Arminians claim that the reason why all are not
saved is that God wills to preserve the free will of man more than
he wills to save everyone. But is this not making a distinction in two
aspects of the will of God? On the one hand God wills that all be saved
(1 Tim. 2:5-6; 2 Peter 3:9). But on the other had he wills to preserve
man’s absolutely free choice. In fact, he wills the second thing more
than the first.1
— Dr. Wayne Grudem
The objection above takes what is so precious to the heart of any
Christian who believes in the infinite love of God, and uses it against
one who believe in the free choice of the human will. Essentially,
Professor Wayne Grudem asks, "Wouldn’t it have been better for
God to have limited human free will, so more people would be eternally
blessed?" In other words, God seems to have cherished free will
more than He cherished the salvation of millions of souls who will be
lost. It seems to be a potent argument against the free choice of the
will.
Free will is rational choice
However, we need to ask ourselves just what is entailed in limiting
the free choice of the human will. The human will is free because the
human mind is a rational mind. By contrast, the will of brute animals is
not free because they lack rational capabilities. Their wills are under
the control of their instinctive natures. John of Damascus in his Exposition
of the Orthodox Faith affirms the connection between free will and
rationality.
We hold, therefore, that free-will comes on the
scene at the same moment as reason .... And if this is so, free-will
must necessarily be very closely related to reason. For either man is an
irrational being, or, if he is rational, he is master of his acts and
endowed with free-will. Hence, also creatures without reason do not
enjoy free-will: for nature leads them rather than they nature, and so
they do not oppose the natural appetite, but as soon as their appetite
longs after anything they rush headlong after it. But man, being
rational, leads nature rather than nature him, and so when he desires
aught he has the power to curb his appetite or to indulge as he pleases.
Hence also creatures devoid of reason are the subjects neither of praise
nor blame, while man is the subject of both praise and blame.2
Animals
There are millions of animals whose wills are limited with respect to
their freedom. And, it is true that none of these creatures will be in
hell. All of these creatures obey God instinctively. They have wills,
but they don't have free wills. So, in a very real sense, it was
possible for God to create a world with limited free will where no one
would be punished. If God had chosen this option, it would have answered
the objection, "Why didn't God limit free will, so no one would go
to hell?" However, if there were to be rational creatures, such as
angels and humans, then there would have to be creatures who could make
mental choices. And, a mental or intellectual choice is, by definition,
a free-willed choice.
Nebuchadnezzar
King Nebuchadnezzar is an example of a person whose free will was
limited for a period of time. The account is given in the book of Daniel
Chapter four. Nebuchadnezzar’s reason was taken away and, as a
consequent, he lost his free will. He became like a wild animal, growing
bird-like claws, long hair like eagle’s feathers, and eating grass.
"Immediately the word concerning
Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled; and he was driven away from mankind and
began eating grass like cattle, and his body was drenched with the dew
of heaven, until his hair had grown like eagles' {feathers} and his
nails like birds' {claws}
"But at the end of that period I,
Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my reason returned to
me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives
forever; for His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom
{endures} from generation to generation. Daniel 4:33-34 (NAS)
Like all animals, he did not have the intellectual capacity to
reason; and, so he lost his ability to make a free-willed choice. He is
a perfect example of the kind of human creature that would result, if
human beings lost their free will. He would have been at home with Australopithecus.
The insane and idiots have diminished mental capacity which causes them
to have very limited free will capacity. God could have created all
human beings as idiots with limited free will, but it’s doubtful they
would survive the rigors of the natural environment.
Augustine
St. Augustine responded centuries ago to the theologian's objection.
Most of God’s good gifts can be used for evil purposes. For example,
our hands are wonderful gifts from our Creator. Should God have created
human beings without hands, because they can commit crimes with their
hands? Should God have created human beings blind, because they lust
after things they see? Should God have made humans without reason, so
they could not make reasoned choices? Augustine thought that it was best
to praise God for his goodness and condemn those who make evil use of
his blessings. Augustine wrote, in Latin of course,
You said you thought that free choice of the will
ought not to have been given because through it man sins. To this
opinion I replied that no righteous act could be performed except by
free choice of the will, and I asserted that God gave it for this
reason. ...
If, therefore, we find among the goods of the body
some that a man can use wrongly, but that we cannot say ought not to
have been given to man, since we have agreed that they are goods, why
should we wonder if there are in the spirit certain goods, of which we
can make wrong use, but which, because they are goods, could not have
been given by anyone but Him from whom all good things proceed?
Indeed, you see how great a good is wanting to any
body that has no hands; yet he who works cruel or shameful deeds with
his hands uses them for evil. Should you see someone without feet, you
would acknowledge what an important good was lacking to make his body
complete. Yet you would not deny that the man who made evil use of his
feet, either for injuring another or for dishonoring himself, was using
his feet wrongfully.
....
Just as you approve those goods of the body and,
disregarding the people who make evil use of them, you praise Him who
gave them, so you should admit that free will, without which no one can
live rightly, is good and divinely given; and you should grant that
those who make evil use of free will ought to be condemned, rather than
saying that He who gave it ought not to have given it.3
If God had created human beings without free will, no human would
have ever known the love of God or wondered at His wisdom, majesty, and
glory. This is true of all the animals that lack free will. So, it is
not granted that limitations on free will would increase the numbers in
glory. Just the opposite might well be the case.
REFERENCES
June 20, 2001
|
