As we suggested in our latest post, advocates of the libertarian reconciliation project (LRP) and the compatibilist reconciliation project (CRP) each offer different accounts of divine sovereignty and human freedom.

As we also previously averred, we believe that the CRP holds out the most promise for a successful reconciliation of the prima facie tension that exists between divine sovereignty and human freedom since it is (1) internally consistent (i.e., it forms a self-consistent set), and (2) externally consistent with the biblical data (as this post will labor to demonstrate).

Further, the specific proposals treated as generally representative of the LRP seem to be burdened with insurmountable difficulties (as we will also hope to see in this post).¹

DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY
To begin with, LRP advocates often speak of God’s “total control” of the universe, while at the same time emphasizing that God cannot ultimately guarantee that all of his purposes will be achieved (since the individual’s will is truly free).²

We must confess that it is difficult for us to understand how God has “total control” over the universe when, in fact, the choices of free moral agents are strongly denied (by advocates of the LRP) to be under his determinative control.

Although advocates of the LRP often use the language of a very strong view of sovereignty, their libertarian beliefs prevent them from taking this language seriously or in any meaningful way.³

God may be really quite intelligent and very powerful in the proposals put forth by advocates of the LRP, but he is well short of having the total control of all earthly affairs that Christians have traditionally ascribed to God through the attribute of omnipotence and the robust language that advocates of the LRP themselves often use to describe God’s sovereignty.⁴

Additionally, the problem noted above brings us to a second problem with the LRP. Because the uncompromising, morality-grounding, categorical freedom of the human agent has priority (and divine sovereignty must therefore be understood in a way consistent with this categorical freedom), advocates are unable to give an account of God’s sovereignty that is easily or readily reconcilable with the way in which the biblical authors describe God’s sovereign control of human affairs.

Specifically, the authors of Scripture repeatedly make sweeping and often unqualified claims with regard to God’s sovereign control over the universe – control that extends even over a person’s very will (so much so that he is said, at times, to bend it to accomplish his purposes, cf. Exodus 4:21; Proverbs 21:1; Romans 9:18) and even evil itself (seen preeminently in the death of Christ, cf. Acts 4:27).

In fact, these claims are so numerous and found throughout all strata of biblical texts, that it is impossible to treat them all here with great detail (and within the scope of this post) and so only a few of the more obvious texts will be cited to demonstrate this fact.

The apostle Paul makes perhaps one of the most comprehensive declarations concerning God’s absolute sovereignty in Ephesians 1:11 when he states,

“also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to his purpose who works all things after the counsel of his will” (NASB).

Very transparently, two things are evident from this text: (1) believers have been “predestined” (5 and (2) that God “works” (6

Therefore, not only is eternal salvation attributed to the predestined purpose of God, but even more expansively, he is explicitly stated to be working all things after the counsel of his will.

Certainly these words of Paul appear to conflict (at least prima facie) with the claims of libertarian thinker Cottrell who states (in reference to God’s influence in people’s decisions):

“the manipulated circumstances do not infallibly produce the desired result; because the individual’s will is truly free, he can resist and act to the contrary.”⁷

In fact, in the Old Testament we find explicit statements which seem to present a rather striking contrast to the alleged “nondeterminative influence” of God on man’s will (as suggested by Cottrell):

But at the end of that period, I Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever; For His Dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom endures from generation to generation. And all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off his hand Or say to Him, ‘What hast Thou done?’(Dan 4:34-35, emphasis added, NASB)

Not only does Scripture make comprehensively strong claims with respect to God’s sovereignty over all affairs in general, but it also repeatedly affirms God’s total sovereignty over the specific affairs of mankind as well.

Job says (with specific reference to man), “Since his days are determined, the number of his months is with Thee, and his limits Thou has set so that he cannot pass” (Job 14:5, emphasis added, NASB).

The prophet Jeremiah says, “I know, O Lord, that a man’s way is not in himself; Nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps” (Jer 10:23, NASB).

