Free Will vs Predestination

Do humans have free will or is everything predetermined?

I would first like to add a disclaimer: I am not qualified to talk about this subject and am in no way making any academic advances in this post. All I hope to do is show you a selection of interesting bits of Scripture, science and philosophical ideas (in that order) to consider when pondering this question for yourself.

This post is unprecedentedly long and so if you just want to read the bare essentials of what I am saying, I recommend you read Part 1 and Part 6.

Part 1: The Scripture

Before we get bogged down in the details, let's look at some Scripture.

In favour of predestination, we turn to Ephesians 1, verses 4-11:

“For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to son-ship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves ... In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.”

And also to Romans 8, verses 28-30:

"And we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them. For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the first-born among many brothers and sisters. And having chosen them, he called them to come to him. And having called them, he gave them right standing with himself. And having given them right standing, he gave them his glory."

In contrast to this, simply consider the crux of the Christian message; John 3:16.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, so that all those who believe in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." 

Surely the fall was also because of the axiom of choice that was given by God, and abused by Adam and Eve? On top of that, recall every time that God tells his people to "choose", "follow", "go", "do" and "don't". This language clearly indicates the presence of free will. Why else would Jesus refuse to take up Satan's offer of ruling the entire Earth, if not to preserve our free will?

How, then, can we reconcile ourselves to the notion that God had a list of people whom He knew would spend eternity with him, before He created the universe? If God is all knowing surely he knows what we are going to do. So is it really our choice after all?! This is the nature of the beast we are attempting to tackle. Every time you lop off a head, three more seem to replace it. Perhaps it is best left alone, and we may just end up worse off than we were before, but it's all good fun.

Ultimately, neither side are easily dismissed, or indeed easily proven. The best philosophers, scientists and theologians have debated this for millennia and we must all simply choose our position on the spectrum.

As this article is rather long I will offer you somewhat of a conclusion before we begin, lest you become lost or bored in the main body of the post. My view is perhaps best summed up in Proverbs 16:9.

"The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps."

Part 2: The Assumptions and the Questions

For the sake of tackling this question, we will assume the bare essentials of Christianity. 

1.  God, who is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, created all of space and time and neither exists in or is bound by either. 
2. God (the Father) resides in Heaven, where there is no pain or sin as God is completely present. Satan resides in Hell, the place suffering total separation from God.
3. Jesus (the son) lived, was crucified, and was resurrected in order to pay for the sins of the world. 

Depending on your beliefs, this can be viewed as an interesting hypothetical situation, or as a pivotal exploration of reality. I regard it as the latter.


This is the series of questions which we will explore over the course of this blog:

1. Is the universe itself deterministic?
2. Is a computer program deterministic?
3. Is a biological system deterministic?
4. Does God have free will, and what does that imply about humans?
5. Are free will and predestination compatible?
6. Is Gods grace irresistible?

Part 3: The Science

Imagine flipping a coin as a way of making a "random" decision. This is random enough for most purposes, but is it truly random? Surely if we knew enough about the coin throw, we could predict which side it would land on. If we knew everything about every particle in the Universe at the moment that the coin was tossed, understood the laws of Physics in their entirety, and had a computer which could handle the computations, could we not state with absolute certainty how the coin would end up? This intuitive line of reasoning is known as causal determinism. The trouble is that it is outdated. And wrong.

We have arrived in the strange area of Quantum Physics. It turns out that even though we can't directly test the above claim by direct computation, we can show that if we had all of the information and technology, we still couldn't be certain how the coin would land. This does not just apply to coins. Essentially anything that happens in the universe is a matter of probability, rather than of certainty. If you are wondering how, given this, we exist in what appears to be such a sensible reality, it is simply because the "uncertainty" involved is very small. You could spontaneously turn into a bag of salt, but it is very unlikely. If it does happen you should probably assume it was God. If you are still conscious.

It is worth saying that if you find the above paragraph difficult to digest - as I do - that it is the same rigorous use of mathematics that got man onto the moon. Modern knowledge of electrons, chaos theory, and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle also provide evidence of a probabilistic Universe.

