FREE WILL

One of the areas often hotly disputed in religion and philosophy is the question of human free will. Are human beings free moral agents? Do they have the inherent ability to choose to do certain things or not do those things? Do they have the power to obey or disobey God on their own volition? Many philosophies are deterministic in nature. By deterministic we refer to the idea that human beings have no real free will and that their actions are completely predetermined by forces outside of their control. Even in many religions, determinism is a central part of the belief system.

However, the doctrine of determinism is counter-intuitive, meaning that from the out-set it runs contrary to what common sense itself would seem to dictate. If every action by a human being is completely predetermined by outside forces acting independently from one’s own will, then no one could rightly be held accountable for any action. No one would be responsible for what they do. The very concept of justice runs counter to this conclusion. It is clearly false that people are not at all responsible for their actions. They most certainly are responsible and are held so by our own legal systems, which operate on the premise of personal responsibility to abide by the legal norms and statutes of society for the sake of stability, peace, and safety. This is fundamental to any orderly society. To hold people responsible is implicit in any legal system. This presupposes the ability of people to comply of their own free will with the laws of that society.

Also, the idea of determinism is self-defeating in that it implies that one cannot change one’s mind of his own accord. This contradicts the practice of teaching deterministic systems in religion or philosophy. Teach-ing implies the capacity for the one taught to learn, which implies some measure of control of will on his or her part. It is patently absurd to maintain that people ought to come to believe in the specific deterministic system while maintaining that it is impossible for them to do so of their own accord. When one holds to determinism, he implicitly admits the falsity of his position when he seeks to ration-ally convince others of its truth. If the system were true, then people would have to believe in it anyway. They would be compelled to do so by the predetermining power outside themselves to do so. So why spend time arguing for its truth? Why try to convince some-one that he really cannot be convinced of anything of himself? That would be an exercise in futility, if the system were really true.

The Bible teaches that man is a free moral agent. We have the innate ability to choose to obey God. “Choose you this day whom ye will serve,” proclaimed Joshua to the Hebrews in his farewell address (Josh. 24:15). Christianity is premised on the ability of “whosoever will” to come and drink of the waters of life (Revelation 22:17). The invitation of Christ is open to all (Matthew 11:28-30).

Daniel Denham

Free Will

One of the areas often hotly disputed in religion and philosophy is the question of human free will. Are human beings free moral agents? Do they have the inherent ability to choose to do certain things or not do those things? Do they have the power to obey or disobey God on their own volition? Many philosophies are deterministic in nature. By “deterministic” we refer to the idea that human beings have no real free will and that their actions are completely predetermined by forces outside of their control. Even in many religions, determinism is a central part of the belief system.

However, the doctrine of determinism is counter-intuitive, meaning that from the outset it runs contrary to what common sense itself would seem to dictate. If every action by a human being is completely predetermined by outside forces acting independently from one’s own will, then no one could rightly be held accountable for any action. No one would be responsible for what they do. The very concept of justice runs counter to this conclusion. It is clearly false that people are not at all responsible for their actions. They most certainly are responsible and are held so by our own legal systems, which operate on the premise of personal responsibility to abide by the legal norms and statutes of society for the sake of stability, peace, and safety. This is fundamental to any orderly society. To hold people responsible is implicit in any legal system. This presupposes the ability of people to comply of their own free will with the laws of that society.

Also, the idea of determinism is self-defeating in that it implies that one cannot change one’s mind of his own accord. This contradicts the practice of teaching deterministic systems in religion or philosophy. Teaching implies the capacity for the one taught to learn, which implies some measure of control of will on his or her part. It is patently absurd to maintain that people ought to come to believe in the specific deterministic system while maintaining that it is impossible for them to do so of their own accord. When one holds to determinism, he implicitly admits the falsity of his position when he seeks to rationally convince others of its truth. If the system were true, then people would have to believe in it anyway. They would be compelled to do so by the predetermining power outside themselves to do so. So why spend time arguing for its truth? Why try to convince someone that he really cannot be convinced of anything of himself? That would be an exercise in futility, if the system were really true.

The Bible teaches that man is a free moral agent. We have the innate ability to choose to obey God. “Choose you this day whom ye will serve…,” proclaimed Joshua to the Hebrews in his farewell address (Josuha 24:15). Christianity is premised on the ability of “whosoever will” to come and drink of the waters of life (Revelation 22:17). The invitation of Christ is open to all (Matthew 11:28–30).

