DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN AGENCY: THE ANCIENT BATTLE FOR AUTONOMY

Kevin McAloon THE 6110B: Christian Theology I November 16, 2010

1 INTRODUCTION Throughout the history of the Christian Church, one of the most controversial and irrepressible points of doctrine has always been that of Divine Sovereignty with regards to the creatures Free Agency. Many battles have been fought over these matters, along with many minds being dangerously exasperated under the weight of these issues, due to the fact that they cut to the deepest fabrics of both Divine and human existence. As D.A. Carson says, The sovereignty/responsibility tension raises a large number of questions about the relations between God and man, about theodicy, about the nature of human freedom in general and not only when a person confronts Christ, about the contingency of God, about time/eternity relationships, and so forth.1 Taking this into account, it is important that those discussing these matters realize what immense depths and frighteningly sacred inner workings they are penetrating, and should approach the subject with the greatest amount of fear and reverence. That being said, the Most High God has left His Bride with His Spirit, His Scriptures, the historical witness of His Church, great leaders and thinkers whom He has blessed, and a desire to know Her Love and Redeemer more; therefore She should receive these graces and search out the glorious riches of Her Gods truth to the best of Her ability. With a strict dependence upon these blessings, while at the same time earnestly attempting to abandon all self-reliance and corporeally/culturally ingrained presuppositions, it can be said that the most scripturally thorough and historically consistent position articulated among the most bible-subservient Christians has been the Augustinian, or, more properly, the compatabilist position. Such is the position that will be articulated and defended henceforth, with the sole goal and hope of faithfully conveying truth leading to fear, awe, and love to the sheer glory of God.

D.A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility in Philo, Novum Testamentum XXIII, no.2

(1981): 1.

2 DIFFERING POSITIONS AMONG THE FAITHFUL One of R.C. Sprouls favorite and most repeated quotes is: Just as it is a womans prerogative to change her mind, so it is a theologians prerogative to make distinctions.2 Since this is a theological treatise as opposed to an exegetical one, it is important to clearly distinguish and articulate the foundational philosophical mechanics which separate the major views from one another. Although there are many additional theories pertaining to the will among philosophers3, the two that have been most prevalent and debated throughout the history of the Church are those of Libertarianism and Compatibilism. Libertarianism Also known as the Incompatibilist position, Libertarianism is a philosophical approach based upon the assumption of libertarian free will: that is, that the human will has a selfdetermining autonomous power, and that the reasons for its decisions are to be found in itself as opposed to determined motives or influences. Pinnock provides the following summary: It [libertarian freedom] views a free action as one in which a person is free to perform an action or refrain from performing it and is not completely determined in the matter by prior forcesnature, nurture, or even God. Libertarian freedom recognizes the power of contrary choice. One acts freely in a situation if, and only if, one could have done otherwise. Free choices are choices that are not causally determined by conditions preceding them. It is the freedom of self-determination, in which the various motives and influences informing the choice are not the sufficient cause of the choice itself. The person makes the choice in a self-determined way. A person has options and there are different factors influencing us in deciding among them but the decision one takes involves making one of the reasons ones own, which is anything but random.4

RC Sproul, The Christian and Science (pt. 2), Ligonier Ministries, http://www.ligonier.org/blog/thechristian-and-science-pt-2/ (accessed November 16, 2010). I.e. Fatalism, Hard Determinism, Materialistic Mechanicalism, etc.; all have been historically deemed outside of the realm of Christian Orthodoxy. For a brief synopsis on some of these theories, see Charles Hodges section on Necessity in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946), II: 280-282.
3

In other words, the ultimate source and explanation for ones deeds must reside within oneself; mans will is autonomous.5 Within this philosophical framework, freedom is strictly defined as the possession of power to perform and refrain from an action.6 A person is not subservient to her strongest desire, and it is within her autonomous ability to change her own desires; therefore, a person free only if she could have done otherwise in any given situation.7 Although the Libertarian position is derived primarily from philosophical and intuitive concepts, its proponents do make a valid appeal to the Scripture and its truth that the Creator commands certain actions and holds His creatures responsible for their own obedience or lack thereof. The Arminians argued that it was necessary for an intelligible Christian ethic to have three features: (i) the freedom of contingenceor an event that may or may not happen, (ii) the freedom of indifferencethe power of contrary choice, and (iii) the freedom of selfdetermination. They argued that unless all three conditions be fully satisfied, human beings did not possess enough freedom to be held responsible for neither their vices nor virtues. In other words, without this autonomous power of the will, God would be unjust for finding fault because no one would have it in his own power to obey or resist His will. These are extremely plausible

and strong arguments for the proponents of the position, and one desperately wishes that the Apostle Paul had given more of a gentle and elaborate response than the one he did when

