I approach this question theologically in the first half, and then quite irreligiously in the second half.

“…before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad–in order that God’s purpose in election might stand…” – Romans 9:11

In the Christian doctrine of Predestination, God is the predeterminator of everything which happens on Earth. All our choices are but mere illusions of choice, and we are little more than puppets following a script written long before we existed. Naturally, such a belief creates a certain discomfort within us firstly because we would like to believe in a just God who gives man according to what they deserve, and because we would like to believe that all our difficult choices and decisions make some sort of a difference to our lives and that we are not powerless. However, Truth is not about what we would like to believe in, but is what is.

The Bible has much support for Predestination. In Romans 9, Paul illustrates this sovereign “election” by God in the lives of Jacob and Esau, a pair of twins who, before birth, were already “elected” by God, one to serve the other, one “loved” and the other “hated” (9.11-13, Mal 1.2,3). Paul goes on to explain that this illustrated the way salvation works through God’s mercy just as He said to Moses “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion” (9:15, Ex 33.19). This was because it is not about what a man chooses, nor about what a man does, but about what God decides (9.16,18). One may contend that God also said He “desires that all men be saved” (1 Tim 2:4) and that He does not take pleasure in seeing men perish, but is pleased when they are saved (Eze 18.23). However, just because God wishes for and is pleased by something does not mean He necessarily plans to act accordingly. Indeed, we may find pleasure in countless things, but that does not mean we intend to indulge in them all.

Predestination is also seen in other parts of Scripture. For example, in the Acts, it was recorded that “all who were appointed for eternal life believed” (13.48). In Ephesians, Paul reaffirmed the basic belief that we are saved by God’s grace through having faith Him, which he expounded at lengths in the first half of Romans. However, he clarified that this faith we have is not from ourselves but is a gift of God, so that we cannot take credit even for having so chosen to have faith (2.8-9). Indeed, Jesus said, “no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6.44), and that “all those whom the Father gives me will come to me” (John 6.37). If we ‘choose’ to believe, it may seem to us that our circumstances or faculty of reason or decision to take the plunge was what made us choose so, but in reality, it is because God has predetermined for us to believe so. Some may contend that the Father could have drawn all men and these men have the free-will whether to come to Jesus, but that is restricted by John 6.37 above, by Jesus’ own words: “many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22.14), and in the context of the other verses cited here. Indeed, others may contend that Jesus implied that all men have free-will when He said “everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life” (John 6.40) and “whosoever believe in me shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3.16), but these, in considering the context of the aforementioned verses, should be seen as descriptive rather than prescriptive, in that it describes the people who find themselves believing in Jesus (whether or not they realise that their faith in Him is a gift rather than a personal choice to their credit), rather than an open prescription to all men to exercise personal choice.

But this cannot be!, or so the expected response of the typical Christian might sound. How can this reconcile with God’s character of fairness and justice? Paul preempted this response when he wrote on in Romans: ”You will say then to me, Why does he yet find fault? For who has resisted his will?” (9.19). Paul’s response was that God is sovereign as the Creator to do whatever pleases Him, just like a potter has the power over the clay to make whatever He likes, and who are we as created men to question His will and purpose (9.20-21)? He further goes on to explain that God created all men, some as “vessels of mercy” “prepared beforehand for glory”, and some “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (9.22-24). So then, before any men were born, not having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who predetermines, God had already determined the end of all men.

Yet God is supremely fair and just, and all men, on account of their inherent sinfulness, deserve eternal death in the first place. To give us this judgement of damnation which is due is fairness (in that sense, I’m not so sure if I would like to desire God’s fairness and justice – not that what I desire should have any bearing on reality). So then, because we all deserve destruction as pottery of wrath because of Original Sin, the fact that God has chosen some of us to shed grace on and to pardon freely not because of who we are or what we can do but solely because of His own sovereign will, is a massive act of mercy. What should the criminal who is pardoned for no reason except for the State’s magnanimity say about the fact that some other criminals are still behind bars for their crimes? Nothing much but thankfulness! So far so good, and I genuinely rest my case in sincere gratefulness to God here. The rest of this article is merely for theoretical muse and entertainment, recognising that there are divine mysteries beyond which human reason alone cannot penetrate. Indeed, “the secret things belong to the LORD our God” (Deut 29.29).

————

The confounding issue arises when we consider Original Sin. If salvation itself was predetermined, then how much more all of our decisions in life (which I will attempt to explain in a while). And if all our decisions in life were predetermined, can we say then that God was the one who preordained for us to sin? Surely that is not in His character, so we have a problem to solve here – the Question of Free Will.

