sovereignty - responsibility

The title of Dr. Sproul's message is If God is Sovereign, How Can Man be Free?  Dr. Sproul read from Genesis 50:15ff.  He then walked us through the story of Joseph's faithfulness in the midst of various trials whereby he was treated unjustly first by his brothers, then by Potipher's wife, then by a fellow prisoner.

As his brothers beg for forgiveness (possibly motivated by a fear of punishment), they acknowledge that their actions toward Joseph were evil. Joseph asks them the question, "Am I in the place of God?" Joseph acknowledges that his brothers' intentions were evil. But he also recognizes that God was intimately involved in the evil that He experienced at the hands of his brothers. Joseph recognizes that even the treachery his brothers committed would be used by God for the good of those who love Him.  Nevertheless, the acts committed were themselves evil. Evil behavior. Evil intentionality. But over and above the human intentionality, God was purposefully at work to bring about good. 

Why do we call the day on which the most egregious act of injustice was committed "good Friday"?  Because of God's intentionality.

Sproul noted that were it not for Joseph's coat of many colors--which pushed his brothers over the edge, prompting them to sell him into slavery--there would be no Potiphar, if no Potiphar, then no Potiphar's wife, and no going to jail, and no getting elevated to Pharoah's right hand man.  But God is involved at every stage in this chain of events.  

Inevitably, the question of God's sovereignty and man's freedom comes up.  But it is not that hard if we remember:  What is the difference between human beings and a Supreme being?  One is Supreme.  God is a volitional Being.  He has a divine faculty whereby He makes decisions, undergoes choices.  We humans are also volitional beings; our Creator has endowed us with a faculty of choosing.  We have the ability to make choices.

Os homens são livres, mas eles não são autônomos. Eles não soberanos.,mas eles tomam decisões seguindo os seus desejos e as suas vontades,

We talk about the doctrine of concurrence at this point.  Joseph's brothers, in selling Joseph into slavery, did exactly what they wanted to do.  Nobody forced them to do it.  That said, we never limit God's freedom.  God can always thwart human designs.  Though we choose according to our desires, our very actions are made under God (with the enabling that God grants us).  God's freedom is always larger.  We are never autonomous.

On a moral plane, we are born into this world as slaves of sin.  We are not morally able to do that which is truly good.  We will act according with our desires, and in the manner that is according to our strongest inclination.  And even when our desires are evil, God will work through them to bring about good.

The other major view is Arminianism, or semi-Pelagianism. This view embraces indeterminism because it views the doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty as being incompatible with human freedom, hence they are incompatibilists. Arminianism's view of the relationship between God's providence and man's free will is best seen in the words of James Arminius for whom Armininianism received its name. He said, "The providence of God is subordinate to creation; and it is, therefore, necessary that it should not impinge against creation, which it would do, were it to inhibit or hinder the use of free will in man . . ." HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_20_" (20) In this view God's sovereignty is "subordinate" to man's will. Any view of sovereignty that violates the Arminian's notion of free will is impossible for those who hold to this position.

But the net effect of this view is to "subordinate" (Arminius' term) God's decree to man's free will.

The debate between determinists and indeterminists with their respective views of human freedom divides people into Calvinists and Arminians among Christians. HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_11_" (11) Calvinism begins with HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_12_" (12) and affirms in the strongest possible terms HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_13_" (13) God's absolute sovereignty. This view does not see God's sovereignty and human freedom as mutually exclusive.

This view of divine sovereignty sees God as the controller of all things, which includes the free actions of creatures. HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_17_" (17) Loraine Boettner explains how these two are reconcilable for the Calvinist:

While the act remains that of the individual, it is nevertheless due more or less to the predisposing agency and efficacy of divine power exerted in lawful ways. This may be illustrated to a certain extent in the case of a man who wishes to construct a building. He decides on his plan. Then he hires carpenters, masons, plumbers, etc., to do the work. These men are not forced to do the work. No compulsion of any kind is used. The owner simply offers the necessary inducements by way of wages, working conditions, and so on, so that the men work freely and gladly. They do in detail just what he plans for them to do. His is the primary and theirs is the secondary will or cause for the construction of the building. We often direct the actions of our fellow men without infringing on their freedom or responsibility. In a similar way and to an infinitely greater degree God can direct our actions. His will for the course of events is the primary cause and man's will is the secondary cause; and the two work together in perfect harmony.

