by
Navigation hints:
The doctrine of predestination is generally and historically understood within the
context of the Christian religion with its belief in an all-good, all-powerful, and
all-knowing God who predetermines who will go to one of two ultimate destinies, heaven and
hell. Therefore, it is this Christian doctrine, and its relationship to the concept of
free will, that will be the primary focus of this study. However, there are philosophical
issues involved in the doctrine of predestination that are not unique to Christianity. The
fundamental laws of science are involved as well as scientific concepts such as time and
space. Although the subject is capable of becoming very technical, an attempt will be made
to restrict the subject to the basic ideas involved and technical language will only be
used when it is considered necessary. Some definitions, where it is considered helpful,
will be provided. Although a few biblical references will be provided, no in-depth Bible
study will be presented. Instead, some of the arguments and interpretations of those who
have read and studied the Bible will be presented. Also, this study in no way intends to
exhaust the subject of predestination. It is primarily intended to introduce the issues,
problems, even mysteries, involved.
The pre in predestination refers to time. It means before or prior to. "Destination" means the place where something or someone is going. Therefore, "predestination" literally means that a given destination is determined beforehand. This definition, however, is too general and simplistic when considering the various uses of the term within the context of the Christian religion. According to W. S. Reid, "the doctrine of predestination has both a wider and a narrower aspect" (870). The wider aspect refers to God's determining everything that happens in history. God's nature and will are involved. Regarding God's nature, Reid states: "He is the Eternal One, above and beyond time and space, for there never was a time when he did not exist, so he is not subject to changes of time and place" (870). Regarding God's will, David Scaer states: "The constancy of God's will makes possible nature's laws and the natural sciences, whose theories are approximations of divine principles established in the creation. Without God's presence and activity each form would return to chaos and matter to nothingness" (548). Therefore, God is somehow the "cause of every action without denying that the creature is also the cause of its own actions. For every action, God is the first cause and the creature is the second" (548). The nature of this causality will be discussed later when the wider (general) aspect of predestination is analyzed as it relates to the scientific law of causality. But for now, we will look closely at the narrower (specific) aspect of predestination.
Specific predestination is primarily addressed in the New Testament of the Bible. According to Lawrence Richards, "the Greek term for "to predestine," proorizo (which means "to mark out ahead of time" or "to predetermine"), occurs six times in the New Testament" (501). The verses given are Acts 4:28; Romans 8:29 and 30; 1 Corinthians 2:7; and Ephesians 1:5 and 11. Richards points out that proorizo is used with a specific focus on salvation. He states: "That whole wonderful process - including specifically Jesus' death, our adoption into God's family, and our transformation into Jesus's own likeness - is in view" (502). Two striking facts are also noted. The first is that none of these scriptural passages attempt to relate God's plan and the human will. The second is "that the verb proorizo is nowhere used in Scripture to state that some people are predestined by God to be lost" (502).
Given the fact that the New Testament texts give the term "predestination" a
positive connotation, why is the doctrine of predestination so controversial? The
controversy is based on a logical deduction. If some, but not all, are adopted into God's
family and saved, then what about those who are not adopted and saved? It is here where
the doctrine of predestination receives its negative side and the term its negative
connotation. According to theologian R. C. Sproul, specific predestination means
"that our final destination, heaven or hell, is decided by God not only before we get
there, but before we are even born" (Chosen by God, 22).
General predestination struggles with the problem of evil in general. Specific predestination, on the other hand, struggles with the particular problem of sin and its relation to hell. Since sin and evil are related, the two types of predestination overlap in their concerns. Most Christians believe that God is not the author of sin and evil. He is the author of only good. Sin and evil entered the world through good beings who were created with free will. The general account is as follows.
