Free Will Across the Centuries

The relationship between humankind and God is one of the most critical discourses in the history of the world. It has been argued that both contradiction and distress have characterized the relationship. 1 For instance, man's current existence has its roots in the ‘fall' as documented in Genesis. Interestingly, inherent in this existence is man's separation from his creator. Man and the creator are separated from each other by sin and reside on either side of sin. 2 In the Judeo-Christian tradition, this barrier was occasioned by Adam’s failure to follow God’s laws. Consequently, two issues have risen from the existence of this barrier. On the one hand, man resides on a side that is removed from the source of fulfilment and goodness. This side is also laden with sin, evil and suffering. In the context of this situation, one of the most profound questions is how God, despite being both good and omnipotent, allows these issues to exist. Likewise, it is not clear how evil exists while God, who is the creator and source of everything is maximally good. On the other hand, there is lack of clarity on how human beings can be reunified with God. Specifically, the approach to breaking the barrier of sin and bridging the gap is not clear. Further, it is not clear who is responsible for carrying out this task. Numerous teachers of the Christian traditions, theologians and philosophers have sought to explore these contentious issues. Notable among these individuals include Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Friedrich Schleiermacher. A prominent component of these individuals’ take on the two issues is the concept of free will.

Introduction to Free Will

Definition

The philosophical work on free will has covered three core aspects. These are free will, determinism, and moral responsibility. Often, free will is viewed as being different from the other concepts that make up the human urgency. These include such issues as authenticity and autonomy. The nature of free will can be appreciated in numerous ways of thinking, resulting in varied views of what constitutes the ideal theory of free will. However, there is a consensus that free will is “a kind of power or ability to make decisions of the sort for which one can be morally responsible” 3 According to various philosophers, free will is necessary for a wide range of issues. These include such matters as originality, value and self-governance. There has also been dispute amongst various philosophers regarding two vital claims. Firstly, it is claimed that free will calls for ‘alternative possibilities' which entails the ability to do otherwise. The second claim is that free will requires that individuals are the ‘ultimate sources' of their free actions as well as wills to undertake free actions.

Inherent in numerous discussions on free will is the notion of moral responsibility. In the context of the discourse on free will, moral responsibility ought to be understood as a form of status that is associated with practices and/or judgements of blame and moral praise. This view of responsibility differs from the most commonly used meaning of responsibility whereby responsibilities are used synonymously with obligations. 4 Nevertheless, vital connections exist between the responsibility that pertains to blame and praise and that which pertains to obligations. Most often, however, philosophers pursuing the subject of moral responsibility and free will have been concerned with the former and not the latter.

The third concept that is of importance in the philosophical discussions of free will is determinism. Determinism can be understood as the proposition that the universe, at any given time, has only one ‘physically possible future.’ 5 In this regard, for something to be deterministic, it has to bear only one physically possible outcome. Thus, determinism refers to the characterization of what things would have to be like if they were deterministic. However, the proposition regarding the universe does not imply that the universe is deterministic in the actual sense. This is because offering a definition of determinism does not necessarily imply that the universe is deterministic. It has been argued that despite its clear definition, determinism may not necessarily apply to the current world. Nonetheless, it is inevitable for individuals to wonder whether or not the world is deterministic. Majority of philosophers and physicists reckon that it is not but acknowledge the extreme complexity of the technical issues. Interestingly, by accepting that the universe is not deterministic, issues of the compatibility of determinism and free will comes to play. 

Firstly, future physicists could conclude that the universe is indeed deterministic, differing from the current consensus. This is because it is hard to predict the future of science. Therefore, it might be critical to have an answer to this question before the future scientific issues are resolved. Secondly, even if it is true that indeed the universe is not fully deterministic, determinism cannot be overstated, particularly locally. Thirdly, individuals could be interested in whether or not there is compatibility between free will and the broad scientific picture of the universe. For instance, since some features of the universe appear to be deterministic while others are not, the question would be whether free will is compatible with determinism. This would be taken as the first step in responding to the general inquiry into whether there is compatibility between free will and the broad scientific picture of the universe. 

