The Sovereignty vs. Free Will Debate

John Calvin

For the last 500 years, the Protestant movement has debated an issue that defined a major theological divide: "Once someone is saved, can they lose their salvation?"

Underlying this issue is the deeper debate: "To what degree does God's sovereign will determine our fate compared to our own free will?" Or really, "In light of the fact that God is sovereign, can we really have freedom when it comes to our salvation?"

This blog will begin the discussion, focusing on God's sovereignty vs. humanity's free will.

Before I plunge in to this question, let me say that this issue is becoming less and less important and divisive. People who land on either side of the divide are becoming less polarized and more able to listen to the other side and still maintain fellowship. This is a very good thing. It is important for us to realize that believers can thoughtfully and prayerfully end up disagreeing and still be friends. So, let us remember the old adage: "On the essentials--unity; on the non-essentials--liberty."

Of course the earliest debates were between followers of Arminius and Calvin. The Remonstrants (who were Arminians) outlined their objection to Calvin by defining 5 points that they debated. These became the Five Points of Calvinism, which we now remember using the mnemonic, TULIP. Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints.

To summarize the debate: Calvin stressed the Sovereignty of God: "Since God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc., His will rules in everything so that salvation is determined by Him and the individual cannot override it. Human freedom is an illusion. You do not have the power to lose your salvation since God's will determines whether or not you are saved. I might as well relax and let God do what God is going to do."

Jacob Arminius

Arminians stressed the Free Will of humans: "God has gifted mankind with free will and so, He makes Himself a powerless observer of human choices. God is anxiously thinking: 'Will Mark choose me? Will Mark reject me?' God's will has been self-neutralized in such a way that I can now choose to believe and subsequently choose not to believe. I am left with a nagging sense of insecurity about my salvation: have I really repented adequately? Do I need to get saved again?"

The preponderance of New Testament passages seem to support the Calvinist position. For instance: "You do not believe me because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life [not probationary], and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand" (John 10: 26-29).

And: "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8: 38-39).

I could go on and on with similar passages. The person who would argue against Calvin must adequately deal with the Biblical use of the terms of "election," "foreknowledge," "predestination," "eternal life," "salvation," etc. Personally, I lean towards a modified Calvinism.

But there are a couple of passages that seem to teach the possibility of one being saved and then losing one's salvation. Most important of these passages is in Hebrews: "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace" (Heb. 6: 4-6).

Let me offer a brief approach to this "antinomy." (An antinomy is not the same as a paradox. It is the condition where there are two reasonable statements that seem impossible to both be true at one time.)

First, God, by definition, is sovereign over His creation. Second, in the Garden of Eden, when God spoke to Adam for the first time in Gen. 2: 16, He seemed to limit His own sovereignty and allowed Adam to make a choice to eat or not eat the fruit. The giving of a choice to Adam was a giving of free will. Third, Adam chose to disobey God and God allowed it, resulting in sin infecting all of humanity, and death along with it. Adam's free will allowed him to "lose" his salvation. Fourth, God initiated a plan to redeem mankind in a way that maintained His own sovereignty, and yet allowed men to maintain their free will.

My conclusion is that, yes, both are true: God is indeed sovereign and His will cannot be thwarted. And yes, mankind has been given Free Will to repent and believe.

Our difficulty is one of perspective. It is like being stuck at ground level and being asked to describe the color of a house's roof that is painted white on the front slope and blue on the back slope. No matter how fast I can run from the front yard to back yard, I can't see both sides at the same time. But God views the two facets of the roof from above and can see how they fit together. We need to begin with a basic humility that perhaps this is one of those big issues that contains an element of mystery.

Next week I'll address more the issue of Eternal Security:Once I've been saved, can I lose my salvation?