The non-deterministic nature of the universe is a problem. But at least it is probabilistic rather than completely random. If I decide, upon contemplating a repeatedly occurring situation, that I am best off doing one thing 70% of the time (say) and another the rest of the time, have I still thought about it? (If this notion seems baffling, research game theory) Having phrased it like this, it seems that a probabilistic output requires more thought than a deterministic one. Further, a deterministic output is simply the special case where one option is chosen 100% of the time. In this manner, we can patch up the fundamental determinism of the universe.

We have answered question (1) which is important because we can now safely look at whether this determinism holds as we create thinking systems within the universe. If the universe is itself non-deterministic then this argument falls apart. 

Let us now analyse the question in more detail. Free will is essentially the notion that humans have control over what they do, and ultimately where they spend eternity - given that Jesus paid their debts. We must make a distinction between this very complex idea, and the mere algorithmic or instinctual way in which, for example, a computer program can choose songs it thinks you may like, or the way a flower chooses to open its petals when the sun comes up.

Inducting upwards through the levels of complexity we observe (ie computer, plant, animal...) is not without risk but should essentially be fine as long as the universe is itself deterministic. In the example of the flower, the input feed includes external parameters, such as temperature, which we can now assume are, themselves, deterministic.

It is obvious that we make choices of the flowers nature constantly so one may wonder what all of the fuss is about; surely free will exists! The catch is that the choices themselves are essentially not thought about. To first tackle the former example, we observe that a computer simply carries out an algorithm to "decide" what it should do. Give it some input and it will give you an output. It will always change a given input into the same output. At this point it may be worth adding that while computers can output "random numbers" if asked, this process is ultimately algorithmic in nature, and so the same applies. The trick here is that as well as the input you provide, the computer has it's own set of conditions (another input feed) which gives a pseudo-random output. 

A similar argument can be made for the flower; the genetic code of the flower indicates that the system - however complex - is essentially deterministic. Questions (2) and (3) have now also fallen. The question is: Can we extend this train of thought to human decisions? The most sensible guess - if not the most intuitive - is: yes. The burden of proof, it seems, is on the side of the predestination crowd. More precisely, can we find an example of a situation in which a human makes a non-deterministic decision?

Part 4: The Philosophy (God)

We have covered (or at least scraped the surface of) the science and are just left with the issue of extrapolating the notion that a flower is essentially a deterministic system to humans. To an Atheist this is a simple thing to do. After all, humans have evolved from the same roots as flowers; there is no fundamental difference between them. 

The trouble is that Christians believe God created humans in his image. Most Christian theologians will agree that humans are made up of body, soul (mind, emotions, will) and spirit. The science has dealt with the body, mind and emotions. We must turn to Philosophy to deal with the will and the spirit.

God is constrained by his defining characteristics (being completely knowledgeable, powerful and good) but these are fairly generous limitations so it seems immediately obvious that God has free will. But we must ask the question: Could God fulfill his defining criteria any other way that in the way that He has? If God had not created anything, just existed, He certainly would still be all-knowing and all-powerful. Would He have be all-good?

All-good is a very vague statement. It seems sensible to define good to be the opposite of sin. But sin is the lack of God so our logic quickly becomes circular. What, then, is good? The closest answer I have come to an answer still has a circular feel to it, but is along the lines of brings maximal glory to God.

Our lives - and indeed our entire reality - contain local packets of darkness and sin which displease God. But perhaps when we zoom out to view the entirety of redemptive history, we see that these dark patches are placed such that the entire canvass as a whole brings maximal glory to God. Perhaps our reality is the only one God could have set in motion in order to bring Himself glory.

It is also worth being reminded at this point that God exists outside of time. One interpretation of this is that he doesn't do, he just is. In other words he is eternally existent, with all of his traits never changing, and these traits dictate how he appears to respond to situations within the construct of time. This is all very logical, but seems in stark contrast to the God of the Old Testament, who had mood swings and changes of mind.

I am aware that I am on very volatile theological grounds here so I will move on without a conclusion in this section. Claiming that God has no free will is an extraordinary statement and as such should be supported with extraordinary evidence, but hopefully I have suggested that the issue may not be as trivial as it seems.

