that it confirmed pretty much what I had already concluded
It’s actually not that huge. I know I really should read the other two, as well.
I’ve since read some other papers that take issue with some minor points of Edwards arguments, but I think it’s as good as can be expected of mortal man. I’m very interested by the fact that materialists and naturalists have had to grapple with some of the same issues as Edwards did, and arrive at similar conclusions, just erasing God. Sometimes I think that Dennett is a secret Christian.
Even though the Calvinistic interpretation makes the most sense to me, I do try to be charitable to other interpretations. For example, while I think that Pelagianism in all its forms is heresy, I don’t think that classical Arminianism crosses the line. They get about as close to the line as possible, and that should scare them, IMO.
When it comes to the philosophers, apart from theology, I think it’s often just semantics. If we restate the specifics of an argument using the language that Calvin or Edwards would use, the conclusions still turn out to be defensible, and when not, they are often indefensible because the argument is bad, and not because they didn’t use Calvin’s framing.
Have you considered Molinism? May I suggest two resources:
“On Divine Foreknowledge”, by Luis de Molina (translated by Alfred Fredosso)
“Divine Providence: The Molinist Account”, by Thomas Flint
@reidish – Thanks for the recommendations. I’ve only read various Web accounts of Molinism, and it sounds like what I was told when I visited my friends’ catechism class as a kid and when I talked to a pre-Vatican II priest later in life. At top of my list to read is “Predestination” by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, which is supposedly an exposition of classic Thomistic teaching, with an irenic discussion of Calvinism and classical Arminianism thrown in. Are you familiar with the book? Any opinions?
joshua,
No, I’m not familiar with the book “Predestination”. Let us know what you think of it – maybe a book review post?