I have been involved in a couple of good discussions with my friends at World From Our Window recently concerning the way that God sovereignly interacts with the free will of man. (Let me state up front for those new to this blog that I am a non-Calvinist/non-Arminian.) I was going to comment on this post but my answer seemed to be getting too long so I decided to write a post on the matter.
As I consider the interaction of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will, I see three possible positions.
1. God sovereignly dictates every nuance of every thought, word or action of every man, rendering man as nothing more than a dangling marionette in the hands of a divine puppetmaster.
2. Man is a completely autonomous being who is free to do as he chooses without divine influence or consequence.
Most of us would agree that these are two extreme positions that have no basis in scripture. The first is so fatalistic as to remove any semblance of hope or worship. The second is little more than atheism. We must use care so as not to allow our aversion to one of the extremes drive us too close to the other.
Surely the truth must lie in a balance between the two. There is never a moment, circumstance or action in the course of man’s history in which God has not, is not or will not be sovereignly involved. The question is, “What degree of control does God exercise?”
I believe that God and God alone can answer that question.
Some have suggested that the idea of man having a free will is somehow a denial of the sovereignty of God. If it is God who created man with a free will, omnisciently knowing how man will exercise it, omnipresently influencing man to use it for God’s glory and omnipotently holding man responsible for how he exercises the free will, how is His sovereignty denied?
Some have stated that because God is sovereign, He must be in absolute control of every circumstance. To think otherwise, some say, is to leave the door open for open theism. As long as we don’t forget the omniscience and foreknowledge of God, we will never be in danger of straying into that pit of heresy.
Let us consider the weather. Some would look at storms and say that God controls the direction of every hurricane, tornado and dust devil that comes across our planet. The Bible teaches us that “God has his way in the whirlwind.” I have heard some describe a tornado as “the finger of God.” Truly there are times when you look at the path of such storms and it seems that perhaps God is personally directing the path of the twister. At other times, these storms move in a seemingly indiscriminate manner. Has God left that storm to its own devices? I think not. Such storms seem to be directed by the normal ebb and flow of atmospheric conditions. These conditions are created and sustained by God. Therefore, we can say that God is in control whether or not He chooses to directly alter the path of the storm.
My point is this. It is neither denying the sovereignty of God nor open theism to say that He creates a being or a system designed to function in a certain way and then allows that being or system to function in the way in which He designed it. If it is God who has given man the free will, then it is not usurping the sovereignty of God when man exercises it. If it is God who sovereignly holds man accountable for the use of his will, then God’s sovereignty is not eroded. In fact, I would go so far as to say, if God’s sovereignty can be usurped or eroded then He is not sovereign. If He is not sovereign, He is not God.
I am thankful that God has created man with the capacity for free will. I am also thankful that there is not one moment, circumstance or aspect of my life in which He is not sovereignly involved.
39 responses so far ↓
Don Fields // September 12, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Gordon,
I truly want to make sure we are not talking past each other. So here is what I understand you to be saying.
God in His sovereign control choose to give man a free will, but not an autonomous free will. Which means that God is still involved in “influencing” men in different ways and also able to hold them “responsible” because although He influences they are free to submit or reject that influence. Therefore God is not culpable for their decisions.
How is God in control if He can only influence? I think you would answer that God’s control is in giving us free will, which I take it to mean that now we are in control. I am not sure that sovereignty can be seen through delegation.
How can God be assured of any outcome if the final decision is still in human hands? It seems as if you are saying that God makes sure that the outcomes work out as He wants them to. But that goes back to what I said in my article, and I couldn’t find an answer in your article–does God just ordain the ends, but not the means? If so, what does that do to specific prophecy? If not, how would you explain it differently?
I am not sure I see an answer to my concern with free will if the outcomes are “closed” and not “open.” If the outcomes are settled how is man free to choose differently? If your salvation is settled, how could you choose not to be saved? If you couldn’t choose otherwise, than where is your free choice?
I would go into your discussion about God’s control of nature, but since my article had to do with man I will leave my response to that.