Calvinism's notion that God's sovereignty and man's freedom can be reconciled because God has not only chosen the ends, He has also chosen the means to the ends. These means include the circumstances and factors which are necessary to convince an individual that the act which God has decreed is the act that the person wants to do. This is accomplished entirely without constraint

Of the two positions outlined above, the Calvinistic position provides the best harmony with the teachings of Scripture. Although finite human beings may never solve this problem, HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_23_" (23) there is a recognizable harmony between the Calvinist view and the teachings of Scripture.

It is the providence of God which carries out His decree. God's providence is the "the continuing action of God in preserving his creation and guiding it toward his intended purposes." HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_25_" (25) One of the most comprehensive of all the statements of God's sovereign decree worked out in providence is found in Ephesians 1:11, HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_26_" (26) which states ". . . we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:" In this verse we see both the "purpose," God's sovereign decree, and the providence, "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." God has an eternal purpose which he works out in time. Everything that happens was both planned in eternity and is worked out in time. Nothing outside of God's purposeful providence ever occurs.

Having established God's sovereignty, the problem of the free agency of humans is immediately raised. Some declare that the Calvinist position on God's decree and providence is inconsistent with the free agency of man. HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_28_" (28) If God exercises providential control over all events are we in any sense free? HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_29_" (29) The answer to this question depends on how one defines the word free. Many prominent Calvinist theologians like Louis Berkhof and John Calvin have used the word "free" to describe the acts and choices of man. HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_30_" (30) There are no Scriptures that suggest that man is "free" in the sense of being outside of God's control. Neither does Scripture affirm our ability to make choices that are not caused by anything. HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_31_" (31) The Calvinist position has consistently held that men do commit "free" acts which are nonetheless a part of the overall purpose of God. HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_32_" (32)

This is consistent with the overall teaching of Scripture and the explicit teaching of Acts 2:23. This verse states that Christ was ". . . delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God," but it also declares "ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." Here, in this single verse, the tension between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility is raised. Man's actions are seen as both "free" and having moral consequences. However, man's actions are also ascribed to the "determinate counsel . . . of God." There is no effort in Scripture to get around this issue. In fact, both truths are affirmed. Sometimes this even occurs in the same passage as in Acts 2:23.

Although the Calvinist affirms the definition of "free will" which corresponds best with determinism, he nevertheless declares that man is responsible. To say that man is responsible is to say he is answerable to God as the judge of his actions. HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_37_" (37) Our moral responsibility to God is based upon the fact that, as our Creator, He has the right to call our actions to judgment. HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_38_" (38) Our responsibility, therefore, is not contingent upon our "free will" as the Arminians define it. Our responsibility is based upon the sovereign rights of our Creator to call us to account for our actions.

Two objections may be raised against the Calvinist view. The first objection is that the doctrine of Divine sovereignty is fatalism. Fatalism, which is sometimes called hard determinism is the belief "that all events come to pass through the working of a blind, unintelligent, impersonal, non-moral force which cannot be distinguished from physical necessity, and which carries us helplessly within its grasp as a mighty river carries a piece of wood." HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_41_" (41) In contrast to this, Calvinism proclaims "that events come to pass because an infinitely wise, powerful, and holy God has so appointed them." HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_42_" (42) The difference between these two is the difference between night and day. The only thing held in common between these two views is that both assume the absolute certainty of all future events. HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_43_" (43)

Fatalism is a mechanistic view of the world which views the universe as a machine and human beings as robots with no motivation for moral accountability. HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_44_" (44) In contrast to the mechanistic view, Calvinism affirms that all events are worked out by a personal God who interacts with personal creatures. HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_45_" (45) Our choices are made as real persons and they are "real choices." In other words, our eternal destiny is dependent upon whether we believe and repent or not. HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_46_" (46) Therefore the Calvinist view not only is not fatalistic, "it is its absolute opposite and only alternative." HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_47_" (47) This view allows for free actions of humans that are compatible with God's sovereignty.

A second objection raised against the Calvinist position is that it makes God the author of sin. The question that is often raised is "If God is good and sovereign, how can evil exist?" This question has been answered wrongly in one of two ways. One way is to deny God's sovereignty by simply saying that God cannot prevent evil. The other option is to deny God's goodness by denying God's desire to prevent evil even though He is able. Neither of these options are viable for the Christian who desires to be Biblical. The Bible teaches both that God is sovereign and good. HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_48_" (48) Whatever we affirm concerning God's nature it must include these two attributes.