God created beings with free will, and part of that freedom included the ability to choose contrary to his will. The existence of evil is caused by created beings who disobey their Creator. Two types of created beings are involved. The first created beings to disobey were angels and the leader of the heavenly rebellion is called "Satan," meaning adversary in Hebrew, and also known as the Devil. Satan's followers eventually became known as "demons." (Satan and his demons, their involvement in human affairs, and their ultimate consignment to hell will not be discussed in this study.) The second type of created beings to disobey God were humans. The location of this second disobedience was the planet earth in a place called The Garden of Eden. The Christian doctrine of Original Sin has its origins here. The term "original" refers to the first human sin, the one that put an evil curse on nature in general and human nature in particular. Death is considered the ultimate effect of the curse. Although the Bible's book of Genesis, chapter 3, records that Eve disobeyed God first and tempted her husband, the chapter implies that it was Adam's disobedience that was responsible for the curse. The disobedience of Adam and Eve and the resulting curse is sometimes referred to as "The Fall." The term "original sin" refers to the curse effected by Adam's sin, not Adam's sin itself. The curse is experienced by all of Adam's descendants which means the entire human race. All physically die because of Adam's sin. But this is not all. All inherit a sin nature as well. It is this sin nature that becomes significant when discussing predestination because some Christians assert that it is because of this sin nature that humans are not morally free to obey God. Therefore, God must predestine some of these sinners to be saved from hell. Hell is the place of everlasting punishment for guilty sinners who, according to some Christians, were not chosen for salvation by God. It is contrasted with heaven as the place of peace and joy where the repentant sinner ultimately finds his everlasting rest and joy in the forgiveness of God. This forgiveness is provided for through God's son, Jesus Christ, who took on human flesh and satisfied God's justice by taking on the death penalty for sin.
Because of the existence of sin and evil, three aspects to, or types of, God's will are generally recognized: the providential, the prescriptive, and the permissive (Geisler, Predestination & Free Will, 82 - 83). Sproul adds a fourth, God's "will of disposition," which means that which is pleasing or delightful to God (Grace Unknown, 168 - 169). God's providential will (his sovereign acts) cannot be resisted or disobeyed; whatever God does or decides will necessarily happen and such divine acts are always good. God's prescriptive and dispositional wills are also good, but they can be resisted and disobeyed. Sin and evil are said to exist by God's permissive will. God prescribes and desires only good, but he permits evil. In order for God's prescriptive, dispositional and permissive wills to make sense, humans must in some sense be free. But here is where the problems arise and the debates occur within the history of Christianity.
Apart from the writers of scripture, the earliest noted figure in the history of Christianity whose name is associated with the doctrine of predestination is Aurelius Augustine (354 - 430). According to Augustine, before The Fall, Adam and Eve had the ability, or free will, not to sin. After The Fall, however, they lost that ability. All of Adam's descendants are not free to avoid sinning. They sin by nature because they are infected with original sin. One of Augustine's contemporaries, Pelagius (c. 354 - c. 418), took exception to Augustine's doctrine of original sin. In fact, he denied it altogether and believed that Adam's sin affected only Adam. Each of Adam's descendants, according to Pelagius, is just as sinless as Adam was before he sinned. Therefore each is capable of perfect obedience to God's prescriptive will. The doctrine of predestination comes in precisely here. Augustine believed that original sin so disabled humankind that apart from a sovereign act of God, sinful humans cannot perfectly obey God's prescriptive will. That is why God's predestination of some sinners to be saved is necessary. Such predestination involved God's selecting certain individuals out of the mass of sinful humanity to be saved without considering anything within those individuals. Because the wills of these individuals were not involved in their own salvation, such salvation is considered to be solely by God's grace. Just as Adam's sin and guilt were sovereignly imputed by God to the entire human race, Christ's righteousness and innocence are imputed by God to those who are providentially given the faith to believe in Christ for salvation.
John Cassian (360 - 435) attempted a middle road between Augustine and Pelagius. His position is known as "semi-Pelagianism." The ideas of Cassian are outlined in Sproul's book Willing to Believe (71). Cassian rejected Pelagius's denial of original sin, but thought that Augustine's teaching on predestination crippled moral preaching and involved a certain fatal necessity. Cassian believed that God desires all to be saved and has provided for the salvation of all in Christ's atonement. He also believed that predestination is based on God's foreknowledge of the free choices of those who would be saved and not on some hidden reason within God himself. Those free choices are assisted by God's grace, but grace doesn't give the ability to choose salvation.
