By A.W. Tozer
A real problem created by the doctrine of the divine sovereignty has to do with the will of man. If God rules His universe by His sovereign decrees, how is it possible for man to exercise free choice? And if he can not exercise freedom of choice, how can he be held responsible for his conduct? Is he not a mere puppet whose actions are determined by a behind-the-scenes God who pulls the strings as it pleases Him?
The attempt to answer these questions has divided the Christian church neatly into two camps which have borne the names of two distinguished theologians, Jacobus Arminius and John Calvin. Most Christians are content to get into one camp or the other and deny either sovereignty to God or free will to man. It appears possible, however, to reconcile these two positions without doing violence to either, although the effort that follows may prove deficient to partisans of one camp or the other.
Here is my view: God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, “What doest thou?” Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.
Perhaps a homely illustration might help us to understand. An ocean liner leaves New York bound for Liverpool. Its destination has been determined by proper authorities. Nothing can change it. This is at least a faint picture of sovereignty.
On board the liner are several scores of passengers. These are not in chains, neither are their activities determined for them by decree. They are completely free to move about as they will. They eat, sleep, play, lounge about on the deck, read, talk, altogether as they please; but all the while the great liner is carrying them steadily onward toward a predetermined port.
Both freedom and sovereignty are present here and they do not contradict each other. So it is, I believe, with man’s freedom and the sovereignty of God. The mighty liner of God’s sovereign design keeps its steady course over the sea of history. God moves undisturbed and unhindered toward the fulfilment of those eternal purposes which He purposed in Christ Jesus before the world began. We do not know all that is included in those purposes, but enough has been disclosed to furnish us with a broad outline of things to come and to give us good hope and firm assurance of future well-being.
We know that God will fulfil every promise made to the prophets; we know that sinners will some day be cleansed out of the earth; we know that a ransomed company will enter into the joy of God and that the righteous will shine forth in the kingdom of their Father; we know that God’s perfections will yet receive universal acclamation, that all created intelligences will own Jesus Christ Lord to the glory of God the Father, that the present imperfect order will be done away, and a new heaven and a new earth be established forever.
Toward all this God is moving with infinite wisdom and perfect precision of action. No one can dissuade Him from His purposes; nothing turn Him aside from His plans. Since He is omniscient, there can be no unforeseen circumstances, no accidents. As He is sovereign, there can be no countermanded orders, no breakdown in authority; and as He is ominpotent, there can be no want of power to achieve His chosen ends. God is sufficient unto Himself for all these things.
In the meanwhile things are not as smooth as this quick outline might suggest. The mystery of iniquity doth already work. Within the broad field of God’s sovereign, permissive will the deadly conflict of good with evil continues with increasing fury. God will yet have His way in the whirlwind and the storm, but the storm and the whirlwind are here, and as responsible beings we must make our choice in the present moral situation.
Certain things have been decreed by the free determination of God, and one of these is the law of choice and consequences. God has decreed that all who willingly commit themselves to His Son Jesus Christ in the obedience of faith shall receive eternal life and become sons of God. He has also decreed that all who love darkness and continue in rebellion against the high authority of heaven shall remain in a state of spiritual alienation and suffer eternal death at last.
Reducing the whole matter to individual terms, we arrive at some vital and highly personal conclusions. In the moral conflict now raging around us whoever is on God’s side is on the winning side and can not lose; whoever is on the other side is on the losing side and can not win. Here there is no chance, no gamble. There is freedom to choose which side we shall be on but no freedom to negotiate the results of the choice once it is made. By the mercy of God we may repent a wrong choice and alter the consequences by making a new and right choice. Beyond that we can not go.
The whole matter of moral choice centers around Jesus Christ. Christ stated it plainly: “He that is not with me is against me,” and “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” The gospel message embodies three distinct elements: an announcement, a command, and a call. It announces the good news of redemption accomplished in mercy; it commands all men everywhere to repent and it calls all men to surrender to the terms of grace by believing on Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
We must all choose whether we will obey the gospel or turn away in unbelief and reject its authority. Our choice is our own, but the consequences of the choice have already been determined by the sovereign will of God, and from this there is no appeal.
Tozer attempts to deal with this dilemma between God's sovereignty and Man's freedom by using an analogy of a ship. Did you find this helpful? Do you think it adequately answers the issues?
How would you alter the example, if at all?
What casues you the greatest problem in trying to reconcile Sovereignty and Free will?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
tozer's analogy of using a ship kind of puts my free will as limited will. I think he is trying to combine the two different camps in this analogy. By giving us freedom on a guided path i feel like a dog on a fairly long leash. This is the problem with trying to reconcile it, in the words opposite of hannah montanna, "You will NOT get the best of both worlds."
ReplyDeleteThis ship example helped some, but I don't understand what he means by the destination. God knows what is going to happen, but we also have free will. What is the voyage and destination of the ship? That part throws me. God has seen all of time, and he knows who will accept him and who will not, but he knows this because he has already seen it in time; it's not that he already chose who goes to Heaven. He has just already seen it, because He sees all of time.
ReplyDeleteAlso, God gave us free will. We all have to make choices every day, but with every choice there is a consequence that comes with it, good or bad. God didn't map out what we are going to do and when, he just already saw it happen.
I thought the ship analogy was a good way of showing how god has the major plan under control but we still have the ability to make our own choices on our way to the major plan. It definetly helps to make the idea of sovreignty vs free will easier to understand. I can't think of a way to improve this analogy because I think to add or subtract anythig from it would make it un-understandable. It's just hard to think that our actions are really free when they've already been predestined by god. But really the analogy puts it in perspective that were still predestined but in a slightly different less intense way. I think tozer did a good job of explaining things.
ReplyDeleteAFter talking with sawyer, I'd have to concur in saying that tozier is really making a valiant attempt at a middle ground between two prominent belief systems. If we carry out his analogy, we begin to see some holes. If God simpoly knows the destination of the ship and nothing else, is He truly a sovereaign God? It is painstakingly difficult to comprehend a God that both knows everything about, what we will feel and do and at all times but then still offer the gift of free will. It is an interesting perspective, but the analogy breaks down after a more thorough examination.
ReplyDeleteI think the analogy of the ship is very understandable and true. I would not alter the example. I believe that man has free will to choose to put his faith in Jesus Christ or to just flat out not. But whatever decision we choose, God already knows; we have the free will to choose him or not but whatever happens, God already knows what decision we will make. Its not that God has already ordained us, its that God just knows what we will choose. This is the problem I have with this argument. How does God already know that we will become a Christian or not? Is it just because he is God and knows us? I don't believe in predestination because we have free will to choose if we will become a Christian or not; its our decision to become a Christian, not Christ's.
ReplyDeleteTozer's analogy of ship is somewhat confusing because I feel like he is trying to find middle ground between arminian and calvanistic ideas. I think he should have used his analogy for both ideas and then thrown in his idea. The thing that makes it hard to reconcile free will and sovereignty is that its hard to grasp each idea and then try and go back and figure out what you yourself believed before this whole thing started. Trying to find the place where your beliefs can be completly content with you is the most difficult part because questions are always raised.
ReplyDeletethis subject has been very confusing and frustrating. im reading in romans now and it is saying things which could be taken either way. the whole calvinism thing makes sense... but idk. to say man has free choice by denying the soverignty of God is alittle unfair.
ReplyDeletethe ship example helped, but i dont understand what it is saying... is it saying that man has free choice but ultimately are they moving wher God wants them? idk how i would change the example becaus idk what he is trying to say.
for my whole life i have believed that man has freedom of choice and we come to God by our choice to accept him.. but now i have never really considered predestination being God's sovereingty. i really never considered it. now that i am its making since... but im really getting more information on the predestination rather than the freedom of choice. i need information on both so i can see both sides more clearly.
As helpful as I found the ship analogy, it still ignores the fact that the captain of the ship can halt or alter the ship's course. I think a better analogy would be how people exercise their own free choices on the planet Earth, but they cannot stop the Earth from rotating, nor can they stop its inevitable destruction.
ReplyDeleteMy biggest problem with reconciling Sovereignty and Free Will is this: if God is eternal, and therefore sees all moments of time, how does prayer work as an exercise of free will rather than something we were compelled to do in order to fulfill God's will?
the analogy that tozer used I found to be very helpful. Actually up to that point, I had been having a problem understanding and comprehending what he said. Also, the tent analogy that tozer used I also found to be very helpful. Yes, i think that for the most part the ship analogy answered most of the issues and conflicts with sovereignty and man's free will. He really got the point across that although God's sovereignty is in conrtol of our lives, human beings are still allowed to have free will to make decisions.
ReplyDelete1. Altogether, I did not like the analogy of the ship. The point that the works of the people on the ship has no effect on where that ship goes is good, just as our good or bad works have no effect on our salvation. However, if God had no plan for anything humans would do, there would be no way for His greater plans to work out. In order control the big picture, you have to be able to control the details, and if the choices humans make are in no way predetermined by God or foreseen by God at all, then God isn’t controlling the details. The analogy assumes the natural good will of the people on the ship, but humans are not naturally good; we’re naturally sinful.
ReplyDelete2. I don’t know how I would change this example. Obviously I disagree with it, but I don’t know that there’s a way to reconcile it because of the major flaws of God’s control and the assumptions about humanity.
3. My main problems with this example are the fact that it gives no control to God except for the destination, but at the same time tries to claim that God is completely sovereign. In order to know where we’re going, we have to know what we’re going to do to get there. Also there’s the fact that the analogy assumes that the humans on the ship are going to do everyday normal things that only affect themselves. The truth is that most things humans do affect more than just the person completing the action; there are consequences for not only that person, but the people around him. The analogy doesn’t account for a random rebellious person who decides to do something against what is expected of him.
,,sarah smith
Tozer's analogy helped but it did not answer all my questions. For example, is God in control of our major decisions and we are only in control of the things that go on in our life that are not going to alter our final destination? If we are not in control of our major decisions then that is not truely free will. God does know what we are going to do before we do it but I do not think that he made us do it. I do not think Tozer's analopgy adequately answers the issue between free will and God's sovereignty because there are many variables such as the passenger could just take the wheel of the boat.
ReplyDeleteI did indeed find that the example of the ship helped. I might have used a train on autopilot as a better example, because I find that the notion of following a set of tracks to be a better example of God’s sovereign will. Overall, however, I feel like the ship example was adequate for the point Tozer was trying to prove. The biggest problem in trying to reconcile free will and sovereignity is that one cannot adequately relate them without having some huge problems. While Tozer may have done an outstanding job of attempting to reconcile them, I am more inclined to believe that both exist in harmony and we humans just cannot wrap our limited intelligence around it. I honestly do not believe any example can adequately describe an answer nor do I believe that we cannot even come close to understanding what it actually means. Trying to think about it just leaves my brain fuddled, but it does leave me with an interesting question: are there things in the Bible that we humans just cannot answer? Normally I would attribute the Trinity to such a thing, but people seem to have a pretty good understanding of God is 3 people and 1 person at the exact same time. This issue just seems to be a lot different, if not “bigger”. The article does help me understand the problem a little better, but I still do not have a clear and direct understanding of what the truth is. In the end I feel like the biggest problem is the fact that the issue is a paradox. Oil does not mix with water; free will does not allow for sovereignity. It is because of this that I feel that the paradox itself is God’s answer, almost like He is saying that we have free will and He is completely and totally sovereign. Sure, it’s not the best answer I can muster, but it’s the only one I can actually formulate with any hint of it being anywhere close t correct, but even then it still feels like I’m only scraping atoms off the surface of a glacier.
ReplyDelete-Dylan Temple
In this Tozer’s article, example of ship really impressed to me. Before I read this article, I was really confused about what is Armanism and Calvinism. In the Bible, God have purpose through righteousness and evil things. It means that he already has purpose for us. And then It cannot change like eternity. If all people has saved when they born and they rejected their salvation, it is not make sense. Today lots of Africa people died . Also, so many babies died. But these babies has no freedom to reject their salvation. They just died and might went hell because they have no salvation. So, I think God all thing is made from his purpose. However we can confuse about God gave us freedom. But our all choice which is that what food I eat for today lunch, what college I go…etc. All things are already made by Him. When I read this article, I felt thanks for God. Because we are His chosen people.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the ship analogy was alright, but I wouldn’t have thought of that myself probably. The only thing is – I don’t know what I would have done to change. Free will is really confusing for me. One day I will think that man has unlimited free will because God put His trust in us to love and obey Him, while the next day I will think we have little to no free will at all because everything is already planned out for us. God has set our futures in stone in His grand master plan, so how can we change that? God has to limit our free will just like God limits Himself to communicate with us. Without limitations, this world would be complete and utter chaos. I guess we will know the answer to this and all of our other questions the day we ask Him ourselves in Heaven. Won’t that day be amazing?!
ReplyDelete