How Free is Free Will?

            One of the greatest issues that all forms of theology must tackle is the possibility of the existence of free will. This should be of no surprise to the reader, as most who are have chosen to read this article are already aware of the issue of free will to some extent. If not, then I welcome you, and I shall briefly exposit the basic reasoning behind the importance of this subject, especially where and when it pertains to one’s view of theological matters. Simply put, free will seems to be a necessity when viewed from the perspective of one who believes in a merit-based system of placement in the afterlife. If one does not have free will, then whether one travels to Heaven or Hell is entirely up to the discretion of a judging party, henceforth assumed to be the Christian God as viewed by the General Church of the New Jerusalem. It would then follow that those sent to Hell—while not eternally tortured as in Catholic belief—are surely suffering a worse fate then their Heaven-bound brethren for no reason other than the decision of God. How, then, could God love all equally? It is because of this that the issue of free will has been a highly contentious point of debate amongst scholars for thousands of years.

            Those who have read True Christian Religion (hereafter to be abbreviated as “TCR”) should be acquainted with the range of sections from 463 to 502, which broadly tackle the issue of human freedom. Within this range, an explanation of the spiritual mechanics of human free will is given. Swedenborg writes that “A person's being kept in this great gap, and constantly in the middle of it, is solely for the purpose of giving him free will in spiritual matters. For this is spiritual equilibrium, since it is between heaven and hell, and so between good and evil” (477). This concept of spiritual equilibrium gives a solid explanation of human free will when viewed abstractly, but begins to need more clarification when the concerns of both God and the natural world are brought into focus.

            The first important distinction that I must make when tackling the subject of human freedom is the different between the freedom of will and the freedom of choice. As is written by Swedenborg, all humans have an equal ability to turn their will towards good or evil (and thereby be moved spiritually), but this assumes perfect conditions when making a choice. Certainly, any human in the natural world who must make a decision is not given full information of the relevant options, and therefore one’s choice must be influenced by the natural environment which one finds oneself in. A (perhaps macabre) example that is often brought up is a person’s ability to choose freely under threat of grave bodily injury or death. Certainly, the person may always choose to die instead of be coerced by the threatening party, but it is easily evident that one is more likely to choose the option which does not lead to one’s early demise when presented with the option. Therefore, while the human will is free, our choices are not equally weighted. This is a difficult situation, as the decisions one makes as well as the actions one takes must affect one spiritually. Therefore, it is not improbable to suggest that not all people have an even chance of entering Heaven. This is, of course, a by-product of evil in our world, seemingly perpetuated by humanity itself, as God is Good itself and therefore not capable of harm. This thought is, of course, dissuaded by the realization that God Himself must have created all Evil, as he is both omniscient and omnipotent, and therefore anything which exists in the natural or spiritual world does so with his permission (and must have been created by Him, as no other being could override his control).

            It is here that one enters the realm of a difficult subject: the freedom of God Himself. As has been discussed, humans are influenced by factors outside of their control, and therefore only have completely free will in the most abstract sense. As has also been discussed, God has complete control and power over everything. Therefore, God must control the factors that influence human freedom of choice. This situation grows potentially darker when combined with the topic of this section of the paper. Namely, the freedom of God. God commonly accepted to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and all-loving. These things stem from the fact that God is perfect, as is seen in the Word: “"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48 NIV) "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." (James 1:17 NIV). These two quotes establish that God is perfect, and that God always has been and always will be perfect, and is here seen to be defined as “faultless or ideal”, as is widely accepted.

            Perfection is, however, a dangerous concept. It grows most dangerous when the concept of God’s freedom of will is taken into consideration. Simply put, can a perfect being make imperfect decisions? The answer is, of course, a resounding no. Therefore, God’s decisions must be perfect by merit of Him making choosing that course of action in the first place. A being with perfect knowledge and perfect power will always know the best possible outcome, and will always be able to enforce that outcome. Because God is all-loving (and from him flows all Good), he must always choose the decision that is most Good. This does not conflict with any petty arguments about human struggle or strife, as these are temporary issues which serve a greater purpose, and therefore are outweighed by the God’s end goal. To say otherwise would be to infringe on either God’s love, knowledge, or power, all of which are necessary to the definition of the Christian God.