Martin Luther (1483 - 1546), considered the father of the Protestant Reformation, was the next major figure after Augustine to promote Augustine's doctrine of predestination. His major opponent was the Roman Catholic humanist Desiderius Erasmus (1466? - 1536). Erasmus published in September of 1524 his Diatribe Concerning Free Will which was critiqued by Martin Luther in his famous work The Bondage of the Will, published in December of 1525. Luther emphasized, like Augustine before him, that apart from God's electing and imparted grace, the will of sinners is in bondage to sin and cannot choose to be saved from it.
Following Luther, the next prominent figure is John Calvin (1509 - 64). It is his name that is popularly associated with the five primary doctrines known as Calvinism although the doctrines themselves were developed and taught by Augustine and Luther. The five primary doctrines of what is today known as the Reformed doctrine of predestination are represented by the acrostic TULIP. This stands for Total Depravity (or inability), Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance (or preservation) of the Saints. Each of the points is logically tied to the others. It is on the basis of the total depravity that resulted from Adam's sin that God unconditionally elected certain individuals to be saved. For this minority, God sent his son Jesus to atone for their sins alone, not the sins of the whole world. God then applies this provision to the elect by an irresistible call of grace which not only ensures their salvation, but preserves it by guaranteeing their perseverance. Once a person is in grace, they are always in grace because God doesn't change his mind.
The renowned opponent to Calvinism was the Dutch theologian Jacobus (or James) Arminius (1560 - 1609). It was his teachings that formed what was known as the Arminian Remonstrance in 1610. The five points of Calvinism were formulated in response to the five points of the Arminians. In 1619, the Synod of Dordt reaffirmed Calvinism and rejected Arminianism as being unbiblical. Loraine Boettner, in the appendix to his Calvinistic classic The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, lists and contrasts the five points of Arminianism with the five points of Calvinism. The five points of Arminianism are these: 1) Free Will or Human Ability, 2) Conditional Election, 3) General Atonement, 4) The Holy Spirit Can Be Effectually Resisted, and 5) Falling from Grace (433 - 435). Boettner summarizes Arminianism as follows:
"Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man (who must respond) - man's response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, "choose" to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man's will plays a decisive role; thus man, not God, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation" (436).
Given this summary, it is obvious what the Calvinistic position is. It is the complete opposite of Arminianism. Also notice the role that original sin has within Calvinism. It is the thing that disables humans. According to the great American theologian and Calvinist Jonathan Edwards (1703 - 58), original sin involves sinful desires that decisively incline the will of the unregenerated humans. "Regenerated" is the technical term for giving spiritual life. One is spiritually dead (unregenerated) in original sin until one is made spiritually alive by God.
According to Sproul, a contemporary Calvinist, God's imputation of Adam's sin and guilt to the human race is the basis for the Reformed tradition's doctrine of "double" predestination. In his book Chosen by God, he distinguishes between two types of double predestination. One he calls hyper-Calvinism and the other he calls simply Calvinism. According to hyper-Calvinism, God works sin and unbelief in the hearts of the reprobates (those not elect for salvation). Sproul rejects this type. According to Calvinism, however, God merely passes over the reprobates and doesn't work saving faith in their hearts (142 - 143). God permits the damnation of those not elect.
The term "elect" is applied to the saved who will go to heaven and the term "reprobate" is applied to the lost who will go to hell. The reprobates are such because their will and Adam's will are considered one in solidarity. Adam is the representative head of the entire human race and all are guilty with Adam for his sin until one becomes one of God's elect through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit of God. Because Sproul and other Calvinists consider all guilty of original sin, they think it is just for God to refuse salvation to those not elect. Election is said to be an act of mercy and reprobation is an act of justice. Contemporary Arminians, however, disagree with the idea that holding Adam's descendants guilty for Adam's sin and then damning some for it is just. Justice, they say, requires that we are only guilty for our own willful sin which is as freely chosen as the first sin of Adam. Theologian Millard Erickson is aware of this theological difference between Calvinists and Arminians and distinguishes their respective positions from that of the Pelagians as follows:
"... whereas in the Pelagian view God imputes neither a corrupted nature nor guilt to man, and in the Arminian view God imputes a corrupted nature but not guilt (in the sense of culpability), in the Calvinist scheme he imputes both a corrupted nature and guilt to man" (635).