According to the Arminian, the Calvinist view makes God the author of sin. If, as argued earlier, man's choices are the results of some cause which is primarily God's will, isn't God the author of sin. The answer to that question is "no" because man's choices are themselves causes (secondary) and man is therefore responsible. The choices which man makes are made freely. HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_49_"

There is a theological distinction that may be helpful at this point. God's will of decree is often divided into two main categories: His permissive (or secret) will and His revealed will (Deuteronomy 29:29). God's revealed will is that which is explicitly given in Scripture such as the Ten Commandments. These include morally good acts. God's permissive will includes those decrees which are brought about secondarily through sinful human beings. In this way, God Himself never sins but always brings about His will through secondary causes. HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver/articles/godsovereignmanfree.htm" \l "N_50_" (50) When people commit acts of lawlessness, they are permitted by God and therefore under His sovereign decree. God does not actively commit these sinful acts. Therefore, God is not the author of sin because they occur through the free agency of man. Man is responsible for these actions and will ultimately face judgment for these actions because they are contrary to God's revealed will which every man has the moral responsibility to obey. The greatest illustration of this is the aforementioned Acts 2:23. There events which were "foreordained" by God are also stated to be committed by morally responsible human beings. The tension of divine sovereignty and human responsibility in this verse is key to understanding these doctrines. Both must be affirmed since God seems to see no contradiction between them.

Some would say that God is sovereign but has freely “given up” (not the best choice of words) part of that sovereignty to ensure that man engages Him of man’s own HYPERLINK "http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/libertarian.html" libertarian free will. I, on the other hand, would reject that sentence because while God is sovereign He gives up none of it. Yet that same extensive sovereignty in no way interferes with that fact that man is responsible for his sins. Let these three statements be true: God is sovereign in all of salvation, man is responsible, and Christians are to witness and pray.

This is called HYPERLINK "http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Free-Will/Compatibilism/" compatibilism, which means that God’s sovereignty is compatible with man’s will and does not remove his responsibility (nor is it at odds or contradictory to either). The familiar texts used to buttress this theological position is HYPERLINK "http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Genesis%2050.20" \t "_blank" Genesis 50:20 HYPERLINK "libronixdls:keylink%7Cref=%5Ben%5Dbible:Genesis%2050.20%7Cres=LLS:ESV" INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.logos.com/images/Corporate/LibronixLink_dark.png" \* MERGEFORMATINET ; Isaiah 10; and HYPERLINK "http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Acts%204.27-28" \t "_blank" Acts 4:27-28 HYPERLINK "libronixdls:keylink%7Cref=%5Ben%5Dbible:Acts%204.27-28%7Cres=LLS:ESV" INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.logos.com/images/Corporate/LibronixLink_dark.png" \* MERGEFORMATINET . However, while sitting in Brian’s class, I thought of another Old Testament example that I think makes a good point. In fact, the same type of event occurs over and over in the Old Testament (see HYPERLINK "http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Joshua%201.3" \t "_blank" Joshua 1:3 HYPERLINK "libronixdls:keylink%7Cref=%5Ben%5Dbible:Joshua%201.3%7Cres=LLS:ESV" INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.logos.com/images/Corporate/LibronixLink_dark.png" \* MERGEFORMATINET , HYPERLINK "http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Joshua%206.2" \t "_blank" Joshua 6:2 HYPERLINK "libronixdls:keylink%7Cref=%5Ben%5Dbible:Joshua%206.2%7Cres=LLS:ESV" INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.logos.com/images/Corporate/LibronixLink_dark.png" \* MERGEFORMATINET , HYPERLINK "http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Joshua%2010.8" \t "_blank" Joshua 10:8 HYPERLINK "libronixdls:keylink%7Cref=%5Ben%5Dbible:Joshua%2010.8%7Cres=LLS:ESV" INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.logos.com/images/Corporate/LibronixLink_dark.png" \* MERGEFORMATINET and more). Here’s just one example.

