# God's Sovereignty and Human Responsibility



## Arch2k (Mar 27, 2006)

The discussion came up last Lord's day during Sunday School if there is a paradox between God's Sovereignty and Human Responsibility.

Do you find this paradoxical, or is it harmonious? If harmonious, how?


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 27, 2006)

This may be helpful-- from Piper.


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 27, 2006)

I like the way Gordon Clark dealt with this because he takes free will completely out of the equation.

Clark said, "a man is responsible if he must answer for what he does . . . a person is responsible if he can be justly rewarded or punished for his deeds. This implies, of course, that he must be answerable to someone."

Clark then asked the question, "Is it just then for God to punish a man for deeds that God Himself 'determined before to be done?'" Yes, "Whatever God does is just." Man is responsible to God; but God is responsible to no one.

Clark stated:
Man is responsible because God calls him to account; man is responsible because the supreme power can punish him for disobedience. God, on the contrary, cannot be responsible for the plain reason that there is no power superior to him; no greater being can hold him accountable; no one can punish him; there is no one to whom God is responsible; there are no laws which he could disobey.


----------



## ServantofGod (Mar 27, 2006)

I've been having real trouble with this topic.

1. No one can be saved unless God wills. Romans 9:16
2. No one can resist the will of God. Romans 9:19
3. God still throws in hell for eternity, those whom He does not will to be saved, puts the responsibility on them, but still says they can't be saved unless He saves them.

It's not a question of God's authority or power, it brings His love and mercy into question. If He has no reservations of willing people to go to hell, He can treat me, as His child, in any way He wants, cause He's in charge.


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 27, 2006)

Ian, for everyone to go to hell God only has to do nothing. In Adam we all chose to rebel, break covenant and go to hell. If God lacked mercy then he would do nothing while we received the just retribution for our rebellion.

BUT GOD is merciful and loving, so much so that he sent his only son as a righteous substitute. Perfect according to the law, and fully divine so that he could withstand the infinite wrath of the Father.

The question is not, why does God send people to hell, but why has a Holy God made provision for hell deserving sinners?

BTW Ian, you asked a very good question.  

[Edited on 3-27-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## ServantofGod (Mar 27, 2006)

> Ian, for everyone to go to hell God only has to do nothing. In Adam we all chose to rebel, break covenant and go to hell.



But isn't that free will? Did Adam choose to rebel? Or did God harden his heart so as to show His mercy?


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 27, 2006)

Excellent question Ian. On some days I will concede that pre-fallen Adam had free-will, other days I will not. The more accurate question is - was it consistent with Adam's nature, created in true righteousness, to set his preference on something that was not God. We did discuss this a few times, here's one of the threads. http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=10233#pid147862


----------



## JWJ (Mar 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ServantofGod_
> 
> 
> > Ian, for everyone to go to hell God only has to do nothing. In Adam we all chose to rebel, break covenant and go to hell.
> ...



Adam's will was never free from God's decree, therefore Adam did not have free will before the fall. The term free will essentially means free from bondage of sin (which Adam did have B4 the fall) and or free from God's decree (which Adam never had-- pre or post fall).

Jim


----------



## polemic_turtle (Mar 27, 2006)

Could it be that Adam, as an imperfect, that is, as a non-self-sufficient being, being dependent on God for sustaining grace, could choose evil by God merely not withstraining him from it, rather than any positive willing being neccessary on the part of God? I'm very unversed in such things, so any answers would be considered and weighed fully. 

Also, that could explain how some angels did not remain holy without being elect, because God did not sustain them from falling, although they certainly did the falling themselves.

I don't know. :-?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 27, 2006)

God permitted the Fall. He did not force Adam's hand in causing the Fall.

God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, but that is not the same as making it happen. He is not forcing anyone to do anything, and never violates the free agency of man.

A good analogy Berkhof uses is this:

If you know how a person acts, and what they generally decide to do, then you would be able to say that when presented with situation X, person A will do Y. God decrees that person A will do Y in situation X, because God knows absolutely everything about person A. Predestination is absolute, and man's free agency is absolute. There are not a myriad of possibilities a person "could" choose in any given situation, there is only one possible outcome of every situation. God's decrees are a "map" if you will of what people do and what happens throughout time. Not only does God know everything beforehand (foreknowledge), but He so decrees how things will occur, absolutely (predestination), and this does not violate the free agency of man. Every person does exactly what they want to do in their life. They have no other choice, there is no other "possible" universe or space-time continuum.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> God permitted the Fall. He did not force Adam's hand in causing the Fall.
> 
> God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, but that is not the same as making it happen. He is not forcing anyone to do anything, and never violates the free agency of man.



