The Total Sovereignty of God and The Free Will of Man

For centuries there has been a debate within the church regarding the extent of God’s sovereignty in relation to salvation. Brilliant thinkers and scholars have disagreed on whether man is responsible for choosing God for eternal salvation, or whether God first chooses man for salvation. Indeed, the problem of free will …  has puzzled the greatest minds for centuries (Kane). 

If humans are free than how can God be sovereign? On the other hand, if God is in control, how can human choices be real? In what sense can we be held responsible for actions if God is responsible for everything? A tension certainly exists, and a scholarly consensus has yet to be reached in regards to this doctrine. Some have taught that man has a free will that is capable of either choosing or rejecting the gospel, while others, such as Martin Luther, have proposed that “man has no free will, but is a captive, servant and bondservant, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.”

Both approaches have been represented well by strong believers, however, one view must be right, and one view must be wrong. Either God chooses man, or man chooses God. Either man is autonomous, or man is subject to the will of God. The implications of where a Christian falls on this issue are life-changing.

Therefore, this is not a subject that should be discounted and left only to the theologians. Where a thoughtful Christian stands on this issue will drastically altar the trajectory of his life. Ergo, this is a matter that needs to be evaluated once more. Christians must not rely solely on what others have told them regarding this issue. They must seek the biblical answers on their own. Hopefully, this essay will be a resource that can be beneficial in that regard. 

First, the view that places man’s autonomy above God’s total sovereignty in regards to salvation will be explored. Then, this post will shed light onto the opposing viewpoint, which states that God is sovereign over everything, even man’s will. In the end, I intend to promote the belief that Scripture presents a God who is completely sovereign over all things, and who chooses some people to be saved, not on account of any merit in them, but only because of his sovereign good pleasure (Grudem). Therefore, it is to be affirmed that man’s will is indeed subject to God.

Free Will / Libertarianism

The majority of American Christians today believe that human free will (that is, the power of contrary choice) … is supported by both Scripture and good reason (Geisler). While this certainly has not always been the case, in relatively recent history man’s autonomy has become considered a “right” among many believers, and therefore the view of self-determination has grown in favor. Advocates of this view believe that ultimately, the will is free from any necessary causation. In other words, it is autonomous from any outside determination.

All "free will" theists hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason; it cannot properly be called our decision or free choice (Hendryx). Moral responsibility must require freedom from their perspective. Many find this argument compelling from a philosophical standpoint, it conforms well to man’s common sense. From a biblical standpoint, however, the Calvinist/compatabilist would assert that this view is unfounded.

One of the church’s most prominent champions of "free will" in regards to salvation was Jacobus Arminius. His perspective in several key areas radically differed from that of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Arminius believed that God’s predestination of individuals is based on his foreknowledge of whether the individual will freely accept or reject Christ. Arminius wrote, “God has not absolutely predestined any to salvation, but that he has in his decree considered (or looked upon) them as believers.” His teachings, which assert that despite the fall of man in the garden humans have within themselves the ability to accept or reject the gospel, are still adhered to by many in the church today.

Another notable figure in this regard was Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. He was the leading Christian humanist of the Reformation era who famously contested Martin Luther’s view of the bondage of man’s will. Erasmus claimed, “the freedom of the will is asserted by all.” In his diatribe on "free will" he cited biblical texts such as John 1:12, 2 Timothy 2:20-21, and Philippians 2:12; then asked, if Scripture admonishes us to work, “why say that God alone works all things in all?” Erasmus saw a definite contradiction in the compatabilist approach to God’s sovereignty. He could not reconcile Scriptures admonitions to men with God’s total sovereignty. He was, and is, not alone in this concern. Many in the church today find Erasmus’s arguments valid.

In today’s Evangelical culture there are many pastors and theologians who hold to this view as well. One author, professor, and theologian who has risen to prominence promoting a moderate view of "free will" is Norman Geisler. Geisler believes that some form of self-determinism (or free will) is “the most compatible with the biblical view of God’s sovereignty and human freedom,” and that human freedom is a God-ordained power given to men to make moral choices.

Some biblical passages that have been used throughout the years to affirm "libertarian free will" include Joshua 24:15 which says, "choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve;" Matthew 11:28, "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest;” Acts 3:19, "Repent therefore and be converted;” Acts 16:31, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved;” and Revelation 22:17, "Whoever wills, let him take the water of life freely."

"Free will" advocates believe that unregenerate men can seek salvation from God. Unregenerate men, based on their interpretation of Scripture, have the ability within themselves to seek the grace of God. This notion stands in stark contrast to the compatabilist, who holds to the belief that all men are spiritually dead, and apart from regeneration from the Holy Spirit, no one will seek God’s gift of salvation.

A man’s beliefs regarding either human autonomy or God’s total sovereignty will undoubtedly have an impact on his day-to-day approach to life. This is not an issue that is strictly theoretical. This matter will affect both his view of original sin and subsequently his perception of the power and majesty of God’s grace, as well as his evangelistic approach. Likewise, where local church leadership falls regarding this issue will manifest itself every weekend in services across the globe. Some churches shepherded by free will advocates will have an evangelistic flavor to their worship service, and will often promote evangelistic methodologies such as soul winning. Alan Myatt, who condemns this notion, states, “In the church, the doctrine of autonomy encourages a dependence on humanly created methods for the propagation of the gospel, rather than the providence of God … the result is that marketing techniques and pragmatic solutions, rather than scriptural principles inform our evangelistic strategies.” Meanwhile, the churches that hold to the viewpoint of a totally sovereign God tend to focus their weekly gatherings on worship and discipleship. Typically these churches will avoid high-pressure evangelistic presentations as well as altar calls due to their doctrinal beliefs.

Total Sovereignty of God / Compatibilism

Theistic determinism assumes that all events, including human behavior, are caused (determined) by God … Hence, for God to be sovereign, he must cause every event, be it human or otherwise (Geisler). The way that a Calvinist approaches the issue of determinism is through an understanding called compatibilism. Compatibilism is the belief that God's predetermination is "compatible" with voluntary choice … our choices are determined by our greatest inclinations. Compatibilism affirms that we make choices for a reason, that the will is not independent of the person and we will always choose what we want (Deut 30:16,17,19; Matt 17:12; James 1:14 – Hendryx). This means that God has granted humans the ability to act freely but not independent from God nor free from our desires, but to act according to our desires and nature. Scripture states,

No good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks (Luke 6:42-45).

There is simplicity, yet profundity found in this text.  Truly, fig trees will grow figs, a good person will produce what is good, and an evil person will produce that which is evil. This passage reveals that one cannot produce a result that is contrary to nature. The implications here are profound for the compatabilists, who see Scripture teaching that the natural man is hostile to God, and will not willingly submit to his lordship, or be receptive to his gospel. It is because of this belief that they (compatibilists) claim that apart from God acting on his behalf, the unregenerate man does not have the free will to choose any redemptive good due to his propensity to evil. He is, because of original sin, in bondage to sin. The sinner then cannot break the yoke of slavery until Christ first sets him free. Compatabilist therefore promote the notion that regeneration is the first act in regards to the salvation of a sinner. Faith, from their perspective, is a gift from God given to an undeserving sinner after he is made new.

Jonathan Edwards noted, “If every event has a cause, then so do free human choices; God is the First Cause of everything; therefore, God must be the First Cause of our free choices.” Edwards then asserted, “Human freedom is not the power to do what one decides but rather what one desires. The cause of human desires is God, and people always act in accordance with them.” From Edward’s perspective, God is at the root of every cause, therefore, in the end, man does not have the kind of free will described in the previous section of this essay. R. C. Sproul sheds further light on this idea in his work Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. In it he writes, “Every choice I make is determined by something. There is a reason for it, a desire behind it. This sounds like determinism. By no means! Determinism teaches that our actions are completely controlled by something external to us making us do what we don’t want to do.” 

There can be no doubt that people do make choices, therefore determinism left alone is erroneous. The issue becomes, what do human beings desire? If sin stained humans desire something that is holy, compatabilists claim that God put that desire inside the heart of the sinner. Left alone, man would choose any and every lord except Jesus Christ. Michael Horton clarifies, “Our will can choose only that in which our nature delights. If our nature is in bondage to unbelief, then our will is not free in respect to God.” Edwards, Sproul, and Horton all affirm that God is, in fact, the causation of and giver of human freedom. Therefore, human autonomy, as libertarians understand it, is an erroneous notion.

How is God’s will accomplished though? Paul Jewett writes, “Since there is no possibility that the creature could impose his or her will on the creator, so there is no need that the creator should impose his will on the creature. And why? Because it is in him that we live, and move, and have our being (Acts 17:28) as human beings. God then works in us, not outside us, much less against us to the will of his good pleasure (Phil. 2:13).”

With this understanding, compatibilism promotes not a mandated coercion by a God who strings men along like puppets, rather a loving causation of desire by a God who has our best interests at heart. He can see the big picture, and knows what must be accomplished for his will to come to fruition. This notion also eliminates the idea that God drags men to hell against their will. To the compatibilist, everyone chooses what he or she desires the most. The sinner, then, chooses enmity with God over Lordship. Anyone that desires Christ’s gift of salvation is free to accept it. The deeper question that arises then, where did that desire come from? The short answer from the mouth of a compatibilist would be: God.

Despite the fact that this view bristles against American individualistic notions and is currently in the minority status, compatibilism is actually considered orthodox by many Christians based on its historic prominence. Solidifying this notion is the fact that this view was the position been held by many of greatest thinkers and theologians of all time. Paul Jewett is so bold as to say, “every theologian of the first rank … has affirmed the doctrine of election [and by implication, the total sovereignty of God] as basic to the Christian faith.” Such notables include Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, and Warfield. To be fair, the other perspective (i.e., libertarian free will) was championed by men and women regarded highly by some as well, such as Lewis, Wesley, and Finney.

