Does man have a free will?

Introduction

Before answering the question at hand, we must first define what free will is.  For the purposes of this article, I will define free will as the power of contrary choice regarding a moral command.  Another definition could be "a resistible God-given ability to obey a moral command".  Free will is the basis for human responsibility.  Finnis Dake comments in God’s Plan for Man, “It is man’s faculty of choosing good or evil without compulsion or necessity.”  Jack Cottrell, in God the Ruler, rightly claims, “Only when man is truly free to actualize both of these options can he be responsible for his choice and therefore justly blessed or condemned.”  For if the will of man is not free to choose against evil, then man is not responsible for his sin, but is rather bound to the circumstances that caused his decision to perform evil, just as a computer is bound to the logic programmed into its microprocessor.  Many atheists, such as natural psychologist B.F. Skinner, advocate such a hypothesis, and have thus nurtured a twisted understanding of the human will.  As a result, our modern judicial system has acquitted countless criminals on the basis of “insanity”; Millions of people are being treated for depression, anxiety, and other emotional disorders “outside of their control”; Even more will blame their pornography, drug, and alcohol addictions on the abuse they experienced as children; And still more will claim that their immoral lifestyles are an inescapable product of their genetic makeup.  No one is responsible for anything anymore, because we have all become victims of circumstance.  Our wills have been supposedly bound by external influences.  Taken to its logical end, such a rationale, by necessity, places the responsibility of all human existence on God Himself – the “First Cause”.  For no one would hold a computer responsible for a moral violation (If such were possible).  No, they would go straight to the manufacturer or programmer of the computer.  Adam attempted such a blame game concerning the first sin his wife enticed him to commit.  He implied divine responsibility when He cried to God, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate” (Gen 3:12, ESV).  Sadly, the doctrines of the modern church have been pervaded by such thinking – wrapped up in pious titles we so often hear -- “sovereignty”, “providence”, and “predestination”.  Yet, these same titles took on different, more Biblical meanings, in the early church.  The early church fathers taught that man has free-will.   Unconditional predestination was not proposed as a doctrine until Augustine’s false teachings in the 4^th Century.  See the section below entitled “Early Church Fathers and Free Will”.

Self Evident Axiom

Charles Finney, in his Systematic Theology, rightfully stated, "Moral obligation implies moral agency; and moral agency implies intelligence, or knowledge of moral relations. Moral agency implies moral law, or the development of the idea of duty, and a knowledge of what duty is."  Free will is a self evident axiom.  It is as self-evident as the idea of right and wrong.  Just as the Bible begins with the assumption that God exists, and thus commences, “in the beginning God created….”, so also the Bible begins with the assumption that moral agency is real.  God gives Adam a real prohibition (Gen 2:16-17).  He then expresses a real anger when that prohibition is violated (Gen 3:9ff).  In everyday experience, human beings treat responsibility the same.  We genuinely get upset with people who violate us in any way.  We don’t excuse the violation on the grounds that God was the ultimate cause of it.  For example, if a child (I’ll use the name Jimmy) hit his brother with a golf ball, the victim of the malicious attack would run and scream, “Mommy!  Jimmy hit me with a golf ball!”  Jimmy is blamed, not the golf ball.  If the doctrine of hyper-sovereignty teachers is true, then we should never blame people (or even the devil) for evils that befall us; For they are merely the proverbial “golf ball”. No, we should blame God (i.e. “Jimmy) – the one who threw the “golf ball”.  I contend that God is not in control of all things, but rather over all things, and that He has genuinely granted other agents the ability to create first causes morally.  In this construct, God is not the ultimate orchestrator of evil, but rather the ultimate judge of it.  In this construct, not everything that occurs in human existence is God’s active will, and much occurs by mere permission.  With that stated, let us progress to the attribute of God’s justice.

God’s Attribute of Justice

A communicable attribute is an attribute that is exhibited by God to an infinite degree, and also exhibited by humanity to a limited degree, but the substance and quality of both are essentially the same.  One such attribute is justice.  The Bible claims that God loves “justice” (Ps 33:5, 37:28), and that “justice” is the foundation of His throne (Ps 89:14).  Yet, we are also commanded to exhibit justice as human beings (Prov 21:3, Isa 1:17, 56:1, Mic 6:8, Col 4:1).  God is called "just" because of His offering of salvation through Christ (Rom 3:26).  Thus, we should be able to relate to justice in the same way God relates to it.  We should be able to understand it the way God understands it, else we could not be commanded to exhibit it.  What is just for God should be just in the eyes of man, and vice versa.  No father would command a child to reach for something on top of the refrigerator, and then beat her for not obtaining it, even though she could not possibly reach it, nor was offered a chair to assist her.  This is shear injustice, and we would all agree such an action on the father’s part would be sinful.  We are clearly commanded to “Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy” (Ps 82:3).   Calvinism demands such injustice of God, veiled as secret “good”, in demanding that every reprobate is commanded to repent (Acts 17:30), yet totally unable to do so, and thus unconditionally consigned to eternal torment.  The poor wretched reprobate is, in this case, akin to the disenfranchised people mentioned in Psalm 82:3, except in a spiritual manner.  The reprobate’s poverty is entirely out of his control – inherited from Adam, and yet God does not “do justice to the [spiritually] afflicted and needy”.  Does the word just take on a different meaning based on the subject of the sentence?  No.  Just means just, no matter who the subject is.  To start claiming that words have different meanings when God is the subject is to destroy our ability to understand any word as it applies to God.  As God is just, so also is man told to be just.  As God is holy, so also is man required to be holy (1 Pet 1:16).  As God loves, so also are we required to love (1 Jn 4:8).  If the will is not free, then every command that God gives to the reprobate is artificial, spewed from lips of injustice.

God’s commands are not artificial

God’s commands strongly imply real choices and real contingencies.  If God is the only “mover”, then every command is artificial because every choice would be irresistible and inevitable.  Every event in history would have its ultimate root in the counsel and orchestration of God.  Since God is good, then all events would be good, including evil.  Thus the terms “good” and “evil” would ultimately lose their distinction.  The Bible clearly delineates good from evil, and demonstrates God’s displeasure with evil (e.g. Psa 5:4, Isa 5:20, 2 Cor 6:14b-15a).  The Bible also teaches that God is not the author of our evil intentions (Jas 1:13), but rather the judge of them.  Dake comments, “Man is a subject of moral law and moral government and is under moral obligation to obey the moral governor of all free wills according to prescribed law”:

1)    When God commands all men to repent, they must be able to do so (Isa 55:7, Mt 3:2, 4:17, Mk 6:12, Acts 2:38, 17:30, 26:20).  Yet, not all men repent, so man’s will is free.

2)    When God commanded Israel to “choose life”, they were able to do so (Deut 30:19).  Yet, not all chose life, so their will was free.

3)    Paul writes nearly 100 imperatives of Christians (e.g. “flee fornication”).  Therefore, Christians are able to comply with every one of them.  Yet, we occasionally disobey, so the will is free.

4)    John expresses that he wrote his epistle in order that we would “sin not” (1 Jn 2:1).  Therefore we must be able not to sin.  Yet, we still sin sometimes, so the will is free.

God’s reaction to sin is not artificial

God’s disgust with man’s failure to comply with His will proves that man’s will is free.  For if God is the ultimate orchestrator of such failure, His disgust is entirely artificial, deceptive, and irrational.  God cried through the mouth of David, “Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?” (Acts 4:25, cf. Psa 2:1).  Such a cry would be entirely irrational had God been the very orchestrator of their vain imaginations.  Just before the flood account, we read, “And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Gen 6:6).  It would be schizophrenic for God to orchestrate the ill motives of man and then be sorely grieved at the work of His own hands.  Over 50 times God mentions “My wrath” as if He is genuinely angry with sin.  If sin is of His own orchestration, then His anger is self-afflicted and irrational.  This would be akin to forcing someone (if such a notion is possible) to rob your home, and then becoming furiously angry at them when they actually do it. 

