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

HOW MUCH OWEST THOU UNTO THE LORD? Luke 16:5

1. “Tenth of all,” said Abraham (Genesis 14:20).
2. “I will give a tenth,” vowed Jacob (Genesis 28:20-22).
3. “Our gold, silver, and jewelry,” said the children of Israel when they were about to build (Exodus 35).
4. “A tenth or more,” said the devout Jew under an inferior covenant (Leviticus 27:30-33).
5. “According to ability,” says the Old and New Testament (Deuteronomy 16:17; I Corinthians 16:1-2).
6. “We do not owe Him anything,” said the apostate Jews. So they robbed Him―robbed Him by withholding their gifts (Malachi 3:8-9).
7. “A tenth of all,” said the heathen to his false god.
8. “All that I have,” said the poor widow (Mark 12).
9. “Your body and all that pertains to it,” said the inspired apostle (Romans 12:1).
10. “Beyond our power, or ability,” said the Christians in Macedonia (II Corinthians 8:9).
11. “One tenth of my income,” says the Roman Catholic, the Mormon, the Seventh Day Adventist and others.
12. What is your answer?

“As much as I spend for pleasure,” says one. He places the god of pleasure on equality with the only true and living God.

“What I do not need,” says one. He does not have the spirit of God, the great example.

“Whatever I find in my pocket when the plate is passed,” says one who ignores the divine law of purpose (2 Cor. 9:7).

“What I have, that I cheerfully give,” says the true Christian (Acts 3).

The Lord loves a cheerful giver. Upon him showers of blessings descend. Jesus, our great example, gave His life!

rank L. Cox

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