Palms of Victory // September 12, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Gordon,
This is an excellent statement of the issue. It is an issue that will neve be resolved by those who seek to put human reasoning into God’s word. The scriptures clearly state that man has a choice. To deny this or suggest otherwise is to deliberate try to rewrite the Word of God which is settled in heaven. Rev. 22:17 “Whosoever will let him take of the water of life freely”. This is an endless argument that will continue till the Lord returns. Thank you for your clear statement of Fact!
Daddy
gordoncloud // September 12, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Don, thanks for your reasoned and gracious comment. Some of the answers to the questions you raised are in some of the comments I have left with Ken and Mike over the last few days.
God is capable of doing much more than just influencing man. We know that from the Bible. Particularly in the OT we know that God would often sovereignly direct the affairs of an individual. He certainly is capable of doing that now, and perhaps at times He does.
His influence over the free will of man is more than a clever advertising or marketing scheme. He gives to every creature the knowledge of the godhead. He gives His word to instruct in the ways of truth. His Holy Spirit convicts men of sin, righteousness and judgement. He offers the blessings of divine fellowship to those who will walk with Him. He promises consequences for those who reject His word or resist His will.
To me, these things constitute a pretty strong involvement on the part of God in the affairs of men. BTW, I agree with you that God is not culpable for the decisions of man.
You said, How can God be assured of any outcome if the final decision is still in human hands?
God can be assured because He is omniscient. He has foreseen the choices of men before the foundations of the world. The sovereignty of God is not diminished because He allows them to make their choices. In fact, this only serves to demonstrate His sovereignty, that He foreknows what choices they will make and still allows them to make those choices.
I believe my answer to your concerns would be this. The outcomes are always determined by God. There are only two possible outcomes in life. God has ordained the consequences of both outcomes. By nature, we are already in the course of the negative. God has ordained the means of the first. It is man’s responsibility to repent and believe in order to receive the positive.
Whether or not man chooses to accept Christ, at no time is he ever not under the sovereignty of God.
Don Fields // September 12, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Daddy (sorry I don’t know your first name),
I agree that man has a choice. I agree that whosoever will can freely take of the water of life. The question is why does anyone “will” to drink? What causes a man to “will” to drink?
gordoncloud // September 12, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Don, something else we have in common is both of us have a “Ken” in our family. That was my dad, Ken Cloud.
Don Fields // September 12, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Gordon,
Thank you also for the gracious discussion.
Would you say that God elects to salvation (Eph. 1; Romans
based on His omniscient foreknowledge? If so, are you saying that God chooses a man to salvation because He knew that man would choose salvation in the future? If so, are you saying that man’s choice is the ultimate determiner–God chose me because I first chose Him?
Don Fields // September 12, 2007 at 7:05 pm
That smiley face was supposed to say Romans 8. Thanks for letting me know your father’s name.
gordoncloud // September 12, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Don, I Peter 1:2 states that we are elect according to the foreknowledge of God. I would also take Eph. 1:12 to indicate that our election is based upon our choice.
This does not make man the determining factor in election, however. God chose to give us the choice, and He chose to choose them who chose Him. He is still in control of the salvation process.
Don Fields // September 12, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Gordon,
Thanks for the interaction!
Have a great evening!
gordoncloud // September 12, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Don, it’s always a pleasure. Thanks again for you gracious spirit in this discussion.
God bless.
nephos // September 13, 2007 at 9:37 am
You guys make me sick! You can’t be this nice while having the free will/sovereignty discussion. Where’s the blood and gore? Where’s the vitriol and venom?
Light the fire. Bring on the faggots. Let’s burn an Open Theist at the stake!
(btw . . . don’t read anything into my putting free will in front of sovereignty. It’s an alphabetical order thing.)
Ken Fields // September 13, 2007 at 11:10 am
Gordon,
You said: “I Peter 1:2 states that we are elect according to the foreknowledge of God. I would also take Eph. 1:12 to indicate that our election is based upon our choice.
This does not make man the determining factor in election, however. God chose to give us the choice, and He chose to choose them who chose Him. He is still in control of the salvation process.”
So while I’m not for all the blood and gore your brother is calling for, I will ask a few questions of you!!