Both Arminians and Calvinists agree that everybody has a sin nature due to original sin, but they disagree on the question of guilt and moral ability. Calvinists say that our sin nature, with its sinful desires, decisively inclines our wills until we are regenerated by God. Arminians say that our sin nature is responsible for unconscious sins and conscious internal temptations due to sinful desires, but it is our free will that makes us guilty of sin and worthy of hell's punishment. It is when we freely give in to those internal temptations, what the Bible calls the "lusts of the flesh," that we become guilty. Arminians accuse Calvinists of always asking what causes the agent to act when they can't even answer the simple question of why Adam and Eve sinned. For example, R. C. Sproul, a contemporary Calvinist, admits that he doesn't know why Adam and Eve sinned and hasn't found anyone yet who does know (Chosen by God, 31). Yet he is quick to use sinful desires as the reason why Adam's descendants inevitably sin. Arminians think that if Adam's sinless nature didn't destroy the possibility of sinning, then there is no reason to assume that our inherited sin nature destroys the possibility of obedience.
Because Arminians believe that one's willful sin, not one's inherited sin nature, produces guilt and the worthiness of hell, they also believe that Christians who have received God's forgiveness in Christ can again willfully sin thereby becoming guilty again. Salvation can be forfeited through willful sin. Arminians reject the Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, the fifth point of the Calvinistic acrostic (TULIP). An example of the Arminian rationale is provided by Richard S. Taylor as follows:
"Notice how confused and self-contradictory it is to tell the sinner to repent, to act, as though he were partially responsible for his own salvation, then tell him that, once saved, he is eternally secure. It implies that man has a responsibility before conversion but none after... It gives sinners a free moral agency, but denies it to Christians" (A Right Conception of Sin, 16)
As we have seen, the Reformed tradition denies free moral agency to sinners, yet those who identify with that tradition still see the need to preach the Christian message. They consider their preaching to be the divinely appointed means to secure the salvation of the elect.
Robert Shank, an Arminian, attacks Calvinism from two different angles. First, Shank asserts that Calvinists confuse conditions that require a response from man with what the Apostle Paul calls "works" of righteousness that can't merit salvation (e.g., Ephesians 2:8, 9). So, Shank emphasizes that faith, as a condition, is not a "work" according to the Bible. In fact, faith is the scriptural condition to be met in order for God's grace to be established. After quoting Romans 4:16, Shank writes:
"The contention that faith as a condition nullifies grace, often urged by Calvinists, collapses at this point. Paul affirms precisely the opposite: faith, as a condition, establishes grace and is the sine qua non as a modus operandi. "By grace... through faith" (125).
Shank's second angle of attack is by rejecting the commonly understood definition of specific predestination which holds that God elects, or chooses, individuals to be predestined to heaven or hell. Many Arminians also accept this definition but assert that God elects individuals based on his foreknowledge of each individual's free choice. In other words, election is conditional, not unconditional. Shank agrees that election in general is conditional, but he qualifies it by saying that only Christ's election and predestination are unconditional. Everybody else's election is conditional and based on whether they have entered into the corporate body of Christ. He believes that the central thesis of the biblical doctrine of election is that "the election to salvation is corporate and comprehends individual men only in identification and association with the elect body" (48). He contrasts this with Calvin's thesis which holds that "the election to salvation is of particular men unconditionally, who comprise the corporate body incidentally" (48). Shank also distinguishes election from predestination and thinks that Calvin and his heirs confuse the two concepts. "Election is the act whereby God chose men for himself, whereas predestination is His act determining the destination of the elect whom He has chosen" (156).
Although Arminians and Calvinists disagree over the question of how sin affects the free will of sinners both before and after their conversion to Christianity, both agree that willful sin is wrong and prohibited by God. Whereas Calvinists think that willful sin in the life of a professing Christian is shameful, they do not believe that such sin can be spiritually fatal as do the Arminians. It is also interesting to note that both parties also agree about the nature and will of believers in heaven. Believers will no longer have a sin nature and no willful sin will occur in heaven. Also, those who make it to heaven are secure in their salvation forever.
We now turn to the issue of general predestination which shares some of the same issues
as specific predestination. In fact, specific predestination is within the parameters of
general predestination since both involve God's unique nature and will. As we pointed out
earlier, because of the existence of sin and evil, various aspects to, or types of, God's
will are recognized. Some of these types of divine will imply that humans must in some
sense be free because it is emphasized by Christians that humans, not God, are responsible
for sin and evil. The working definition of general predestination is that God in some
sense determines everything that happens in history. This includes both good and evil. God
is also said to be all-knowing and all-good, so questions of how God's knowledge and
goodness relate to free will and evil are involved in the analysis of general
predestination. Also involved are questions regarding causality, predictability based on
physical observations, and the role of chance. As was stated at the beginning of this
study, only basic ideas or principles will be touched on. Many questions may arise in the
reader's mind that are not covered in this study and will require further research. Also
remember that the emphasis is on the Christian doctrine of predestination. No exhaustive
defense of this doctrine will be presented. With that understanding, the first place we
will begin is with the nature of God and his role as Creator.
A very general account of Christianity was given under the analysis of specific predestination. It was there stated that God created beings with free will and it was through that freedom that sin and evil came into existence. It was also pointed out that two ultimate destinies, heaven and hell, exist. The idea of two ultimate and opposite destinies is based on Christianity's radical distinction between good and evil and the belief in a single, eternal God of absolute good who is opposed to evil. The radical distinction between good and evil, however, must not be confused with dualism which teaches two eternal principles, one good and one evil, that eternally oppose each other. According to Christianity, evil is not eternal. God alone is eternal. Therefore, evil has a beginning. In common usage, the word "eternal" is sometimes used to mean that which has no end. When the term is applied to God, however, it means that which has no beginning as well as no end. In this sense, God alone is eternal. Everything else has a beginning. Some of those things that have a beginning have no end; they are everlasting. An example of this category are the two ultimate destinies. Heaven and hell are everlasting, yet they have a beginning. They are created. Other created things have an end. Plants fall into this category which may be called the "temporal." The word "temporal" is sometimes used to mean that which has a beginning, but for our purposes here it will apply only to that which ends. So, according to Christianity, there are three distinct categories of duration: the eternal, the temporal, and the everlasting. Of these three categories, the first applies only to God.
According to Christianity, since God alone is eternal, everything else (including space and time) was created out of nothing. Although Christianity acknowledges that some creative acts of God involve the use of existing substances in composition, it denies the existence of eternal substances independent of God. All fundamental substances are created out of nothing by God's free will and did not eternally co-exist with him. The same applies to the concepts of time and space. God is not in time and space. Rather, they are "in" him and limited by him. They are also, along with everything else, presently sustained in existence by him. It is the eternal God as Creator and Sustainer who determines what is temporal and what is everlasting.
Not only does Christianity reject the idea that God created things out of some co-eternal substance, it also rejects the idea that God created everything out of himself. Pantheism is the doctrine that everything that exists is essentially God and necessarily "emanated" from his eternal nature. Pantheists, as a rule, deny the personality and freedom of God and do not essentially distinguish God from his creation. Since the pantheistic God is considered good or "beyond good and evil," evil is generally considered an illusion. What causes the "evil" illusion of evil is one of the problems of pantheism. Two of the prominent pantheists in the history of Western philosophy are Plotinus (205 - 270) and Baruch (or Benedict) Spinoza (1632 -77).
Although Christianity rejects pantheism, its doctrine of creation contains a paradox significant to the doctrine of predestination. If God freely created everything other than himself out of nothing, including time and space, then there is nothing that separates God from his creatures. There is no space between God and his creatures as there is between one creature and another because God is not in space as if space was the container of God. He is outside of space although present with it and is sustaining it and all creatures that are in space in existence. Where is the paradox? If there is nothing separating God and his creatures, then why not conclude that God and his creatures are one essence as pantheism teaches? But if they are one essence, then what happens to free will? Free will implies causality and the distinguishing between a cause and its effect. If the cause and the effect are identical, then why say that causality is occurring at all? Answers to these questions will not be speculated on. It will suffice to say that Christianity rejects pantheism and believes that a cause is not its effect.
