Why did God give us free will?

Thus the tree of knowledge of good and evil was no arbitrary or cruel test applied to an unsuspecting, guileless being. It was absolutely essential, if man was to be man in any true sense of the word. He was to be bound to God, not by the rigid links of a blind necessity over which he had no control and to which he could not say aught. He must be left to the exercise of the freedom of a will which separates him from the beasts about him. These indeed may and do act in accordance with the instincts implanted within them, may devour flesh or feed upon the herb according to their natural endowment, but they are irresponsible because devoid of that individuality and freedom of will which distinguishes man from them for, as a matter of fact, it is not merely reason which distinguishes man from the lower animals, but that moral endowment which enables him to choose, which makes him to a certain degree the master of his surroundings and of his future.

Solemn and dreadful thoughts cluster here. We may easily, especially under the leadership of "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience," ask why God has brought such creatures into being, why He has endowed man with free agency, knowing that he would abuse it and forfeit the blessing connected with it? Our one and all-sufficient answer is, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" "Hath the clay power to say to the potter, Why hast thou made me thus?" Intelligent faith is content to bow and accept absolutely what God has done as perfection. Nay, more; as we have already suggested, we can even now understand the necessity of man being what he is. We can thank God for the creation of beings whose destiny to a certain extent is in their own hands, even though the fall has come in; for this very fall has been the occasion for the establishment of a relationship in grace with the Son of God who became flesh, a relationship which does not rest upon an untried, if unfallen, creature, but upon the eternal God Himself, who has in grace linked Himself with flesh and blood; and in the perfection of a will as free as that of Adam, and yet eternally incapable of evil or disobedience, yielded Himself up without spot to God, in obedience unto death, that He might bring us to Himself, not as unwilling captives, nor in the perpetual infancy of a dwarfed humanity, but with the full intelligence which goes on developing in ever greater measure — of intelligent, moral, responsible free agents, whose joy it is to recognize their absolute de pendence upon perfect grace and almighty power; who never again will dream of a freedom apart from God, and who will sing in the joy of new creation bliss, "We know no higher liberty than that of being bound to Thee."

There is a very great distinction between man and the lower creation. The lower creation is not responsible. Their lives are purely animal, governed by instinct, and therefore without responsibility. Man, the highest creation of God on this earth, was created with a will, and therefore carrying with it responsibility, and capable of communing with his Creator. If God had created man in such wise that he were unable to depart from the path of dependence and obedience, He would have created mere automatons, will-less creatures, with no power of choice. Man so created would have been merely a superior animal with no responsibility attaching to him. We shrink from the thought of such a creation as unworthy of God, and entailing terrible loss to mankind.

The answer is plain. Because, if He would create a glorious creature — man, after His own image, and in His likeness, free to choose either good or evil, and not a creature governed by a mere chain of instinct, as the birds and beasts around him — He must leave the entrance to him of evil, a possibility, though not a necessity.

Either God must refrain, — we write the words with reverence — from creating such a being, of this high and glorious order of existence, with a free choice and will; or He must leave the question of evil a possibility to him. Alas, for the result! of which a fallen race speaks with such terrible reality. He chose the evil and refused the good; and the moment he exercised his choice he became a sinner. Man, created in the image of God, fell from that pinnacle of eminence, never to be restored to it again. Fallen Adam begets a son in his own likeness after his image (Gen. 5:3), while unfallen Adam had been created “in the likeness of God” (Gen. 5:1).

This is deeply interesting for it shows us that the Second Man was before God from the outset. The defection of the first man did not take God by surprise. When God said, "Let us make man," He knew what was involved. Man was not to be a mere machine, or unintelligent and irresponsible like the brute creation, but a moral agent capable of representing God, but capable also of rebellion against Him. As the fruit of sin man has lost control of himself and misused his dominion, but God's original thought for man is going to be realized on a vastly larger and grander scale in the Son of Man, who is the last Adam. Psalm 8 envisages this glorious prospect.

"Thou madest him a little lower than the angels, thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands." Though the complete fulfilment of this will be in the person of the last Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom Adam was, as it were, the representative (as Eve of the Church), yet it had a vary real accomplishment in Adam. How noble his origin, how wonderfully constituted, body, soul, and spirit, what a realm, was even this terrestrial one, to be set over! Creation in each part was indeed "very good." Whilst our first parents were in a state of innocence, all was harmonious. Liberty, in the true and proper sense there was, because liberty meant, not licence, not the exercise on Adam's part of a will antagonistic to God, but freedom and power to act at the same time in accordance with the suggestions of an unfallen nature, and in harmony with the Divine will. Under such circumstances constraint was unknown. Constraint is requisite to fallen beings; to those who are self-willed, and can put no proper limits to their passions. To act agreeably to his nature was to Adam unfallen, entire freedom in conformity with God's will. It was necessary, however, that the principle of obedience to his Creator should be before Adam. No obedience was then possible which implied privation. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil marked the principle, but involved no privation, inasmuch as it was the sole restriction, unnecessary to his happiness, and on the other hand destructive of it if he disobeyed; without it Adam must almost have thought himself the God of this lower world. The existence of the moral agent must be conditioned, however a higher power may act in relation to that agent, and with a view to his preservation. Innocence was an absolute safe-guard to Adam and Eve, unless on the one point of the forbidden fruit. Here only could they be tempted, or put to the test, and even here the temptation ought not to have been seductive, i.e. temptation in their case could have had only the meaning of "put to the test." There was external suggestion, but no internal proclivity towards, or tendency to, evil, at least until Eve chose to listen to the voice of the stranger. From that instant she was no doubt in danger. Opportunity to the enemy was therefore reduced to a minimum, and could thus far serve only as the simplest test of obedience, scarcely to be called a moral test to a person in a state of innocence.