Categorical Affirmations of God’s Desires And Provision

The Bible is filled with categorical affirmations of God’s will for all men to repent and be saved (1 Tim 2:4, 2 Pet 3:9, Jn 3:17). Even in the Old Testament, God expressed His intention for the New Covenant to provide salvation to “the ends of the earth” (Isa 49:6).  To do His part, God sent Jesus to be a propitiation for all men (1 Jn 2:2).  He died for our sins and arose from the dead, thereby enabling faith (Gr. pistis) for all men (Acts 17:31); Providing the drawing force of the cross to all men (Jn 12:32); And granting potential salvation for all men (Rom 5:16 – the “many” that are potentially condemned for sin, are the same “many” offered justification unto life).  Yet, so many reject this provision, “denying the Lord bought them” (2 Pet 2:1, see also Rom 14:15).  Christ is therefore the "Savior of all people, especially of those who believe" (1 Tim 4:10, ESV);  A savior for all men potentially, but a savior for believers efficiently.  Unfortunately, those who reject Christ "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Th 2:10), and some of those who were called to "glory and virture" have failed to appropriate God's exceeding great and precious promises, and have thereby forgotten that they were "purged from [their] old sins" (2 Pet 1:3-9). Nevertheless, God’s desires and provisions are expressed with genuineness.  Nowhere does the Bible state that God “secretly” (as Calvinism advocates) desires the countless masses of humanity to perish.  Yet, the countless masses do perish – thus proving that the will is free to choose against God’s will.  God rebuked Israel in Isaiah 30:15-18:

Isa 30:15 For thus said the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel, "In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and in trust shall be your strength." But you were unwilling, 16 and you said, "No! We will flee upon horses"; therefore you shall flee away; and, "We will ride upon swift steeds"; therefore your pursuers shall be swift...18 Therefore the Lord waits to be gracious to you. (ESV)

What a clear picture of God, against His own will, reluctantly giving Israel what they wanted, even unto their own detriment and contrary to His potential provision.  God was "wait[ing] to be gracious" to them, just as He is still "longsuffering...not willing that any should perish", and thus tarrying His coming (2 Pet 3:4ff). 

There couldn’t be a clearer example of free will than that of Isaiah 5:

Isa 5:1 Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: 2  And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. 3  And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. 4  What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? 5  And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down: 6  And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it. 7  For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.

This parable clearly shows that God gave so much provision to the people of Israel, and then expected them to bear the fruits of their own free will.  Since they did not, He had to judge them.  This is how God is in control – He grants probationary periods and judges our fruit.  Within that probationary period, God did not orchestrate their sin, but rather drew them (Jer 31:3).  He always provided warnings and gave them a chance to repent.  John writes concerning Jezebel:

Rev 2:20  Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21  And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.

God is so longsuffering that He even gave Jezebel, “as the representative of all that is designing, crafty, malicious, revengeful, and cruel” (Easton), a genuine chance to repent.

Countless times in history, God expressed His desire that Israel would have aligned with His will.  Jehovah cries out:

Psa 81:11  But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me. 12  So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their own counsels. 13  Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways! 14  I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned my hand against their adversaries. 15  The haters of the LORD should have submitted themselves unto him: but their time should have endured for ever. 16  He should have fed them also with the finest of the wheat: and with honey out of the rock should I have satisfied thee.

Clearly the history of Israel would have been different had they turned to God (v14-16), but they did not heed His voice (v11). This resulted in God giving them over to their own will (v12).  Romans 1 gives a similar picture of hardening of the heathens (Romans 1:24). The heathens clearly knew God (v19,21), but refused to worship Him as God, and were thus turned over to a vain mind (v28). Since they knew God and His attributes, they were clearly without excuse (v20)!

Even when the advent of the Messiah’s ministry was imminent, “the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose [boule = volition, advice, purpose] of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him [John the Baptist]” (Luke 7:30, ESV). God's will was clearly foregone in the lives of these Pharisees and Lawyers on this occasion, as well as others (e.g. see Lk 5:17, where God's power was present to heal them -- all of them!) . 

Just before His passion, Jesus cried over Jerusalem:

Mat 23:37 `Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that art killing the prophets, and stoning those sent unto thee, how often did I will to gather thy children together, as a hen doth gather her own chickens under the wings, and ye did not will.

Clearly the will of Jesus and the will of Jerusalem’s inhabitants are distinct and contrary in this passage, which proves that God’s will is not always done.  In fact, God never historically desired to destroy Israel (Lam 3:33, Ezek 18:32, 33:11) until such a desire was provoked by their continual willful disobedience (Dt 28:15, 63).  So, the fingerprints of free will are all over the history of Israel. Their fate was of their own choice, not God's (Deut 30:19).  He had clearly provided them with the command and opportunity for life (i.e. "I have set before you life...Choose life").  If their choice of disobedience was inevitable, then God was lying.

God is searching, not forcing

God is searching for, not unconditionally creating, willing hearts.  The Bible makes this clear in both the Old and New Testaments:

2Ch 16:9  For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him. Herein thou hast done foolishly: therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars.

Luk 18:8  I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

So, if you aren’t saved, God is pleading with you to embrace the work of Christ. He is persuading you through the conviction of the Spirit (Jn 16:8-11), the witness of creation (Acts 14:17, Rom 1:20), the work of laborers (Mt 9:38), and the drawing power of the message of the Gospel (Acts 17:31, Jn 12:32).  This drawing is very compelling.  But, you must choose life!  If you are saved, God has given you all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet 1:3).  He is working in you, planting desires (Php 2:12), and illuminating wondrous truths from the Word of God to you.  But desires alone aren’t enough.  You must choose to yield to those desires.  Jesus told the Father, “not my will, but thine be done” (Lk 22:42).  His choice and His human desires were not necessarily the same.  Paul had a “desire” to fulfill the Law, but consistently chose not to (Rom 7:18-20).  We are not bound to any desires, influences, or circumstances, as compelling (or distracting) as they may be.  But rather, we are commanded to choose to obey! Christians willfully disobey various commandments, in spite of the possible escape available in every temptation (1 Cor 10:13). 

Q & A

But isn't sin unavoidable?

I contend that man does not have to sin.  Man has the power of free moral agency and is thus held responsible for his sin.  Though our circumstances (due to the fall of Adam) are extremely influential, they do not necessitate sin.   J. Rodman Williams, in Renewal Theology, states, “Actual sins … arise from the state of original sin but are not necessitated by it … Romans 1 does not assign responsibility to Adam but to mankind at large:  they are ‘without excuse.’  These are people of all times and places, who on their own account and to their own guilt and judgment, turn away from the living God.”  Adam’s sin caused a corruption in our flesh by which humanity invariably (not inevitably) sins.  Romans 5:12 should be properly translated:  “just as through one man sin did enter into the world, and through sin death; so also to all men death did pass through, because all did sin.”  So in the same manner that Adam entered into a situation of spiritual death, so does every human being individually – through personal sin (Rom 6:23, 7:9, Jas 1:15). The formula is:  "Sin leads to death", not "Death leads to sin".  There is no New Testament passage that teaches that inborn death causes us to sin.  But there are many that teach that our willful sin brings about death.  The CEV translation paraphrases Romans 5:12 quite well, “Adam sinned, and that sin brought death into the world. Now everyone has sinned, and so everyone must die.”  No one is without excuse (Rom 1:20); for all have known God (Rom 1:21), and God has not left Himself without witness to any man (Acts 14:17).  And though all sinners will be punished eternally (Jas 2:10), even their guilt and punishment will be commensurate with the level of light they freely rejected (Mt 11:20-24, 23:15, Jn 9:41, 15:22-24, 19:11-12, Lk 12:42-48, Heb 10:28-29, 2 Pet 2:20-22, Rev 20:12-13), just as the heavenly rewards of Christians will be commensurate with obedience (2 Cor 5:10, 1 Cor 3:13-15).  In addition, some sinners are more depraved and corrupt than others (Ezek 23:11), and some are closer to the kingdom of God than others (Mk 12:34).

