This is a paper I wrote for Dr. Bruce Ware’s Systematic Theology I class.
Attempts to balance God’s sovereignty with human free will have been a source of contention in the church for centuries. Does God know the future? How does God know the future? Is God in control of human actions? Are humans free and in what sense? How does this impact moral responsibility? These are all questions to be asked. There is insight to be gained from authors the likes of Jonathan Edwards, William Lane Craig, Robert Shank, Alvin Plantinga, and John Frame. While these insights are helpful, they must agree with God’s revealed truth.
Defining the Issue
The notion of divine sovereignty, that God is completely in control of all of history, is stamped firmly on every page of the biblical narrative. From Joseph’s enslavement, to Job’s sufferings, to Israel’s exile, to the election of the saints, God’s Word should leave no doubt that He is in full control. The testimony of the church throughout the ages has been unanimous on this point. The issue then is how this can be understood while still holding human beings morally responsible for sin. What is free will and how much control does God exert? Two alternative viewpoints will be defined and discussed in the following pages, mostly stemming from the ideas of Jacob Arminius and John Calvin.
Positions
To begin, it is useful and necessary to define a few terms, as part of the disagreement seems to stem from misunderstandings of basic terms and concepts. Jonathan Edwards defines the will as, “that by which the mind chooses any thing. The faculty of the will, is that power, or principle of mind, by which it is capable of choosing: an act of the will is the same as an act of choosing or choice.” But is this will necessarily free?
Freedom is a difficult term to define. Calvinist John Frame notes that it is often “ambiguous.” On the one hand, philosophers and Arminians tend to define freedom as an ability to act without cause. They might say, “When we choose one thing we could have chosen otherwise.” This definition is useful in understanding their argument, but does it fit with Scripture? If we assume this type of freedom, are any of our moral actions truly free? Or are they instead arbitrary decisions made in a vacuum? Frame describes moral freedom as the ability “to act according to our own desires.” What Christians should affirm, Arminians and Calvinists alike, is that the desires of our heart must become the desires of God.
Arminianism. Arminians place a high value on free will. Many Arminians, such as Alvin Plantinga, have produced Free Will Defenses, in attempts to solve the Problem of Evil. It is often suggested that evil is a privation of good and a result of the abuse of free will. There is also an emphasis on the love of God toward all men (while often neglecting to deal with passages outlining God’s particular love).
As in Calvinism, there are five points or affirmations in Arminianism. The first point is that men are totally depraved. Calvinists and Arminians agree on this singular point. The second point is that men are elected based on God’s foreknowledge of their obedience. Arminians hold to an unlimited view of the atonement. Prevenient grace is the idea that God gives grace to all men that can lead to salvation if they exercise their free will and choose Him. Finally, Arminians hold that it is possible for a believer to lose their salvation, although Arminius himself may not have been certain about this view.
Support
It is useful to examine the ideas and flaws of Arminian theology in how they compare and contrast with Calvinism. Many of the flaws are rooted in philosophical presuppositions and an unbalanced theology, which places preconditions on the love of God. We will break them down one by one and use God’s word as our guide.
The Five Points of the Remonstrance
Total Depravity. While total depravity is the one point Arminians and Calvinists hold in common, it should be noted that the understandings appear to differ between the two camps. Calvinists hold that man’s depravity leaves him hopeless without God’s gracious intervention, while Arminians tend to emphasize our choice of God. This emphasis on our part in election is in tension to what the Scriptures teach.
None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
It is clear from these passages and many others that men do not seek God. The truth is in fact quite the opposite! Men’s minds are darkened as they suppress the truth that is plain to them. Nothing here indicates that men are seeking God and would freely respond to the gospel.
Election. While it is not in doubt that God knows whether we will obey Him or turn away at some point in the future, this is never the basis of our election. Election is always a free gift of God and is never based on foreseen merits. Ephesians 2:8-9 reminds us
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Salvation is not connected to our past, present, or even future works. We are saved only through faith by the gift of God.
Atonement. The nature of the atonement may be an area where the disagreeing parties could meet in the middle. Arminians here emphasize the broad scope of intent in the atonement; that the gospel is for all men. Calvinists emphasize that the atonement is particular; that is to say, the atonement is limited to the elect. It would seem that both views must be held, and a balance between John 3:16 and Romans 9 is helpful in a robust theology.