In Proverbs, we read, “Man’s steps are ordained by the LORD” (Proverbs 20:24, NASB), and “The mind of man plans his way, but the LORD directs his steps” (Prov 16:9, NASB).⁸ Elsewhere, Proverbs states, “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes” (Prov 21:1, NASB).

The apostle Paul explicitly declares that God is at work even in man’s will when he states, “for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:13, emphasis added, NASB).⁹

Further, not only does Scripture make strong and unqualified statements about God’s total sovereignty over the universe in general, but it does not hesitate to express that God lies [ultimately] behind even evil events and deeds.¹⁰

In the account of the exodus from Egypt, for example, the Bible repeatedly affirms that God hardens the heart of Pharaoh so that he will disobey God and refuse to let the Israelites go free (cf. Ex 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8 ).¹¹

In 2 Samuel, we read “Now again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’” (2 Sam 24:1, NASB). Later David recognizes this as a sinful act when he says (in reference to his command to take the census), “I have sinned greatly in what I have done.” (2 Sam 24:9, NASB). Additionally, God sends a punishment against Israel as a result of this sin (2 Sam 24:12-17). Finally, the Bible elsewhere describes the satanic agency used to incite David to sin when it states, “Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel” (1 Chron 21:1, NASB).

Very clearly, Scripture attributes the same [sinful] action to three beings, God (the ultimate cause), Satan (the specific means and proximate agent), and David (the responsible moral party who actually performed the action).

Additionally, the Old Testament speaks of God “putting a lying spirit in the mouth” of Ahab’s prophets (1 Kings 22:23, NASB) and Amos asks the following question (which occurs in a series of rhetorical questions – the implied answer to each is “no”): “If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?” (Amos 3:6, NASB).

Jeremiah states, “Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, Unless the LORD has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High That both good and ill go forth?” (Lam 3:37-38, NASB).¹²

The prophet Isaiah cries out, “Why, O LORD, dost Thou cause us to stray from Thy ways, and harden our heart from fearing Thee?” (Isa 63:17, NASB).

Finally, perhaps the greatest evil recorded in human history – the crucifixion of Christ by sinful men – was pre-ordained to occur – and not just the event, but all of the individual actions connected with it:

For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur. (Acts 4:27, emphasis added, NASB)

Therefore, all the actions in the crucifixion of Jesus had been predestined to occur (as the text makes explicit). Nevertheless, the Apostles clearly attach the blame not to God, but to the willing choices of sinful men (cf. Acts 2:23).

Biblical examples such as have been adduced in the preceding analysis could be multiplied which would turn this post into a full-length dissertation.

Suffice it to say, the Bible repeatedly and clearly affirms God’s meticulous control over the affairs of heaven and earth. This control is total control that cannot be thwarted (i.e., it is determinative), and total control that includes the very choices of men, and even the evil that is manifested in the world.

HUMAN FREEDOM
But what of those verses commonly appealed to which seem to imply the freedom of human beings?¹³

Space constraints do not permit a detailed interaction with each specific text that might be cited, but John Feinberg’s astute observation with regard to this matter deserves careful consideration:

Arminians typically offer verses which they think demonstrate that humans have indeterminate free will. While such verses show that we are free, none says we are indeterministically free. Indeterminists assume that the verses must mean that we are indeterministically free, because they assume that is the only kind of freedom there could be. But that begs the question.¹⁴

The final observation we would like to make concerning human freedom is that Scripture is not hesitant to describe man’s moral agency, but the language it often employs is that of slavery and bondage rather than that of unrestrained and categorical [libertarian] freedom:

“Jesus answered them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.” (John 8:34)

“But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin…” (Rom 6:17)

“Having been freed from sins, you became slaves of righteousness…” (Rom 6:18)

“For when you were slaves of sin…” (Rom 6:20)

“But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God…” (Rom 6:22)

“promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.” (2 Pet 2:19)

If we are going to speak of the degree of mankind’s freedom, perhaps we should take care to express ourselves in the same register as as that of the biblical authors. Of course to do so is at once to abandon the language of categorical libertarian freedom.

Therefore, Scripture presents a very strong concept of God’s meticulous control of everything in creation and a somewhat restricted picture with regard to human freedom. In fact, it frequently adopts the language of slavery to describe the human condition.

As we noted earlier, those texts which may imply human freedom do not specifically state whether that freedom is a deterministic type of freedom or an indeterministic type of freedom, but given the clear emphasis throughout the Word of God on the absolute sovereignty of God it seems likely that deterministic freedom is envisioned.

CONCLUSION
According to the preceding analysis, it seems evident to us that the proposals put forth by advocates of the LRP suffer from 1) internal inconsistency (i.e., they speak of God’s “total control” but then deny him “total control” by making his control contingent upon the choices of allegedly free moral agents – a situation that can hardly be described meaningfully as “total control”) and more importantly, 2) an inability to reconcile their accounts of divine sovereignty with the robust portrait of the same given in the biblical texts themselves.

The Bible repeatedly portrays a strong account of God’s absolute and meticulous control of the universe. This control extends to every facet of existence, and is a control that includes the choices of humans and even evil choices and events.

Advocates of the CRP, on the other hand, are able to provide, in our view, an internally consistent account of divine sovereignty and human freedom, and their understanding of divine sovereignty squares well with the biblical texts which repeatedly speak unequivocally about God’s total control of everything.

Additionally, there is nothing in the text of Scripture (which refer [inferentially] to the free choices of humans) that rules out a deterministic understanding of said freedom.

The chief problem for advocates of the CRP remains the ability to give a persuasive account for the ground of responsibility in human agents, given the CRP account of deterministic freedom (ironically, this is the chief strength of the proposals put forth by advocates of the LRP). Although not completely satisfying, the verdict of Wayne Grudem on this difficulty may represent sage advice until more persuasive answers are forthcoming:

We can affirm that all of these things are true, because Scripture teaches them. But Scripture does not tell us exactly how God brings the situation about or how it can be that God holds us accountable for what he ordains to come to pass.¹⁵

In the final analysis, then, we believe that the compatibilist reconciliation project holds the most promise with regard to a genuine reconciliation between the tension evident between divine sovereignty and human freedom.

