Introduction
Although the mystery between God's will and our free choices is a complex theological matter, it is listed under "Doctrine & Ministry" because this is one of the most common questions and debates among Christians. Most churchgoers divide themselves between "Calvinists" and "Arminians" based on the doctrines of the French theologian John Calvin (1509–1564) and the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609), respectively. However, the question of God's sovereignty and human free will is much older than these men. Plato (427–347 BC) and Aristotle (384–322 BC) discussed the Greek concept of fate and where it leads us. Nearly every world religion and school of philosophy tries to answer just how free our choices are. Even atheists—such as the American neuroscientist Sam Harris (b. 1967), who offers a secular view in his book Free Will (Simon & Schuster, 2012)—must reckon with this question, although they deny God's existence.
Before exploring whether the scriptures emphasize God's freedom or human choice, we must define divine foreknowledge, free will, omniscience, predestination, and sovereignty. So many conversations begin with a tacit understanding of these terms but alienate the uninitiated. Divine foreknowledge refers to God's ability to know the realities and events before they happen. Paul of Tarsus clarified, "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters" (Rom. 8:29). Predestination means that God has eternally chosen those of whom he plans to save; we must separate it from determinism, which rejects all human agency, and fatalism, which too readily denies hope. The doctrine of predestination does not necessarily rule out human choices.
There are three kinds of free will: compatibilist, determinist, and libertarian. Compatibilism refers to our free choices that are "compatible" with God's will. This kind is the genuinely scriptural view of free will, which was Arminius' position. However, the subsequent Arminian tradition most often implies the libertarian perspective in today's debates, which means freedom with neither limits nor boundaries. In other words, contemporary Arminians believe God reacts to human beings who freely choose him, but he does little to begin the relationship. The Calvinist view teaches the opposite: God strictly determines whom he saves and guides the course of history with little choice given to humankind. This article reviews the implications of both views and then offers a middle ground.
Omniscience vs. Free Will
The word "omniscience" defines God's ability to know all things, and it is synonymous with "foreknowledge" but also expands from the past to the present and the future. In the determinist view, God is highly proactive in saving people from sin and its consequences. In libertarianism (not to be confused with political philosophy), God is merely reactive to human whims. Once we move past Calvin and Arminius, the more theological terms are "monergism" and "synergism," respectively. They stem from the Greek words monos (G3441, "one"), sun (G4862, "with"), and ergon (G2041, "work"). That said, monergists believe that God works alone to save us, while synergists view humans as working together with God toward salvation. Incidentally, monergeō never appears in scripture, whereas sunergeō (G4903) does—especially in Romans 8:28 ("And we know that in all things God works together with those who love him to bring about what is good—with those who have been called according to his purpose" [emphasis added]). No literary evidence supports monergeō as an actual word in ancient Greek—there is no Strong's Concordance for it. Of course, that does not mean theological terms must derive from biblical Greek to be valid (e.g., "Trinity"). Still, we must consider Paul's words about salvation in this context.
Not so fast! There would be no debate if this were simply a matter of vocabulary. However, synergists often downplay scriptures that convey God's sovereignty and his ability to plan the events of human history. They correctly understand verses such as Romans 10:9 ("If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved") to suggest a free-will response. The monergists rightly point to verses such as Romans 9:20 ("But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'"). This verse undergirds the doctrine of irresistible grace. For Calvinists in the English-speaking world, the mnemonic TULIP represents the five key points of monergism:
Total depravity
Unconditional election
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
Perseverance of the saints
Yet, this is a relatively modern and debatable interpretation of the Canons of Dort (1618–1619), much less the New Testament letters. To summarize these points: 1) No one can seek God because of their depraved human nature, and 2) God elects individuals to save. Thus, Jesus' atonement is limited to them instead of the entire world; 3) The chosen sinner cannot resist God's grace out of love and a desperate need to repent; and 4) The Holy Spirit regenerates the elect to keep their faith until death. Conversely, Arminians offer the mnemonic DAISY:
Diminished depravity
Abrogated election
Impersonal atonement
Sedentary grace
Yieldable justification
DAISY means God offers his grace that prevents the sinner from going too far astray—the doctrine of prevenient grace. To summarize these points: 1) The atonement of Jesus is unlimited, given to anyone who chooses to trust in him; 2) The election is also conditional on one's free will; 3) Those who deny God are totally depraved without him; 4) but the saved freely choose to endure in their faith until death through the Spirit's guidance.
Omniscience & Free Will
Late in the sixteenth century, a Jesuit theologian, Luis de Molina (1535–1600), discovered an intelligent solution to the omniscience/free will divide. In this little-known theology called Molinism, God has foreknowledge and "middle knowledge." Molinism is the view of the American philosophers William Lane Craig (b. 1949) and Alvin Plantinga (b. 1932). Because the scriptures do not use the phrase "middle knowledge," this concept relies more on philosophy than theology. However, it is very defensible with both scripture and reason (e.g., John 18:36). Middle knowledge encompasses God's will and every possible result, even if creation or the fall of humankind never happened. Molinism is similar to the "best of all possible worlds" view of the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716).
Simply put, the world we now live in is the "best possible" since we may choose to worship God or sin against him. A determinist world in which human beings honored God in robotic obedience would not be the "best possible" since relationships cannot flourish under total control. Of course, evil may not exist if God chose to restrict our freedom, but this begs the question: "What is the value of choice?"
So, what does the Molinist teach about salvation? As in monergism, God is fully sovereign and controls the flow of world history. However, Molinism is still a modified form of synergism in which humans freely "work together" with God. How does this work? God applies his middle knowledge to coordinate events in our lives in which he knows exactly how we would respond to them.
For this reason, he gives us a chance to repent and serve him because he already knows the outcome. In our minds, we freely choose as God lays out several options before us. Yet, God sets the controls for each of these variables. From a neuroscientific standpoint, this is precisely how we make decisions. The critical trait distinguishing the human mind from the animal mind is the ability to reasonably "predict" the future based on past experiences. However, we know our "predictions" may change with new information. When applied to God as "middle knowledge," we understand that God takes his past, present, and future experiences and uses them to foreknow, elect, and predestine individuals toward salvation.
The Southern Baptist theologian and journalist Timothy George (b. 1950) formulated the mnemonic ROSES to define the Molinist view of soteriology:
Radical depravity
Overcoming grace
Sovereign election
Eternal life
Singular redemption
Thus, humans are not totally depraved but retain something from God's image even after the fall (see 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9 [Gen. 1:26-28]). We are not as evil as possible, but more accurately, we confuse good for evil and vice-versa (see Isa. 5:20; 2 Tim. 3:5). If our depravity were "total," we would have total anarchy. God then overcomes our rebellion through his persistence and grace, which makes it irresistible and willful. His election remains his choice alone, but in keeping with the synergist view, God desires the salvation of all people. Yet, one may exhaust all options and freely lose them (see Heb. 9:27-28; Rev. 6:14-16). In his sovereignty, God chooses us, not that we choose him. He preserves our new life in Jesus with steadfast faith in him based on a result that God already knows. Finally, the Molinist believes Jesus redeemed everyone sufficiently, but only efficiently for those who freely walk in God's plan. Given that he only presents two options—heaven or hell—our free will can never be truly free in a libertarian sense. It is either grace or judgment that keeps us in check.
Messianic Jewish View of God's Will
The problem with Arminianism, Calvinism, and even Molinism is that they carry a lot of cultural and historical baggage from early-modern Europe. Too often, responses to scripture may be tied directly to the Protestant Reformation (1517–1648), the Catholic Counterreformation (1545–1648), or the Enlightenment (1685–1815) rather than first-century Judea. Paul asked, "For when one says, 'I follow Paul,' and another, 'I follow Apollos,' are you not mere human beings? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task" (1 Cor. 3:4-5). When we insert the names of Arminius, Calvin, and Molina, we have the same problem of aligning ourselves with a teacher instead of Jesus himself (see Matt. 23:8-9). To this end, the Anglican scholar N. T. Wright (b. 1948) suggests, "For too long, we have read scripture with nineteenth-century eyes and sixteenth-century questions. It's time to get back to reading with first-century eyes and twenty-first-century questions" (p. 37). So, what is this old Jewish view of God's will and our free choices?
One of the primary goals of Paleo-Christian Ministries is to explore New Testament biblical theology instead of rehashing the views of systematic theology. In other words, to find scriptural answers rather than ones based on culture, history, or mere speculation. In addition to the New Testament, the tools we must know about first-century faith are the Didache and Messianic Judaism. Because God chose the Jews to be his inheritance, they prioritized the doctrines of election and sovereignty. Even in Paul's letters, the Christian Gentiles are ingrafted branches into Israel's election (see Rom. 11). Likewise, Jesus tells us, "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you" (John 15:16). A first-century Judaic liturgical document known as the Didache outlines "the two ways" of life and death (see Didache 1) based on God's counsel for the ancient Israelites to "choose life" before they entered the Promised Land (see Deut. 28). We must realize, however, that even this counsel includes the ability of the Israelites to choose life or death freely. God ordains his plan and the path for us to follow, but we may decide to leave both to our detriment. The Messianic Jewish theologian Asher Intrater (b. 1952) presents TF3:
Total sovereignty
Faithfulness to the forefathers
Firstborn nation of Israel
First-century apostolic church
The difference between the Gentile mnemonics TULIP, DAISY, and ROSES and the Messianic TF3 is that it prioritizes relationship over the concept. Simply put, Jews mainly describe God's will by their experiences of it, whereas Gentiles typically indulge in more speculation.
God is sovereign because only he has the libertarian freedom to choose. Yes, he does limit this freedom through covenants and the incarnation of Jesus, but he does so freely. God is the potter, and we are clay in his strong hands (see Isa. 29:16; 45:9; 64:8; Jer. 18:6, 11; Lam 4:2; Sir. 33:13 CEB; Rom. 9:21). He elected the Jewish people to be his chosen nation by which to draw all the others in worshiping the one true God (see Rom. 9:14-23). We are the beneficiaries of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who are the forefathers of Israel (e.g., Luke 20:37). As long as we acknowledge Jesus, who is the Messiah, we are honorary citizens of Israel—the firstborn nation of the world because God first cut his covenant with them (see Exod. 4:22). Any government that seeks to do God's will must consult with the Jewish people (see Zech. 8:23). Nevertheless, the first-century church began as a Jewish movement, carrying out Israel's national election to the ends of the earth.
Conclusion
In the intricate tapestry of theological discourse surrounding God's sovereignty and human free will, we find ourselves immersed in a conversation that spans centuries, bridging the thoughts of ancient philosophers, theologians, and modern scholars. The divisions between Calvinism and Arminianism, rooted in the doctrines of John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius, continue to shape theological discussions within Christian communities. Yet, as we navigate these theological waters, it becomes evident that the quest to understand the interplay between divine foreknowledge, predestination, and human agency transcends the boundaries of religious affiliations. Scriptural references, philosophical inquiries, and contemporary perspectives contribute to a multifaceted exploration of the nature of free will and its relationship to God's sovereignty. Drawing from biblical narratives and theological reflections, the compatibilist perspective suggests a nuanced understanding where human freedom coexists harmoniously with divine providence.
However, interpretations diverge, with some emphasizing the libertarian aspect of free will, advocating for unrestrained autonomy in human choices. In contrast, others lean towards a deterministic worldview, emphasizing God's predetermined plan. In navigating these diverse perspectives, seeking a middle ground that honors the complexities of the theological terrain becomes imperative. Such a middle ground acknowledges the profound mystery inherent in the intersection of God's sovereignty and human agency. It invites humility in the face of theological certainty and encourages dialogue that fosters mutual understanding and respect across theological divides. Ultimately, the pursuit of understanding God's will and human free will is not merely an intellectual exercise but a journey of faith and contemplation. It calls us to engage with humility, reverence, and a willingness to embrace the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. In this ongoing exploration, may we find unity in diversity, wisdom in discernment, and grace in our pursuit of truth.
Prayer
Blessed are you, LORD our God, King of the universe; whose will it is to restore all things in your well-beloved Son, the King of kings and Lord of lords: Mercifully grant that the peoples of the earth, divided and enslaved by sin, may be freed and brought together under his most gracious rule; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.
Bibliography
Abasciano, Brian, and Martin Glynn. "An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. the TULIP of Calvinism." Hampton, NH: Society of Evangelical Arminians, 2013.
Beilby, James K., and Paul R. Eddy, eds. Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001.
Blackmore, Susan, and Emily T. Troscianko. "People: Sam Harris"—Consciousness: An Introduction (publisher's promotional website). Third ed. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2018. https://routledgetextbooks.com/textbooks/9781138801318/people/samuel-benjamin-harris.php.
The Book of Common Prayer. Huntington Beach, CA: Anglican Liturgy Press, 2019. p. 623. http://bcp2019.anglicanchurch.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/BCP2019.pdf.
Britannica, eds. "Determinism." Encyclopædia Britannica. Chicago: Britannica, Inc. https://www.britannica.com/topic/determinism.
⸻. "Fatalism." https://www.britannica.com/topic/fatalism.
⸻. "Predestination." https://www.britannica.com/topic/predestination.
Chilton, Brian G. "What is Molinism?" The Christian Post. Washington, DC: Christian Post, Inc, 2018. https://www.christianpost.com/voices/what-is-molinism.html.
Geisler, Norman L. Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of God's Sovereignty and Free Will. Third ed. Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 2010.
Harris, Sam. Free Will. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012.
Hendryx, John, ed. "Our Faith: Monergism Distinctives." Monergism. West Linn, OR: Christian Publication Resource Foundation. https://www.monergism.com/our-faith.
Hunt, Dave, and James White. Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views. Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2009.
Janicki, Toby. The Way of Life—Didache: A New Translation and Messianic Jewish Commentary. Marshfield, MO: Vine of David, 2017.
Juster, Daniel, and Asher Keith. Israel, the Church, and the Last Days. Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 2003.
Kaku, Michio. The Future of the Mind: The Scientific Quest to Understand, Enhance, and Empower the Mind. New York: Doubleday, 2014.
Keathley, Kenneth D. "Molinism." Theology for the Church (blog). November 24, 2015. http://www.theologyforthechurch.com/2015/11/24/so-what-is-molinism.
⸻. "ROSES vs. TULIP." Theology for the Church (blog). April 1, 2010. http://www.theologyforthechurch.com/2010/04/01/roses-vs-tulip.
⸻. Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach. Nashville: B&H, 2010. pp. 16–41.
Kaufmann Kohler, Isaac Broydé. "Predestination." Jewish Encyclopedia. Philadelphia: Kopelman, 2021. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12338-predestination.
Nally, Joseph R., Jr. "Theological Flowerbeds—DAISY vs. TULIP." Casselberry, FL: Thirdmill. https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/45598.
Perszyk, Ken, ed. Molinism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2011.
Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, trans. "Didache." Peter Kirby, edited for Early Christian Writings, 2001. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html.
"Topics—European History: Enlightenment." History Channel. New York: A&E Television Networks, 2020. https://www.history.com/topics/british-history/enlightenment.
White, James R. The Potter's Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and the Rebuttal of Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free. Amityville, NY: Calvary, 2000.
Wright, N. T. Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016.
Wright, N. T., and Michael F. Bird. The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019.
Commentaires