But aren't depraved people unable to respond to God, per John 6:44 and Romans 8:7-8?

With regard to God's commands, hasn't He commanded people to do things they cannot do, such as be "perfect" (Mt 5:48) or love Him with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength (Mt 22:37)?

According to Hebrews, every Christian is afforded the opportunity to “be perfect” in Christ (Heb 10:14, 12:23).  Paul calls Christians  "them that are perfect" (1 Cor 2:6).  In addition, Job was called “perfect” (Job 1:1).  So, we must not misunderstand the meaning of the word “perfect”.  The same applies to Matthew 22:37.  What does “with all your heart” mean?  Perhaps it is assumed that it means that you never sin again.  If “with all your heart” is an impossible notion, then Phillip was wrong to let the Eunuch be baptized (Ac 8:36-38); for his condition was that “thou believest with all thine heart”.  Surely, David would have been lying when He excalimed in Psalm 9:1, "I will praise thee, O LORD, with my whole heart..."  His promises to seek God's commandments with whole heart would have been lies as well (Psa 119:2, 10, 34, 58, 69).  Surely, God foresees a people who will return to Him with their whole heart (Jer 24:7).  Even if it did mean sinlessness, some day all glorified believers will cease sinning altogether.  So, the command is eventually able to be performed by our faith of Christ.  Therefore, I choose to use the axiomatic approach (i.e. a command implies enablement), rather than read in presumptions and destroy a self-evident axiom.  To destroy such a fundamental concept is to destroy basic laws of communication.  

Even the Old Testament Law was not impossible to follow.  God clearly told them that they theoretically could perform it:

Deu 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

So Israel was not utterly unable to perform the Law, lest we say that God was lying in Deuteronomy 30:11-14.  No, God granted them divine enablement.  In fact, there were individuals who did consistently walk "in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless" (Luke 1:6, Php 3:6).  Of course, they did not follow the moral law perfectly at every instance (1 Jn 1:8, Eccl 7:20), but rather exhibited a consistent observance of the external ordinances, including the provisions (i.e. atonement) for occasional sin, spurred by a contrite heart.  Even before the giving of the Law, unregenerate people could believe God based on the level of light granted, and thereby be credited with right-standing (Rom 3:20, 4:5, cf. Gen 15:6).  Such individuals still needed saved (in the New Testament sense), but were anxiously awaiting the coming Messiah (Lk 1:27-55, 67-79) according to the measure of light which they had concerning Him (Gal 3:8).  Israel's inability (as a hardened nation) to perform the law was due to its invariable (not necessary or inevitable) succombing to the deception of inherited sin (i.e. "knowledge of good and evil", or "flesh").  The majority of those in the nation had the struggle outlined by Paul in Romans 7:8, 9, 11 --- consistently deceived by in-born sin.  Their desires to obey were ultimately trumped by their final choices.  In other words, their inability was strictly due to their unwillingness. 

But aren't we bound to our nature, as Compatabilists claim?

Adam was created “very good” (Gen 1:31) and “upright” (Eccl 7:29), yet freely sinned.  When we become Christians, our new man is created in righteousness and true holiness (Eph 4:24), yet we still sin (even though commanded to put on the “new man”).  So neither Adam nor Christians are bound to always act in their natures (The crux of the compatibilism theory).   So we, like Adam, are not bound to our nature and can sin regardless of it.  If such rigidity doesn’t apply for the believer’s nature – why should it hold for the unbeliever’s nature?  Of course there may be appeal to certain scriptures to support such rigidity, such as Romans 3:10-18, 1 Corinthians 2:14, or Romans 8:5-10.  Yet all can be adequately explained in other ways.  For example, Shank (author of Elect in the Son) posits that Romans 3 is a hyperbolic use of Psalm 14 to show the sinful STATE (not INABILITY) of mankind (Rom 3:9).  For the New Testament often invokes the Psalmic literature in such a manner of application (e.g. Acts 4:25-26 – surely not all rulers gathered against Jesus and some were converts, Rom 8:36 – surely we’re not killed all day long).  Cornelius, who had no new nature (Acts 11:14), was an exception to the “none righteous” statement, as well as the “none fear God” statement (Acts 10:22).  Therefore, Romans 3 is not a statement of the inability of mankind, but rather the general status of mankind.  It is no more an exhaustive treaty on every single individual than is Paul's statements in Phillipians 2:

Php 2:19 But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state. 20 For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state. 21 For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's.22 But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel. 23 Him therefore I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me ... 25 Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants.

Surely, Paul's hyperbolic statements (i.e. "I have NO MAN likeminded...", "ALL seek their own"...) obviously did not apply to Timothy or Epaphroditus.  Just as there were exceptions to Paul's statement in this Philipians, so Cornelius is an obvious exception to Romans 3:10-18.  In fact, no Old Testament saint had the new birth, which was a future promise (Ezek 36:26-27, Jer 31:33ff, c.f. Heb 8:10ff), yet they could obey God and obtain right standing by faith in their depraved state (Gen 6:9, 15:6).  Even the Israelites, most of whom perished in the wilderness (and likely eternally), were at one point in time able to cross the Red Sea by faith (Heb 11:29), the same faith mentioned in Hebrews 11:1.

With regard to 1 Corinthians 2:14, the New Testament teaches that the natural man (i.e. psuchikos, or man without the spirit – Jude 1:19), must exercise belief in order to become a spiritual man (pneumatos, or man with the Spirit – see Gal 3:2, Eph 1:13).  So, the ability to believe comes before you become a pneumatos anthropos, because you become a pneumatos anthropos by faith!  See 1Cor214. With regard to Romans 8, of course we can’t please God in our carnal state (v8).  Whoever said that we need to please God to get saved?  I thought Jesus died for the ungodly.  Of course the carnal mind is an enemy of God, but we are reconciled to God in the state of enmity (Col 1:21, Rom 5:21). Of course we will not be consistently subject to the Law of God if our mind is after the things of the flesh (v7 – this applies to both unbelievers and believers).  Paul cried out about this frustration in Romans 7:14ff, where Paul is reiterating his pre-conversion struggle with keeping the Law.  Paul, a depraved sinner, realized his wretched state and desired a release from it (7:18-24).  In fact, the whole of Romans 3 through the first section of Romans 8 is expressing the accentuation of the carnal struggle because of the law.  Only faith frees us from this (Rom 8:1) – Paul’s point of the whole book of Romans.  In addition, the carnal state spoken of in Romans 8 legally ceases upon our receipt of the Spirit (v9).  But how do we receive the Spirit?  By faith, while in our carnal state (Gal 3:2, Eph 1:13).  So we have the same chicken egg problem as 1 Cor 2:14, and I believe Arminians have it in the correct order.  In addition, some sinners are more corrupt than others (Ezek 23:11); some by nature do things written in the Law (Rom 2:14); Some are humbled by the light God grants (Lk 10:21), and are thereby given more revelation, while the proud are not (Mt 13:12).  I just don’t see proof that anyone is utterly bound and unable to choose to act apart from their nature.  God’s grace has made such choices possible.   

But didn't God have to force the free wills of men to crucify Christ in order to fulfill prophecy?

