In Sunday’s sermon I affirmed that a decision can be free and a person can be responsible for it at the same time it is determined. We saw this in Jesus’ temptations, the outcome of which was determined and yet, at the same time, he was truly facing temptations and making real decisions.
The view of freedom to which I hold and which I represented in the sermon is known as compatibilistic freedom. In other words, it is a view that believes God can so govern all things that all things are determined (he is absolutely sovereign) and, at the same time, genuinely free choices can be compatible with this.
The other view of freedom to which Christians hold is libertarian freedom (or sometimes called indeterministic freedom). This view believes choices are free if and only if they are not determined. Often those who believe in this view of freedom will assert that a decision is free if, when the person chooses choice A, they could also have chosen choice B (aka alternativity). This view does not allow for absolute sovereignty. Rather it holds to a view of sovereignty that is limited since it is dependent upon what a person will choose and therefore some options may be beyond God’s ability to ordain.
I do not believe libertarian freedom is what the Bible teaches. The Bible, instead, demands that human freedom must be compatible with absolute sovereignty (e.g. Acts 2:23). It also seems to teach that a truly free choice is what which someone wants to do (e.g. Philemon 14), without having to include alternativity.
With that said, I want to share another illustration for how something can be determined by God and, at the same time, a true choice on the part of the person. In our sermon we talked about how the outcomes of Jesus’ temptations could be determined and yet he be truly tempted. This analogy is from my book Divine Sovereignty And Human Freedom.
Suppose that Mary decides to undergo a colonoscopy. As a result, the date is set and she faithfully abides by the instructions to fast and cleanse her colon in preparation. While she is in the procedure at the hospital the surgeon accidently damages her colon during a polyp removal. This leads to a reparative surgery and, as such, a longer time that Mary is unable to eat. Once Mary comes out of the procedure and is recovered enough to eat, she is very hungry. As a result, when the hospital offers a very appealing lunch to her (meatloaf and mashed potatoes, which is her favorite meal), she accepts and eats—very gladly and freely!
Once damage was accidently done to the colon, there was a kind of necessity upon the surgeon to repair it. It was determined. Given the fact that she is a competent surgeon, wants Mary to be well, and is capable of doing the procedure, she knows she must do it. However, she is not constrained to do the surgery against her will as if someone is holding a gun to her head or as if, at the time she thinks to herself, “I don’t want to do this procedure, but somehow I can’t help myself. It almost feels like the forces of the universe are compelling me to do this!”
Likewise, in Mary’s decision to eat, there is a necessity in that she is hungry, her body needs nourishment to survive, she wants to eat, is not nauseous from the surgery, feels fine, very much enjoys what is on the menu, she lacks any other compelling reason not to eat, and so she wills that outcome, which is also determined. However, if any of those things had not been true (for example, if she had been nauseous), there could have been a different outcome. What is more, no one is holding a gun to her head to make her eat, nor is anyone force-feeding her against her will. Also, she did not have the sense, “I really feel nauseous and don’t want to eat, but I can’t help myself. Forces larger than me are compelling me to order the food and now to take up the fork and eat it.”
Though we can say that Mary hypothetically possessed the ability to reject the food (to make a different choice if she wanted to), given the other circumstances leading up to the decision and given the preference of her will itself, she would certainly eat and at one level there was a necessity. Yet, it was not a necessity that opposed her will. It was determined and, at the same time, free.
Right away some will respond, “Oh, but Tom, can’t you imagine a reason for Mary to refuse her favorite dish, such as her desire to keep going in her weight loss momentum of the past couple days so she could lose those few extra pounds she put on during the holidays? Or perhaps she is expecting family to visit soon and so she doesn’t want to eat while they are in the room?” To this we can say, Oh, we most definitely can imagine those. However, in each of these situations what we are proposing is that a new and greater motive has replaced the motive of enjoying the delicious food. Such an explanation is in line with compatibilistic freedom. And, with each of the parts of the chain we can not only say God decreed or willed it and brought it about causatively, permissively, or as a combination of both, but also Mary truly willed each decision. So, she has engaged in a free choice.
I hope this helps further explain how Jesus’ decision regarding his temptations were determined and, at the same time real temptations and choices.
Writing For Your Joy,
Tom