Clark Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of Gods Openness (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 41; quoted in C. Samuel Storms, Prayer and the Power of Contrary Choice: Who can and Cannot Pray for God to Save the Lost, A Quarterly for Church Leadership 12, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 58.
5

Ibid. p. 59.

William Hasker, A Philisophical Perspective, in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downders Grove: InterVarsity, 1994), 136-137; quoted in Ibid. p. 57. John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downders Grove: InterVarsity, 1998), 221.; quoted in Ibid p. 57.
7

4 refuting the very same objections.8 Since to simply give his response would bring an abrupt end to the discussion, these Libertarian views will be analyzed in the light of the Compatibilist position and some of the Scriptures that it depends upon. Compatibilism Also known as Soft Determinism, Compatibilism denies the passive and pantheistic theories of the will while at the same time acknowledging that it is not its own autonomous and self-determining first cause. The theory holds that, contrary to freedom of indifference and selfdetermination, the will is dependent and determined by the influences at work upon it. In a simple summary of Jonathan Edwards exhaustive and notorious work on the will, he states: It is the motive which, as it stands in view of the mind, is the strongest, that determines the will.9 In this view, the will is not a transcendent agent considering choices from a purely objective perspective, but rather it acknowledges the wills participation as an agent subject to the same laws that apply to all created entities; that is, they are responsive to those forces which act upon them. In this case, the majority of these forces are at work both without and within the soul of the man who chooses; therefore, to say that the will is determined by its strongest motive only means that it is not objectively self determined, but that in every rational volition the man is influenced to decide one way rather than another by something within him, so that the volition is a revelation of what he himself is.10 Compatibilists maintain that man is free; but we deny that

the will is free in the sense of being independent of reason, conscience, and feeling. In other

See Romans 9:19-23, where the previous conclusion is repeated nearly word for word. Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 2001), p. 6.

D.A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility in Philo, Novum Testamentum XXIII, no.2 (1981), p. 289.

10

5 words, a man cannot be independent of himself, or any one of his faculties independent of all the rest.11 As a side note, if one was to demand that this description is deficient and cannot truly be said to be a free will, then alternatively they would be forced to confess a deficiency in the very will of God, for Christian orthodoxy posits that God cannot choose to commit sin because it is not in His perfect nature; thus, even the will and choices of the Eternal God are determined by His nature and aggregate of motives, and to endow man with a freedom beyond this is to exalt his will with a capacity beyond that of the Almighty. The soul of a human functions holistically, the will being no exception, and it is not an independent power or faculty functioning alongside the intellectual or appetitive faculties.12 Therefore, since Compatibilism humbles the will with the same properties as the contingent creation, unlike Libertarianism it allows for outside influences to shape the decisions ultimately being made; thus ascribing the Divine with the ability to influence it according to His sovereign purposes.

THE CREATURE AND HIS CREATIOR Perhaps the two most avoided and overlooked aspects of biblical reality are indispensible to understanding Scripture and arriving at a clearer understanding of possibly all theological truths: the utter inferiority and subservience of man; and the infinite superiority and transcendent nature of the Most High Holy God. Consequently, it is vital to this discussion in order to properly see the validity of the compatibilist position and the God-centered worldview upon which it rests.

11

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946), II: 291.

Stephen A. Wilson, The Possibility of a Habituation Model of Moral Development in Jonathan Edwards Conception of the Wills Freedom, Journal of Religion 81, no. 1 (Jan 2001): 55.