When Christ came, all men were commanded to repent from evil (Mt 3:2, 4:17), and therefore could have done so.  Therefore, Christ could have been sacrificed without the evil intentions of men.  Could the people have loved on Him and willingly taken Him and offered Him up just as they did the sacrificial lambs?  Did Abraham need evil intentions in order to sacrifice Isaac?  Not at all.  Dan Gracely, an anti-Calvinist author, argues:

“Even so, those who rose up against Christ during the crucifixion had a different agenda than what God was presenting to them. They did not have to hate Christ to carry out his death. God did not need their sin. It was Messiah’s death—plain and simple, and unattached with man’s false railings—that God in his counsel had decided should be done and to which Acts 4:28 refers. Nowhere does Acts say that God’s counsel determined all the words and deeds of the mob. In fact, Christ’s death did not even have to be at the hand of a mob or even by a malevolent hand. Christ could have been sacrificed even if Israel had repented of their sin and believed in Christ. The brief event of Christ dying and resurrecting would not have even interrupted the prophecies regarding His coming as the great Ruler, especially if the nation of Israel had understood that this work was a necessary step in order for Christ to obtain the full glory of His Kingship as Savior. And so the nation could have understood the plan of God and with an understanding heart offered up Christ as the willing sacrifice for their sin. They could have understood from Daniel’s prophecy that Messiah’s life should be sacrificed after the completion of 62 weeks “from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem,” and therefore committed themselves to fulfill the prophecy with understanding. Thus God could have commanded a believing Israel to act on the Father’s behalf to put Christ to death as the object of God’s wrath and as the sacrifice for the world’s sin. Herod and Pilate could likewise have been sympathetic participants in these events. It is not inconceivable that they could have repented in the weeks or months prior to the appointed hour of Messiah’s death by being greatly moved by the nation itself, and have remained in governmental power long enough to have participated with all the people of Israel and the visiting Judeo-sympathizing Gentiles in presenting the Messiah (to the High Priest ?) to be offered up as the Lamb of God. The High Priest and Jewish elders could have likewise repented prior to this event had they merely responded positively to the ministry of Christ. Had such a scenario taken place, Messiah could have offered Himself as the sacrifice for the world’s sin while surrounded by understanding, penitent sinners, in which case Christ’s death would have been no less glorious.

 

Again, the death of Christ at the hands of believing sinners need not to have been attended with any more feeling of maliciousness than Abraham had toward Isaac when the patriarch was about to slay his son upon the altar, or that Aaron the High Priest had toward the Passover lamb.

 

I realize that to think of Christ’s death as happening in a manner where He could have been surrounded by believers is foreign to most of us. The standard explanation, however, of God using the sinful anger of man to carry out His ’sovereign’ plan remains unsatisfying. It all but requires that men be sinners in order that righteousness be carried out. This is the kind of theology that wishes to say that ‘all things work together for good,’ i.e., synergistically. Such a turgid theology has yet to explain how God could be holy if, in some sense (as Boettner would put it), He determines that false accusations be leveled against His Son by crucifiers and thieves. Yet this is what the Calvinist asks us to believe—that God guides and governs all the lying words and deeds that men said and did during the crucifixion.119 If this is the case, it remains to be explained by the Calvinist how God can be responsible for evil but not be guilty of it.”

One certainly cannot argue from Old Testament prophecies for the necessity of sin in the original purpose of Christ’s atonement.  For if that sin had not occurred, then the decrees would have been different, as well as the prophecies.  The prophecies are a depiction of the actual future, which could have been different.  Once Christ was presented with the evil intentions of the leaders in His generation, He then decreed the only other option -- to die at the hands of evil (rather than obedient) men.  Such contingent decrees lend towards the stong statements of necessity in verses such as Mk 8:31.  This verse is not stating that God unconditionally decreed that Christ had to die by the hands of evil men, but that, in light of the foreseen conditions He faced, He decreed it conditionally.  In other words, the foresight of evil intentions preceded Christ's willingness and decree to die as a result of those intentions.  The conditions could have been different. The intentions could have been different, leading to a different decree (and thus different prophesies).  One must keep this integration of foresight and decree in mind when interpreting the following:  Matthew 26:54-56; Mark 14:49; Luke 21:22, 22:37, 24:44; John 12:37-38, 13:18, 15:25, 17:12, 19:36; Acts 1:16.  One must also keep in mind that many uses of hina (English "that") are result clauses (Gal 5:17, Rev 13:13), not purpose clauses, and hence we have the interpretational flexibility of using "resulting in that it might be fulfilled" instead of "in order that it might be fulfilled".  When it comes to God's foreordination of an active intervention (e.g. Mt 1:22-23), perhaps the purpose clause is more appropriate (i.e. foreordination).  When it comes to man's ill intentions (e.g. Mt 13:14), perhaps the result clause is more applicable (i.e. foresight).  Regardless of which is more applicable, both can apply because God's purposes really become necessary and purposeful, though conditioned on all decrees and foresights chronologically preceding the decree in question.  Look at the following sequence:

1)  God decided to create the world -- foreordination (unconditional)

2)  God decreed how to rule the world, including:

     - Natural Laws

     - Repercussions for sin 

     - Creation of beings in His image, who will rule the earth (Ps 8, 115:16, Gen 1:26-28)

     - Creation of free will

3)  God foresaw that Adam (the first being) sinned -- foresight

4)  Based on Adam's sin, God planned for a Savior to die -- foreordination (conditional)

5)  God decreed to have Jesus come and die for humanity at a specific time/place -- foreordination (conditional)

6)  ...forsight...foreordination...(e.g. probationary rising up and tearing down of nations leading up to time of Christ -- Ac 17:26, Jer 18:8)

7)  God foresaw the evil intentions prior to and during Jesus' coming -- foresight

8)  God decreed for Jesus to die in as a result of those evil intentions -- foreordination (conditional)

Of course, we know that God is meta-temporal and thus outside of our time.  So this incremental explosion of foreknowledge and foreordination occurred outside of our realm of created time.  Notice that the necessity of each conditional foreordination event is conditioned on the previous foresight and foreordination events.  If Adam hadn't sinned (#3) then the subsequent foreordination events would have been different.  If the leaders of Jesus time had not been evil (#7), then the decree in #8 would have been different (A loving sacrifice as in the case of Abraham/Isaac instead of a malicious one).  Nevertheless, God has seen what He has seen.  Therefore, the prophecies must be fulfilled only in the sense that the contingencies (partly of God, partly of man), led to Christ's decision to die the way He did -- and this decision was made during His incremental explosion of foreknowledge, not unconditionally or monergistically. I'm sure God would have been pleased to have been presented with a generation of faithful Jews. On other occasions, God was pleased to see a different outcome, and stay His hand of judgment, though the judgment may have been stated seemingly unconditionally.  Open theist John Sanders notes: 

"To Hezekiah the prophet Isaiah said, "Thus says the Lord," you will die shortly, but he did not shortly die (2 Kings 20). God inviolably announced to Nineveh that its doom was immanent when it turned out not to be (Jonah). God made an unconditional promise to Eli that his sons would be priests forever in Israel, but God subsequently destroyed them (1 Sam 2:30). Ezekiel made inviolable predictions regarding what Nebuchadnezzar would do to Tyre and Egypt, but Nebuchadnezzar did not do them (Ezekiel 26-29)." (Article responding to Bruce Ware)

Surely if God has even suspended or nullified unconditionally stated prophecies of judgement, He would be pleased to see a different future; one in which Israel were obedient when Jesus came;  one which warranted different prophecies which were necessary to be fulfilled.  But He didn't, and thus the prophecies we have are the prophecies we have, and they are the ones that must be fulfilled -- because mankind determined their necessity, not God.  And God saw all of this before physically creating the world (i.e. "Before the foundations of the world"). 

But doesn't God use our sin by necessity?