The doctrine of God's free creation of everything out of nothing is essential to the Christian world view. Miracles are considered possible because of this doctrine. It can also be considered the foundation of grace. Every created thing is a gift from God to both himself and his creatures. Evil is not considered a created thing. Christian theologians Augustine and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225 - 74) both considered evil a privation in good things and not a thing itself. Evil is parasitic on the good and cannot exist independent from it. In fact, evil depends upon the good for its very definition (The Invisible Hand, 162). It is easy to see how this may be related to God. If God is considered the ultimate, eternal good, then evil depends upon God for its very existence and definition. This does not mean that God created evil, but he certainly created the possibility of evil and knew that humans would actualize it by their God-given freedom. Why God created beings he knew would choose evil is one of the questions that theodicy attempts to answer. Theodicy is the human attempt to vindicate divine justice in permitting evil to exist. It is tied to the question of human freedom. R. C. Sproul is one theologian who admits that he doesn't know the solution to the problem of evil. He says, "I have never been fully satisfied by any of the theodicies I've ever seen. This doesn't mean the problem is insoluble or that the question is unanswerable... But so far I haven't been able to find a solution" (Ibid., 167).
Although Sproul admits that he doesn't know the solution to the problem of evil, he has, however, reached the following conclusion: "It must be good that there is evil or evil would not exist" (Ibid., 167). He is quick to clarify this statement. He is not saying that evil is good. He is, rather, saying that "God is good and that His providence extends to all things, including evil... Evil could not exist for a second apart from the providence of God. That God allows, permits, or ordains that there be evil means He deems it good to allow it" (Ibid., 167 - 168). He admits that evil is a problem to Christianity, but, he says, it is not fatal to Christianity.
When discussing the Christian doctrine of creation and Christianity's denial of
pantheism, the concept of causality was mentioned. It was also affirmed that Christianity
believes that a cause is not its effect. As was noted at the beginning of this study, some
philosophical issues are involved in the doctrine of predestination. The concept of time,
especially the future, is involved as well as one of the fundamental laws of science: the
law of causality. A general understanding of the law of causality is important to
understand, or at least appreciate, many of the issues and problems involved in
predestination. Therefore, it is to this law that we now turn.
The concept of time and the law of causality are related in that time involves change and change implies causes and effects. Even the distinguishing and counting of moments of time in a series of moments implies the causal acts of distinguishing and counting. When something changes, we assume something caused the change. The change is an effect that must have a cause. The law of causality may be stated in different ways but it basically means that for every effect there is a cause. In fact, the term "effect" implies a cause and the term "cause" implies an effect. So the definition is true by reference to itself. According to this definition, there is no such thing as an uncaused effect. Every effect must have a cause, without exception. Another way of saying this is that every effect is determined by its cause. Also, every cause determines its effect. This word "determines" may recall to some minds what is known in philosophy as the doctrine of determinism.
According to The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, determinism is "the general philosophical thesis which states that for everything that ever happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen." Notice what this definition is saying. It is saying that everything that happens is conditioned. What is a condition? Basically, anything that causes the existence or "happening" of something else. If a "happening" is an effect, we are back to the fundamental law of causality. Notice what else this definition is saying. It is saying that given these conditions (or causes), nothing else could happen. It is in those words "nothing else could happen" where free will seems lost. Can an effect be free from its cause? Not by definition. An effect must have a cause and an uncaused effect is meaningless. What about an uncaused cause? Is that meaningless too? Interestingly, the answer is no. In fact, many theologians call God the uncaused first cause. These theologians reject the idea that everything must have a cause. They point out that only effects must have causes, but it is not true that all causes must be effects. It is here, with God, where the so-called causal chain begins. The idea of an eternal chain of causality, where every cause is at the same time an effect, is rejected.