1. As noted in the previous installment, we must remember that the LRP (as well as the CRP) can be represented by an indefinite number of specific proposals, so the failure of a particular reconciliation attempt does not by itself discredit its project type. We have used the proposals set forth by Cottrell, Marshall, and Pinnock (as cited in the previous post) since we believe them to be generally representative of many of the standard arguments put forth by other advocates of the LRP. Nevertheless, even if their specific arguments can be discredited, this would not fatally damage the LRP since other proposals from this project might be able to overcome the problems noted in this series of posts↩
2. Cottrell (who is, ostensibly at least, not an open theist) makes both affirmations (i.e., that God is in “total control” and that he cannot ultimately guarantee the actualization of all of his purposes) in his essay on sovereignty and freedom. Cottrell, “The Nature of the Divine Sovereignty,” 97-119.↩
3. As Ciocchi astutely notes. Ciocchi, “Reconciling Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom,” 404. John Feinberg also seizes upon what appears to be the ineradicable tension between the biblical notion of divine sovereignty and the libertarian conception of free well when he states, “Given indeterministic freedom, God cannot guarantee that what he decides will be carried out. No matter how much God inclines someone’s will toward what he has chosen, such inclination, on an indeterministic account of freedom, can never be sufficient to produce God’s decreed action” [emphasis original]. Feinberg, “God Ordains All Things,” 31↩
4. That is, the descriptions given by advocates of the LRP of God’s “total control” can’t be taken seriously since it is evident that, according to their own accounts of human freedom, God’s control is not “total,” but rather quite limited and contingent.↩
5. We believe that those verses which attribute a believer’s election to the foreknowledge of God (1 Pet 1:1-2), should be understood in such a way so that God’s foreknowledge stems from his foreordination. In other words, God knows the future because he has sovereignly planned the future according to the counsel of his will (as Eph 1:11 asserts). Somewhat analogously, a person may know in advance that he/she will be in church the following Sunday not because he/she has peered into the future and seen the end result, but rather because he/she has made a decision that he/she will be in church next Sunday.↩
6. For a more substantial exegetical treatment of this verse which sustains the view put forth in this essay concerning its implications, see Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 225-30. John Feinberg also concurs with the implications this verse has on God’s meticulous sovereignty, stating very aptly [we think], “Clearly, this verse teaches the absolute sovereignty of God. Just as clearly, with such a notion of sovereignty, I see no room for indeterministic freedom. Given indeterministic freedom, God cannot guarantee that what he decides will be carried out. No matter how much God inclines someone’s will toward what he has chosen, such inclination, on an indeterminate account of freedom, can never be sufficient to produce God’s decreed action.” Feinberg, “God Ordains All Things,” 30-31.↩
7. Cottrell, “The Nature of the Divine Sovereignty,” 112. We are not aware of a single text of Scripture which makes a claim similar to the one Cottrell makes here. In fact, the weight of Scriptural evidence seems to make exactly the opposite claims vis-à-vis divine Sovereignty.↩
8. The words used to express the concepts of “walking” (hlk) and “steps” (ts’d) in the OT are frequently used figuratively to denote the entire course of one’s life. See Eugene H. Merrill, “hlk” in The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, ed. by Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 1:1032-35. Hence the sovereignty attributed to God in these verses over man does not refer to mundane strolls(!), but rather to his entire course of life.↩
9. It might be asserted that the concept of divine “middle knowledge” offers a cogent account of sovereignty and human freedom that squares with the verses cited above. However, apart from the serious difficulties associated with the concept of “middle knowledge,” [see for example L. T. Zagzebski, The Dilemma of Freedom and Foreknowledge (Oxford: Oxford University, 1991), 141-52] this author would not include the appeal to “middle knowledge” in the LRP since it gives (ultimately) a deterministic account of freedom rather than a libertarian account. Both Ciocchi and Feinberg offer reasonable arguments which support this contention. See Ciocchi, “Reconciling Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom,” 405-07; and Feinberg, “God Ordains All Things,” 33-34.↩
10. We hasten to add the essential qualification that none of the following verses portray God as directly doing anything evil, but rather they picture God as bringing about evil deeds through the willing actions of moral creatures.↩
11. It is sometimes objected that Scripture also portrays Pharaoh as hardening his own heart, and so (it is alleged) God only hardened Pharaoh’s heart in response to the hardness of heart that Pharaoh himself first exhibited with his own free will. The significant problems with this assertion, however, are that 1) God expresses his intention to harden Pharaoh’s heart long before it actually happens (cf. 4:21; 7:3 - the first instance of Pharaoh hardening his own heart occurs at 8:15), and 2) the apostle Paul’s answer [to the apparent injustice of God finding fault with Pharaoh in light of God’s sovereignty in the hardening of his heart (cf. Rom 9:18-19)] only makes sense if it is God who is the initiator of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart to begin with. Interpretations which ignore this obvious fact do irrevocable violence to the rhetoric of Romans 9:6-24.↩
12. The NASB footnotes the translation of Lam 3:38 and notes that it literally reads “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that the evil things and the good go forth?”↩
13. We should hasten to add that not a single verse of Scripture explicitly refers to the “freewill of man.” Rather, this concept is deduced by way of second-order inferential moves made in light of certain texts. Advocates of the LRP need to be more consistently self-conscious of this fact when referring to the “biblical” nature of libertarian human freedom. ↩
14. Feinberg, “God Ordains All Things,” 32.↩
15. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 330. On the other hand, Ciocchi believes that the groundwork for providing a cogent explanation for moral responsibility given a deterministic account of freedom has been laid by such thinkers as Daniel Dennett (D. C. Dennett, Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting [Cambridge: MIT, 1984], chap 1) and Richard Double (R. Double, The Non-Reality of Free Will [Oxford: Oxford University, 1991], esp. chap 2). Ciocchi, “Reconciling Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom,” 411.↩