Daniel Denham

Repentance

Repentance is absolutely essential to one’s salvation (Acts 2:38; II Peter 3:9). It is universal in its import (Luke 13:3, 5). Without doubt, however, the hardest command to obey in becoming a child of God is the command to repent of one’s sins. Human beings as a rule do not like to be told that they are wrong about anything, especially when it comes to their moral conduct. To be criticized about anything seems to “cut against the grain” in our mental make-up. Yet, it is precisely the humbling of ourselves- -so as to recognize we are wrong when we are wrong--that lies at the very heart of genuine, heart-felt, and life-changing repentance. It is the lowering of ourselves in our own eyes, not only to acknowledge with both mind and lips “I am wrong,” --but the steeled determination to do something about it, regardless of what may be required by the Lord, that is the essence of true repentance. Repentance is produced by “godly sorrow,” but it is more than this (II Corinthians 7:10). While it recognizes the fact of wrongdoing and creates in the human heart genuine sorrow “after a godly sort,” it proceeds to motivate the penitent to do something about the wrong—to try in some fashion to correct it or, at the very least, to change his behavior about it. Where restitution is possible, it seeks to make it. It is a change of life itself, produced by a change of mind! Repentance is beautifully illustrated in the parable of the two sons in Matthew 21:28-32. The first son refused to go into his father’s vineyard to work, but then “afterward he repented, and went” (v. 29). It is also demonstrated in the wonderful account of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, who went on to preach the faith which he once destroyed. 

Some years ago, I was studying the Word of God with a young man. He soon came to understand God’s plan of salvation. When it came time to press the matter and call upon him to obey what he now knew to be true, he backed away from the Gospel by claiming that he simply could not bring himself to stop doing certain things, such as drinking alcoholic beverages, dancing in the nightclubs, et. al. He ultimately rejected the Gospel because it demanded more of him than he was willing to do! Invariably when people reject God’s plan of salvation, the key point is repentance. 

I am convinced that more people get hung up on that command far more even than the command to be baptized for the remission of sins. In fact, if the truth be known – in all cases where the latter is rejected, the former has never begun really to take place! True faith and repentance demand nothing less than full compliance with God’s Word in becoming a Christian. The biggest obstacle is not getting into the water to get into Christ, it is getting out of self so that the other can occur! The first requirement of discipleship is a denial of self (Mat.16:24). 

Repentance is the proper expression of such radical change in one’s focus in life.

Daniel Denham

Zeal Alone?

Many people measure religion solely on the basis of the zeal exhibited by its adherents. Even some of the Lord’s people (who ought to know better) are wont to justify the actions or teachings of men by the virtue of the zeal manifested in their doings. Especially this has been true of the Crossroads/Boston Church fiasco. How often have we heard someone defend the practices and dogmas of the brethren advancing this movement by saying, “They can’t be all bad, because their zeal for the Lord is just so great” But is zeal alone enough to move the God of heaven to take delight in the actions of those who bear such zeal? Is zeal to be our standard in discerning right and wrong? Is human feeling to become our guide in living?

First, if zeal alone were sufficient to commend to us the actions or the zealous, then radical Marxism would be acceptable as a worldview. History is replete with examples of very zealous Marxists who even laid down their lives to further their philosophy. Yet, Communism denies the existence of God, and denounces religion en toto as “the opiate of the people.’ It is atheistic in foundation. Furthermore, Adolph Hitler and the Nazis would stand equally justified in their fanatical and zealous extermination of over six million Jews, In fact, there would exist no crime so heinous as to escape possible justification on the basis of the zeal used in carrying it out. ‘There would be no doctrine absurd as to not warrant Divine sanction on the premise of the zeal of its advocates.

Second, if zeal alone were all-sufficient, then there would never have existed the need for supernatural revelation from God in the form of the Holy Scriptures. The zeal which one held for his views would be enough to justify them and their believer without any support from the Bible. The more zealous the individual might be, then the more right his doctrine and behavior would be! If not, why not? However, truth is objective, and not subject to my feelings or state of mind as to its rightness. The Scriptures affirm their own all- sufficiency (II Tim. 3:16-17), and without them one cannot go to heaven (Matthew 7:21; Revelation 22:14).

Third, the great apostle Paul prior to his conversion was a zealous persecutor of the church. The havoc which he wrought was done in all good conscience. He felt that he was carrying out the will of God, but he says later that he was “a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious” (I Timothy 1:13). Why wasn’t his persecution of the early disciples justified by reason of his zeal? Why were his feelings in the matter unacceptable? Why then do some brethren seek to grant to the Crossroaders and Boston Church brethren that which was denied someone of the stature of Saul of Tarsus? Are they seeking to be more “loving” than the Lord? Does their mercy supersede his?

Fourth, the zeal-only philosophy promotes circular reasoning. If truth be based on zeal (and zeal alone), then how could one ever be certain—ever know—whether or not a thing were true or not—true? Someone might say, “By the zeal one manifests toward it,” But how does one know that zeal is indeed all-sufficient to establish the Truth of a thing? The only conclusion would he that zeal bears its own justification. This would mean that zeal only is sufficient to establish truth simply because it is! This is the equivalent to saying that the conclusion is true because the antecedent is tale, and the antecedent is true because of the truth of the conclusion!

Gentle reader, let us return to a “Thus saith the Lord,” and realize that we must have zeal, honesty, and sincerity in the performance of our religious and moral duties, but a zeal that is “not according to knowledge’ is vain (Romans 10:2). Solomon warned: “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Proverbs 14:12).

Daniel Denham