Grace. Arminians hold that there is a nonsalvific grace through which the Holy Spirit works. For example, Stephen accuses the religious leaders, in Acts 7:51, of resisting the Holy Spirit at work within them. Calvinism leaves room for this type of grace, but holds that there is also an irresistible or efficacious grace, which brings men to salvation. Without the grace of God’s effectual calling, we would remain in darkness, blinded forever by the god of this age. Again, there is room for Arminians to hold onto a notion of grace to all men, while moving to embrace a grace through which God chooses the elect, but this will require a move away from libertarianism.
Perseverance. Scripture appears to teach conflicting ideas of perseverance of the saints. On the one hand Jesus says, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out… And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.” On the other hand, Jesus teaches a parable in Matthew 13:1-9 that seems to insinuate people falling away from the faith. Arminians often leave this position in uncertainty.
Robert Shank ends his book Elect in the Son with words that send chills down the spine of Calvinists; “…we make our calling and election sure. (emphasis added)” The wording here is precisely the concern of Calvinism. Man’s role in salvation and perseverance is emphasized and God’s role is absent. It is by the grace of God and with the aid of the Holy Spirit that we persevere in our faith, not by works so no one should boast.
God’s Sovereignty vs. Libertarian Freedom
John MacArthur accuses Arminians of reinventing God in attempts to “get Him off the hook” for evil. Obviously, this is not the intention, but is this a reasonable accusation? I think it is, and I think Romans 9 clearly shows us why.
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
The Arminian argument relies heavily on God not having any role in the sins or condemnation of men, since God loves all men (cf. John 3:16). However, Romans 9 makes it clear that God’s purposes are worked out through sin and that men are still held morally responsible for their sin. This is a key passage in the debate on God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. William Lane Craig, an Arminian philosopher, writes of this passage
Paul’s answer is that God is sovereign: He can save whomever He wants, and no one can gainsay God. He has the freedom to have mercy upon whomever He wills, even upon execrable Gentiles, and no one can complain of injustice on God’s part…
Paul’s burden, then, in Romans 9 is not to narrow the scope of God’s election but to broaden it. He wants to take in all who have faith in Christ Jesus regardless of their ethnicity. Election, then, is first and foremost a corporate notion: God has chosen for Himself a people, a corporate entity, and it is up to us by our response of faith whether or not we choose to be members of that corporate group destined to salvation.
Of course, given God’s total providence over the affairs of men, this is not the whole story.
It is interesting to note here that Craig grants that God has “total providence over the affairs of men,” right after saying “it is up to us by our response of faith whether or not we choose to be members…” These two positions appear radically inconsistent! If God has “total providence over the affairs of men,” then our “response of faith” is only an outworking of God’s providential will! It is by this response that we know that God has declared us a vessel for honorable use and not a vessel for dishonorable use.
What then of these vessels of wrath? Are we to assume as Craig does that, “Paul’s burden, then, in Romans 9 is not to narrow the scope of God’s election but to broaden it” ? Absolutely not! The early focus of this passage is not the vessels of mercy, but God’s freedom to choose some as vessels of wrath (e.g. Pharaoh), and still be glorious! Although the emphasis turns to God choosing a people for Himself, it is based in His prerogative to choose the individuals who make up that people and not choose certain others.
What does it mean when we affirm that God is sovereign? How does this affect human freedom and responsibility. In Isaiah 46 God speaks of His sovereignty
Remember this and stand firm… remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other… declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it (emphasis added).
All God’s purposes for all of time will be accomplished, for He has declared “the end from the beginning.” For His purposes for all of human history to be fulfilled, it is doubtless that many human decisions will be under His guidance. Knowing that God knows all of His purposes and is omniscient, it is safe to say that His purposes encompass every individual human decision that will ever be made. From Joseph being sold into slavery, to Pharaoh’s heart being hardened, to Judas’ betrayal of Christ, to Peter’s three denials, God is actively involved in causing and predicting these actions. In the face of a truly sovereign God, any notion of libertarian freedom evaporates.
Slaves and Freedom
Ultimately, our understanding of freedom must be radically different from the libertarian view to align with Scripture. The Bible never once addresses human freedom without that freedom being tied to obedience, which is ultimately in Christ. Paul, preaching to the Jews in Antioch says of Christ,
Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.
