The Paradox of Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility

[Elizabeth Daniels Jn316]

Hi,

This is my first official post. I sure hope I'm doing this correctly. Please forgive me if I messed up.

Many years ago I wrote the following in response to questions regarding Calvinism. The issue came up again recently in some discussions on Facebook. And I again posted this, for which I received varied responses. In particular, some on the Arminian side feared that Calvinism might foster antinomianism or carnal living, because they believed that this doctrine denied man's moral responsibility. Others on the Calvinistic (or rather Hyper-Calvinistic) side seemed to affirm what they feared by implying that God's grace more or less excuses our sin and removes our moral culpability. I differed with both sides and took the middle ground, based on what I believe is Scriptural. What are your thoughts on this matter? What position do you take on this?

Maintaining a Balance: Divine Sovereignty & Human Responsibility

One myth regarding Calvinism is that it teaches that man has absolutely no free will. Concerning this subject, the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 states that “God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil” (ch. 9, #1-4).

As this confession explains, before Adam and Eve sinned, they were free to choose between good and evil without any bias or hindrance. However, once sin was introduced into the world, man was brought into spiritual bondage and inherited a sin nature. As such, he could not freely choose spiritual good without God’s aid and intervention. Though man had the freedom of choice, sin so inclined him to evil that he did not desire to choose what is good. Thus, contrary to some claims, Calvinists do not believe that man has absolutely no free will (properly defined). Nor do they believe that man functions like a robot. God has indeed given man the freedom to choose between right and wrong. And with that, comes moral culpability. The issue is not so much man’s freedom of choice, but rather, that his will is in bondage to sin. Though an unconverted man has the freedom to choose what is spiritually good (e.g., to believe the gospel), he will not (of his own volition) choose that, because in his natural state, he does not truly desire what is good, unless God first renews him spiritually and sets his will free from sin. That is, due to his sin nature (i.e., being guided and influenced by a spiritually darkened heart), he will choose to reject what is spiritually good (e.g. the gospel), unless God first changes his heart.

Another misconception regarding Calvinism’s position on free will is that it supposedly teaches that God forces some to get saved against their will. In reply to this, “Just as God’s providential control of all events does not, on the Calvinist view, negate the free will of human beings in general, the particular work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers doesn’t negate the free will of those individuals. Section 10.1 of the Westminster Confession, which describes the work of the Holy Spirit in converting sinners, insists that when the Spirit is ‘drawing them to Jesus Christ’ they ‘come most freely.’ The role of the Spirit is to remove the power of sin and instill new powers of belief and trust, which do inevitably result in saving faith–but this is done without violating the will’s freedom” (Forster, Greg. “5 Myths about Calvinism”; October 13, 2018). In affirmation of this, the Westminster Catechism (WCF 3.1) says, “nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes [including the human will] taken away, but rather established.”

In other words, Calvinism teaches that God first changes the heart of individuals (in regeneration) so that they are quite willing to come to God to be saved. There is no violence done to their will at all. Nor do they come reluctantly, kicking and screaming the whole way, as some wrongly suggest. On the contrary, they are eager to draw near to God because He has made them willing (Ps. 110:3). This is confirmed by the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 (3:1; 9:4). Affirming this, Scripture says that none will come to God unless He takes the first step and draws them. (John 6:44: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:65: “…No man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.”) Once God effectually calls someone to salvation, that person does not come unwillingly, resisting and fighting Him. Rather, he comes voluntarily, because God has transformed his heart and renewed his nature so that he is now inclined toward God and righteousness. In other words, “Calvinists believe that people are dead in their sin (Eph 2:1), haters of God, with no ability to seek him in their natural state (Rom 3:11; John 6:44; 1 Cor 2:14). Since this is the case, God must first regenerate them so that they can have faith. Once regenerate, people do not need to be forced to accept God, but this is a natural reaction—a willing reaction—of one who has been born again and, for the first time, recognizes the beauty of God. That is an action that they will always choose due to their new inclinations” (Patton, Michael C. “Twelve Myths About Calvinism”; 12 Myths About Calvinism September 21, 2016).

Therefore, unlike what some claim, “Calvinists do not believe that people are robots or puppets on strings...While Calvinists believe that God is ultimately in control of everything, most are compatibilists, believing that he works in and with human freedom (limited though it may be). Calvinists believe in human responsibility at the same time that they hold a high view of God’s providential sovereignty” (ibid.) This concept of God’s sovereignty coinciding with man’s responsibility/moral accountability is reflected in the verses Phil. 2:12b-13: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” The first part of this verse does not imply that man, in any way, earns his salvation, since salvation is by grace alone, but that he has a responsibility to cooperate with God 1) in his conversion by exercising the gifts of faith and repentance granted to him by God, and afterwards, 2) in sanctification by walking in obedience to His will in increasing conformity to Christ’s image. In other words, though all the credit should go to God for salvation, since it is entirely by His grace alone and completely unmerited by us, He allows us the privilege of having a small part or role in our conversion (by placing our faith in Him and repenting of our sin). This does not mean, however, that we contribute in any way to our salvation. It is just that God, in His sovereign purposes, has appointed our faith and repentance to be the means of salvation. Similarly, in progressive sanctification, God also wants us to actively participate by obeying Him as He spiritually matures us, though, again, all credit should go to God.

This duality of God’s sovereignty working together with man’s responsibility is seen throughout the Scriptures. One example is found in the story of Joseph and his brothers in the book of Genesis. Though it was part of God’s sovereign plan that Joseph’s brothers sell him into slavery in Egypt, his brothers, who, of their own free will, chose to sell him, were nonetheless responsible for their actions (Gen. 50:20). Similarly, in the account of Christ’s crucifixion, though Pilate, the Jewish leaders, and others chose to put Christ to death (thus making them accountable for their sin), that, too, was preordained by God, before the world began, for the purpose of redemption, demonstrating His sovereignty (Acts 2:23; 4:27-28).

Though this idea is paradoxical or seemingly contradictory, Calvinists believe that while God is sovereign in all things, man is still responsible for his choices and must choose to believe in the gospel and repent of his sins in order to be saved. Why? Though, admittedly, this doctrine is a mystery (much like the Trinity and dual nature of Christ) as to how both seemingly opposing views can coexist, Scripture nonetheless teaches both truths - God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility together or side by side. That is, God’s Word does not present God’s sovereignty to the exclusion of man’s responsibility, nor man’s responsibility to the exclusion of God’s sovereignty. This is very important to understand – that, again, both truths are clearly taught in the Bible and are not mutually exclusive. On one hand, God is sovereign in choosing or electing whom He will save (cf. most of Rom. 9), and yet on the other hand, man is completely accountable and responsible for believing and repenting (cf. most of Rom. 10) after God has enabled him to do so by changing his nature. Though humanly incomprehensible and offensive to many, Calvinism does not try to hide the side of God that relates to His sovereignty. Nor does it negate the clear responsibility of man to make right and moral choices, for which he will be accountable.

Because Calvinists take this position, they often find themselves caught between two extremes - Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism - where the former places too much emphasis on God’s part (His sovereignty), virtually ignoring man’s responsibility; and the latter places too much emphasis on man’s part (his responsibility), to the neglect of God’s sovereignty. In contrast, Calvinists affirm that both concepts are true and not just one or the other. Spurgeon said it this way: “If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other” (Wax, Trevin. “Embracing the Holy Tension Between God’s Sovereignty and Human Choice.” Jan. 15, 2015; www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/embracing-the-holy-tension-between-gods-sovereignty-and-human-choice/). Put another way, “That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other.” (Johnson, Philip. “Where Divine Sovereignty Meets Human Responsibility”; http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2005/12/where-divine-sovereignty-meets-human.html; Dec. 12, 2005). In the end, because the Calvinist in his finite mind cannot reconcile this paradox, he is left with no other choice but to simply put a childlike trust in God.


With love in Christ,

Elizabeth

 

[The Righterzpen]

Here's my "two cents" on the subject:

I think there are several things a lot of people miss (or are just unaware of) in terms of what "Free will" actually is and what it isn't.

Any life form (or non-carbon based entity / angel / demon etc.) that has the capacity for locomotion and the cognitive ability to make choices has a "free will"; or maybe more accurately an "independent volition".

"Independent volition" as opposed to "free will"?

An independent volition is the ability to make decisions apart from the will or desire of other entities. My cat has an independent volition. She has the capacity to disobey me. So does my son. The difference between my cat and my son obviously is being created in God's image and conscience.

"Free will" on the other hand is an independent volition that is not encumbered by a fallen nature and / or the individual's own sin. Another caveat that plays a part here too though; are entities who though they either have not sinned (obedient angels) or they are not held accountable for their transgressions (animals) both are still affected by the consequences of the fall.

Free will and the Incarnation:

So in that capacity, the only entity that ever existed on this planet who truly had a "free will" was Jesus Christ. Despite yes, Jesus's human life was affected by the consequences of the fall. The most obvious example is that his humanity was (made) subject to death; (but that was because of the redemption plan).

Because there was a Divine nature that was part of incarnate Son's existence though; this made Jesus different than Adam in that Adam never bore the capacity to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal or immortal. Adam (and Eve) were temporal entities created in the image of God. Jesus Christ was God incarnate. Adam and Eve were the reflection of God incarnate. And because they were only a temporal reflection, confined to the time they were created; this is by nature what made them corruptible in the first place.

So though Adam's "independent volition" at one point was free of sin prior to the fall; he was still subject to corruption by the knowledge of good and evil, because he wasn't God incarnate.