1) Does Scripture indicate that foreknowledge is merely and only “knowing beforehand?” Or is God’s foreknowledge an intimate knowledge, implying or acknowledging intimate involvement with and love for His creation?
2) If it is true that God elected men to salvation based totally and only upon His mere foreknowledge of their choice … how would you interpret 1 John 1:13 and Ephesians 1:11? Is the counsel of God’s will dependent upon or based upon man’s will in any way?
3) How would you explain Romans 9:15-16, 18?
“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 … So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills.”
4) How can salvation be all of God and completely by His grace if man contributes anything to his salvation ( man contributes something to his salvation if God chose to save Him based upon his foreseen choice)? Is grace unearned and unmerited favor (Ephesians 2:8-10)?
5) If God foreordained salvation for men according to their choice, then did He likewise foreordain believer’s good works after salvation according to foreknowledge of their actions (Ephesians 2:10)?
6) If God saves men based upon their choice of Him, who gets the glory for salvation … the sinner who is intelligent enough to choose correctly or God?
7) And this will be all … Do you believe man’s will is enlsaved by sin? Are there things that the natural man is incapable of doing? How would you interpret Romans 3:10-11 … is man capable of freely choosing Christ (doing good) apart from God opening his mind (2 Corinthians 4:4-6) and heart (Acts 16:14) to believe? In other words, who is the ultimate determiner in salvation, God or man? You said that God is in control “of the salvation process” … but is He in control “of the salvation act itself?”
Sorry for the lengthy questions, I’m just trying to understand where you are coming from … without all the blood and gore!!
Wes Walker (Theophilus) // September 13, 2007 at 11:42 am
I liked your ‘blood and gore’ list of questions.
I would point out, however, that if God based His foreknowledge on our Choice, then there is still occasion to boast. (ie: “I was smart enough to choose salvation, you weren’t”) God will leave no room for human self-congratulations.
“I never knew you” cannot mean that God lacked knowledge about us, therefore, it must relate to personal relationship.
I seem to remember Augustine laying out the tension between the two sides in a way that satisfied my objections:
While we are in sin, the only option really available to us is hostility to God. He, and His Law are repugnant to us, and we freely reject Him. Our minds are darkened, and we are incapable of receiving scripture.
God has to perform a sovereign work in our hearts to make us capable of understanding / receiving His Truth. “Spiritual” eyes now open, we gladly receive His grace. Rejecting Him is now a repulsive thought. Free will is still free. Nobody is forced.
The EMT applies the defibrillator, the heart starts, and lo! the patient takes a breath. He isn’t talked into it or forced to breath, it is the natural behaviour of one whose heart has begun to beat.
Wes Walker (Theophilus) // September 13, 2007 at 11:43 am
Credit where it’s due, you did mention the boasting.
Sorry.
gordoncloud // September 13, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Ken, you will have to excuse Cameron, he has always been a closet inquisitioner.
Cameron, forget the blood, gore and fire, Ken is trying to drown me.
Okay, I will try to answer these questions in the order you gave them.
1) I believe that “foreknowledge” is to “know before”. That is the literal definition of the word and I think it fits scripturally and logically within the omniscience of God.
2) As for John 1:13 and Eph. 1:11, I believe that these verses are referring to the plan, process and possibility of salvation rather than individual salvation events. By that I mean that it is by the will of God that man has the possibility to be saved, and it is God’s will that determined the means of salvation.
3) Romans 9:15-16, 18 shows that God can save who He wants and can harden who He wants. This verse clearly demonstrates His sovereignty in the salvation process. However, God’s attributes do not work contrary to one another. His sovereignty and His omniscience go hand-in-hand here. Could these verses not mean that He shows mercy on those whom He foreknew would receive Him and hardens those who He knows won’t?
These verses make reference to Pharaoh. He hardened his own heart before God on several occasions, and then God hardened his heart. In an eternal hell, Rameses must still affirm the justness and righteousness of God.
4) Salvation is entirely of God because it is God who redeems, regenerates, justifies, preserves and sanctifies (not necessarily in that order) the repentant sinner. Salvation is entirely by grace which is freely offered by God to all men.