Let us consider Genesis 50:20.  God did not manufacture the evil intentions of Joseph's brothers.  He foresaw them (Gen 37:4, 18).  Joseph's brothers planned on killing him (37:2).  Thankfully, Reuben, who apparently did not share the same evil intentions, was divinely persuaded to save Joseph's life by convincing them to sell him to the Midianites -- which in itself was not a sinful act (37:21-22).  The malicious sinfulness was already present.  God's decree was not to create the maliciousness, but rather, in light of the maliciousness, use the willingless of Reuben to steer the maliciousness of his brothers in Joseph's favor.  It was also a decree to steer circumstances in Israel's favor, by placing Joseph in an empire where God could show him favor and get him into a position of leadership; a position in which he could save Israel from famine (Gen 50:2b). God didn't need the sin of Joseph's brothers to save Israel from famine.  Had he not seen (or foreseen) their malicious intent, He could have easily brought Joseph into Egypt another way.  Therefore, Gen 50:20 is showing that God, being presented with their evil intentions, "cunningly worked" (see lexical use of Chawshab) a plan for good for Joseph and for Israel.  He did not devise their sin, but worked in spite of it and around it.

Can God violate free will?

There is no proven instance in scripture where God irresistibly changed someone’s will.  The closest we come to such activity is in Numbers 24:1ff.  In this account Balaam intended to utter a curse upon Israel but under the Spirit of God pronounced a blessing instead.  However, if we pay close attention to the account we notice one critical piece of information.  Balaam’s will did not change.  He still chose to speak a curse.  God then took control of his mouth and forced it to speak a blessing.  We must never confuse the will with the effects of the will.  God did not let the effects of Balaam’s will culminate, but rather over-ruled them.  Another similar example is Saul’s ecstatic prophesying (1 Sam 19:24), which averted him from taking David into custody.  Jack Cottrell states in God the Ruler, “It seems that God was controlling the bodies of these people more than their minds and wills.”  Such instances are few and far between in the Bible.  This type of intervention is not normative.  Cottrell comments, “It is so perilous to take most of the Old Testament examples as paradigms or models for God’s universal mode of controlling men’s wills…God’s purpose in intervening was not to determine the eternal destiny of individuals involved but to make Israel a fit receptacle for the coming of Christ.”

Does God Turn Hearts?

Yes, but He primarily turns and directs willing hearts.  See my article, “Does God control every King's heart (Prov 21:1) and direct every man (Prov 16:9)”, at   http://wordoffaithanswers.com/TurnAnswer.aspx

I would also extend “willing hearts” to include the negative sense as well.  For example, God used the king of Babylon to execute judgment on Israel.  The king of Babylon already had evil intentions in his pursuit of Israel, as Jehovah later revealed (Jer 50:11, 14).  God merely permitted Babylon to rise up in power (rather than thwarting their growth) as a result of His knowledge, as well as foreknowledge, of Israel's persistent disobedience.  Babylon, already set on doing evil and capturing all surrounding nations, was permitted and therefore unrestrained in their own pursuit.  God suspended His defense of Israel (Isa 54:8).  His attributing the matter to Himself (Jer 20:4ff, 21:2ff) is no less idiomatic language than is His attributing Job's afflictions to Himself (Job 2:3, 42:11), when He clearly was not the executor and instigator of such -- Satan was (Job 1:9, 12, 2:6, 7).  Babylon had already intended on taking Israel.  God merely permitted it due to Israel's disobedience.  In this sense, God caused them grief (Lam 3:32), but in reality they had caused their own grief.

Does Free will Nullify Providence?

Not at all.  By His sovereign choice, God created free agents.  Another term for freedom is authority.  God granted mankind with the authority to rule over the earth (Psa 115:16). His original intention was for man to do this freely, of course in synergy with His sustaining power (Heb 1:3).  God then placed man in a probationary period, commanding him not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17).  Apparently, when Adam sinned, he (not God) legally gave up his earthly authority to Satan (Lk 4:5-6), likely because Eve was directly deceived by him (Gen 3:4ff).  God then submitted creation to the futile forces of the curse, with the intention of restoring it someday (Rom 8:20-21).  Since then, Satan, as the prince of the power of the air (Eph 2:2, see also Jn 12:31, 14:30) and god of this world (2 Cor 4:4), has had limited permission to deceive and afflict humans, and he makes it his occupation to do so (1 Peter 5:8).  Within the confines of this authority shift, God has obligated Himself to permit Satan to rule over the children of men (1 Jn 3:8, 10, Acts 13:10, Jn 8:44, 1 Jn 5:19).  This authority is rightfully granted to Satan until a means for liberation is granted to mankind.  Thank God, liberation is available in Jesus (Col 1:13).  Yet, even in this dispensation, God has chosen to leave the appropriation of our freedom up to us (Gal 5:1).

In this whole moral economy, God has remained and still remains the sovereign Governor of the universe.  He has established precepts, ordinances, laws, and conditional provisions for His intervention (e.g. faith and  prayer), as well as conditional provisions for our calling, justification, sanctification, and glorification.  He has clearly stated His will for us in these matters.  However, He has chosen not to choose for us.  His normal cycle of involvement is Provision à Command à Probation à Judgment/Intervention.  He is not the sole determiner of history.  For even the whole existence of kings in Israel’s history was based on His judgment to permit them to have a king against His desire (1 Sam 8:5ff).  I’m sure future would have been rewritten had they not wanted that king.  Nevertheless, God is in control, governing and intervening, conditionally determining the establishment and extinction of nations (Acts 17:26).  In His foreknowledge, He foresees the future results of the synergy of the Divine, the human, and the demonic.  What end result does history (His-story) guarantee?  It guarantees (as is recorded in the book of Revelation) the successful results of this synergy:

1)    A tried and proven people who have demonstrated their willingness to commune with and worship God eternally, offered to eat of the Tree of Life forever;

2)    The eradication of all evil, including all sources of temptation. 

In no way does the Bible claim that these eschatological phenomena will be a result of monergism.  The cast of people involved in this traumatic culmination, as well as the point of time at which it occurs, is conditioned on earthly agents (2 Pet 3:3-10 – God is “longsuffering”).  However, the judgments that God will exhibit at that time will be irresistible (Rev 19, 20).   

Does Free will Effect Prayer?

Yes.  For example, I can’t just pray (a believing prayer) for God to save every person in the world.  It is only God’s will to save those who repent and trust in Him, of their own free volition.  However, I can pray for increased conviction, revelation, laborers, and resistance to demonic blinding.  For prayers that God has sanctioned and promised the results, He will answer.  The means He uses may include persuasion of individuals, the suspension of natural laws, the occasional direct control of someone’s body (e.g. Balaam), the provision of wisdom, information, or special abilities or desires.  But, He will not irresistibly force anyone’s will or intentions.  For to do so would blur the line between God and man, reducing man to a mere extension of God, rather than a free moral being created in His image.

Does God Have a Detailed Plan for my Life?

Most of what God desires for our lives is based on revealed precepts in the Word of God:

1)    God wants me saved (1 Tim 2:4) – called, justified, glorified (Rom 8:29-30)

2)    God wants me filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18), operate in giftings He has bestowed (Eph 4:11-12, 1 Cor 12:7ff), and abounding in fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22).

3)    God wants me to obey all Biblical commandments, and in doing so prolong my days (Prov 3:1-2), as well as be conformed into Christ’s image (2 Cor 3:18)

4)    God wants me to be healed if I get sick (Jas 5:14-16)

5)    God wants me to meditate on His word, and thereby show me favor in everything I do (2 Chr 16:9, Ps 1:1-3)

6)    God wants to answer my prayers, as I closely abide in Him (Jn 15:7)

7)    God wants to provide all of my earthly needs (Mt 6:33)

8)    Etc…….