According to Christianity, all causality begins with God and is somehow grounded in his nature and will. Although an eternal causal chain is rejected, the idea of an eternal being is not. Some theologians affirm that since causality is the essence of time, and all causality begins with God, then time is created. Just as an eternal causal chain is rejected, the concept of eternal time is also rejected. According to Christian theologian Norman Geisler, "God did not create the world in time; He is responsible for the creation of time. There was no time "before" time. There was only eternity" (When Skeptics Ask, 32). By "eternity," Geisler does not mean a series of moments without beginning or end (eternal time). He means God's eternal nature itself. Before God created, all that existed was God.
If we assume that God is the uncaused first cause and time itself, as a series of moments and causes, has its beginning with God, then the question is still raised as to how free will is possible, especially if God knows the future with certainty. If God foreknows all of our "choices," then isn't it true that we are not free to choose other than what he knows? Also, if God knows everything, then didn't he also foreknow his own act of creation? If so, then how is God free to do other than what he knows he'll do? Yet, it doesn't make sense to say that God's knowledge determined his own act of creation. The word "determined" implies a causal act which should be attributed to God's power, not his knowledge.
If in some sense it may be said that God knows with certainty what he will do without his knowledge causing his own acts, then God's knowledge of the future can't be used against the idea of his creatures having freedom. If God is free, then it is at least possible that some of his creatures are free too. We have already seen that Christianity asserts that Adam and Eve were created as good and free beings and that sin and evil came into the world primarily through them. So, in some sense they are the efficient causes of evil. What is an efficient cause? It is the primary agent causing something. It is distinguished from an instrumental cause which is that by which, or through which, something is caused. Why is this distinction important? Because an instrumental cause is not free. It is passive. An efficient cause, however, is both active and free. The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384 - 322 B. C.) distinguished between six types of causes. A look at these may better clear up some confusions regarding causality.
Sproul, in his book Not a Chance, lists the six causes (197). They are: 1) Material cause (that out of which something is made), 2) Formal cause (the design or idea followed in the process of making something), 3) Final cause (the purpose for which something is made), 4) Instrumental cause (the means or instrument by which something is made), 5) Efficient cause (the chief agent causing something to be made), and 6) Sufficient cause (a cause equal to the task of causing the thing to be made). Relating these causes to God, we can say that he is the ultimate sufficient cause who became the first efficient cause by creating everything out of nothing (no material cause) by his own conceived design (formal cause) using his own wise and moral power (instrumental cause). The final cause is humanity's everlasting fellowship with him. The final cause is tied to the Christian doctrine of predestination. Remember that the Bible applies the term "predestination" only to believers. Nobody is predestined by God to be lost because he does not desire that any should perish. At least that is what Arminians like Robert Shank believe.
If we ignore the Arminian/Calvinist debate for a moment and concentrate on the fact that Adam and Eve sinned by free will, we may be able to apply the "uncaused first cause" principle to them when it comes to original sin. It seems that efficient causes as distinguished from instrumental causes are in some sense the first causes of their effects. The idea of applying this principle to Adam and Eve in no way violates the idea of God as the sole Creator of all things. As we have seen, Augustine and Aquinas affirmed that evil is not a created "thing," yet it exists as an effect of a first cause. If God is not the first cause of evil, then one of his creatures is the first cause of it. In fact, a creature is the uncaused first cause of it. Although Calvinists like Sproul may deny this, they certainly can't rule it out as a possibility. After all, Sproul himself admits that he doesn't know the solution to the problem of evil.