Here is the thing, if grace were a response to man’s repentance, then one could say that man initiates salvation and has a role in it, convincing God to save him. However, I believe that God first offers grace to man (Titus 2:11) and that man’s repentance is a response to God’s grace. Therefore, it is God who initiates salvation.
Man cannot be saved apart from the grace of God. And yes, to answer your question, I do believe that grace is entirely the unmerited favor of God. I am working on a post on that topic now. (BTW, I really appreciated the way you coupled saving faith and repentance in your ordination statement.)
5) Let me point out that I believe there is a difference in foreknowledge and foreordination. The words are grammatically and theologically different.
To answer your question, I do not believe that Eph. 2:10 is based upon the will of man. Those who are in the elect are predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29), to be to the praise of the glory of his grace (Eph. 1:12) and to walk in good works (Eph. 2:10).
6) You said, If God saves men based upon their choice of Him, who gets the glory for salvation … the sinner who is intelligent enough to choose correctly or God?
I didn’t realize salvation was a matter of intelligence. (just kidding)
The answer to this question is largely a matter of how we approach it and our perception of these matters we are discussing. Let me present my approach and perception by looking at the big picture.
God creates man who sins and falls into depravity, thus putting man on a course that takes him ever farther from the fellowship with God that he so desperately needs. Every man is born in this condition with nothing but damnation as his prospect. Man can do nothing to restore that broken fellowship or to avoid his destiny.
God pays an incredible price through the death of His Son, literally reaching into the course of depravity that man is walking and freely offers saving grace to all who receive it (John 1:12). All man must do is realize that the course he is on is against God (repentance) and by faith receive the grace that God is offering him.
I do not see how this glorifies man. Try to picture this from a heavenly perspective. Every time a sinner receives this gift, this is a triumph of the grace of God. Is it any wonder that a repentant sinner sets off a heavenly celebration? I certainly do not believe they are celebrating the intelligence of the penitent. Surely they are glorifying the grace of God and the Lamb of God.
7) I do believe that the will of man is enslaved to sin. I believe that God has placed within every man the ability to repent and believe (Rom. 1). God is the determiner of the outcome of man’s choice. It is God, through His Word and by His Spirit, who draws man to salvation. Thus, God is still in control of all aspects of salvation. The only thing that man controls is his decision to meet his responsibility before God.
These have been some challenging questions and you have no need to apologize for them. I hope my answers give you a clearer understanding of my position. If they don’t, feel free to ask some more. (I’ll fire up the coffee pot, you bring the pie.)
gordoncloud // September 13, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Hi, Wes, welcome to Heavenly Heartburn. I think you posted your comments while I was composing my answers to Ken’s questions. I believe my answers would probably serve to respond to your points as well.
Thanks again for stopping by, make yourself at home.
Don Fields // September 13, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Gordon,
I was going to stay out, but a few more questions.
If every man is called and drawn by God’s grace, why do some reject and some receive? I think that is what Ken is getting at by his question concerning intelligence.
From eternity past WHY did some choose God and others reject?
Tim A. Blankenship // September 13, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Gordon,
Great article.
It is amazing how God’s sovereinty and man’s freewill always accomplish God’s will.
T.A.
gordoncloud // September 13, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Don, feel free to stay as long as you like. The water is fine.
I believe that man’s faith is a response to the word of God (Rom. 10:17). Sinful man is unaware of his sin apart from the Bible. As the word identifies his sinfulness, the Holy Spirit uses this to bring conviction. Some, in their pride, refuse to acknowledge their guilt before God and so are unrepentant. Some vainly believe that they can be good enough earn salvation. I have known some who were so overwhelmed with guilt that they had to be convinced that God WOULD save them. Some, change their mind about their own self-rightousness and repent.
I suppose, having said that, that I should stipulate that I believe the intellect of man is involved. But I don’t know that I would go so far as to say that only those of a certain level of intelligence will accept Christ.
Bro. T.A., thanks for the encouragement, my friend. God’s omniscience is amazing isn’t it?
Wes Walker (Theophilus) // September 13, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I still haven’t heard your explanation of how someone can respond to God’s word (ie: Gospel) without a prior quickening of the heart by God.
We are hostile to His word, and unable to make sense of it with our carnal mind.
The chief problem with sinners is not that they’re unable to respond because they’re sinful, they are DEAD. (I know, again with the EMT reference)
Also, what is there that requires Sovereignty and Free will to be at odds (see my previous post).
Gordon Cloud // September 13, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Wes, I know you quoted Augustine, but can you show me some scripture that states that God must quicken a sinner’s heart before they can receive the word?
Steve Sensenig // September 14, 2007 at 10:09 am
Wow, Gordon. Stirring things up a bit, huh? Too bad I’ve been so behind on my blog reading that I haven’t gotten to join the fun.
Let me just say that the whole “if man plays any part in it, man gets the glory” is a serious red herring.
If I tell someone that I am going to pay off all their debts and give them a million dollars on top of it, and all they need to do is come to the bank and sign a paper, do they get any of the “glory” for coming to the bank and signing the paper?
Of course not. Do they then go around and tell their friends that they managed to pay off all their debts and make a million dollars because of something they did?
Absolutely not.
Likewise, it is ludicrous to assert that, if it is true that man has the responsibility and the ability to actually respond to God’s call to repentance and offer of salvation, that man “gets the glory”.
gordoncloud // September 14, 2007 at 11:39 am
That’s a great point, Steve. I agree with you completely. Tell Christy and Dylan I said hello. It’s always good to have you stop by.
Wes Walker (Theophilus) // September 15, 2007 at 12:01 am
Romans 8.7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Steve,
Before you agree that it is ludicrous, consider if:
Not ONE man, but TWO have self-same debt and opportunity.
One man accepts it, other man dismisses the opportunity. This ‘ occasion for boasting’ is sadly seen all too often in the Body, namely, Phariseeism. “Lord, I thank you that I am not like THAT man…”
You may see it differently, but I see that as a natural (if eventual) progression from the Arminian philosophy.
I owe even my “yes” to him, as the Author and Finisher of my faith.
Wes Walker (Theophilus) // September 15, 2007 at 12:07 am
As for the Romans 9:14-26, passage, what objection was Paul anticipating with v.19-21 if not the Arminian objection of ‘a just God would do no such thing’.
He was setting up and knocking down objections (as he did earlier in ch.6:1,2 or 6:15).
If it was not in anticipation of / response to the “it’s not fair!”, what WAS his point, in your understanding?
gordoncloud // September 15, 2007 at 11:52 am
Wes, Rom. 8:7 is the description of the unrepentant mind. This is why it is necessary for one to change their mind toward God. This verse does not state that it is necessary for God to quicken one’s heart.
As for Rom. 9, his point is that God is God and He can do anything He wants to do. All men are by default “vessels of dishonor”. As I said in an earlier comment, He chooses to choose those who choose Him, thus making them “vessels of honor”. God is still sovereign in the salvation process.
On another note, Brother, let me say this as kindly as possible. I stated in the first part of my original post that I am not an Arminian. While my position may have some points in common with Arminiasm, there are many points of Arminianism with which I disagree. The same could be said of my theology and Calvinism. You seem intent on framing this discussion in a Calvinism vs Arminianism context. I will be happy to discuss my personal theology with you, but I will not if you are going to characterize my position as being something that it is not. I do not mean this in a harsh way, I just want to make sure that we can discuss our belief on the basis of its own merit and not have superfluous baggage attached to it.
God bless.
Wes Walker (Theophilus) // September 15, 2007 at 9:08 pm
I did not intend to mischaracterize your position. I don’t pretend to be a theologian, and I will sometimes misapply a term. Also, lacking a formal title for “not-Calvinism”, I defaulted to the usual (it is supposed) antonym. The question was there for anyone to address, not specifically directed to you.
I apologize if I caused offense, it comes of my inexpert speaking, not of malice.
The tone of my conversation is intended to be, well, conversational.
Back on topic:
The passage in Acts 16:14 appears to suggest that God facilitated Lydia’s belief.
As to inability to understand, even the Gospel, without divine aid:
1) 1 Cor 2:14.
2) 1 Cor 1:18
(Taken together, these would appear to indicate that even the Gospel requires the Spirit to assist in comprehension / acceptance. This is how I intend “quickening” one’s heart.)
gordoncloud // September 16, 2007 at 8:13 am
Bro. Wes, I appreciate your gracious response. Please be assured that no offense is taken. I only have a brief moment at this time, so I cannot give a full response to your last comment right now, but I will get back to you ASAP.
God bless and have a great Sunday.
gordoncloud // September 17, 2007 at 10:35 am
Hi, Wes, hope you had a great weekend.
I wanted to try to respond to your last comment as I had promised.
In Acts 16:14, Lydia is described as being one who was a worshipper of God before her heart was opened. In other words, she was already a seeker of God’s truth. I believe this verse reveals the fact that as we respond to the light that God has already given us, He gives us more light, continually drawing us to Himself.
I believe that I Cor. 1:18 refers to those who do not receive the gospel by faith. These are the ones who perish. Without believing, they will never understand the power of the cross.
Likewise with I Cor. 2:14, (which I believe is speaking of the mysteries of His wisdom), only a believer has the ability to understand the truth of God’s wisdom. Incidentally, if you are going to make I Cor. 2:14 about salvation, it is going to cause a conflict with some of your earlier statements. In its context, the truth that is revealed by the Spirit is for our glory (v 7. As you have already stated (and I agree with you) salvation is for the glory of God. So this verse obviously has to be referring to something other than salvation.
I find it helpful to compare these verses with the first few verses of Heb. 11.
God bless.
Wes // September 19, 2007 at 1:02 am
I thank you for your considered response to this post. (I had used these verses, poorly I admit, because the verse I was trying to remember kept eluding me.)
I won’t keep ‘chasing this rabbit’ beyond this reply because the blog has moved onto other topics, and I respect that. If this topic resurfaces, perhaps we could later explore other facets.
I would say, however, that glory conferred BY God to men differs significantly from glory seized by man without regard for God or His grace.
Also, your rendering of Romans, while intersting, still does not address certain key objections I have.
As a little about myself, if it helps:
I have been a Christian since childhood, but have only in the last few years recognized my understanding of scripture to have more in common with those who would identify themselves with the term ‘Reform’.
I was raised among people with a strong inclination towards Arminianism (whether they recognized it or not), and have found the ‘Calvinist’ explanations, so far, to be more readily reconciled with scripture.
I still don’t have all the answers, and would ultimately rather agree with the Bible than with an established orthodoxy, if there is a discrepancy.
gordoncloud // September 19, 2007 at 6:11 am
Wes, I appreciate your desire for truth and especially your recognition of the Bible as being superior to established orthodoxy.
Please feel free to comment here at any time. There is always room at HH for those who love the truth, even if we may not see eye-to-eye on just what that truth is.
God bless.
Kc // September 19, 2007 at 7:46 am
Preacher I too am sorry I missed out on this discussion and while I’m thankful for the civil tone offered by all involved I agree with Cameron and miss the blood and gore (hehe). Great discussion!
Pastor Tony // November 26, 2007 at 4:04 pm
How about this….
We believe that Jesus is 100% divine and 100% human all at the same time. It’s illogical to believe this. But because it’s in the Bible, we accept it.
We believe that one God has revealed Himself to us in three Persons. It’s illogical to believe this. But because it’s in the Bible, we accept it.
So why can’t we believe that salvation is 100% dependent upon God’s election and 100% dependent upon man’s free will to choose. It may be illogical to do so, but the Bible bears both of these doctrines out.
