Q&R: The “Free Will Defense” & the “Freed Will Response” – Brad Jersak

Please follow and like us:
fb-share-icon
Tweet

Question:

I have been reviewing PTM’s summary of the dozens of Scriptures that dare us to hope. Among these, I see Jesus’ stated intention to draw ALL people to himself, along with Paul’s prophecy that “EVERY knee will bow and tongue confess that Jesus is Lord,” not to mention Peter’s expectation in the “restoration of ALL things,” or John’s testimony of Jesus saying, “I am making ALL things new.”

On the other hand, I’m also aware of Jesus’ deep commitment to our freedom, including the freedom to turn from him and say no to God’s grace. In fact, he laid his life down for that freedom, even when we misused it to crucify the Lord of Glory. I don’t believe Christ will ever coerce us into repentance, even in our death.

How do we hold these twin truths together—the sovereign will of God to reconcile ALL things to himself (as in Colossians 1) and the preservation of our consent and dignity of human agency (“Whosoever will may come”)? Is this a contraction? A paradox? A mystery?

And more to my point: in light of God’s commitment to our free will, isn’t it possible that some will forever reject the overtures of divine Love (thus spending eternity in hell)? What do you do with the “free will defense” of eternal hell?

Response:

An excellent question. One where perhaps even angels fear to tread. But as someone made brave by grace to explore any pickle jar of inquiry, I would put it this way:

1. First, God truly does honor our agency and the consequences of our choices.

    We can verify this just by watching the world and our own lives.

    2. Second, Christ assures us that he will draw all people to himself (John 12:32). And you are right: Paul does believe and proclaim that ultimately, “every knee will bow and joyfully confess to the name of Jesus,” including everyone “in heaven, on the earth, and under the earth” (Philippians 2:11-12). And since you mentioned Peter, he once wrote that ‘God is not willing that any should perish but that all would come to repentance’ (2 Peter 3:9). And that list goes on and on.

    How can both be true?

    How can both be true? How does Christ get his way without violating human freedom? Gratefully, one of history’s greatest theologians, Maximus the Confessor (in the top 5, in my opinion), weighed in with a response that resonates with me. He puts it this way (although in my words):

    1. The human will was created to freely and willingly respond to the Good. Maximus called this “the natural will” because responding to the Life of God, uncoerced, is essential and natural to our true and unfallen human nature. It was part of our design.  

    2. The fall of humanity in the first garden was an act of self-will that damaged the human will. Our will had become dysfunctional so that instead of responding naturally to God’s love and what is best for us, we now vacillate. “Maybe I’ll obey. Maybe I won’t. Maybe I turn to God. Maybe I’ll turn away.” Maximus called this the “gnomic will.” So while we can still certainly make these bad choices (our agency is respected and voluntary), the dysfunction involved makes it a bit strange to call it “free will.” The harsh reality is that through our own choices, we find ourselves in bondage to the delusion of “self-will.“ Self-will is not free will. It’s a kind of slavery or disability. 

    3. But wait! If our rebellion or human willfulness is actually a dysfunction, how can God condemn the blind for being blind? As Paul once said,

    • And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)?

    In Maximus view (or at least mine), condemnation of someone’s dysfunctional “No” would not be just. But forcing us to believe or coercing submission or violating our will or prying our eyes open would also undermine the nature of God’s love, which must forever be consensual. So, what is God to do?

    What is God to do? 

    4. The problem begins in the archetypal garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve (representing all humanity), in that fatal and universal blunder into self-will and radical autonomy, grasp for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil… But there was another garden, Gethsemane, and in that garden, Jesus Christ vicariously (meaning, “on behalf of us all”) turned humanity back toward the life and love of God through the perfect surrender of his will to his Father’s will. This RE-Turn becomes the foundation for the healing of the human will through him, the undoing of the dysfunction and redemption from slavery, even in this life, such that by grace, we are now freed to obey.

    5. But what of those who die blind? Those who pass away, whose gnomic will continues to wander and waver, deluded and enslaved, to their dying day? In Maximus’ view, as I understand him, when at the End, “every eye shall see him,” (Revelation 1:7), the same Light who created our eyes will then also heal our spiritual eyes. The face-to-face revelation of Jesus will restore our natural will so that “the light comes on” (as it did for Paul on the Damascus Road) and we can, at last, make a completely voluntary and “freed will” response. Rather than violating our will or simply wearing down our resistance, Christ will heal, free, and restore our wills to their original state. Saying YES to God without delusion or compulsion will at last become our normal willing response. 

    6. One question that occurs to me is why Adam and Eve turned away in the first place. If they had a natural will to begin with, how was it possible that they lapsed into rebellion? And why won’t we again? The easy answer is that it’s a mystery within a myth story about ALL of us. (So that “As in Adam, ALL died, so in Christ, ALL will be made alive” – 1 Corinthians 15:22). Why did WE first rebel?

    But lest we cop out too quickly to mystery, I will add briefly that Gregory of Nyssa addressed this in his 4th-century classic Life of Moses. His theory is that the issue in the first garden was immaturity. In the story world of Adam and Eve, humanity was created innocent, not perfect. And as such, they were moral toddlers, susceptible to stumbling, to self-deception, and to the delusion of self-will. Stumbling was as inevitable for them as it is for any child learning to walk. And therefore, given their “thrown-ness” into that impossible situation, mercy is God’s only just response… and that’s exactly what God delivers in Christ. 

    But then why not just create us as complete and mature adults to begin with? Because that’s not how humans are made. We are born, we grow up. We develop personalities, and we mature toward Christlikeness. Willingly. Or not. It’s a real struggle. But at the End, when we meet Christ–the one who frees and restores and completes and matures and glorifies his children, without the deception and seduction of the fallen world, flesh, or devil to trip us again, I (following Maximus) expect that grace will adorn our natural will with perfect loving surrender to perfect divine Love forever.

    This, then, is the “freed will” response to the “free will” defense of eternal hell.

    We hope that our articles and resources bring comfort, hope, encouragement, and healing to our readers. If you’re experiencing that, please subscribe freely, share freely, and, if you’re able, please consider donating freely toward paying it forward by clicking the blue giving at the top of your screen.