The means for some of these may have specific requirements.  For example, God told Naaman to dip in the Jordan seven times in order to get healed (2 Ki 5:10).  This obviously was a specific means for his healing, not everyone’s.  God also gave Israel very specific commands to Israel when they took certain cities (e.g. Josh 6:5).  If we are called into a specific ministry, the Holy Spirit may send us to a specific place (Acts 13:4), with a specific ministry anointing (Eph 4:11-12).  He may also prevent us from going to a certain place at a certain time (Acts 16:6).  So, when Proverbs 3:5-6 promises God to direct us, it encompasses His promise to keep and bless us as we follow His precepts, as well as His promise to grant us specific direction if He does have a specific will in a matter (for our personal benefit, or His kingdom’s benefit, or both).  In these matters, God's leading entails 1) godly counsel from others (Prove 24:6), 2) personal God-given desires and conscience (Php 2:12, Acts 24:16), 3) natural wisdom (Prov 8), 4) supernatural wisdom/insight (Jas 1:5-6), which may or may not be contrary to natural wisdom (e.g. getting rid of the majority of your army to fight an army ten times as big – Jdg 7:2ff), 3) open/closed doors, 4) dreams/visions, 5) audible voice (Acts 13:2), as well as other phenomena.  Yet, not all of the above purposes of God for our lives will have one specific direction.  God may afford us the luxury of picking between multiple alternatives – all equally within His will and blessing.  Concerning Paul’s decision to go to Jerusalem and die, in spite of the Holy Spirit’s warnings (20:22-24, 21:4, 11-13), Clark writes:

“…if it refer to the Holy Spirit, it must mean that if he regarded his personal safety he must not, at this time, go up to Jerusalem. The Spirit foretold Paul’s persecutions, but does not appear to have forbidden his journey; and Paul was persuaded that, in acting as he was about to do, whatever personal risk he ran, he should bring more glory to God, by going to Jerusalem, than by tarrying at Tyre or elsewhere. The purport of this Divine communication was, “If thou go up to Jerusalem the Jews will persecute thee; and thou wilt be imprisoned, etc.” As he was apprized of this, he might have desisted, for the whole was conditional: Paul might or might not go to Jerusalem; if he did go, he would be persecuted, and be in danger of losing his life. The Holy Spirit neither commanded him to go, nor forbade him; the whole was conditional; and he was left to the free exercise of his own judgment and conscience. This was a similar case to that of David in Keilah, 1Sa_23:9-13. David prevented the threatened evil by leaving Keilah: Paul fell into it by going to Jerusalem.”

There are other matters which are clearly left up to the free will of an individual, with either choice being without sin:

Based on Paul's urgent expectation of the second coming of Christ, he recommended that single people not get married, but that if they did, they weren't sinning.  He wrote of this freedom of choice as if God were neutral in the matter.  Surely, if God had unconditionally decreed that that everybody appointed to be married had to marry a specific person, and all else were appointed to be single, Paul wouldn't have been so flippant in his language here.  Rather, the choice to marry or not is left to us, and God will bless that choice.  In fact, based on His foresight of that choice, He has already interwoven that foreseen decision into a decree of blessing for that person's life from that point forward.

Doesn't Foreknowledge Necessitate Determinism?

The word determinism is quite subjective.  Of course the future will be determined (and in God's eyes is foreseen as determined).  Yet that determination is synergistic -- based on God and Man.  The Man-side is contingent, truly contingent.  In other words it does not have to be the way it is.  Man has moral freedom.  God has not chosen to choose for us, but has left moral choices up to us.  So in this sense, the future is determined, but not solely by God.  Thus, Arminians use the term "indeterminism".

Calvinists fail to accept that there are two types of future knowledge in God – foresight and foreordination.  These two actions of God are integrated.  First, there are God’s plans of what He will do, whether conditionally (i.e. Judge Sodom) or unconditionally (i.e. decree to create the earth).  This is called foreordination.  An example of this is Isaiah 46:9-11.  Calvinists will use this passage to attempt to prove that all of God’s future knowledge is entirely based on foreordination.  What they fail to understand is that this passage is only one specific type of purposeful decree – that of probation and judgment.  The context of this passage is irresistible judgment.  Surely God is the sovereign judge and will purpose to destroy the disobedient, if needed.  Surely He can state that He will throw the wicked in a lake of fire, without even looking into the future.  This is merely a statement of intent.  Yet even such statements are often conditional.  Later in the context God claims that Israel could have had a different future, had they obeyed (Isa 48:18).  Surely their sin wasn’t a necessity in God’s plan to raise up a “ravenous bird from the east”, but rather a driver of that foreordination.

Secondly, there is God’s foresight of man’s intentions (or the devil's).  There are clear Biblical examples of God being presented with the intentions of men (foresight), and then foreordaining His intervention as a result:

Presented with                                                                                  Resulting decree

“Thou was perfect...til iniquity was found in thee” (Ezk 28:15)   “Therefore I will cast thee...out of the mountain” (Ezk 28:16)

“Hast thou eaten of the tree..”(Gen 3:11)                              “Because thou hast hearkened….” (Gen 3:17)

“God saw … the wickedness of man…” (Gen 6:5)                      “I will destroy man…” (Gen 6:6)

“I will go down … and see... I will know” (Gen 18:21)                Gen 18:23ff

“Now I know that thou fearest God…” (Gen 22:12)                   “Because thou hast done this..” (Gen 22:16ff)

Of course these events are known by God before they occur in our sphere of temporality.  Yet, this foreknowledge is based on the integration of foresight and Divine decree – not solely Divine decree.  God’s foresight is a function of His metatemporality (i.e. quality of being “beyond time”).  Foresight is based on the fact that our thousands of years is equivalent to a single instance in God’s meta-time (2 Pet 3:8).  Christ declared, “Before Abraham was – I AM”.  Our span of time is but a moment to Him.  He simply sees “what is” whether or not the “what” was of His ordination or the production of a moral agent.  I believe that in His meta-instance prior to the creative decree, God was in the realm of possibility (e.g. should I make man with 10 fingers or 11? Should I allow man free choice or make Him a robot? What natural Laws should I devise?  Spiritual Laws? How will I judge free moral agents?).  He was thinking through every possibility, including how He would respond to every possible intention of man.  Then in His next meta-instance, which spans our entire universe’s timeline, He began creating the Heavens and the Earth.  In this meta-instance He has full knowledge of what “is”.  He did not decree to create the world with full foreknowledge of what would happen.  Rather, He incrementally decreed His interactions with history conditionally, step by step, as He foresaw man’s intentions at each stage.  In other words, His decrees are contingent on the contingencies.  This view of foreknowledge is called Incremental Simple Foreknowledge, proposed by Jack Cottrell (Click here).  Origen (185-254 AD) taught that God’s foreknowledge was a simple foreknowledge:

“It is not because God knows that something is going to be that that thing is going to be, but rather it is because it is going to be that it is known by God before it comes to be. For even if we imagine for the sake of argument that God does not foreknow anything, it was without a doubt going to happen that, say Judas became a traitor, and this is just the way the prophets foretold it would happen. Therefore, it was not because the prophets foretold it that Judas became a traitor, but rather it was because he was going to be a traitor that the prophets foretold the things that he was going to do by his wicked designs, even though Judas most certainly had it within his power to be like Peter and John if he had so willed; but he chose the desire for money over the glory of apostolic companionship, and the prophets, foreseeing that this choice of his, handed it down in their books.” (Book 7, Commentary on Romans)

Middle Knowledge 

One may ask – “What about middle knowledge?”  Middle knowledge is the counterfactual knowledge of how man would respond if the circumstances were different.  I questioned Middle knowledge when I realized it was irrational to me.  Only actualities are seen as TRUE because there is only one actual history.  Genuine contingencies can only be seen as POSSIBLE.  POSSIBILITIES could only be seen as counterfactuals if freedom of moral choice is entirely artificial (i.e. I can only exhibit one moral intention given all of the events from time 0 to time x).  In other words, God can only think through a hypothetical actual future if He chooses to create that future monergistically.   I believe that possibilities are only possibilities.  There is only one instantiation of this world, and that instantiation depends on all free agency involed (Divine plus human).  Anyhow, once I was faced with the incompatibility of true contingency and middle knowledge, I sought to study the supposed “proof texts”, finding that the Biblical evidence for exhaustive middle knowledge is very wanting.  Turretin (1623 – 1687 AD), a zealous Calvinist theologian, wrote a work against the “heresy” of Molina (middle knowledge).  Though I don’t agree with his Calvinism, I do agree that the supposed proof texts for molinism can easily be explained in other hermeneutically sound ways. 

