“Middle knowledge also provides the key to God’s providence. Indeed, one of the most helpful consequences of the doctrine of middle knowledge is the reconciliation of divine sovereignty and human freedom...Given middle knowledge, THE APPARENT CONTRADICTION between God’s sovereignty, WHICH SEEMS TO CRUSH HUMAN FREEDOM, and human freedom, WHICH SEEMS TO BREAK GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY, is resolved. God is able to plan a world in which his designs are achieved by creatures acting freely. Praise be to God!” (William Lane Craig, “The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom.” Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999, page 135).
This post will begin the new series on “Molinism 101.” As I promised my readership, we would embark on a serious theological journey for the next few months. As Scripture tells us, “Gird up the loins of your mind, be sober” (1 Pet. 1:13)!
I begin today with William Lane Craig’s quote above. I decided to start with this quote because it situates Molinism within a given theological context. The divine sovereignty-human responsibility debate has existed for over a millennium within the church, and continues to be debated amongst theologians and believers everywhere in the present day.
What is the nature of the debate, you may ask? Well, it comes down to this: If God is sovereign, and sovereignty implies control, then how can God be in control of everything (including our choices) and yet, man be responsible for his choices? If God has all control, then how can man be responsible for “that which is beyond his control” (i.e., his choice)?
I wrote a paper regarding this debate for Dr. Ken Keathley this past Fall Semester in his Theology I class. I spent a lot of time defending my view scripturally, but I want to engage the reader in some of my undergirding philosophy (and theology) as well. Doing this is important because it will give us a standard by which to measure the Molinist system, and to see whether or not it matches up.
Let’s place the problem of sovereignty and responsibility into a formal layout:
I. God is sovereign.
II. Man is responsible.
The two propositions above make believers uneasy. D.A. Carson calls the two “biblical tensions” in his book titled “Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension.” Divine sovereignty and human responsibility are labeled “in tension” because it seems illogical that man could seemingly, on the surface, have all responsibility but no sovereignty whatsoever!
But this idea of responsibility without sovereignty leads to a third proposition that we’ve yet to acknowledge:
III. With sovereignty (power) comes responsibility.
If proposition III is correct, then we have the following:
I. God is sovereign.
II. Man is responsible.
III. With sovereignty (power) comes responsibility.
But now, we have a dilemma on our hands: if sovereignty entails responsibility, how then, can man be responsible for his actions without some form of sovereignty? If God is sovereign, and with sovereignty comes responsibility, then God should be responsible, right? Well He will be---unless we revise our propositions above to the following:
I. God is sovereign.
II. Man is responsible.
III. With sovereignty (power) comes responsibility.
IV. Man is responsible because he has limited sovereignty.
The only way that God avoids responsibility here is if we grant that man has some limited God-given sovereignty (power) over his actions. In order to take the heat off of God and avoid making Him the author of sin and evil, we must revise our propositions to the following:
I. God is sovereign.
II. God, in His Sovereignty, has granted man a limited sovereignty (libertarian
freedom).
III. With sovereignty comes responsibility.
IV. Therefore, while God is sovereign, man has been given a limited sovereignty over his actions and thus, man has responsibility.
God has given man control over his individual actions---which means that, upon giving control, God has forfeited His responsibility for the actions of man. The only responsibility God maintains is the fact that He chose to give His creatures libertarian freedom. What His creatures choose to do with their libertarian freedom, however, is up to them...and they individually bear blame for their actions (actions have consequences).
If what I’ve said above makes any sense, we can affirm that man has limited sovereignty (libertarian freedom) over his actions. But this entails keeping in mind that God cannot perform logical impossibilities. For example, a logical impossibility would be a “square circle” or a “round square.” God cannot do those things because they are contradictory. In addition, He cannot be unfaithful because, to do so, He would deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). If these things be true, then God cannot give me the power of choice and then dictate or determine my choice. There is no such thing as a “determined choice.”
If choice is not determined, then this means that God’s sovereignty CANNOT be exercised in such a way (in every little choice I make) that He decides my choices. However divine sovereignty and human responsibility will be reconciled, they will not be reconciled in a system where God manipulates my decisions. If He has given me genuine choice, then this means that in every thing, I could choose what He wants...but also, I could choose AGAINST what He desires. For that is the meaning of choice: to choose between two things, one that is right and one that is wrong.
As we’ve seen in this post, man has a limited sovereignty, called libertarian freedom, over his choices. But what exactly IS libertarian freedom? And how does this libertarian freedom affect God and man in relationship? I will cover more on libertarian freedom (limited sovereignty) in my next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment