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

On Handling Evidence

If six people received the same (uninspired) letter from a friend, the basic elements involved in interpreting the letter would be: (1) the letter itself, and (2) the handling of the content of the letter. Similarly, before anyone can be a good student of the Bible (i.e., accurately interpret the message God has for man), he must understand that the basic elements involved in Biblical interpretation are: (1) the total evidence, and (2) the handling of that evidence.

Though God through Scripture was only giving one message (Acts 17:11) to everyone (just as the “friend” in his letter to the six meant to do), failure on either of these two basic elements may (and very likely will) result in conflicting Bible interpretations by different people. Since most of us use texts of the Bible that are alike, this practically eliminates the problem of our receiving a “different letter”as being the primary cause of contradictory interpretations and divisive doctrines. So what is left to claim responsibility for such? The “handling” of the content as it involves logic or illogic.

The Evidence Itself

The phrase, the evidence, is synonymous with the expression, the total context, and refers to the adding together of three things: (1) the specific statement of the Bible under consideration, (2) the immediate context of that statement, and (3 the remote context of that statement. It is important to understand the meaning of these expressions.

Handling the Evidence

The mere reading (or even memorization) of the Bible text is not sufficient to guarantee that one will understand what the Bible actually teaches. One must surely know what the Bible says, that is, he must know the actual (explicit) statements making up Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Additionally, one must learn how the various statements, paragraphs, chapters, and books relate to one another.

Rational or Irrational?

Basically, there are only two alternatives as to how one will react to evidence: (1) he can choose to be rational, or (2) he can choose to be irrational. Since the religious world has available for its use exactly the same totality of Bible statements or evidence, it should be perfectly clear to us all that it is not enough merely to know what the evidence consists of. One must also properly interpret that evidence. One can learn what the Bible means only by correctly reasoning about what the Bible says. In short, one must correctly apply the principles and rules of logic to the totality of statements making up the entire Bible.

Terry M. Hightower