12

6 Apart from the grace of God, there has never been a man on earth who wanted to face that truth which is the most detrimental enemy to his pride and sinful fight for autonomy: the fact that he is a helplessly inferior creature subjected to a holy and self sustaining sovereign Being. The very first sin which damned the race of men and gives birth to all of the others was the desire to be free from this heavenly and fundamental relationship (Genesis 3). It is the truth that causes fallen men to suppress their a priori knowledge of a sovereign and just God, and that fuels their hatred for Him and His gospel which reveals their guilt, inability, and need for a graceful Savior. In the same way, since this man-centered way of thinking is so intuitive to all of our natural and carnal presuppositions, it takes Divine grace to reveal the God-centered reality and our inability and lack of autonomy as created beings. As a creation belonging to a completely secondary and distinct ontological realm than that of the Eternal Foundation and first cause of all reality, there is nothing positively existing that the creature can claim as actually self generating from itself. Everything that a creature is, he is because God so willed it. The nature of the relationship is such that, if God were to withdraw His Spirit and breath, all flesh would simply perish together and return to the dust of which it is made (Job 34:14-15). It is in Him that we live, move, and have our being (Acts 17:28). This is extremely important when attempting to understand the limits of the definition of freedom when referring to secondary beings who are a part of an existence completely dependent on the mind and word of Another. Creation is the first occurrence in eternity of something other than God, something less than and independent from His very essence yet totally dependent on His transcendent sovereignty. It does not share in His essence. There can be no self-containing intrinsic power or goodness within the framework of creation, only a reflection of the One who alone possesses it within the Persons of the Trinity. God did indeed

7 declare on the seventh day that all of His creation was very good (1:31), however in light of the infinitely transcendent perfection of God, there is a limit to how far one can take this statement. It can be seen as referring to an agreeableness to the Creator, a demonstration of His attributes, an initial proper function and harmony, etc.13 However, there must be a less than God and imperfect potential within the metaphysical framework of a creation independent from Him.14 Apart from God who alone possess true autonomous ontological being, and without Him propping it up from the outside, it is an inevitably that a created being will be drawn back and fall into the nothingness from which it was made, which is the case both before and after the Fall.15 These points are detrimental in understanding the origins of sin and the dependence of the will upon Divine grace for any positive inclinations. Most compatibilists hold that sin does not contain a positive existence; but is merely a lack, failure, and antithesis to the good which alone possesses positive substance.16 Therefore, when a creature acts solely and freely out of his own nature that is independent from the positive sustaining grace of the Divine, he will always fall. Herein lies the absolute unsurpassable glory and sovereignty of God over and above his entire creation: every sin is a result of His absence, displaying the inevitable inability and vileness of

Matthew Henry, Matthew Henrys Commentary on the Whole Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1991), 1:10.
14

13

The author wishes that he could elaborate on these points because they are crucial to the foundations of his position; however there is not enough room in this present discussion to properly convey these concepts, and hopes that this brief summary will suffice.
15

See Katherin A. Rogers, Does God Cause Sin? Anselm of Canterbury versus Jonathan Edwards on Human Freedom and Divine Sovereignty, Faith and Philosophy 20, no. 3 (July 2003): 374 where she discusses Augustine and Edwards positions regarding the creatures dependence on Divine grace.
16

See Ibid. p. 373 where she uses Anselm, Edwards, and Augustine as examples.

8 everything other than Him; whereas every virtue and manifestation of good is due and should be ascribed solely to Him who is the fountain of all virtue and beauty. Although the breadth of Scripture provides examples of this that are too numerable to list here,17 perhaps the clearest account is that of the hardening of Pharaohs heart. God undeniably declares to Moses that He has sovereignly chosen to harden Pharaohs heart (Ex. 7:3), and Paul later uses this to illustrate how God hardens and has mercy on whomever He arbitrarily chooses (Rom. 9:16-18); whereas later in the Exodus account Pharaoh is said to harden his own heart (Ex. 8:32). Given the potential depravity of man before the Fall, and its actualization at and after the Fall, the only goodness in Pharaohs heart would have been from Gods grace sustaining him from acting out his true nature. God hardened Pharaohs heart by withdrawing this undeserved grace from him and allowing Pharaoh to reveal his true depraved nature by hardening his own heart. Thus is the nature of all common grace: the only reason why men do not run into and surpass the atrocities of the worst of sinners is not because of some supposed virtue in their heart, but because of a good God who restrains evil men so that society might continue and the gospel might be preached for the salvation of some.18 This is the compatibilist position, and is one that seeks to put man in his subordinate position and bring all ultimate honor and glory to the Almighty God.19