Summary of Different Interpretations

Following many years of continuous philosophical debate, various positions and stances have been established regarding both the nature of free will and the existential and moral issues that are associated with it. To a large extent, this discourse has gravitated towards several interpretations of free will. These include l ibertarianism , incompatibilism, hard incompatibilism or determinism, compatibilism and agent causation. A notable issue with regard to the contemporary philosophers take on free will is whether or not free will is possible in a deterministic world. This can be termed as the compatibility issue. 6 Subsequently, ‘incompatibilists’ comprise those who reckon that free will cannot be compatible with a deterministic world. Conversely, compatibilists figure that free will is indeed compatible with a deterministic universe. It is, however, critical to know that the compatibility issue differs from the issue of whether or not free will exists. This implies that incompatibilists could maintain the stand that free will does exist or that it is lacking in particular situations. 

In the philosophical discourse on free will, libertarianism entails the view that individuals have free will, and that it is incompatible with determinism. It is important to note that libertarianism, as used in the context of free will, differs from its use in political philosophy. This distinction is important since one can be libertarian with regard to free will but without being libertarian in their political philosophy and vice versa. Any position reckoning that incompatibilism is true and that individuals lack free will can be termed as hard incompatibilism. Historically, hard incompatibilists are also considered as hard determinants. This group reckons that people lack free will due to the fact that the world is deterministic. While contemporary hard determinants are not only far between but also few, the most common phenomenon is the view that individuals lack free will irrespective of whether the world is deterministic or not, and that even though freedom might not be conceptually incompatible with determinism, the world lacks in it. 

The other angle of the compatibility discourse is compatibilism. Numerous angles of compatibilism exist. Some compatibilists emphasize the identification with an individual's values and motives while others emphasize the role of being responsive to reasons. A notable variation, in this case, is the take that there is compatibility between responsibility and determinism. This is coupled with skepticism about whether, when understood in a particular way, free will might be incompatible with determinism. This view has been termed as semi-compatibilism. 7 Other views do not fit into either compatibilism or incompatibilism. One view in this regard is revisionism. The primary idea in revisionism is that the understanding of free will and moral responsibility as embedded in commonsense ought to be revised. Consequently, a revisionist reckons that the correct account of moral responsibility and free will is likely to depart from common sense. Similar to compatibilism, hard compatibilism and libertarianism, revisionism can assume different, but more specific forms. The agent causation view is not easy to characterize. However, generally, agent causationists are often concerned with free will’s origination component. Thus, this group reckons that agents are responsible for their actions and this takes a form that is different from the normal event-event causation. Generally, causationists reckon that agents are exempted from conventional causal processes.

Augustine

The Problem of Evil

Earlier in his life, Augustine approached the problem of evil from a Neo-Platonist perspective. Consequently, he reckoned that evil entails a lack of goodness and that it is a reality whose account cannot be attributed to God, but rather the presence of free will amongst human beings. Nevertheless, later, Augustine explored the issue of reunification of humankind and God in what was termed as the Pelagian controversy. 8 9 Augustine insisted that God’s grace was the source of salvation. Eventually, Augustine adopted the term ‘predestination’ in a bid to describe the act of delivering man from his plight. 10 In contrast, his opponents reckoned that the free will that Augustine had championed earlier was the cornerstone of the world’s salvation. Augustine is recognized as the most influential and respectable thinkers of all time. However, many people have failed to understand how and intelligent person could argue so strongly in support of such dissimilar concepts as predestination and free will. 

To the critics, the two concepts ought to be appreciated as being mutually exclusive. This is because when an individual is predestined, his or her free will is likely to be rendered illusory or trivial. As a result, Augustine’s followers have argued that there were two versions of Augustine. The first Augustine was the teacher who proclaimed the freedom of the will, and the second Augustine who was a defender of Predestination and Doctor of Grace. 11 Nevertheless, on considering his thoughts in De Civitate Dei , the Enchiridion, and De Libero Arbitrio, it is clear that his answers to the source of reunification and the problem of evil are non-contradictory. 12 Later, Augustine maintained the principle of both free will and predestinarian grace, arguing that the two work together. 13  

