When we talk about detailed theology—not bland generalities—of Christianity like the Church Fathers, we arrive at some decisive conclusions on the freewill/determinism dilemma. I’ve solved this dilemma in a scholarly article going to publication soon, but I wanted to piecemeal it out in my blog too. For those uninitiated, Calvinism holds that humanity’s freedom to choose God is nonexistent (a form of determinism). This means that when God saves someone, He changes their nature so that they are enabled and will choose Him. Those holding that freewill exists for humans usually think that God provided a prevenient grace (a grace prior to saving grace) that allows humans to choose God, but it does not compel them to choose God.

To be clear, I think both sides are wrong even if it sounds like I am siding with those holding to freewill. My trinitarian theology precludes both based on Genesis 1:27 – 28. God makes humanity, male and female, in His image: “Let Us make . . . .” When the disciples ask Jesus to show us the Father, Jesus replies, “Have I been with you so long and you do not recognize me.” The inner life of the Trinity (John 17 really gets at this in a grand way) is one of love, joy, and freedom; recall although Jesus says He was charged to give His life by His Father, He quickly adds, no one takes His life from Him. The Trinity is an interrelationality qualified by love, joy, and freedom; humanity is made in this image—incidentally, this makes sense of God’s image entailing both male and female, and then the entire idea of a family unit.

Most of us know it already, but healthy human life is not coercive. In fact, most love that is forced is rejected, met with scorn, or the “forcer” now sits in prison. This makes sense if humans are made in the image of God, and if we are designed to represent it and respond positively to it. The takeaway is that freedom is constitutive to love. There is no fully mature love that does not entail freedom. Said differently, love without freedom, based on the Trinity, is no longer love. Our prisons are full of the truth of this claim.

This means that if humans are made in God’s image, the ability to freely choose to love God must be. The Persons of the Trinity freely choose to love One Another; God’s image bearers must be able to do the same. Love is so central to God: humans made in His image must represent this central feature. The New Testament is sometimes called the Testament of love because of the dominance and centrality of love as its major theme. God is love, as John writes. It is a sizable issue to say that God made humanity in His image, but humanity cannot love like God can love, freely and without compulsion. Obviously, our human experience teaches us that I can love like God loves, choosing who I will love freely and without compulsion. Calvinists might say that we can do that only towards other humans but not towards God. This seems so strange though; what is qualitatively and clearly a better form of love can be given only to other humans and not to God. Others might object that “the fall” eliminated human ability to choose God—I wonder where in Genesis 1 – 3 it is discussed that this is a consequence of the fall?

I’m sure there are questions swirling in your mind, but I can’t layout the whole solution here. If God is Trinity, and humans are His image bearers, then humanity must be able to freely choose to love God. The Trinity’s love is eternally a love centered on another Person of the Trinity, freely and without compulsion yet decisively “other-focused.” This means that humanity’s love must entail this ability to center its love on a Person of the Trinity if humanity will represent this central feature of God as image bearer. Notably, Genesis 9:6 reminds readers that humans are made in God’s image and therefore certain evils must be punished severely, and this is long after the so-called fall of mankind. If the image of God prevailed after the fall, then capacities proper to it retain too. This is why the whole framework of Arminianism versus Calvinism simply does not work. Both positions concede that humanity lost abilities it had presumably in the garden paradise of Eden. It is strange, isn’t it, that the garden of Eden is thought of as a paradise when we know there was a heavenly rebellion of angels going on in the background (or at the same time)? Further, how does a paradise have an option for evil (tree) and a serpent (profound evil) there to push them into taking that evil option? If this is paradise, I am not sure I like the parameters.

If God is Trinity, then humanity must have the capacity to freely love the Trinity. This is central to who God is, which means that humanity must be imbued with the ability to do this as an Image bearer. If the only love humans can give God is of the compelled type, I am shocked that humans rotting in prison are there now. If compelling others to love you is most representative of how God forces humanity to love Him, why do we imprison humans for forcing love on others? I am not misrepresenting here: I was a Calvinist for a long time. Based on that framework, humans only choose God because God first changes their nature to make it happen. Calvinists are emphatic that humans do not have choice and can do nothing else to solicit this change in nature performed by God. In short, humans are not responding to God’s overture of love; instead, God is responding to God by putting an overture of love out there but only allowing Himself the ability to respond to that overture. Many may not have studied Islam like I did in my dissertation, but the Calvinist position here is frighteningly similar to how Allah loves. The larger point, and I will close on this, if love of the compelled type is how God interacts with humanity, it is a radical departure of the love God shared eternally in the Trinity. That is a huge problem.

Dr. Scalise