            It is here that I must pause to make a few concepts clear to aid in the legibility of this essay. First, there is a distinct difference between Good and Evil from the perspective of God (noted in this essay using capital letters), and good and evil from the perspective of humans. The former is a cosmic reality, while the latter is a description of something’s affect on humans in relation to their proximity with God, who is the cosmic reality known as Good. This distinction is very important, as otherwise statements like “Hell is Good, as is every other concept in existence) would seem to be oxymoronic, as Hell is well known to be the residence of those who are too evil to stay in Heaven. Similarly, all evil people are Good, but they are not good. It is also of note that I have refrained from using Evil to describe anything, because to do so would imply a being of equal power to God who is antithetical to Him, something that cannot exist when using our definition of God. Therefore, while something might be evil, it is not Evil. Similarly, I must once again reinforce the distinction between freedom of choice and freedom of will, especially as it related to God. God has the greatest possible freedom of choice, but in contrast has the least possible freedom of will; He can do anything, but what he does is predetermined by his own definition.

            This idea, that God does not have freedom of will, begins to sound very similar to deistic concepts like the “clockwork universe”, where everything is governed by laws which are predictable in every aspect. The main difference is the role that God plays in the universe. Unlike deistic beliefs, the universe is ultimately controlled by God, who is always active (and present in all things). Therefore, a more apt description of my argument might be that of a “clockwork God”. Of course, only God knows enough to predict God, but because of this knowledge he must act in the way which he predicts. This mirrors many arguments in favor of determinism, which is not surprising, given this essay’s stance on God’s freedom.

            This leads into the summary of my statements in the last few paragraphs, and perhaps the most contentious aspect of this article for some readers. I believe that this reasoning points securely towards the deterministic nature of our universe. This can be seen by the fact that all creation comes from God, and God himself is predetermined. Therefore, every aspect of the universe in, in fact, predetermined, all simply from the definition of God Himself. It can be reasoned from this that human freedom of choice is also an illusion. From the human perspective, freedom of will and choice are upheld, as no human has the ability to see divine providence, but the causal nature of one’s choices is entirely outside of one’s control, instead resting in the hands of God, who has knowledge of what will happen. One has the freedom to make a choice, but the choice that will be made is already determined.

            This idea, that human freedom of will and choice is an illusion, was referenced earlier in this paper as a concept that, if true, seemingly destroys the Christian definition of God. That statement is true, but do not overlook the use of the word “seemingly”. In reality, this can be avoided using the definitions of Good and Evil which were given earlier in this essay. Yes, God must knowingly send people to Hell, but as Hell is Good, and perfect for its purpose.

            Hell being Good is, in fact, the only response possible that preserves all of the qualities of God. It can, of course, be easily reasoned that because Hell and evil are from God, and therefore Good, but the idea that Hell is Good is far more important than a throw-away addition to my definition of Good. This notion is incredibly important because it allows for God to knowingly send humans to Hell without violating His own definition. Hell is perfect in purpose—as a place for evil people to live in the afterlife—and the people in Hell are Good and perfect insofar as they are created by God, which they must be.

            This leads to the conclusion of this essay, as well as its final arguments. People in Hell are less happy than people in Heaven, but this is because happiness is defined primarily by one’s spiritual proximity to God. The creation of Hell, and therefore the existence of humans that are sent to it, is necessary for the illusion of free choice which God bestows upon us. Yes, he could have easily created a system in which all people go to Heaven, but doing so would violate the very reason for which he creates us, to be able to choose between Heaven and Hell. When paired with the New Church understanding of the nature of Hell—namely, that Hell is not a pit of eternal torture but rather a society of evil people—this can be understood without violating the definition of God. Therefore, one must believe that the existence of God, and thereby the existence of the illusion of free will, must be necessary to create the perfect end results which God envisions. I am sure that, given the gravity of the topic of this paper, leaving it at “we do not know” might seem a bit abrupt, but there is no other solution  than the realization of the limitations of human knowledge. If we knew exactly why everything that God creates is the way that it is, we would know divine providence and thus be God Himself, something that is obviously untrue. This may seem unfair, but the human concept of fairness is itself limited by one’s understanding both Good and Truth, and it is therefore not impossible for God to create a system which seems unfair when viewed from the human perspective. In the end, faith in God is necessary to willfully achieve a heaven for the human race, as only He can know all of the variables involved.