Augustine was fixated on the problem of evil from an early age. As captured in Confessions, the dualistic explanation for the presence of evil drove Augustine to get involved with the Manichees. The Manichees believed in a dualistic universe whereby supreme good fought supreme evil. The group also denied the existence of an all-powerful, single and beneficent God. To the Manichees, the problem of evil could not be considered a problem because evil was a crucial part of their plan. However, on getting exposed to Saint Ambrose’s teachings, Augustine pursued Neo-Platonist philosophy. Subsequently, he learned that it was possible to solve the problem of evil without supposing evil to be an independent and positive principle. Based on this, Augustine argued that the Christian God is not only benevolent but is also to blame for the evil in the world. It is thus clear that following his exposure to the Neo-Platonist philosophy, Augustine recognized that evil does not present a positive reality but instead is a deprivation of good. Specifically, “since God, the ultimate Good, is the source of being from which all else received its being, evil is simply the lack of being, just as coldness is truly a lack of heat.” 14 Further, Augustine’s De Libero Arbitrio entails a conversation between him and his friend Evodius. In the conversation, it is clear that Augustine reckons that human free will should be blamed as the source of sin. Likewise, he contends that nothing, whether less noble or nobler than a mind, can lead the mind to will evil. As a result, nothing but the will itself can be the source of evil.

People are Unable to Resist Sin

According to Augustine, human nature is so sinful that newborn babies are not only in need of salvation but are also likely to go to hell if they are not baptized. Thus, one of St. Augustine's key arguments is that human nature is sinful. In Confessions, he reckons that even the sinful nature of babies can be seen in the event that they are sharing milk. This suggests that sin is part of the God-given nature of human beings. However, Augustine did not support the notion that sin should be considered as God’s fault or a vital component of his creation. This is because doing so would be similar to suggesting that God is limited in goodness and power, which are both false according to Christian faith. As opposed to limiting God, Augustine reckoned that sin is a human fault. In this case, human beings choose to misuse their free will, putting self-love before generous love as well as falling into sin, in response to which God offers just punishment. According to Augustine, people do this both as individuals and as the whole human race.

In the absence of the original sin, free-will presents an inadequate defence of God's goodness and omnipotence, given that children are likely to suffer owing to the natural evil just as much as adults yet the punishment is not owed to their choices. Humanity’s failure to obey God has its roots in Adam’s disobedience. 15 In this case, Adam chose to put his self-love ahead of his expected generous love for God and humanity. Thus, owing to this, all humanity sinned and deserves suffering since it inherits sin from Adam and deserves no grace except through salvation following the atoning sacrifice by the Christ. Thus, drawing from the original sin, Augustine does not recognize innocent suffering. Accordingly, for salvation, partaking of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice is requisite.

Predestination

Predestination refers to an arrangement of providence in which one either acquires full membership in the church or goes to heaven. A vital question in regard to predestination is whether God decides to predestine an individual to heaven without looking at his or her merits or demerits. Nevertheless, predestination is an act of God’s grace, will and pleasure in which he chose particular people to become members of Christ. Subsequently, these people would share in his holiness, ultimately praising and glorifying him. Augustine established a necessary causal relationship between election and grace. This relation is captured in what he terms as the ‘election of grace.’ Accordingly, predestination is an act of God that takes place before time, which is the cause of all acts of grace and gifts. In this regard, predestination requires that grace is discriminating in distribution, efficacious in power, and irresistible in reception. Augustine deliberately linked predestination with grace. This was with the aim of establishing predestination as a barrier for defending God’s grace. Augustine reckons that grace is particular, free, irresistible, antecedent and efficacious. Likewise, he does not argue in support of grace directly but rather grounds it in predestination. 

Augustine contributed significantly to the Christian theology of predestination. For instance, prior, he had highlighted that human being could only be moved towards salvation by the grace of God. Subsequently, how God would choose the saved persons became a key source of contention. He also reckoned that only a few individuals were saved, and it's only God who knew those that were saved and those that were not. The Pelagians reckoned that individuals could merit salvation owing to their good deeds, which would be performed through the application of their own will. However, Augustine insisted that for a human to do good, they require the grace of God. He also emphasized that grace is a free gift that God gives without considering human merit. Therefore, according to Augustine, only God could determine those that would receive grace, which alone could allow them to go to heaven. In contrast, those that did not receive this grace would end up in hell. Thus, God influences, ahead of time, the people that will attain eternal life. He also reckoned that some believers would pass through purgatorial fire.

Thomas Aquinas

God is good and has Reason for Evil

One of the most profound concerns of humanity for centuries has been how to reconcile the belief in the existence of goodness of God with the existence of all the evils that are evident in the world. Aquinas did not recognize the problem of evil whether as construed by the ordinary people or by philosophers of religion. Accordingly, he reckoned that some basic truths regarding God could be explained purely from philosophical grounds. This included the metaphysical assumptions that provided the context for his opinions about evil. Consequently, Aquinas reckoned that God should be understood as the ultimate good. 16 Nevertheless, this does not imply that God should be viewed as boasting moral virtues as is the case for human beings. As a result, when highlighting God’s divine goodness, Aquinas does not include obligations or duties on God’s part. 

On the other hand, Aquinas reckons that there cannot be a material world such as the current one, without the interaction of material agents. In the presence of these interactions, injury to each other is inevitable. This highlights the genesis of evil. Given its adverse effects, many people reckon that God should have created a world that was free of evil. However, Aquinas reckons that such a world would not be like the current one. This is because, in a material world like the current one, some things only exist at the expense of others. Likewise, the populace is incapable of making the right choices. The evil that is done can be accounted for in the sense that it only exists because someone chooses not to act well. Thus, Aquinas does not imply that God's goodness can be defined using anything that might be treated as a moral obligation. Likewise, free will does not play a part in this. 17 God does not permit people to merely do sinful things. Rather, he causes these things to be like this as is the case for other happenings. Further, Aquinas reckoned that human freedom does not consist of acting independent of God. Accordingly, this should not be taken to mean that human acts are determined by God. Instead, it implies that God allows people to act as they do according to their understanding, and he does not interfere even in cases where they choose to be sinful.

Free will explains the Existence of Evil

According to St. Thomas, evil is not nature or essence but rather a privation of what a thing is fit to have and should have naturally. Thus, apart from acknowledging the presence of evil, St. Thomas contends that evil lacks both accidental and substantial being and only consists of privation. 18 Likewise, he contends that all things, including the ones we consider to be evil, have some good since God has endowed all beings with some good. Involuntary things, St. Thomas considered every evil a fault or a penalty. Subsequently, evil can be classified as either moral or physical. The latter takes place as a result of privation of any part that is critical to the integrity of a particular object. Examples include sickness and the lack of any particular part of the body. Moral evil, on the other hand, comprises the deviation of individual volition from the set rules of the moral order. Moral evil can be imputed to the agent not as punishment or penalty but rather as a fault. This is particularly because it is occasioned by the misuse of free will. 19

The origin and root of what is termed as sin in moral order is the act of the will. Thus, evil, whether physical or moral can be attributed to the fall of man and due to the abuse of free-will. 20 However, Aquinas contended that God permits evil, both moral and physical. This implies that evil is justifiable. The presence of evil subserves the perfection of the entire creation. This is because, in the absence of evil, the universe would be less perfect. Likewise, if an order of goodness among creatures did not exist, with some being characterized by more beauty compared to others, the universe would lose a significant amount of beauty since it would lack perfect goodness. In the same light, if evil did not exist in the world, many good things and virtues would disappear. For instance, in the physical order, the coming into being of one thing is made possible by the destruction of another. Therefore, God permits evil so as to work out his design of creation. Ultimately, it can be argued that evil aids in advancing the good.

John Calvin

God is Responsible for Evil and Suffering

Calvin believed that God is a God of providence. He also knows the present, past and the future. Likewise, God is the creator, wise governor and ruler of the entire world. Given these perspectives of God, it follows that both the pain and happiness of man are under God's control. In this regard, the interpretation of human suffering ought, to begin with, God's sovereignty. 21 Calvin sought to explain evil and pain in his various works including the Institutes of The Christian Religion. According to Calvin’s theology, God has unlimited and infinite power. In Institutes of The Christian Religion, Calvin reckons that owing to his power, God can sustain both the heaven and earth solely using his word. Likewise, due to his omnipotence, God is capable of doing all things. It is based on the omnipotence nature of God that his eternity and sovereignty can be understood. 

Therefore, even in the midst of suffering human beings should place their hope in the goodness and power of God. By recognizing God’s power, it is possible to recognize that God has destined all things for the salvation and good of man. Further, Calvin reckons that for individuals to have the right view of God, they have to discover that he is the origin and fountain of all good. Thus, God is not only good but is also omnipotent. Nevertheless, the existence of suffering and evil cannot be denied. According to Calvin, everything that takes place in the world whether good or evil, as well as all human suffering and happiness happen under God’s providence. Therefore, God does not just permit particular things to happen. Rather, it is he that ordains everything that comes to pass. 22 Since it is God that ordains everything that happens, Calvin’s doctrine of divine providence can be viewed as a source of comfort for all those in pain. 23 This is because during times of adversity believers should be comforted by the recognition that all their suffering is according to God's command and ordinance since they are under his command. Calvin's doctrine of divine providence is applicable to understanding human suffering. This is because during times of tribulation it is important to trust in a God who is in charge of everything. Thus, in his works, Calvin presents a God who rules and governs all the creation using his providence.

Predestination

Calvin reckons that predestination is God's fixed decree from before the world's creation that he would save some people freely and foreordain them to eternal life. These people comprise the ‘elect.' Conversely, he would bar the reprobate from access to salvation, sentencing them to eternal death. In this case, Calvin was careful in distinguishing the predestination of person from the corporate election of nations. Calvin reckoned that an explanation of predestination could only be complete if it includes the elections of persons. He also argued that outside of God, the election has no basis. Likewise, the salvation of the elect can only be attributed to God's decision to favor them. This attests to God's generosity, mercy and will. Likewise, the damnation of the reprobate is informed by God's decision. Since the reasons for predestination are internal to God, they are opaque to humanity. Thus, God's predestination is not only mysterious but also incomprehensible to human beings. This is in line with God's purpose in predestination, which is to inspire reverence and wonder in the believers. Also, according to Calvin, predestination is aimed at ensuring that God is glorified. While the elect praise his grace, the reprobates gloriously judge him. 24

Friedrich Schleiermacher

Kant’s influence

Kant is responsible for resolving the gridlock between the empiricists and rationalists. The philosopher proposed a new way of thinking regarding how individuals come to know things. Subsequently, he also inspired competing narratives one of which was advanced by Friedrich Schleiermacher. The rationalist postulated that knowledge is as a result of the proper use of reason while the empiricists argued that knowledge is derived solely from sense experience. Kant is responsible for redefining the terms of the debate through the assertion that people don’t conform to the objects of their perception. Instead, they conform to themselves. Also, people don’t perceive thing of and in themselves, but instead their minds shape their perception of the world and objects. Subsequently, as opposed to the known, Kant made the knower the main object of philosophical inquiry. 25 Based on this perspective, people can only know things as they appear to them, and not as they are in themselves. This can be applied to the perception of God. 

Schleiermacher negotiated Kant’s critique, redefining religion as a feeling, or the ability to sense the infinite. He reckoned that this was the best way of preserving the possibility of Christian theology. Thus, religion entails the consciousness of humanity’s absolute dependence on the infinite. Schleiermacher reckoned that it was his responsibility to stir and cultivate this consciousness in the people. He did this in on religion: speeches to its cultured despisers in which he argued that the dogmatic religious claims are not a religion at all.

Freedom

Concerning freedom, Schleiermacher attempts to defend the compatibilist version of the Kantian practical philosophy. This is driven by two issues namely how a rational principle is capable of motivating the will, and secondly, the challenge of transcendental freedom. 26 Schleiermacher recognizes that motivation entails a judgement regarding the worthiness of the desired object. 27 In this case, for a desire to be volitional or for a desire for something to move the will into action and for the action to be executed freely, the desire has to be supplement by relevant beliefs about the object of desire. Likewise, Schleiermacher reckons that for moral law to motivate the will there has to be a correlated desire or incentive to uphold the moral law. However, acting on the moral law necessitates one to recognize that acting so is superior to the non-moral alternative. Moreover, this recognition requires transcendental freedom.