Well, supposing God had left Adam without prohibition or commandment of any kind, there then would have been no sign or reminder of their relative positions; that God was Creator and to be obeyed, and that Adam was but the creature and bound to obey. The wonder is not that God put upon him one prohibition, but that He did not put many. There were many trees in the garden, and instead of with-holding the ninety-nine and giving him but one, God gave him the ninety-nine and withheld but one.

43 As regards personality, the conscious "I" is personality, though it cannot explain by reason in what it consists; but absolute dependence on God destroying personal freedom is all confusion. Dependence is equivocal. It means that I must derive existence and all here - more, have all from Him, or that I feel dependent on Him - look to Him. All this leaves out will, as contrasted with the obligation of obedience. Most of what is called personal freedom is simply sanction of sin. I ought always to obey - "Lo, I come to do thy will" was Christ's uniform and sole motive. If freedom means that God does not purpose evil or hinder good, it is quite true; but if it means a right to have a will of one's own, it is sin - atheism. A man being really set to choose between evil and good (he may be, for trial to shew him what he is) is alike horrible and absurd; because it supposes the good and evil to be outside, and himself neither. If he is one or other in disposition, the choice is there. To have a fair choice, he must be personally indifferent; but to be in a state of indifference to good and evil is perfectly horrible. If a man has an inclination, his choice is not free: a free will is rank nonsense morally; because, if he have a will, he wills something. God can will to create. But will in moral things means either self-will, which is sin (for we ought to obey); or an inclination to something, which is really a choice made as far as will goes. In truth it is never so. Man was set in good, though not externally forced to remain so. He first exercised his will - free-will, morally speaking - in eating the forbidden fruit, and was therein and thereby lost, and since then he has been inclined to evil. Dependence lies in this - that a creature must depend on God. He does so joyfully in perfect good, and on whom it comes has the claim when he knows God. Independence in will (there cannot be in fact), and disobedience, its fruit, are the condition of the old man. Dependence and obedience are the characteristics of the new man - of Christ. Save what grace works, God does leave the will free; but it tends in its nature away from God; because it is will. And the not looking to God must have an object below man. That wretched freedom man has, and perseveres in it but for grace, and resists the motives of grace, because it calls to God, to dependence and obedience of heart. And will wills itself: only one can be born of God, and have a new nature - Christ as our life, and so be a new creature.

All men speak about freewill is nonsense - free and will do not go together - there is no will till a person is decided and determined. Man is perfectly free to will, as far as constraint by another goes; in truth, as far as man's faculties go, he cannot be otherwise, i.e., it is his own will where he has one - his body, his acts may be constrained, and fear may make him will as other inclinations would not have led him, but his will as will is always his own. The moral part of the matter does not lie there, save as having one's own will is sin, i.e., determining without reference to God, instead of obeying - the claim of independency to have a right to act supremely, without reference to another having authority over us - it is what determines the will, and makes it what is called "free," i.e., our own, in which sin lies - the power of such and such things over the heart. I admit this alleged freedom, i.e., the pretension to be independent of God, to be the very principle of sin - it is rejection of God and His authority, but the ally of this is "pleasant to the eyes, good for food, a tree to be desired," etc. - confidence in God making us happy lost, and so objects desired, and then will in activity. Only, lust having thus come in when will is set right, the lusts remain as a hindrance, and power is needed to deliver. Does not this amount to the will not being a proper faculty of the soul at all? Something existing, even when inert? Will is "I" in the determination of activity - there is none when it is not determined; when choice is made, then there is will (i.e., may be), the lust or desire, which has gained the mastery over "I," leads "I" to intentional activity towards the object desired. And it is the same in God, only the objects of intentional activity are not, of course, any desire which moves Him in the object - save Christ - but the creatures of His own wisdom. He is Author from Himself.

Freedom from compulsion is of course allowed on all hands, save by infidel minds. Indifference is not truly the state of man, either natural or renewed, and indeed would mean no will: the one is inclined to evil, the other to good. Conscience is not will. It may warn, but is powerless. Grace alone acts effectually by faith.

In God only can we rightly speak of free will. He is absolutely free to do as He sees fit, and never pleases to do save what is good and holy. With the creature it is wholly different; his only place is obedience. God can create, the creature is acted on by motives. It is true that God never hindered his choosing the good, or compelled his choice of evil, any more than He made it impossible for him to fall. It is one thing to be free from external restraint, another to be free internally, which no sinner is. Man indeed never was the blank sheet which the speculative imagine: innocent, he was inclined to good; fallen, to evil. When converted and delivered in Christ, there is not only life, but power.