Interestingly though, it was specifically Adam's disobedience that brought the fall upon the rest of the cosmos, despite the fact that Adam was not the first entity to fall. Eve ate the fruit before Adam did and Lucifer fell before Eve did. So the knowledge of good and evil existed in the world before Adam transgressed. And generally we are told that pride is what caused Lucifer to fall.

Now God as an entity possesses the knowledge of good and evil; but God by nature of what God is; is not corruptible by that knowledge. Now we know God is not corruptible by that knowledge because if He was; we wouldn't be here typing about this because an evil god is not capable of creating anything. (Because a kingdom divided against itself doesn't stand.)

So there's the one caveat of this: "independent volition" as opposed to true "free will".

Covenant theology?

The other part of this (accountability for sin as opposed to redemption) has to do with the covenant.

Now here is where I may part from traditional explanations of "covenant theology"?

I see there is one covenant and the old and new testaments are two sides of the same coin. The one covenant I see as the agreement made among the members of the Godhead in regards to creation and redemption. There's the natural aspect of the creation and than there's the redemption plan concerning the creation.

The natural consequence of the fall is the "Old Testament". The only thing the law can do is condemn because sin can't withstand the holy nature of God. This is why the Old Testament (OT) was the school master to point humanity to the need for the Redeemer.

The Preacher:

Interestingly, Scripture declares that all humanity understands via nature of conscience that they are under condemnation because of their sin. They'll never admit to you that they know that, but they do. Because the heavens declare the glory of God and the creation shows forth everything needed to be known about God including the redemption plan "that they are without excuse".

Now that verse actually has an interesting duel application. Those "vessels of wrath" left to their own destruction are "without excuse"; but those who Christ has atoned for "have not been left without a witness".

Remember now, "out of the mouth of two or three witnesses let all things be established". All of humanity has at least two witnesses. One is the creation. The other is their conscience because they are created in God's image. Some of us also have the witness of revelation from God. In our current age, that revelation has been written down and canonized in the form of Scripture.

Scripture tells us that every kindred tribe tongue and nation are part of the redemption plan, just as the general cosmos is; despite there are entities in the cosmos (some men included) who will suffer condemnation for their sin.

There are individuals that Christ had atoned for who came and died in history and never heard of Jesus. There are people He atoned for who never received revelation of Scripture. All of humanity has had "a preacher". Creation, conscience and special revelation from God (what is now codified as Scripture).

The importance of Atonement:

And this is because the basis of redemption is to be atoned for. And that atoning had nothing to do with decisions or actions men engaged in. That's because those who were atoned for were elect from the foundation of the world; because Jesus was "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world". The atonement took place within earthly time; but also outside of earthly time (in our nebulous understanding of what we call "eternity").

There's an interesting passage in Revelation 11:18 It talks about God destroying those who destroy the earth. Now what's interesting about this passage is that it names 3 different "classifications" of people whom God calls His servants.

1. "the prophets" = people prior to the resurrection who were recipients of specific revelation from God; some of whom penned Scripture. (Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist etc.)

2. "the saints" = Post Pentecost born again believers on the resurrection side of the redemption plan. In the OT the atoned who died prior to the resurrection were called "the watchers" although some translations in Daniel do use the word "saint".

3. "and them that fear Thy name small and great" = all the rest of those whom Christ had paid for their sin.

These three groups of people are taken into account for by "limited atonement". Because they were predestine from the foundations of the world to be atoned for. Remember anyone who comes into the new heavens and new earth, only gets there through the blood.

And all who are atoned for are on some level recipients of some form of "awakening" that the Holy Spirit has enacted upon them throughout the course of history. They are in a different state of spiritual existence than the unregenerate. They aren't just "conscience awake" they are "spiritually alive".

Now Scripture does make a distinction of the Spirit being "with" someone or "in" someone. "With" is Old Testament. "In" is New Testament. All believers this side of Pentecost are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Are there indwelt individuals who are yet to hear the gospel? (Probably.)

But note it is the action of God who's made a given individual "alive" unto an awareness that is the product of spiritual life. And those who've been made alive respond to the gospel because the truth "clicks" with them.

The other consequence of spiritual life is obedience. At its base, knowledge of God is revealed through creation via conscience. Thus those who are recipients of what extent of Scripture they may have; are more accountable than those who have not that revelation.

Now all those who are spiritually alive; don't all have the same level of knowledge of Scripture, or the same capacity to understand it in all of its complexities. But they trust God and if they've come to the place where they've heard the truth about Christ; they recognize that. That recognition really has nothing to do with their will. It's simply an acknowledgement of truth.

None of that was the product of a "free will" because none of us have a "free will". Now we all have "independent volition"; but none of us have a will that has not been affected by both the fall as well as our own sin.

Now "default state" (those apart from the awakening instituted by God) is condemnation. For we "are all by nature children of wrath".

And here is my understanding of how the two sides of "the Covenant" (that the members of the Godhead agreed upon in eternity) plays out in the context of this created world.