Determinism

In his early writings on ethics, Schleiermacher sought to defend determinism and compatibilism against incompatibilism of such philosophers as Jacobi and Kant. 28 In doing so, he argued that he was investigating the concept of freedom and that he did not have theoretical and metaphysical proof of determinism. In Über die Freiheit, sought to reconcile the concepts of obligation and responsibility with determinism. 29 Specifically, he aimed to defend determinism from the common objection that it undermines the imputation of responsibility. According to this objection, determinism means that all actions are necessary and cannot be otherwise, while responsibility implies that an action can be otherwise. However, according to the philosopher, responsibility and determinism are compatible. 30 Also just like many compatibilists, Schleiermacher reckons that the two are not only compatible but also require each other.  

Conclusion 

Augustine reckoned that the presence of free will was the cause of evil among human beings. Therefore, he insisted that God’s grace was the only source of salvation. Also, he argued that predestination existed and described God’s act of delivering man from his plight. Lastly, he linked the principle of both free will and predestinarian grace, arguing that the two work together. Aquinas reckoned that God should be understood as the ultimate good and the source of everything. Thus, evil, whether physical or moral can be attributed to the fall of man and due to the abuse of free-will. Calvin, on the other hand reckons that since God is a God of providence, it follows that both the pain and happiness of man are under God’s control. Likewise, predestination is God’s fixed decree from before the world’s creation that he would save the elect and foreordain them to eternal life. Lastly, Schleiermacher redefined religion as a feeling, or the ability to sense the infinite, arguing that this was the best way of preserving the possibility of Christian theology. He also defended the compatibilist version of the Kantian practical philosophy and lastly, postulated that both responsibility and determinism are compatible. The current research has significantly broadened my understanding by exposing me to various schools of thought. This has not only helped me to appreciate the philosophical basis free will but also its application in the day to day life. I look forward to future research efforts that further explore this in context of the contemporary world.

Bibliography

Boer, Roland. "John Calvin and the paradox of grace." (2009).

Couenhoven, Jesse. "Augustine's rejection of the free-will defence: an overview of the late Augustine's theodicy."  Religious Studies  43, no. 3 (2007): 279-298.

Crossley Jr, John P. "The Ethical Impulse in Schleiermacher's Early Ethics."  The Journal of Religious Ethics  (1989): 5-24.

Davies, Brian.  Thomas Aquinas on God and evil . Oxford University Press, 2011.

Fiorenza, Francis Schüssler. "Transformation of the self in the thought of Friedrich Schleiermacher."  Theological Studies  70, no. 2 (2009): 501.

Fischer, John Martin, Robert Kane, Derk Pereboom, and Manuel Vargas.  Four views on free will . John Wiley & Sons, 2009.

Hagan, Anette. "Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom: Divine Providence in the Theology of Friedrich Schleiermacher."

Hoffmann, Tobias, and Cyrille Michon. "Aquinas on Free Will and Intellectual Determinism." (2017).

Mariña, Jacqueline, ed.  The Cambridge Companion to Friedrich Schleiermacher . Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Mariña, Jacqueline. "Schleiermacher on the philosopher's stone: The shaping of Schleiermacher's early ethics by the Kantian legacy."  The Journal of religion  79, no. 2 (1999): 193-215.

Maritain, Jacques. "Saint Thomas and the problem of evil." (1942).

O’Connor, Timothy. "Free will."  Free Will  1 (2005): 7-20.

Pattison, George, and Jacqueline Mariña. "The Cambridge companion to Friedrich Schleiermacher."  The Journal of Ecclesiastical History  59, no. 4 (2008): 787.

Peterson, Brandon. “Augustine: Advocate of Free Will, Defender of Predestination.” (n.d.).  

Raitt, Jill. “St Thomas Acquinas on Free Will and Predestination.” (n.d).

Rist, John M. "Augustine on free will and predestination."  The Journal of Theological Studies  (1969): 420-447.

Silva, Thiago Machado. "God and the Meaning of Human Suffering Based on Calvin's Theological Perspective: A Theodicy." (2015).

Sontag, Frederick. "Augustine's metaphysics and free will."  Harvard theological review  60, no. 3 (1967): 297-306.

Trakakis, Nick. "Does hard determinism render the problem of evil even harder?."  Ars Disputandi  6, no. 1 (2006): 239-264.