All our decisions in life are predetermined from the time of our birth (or earlier), influenced by the circumstances around us. So then there are two elements: the external factor which acts upon us over which we have no control, as well as the internal factor of our inner dispositions and inclinations, genetic composition, in short, our character and constitution at the point of birth – this we do not have any control over either. From these two factors, all the decisions we make in life find their source.

One might contend that these internal factors – inner dispositions, inclinations, conscience, character, capacity to reason, primordial instincts, carnal urges, genetic makeup, our entire constitution – merely influence but do not determine our choices. However, when we make a decision, we make it based on who we are. If we are wise, we make a decision on what we consider to be wise. If we are rash, we choose hastily and rashly. If we are epicurean, we pick the most pleasurable choice. Of course, these are over-simplistic categorisation because individuals are a mixture of all such dispositions, but the point is, we make decisions based on what we value (and what we value is based on our inner inclinations), using the relevant faculties we have (whether reason, or gut feeling, or carnal urges, etc) to determine which option is “best”, in that it will best reach the end we so desire based on our inner dispositions. So then, it is who we are which determines how we make all our decisions, and since we will always choose what we consider “best” according to what our inner dispositions vaue, there is ultimately always only one way in which we will choose in every decision. Indeed, even if we flippantly choose at random or with little thought (as we do for most of the thousands of decisions we make daily), this flippancy manifests an inner disposition and judgement which decides that it is “best” to not consider the decision too seriously.

Whenever we make a decision, we judge the situation with our judgement – this capacity for judgement is innate and was in us at birth, only developed as we grow. We also assess the options with our faculty of reason – this faculty of reason is innate, and is also developed as we grow. We also use all sorts of other internal decision-making mechanisms such as our personal preferences and carnal urges, what we are naturally inclined to, and our moral compass, all of which are congenital and were present at birth, but also developed with life. This should not be seen as contradicting the fact that we act based on what we were born with, because even our developed judgment was developed to its precise current state because of all the previous decisions we have made in life (e.g. to be attentive in school, to actively read books, to contemplate matters, how to learn from experiences, etc) which can ultimately be traced back to the very first decisions we ever made in life. So then, all our decisions, however determined by our changing constitution, stem from our earliest choices which was what determined how our constitution developed (together with the play of external factors beyond our control), and these first decisions were themselves determined by the all the characteristics of the individuals we were born as. All our decisions, therefore, are the direct result of who we were at birth.

If even you should after reading this decide to change your way of life and make drastic decisions which seem contrary to your usual nature, the very inclination which drives you to want such a change – to attempt to defy predestination and pursue free-will – is itself an inclination you were born with, and which predetermined that upon reading such an idea you would decide to desire and behave such. If, therefore, you should make decisions which seem like you have ”chosen” an option contrary to your character and dispositions – that very decision is in keeping with your character and dispositions.

So then, if one does not believe in a God, then the external aspect – the circumstances in our lives – are but a random chain of events outside of our control. The internal aspect – who we are born as – is not very different and may in fact, be considered to be an external aspect as well because you do not really exist – you may feel like you are a participant in this mad world, but you are merely an observer who has no real choices except to follow and act out what your composition predetermined for you to do, and you cannot change anything of that.

If one believes in divine intervention in the external aspect of the circumstances of our lives, and divine intervention in the internal aspect of who we were created to be, there is little difference except in the hope that someday, this predetermined part of life will soon come to an end, and a “true” life may begin – but that is merely speculative. The pertinent question for this life is, Where, then, is the free will of man?

If that parenthetical comment was confusing, let me return to the original plan of discussing flipside. I mentioned three “F”s — the first is freedom, the second fear, and the third favour (as the title suggests). To my mind these three concepts somehow very strongly capture the meaning of a purpose-driven life (or actually any human life for the matter). When I say something has a flipside attribute I mean to say that the same something appeals to/resonates with opposing groups of people, but can be interpreted quite differently. For instance, “freedom” can be understood to be complete anarchy and absence of all inhibition, or it can be understood to be the ability to choose — with some accompanying consequences and responsbilities. “Fear” can mean refusing to be paralysed by something (even very minor things or intangible things) that you are afraid of, or it can mean acknowledging the need to revere the transcedental. “Favour” can mean working using the wrong motivations in life, or it can refer to the secure resort of designed human nature — that of responding to incentive. The dividing line for all the three aforementioned concepts is really abuse, or exploitation. How far will we go to play deaf before we turn around to realise the choice to do the right thing was there? How much more recklessness is needed before we return to the original meaning of fear? How much more favour will we beg without giving something out of our own?