Freedom and Sovereignty in Tension

As a young high school student I often wondered how it could be that light was understood scientifically to be both particles and waves. It seemed like such a conflicting notion, yet it was overwhelmingly accepted as truth. Even back then I was beginning to understand that some things may be in tension and yet be true. Of course it is not always true that things in tension remain true, yet for light it is the case. It is also the case for the biblical/theological subject of divine sovereignty and human responsibility; while these two biblical truths seem to be in tension they are nevertheless both true.

It is difficult to think through this tension and a number of individuals have sought to resolve or lesson the tension by appealing to different explanations. There are two major systems of thought on this subject, each with its own set of definitions. After briefly explaining these two positions I hope to biblically defend where I stand on the matter. The importance of this subject demands that we think about it despite its difficulties. For if we know to what degree and in what way God is sovereign and we are free we may better know how to glorify Him and live in obedience.

The first view takes a position known as “General Sovereignty.” The General Sovereignty model sees Biblical grounds for the belief that God is sovereign. His creation out of nothing in Genesis 1, His sending Jesus into the world through virgin conception, and His working things towards His appointed end, clearly indicate God’s supreme control over the world. In the General view, however, it is in the specific details of the lives and actions of human beings where God’s sovereignty is limited. The word “General” is to be contrasted with that of “Specific” (the label taken by the opposing position). Within in this view man has the final say in all the things that he does and ultimately where he will spend his eternity. This is what is known as a libertarian view of human freedom.

Man’s free-will, it is argued by proponents of General Sovereignty, guarantees that his life and actions can, in no way, be pre-determined. Pre-determination, it is argued, dispels of true freedom. It is often over the definition of “freedom” that the majority of contention between opposing viewpoints comes. For the General view “freedom” means that man’s choices are free from any necessary causation. Man is never motivated or inclined to do something to such a degree that he could not have otherwise chosen another action. Where does this system leave a sovereign God? It leaves Him as self-limited. That is God, in choosing to create men and women with libertarian free-will, intentionally limits Himself. The more traditional orthodox view within this camp believes that God has a plan, which He sees coming to fulfillment, but the details of that plan are left up to human beings.

In orthodoxy, Arminians are those who hold to a General Sovereignty view. For the Arminian it is important to note that he in no way wants to undermine the truths of Scripture that God is sovereign. By stating that God intentionally withholds the exercising of His omnipotence and sovereign control they believe that they can preserve His supremacy. They affirm a doctrine known as “prevenient grace,” which teaches that God offers a measure of grace to humans to help them come to salvation, and to keep them from sin, but that this offer may be rejected or accepted by the free-will decision of that human. Salvation then, for the Arminian, is synergistic; meaning that man and God must work together to bring about an individual’s salvation. This theological system also takes into view God’s ability to foresee individual’s actions. So it is often asserted that God “elects,” or chooses, people for salvation based upon that individual’s foreseen faith in Christ. God’s omniscience, then, allows Him to incorporate the free decisions of humans into His general plan for the world.

Two more liberal groups also adhere to a General Sovereignty model, (1) Open Theists and (2) Process Theists. There is agreement between these two groups upon God’s inability to know for certain what the future holds. In that regard, God’s omniscience is certainly not accepted. What the Open Theists and Process Theists seem to understand, correctly I believe, is that one cannot separate “foreknow” from “foreordain”. For these theologians, God cannot know for certain that something will happen if humans always have a libertarian free-will. The Open Theist’s attempt to remain orthodox by stating that God can always take away human free-will and get His own way, but that usually He does not do so. The Process Theists contend merely that God can persuade and attempt to influence human choices but in the end He can only re-act and hope for the best. For all three groups, however, there is a general consensus that the way to resolve God’s Sovereignty and Human Freedom is to state that God has limited himself.

The Specific Sovereignty model, on the other hand, takes a much more high view of the sovereignty of God than the former. As my initial introduction to this system may, perhaps, identify, I am a proponent of Specific Sovereignty. The view as a whole holds that God is never limited by humanity, but is always acting out His sovereign will and yet this sovereignty never denies man’s responsibility and freedom. This system defines freedom, not as libertarian, but as compatibilist freedom. Compatibilist freedom may be defined as the freedom to do whatever you so desire to do. When man chooses to do something, it is argued, he is choosing based upon his desires, and his inclinations. In other words, he has sufficient reason for choosing to do that which he is doing. So in a compatibilist definition of freedom the will always chooses in accord with its strongest desire. This definition of freedom appears to be more biblical. Jesus Himself testifies, “The good person out of the good treasures of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45, ESV). If it is out of the good treasures of the heart that man produces good, and out of evil treasures produces evil then it seems to indicate that there is a sufficient motivation for performing certain actions.