So far it has been shown that an uncaused cause is possible, but an uncaused effect is contradictory by definition. Yet, some believe that the existence of "chance" proves that an effect can be uncaused. Sproul's book Not a Chance was written to refute this very idea. His primary point is that chance involves mathematical possibilities and unknown causes, not uncaused effects. To assert that an effect is uncaused is tantamount to attributing causal power to nothing. Nothing cannot cause something because nothing has no causal power. If nothing can cause something, then God is out of a job. Sproul's book is very insightful and wisely points out scientific errors that violate two of the fundamental laws of science, the law of causality and the law of non-contradiction. In fact, the law of causality is based on, and an extension of, the law of non-contradiction. One thing, however, that Sproul seems to overlook in his zeal to dethrone chance is that many people agree with his fundamental analysis but still apply the term to unintentional or impersonal causes or effects. This is what they mean when they say that something happened "by accident." They are not saying that there are no causes, but that there seem to be impersonal or indifferent causes that cause without purpose (a final cause). Certain things, primarily evil things, seem to happen by impersonal natural laws. Sproul seems to be aware of this aspect to the problem of evil and addresses it in his book The Invisible Hand which discusses God's providence.
In regards to evil "accidents," the general Christian answer is that they are permitted by God until the final separation of good and evil in heaven and hell. It is reemphasized that nature, including human nature, is under a curse that will eventually be removed by God at God's appointed time which only he knows. Evil is temporary for the innocent "in Christ." For the guilty who haven't received God's mercy in Christ, however, evil becomes permanent in hell. Although hell is considered "good" in that the guilty deserve punishment, the Christian doctrine of hell is disturbing to many people, including some Christians, regardless of the reason that some are consigned there. It has a place under the general problem of evil because some consider it the ultimate example and triumph of evil and injustice. It is one thing to suffer evil temporarily on earth, but to suffer evil forever in hell is beyond human imagination. Nonetheless, the doctrine of hell has its origins in the Bible which conservative Christians consider the revealed word of God that is infallible and inerrant. They do not consider hell as a place of punishment to be evil or unjust because God, who created hell and consigns some people to it, is good and just. Some Christian denominations such as the Seventh Day Adventists also have a high regard for the Bible, but they interpret it in such a way that the offense of hell is removed. Unrepentant sinners, they say, do not suffer torment forever but are annihilated in the everlasting flames. Hell may be an everlasting place, but the suffering is temporary, even nonexistent. But such denominations are few. Most Christians accept the doctrine of hell as a place of everlasting torment and punishment and do so because they believe the Bible as God's word teaches it.
Although Christians are aware that the Bible says that there is no salvation in any
other name but the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12), they are divided on the question of
the salvation of at least some non-Christians. For example, what happens to infants who
die without growing up and becoming morally accountable beings? Many Christians believe
that infants who die in infancy are saved although they have never "believed in
Christ." Some Christians, usually Arminians, also point out that so long as
non-Christians don't willfully sin, they will also be saved. The primary way for
non-Christians to warrant hell is by uncoerced moral disobedience. Only the guilty enter
hell. Although hell may not be directly chosen, the condition that leads to hell is
directly chosen. That condition is willful sin. According to the Bible, to know to do good
and not do it is sin (James 4:17). So, the way to escape hell is to avoid willful sin.
This idea, at least in principle, may be acceptable to both Arminians and Calvinists
although Calvinists associate "willful" sin with original sin and impute Adam's
guilt to his descendants.
The bottom line regarding both specific and general predestination seems to be the question of moral freedom. Even though we can explore the relationship between causes and their effects and ask whether a given cause is really free, our moral intuition (or conscience) seems to affirm our moral freedom. In fact, it may be that this very intuition is the reason why the theological doctrine of predestination and the philosophical doctrine of determinism are such controversial subjects. We believe ourselves to be free, especially morally free. This moral intuition and freedom are not determined to exist by physical observations and unpredictability. Freedom is metaphysical and invisible. Even if we can predict a given effect with a relative degree of certainty based on past observation and repetition, it doesn't necessarily follow that the effect will always and inevitably happen. Natural laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. They tell us what is, not what ought to be. They also don't tell us what must be. Even divine omniscience doesn't causally determine what must be. "Knowing what men will do with their freedom is not the same as ordaining what they must do against their free choice" (When Skeptics Ask, 32).
© Cameron B. Clark, December 1998.
Number of accesses to this page since June 9, 1999:
UNIVERSI FINIS VERITAS!
Site
design Copyright © 1999 Stichting Europese Apologetiek (Foundation European Apologetics)
Page created: June 9, 1999.
Last modified: