LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND MAN’S FREE WILL

A PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. JOHN F. JONES

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE COURSE THEO 525

LIBERTY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

BY

DAVID W. RHODES

LIBERTY ID L22933379

FLORENCE, SC

Sunday, October 11, 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

DEFINING DETERMINISM AND INDETERMINISM-------------------------------------------- 2

CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

A HARMONIZED SOLUTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

CONCLUSION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14

BIBLIOGRAPHY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

INTRODUCTION

The Scriptures teach us that God is absolutely sovereign. As the Almighty God, He rules

the world. He is the King of kings, the Lord of lords, the Most High God. To Him belongs all

power and all authority to do what He pleases in heaven above and in the earth beneath. This

world and all that is within it is His world. Yet, in spite of this, one of the longest running

theological debates takes form between God's sovereignty and man's free will. This has perhaps

been the most persistent dispute in the entire history of the church. This issue is accurately and

succinctly summarized by D. A. Carson when he said; "If God is absolutely sovereign, in what

sense can we meaningfully speak of human choice, of human will?... Must God be reduced to

accommodate the freedom of human choice? Does significant human responsibility so lean on

power to the contrary that God becomes contingent?"1 The issues at stake for all Christian’s are

as broad as one's "theological understanding, evangelistic practices, and ecclesiastical methods."2

We must then, establish a clear and meaningful understanding of how the entire issue is essential

to one's faith. We will study and examine the various positions of the philosophical and

theological evidence available with the argument that compatibilism is the position which can

best be harmonized with the information available to us today.

1 D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1981), 2.

2 Ibid., 222.1

DEFINING DETERMINISM AND INDETERMINISM

There are three basic positions concerning human choices: determinism, indeterminism

and self determination. When studying sovereignty and human freedom, the debate and

discussion of determinism and indeterminism enters at the very beginning. It is essential to have

a fundamental understanding of these terms is to be able to analyze more specific debates and

positions going forward. Each of these terms should be studied in the broadest sense as the

variations that exist within each of these two systems can lead to unnecessary complexity and

added confusion.

Determinism has been defined as "the belief that all human actions are the result of

antecedent factors or causes. Naturalistic determinist such as Thomas Hobbs and B.F. Skinner,

argue that human behavior can be fully explained in terms of natural causes. Theistic

determinists, such as Martin Luther and Jonathon Edwards, trace human actions back to God’s

controlling hand."3 Indeterminism, on the other hand, provides a view that human behavior is

totally uncaused, with no antecedent or simultaneous cause of man’s actions. This principle

concludes that all of man’s acts are uncaused and that any human act could have ended in any

fashion.4 More specifically, it can be defined as "the theory that some events are not

determined."5

3 Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2001), 467.

4 Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 468.

5 Joel Feinberg, Reason & Responsibility (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1989), 343.

2

When studying the history of philosophy, two ancient thinkers, Democritus and Epicurus

proposed their versions of determinism and indeterminism. Democritus held the position that

every event occurred as the consequence of the "purposeless interaction between mindless,

material atoms."6 Although, for Democritus, the collision of atoms occur without plan or design,

the motion and subsequent change in motion following collision are determined by what has

happened previously. While Democritus was not the first to propose atomic theory, he did

provide a more systematic and elaborate view than his predecessors.7

Epicurus whole-heartedly supported Democritus’ atomism theory, but sought to preserve

basic human freedom by taking away the condition of causation. This was accomplished by

introducing a tiny sphere of independence for man that he called an uncaused swerve in the

atoms. In this way Epicurus asserted perhaps the first description of an undetermined event

which has made its way into the annals of philosophy as the beginning of indeterminism.8 The

conclusion from this view is that both human and nonhuman events are completely uncaused.

There are several problems with the concept of indeterminism. One of the more severe

issues is that it unreasonably denies the principle that every event has a cause. Just because we

do not know what causes an event, is not proof in itself that something was not involved in the

actual event?9 Fundamentally, the presumptive theory behind indeterminism is the belief that free

will and determinism is logically incompatible. This view is also referred to as incompatibilism,

6 Ronald H. Nash, Life's Ultimate Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 327.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 469.3

which makes any kind of human freedom impossible.10 Another way of looking at this is to say

that the concept of determinism is outright rejected in favor of indeterminism to provide a more

favorable concept of human freedom. For Christian’s, the concept of indeterminism is

completely unacceptable for either the very existence of God or any connection between God

and the universe would have to be denied if they were to agree with the theory. Rather,

Christian’s can stand firmly in opposition with the position that God created the world, sustains it

and actively intervenes in it (Matt.6:25-34; Col. 1:15-16).11

Theistic determinists view that all events are caused and determined by God, including

human behavior. Self-determinism accepts the fact that certain factors and environment often

influence one’s behavior, but they are not the determining causes. Therefore, it would be a

logical conclusion that some form of determinism is the most compatible with the biblical view

of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility.12 Determinists in general then, believe that free

will and determinism can be logically compatible. This view is often referred to as compatibilism

and it understands that human free actions and determinism can indeed be reconciled, they are

not logically inconsistent.13

CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM

10 Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger, Reason & Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 133.

11 Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 469.

12 Ibid., 470.

13 Peterson, Reason, 133.4

Among the Christian community, ongoing debates between determinists and

indeterminists and their respective views of human freedom often divides people into two camps:

Calvinists and Arminians.14 Calvinism begins with and affirms in the strongest possible terms

God's absolute sovereignty.15 God's sovereignty and human freedom are not portrayed as

mutually exclusive. God is said to have immutably decreed all things that have come or will

come to pass. According to Louis Berkhof, God's decree is founded in Divine wisdom, and is

eternal, efficacious, immutable, unconditional, universal, and permissive.16 John Calvin

provided a clear image when he wrote the following:

Indeed, Scripture, to express more plainly that nothing at all in the world is undertaken without his determination, shows that things seemingly most fortuitous are subject to him. For what can you attribute more to chance than when a branch breaking off from a tree kills a passing traveler? But the Lord speaks far differently, acknowledging that he has delivered him to the hand of the slayer [Ex. 21:13].17

Loraine Boettner provides an explanation of how this view of divine sovereignty sees God as the

controller of all things, which includes the free actions of creatures, is reconcilable for the

Calvinist:

While the act remains that of the individual, it is nevertheless due more or less to the predisposing agency and efficacy of divine power exerted in lawful ways. This may be illustrated to a certain extent in the case of a man who wishes to construct a building. He

14 Nash, Life's Ultimate Questions, 331.

15 John S. Feinberg, God, “Freedom, and Evil in Calvinist Thinking”, in The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will, eds. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), 460.

16 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1938), 102-105.

17 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1. 1.16.6, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 205.

5

decides on his plan. Then he hires carpenters, masons, plumbers, etc., to do the work. These men are not forced to do the work. No compulsion of any kind is used. The owner simply offers the necessary inducements by way of wages, working conditions, and so on, so that the men work freely and gladly. They do in detail just what he plans for them to do. His is the primary and theirs is the secondary will or cause for the construction of the building. We often direct the actions of our fellow men without infringing on their freedom or responsibility. In a similar way and to an infinitely greater degree God can direct our actions. His will for the course of events is the primary cause and man's will is the secondary cause; and the two work together in perfect harmony.18

Therefore, Calvinism's notion that God's sovereignty and man's freedom can indeed be

reconciled because God has not only chosen the ends, He has also chosen the means to the ends.

Such means include whatever circumstances and factors are necessary to convince an individual

(without constraint) that the act which God has decreed is the act that the person wants to do.19

Another view to explore is that of Arminianism, the theological stance of James Arminius

and the movement that came from him. This view is a unique form of Protestant theology in that

it teaches conditional predestination and it views the doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty as

being incompatible with human freedom. This view of the relationship between God's

providence and man's free will is based on the foreknowledge of the way in which an individual

will either accept or reject Christ is a totally free manner. This view of God's sovereignty is

"subordinate" to man's will. Any view of sovereignty that violates the Arminian's notion of free

will is impossible for those who hold to this position. Norman Geisler has modified this view by

denying that foreknowledge serves as the basis of God's decree, nevertheless affirms that "God's

18 Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932), 209.

19 John S. Feinberg, "God Ordains All Things," in Predestination and Free Will, eds. David and Randall Basinger (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 26.

6

predetermination is in accord with his foreknowledge."20 The resulting effect of this view is to

subordinate God's decree to man's free will. Geisler provides an explanation of this, "The answer

lies in the fact that God knows - for sure - (infallibly) precisely how everyone will use his

freedom. So, from the vantage point of His omniscience, the act is totally determined. Yet from

the standpoint of our freedom it is not determined. God knows for sure what we will freely do."21

From this we can conclude that man's actions can only be free if they are only foreknown

without being predetermined. The responsibility to obey God’s commands requires the ability to

respond to them by God’s enabling grace. Additionally, if man is not free to respond and if all of

their actions are determined by God, then God is directly responsible for evil, which is a total

contradiction of Scripture (Hab. 1:13; James 1:13-17).22

A HARMONIZED SOLUTION

While it is very probable that we as humans will never definitively solve this age old

issue, we can resolve to seek a solution that provides the greatest element of harmony. Between

the two views that have been presented, the Calvinistic view provides us with the best

opportunity for harmony within the teachings of Scripture. Understanding and defining God's

sovereign decree will assist us in better understanding this view.