In this sense man is free to choose what he wants but only what he wants. It is a limited freedom, in this view, instead of a limited sovereignty. This also seems to follow the pattern of life, for no man is indeed absolutely free. No man can choose, simply by exerting his free-will, to bear children, or to fly. I heard Don Kistler say once that you cannot go into McDonald’s and order a hot dog. Man is free to choose but his choices are limited. The major theological system that adheres to this view of freedom is labeled as either Calvinist or Reformed. For proponents of a Specific Sovereignty model, God is free to pre-determine all things, even free human choices, and in fact He does. This is the very teaching of the Holy Scriptures.

In Daniel 4:35 King Nebuchadnezzar says of God, “…He does according to His will among the hosts of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand or say to Him, ‘What have you done?’” God is sovereign and no one can prevent His work, even among the inhabitants of the earth (i.e. men). Likewise Genesis 50:20 teaches God’s sovereign action in the free decisions of men. Here we have both truths taught, and the lack of an explanation for this mystery suggests that it was generally accepted that God could be sovereign and yet man could still be free. In this context Joseph calms his brothers’ fears by explaining that though they sinned and sold him into slavery, God had ordained it to bring about good. So the young ruler says, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.” Note that Joseph’s brothers are not absolved of their responsibility, they meant evil against Him, but nonetheless it is God who did it.

When one broaches the subject of salvation within the confines of a Specific Sovereignty model it is with great humility and gratitude. For from this view point salvation is monergistic, meaning that it is completely the doing of one (mono) work. Salvation is all of God and not of man. This too is the clear teaching of scripture. We read in Ephesians 2 that man outside of Christ is “dead” in his trespasses and sins. The word “dead” here is the same Greek word used to identify a corpse. So the point the apostle is making is that man outside of Christ is a spiritual corpse. While many Arminians would agree with this they would still contend that man can do something in the work of salvation (despite being dead). That is not the consensus of the rest of the text, however. In verse 4 Paul states, “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ- by grace you have been saved” (Eph. 2:4-5). Note the passive sense of “made us alive”. Man is dead and it is God who makes him alive. There is no sense in which the work of salvation described here is synergistic; it is all of “grace”. Grace refers to the undeserved gift of salvation. In order for it to be truly undeserved then, man must not be able to do anything worthy of that gift. So, it is argued, grace necessarily makes salvation monergistic.

Yet it is important to note the whole of scripture never teaches that man is anything less than responsible to believe in Christ and repent of his sins. When Peter preaches to the crowd at Jerusalem, just after Pentecost, the mob cries out, “What shall we do?” And Peter responds in the power of the Holy Spirit, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). So in salvation we see again both God’s sovereign control and man’s moral responsibility.

Of course explaining this mystery is not possible for my finite and feeble mind, but the Scriptures are clear in their expression of God’s complete sovereignty. “Whatever the Lord pleases He does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps” (Psalm 135:6). It is important to note that both systems teach that man is free and God is responsible, neither is denying such truth. It is rather in the definition of freedom and the application of God’s sovereignty that they differ. The downfall of General Sovereignty’s definition of freedom is that its very nature is incompatible with divine sovereignty. There is in this system a necessary contradiction. While of course many of my beloved Arminian brothers will appeal to mystery here, such a practice seems to skirt the real issue. I concede that mystery is indeed involved in the subject, but here we still have a contradiction. The Calvinist too must confess mystery, but he does so on no necessarily contradictory grounds. In a Specific Sovereignty model God’s supreme control and man’s genuine freedom can co-exist, because that freedom is understood by a compatibilist definition.

One may rightfully ask how it is that this world can include both God’s divine sovereignty over all things and man’s genuine freedom. The only answer that I can give, however, is that there is no necessary contradiction between the two in a compatibilist definition of freedom. Beyond that we find ourselves in the mysteries of God, things that no finite human being can know and grasp in this life. That of course is not simply a cop out, for mystery is naturally part of Biblical Christianity. It comes with the territory of the creator/creature distinction, and in fact such is the case in life. How can light be both particles and waves? I do not know, but I know that in life there is no need to discount tensions. For something can be both mysterious and yet still be true. Such is the case for light, and such is the case for the tension between divine sovereignty and human freedom.