In the comic strip, Fox Trot, Jason is a brainy little troublemaker who likes to aggravate his older brother and sister and likes to do math homework. In one strip, we see Jason outside with one of his friend (Marcus, I believe) getting ready to play football. "Go deep!" he tells Marcus. Marcus says, "Okay ... how do you correlate predestination with free will?" "Too deep," Jason replies.
It has long been the philosophical problem -- If God is sovereign, how can Man be free? R.C. Sproul tackled that problem on Friday night. He used the passage in Genesis 50:15-21 as his text. You may recall this story. Joseph had come out the far end of his rather lengthy trials as prime minister, so to speak, of Egypt. Because he was there, his family was saved when they encountered a 7-year drought. Then his father died. In Genesis 50, then, his brothers were afraid that, lacking the protection of their father, Joseph might retaliate. So they devised an apology. "Dad asked you to please forgive us." Yeah, fine. Joseph makes the classic, "Romans 8:28 of the Old Testament" response: "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). In this passage, then, we see a parallel. On one hand you have the intentionality of the brothers -- evil. At the same time you have the intentionality of God -- good. "Will" -- volition -- is defined as "the ability for intentionality", and both are present in this sentence from Joseph.
The problem is this: If God is sovereign, then Man cannot be free. If Man is free, then God cannot be sovereign. That's where it seems to stand. However, the problem starts in its semantics. If you define "free" as "autonomy", then the problem remains. If the phrase "Man is free" means that Man is self-ruled, self-determining, responsible only to himself, then it would be a logical contradiction to argue that God is sovereign.
Now, lots of Christians try to weasel out of this dilemma. "God's sovereignty," they may say, "is limited by Man's freedom." Well, okay ... the contradiction is gone, but not the dilemma. A God "limited" is not sovereign, and we're back to a problem. Or how many times have you heard this in some form or another? "God saves as many as He can. He wants to save everyone, but He relies on Man to choose Him." Again, if God has limited His sovereignty, then God cannot be said to be sovereign no matter how we choose to couch the term. "Limited sovereignty" is not "sovereignty". The truth is, if God is sovereign, then Man cannot be autonomous. If Man is autonomous, then God is not sovereign.
The answer, of course, is not to minimize God. The answer is to put Man back in his proper place. It is true that autonomy for Man eliminates sovereignty for God. But what if Man is not autonomous? What if free will exists, but is limited? Ah, you see, now we have eliminated the contradiction. But do we still have "free will"?
If you define "free will" as "choosing according to your strongest inclination" and you allow for the possibility that God may (as sovereign) intervene in your inclinations, then we don't have a problem, do we? That is, if "free will" is "choosing without coercion" and God doesn't coerce, where is the problem? As an example, no one argues when they come to an intersection, "I don't have free will" because they cannot choose to, say, go "up". So if God should limit choices and still allow choices, is there not "free will"?
The question is too big for a lot of people, skeptics and Christians alike. Some choose to go the irrational path of limiting God. I choose to go the path of limiting Man. I don't see limited free will as "no free will." Do you see "limited sovereignty" as actual sovereignty?
2 comments:
Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Vincent Cheung, who says that we're aren't free at all?
In my view, there is a major problem with "we aren't free at all." If we have no possibility of making choices of any kind, then there is no possibility of being held liable for the choices ... we couldn't make. On the other hand, Joshua says, "Choose this day whom you will serve" suggesting that choice is possible.
Now, if "free" is required to be defined as "completely autonomous" or "free from all influence or inclination," then I, too, would argue that no such freedom exists. Others have problems with the idea that every choice that Man makes is allowed by God (that is, no choice is ever "random"). They would say, "That means we aren't free." If that definition is required, I'd agree then, too, that "we aren't free at all."
Post a Comment