While God created humans in his image, it does not follow that we are identical to Him. We have things that he could never have (sin, for example) and vice-versa (knowledge etc). So even if God has free will, it does not necessarily imply that humans do anyway. It would certainly be difficult to argue otherwise though; the axiom of choice is fairly fundamental, if existent, to Gods character and so it would be natural for it to be passed onto us. Overall, (4) has been tricky but we've at least given it a go!

Part 5: The Philosophy (Humans)

As we saw from the Scripture referenced earlier, it is clear that humans have a will according to Christian doctrine. So the question returns in a slightly altered form: Are human beings ultimately in control of where they spend eternity? Yes, we process information. Yes, we make decisions. Yes, we have some kind of will which enables us to make genuine decisions. But do we have control when it comes to whether we accept Jesus Christ as our Savior? The reason why this question remains is because, although the affirmative naturally follows from our previous questions, to reply "Yes" appears to be in direct conflict with Ephesians 1!

This would all fit together into a wonderfully elegant piece of Philosophy if we could just find a way to reconcile God choosing who will spend eternity with Him before He created the universe, with humans choosing whether or not they spend eternity with Him. In other words: Can I choose whether or not I appear on a list which exists outside of the construct of time?

In Romans 8, it certainly seems that God actively seeks out his chosen people. That he makes the first move. That he offers his grace to us before we ask for it. God has divine sovereignty, and works everything according to his will. But he has limited himself so that we can be responsive. But we are in sin, and if he doesn't take the initiative and seek us out, how can we respond?

Following this train of thought we end up replacing predestination with divine sovereignty in the initial question. This changes the nature of the question slightly, and we end up wondering whether anybody whom God has chosen could ever reject His grace.

Is God's grace resistible?

I am afraid this is where the Armenian's and Calvinists must part. Here we must end the rigorous logic and be satisfied with thorough study of Scripture and guesswork. While I am unsure on this issue, I currently believe that Gods grace is irresistible. The reason for this is consistency; there are examples where, and more general indications that, God works in people without their permission and I believe that just one such example is enough to justify the irresistibly of God's grace. I will briefly reference scriptures that you can follow up if you so desire.

1. John 6:37-40 states that God never fails to bring the sinners he has chosen to Christ.
2. Colossians 2:13 states that Man is spiritually dead, and so must be reawakened in order to be saved.
3. The story of Lazarus - and the man thrown into Elisha's tomb - are striking examples of this.
4. John 1:12-13 states that being born again is a sovereign act of God and not the will of Man.

So ultimately, while I may commit to being on the list within my lifetime, whether I do so or not is dictated by God.

Part 6: The Conclusion

So far we seem to have three pillars of truth from which we must try cobble together a meaningful conclusion:

(1) Physical determinism is present - if not absolute - in our reality.

(2) God has predestined an elect people to spend eternity with him, so spiritual determinism is also very much existent, though outside of time.

(3) Humans have a completely free will but are not ultimately in control of their actions and destinies.

The above belief system could be coined liberal compatibility.

This is all rather baffling, but there may still be hope. Perhaps we are predestined, but in the weaker sense of the word. What I mean by this is that God's foreknowledge of how people would respond to his message was the prerequisite to his predestination of a select few. So God knew who would accept Jesus and therefore chose them to be his elected people.

This seems strange until we realise that the only reason we equate "accept Jesus" and "saved by Jesus" is because God made it so. Rather than them being equivalent, maybe accepting Jesus is simply a necessary and sufficient condition for us to be saved by Jesus. There is still an order in which these events occur, even if they both imply each other. If this sounds very nit-picky to you, it is. But it enables us to reconcile Gods election of a chosen people, with our free will.


I am sorry that I have not been able to distill my ideas into a more concise form and I apologise if I have been too vague - or indeed too technical - at points, but hopefully this has given you plenty of food for thought. Our response to this question, while not as important as our belief in Jesus Christ, certainly influence how we perceive God and so I'd encourage you to continue to ponder the issue.

Thank you to Samantha Hayward for the topic suggestion,
and to David Halligan and Ben Savjani for their formative input on the issue over the years.