Some biblical passages that have been cited throughout the years to affirm the total sovereignty of God include John 6:65, “No one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father;” Ephesians 1:4, “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world; Ephesians 1:11, In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will; Romans 8:7, "The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so;” and I Corinthians 2:14, "the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

Conclusion

Despite the fact that this is a difficult issue, it is my belief that Scripture presents a God who is completely sovereign in all things, even man’s will in regards to salvation. This belief is held based on Scripture alone, not philosophy or even common sense. It is concluded due to the fact that there is simply no passage in Scripture where our wills are seen to be independent of God’s plan and our desires (Hendryx). In actuality, the Bible shows the opposite (e.g., Acts 2:23 and Acts 4:27-28).

Therefore, it should be affirmed that the will of man to choose God is indeed subject to and caused by God, though not in a coercive manner. We need only ask, what causes the will to chose one way rather another? If it is not caused, it is purely random. If it is caused to act, than it is not free from causation. That causation, therefore, must be the work of God. R.C. Sproul writes,

Every choice that we make in life we make for some reason. Our decisions are based upon what seems good for us at the moment … this is the very essence of free will – to choose according to our desires … To be sure, for us to choose Christ, God must change our heart. That is precisely what he does. He changes our heart for us. He gives us a desire for himself that we otherwise would not have. Then we choose Him out of the desire that is within us. We freely choose Him because we want to choose Him. That is the wonder of His grace.

The Bible makes it clear in many passages that the will is not morally neutral … all human moral motions either flow out of the principle of faith or, by default, out of the flesh – mere acts of the sin nature. Therefore, there can be no morally neutral actions, including acts of the will (Wright). This point brings us back to Luther’s thesis – men are either enslaved to the will of God or to the will of Satan. While there are many believers who will deny this assertion, they must do so by disregarding numerous biblical passages like the ones previously cited, and by theoretically stripping away the sovereignty and supremacy of God.

There are many theological benefits derived from this understanding. One such benefit is the fact that the Holy Spirit is given a more prominent role within this context. If we have within ourselves the capacity to believe or reject the gospel freely why is there the need for the Holy Spirit in salvation at all, especially when the gospel is preached? Indeed, many Christians and churches operate as if the Holy Spirit is powerless, as if their actions alone can bring about change both in the hearts of others and the world itself. Scripture, however, places great emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit (John 6:63, John 14:26, Luke 12:12, and Rom. 8:26) to make the necessary changes in the hearts of men individually and collectively. This writer feels that understanding God to be completely sovereign in a compatibilistic sense takes all the glory off of man, and rightly places as much as possible on the Almighty God, for he alone is worthy of any praise. The beauty of this perspective is that when it is applied properly, truly it is the best anecdote to Pelagianism, a genuine rebuke to human pride, and a source of unending gratitude to the God of all grace (Hendryx).

Not only are there many theological benefits to adhering to compatibilism, but also there are many troubling concerns that can be avoided by adhering to it as well. To advocate the autonomy of man potentially leaves the door open to dangerous theological error. Robert Wright writes:

The seriousness of this problem has been brought home to me during fifteen years of ministry to the cults. I have found at least one common denominator among all those I studied – the belief in human autonomy. From the Jehovah’s Witnesses to the Mormons and a host of other modern cults, war has been declared against any form of Calvinism ... history has shown that the dogma of human autonomy gradually eats away at the foundations of orthodoxy until eventually it collapses entirely.

This is not to say that all churches that hold to "free will" theology will fall into apostasy, it is merely an assessment that at the root of certain dangerous errors, the promotion of human autonomy is often found. When the emphasis is placed on man instead of God, worship will be hindered, theology will be man-centric, and pride will potentially be prevalent both in the pews and the pulpit. Compatibilism on the other hand, when properly understood and applied (unfortunately, this is not always the case due to man’s sin nature), has the potential to place all glory on God, draw the heart of the saint to Christ in beautiful worship, and reveal the error of pride in the heart of a believer.

In the end, while I champion the belief in the total sovereignty of God, it must be acknowledged that there is a healthy tension between compatibilism and self-determinism. Don Carson said it best when he stated, “The sovereignty-responsibility tension is not a problem to be solved; rather, it is a framework to be explored.”  

It appears that God, in his omniscience, knew that this is an issue that his church needed to wrestle with, perhaps to bring about more humility, perhaps to add an extra serving of mystery and awe to our theological understandings, or perhaps to draw us closer to him in our search for answers. Whatever his reasons, hopefully in the wrestling and exploration that Christians undertake regarding this issue, the beauty, glory, mystery, and majesty of God will shine forth in ways that were previously unimaginable.

May his grace overwhelm our senses as we study the Savior; may his love overcome our hardness and self-centeredness as we walk this theological journey; and may our precious freedom from the yoke of sin, which was paid for by the blood of Jesus Christ, be used for his honor and glory alone.