Relationship Between Sovereignty and the Will of Man
What then is the relationship between sovereignty and human will? It is a question resolved by understanding what Paul says in Romans 8:28, “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” God’s sovereignty extends to using the evil acts of willfully rebellious men for the good of those “who are the called according to his purpose.”
Jonathan Edwards in his book, Freedom of the Will notes, “Unless God foreknows the future acts of moral agents, all the prophecies we have in Scripture… are uttered without knowing the things foretold.”[1] This knowledge of all the moral acts of men constitutes the reason why God may cause all things to “work together for good;” because He is sovereign over every event that is going to happen by men, even of those who are enslaved to sin.
What response should be given to the “free will defense” as a response to the problem of evil? Feinberg argues very clearly for the position of Free Will as a solution to the problem of evil; however, he fails to clearly show the Scriptural basis for such arguments. His argument is a sufficient response philosophically, but it lacks in Scriptural support. By implication, then, the argument works only philosophically and not theologically. The argument solves the philosophical problem of evil; but fails to deal with the root issue, which is the theological and Biblical problem of evil.
Feinberg’s argument also leaves the reader with several questions. If free will is, as Feinberg claims, “good of the highest order which counterbalances and overbalances the evil which is present in the world,” then why should that good be afforded to man and not God? Why should man be the one afforded free will, as opposed to God being given the right to His free will? Certainly God being free-willed does not solve the problem of evil in and of itself, for evil still exists. However, this is where the Biblical argument for the existence of evil begins. This is another question raised by Feinberg’s arguments. Shouldn’t Christians use the Bible as their answer to all of life’s problems, and use philosophy as a tool in that argument? Why should one separate the argument into two different problems, when the Bible addresses both? The answer to these questions would greatly benefit the reader of this article in dealing with the situation Biblically, as opposed to merely philosophically.
How can the will of man be understood more clearly? Scott Warren suggests that the tension and often heated debate between those purporting to either Divine sovereignty or human freedom is owing to a misnomer in terms relevant to the subject. Warren’s perspective on human “free will” is that many have given an incorrect response to this subject because of a misunderstanding of the terms in question. Freedom, Warren argues, should be broken down further than this broad term. The two distinct areas within the broad scope of freedom should rightly be called ability and desire according to Warren. Warren claims, “Thus there are two basic factors in free choices: ability and desire (as expressed in preferences). One is free to choose where one has the ability to act; however, within the parameters of one's abilities, one will choose only according to one's desires.”[2]
Warren argues that both ability and desire were affected by the fall of Adam. “In order to be restored to righteousness and godly living for eternity, both ability and desire to do so are necessary. Sinful humans lack both - and each of these basic lacks must be addressed.”[3] However, through the Gospel, men are given the opportunity to be freed from sin—if they are willing. This frees man in his ability, argues Warren, to choose to embrace the Gospel and be truly free. The remaining problem residing within man is his desire. Man’s desire is not oriented toward God, and simply hearing the Good News is not enough to influence man’s to choose to obey the Gospel. The desire is only freed when a man is regenerated by God.[4] This understanding of the distinction in areas of freedom within the human will help to explain more fully several doctrines including the responsibility of man, the problem of evil, the impeccability of Jesus, and true freedom without sin.[5] It also exposes the flaws in past historical debate on the subject by Christian theologians. This distinction helps to explain the topic of human freedom with greater clarity, and solves a lot of the tension brought on by this massive issue.
[1] Edwards, Jonathan. The Freedom of the Will. Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1996. 119
[2] Warren, Scott C. "Ability and Desire: Reframing Debates Surrounding Freedom and Responsibility." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sept. 2009: 551-567. 553
[3] Ibid 556
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid 561-62
No comments:
Post a Comment