For a brief discussion see John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 2008), 193-194. Paul Washer, He Drank your Hell, sermon preached at Fattys Burger in San Antonio, Texas, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiuX0iVn1N4 (accessed November 16, 2010).
19 18

17

Admittedly, the core arguments against such a position lie in its complications with regards to justice, responsibility, and ultimately the very character of God. The author believes there to be a solution to these issues; however it is too in depth for a discussion of this size and character. Suffice it to say that the argument revolves around passages such as Col. 1:16, and that it would be unjust for the Father to sustain his undeserving creation at the expense of the full manifestation of the glory of His Son, grace, and forgiveness.

IMPLICATIONS FOR LIFE AND MINISTRY Nothing influences the Christians life and ministry more than what he thinks about God and what he thinks about himself. Scripture is emphatic that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding (Prov. 9:10). If ones view of God and his power is deficient, and his estimation of man is exalted beyond its proper bounds, he has repeated the very sin that has plagued mankind since the Garden of Eden. The fear of the Lord is practically foreign to contemporary Christianity, whose god looks more like a celestial Santa Clause than the YHWH of the Bible.20 This cannot be overlooked, for any idea of God that does not conform to His revelation of Himself within Scripture is nothing other than idolatry. With a proper view of Gods transcendence and sovereignty over His creation for His own purposes and glory, the child of God can renew his mind in the knowledge of His Creator while at the same time enriching his heart with deeper fear and adoration. Paul admonishes the Christian to behold the goodness and severity of God (Rom. 11:22) and to work out their salvation with fear and trembling knowing that it is God who is at work in them to work and will according to His good pleasure (Phil. 2:12-13). This can only be done by having a biblical worldview where God is actually working in men to will according to His pleasure! Furthermore, the belief and dependence upon the sovereignty of God is indispensible to proper biblical ministry. Church history is filled with examples of how distortions of these truths demean the gospel and lead to man-centered methods of gospel preaching which produces at best lukewarm Christians, and at worst false converts. With the knowledge that all power and authority belong to God, the Christian can depend solely upon the grace and power of God

20

See Chapter 16 in J.I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1977).

10 instead of his own abilities in all areas of life; will not water down biblical truths in order to avoid offending the lost so that they might be persuaded to believe; and can wholeheartedly pray to God to change situations and mens hearts, knowing that God accounts the inhabitants of the earth as nothing, but does according to His will among the hosts of heaven and inhabitants of the earth and none can ward off His hand (Dan. 4:35). These are not mere abstract theological truths, but God has revealed them in His Sacred Scriptures to expand our minds and hearts to be totally centered and enamored with Him, and to depend on His omnipotent power to bring about His good purposes and blessings to His children. With these truths enriching every aspect of our lives, we conform into the image of Christ whose every thought and action was to glorify His Father, and follow of the footsteps of the great Reformers by boldly proclaiming Soli Deo Gloria.

11 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Peadbody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 2008. Carson, D.A. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility in Philo. Novum Testamentum XXIII, no.2 (1981). Edwards, Jonathan. Freedom of the Will. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 2001. Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946. Packer, J.I. Knowing God. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1977. Rogers, Katherin A.Does God Cause Sin? Anselm of Canterbury versus Jonathan Edwards on Human Freedom and Divine Sovereignty. Faith and Philosophy 20, no. 3 (July 2003). Sproul, R.C. The Christian and Science (pt. 2). Ligonier Ministries. http://www.ligonier.org/blog/the-christian-and-science-pt-2/ (accessed November 16, 2010). Storms, Samuel C. Prayer and the Power of Contrary Choice: Who can and Cannot Pray for God to Save the Lost. A Quarterly for Church Leadership 12, no. 2 (Spring 2003). Washer, Paul. He Drank Your Hell. Sermon preached at Fattys Burger in San Antonio, TX http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiuX0iVn1N4 (accessed November 16, 2010). Wilson, Stephen A. The Possibility of a Habituation Model of Moral Development in Jonathan Edwards Conception of the Wills Freedom. Journal of Religion 81, no. 1 (Jan 2001).