20 Norman Geisler, "God Knows All Things," in Predestination and Free Will, eds. David and Randall Basinger (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 70.

21 Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free, (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 1999), 178.

22 Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 470.7

God's decree is the way He exercises control over all of His creation. From a definition

perspective, Wayne Grudem defines God's decree as ". . . the eternal plans of God whereby,

before the creation of the world, he determined to bring about everything that comes to pass."23

This theme can been seen and supported throughout Scriptures. Psalms 115:3 states that ". . . our

God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." We also see this from

Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, in Daniel 4:35 where he declares that ". . . all the inhabitants

of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and

among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest

thou?" Scripture provides us clear evidence that God has an eternal plan that will be followed to

specific details.

It is the providence of God which carries out His decree. God's providence is the "the

continuing action of God in preserving his creation and guiding it toward his intended purposes."

Beyond God’s original work with creation, His providence is the ongoing relationship to it. This

providence is the continuous action of God to preserve His creation through daily interaction and

to guide and direct man to His intended purpose.24 We find compelling Biblical support with one

of the most comprehensive statements of God's sovereign decree worked out in providence in

Ephesians 1:11, which reads ". . . we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according

to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:" In this verse we

see both the "purpose," God's sovereign decree, and the providence, "worketh all things after the

counsel of his own will." God has an eternal purpose which he works out in His time. Everything

23Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 332.

24 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI:Baker Books, 2003), 412-413.

8

that happens was both planned in eternity and is worked out in His perfect timing and nothing

outside of God's purposeful providence ever occurs.

With God's sovereignty soundly established, the issue of man’s free will is immediately

brought into question. The Calvinist position on God's decree and providence is often argued to

be inconsistent with the free will of man.25 For if God exercises providential control over all

events how then is man really free? Answer to this question is often centered on how one defines

the word “free”. Calvinist theologians like Louis Berkhof and John Calvin have used the word

"free" to describe the acts and choices of man. There are no Scriptures that suggest that man is

"free" in the sense of being outside of God's control. Nor does Scripture affirm our ability to

make choices that are not caused by anything.26 The Calvinist position has consistently held that

man does have free will and do indeed commit "free" acts. God allows these actions by man to

bring glory to God alone and so that history might achieve the end which are nonetheless a part

of the overall purpose of God.27 This view continues to be consistent with the overall teaching of

Scripture. We find in Acts 2:23 that Christ was ". . . delivered by the determinate counsel and

foreknowledge of God," but it also declares "ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified

and slain." We clearly see the tension between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility

highlighted. The actions of man are seen as both "free" and having moral consequences.

25 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1986), 545.

26 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 330-331.

27 Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 202.9

A resolution to this problem seems to be in how we define a “free” choice. Some have

defined man's freedom in making choices as "free from previous determining causation."28 This

view is the libertarian or incompatibilist view of freedom in philosophical terms. This is to be

contrasted with the Calvinist view which is known in philosophical terms as compatibilism. 29

Compatibilism assumes a deterministic view of the universe with God in control of all things.

Determinism states "that no finite events can happen purely by chance, but that all events are

causally determined in their nature and action by previous states of affairs - that there are no

uncaused events in the world."30 The above definition of determinism best represents both the

Biblical and observable evidence and therefore, however we define the "free” in “free will," one

must not mean that it happens without a cause or for no reason.