In the opening verses of Judges, Joshua has died and the people were worried about the plan to conquer Canaan without their faithful and courageous general. Read the following:

After the death of Joshua, the people of Israel inquired of the LORD, “Who shall go up first for us against the Canaanites, to fight against them?” The LORD said, “Judah shall go up; behold, I have given the land into his hand” ( HYPERLINK "http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Judges%201.1-2" \t "_blank" Judges 1:1-2 HYPERLINK "libronixdls:keylink%7Cref=%5Ben%5Dbible:Judges%201.1-2%7Cres=LLS:ESV" INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.logos.com/images/Corporate/LibronixLink_dark.png" \* MERGEFORMATINET , emphasis mine)

What just happened here? The Israelites were asking God to find someone to help them against a strong army occupying the Promised Land. Instead of bringing in outside help, the Lord chose Judah to fight and then gave Judah the news that the outcome of the battle had already been decided – the Jews would be victorious. God had already decreed that He would give the land to Judah and it was going to happen just as God said (unless you want to open a whole ‘nuther can of worms and say God could have been incorrect or ignorant of future events).

Now, pertinent to our discussion, what if the tribe of Judah responded to these words from YHWH and said, “Whew, what a relief. The battle is already won. The land is ours. We can just stay here. We don’t even have to fight. Thanks God, for winning the battle for us”? What would have been the outcome of that type of response. Well, we will never know because God ordained the ends (victory) as well as the means to achieve victory (Judah’s ability to fight).

We read of the outcome later in the same chapter:

Then Judah went up and the LORD gave the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand, and they defeated 10,000 of them at Bezek. They found Adoni-bezek at Bezek and fought against him and defeated the Canaanites and the Perizzites ( HYPERLINK "http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Judges%201.4-5" \t "_blank" Judges 1:4-5 HYPERLINK "libronixdls:keylink%7Cref=%5Ben%5Dbible:Judges%201.4-5%7Cres=LLS:ESV" INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.logos.com/images/Corporate/LibronixLink_dark.png" \* MERGEFORMATINET , emphasis mine).

One thing is for sure: the people of Israel were not sloppy theologians (well, at least most of the time). They did not think that just because God has ordained/predestined a very real and definite future that they had no part in that future.

Some may want to suggest a perverted twist on an old saying, "God made him do it." If this is the case, then David should not be held accountable for his actions. But is this the case?

"every one of us shall give an account to God" (Ro. 14:12). In fact, the Lord Jesus Himself is quoted in Matthew 12:36, "I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account of it in the day of judgment."

Therefore, though the believer cannot satisfy man's intellect in explaining the compatibility of the inescapable facts of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, yet faith has no difficulty with this. The believer rejoices in both facts, and realizes the rightness of his being fully obedient to the revealed will of God. God does as He pleases: it is His right to do so. I have no right to do as I please, but am responsible to do what God pleases. To give God His place and keep my own place is the secret of deepest blessing. Let us then keep these lines of truth distinct, each in its own place, and accept them both as fully true.

First we need to understand the difference between fatalism and what is called compatibilism. Compatibilism is the view that God is absolutely sovereign (as explained above) and yet our choices have real meaning and we are responsible for them. It is what I believe the Bible teaches, and is often called "Calvinism." Fatalism, on the other hand, teaches that no matter what you choose or do, things will turn out the same. For example, if it is determined that Bill will get an "F" on his test tomorrow, then no mater how hard he studies or how well he knows the material, he will fail. His choices do not really affect what will happen.[1] 

Compatibilism, in contrast to fatalism, says that our choices really do affect the future, and that if different choices had been made, the future would have been different. On this view, if Bill doesn't study, he will fail. But if he does study hard, then his studying will be the means that brings about a good grade. In regards to God's sovereignty, this means that God does not just ordain the ends (for example, a good grade for Bill) and then say "this will happen no matter what." No, God also ordains the means to His planned end (for example, God ordains that Bill will study as the means to the good grade that He decreed). Our decisions are each links in the chain of means ordained by God to bring about His planned ends. If different decisions had been made, the consequences would have been different. But God works to ensure that the means He has ordained will most certainly occur so that none of His purposes can fail. This makes human decisions truly significant and vital.

It should now be more clear why the absolute sovereignty of God does not amount to fatalistic indifference. In short, Bill should study because that is the means that God uses to bring about his good grades. If Bill does get good grades, then his studying was just as predestined by God's plan as were the good grades. All good choices that anyone makes are ultimately caused by God; all evil choices are willingly permitted by God as a part of His plan. Furthermore, God brings about His decrees in a way that preserves our responsibility and does not violate our will (this will be explained more later).