Tua // November 30, 2007 at 6:47 pm
I think that arguments and definitions on the qualities of god and this and that about the gospel is good in that it makes us think about God and his plans for our lives. God has always been mysterious through the ages but were finite beings he is infinite so don’t expect to know all about him with our limited minds. He made himself known in his word but that does not mean men can crasp all of him. I don’t believe God intended the understanding of his word to be so complicated. I am troubled by how arguments can lead to a debate on who is smarter or who knows Gods Word better, predestination, election,
sovereignty,inclusivism, and on and on. How about some good old common sense. I think God deals with us in many ways in how we deal with our oun decisions. Nothing comes about in our own lives without making a decision on simple and not so simple matters. Then why complicate God and his simple words. Believe and you shall be saved. Believe is you making a decision, by faith ye are saved. you have to believe in something to have faith in it or not. D id God give adam and eve a choice or not? Who made a decision to disobey? I am not a theologian but it seems to me that God in his infinite wisdom made it as simple as he could for us to understand what we needed to do to gain salvation. Sometimes these kinds of arguments misses the simplicity of Gods messege to man. Did not God die for all men, does he force his will on us. He came not save the rightous but the sinner who is all of us. Is that so hard to understand? let the theologians argue about their knowledge of God Thats what they like to do, just like how the Pharasees did with Jesus. There are those who live to make a point in my opinion they make the simple and wonderful messege of Gods Grace so unnecessarily complicated with all their so called knowledge of God. God wants us to just love him as he has loved us while we were yet sinners. Is that so hard to understand? I don’t believe that God game to save only some. Why would anyone want to love such a God. But that is not the God I know, the God I know loves me and the whole of his creation and he couldn’t have said it any plainer. Forgive them for they know not what they do, love your enemy’s, thats the God I love and that is the man JESUS.
Tua
Harold Brown // November 25, 2008 at 10:05 am
Greetings,
I don’t believe “Free Will” is from God ! It was the Devil who talked Eve into making her “own decisions .” And when Eve began to make her “own decisions”, she threw off God as her “Sovereign.” So “free will” is rebellion against the Sovereignty Of God ! Would God place in Eve a will and a nature that was in rebellion against him ? Because since the fall, all men are now “free will” by nature ! “Free will” is the sin nature ! To live as you please and make your own decisions is sinful ! Free will is completely to disregard God and live for self ! How can you teach God created man with a “Free Will” ??
Gordon Cloud // November 26, 2008 at 8:15 am
Harold, thanks for stopping by. As I read your comment, there are a number of things that stick out to me.
If Eve did not previously have the capacity of free will, Satan could not have tempted her to use it. To think that Satan somehow led her to have this would, in my opinion, seem to indicate that Satan has the ability to override the sovereignty of God. I don’t believe that either of us would say that is true, so we must assume that Eve had prior use of a free will. In that she had this free will without being a sinner, we must conclude that it was given to her by God.
Another point I would like to make is this, if God’s sovereignty can be thrown off, then He is not sovereign. We must look at the big picture when considering this balance of sovereignty/free will. God has given me a free will. How I exercise that will is my choice. I can choose to seek God or to disobey Him. Whatever I do, I am still accountable to God. My disobedience does not end His sovereignty, it only calls for His sovereign judgment.
I believe we can teach that God gave man a free will because it is exegetically, theologically and logically consistent with Scripture.
God bless.
Lou Martuneac // December 1, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Brother Gordon:
Which concept of God is greater: The concept of a God who decrees every detail and decision in all spheres of life and existence because He is sovereign; or the concept of a God who allows his creation the free will and ability to choose, yet He still knows all things, and is sovereign in the whole process? In my opinion, human freedom is no threat to, does not infringe upon, nor is it a denial of the sovereignty of God.
It is a mystery how the divine sovereignty of God and the free will of man can coexist and no damage be done to God’s sovereignty. The infinite ways of God will always be a mystery to the finite mind of man (Isaiah 55:8-9).
LM
Gordon Cloud // December 2, 2008 at 2:37 am
Lou, I would agree with you completely. I believe that the concept of man’s free will only serves to illuminate the sovereignty of God rather than threaten it.
I hope you and yours had a blessed Thanksgiving.
Dave // December 4, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Wow! I wish I had read this when it was posted last year. That was about the time that our church was having this discussion. (Mainly between the Pastor and the Deacons) I have never understood why this is so divisive or why so many people believe that it must be all one way or the other. Could it not be both . . . and? One thing that I noticed was that neither side was as extreme in their belief as the other side wanted to paint them. There was much more common ground in what they actually believed than either side was willing to admit.