Supposed Middle Knowledge Passages:

2Sa 12:8  'I also gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!

Passages such as this have at times been mistaken as teaching middle knowledge, but they don’t.  On this passage Turretin notes: “the prophet enumerates the blessings of God towards ungrateful David, to which he would have added greater if David had continued in obedience (not from any conditional decree or middle knowledge, but according to the promise made to piety).”   (Francis Turretin.  Institutes of Elenctic Theology.  Thirteenth Question: Middle Knowledge.  P 217.) 

Mat 11:21  Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22  But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. 23  And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

With regards to these such passages that compare people groups, Turretin remarks:  “The words of Christ (“If the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes” Mt 11:21) are not to be strained to the letter, as if they referred to something which on a certain condition would be determinately future.  For it is a hyperbolical and proverbial kind of speech where Christ (by a comparison odious to the Jews) wishes to exaggerate the contumacy and rebellion of their cities (rendered illustrious by his miracles), which, as the searcher of hearts, he knew to be greater and more obstinate than the wickedness of the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon.  So Christ does not speak of the foreknowledge of any future conditional things, but wishes by using a hyperbole to upbraid the Jews for ingratitude and impenitence greater than that of the Tyrians and Sidonians; as if a teacher (addressing a slow and dull scholar) should say, if I had taught an ass as long, he would have known it; or of an inexorable judge, if I had beaten rocks and stones as long, I could have broken them; we do not mean that rocks could be softened or an ass taught, but only that the slowness of the scholar and the hardness of the judge are extreme.  In the same manner, Christ says, “If these should hold their peace, the stones would cry out” (Luke 19:40); not as if the stones could cry out, but to show that his person, doctrine and works were so clear and indubitable that they could no longer be concealed.  There is a similar passage in Ezk. 3:6: “Had I sent thee to a people of a strange speech, they would have harkened unto thee.”  (Francis Turretin.  Institutes of Elenctic Theology.  Thirteenth Question: Middle Knowledge.  P 216.)

1Sa 23:7  And it was told Saul that David was come to Keilah. And Saul said, God hath delivered him into mine hand; for he is shut in, by entering into a town that hath gates and bars. 8  And Saul called all the people together to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men. 9  And David knew that Saul secretly practised mischief against him; and he said to Abiathar the priest, Bring hither the ephod. 10  Then said David, O LORD God of Israel, thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah, to destroy the city for my sake.11  "Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down just as Your servant has heard? O LORD God of Israel, I pray, tell Your servant." And the LORD said, "He will come down." 12  Then David said, "Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?" And the LORD said, "They will surrender you." 13  Then David and his men, about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When it was told Saul that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the pursuit.

Turretin responds that the issue is their intentions:  “1 Samuel 23:11-12 cannot favor this middle knowledge because it is not so much a prediction of future things which were still in futurition (as a revelation of things which then existed although secret, viz., of the plans discussed among the men of Keilah about the delivery of David if he stayed there.) For when David was doubtful concerning the design of Saul and the intention of the men of Keilah towards himself, and therefore inquired of the Lord whether Saul was about to descend against the men of Keilah, and they would deliver him up into the hands of Saul (if he stayed among them), God answered that David should withdraw himself and fly from their fury, and that Saul would descend and the men of Keilah would deliver him up (if he remained there), because in truth both Saul girded himself for the journey, and the men of Keilah were even then secretly plotting to deliver David up to him.  “For they will deliver thee up,” i.e., they have the will to do so, as the interlinear gloss has it.  So the words “to descend and “to deliver up” do not refer to the act itself as hypothetically future, but (as often elsewhere) they are put for the purpose and intention, i.e., to have in the mind to do this (as Acts 12:6 an 16:27).”  (Francis Turretin.  Institutes of Elenctic Theology.  Thirteenth Question: Middle Knowledge.  P 216.)

David’s first question to God is “Will Saul come down just as Your servant has heard?”  God’s confirmation of the rumor (i.e. “He will come down”) is based on His current knowledge obtained per verse 8 – “And Saul called all the people for war…to go down to Keilah”.  The intentions of Saul were already in motion.  David’s second question was “Will the men of Keilah surrender me?”   God’s answer, per the King James Version, is, “They will surrender you.”  The Young’s Literal translates this verse as such:  “12  And David saith, ‘Do the possessors of Keilah shut me up, and my men, into the hand of Saul?’ And Jehovah saith, ‘They shut thee up.’”  Notice that YLT doesn’t even use the future tense.  The reason for this is that Biblical Hebrew does not have a future tense. The verbs translated with the leading word "will" (in KJV) are imperfect verbs.  An imperfect verb in Hebrew can also convey habit (used to...), modal (may, should could...), the speaker's will for something to occur (may, let...), as well as many other uses in present or past time. So, this passage can be translated without the "wills," as YLT has done.  Thus, there is no way to prove that God is making futuristic middle knowledge statements in this passage.  I agree with Turretin that God is making a statement concerning the current intentions of the men of Keilah.  In their minds, they have already “shut  [David] up” because they knew that Saul was coming down to their city to destroy it on David’s account.

1 Corinthians 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7  But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8  Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9  But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

This passage is not a statement of middle knowledge, but rather a statement of common sense, similar to John 5:46 and John 8:42.  Such statements are expressing the natural result of spiritual laws.  If the princes of this world had the wisdom “among them that are perfect” they would not have crucified Christ.  Is this not simply an acknowledgement that saved people don’t kill the Savior?  Doesn’t verse 9 tell us that “them that love Him” obtain such a wisdom?  In other words, them that love God are granted regeneration and a special wisdom (v9) which obviously results in their not wanting to kill the Savior.  Those who don’t love God don’t obtain regeneration or special wisdom, and are thus left in a depraved state capable of killing the Savior.  Using the middle knowledge hermeneutic, we could falsely turn any conditional Proverb into a supposed statement of middle knowledge.  For example, take Proverbs 29:9:  “If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest.”  What if Jesus were to go up to someone who had much unrest in his life and say, “had you not contended with foolish men, you would currently have rest”?  Would this be a statement of middle knowledge or a reiteration of the truth of Proverbs 29:9?  It would be the latter. 

Early Church Fathers and Free Will

Here is a sampling of early church father quotes taken from God's Strategy in Human History by Roger T Forster & V Paul Marston:

JUSTIN MARTYR c.100-165 A.D.

"… God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness; possessing reason, that they may know by whom they are created, and through whom they, not existing formerly, do now exist; and with a law that they should be judged by Him, if they do anything contrary to right reason: and of ourselves we, men and angels, shall be convicted of having acted sinfully, unless we repent beforehand.

IRENAEUS of Gaul c.130-200. Against Heresies XXXVII

"This expression, 'How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,' set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will (toward us) is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves . . ."

"If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give counsel to do some things and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free-will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free-will in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God."

