I want to suggest that God’s sovereignty and man’s free will are not mutually exclusive. When God created our world he placed Adam in the Garden. He gave him complete freedom to do what he desired to do with one exception. He forbade him from eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God set before Adam a choice; he could obey God’s command and receive His blessing or disobey God’s command and face His wrath. We know what happened. Did God set Adam and Eve up? Did God make them disobey in order to set His larger plan in motion? I don’t think so. If that were the case then God is the author of sin, and the Bible clearly teaches that that is not true. So the logical conclusion is that Adam and Eve had genuine free will in that situation.
Let’s look at it from another point of view. Are people accountable for their actions or has God determined how they will live? Consider Matthew 12:33-37 (NIV). "Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." It is clear from this teaching of Jesus that God is going to hold people accountable for their actions in the final judgment. If they truly do not have a choice about following Christ or not then on what basis can God hold them accountable? We do not vilify the lion for killing the gazelle because that is the nature of the tiger. The tiger has no choice. Yet we hold men accountable for killing animals, precisely because they do have a choice.
Here is a current example. A man in our area is being charged in Federal Court for destroying pelican eggs and chicks because they are a protected species. But if a raccoon had done the same damage we would not have held the raccoon culpable. The man had a choice and the raccoon did not.
If God is going to hold people accountable for their actions then they must have a choice in the matter. The same is true of rewards. Jesus was very open about promising rewards to those who follow him and do the Father’s will. If a person really doesn’t have the free will to not do the Father’s will, then on what basis are rewards given? Without free will both rewards and punishment become at best meaningless and at worse arbitrary.
Some might argue that the issue of free will and God’s sovereignty is primarily talking about salvation. God has predetermined who will be saved and who will not be saved. People have no choice in this matter. All the rest of life people have the freedom to exercise their will. There are a couple of ways this seems very wrong to me. First, it seems out of character for God to take away man’s free will regarding the most important aspect of their life and then grant them free will on things that don’t matter in light of eternity. Second, in 2 Peter 3:9 it states that God wants everyone to come to repentance. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. If this statement is true, then how can God willfully deny a person the opportunity to repent and be saved? Third, the Bible is very clear that God is love. John 3:16-17 articulates God’s plan for the world. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” These words are credited to Jesus. If God has predetermined that some will be saved and some will not be saved then either Jesus was mistaken or lying. I don’t believe either is true.
I want to suggest an alternative view to the either/or approach to free will and God’s sovereignty. I affirm that God is sovereign and has the right and the power to do whatever He desires. That sovereignty gives Him the freedom to interact with humanity in a variety of ways without diminishing who He is. So, I suggest, that God has the right to call some specifically into his service, maybe apart from their will. Paul would be a prime example with his Damascus road encounter. Although you can make a case that Paul really was seeking God but was misguided in the way he was doing it. I also suggest that in the norm God openly invites people to receive the free gift that He has offered in Christ. Through the Holy Spirit God makes people aware of their sin and their lost state. He stirs the latent longing for God that is resident in every person because we are created in His image. It is up to the individual to respond positively or negatively. This is not a work or anything of merit but a simple response to God’s invitation. Last, it is very possible that God would harder certain individuals for a higher purpose, such as Pharaoh and Judas. I must confess that I still find it hard to accept that God would exclude a person from His presence for all of eternity against their will. What I am suggesting is that none of this diminishes God’s sovereignty. In fact it enhances it. If God is limited to act in the same way in every situation, then God is not sovereign after all but subject to some other higher power.
That is enough for now. Let’s keep exploring.
No comments:
Post a Comment