While Calvinist’s affirm the definition of "free will" which corresponds best with

determinism, they nevertheless declare that man is responsible. To say that man is responsible is

to say he is answerable to God as the judge of his actions. Our moral responsibility to God is

based upon the fact that, as our Creator, He has the right to call our actions to judgment. Our

responsibility, therefore, is not contingent upon our "free will" as the Arminians define it. Our

responsibility is based upon the sovereign rights of our Creator to call us to account for our

actions.31

28 R. K. McGregor Wright, No Place for Sovereignty, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 44.

29 Nash, Life's Ultimate Question, 327-329.

30 Wright, No Place for Sovereignty, 44.

31 Ibid., 56.10

Two specific objections may be raised against the Calvinist view. The first objection is

that the doctrine of Divine sovereignty is fatalism, also referred to as “hard determinism”. This

is the belief "that all events come to pass through the working of a blind, unintelligent,

impersonal, non-moral force which cannot be distinguished from physical necessity, and which

carries us helplessly within its grasp as a mighty river carries a piece of wood."32 In response to

this, Calvinism proclaims "that events come to pass because an infinitely wise, powerful, and

holy God has so appointed them." The difference between these two is the difference between

night and day. The only thing held in common between these two views is that both assume the

absolute certainty of all future events.33 Fatalism provides a view of the world where the universe

is a machine and human beings as robots with no motivation for moral accountability.34 Opposite

to the mechanistic view, Calvinism affirms that all events are worked out by a personal God who

interacts with personal creatures. Our choices are made as real persons and they are "real

choices." Our eternal destiny is dependent upon whether we believe and repent or not. 35

Therefore the Calvinist view not only is not fatalistic, "it is its absolute opposite and only

alternative."36

32 Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 205.

33 Ibid.

34 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 674.

35 Ibid.

36 Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 207. 11

A second and more problematic question that is often raised is "If God is good and

sovereign, how can evil exist and thus making God the author of evil?" Erickson provides us

with three potential solutions.

First, there is the rejecting of God’s omnipotence, which falls under a view called

finitism and suggests that rather than God being the all powerful being that accounts for and will

overcome evil; God is limited in knowledge and power against evil. Erickson points out that such

a view shows us why there is evil, but it fails to show how to overcome evil. He also goes onto

to state that this view does not give us any assurance for the future outcome.37

Second, there is the solution of modifying the concept of God’s goodness. This view

show us that everything God determines is good; God determines everything and that man’s will

is not free and therefore what man calls evil is actually good. That which is good is such as

determined by God, not man.38

Third, we have the solution to fundamentally reject the reality of evil, eliminating the

concept of how evil can coexist with an omnipotent and good God. We can witness this view

from the teachings of Christian Science, whereby this solution states that material existence is an

illusion; therefore any experience of evil in the material world is also an illusion. Evil, including

death, is simply an illusion. Erickson points out three problems with this solution: the shifting of

reality does not avert the reality; the illusion of evil must still be explained and finally the theory

simply does not work as evidenced that Christian Scientists become ill and die!39

37 Erickson, Christian Theology, 441.

38 Ibid., 444.

39 Ibid., 444-445.12

This question has been answered wrongly in one of two ways. One way is to deny God's

sovereignty by simply saying that God cannot prevent evil. The other option is to deny God's

goodness by denying God's desire to prevent evil even though He is able. Neither of these

options is viable for the Christian who desires to be Biblical for the Bible clearly teaches that

God is both sovereign and good.40

CONCLUSION

In reconciling the biblical truths of divine sovereignty and man’s free will, the Calvinist

view provides the most consistent evidence and support. The Arminian position simply cannot

be reconciled with either the testimony of Scripture or the theological evidence. This view is

unable to affirm God's sovereignty while proclaiming the freedom and responsibility of man.

Although the Calvinist view can best reconcile the doctrines of God's sovereignty and man's free

will at this time, not all questions about this issue can be definitively answered, even with all of

the knowledge and wisdom that has been given to man. Scripture clearly teaches both Divine

sovereignty and free will and perhaps there are some things in this life that God simply does not

want us to comprehend.

40 Ibid., 437. 13

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berkhof, Louis, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans PublishingCo., 1938)

Boettner, Loraine, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932)

Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1. 1.16.6, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960)

Carson, D. A., Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1981)

Elwell, Walter A., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2001)

Erickson, Millard J., Christian Theology, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI:Baker Books, 2003). 

Feinberg, Joel, Reason & Responsibility (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1989)

Feinberg, John S., "God, Freedom, and Evil in Calvinist Thinking," in The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will, eds. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995)

Feinberg, John S., "God Ordains All Things," in Predestination and Free Will, eds. David and Randall Basinger (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986)

Geisler, Norman, Chosen But Free, (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 1999),

Geisler, Norman, "God Knows All Things," in Predestination and Free Will, eds. David and Randall Basinger (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986)

Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994)

Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1986)

Nash, Ronald H., Life's Ultimate Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999)

Peterson, Michael, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach and David Basinger, Reason & Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003)

Wright, R. K. McGregor, No Place for Sovereignty (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996)