  Against Heresies XXX IX

“Man has received the knowledge of good and evil. It is good to obey God, and to believe in Him, and to keep His commandment, and this is the life of man; as not to obey God is evil, and this is his death. Since God, therefore, gave [to man] such mental power (magnanimitatem) man knew both the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience, that the eye of the mind, receiving experience of both, may with judgment make choice of the better things; and that he may never become indolent or neglectful of God’s command; and learning by experience that it is an evil thing which deprives him of life, that is, disobedience to God, may never attempt it at all, but that, knowing that what preserves his life, namely, obedience to God, is good, he may diligently keep it with all earnestness. Wherefore he has also had a twofold experience, possessing knowledge of both kinds, that with discipline he may make choice of the better things. …Offer to Him thy heart in a soft and tractable state, and preserve the form in which the Creator has fashioned thee, having moisture in thyself, lest, by becoming hardened, thou lose the impressions of His fingers. … If, however, thou wilt not believe in Him, and wilt flee from His hands, the cause of imperfection shall be in thee who didst not obey, but not in Him who called [thee]. … Nor, [in like manner], does the light fail because of those who have blinded themselves; but while it remains the same as ever, those who are [thus] blinded are involved in darkness through their own fault. The light does never enslave any one by necessity; nor, again, does God exercise compulsion upon any one unwilling to accept the exercise of His skill. Those persons, therefore, who have apostatized from the light given by the Father, and transgressed the law of liberty, have done so through their own fault, since they have been created free agents, and possessed of power over themselves. But God, foreknowing all things, prepared fit habitations for both, kindly conferring that light which they desire on those who seek after the light of incorruption, and resort to it; but for the despisers and mockers who avoid and turn themselves away from this light, and who do, as it were, blind themselves, He has prepared darkness suitable to persons who oppose the light, and He has inflicted an appropriate punishment upon those who try to avoid being subject to Him.”

ATHENAGORAS of Athens (2nd century). Embassy for Christians XXIV

"Just as with men who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honor the good or punish the bad; unless vice and virtue were in their own power, and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them, and others faithless), so is it among the angels"

THEOPHILUS of Antioch (2nd century). To Autolycus XXVII

"For God made man free, and with power over himself . . . now God vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him. For as man, disobeying, drew death on himself; so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting."

TATIAN of Syria (flourished late 2nd century). Address XI

"Why are you 'fated' to grasp at things often, and often to die? Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it. Live to God, and by apprehending Him lay aside your old nature. We were not created to die, but we die by our own fault. Our free-will has destroyed us; we who were free have become slaves; we have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God; we ourselves have manifested wickedness; but we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it."

BARDAISAN of Syria c.154-222. Fragments

" 'How is it that God did not so make us that we should not sin and incur condemnation?'if man had been made so, he would not have belonged to himself but would have been the instrument of him that moved him . . . And how, in that case, would a man differ from a harp, on which another plays; or from a ship, which another guides: where the praise and the blame reside in the hand of the performer or the steersman . . . they being only instruments made for the use of him in whom is the skill? But God, in His benignity, chose not so to make man; but by freedom He exalted him above many of His creatures."

CLEMENT of Alexandria c.150-215. Stromata Bk ii ch. 4

"But we, who have heard by the Scriptures that self-determining choice and refusal have been given by the Lord to men, rest in the infallible criterion of faith, manifesting a willing spirit, since we have chosen life and believe God through His voice."

Stromata Bk iv ch. 12

"But nothing is without the will of the Lord of the universe. It remains to say that such things happen without the prevention of God; for this alone saves both the providence and the goodness of God. We must not therefore think that He actively produces afflictions (far be it that we should think this!); but we must be persuaded that He does not prevent those that cause them, but overrules for good the crimes of His enemies."

TERTULLIAN of Carthage c.155-225 Against Marcion Book II ch.5I

… man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating the presence of God's image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature . . .

-you will find that when He sets before man good and evil, life and death, that the entire course of discipline is arranged in precepts by God's calling men from sin, and threatening and exhorting them; and by this on no other ground than that man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance.

. . . Since therefore, both the goodness and purpose of God are discovered in the gift to man of freedom in his will . . ."

NOVATIAN of Rome c.200-258. On the Trinity ch 1

"He also placed man at the head of the world, and man, too, made in the image of God, to whom He imparted mind, and reason, and foresight, that he might imitate God; and although the first elements of his body were earthly, yet the substance was inspired by a heavenly and divine breathing. And when He had given him all things for his service, He willed that he alone should be free. And lest, again, and unbounded freedom should fall into peril, He laid down a command, in which man was taught that there was no evil in the fruit of the tree; but he was forewarned that evil would arise if perchance he should exercise his freewill in contempt of the law that was given."

ORIGEN c.185-254. De Principiis Preface

"Now it ought to be known that the holy apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, delivered themselves with the utmost clearness on certain points which they believed to be necessary to everyone . . . This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the church that every rational soul is possessed of free-will and volition."

De principiis Bk 3 ch. 1

"There are, indeed, innumerable passages in the Scriptures which establish with exceeding clearness the existence of freedom of will."

METHODIUS of Olympus c.260-martyred 311. The Banquet of the Ten Virgins xvi

"Now those who decide that man is not possessed of free-will, and affirm that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate . . . are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils."

Concerning Free-will

"I say that man was made with free-will, not as if there were already existing some evil, which he had the power of choosing if he wished . . . but that the power of obeying and disobeying God is the only cause."

ARCHELAUS

The Disputation with Manes

"For all creatures that God made, He made very good, and He gave to every individual the sense of free-will in accordance with which standard He also instituted the law of judgment. To sin is ours, and that we sin not is God's gift, as our will is constituted to choose either to sin or not to sin."

ARNOBIUS of Sicca c.253-327

Against the Heathen: 64, 65

"I reply: does not He free all alike who invites all alike? Or does He thrust back or repel any one from the kindness of the Supreme who gives to all alike the power of coming to Him? To all, He says, the fountain of life is open, and no one is hindered or kept back from drinking . . . "

"Nay, my opponent says, if God is powerful, merciful, willing to save us, let Him change our dispositions, and compel us to trust in His promises. This then, is violence, not kindness nor the bounty of the Supreme God, but a childish and vain strife in seeking to get the mastery. For what is so unjust as to force men who are reluctant and unworthy, to reverse their inclinations; to impress forcibly on their minds what they are unwilling to receive, and shrink from . . ."

CYRIL of Jerusalem c. 312-386

Lecture IV

18: "Know also that thou hast a soul self governed, the noblest work of God, made after the image of its Creator, immortal because of God that gives it immortality, a living being rational, imperishable, because of Him that bestowed these gifts: having free power to do what it willeth."

20: "There is not a class of souls sinning by nature and a class of souls practising righteousness by nature; but both act from choice, the substance of their souls being of one kind only and alike in all."

21: "The soul is self-governed: and though the Devil can suggest, he has not the power to compel against the will. He pictures to thee the thought of fornication: if thou wilt, thou rejectest. For if thou wert a fornicator of necessity then for what cause did God prepare hell? If thou wert a doer of righteousness by nature and not by will, wherefore did God prepare crowns of ineffable glory? The sheep is gentle, but never was it crowned for its gentleness; since its gentle quality belongs to it not from choice but by nature."

GREGORY of Nyssa c.335-395. On Virginity (368/3G8) ch. XII

"Being the image and the likeness . . . of the Power which rules all things, man kept also in the matter of a free-will this likeness to Him whose will is over all."

 JEROME c.347-420.  Letters CXXXIII

"It is in vain that you misrepresent me and try to convince the ignorant that I condemn free-will. Let him who condemns it be himself condemned. We have been created endowed with free-will; still it is not this which distinguishes us from the brutes. For human free-will, as I said, depends upon the help of God and needs His aid moment by moment, a thing which you and yours do not choose to admit. Your position is that once a man has free-will he no longer needs the help of God. It is true that freedom of the will brings with it freedom of decision. Still man does not act immediately on his free-will but requires God's aid who Himself needs no aid."

Against the Pelagians Book III, 10

"But when we are concerned with grace and mercy, free-will is in part void; in part, I say, for so much depends upon it, that we wish and desire, and give assent to the course we choose. But it depends on God whether we have the power in His strength and with His help to perform what we desire, and to bring to effect our toil and effort."

 JOHN CHRYSOSTOM 347-407. On Hebrews, Homily 12

"All is in God's power, but so that our free-will is not lost . . . It depends therefore on us and on Him. We must first choose the good, and then He adds what belongs to Him. He does not precede our willing, that our free-will may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then He affords us much help . . . It is ours to choose beforehand and to will, but God's to perfect and bring to the end."