In sharp contrast, we know that we are slaves to sin, until we are set free by Christ. Paul makes a complete case for this understanding in Romans 6.
We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin… Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness… For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness… But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.
Paul lays out two alternatives. We are either slaves to sin or slaves to a righteousness, which comes from God, through Christ Jesus. Whether we are enslaved to sin or righteousness, we are still not free (in the libertarian sense)! Either our sinful nature, or the Holy Spirit ultimately binds our will. With a full understanding of what it means to be a slave to righteousness, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude each address epistles from willing slaves of Christ (cf. Romans 1:1, Galatians 1:10, Philippians 1:1, Titus 1:1, 2 Pet. 1:1, James 1:1, Jude 1:1).
Objections
An Arminian might counter that we are not truly free creatures and cannot be held accountable for moral actions since they are not free. This would again be directly tied to a faulty definition of freedom. If biblical freedom is libertarian, then there is ground for this allegation. The difficulty is that libertarian freedom emphasizes the freedom of man, but detracts from the freedom of God. If we follow libertarian freedom out to its logical conclusion, we wind up with Open Theism and a denial of the exhaustive foreknowledge and foreordination of God.
God anticipates this response by asking, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” God knows that men will argue that if they can’t resist His will then He shouldn’t find fault with them. So not only does God create some as vessels of wrath and do what He wills with them, He expects the exact reply that advocates of Arminianism give! What is God’s response to the Arminian objection?
But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
God’s response is that He does as He wills and man is not in a position to question Him! He reminds us that He is the potter, we are lowly clay, and clay does not determine how the potter chooses to use it.
Arminians may also assert that God is guilty of sin in the Calvinist’s view, but clearly this cannot be the case. Here we must distinguish between “hard” and “soft” determinism. Arminians here are accusing Calvinists of “hard” determinism, which is the polar opposite of libertarianism. In “hard” determinism, God determines everything in a way that leaves no room for any free will. On the other hand, “soft” determinism allows for a type of free will and moral responsibility that are compatible with God’s sovereignty. This is termed “compatibilism” and asserts that while God is completely sovereign, has exhaustive foreknowledge and is the primary cause of all existence and action, men still make decisions that are free in some sense and will be judged by God on the basis of these actions.
We see this in the case of Pharaoh hardening his heart and his heart being hardened in parallel passages. These passages never assert that Pharaoh is not responsible for his actions even though God has played a part in using His hard heart. The emphasis is, of course, on God’s ability to vindicate Himself and display His glory in rescuing His chosen people, Israel. While Arminians may not willingly embrace compatibilism, it is the only biblical option once we understand the apparent limitations to mankind’s freedom.
Freedom is the ability to act based on our desires. We do not act apart from doing what our hearts desire. As believers we have been given a new heart and the Holy Spirit who gives us new desires and the freedom to act in accordance with desires for holiness. God is sovereign over every human action, and His will is done in a way that does not remove our moral responsibility. God’s sovereignty and human freedom are compatible once we properly define the extent of each.
Footnotes (number references aren’t showing up unfortunately, but you at least get the material I’m referencing):
Jonathan Edwards. Freedom of the Will, (New York: Cosimo Books, 1845), 1.
Frame, John M. “Free Will and Moral Response.” [on-line], accessed 30 October, 2008,
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1993FreeWill.htm; Internet.
Bruce Ware’s definition of Libertarian Freedom in response to a question in class
Frame, John M. “Determinism, Chance and Freedom.” In IVP Dictionary of Apologetics, [on-line], accessed 30 October, 2008, http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2005Determinism.htm; Internet.
Romans 3:10-12 cf. Psalm 14:1-3
Romans 1:18-23
John 6:37, 39 cf. John 10:28
Robert Shank, Elect in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Election, (Bloomington: Bethany House Publishers, 1970), 218.
John MacArthur. “Problem of Evil Part 2.” Renewing Your Mind Podcast. 20 August, 2008.
Romans 9:14-18
William Lane Craig. “Molinism and Romans 9.” [on-line], accessed 30 October, 2008, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6675; Internet.
Ibid
Isaiah 46:8-11
Acts 13:38
Romans 6:6-7, 16-18, 20, 22
Gk. doulo~, ‘slave’ or ‘bondservant’
Bruce Ware, God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 20000, 36.
Romans 9:19
Romans 9:20-24
Frame, Determinism, Chance and Freedom.
