God's Sovereignty, Free will and Responsibility

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeffrey Setiawan

Puritan Board Freshman
God's sovereignty and Free will contradict one another (because no will is free from God), but not God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Man's Responsibility is not based on the free will of man, but on God's sovereignty and pleasure in creating man with knowledge of good and evil, as opposed to animals who are neither sinful nor responsible.

Gordon H. Clark on the Image of God

“The image must be reason because God is truth, and fellowship with him – a most important purpose in creation – requires thinking and understanding. Without reason man would doubtless glorify God as do the stars, stones, and animals; but he could not enjoy him forever. Even if in God’s providence animals survive death and adorn the heavenly realm, they cannot have what the Scripture calls eternal life because eternal life consists in knowing the only true God, and knowledge is an exercise of the mind or reason. Without reason there can be no morality or righteousness: These too require thought. Lacking these, animals are neither righteous nor sinful. The identification of the image with reason explains or is supported by a puzzling remark in John 1:9: “It was the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” How can Christ, in whom is the life that is the light of men, be the light of every man, when Scripture teaches that some are lost in eternal darkness? The puzzle arises from interpreting light in exclusively redemptive terms. The first chapter of John is not soteriological only. Obviously, there are references to salvation in verses 7, 8, 12 and 13. It is not surprising that some Christians understood verse nine also in a soteriological sense. But it is not true that all men are saved; hence if Christ lightens every man, this enlightening cannot be soteriological. This is not the only non-soteriological verse in the chapter. The opening verses treat of creation and the relation of the Logos to God. If the enlightening is not soteriological, it could be epistemological. Then since responsibility depends on knowledge, the responsibility of the unregenerate is adequately founded…... that creative light gives every man an innate knowledge sufficient to make all men responsible for their evil actions. This interpretation ties in with the idea of creation in verse three. Thus, the Logos or rationality of God, who created all things without a single exception, can be seen as having created man with the light of logic as his distinctive human characteristics.” - Gordon H. Clark
 
Moderating. You need to fix yourself a signature per the board rules. See the link at the bottom of the site page.
God's sovereignty and Free will contradict one another (because no will is free from God), but not God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Man's Responsibility is not based on the free will of man, but on God's sovereignty and pleasure in creating man with knowledge of good and evil, as opposed to animals who are neither sinful nor responsible.

Gordon H. Clark on the Image of God

“The image must be reason because God is truth, and fellowship with him – a most important purpose in creation – requires thinking and understanding. Without reason man would doubtless glorify God as do the stars, stones, and animals; but he could not enjoy him forever. Even if in God’s providence animals survive death and adorn the heavenly realm, they cannot have what the Scripture calls eternal life because eternal life consists in knowing the only true God, and knowledge is an exercise of the mind or reason. Without reason there can be no morality or righteousness: These too require thought. Lacking these, animals are neither righteous nor sinful. The identification of the image with reason explains or is supported by a puzzling remark in John 1:9: “It was the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” How can Christ, in whom is the life that is the light of men, be the light of every man, when Scripture teaches that some are lost in eternal darkness? The puzzle arises from interpreting light in exclusively redemptive terms. The first chapter of John is not soteriological only. Obviously, there are references to salvation in verses 7, 8, 12 and 13. It is not surprising that some Christians understood verse nine also in a soteriological sense. But it is not true that all men are saved; hence if Christ lightens every man, this enlightening cannot be soteriological. This is not the only non-soteriological verse in the chapter. The opening verses treat of creation and the relation of the Logos to God. If the enlightening is not soteriological, it could be epistemological. Then since responsibility depends on knowledge, the responsibility of the unregenerate is adequately founded…... that creative light gives every man an innate knowledge sufficient to make all men responsible for their evil actions. This interpretation ties in with the idea of creation in verse three. Thus, the Logos or rationality of God, who created all things without a single exception, can be seen as having created man with the light of logic as his distinctive human characteristics.” - Gordon H. Clark
 
Among his creation, would humans be the only ones who have God's image?
Angels too I believe. They are rational and moral creatures too like man. That’s why the devil and his demons are responsible for their sins as well, but they differ from man in that God will not give them the ability to repent.
 
God's sovereignty and Free will contradict one another (because no will is free from God), but not God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Man's Responsibility is not based on the free will of man, but on God's sovereignty and pleasure in creating man with knowledge of good and evil, as opposed to animals who are neither sinful nor responsible.
I'm going to be somewhat awkward and take issue with the way this has been put across.

God's sovereignty and the free will of man do not contradict each other. Man chooses in accordance with his will and God is sovereign over that.
The reformed view is that man acts in accordance with his nature, and clearly since the Fall, man's will is therefore bound by his fallen nature, until regeneration by the Holy Spirit.
 
I would follow the language of the Reformed confessions on this matter rather than to try and come up with something new:


1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.a

a. Deut 30:19; Mat 17:12; James 1:14.

2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well-pleasing to God,a but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it.b

a. Gen 1:26; Eccl 7:29. • b. Gen 2:16-17; 3:6.

3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation;a so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,b and dead in sin,c is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.d

a. John 15:5; Rom 5:6; 8:7. • b. Rom 3:10, 12. • c. Eph 2:1, 5; Col 2:13. • d. John 6:44, 65; 1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:2-5; Titus 3:3-5.

4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin,a and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;b yet so as that, by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.c

a. John 8:34, 36; Col 1:13. • b. Rom 6:18, 22; Phil 2:13. • c. Rom 7:15, 18-19, 21, 23; Gal 5:17.

5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.a

a. Eph 4:13; Heb 12:23; 1 John 3:2; Jude 1:24.
 
I'm going to be somewhat awkward and take issue with the way this has been put across.

God's sovereignty and the free will of man do not contradict each other. Man chooses in accordance with his will and God is sovereign over that.
The reformed view is that man acts in accordance with his nature, and clearly since the Fall, man's will is therefore bound by his fallen nature, until regeneration by the Holy Spirit.
I agree that man chooses in accordance with his fallen nature, but is that will free from God that it can be called free will?
 
I would follow the language of the Reformed confessions on this matter rather than to try and come up with something new:


1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.a

a. Deut 30:19; Mat 17:12; James 1:14.

2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well-pleasing to God,a but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it.b

a. Gen 1:26; Eccl 7:29. • b. Gen 2:16-17; 3:6.

3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation;a so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,b and dead in sin,c is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.d

a. John 15:5; Rom 5:6; 8:7. • b. Rom 3:10, 12. • c. Eph 2:1, 5; Col 2:13. • d. John 6:44, 65; 1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:2-5; Titus 3:3-5.

4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin,a and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;b yet so as that, by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.c

a. John 8:34, 36; Col 1:13. • b. Rom 6:18, 22; Phil 2:13. • c. Rom 7:15, 18-19, 21, 23; Gal 5:17.

5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.a

a. Eph 4:13; Heb 12:23; 1 John 3:2; Jude 1:24.
Even the words in confessions have to be defined. Liberty from what?
 
I agree that man chooses in accordance with his fallen nature, but is that will free from God that it can be called free will?
That is how I understand it, should I be understanding your meaning of what "free from God" means: God does not exert any directional control on our wills--we are "free'" to do what we will do (in an unregenerate person, of course, that will is entirely incapable of doing anything to the glory of God). Though our will is indeed "free" it is only free to do what is according to our nature which is evil in the absence of being brought into the Kingdom of God.

This I understand to be the majesty and wonder of God's sovereignty---in that we being perfectly free creatures to do what we in our own power (understanding though that we have no real power of our own but live and move and have our being in Him, all things be they regenerate or not; He sustains us--were He to withdraw this sustaining power from us we would cease to live) will our own selves to do: nevertheless He is that glorious and rich in His wisdom and knowledge of us His creatures that He has ordained all that we have and will do: not in exerting a power over us to do what He wills us to do (without our voluntary actions), but in serving ourselves in our own will (acting in that "free" manner).

This will of course look much different in a regenerate person as opposed to an unregenerate-- once our Heavenly Father has called us into His Kingdom He gives us the ability to do things to His glory (our natures are now not evil but we are new creations in the Lord Jesus; though not entirely free from the stain of sin in all our faculties, we nevertheless do not have an entirely evil will as the unregenerate do). Hence, from this we *can* now have our own wills match His will: Thy will be done Father, not my will.

Of course, this is my own understanding of what I have learned from my studies in reformed theology and of course in God's word: I am no theologian so may have faulty views in these things.
Even the words in confessions have to be defined. Liberty from what?
I imagine liberty of having God exert any force upon us to do anything (as though we were puppets upon a string), though that is it my initial thought and am open to suggestions, critiques.
 
I imagine liberty of having God exert any force upon us to do anything (as though we were puppets upon a string), though that is it my initial thought and am open to suggestions, critiques.

The definition of "free will" alluded to in the original post - the sort of free will which ought to be denied - is probably "the equal ability to chose either of two exclusive processes or acts under any given circumstance." (Gordon Clark, Gordon-Conwell Lectures on Apologetics, John Frame and Cornelius Van Til 1981).

In other writings, though, Clark did accept that a certain definition of "free will" was confessional and valid. For example, Gordon Clark, 1954, Free Will, The Southern Presbyterian Journal Dec. 22:

When a discussion grows excited, there are two possible explanations. Excitement may indicate the topic is of great importance. Now, in this series of articles on the Westminster Confession every chapter so far has seemed of great importance; and free will is also a matter of importance, though it can hardly be of such importance as the previous chapter on Christ the Mediator. In the second place, excited discussion frequently indicates that the debaters are not sure of themselves. When contenders have neglected essential distinctions and have proceeded beyond their resources, the discussion can go on endlessly and without conclusions. As this has often been the case with discussions on free will, it would be wise to see exactly what the Confession says.

"God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty that is neither forced nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil." Now, what does the Confession mean by natural liberty? Does a Presbyterian mean the same thing that a Romanist or an Arminian means, when they say that man is free. Are there various concepts of freedom?

Obviously there are various concepts of freedom, and most of them have little to do with the present topic. For example, we say today that American citizens are free men, but that the victims of communistic governments are not free. Freedom therefore has a political and an economic sense; but that is not what concerns us here.

More to the point is whether or not the will of man is free from his intellect. Theologians in the past have discussed this at length. But that the will is free from the intellect is not what the Confession means by natural liberty. Calvin, for example, asserted that "the intellect rules the will;" Charles Hodge said that man's "will was subject to his reason;" and Robert J. Breckenridge taught that our primary conception of will includes the notion of its being directed by intelligence. The theology behind all this may be a little intricate, and the matter is mentioned only to show that freedom from intellect is not what Presbyterians mean by the concept of freedom.

Then does freedom, free will, or natural liberty mean that man is free from sin? Or, more pertinently, does it mean that man is free not to sin? Perhaps an Arminian might claim that man has a free will in the sense that he can choose not to sin. But the Confession, in the same chapter, section iii, says, "Man by his fall into a state of sin hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man... is not able by his own strength to convert himself or to prepare himself thereunto." Some Arminians seem to say that a sinner can choose to prepare himself for conversion; but the Bible says that man is dead in sin and needs to be raised from the dead. A dead man cannot choose to be raised.

Freedom from sin, complete freedom, is attained only in heaven; but even in heaven a completely free and undetermined will cannot be found. It is equally impossible for the glorified saint to choose to sin as it was for the unregenerate to choose not to sin. As St. Augustine said, the condition of man in heaven is non posse peccare: not able to sin. Heaven would be a precarious place if its citizens had this sort of free will.

What then does the Confession mean by the natural liberty of the will. The remainder of the section quoted answers this question as well as two lines can. Man's will "is neither forced nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined." These words were written to repudiate those philosophies which explain human conduct in terms of physicochemical law. Although the Westminster divines did not know twentieth century behaviorism, nor even Spinoza, they very probably knew Thomas Hobbes, and they certainly knew earlier materialistic theories. That man's conduct is determined by inanimate forces is what the Confession denies. Man is not a machine; his motions cannot be described by mathematical equations as the motions of the planets can. His hopes, plans, and activities are not controlled by physical conditions. He is not determined by any absolute necessity of nature.

But this does not mean that man is free from God. The Confession does not deny, but on the contrary explicitly affirms that God controls the will of man.
To say that physics and chemistry do not explain conduct is not to rule out God's grace. Section iv states that by his grace alone God enables a man freely to will what is good; the Holy Spirit effectually calls elect sinners to faith in Christ (III vi); he makes them willing and able to believe (VII iii); Christ certainly and effectually applies salvation to his people (VIII viii); and similar expressions occur in later chapters.

Unless God "governs all creatures, actions, and things" (V i), or "all his creatures and all their actions" (Shorter Catechism 11), he would not be actually omnipotent, nor could we be sure his prophecies would infallibly come true. An interesting though obscure case of God's control over the will of men is found in Exodus 34:24. The men of Israel are commanded to appear before the Lord three times a year. As such an occasion would offer an excellent opportunity for an enemy attack, the Lord assures his people that their enemies will not desire to attack at those times. In II Sam. 17:14 Absalom chose the worse advice because the Lord had planned to defeat the better counsel in order to bring evil on Absalom. God also caused Rehoboam to adopt evil counsel (II Chron. 10:15) in order to fulfill his promise to Jeroboam. Better known than these cases are the words of Paul in Phil. 2:12,13, "Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling, for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do."

Man has a natural liberty not acknowledged by materialistic philosophy, but Christians should never construe that liberty to the detriment of God's omnipotence and grace.
 
There should be an emoji that reflects eagerly following and considering every post.

Like the popcorn-eating one except the popcorn emoji guy expects a blockbuster fight like "Rocky" or "Top Gun".

This emoji should be eating something more refined as if he is anticipating the intellectual back and forth so he can deeply consider as he consumes each post. Coffee maybe?

EDIT: After realizing that any local cinema does not have a universally recognizable snack for moviegoers watching deep and reflective films, but only the universally recognizable snack for "popcorn fare" that solely includes shoot-em-ups I wonder if there is an exhibit of evidence here for the fallenness of man - useful to both classical and presuppositional apologists of course. No popcorn needed in the thread here!
 
Last edited:
WGT Shedd gives a good definition of inclination vs. will.

  1. The freedom of the will is its self-motion (498).
    1. Freedom of the will is primarily self-determination to a single end, not a choice between two yet unchosen contraries (503).
    2. Pelagian psychology defines freedom as indifference (suppl. 4.2.6). Scriptural psychology sees it as the spontaneous inclining of the will to what God commands and aversion of what he forbids.
      1. The Pelagian view is wholly in volitions.
  2. Inclination is not volition.
    1. The first activity of the will is inclination, not volition (504). Man is biased in his will before he chooses.

  1. Inclination terminates on the soul. Volition on the body.
  2. Inclination is the central action of the will; volition is the superficial action (519).
    1. The action of the will is best termed voluntary.
    2. The superficial action is volitionary.
      1. All volitionary acts of choice are performed to satisfy the prevailing inclination of the wil (520).
      2. Volitions are means.
  3. Jonathan Edwards’s position:
    1. The outward act is preceded by the volition
    2. The volition is preceded by the inclination
    3. The inclination is either concretely holy (per regeneration) or sinful (per apostasy).
  4. Summary
    1. Volition moves the body. Inclination moves the will.
    2. The total action of the will subdivides into voluntary and volitionary
    3. This distinction explains moral ability (Suppl. 4.3.3)
 
WGT Shedd gives a good definition of inclination vs. will.

  1. The freedom of the will is its self-motion (498).
    1. Freedom of the will is primarily self-determination to a single end, not a choice between two yet unchosen contraries (503).
    2. Pelagian psychology defines freedom as indifference (suppl. 4.2.6). Scriptural psychology sees it as the spontaneous inclining of the will to what God commands and aversion of what he forbids.
      1. The Pelagian view is wholly in volitions.
  2. Inclination is not volition.
    1. The first activity of the will is inclination, not volition (504). Man is biased in his will before he chooses.

  1. Inclination terminates on the soul. Volition on the body.
  2. Inclination is the central action of the will; volition is the superficial action (519).
    1. The action of the will is best termed voluntary.
    2. The superficial action is volitionary.
      1. All volitionary acts of choice are performed to satisfy the prevailing inclination of the wil (520).
      2. Volitions are means.
  3. Jonathan Edwards’s position:
    1. The outward act is preceded by the volition
    2. The volition is preceded by the inclination
    3. The inclination is either concretely holy (per regeneration) or sinful (per apostasy).
  4. Summary
    1. Volition moves the body. Inclination moves the will.
    2. The total action of the will subdivides into voluntary and volitionary
    3. This distinction explains moral ability (Suppl. 4.3.3)

Funny you mention this. I was listening to the following just yesterday:

 
While this thread almost turned into a dumpster fire, Muller does a good job showing how the Reformed viewed key scholastic distinctions.
 
Hello Jeffrey,

You said,
God's sovereignty and Free will contradict one another (because no will is free from God), but not God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Man's Responsibility is not based on the free will of man, but on God's sovereignty and pleasure in creating man with knowledge of good and evil, as opposed to animals who are neither sinful nor responsible.

I like things put simply. In Adam's case God's sovereignty and man's Free will did not contradict one another. While Adam walked in obedience to God's will they were in harmony. When Adam, per Satan's lie, decided that he would rather know for himself (and not just because God said it) what was good and evil for him and Eve, he fell into darkness and his will came into bondage to the dark lord and his own fallen flesh.

In our days, man is still held responsible to keep the obedience God once demanded of Adam, but it is impossible for him to perform it as all his faculties are dead to God, and he can neither love nor obey Him.

In one Man — Christ Jesus — God's sovereignty and Free will were in harmony again. In Him, we partake of the merit of this in Christ, though we fail in the perfect performance of this harmony, yet we live by confession and forgiveness, and His righteousness is imputed to us by virtue of our union.

We now freely will to be responsible, even though that willing is due to God working in us both to do and to will of His good pleasure (Phil 2:13), and our imperfection in this is covered by Christ's blood and righteousness. We are new creatures — imperfect for the time — yet still new, and look forward to when it will be fully natural for God's sovereignty and our responsibility to be in perfect harmony.
 
Perkins predestination explains the correct view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top