Gabe,

I agree with you. I think we (as Calvinists) need to be careful attributing the "God permitted the fall" idea. I think it suggests in the minds of many others (especially Arminians!) that God is passively letting evil happen vs. actively ordaining it for His righteous purpose.

Does God ordain sin to occur? Or does He only "allow" sin to occur?



> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> > From Calvin's Calvinism (The Secret Providence of God), Sovereign Grace Union, 1927, p. 244
> >
> >
> > > From all that has been said, we can at once gather how vain and fluctuating is that flimsy defence of the Divine justice which desires to make it appear that the evil things that are done, are so done, not by the will of god, but by His permission only. As far, indeed, as those evil things which men perpetrate with an evil mind are, in themselves evil, I willingly confess (as I will immediately more fully explain) that they by no means please God. But for men to represent God as sitting unconcerned, and merely permitting those things to be done which the Scripture plainly declares to be done not only by His will, but by His authority, is a mere way of escape from the truth, utterly frivolous and vain.


----------



## Peter (Mar 27, 2006)

I recommend Bahnsen's philosophy lecture on Augustine. Basically, he says what Gabe and Berkhof say. God exercises his sovereignty through mans free will. Man chooses his actions but they are always what God has predestined. Theoretically he could choose otherwise. E.g. it was foretold that Jesus' bones would not break, this does not mean Christ had unbreakable bones. Just b.c. our actions are predetermined does not mean they are coerced.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> I recommend Bahnsen's philosophy lecture on Augustine. Basically, he says what Gabe and Berkhof say. God exercises his sovereignty through mans free will. Man chooses his actions but they are always what God has predestined. Theoretically he could choose otherwise. E.g. it was foretold that Jesus' bones would not break, this does not mean Christ had unbreakable bones. Just b.c. our actions are predetermined does not mean they are coerced.



Aye. The problem is, Arminians and Lutherans and so forth conceive of a predestination that is arbitrary, and of a free agency of man that is arbitrary. We, however, view both predestination and the free agency of man as absolute. There are no other possible outcomes.


----------



## Peters (Mar 28, 2006)

I have never been satisfied with any answer i've heard on this subject.


----------



## Peters (Mar 28, 2006)

...that doesn't mean there isn't one, of course.


----------



## Herald (Mar 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> God permitted the Fall. He did not force Adam's hand in causing the Fall.
> 
> God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, but that is not the same as making it happen. He is not forcing anyone to do anything, and never violates the free agency of man.
> ...



Adam was created without sin but not without the ability to sin. Some make the erroneous assumption that Adam was created in the same manner and condition as the eternal state. In that case Adam would not have been able to sin. Of course, we know that he did sin. So much for that theory.

So did God will for Adam to sin? Did punishment and redemption become part of God's plan as a result of the sin problem? If the answer is yes, then God is not omniscient nor omnipotent. His omniscience would be called into question by His not seeing the possibility of sin. His omnipotence would be suspect because He could not keep safe that which He created. We are left to conclude that God ordained Adam to sin and that punishment and redemption are all part of His divine plan. 

Why did God choose this plan? What entered into the mind of God to cause the chain of events that lead to the birth, death, resurrection and future return of His Son? We know that it pleased God to act this way, but none of us understand the mind of God. There does come a point when we must echo the words of Eli: _1 Samuel 3:18 18 So Samuel told him everything and hid nothing from him. And he said, "It is the LORD; let Him do what seems good to Him." _


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 28, 2006)

"Why did God choose this plan? What entered into the mind of God to cause the chain of events that lead to the birth, death, resurrection and future return of His Son?"


Eph 3:9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, 10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. 11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.


----------



## caddy (Mar 28, 2006)

Well stated by Berkhof!

I don't think I remember Boettner stating the thought as succintly as that.





> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> God permitted the Fall. He did not force Adam's hand in causing the Fall.
> 
> God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, but that is not the same as making it happen. He is not forcing anyone to do anything, and never violates the free agency of man.
> ...


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Mar 28, 2006)

I believe that this discussion has begun to touch on infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism which are both very complex issues. I like Berkhof's example and it seems to give God the complete sovereignty that he deserves and man the responsibilty he has. I would raise the question as to what Berkhof's stance on the infra vs. supra debate...

If this is not the direction people want the discussion to go I can post on another thread, but I do think that exploring infra and supralapsarianism can help illuminate this issue.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Founded on the Rock_
> I believe that this discussion has begun to touch on infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism which are both very complex issues. I like Berkhof's example and it seems to give God the complete sovereignty that he deserves and man the responsibilty he has. I would raise the question as to what Berkhof's stance on the infra vs. supra debate...
> 
> If this is not the direction people want the discussion to go I can post on another thread, but I do think that exploring infra and supralapsarianism can help illuminate this issue.



Berkhof is infra, from what I've read in his Systematic. The Confessions take an infra stance, but don't "rule out" supralapsarianism, since their difference is not antithetical.


----------



## weinhold (Mar 28, 2006)

Dostoevsky's novel, The Brothers Karamazov, addresses the subject of human responsibility and divine sovereignty from the perspective of suffering. The chapters entitled, "The Brothers Get Aquainted" and "Rebellion" seem to be of particular significance. By way of summary, I think Dostoevsky comes to the same conclusion that every great poet reaches: divinely ordained suffering leads to a relationship with the divine.

Consider the words of the chorus in Aeschylus' Oresteia, "Zeus has led us on to know, the Helmsman lays it down as law that we must suffer, suffer into truth. We cannot sleep, and drop by drop at the heart the pain of pain remembered comes again, and we resist, but ripeness comes as well. From the gods enthroned on the awesome rowing-bench there comes a violent love."

It seems to me, therefore, that the poet has a unique insight into the divine-human relationship which emphasizes the premeditated divine decision to accomplish redemption through suffering. Yet humans are still held responsible, for example Oedipus, Orestes, and Job.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 28, 2006)

The apostle Peter sums up the doctrine of Predestination nicely.



> Acts 2:23 ... this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.


----------



## Peters (Mar 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by weinhold_
> Dostoevsky's novel, The Brothers Karamazov, addresses the subject of human responsibility and divine sovereignty from the perspective of suffering. The chapters entitled, "The Brothers Get Aquainted" and "Rebellion" seem to be of particular significance. By way of summary, I think Dostoevsky comes to the same conclusion that every great poet reaches: divinely ordained suffering leads to a relationship with the divine.
> 
> Consider the words of the chorus in Aeschylus' Oresteia, "Zeus has led us on to know, the Helmsman lays it down as law that we must suffer, suffer into truth. We cannot sleep, and drop by drop at the heart the pain of pain remembered comes again, and we resist, but ripeness comes as well. From the gods enthroned on the awesome rowing-bench there comes a violent love."
> ...



Nice.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> The apostle Peter sums up the doctrine of Predestination nicely.
> 
> 
> ...



Indeed - as does Moses in Genesis 20:6: "Then God said to him in the dream, 'Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her.'"

Also, Gabe, in light of Berkhof's comments, how would you summarize the difference between compatibilism and Molinism?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Compatibilism, which is what Berkhof (and Calvin, etc.) espouses for the doctrine of Predestination, deals with the reality of absolutes. No chances. In other words, any given human only has one possible choice for any situation, not several. They make this choice out of their own free agency. They do exactly what their heart desires, and there is no other possibility. And, on the other hand, God's decree is absolute. He knows exactly what will happen and decrees or declares it so. In a sense, He speaks it into being as a cold-hard fact. God does not force the actions of humans, but He also does not simply know (foreknowledge) what they will choose. He absolutely decrees what comes to pass in time, and humans exercise their free agency absolutely, without exception.

Molinism, or middle knowledge, on the other hand, teaches that God knows all of the possiblities of what a person might choose to do, and each person can exercise their free agency and choose from a variety of possibilities.

Whereas compatibilism teaches that God knows and decrees *absolutely* that A will do X in situation Y, Molinism teaches that God knows A could *possibly* do either X, Y or Z in situation Y.


----------

