A Defense of the Absolute Sovereignty of God & Human Responsibility

To download Caleb's Word Document version of this paper for his SBTS class, click the document below:

A defense of God's absolute Sovereignty & Human Responsibility paper.docx

Download DOCX • 75KB

Introduction

Can you be truly free if God is all knowing? Does God being all-knowing limit your freedom? Many Christian believers answer yes to the second question in such a way that in order for them to uphold their concern for freedom, they are willing to jettison a belief in a God that is all knowing. This has led to a minimizing of the absolute sovereignty of God and various attempts to find a middle road that upholds both God’s foreknowledge and human freedom. We certainly want to avoid a hard deterministic or fatalistic view of God, but we can’t deny the reality that scripture speaks both of God’s foreknowledge of all human actions. In this essay I will demonstrate that God foreknows future free actions of humans and that human actions can still be said to be truly free. I will demonstrate this by surveying various positions on God’s foreknowledge and human freedom, defend my position by defining some key attributes of God and what it means according to scripture for humans to be free and then lastly respond to several objections to my position.

Positions on the Issue

First, we will look at the compatibilist position. This view is driven by a prior commitment to the supreme authority of scripture and only affirming the truths within scripture regarding God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. This view is focused on not saying more or less than what Scripture says (1 Corinthians 4:6), to avoid autonomous reasoning that is not submitted to scripture itself. Staying in line with this requirement, this view does not want to be “determined by our reason independent of scripture; instead, it is revealed by God.”[1] Additionally, the compatibilist position affirms that “God infallibly knows all things ‘from himself’ due to his own free choices” and that “we act freely even though God has ordained our free choices.”[2] This view does not affirm that our choices are coerced, but that are “freedom [is] determined by sufficient conditions or causes that incline our choices in one direction.”[3]  In fact, this position is synonymous with the Calvinist position as it “teach[es] that people have real freedom, a freedom to do exactly what they want to do” yet “their ‘wants’ are always determined by who they are and by their motives at the time of their choosing.[4] This relates to the scriptural view that people are held accountable for their choices by their very sinful inclinations, yet we are still “sustained by God.”[5] One doesn’t negate the other. Both are upheld in mysterious tension yet not denying human responsibility or minimizing God’s absolute Sovereignty. As Proverbs 21:1 (ESV) says that “the king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will” we can’t come to the “unwarranted”  conclusion that “there are situations in which God’s providence does not hold sway over the heart of the king.”[6] This view upholds that God’s sovereignty holds sway over free human choices.   

Another popular view regarding human freedom is that of the libertarian freedom view. This view has many sub-categories. In this case, there is a heavy emphasis on the “power of opposite choice” which means that “at a minimum, freedom means the power of contrary choice; that is, an agent is free only if he could have done otherwise.”[7]  All libertarian views agree that their view is necessitated because of the emphasis that “human will is sovereign in the realm of choosing.”[8]  One of the key motivations of this defense is “protect[ing] God’s reputation” from being seen as unjust or unfair.[9] What’s more, the concern is that God is not the one actively doing evil if he is in control of all things. Christensen in fact explains how the libertarian view affirms that “only we can be the sufficient cause of our own choices- what philosophers call agent causation. Our choices are not determined by anyone (especially God) or anything outside our own will to choose. Thus, libertarianism is indeterministic.”[10]  Frame notes that this view is not completely new historically, as even Epicurus “held the libertarian view that moral decisions are not free if they are constrained in any way.” So, for Epicurus, he believed “that there must be an element of randomness in our moral decisions: they may not be determined or caused.”[11] What’s more, those that uphold libertarian free will view it as the only viable option that “grounds moral responsibility, absolves God from moral responsibility for the sin and evil that humans commit, and allows for a loving relationship with God.”[12] Theologian Stratton argues that “libertarian freedom is minimally concerned with the source agency or the ability to choose among a range of alternative options each of which are compatible with one’s nature.”[13] Thus, this view is consistent with Stratton in arguing that God does not causally influence any human choices, while also seeking to uphold his omnipotence, omniscience and love.[14] 

Next, we will look at various subcategories of views in the libertarian category. First, we will briefly cover the Presentism position. In this view, God’s knowledge is “knowledge of everything true which is logically possible to know.[15]  This view is also known as open theism today. A second related sub-category view is that of “atemporal eternalism” which is places the emphasis on God’s attribute of timelessness. This view affirms that God is outside of time and “sees all of time at once and as present” and “knows all things without knowing the future since nothing is future to him.[16] Hasker builds upon this view and further says that, “God does not (according to the doctrine of timelessness) believe this, or anything else, at the present time.” Thus, Hasker says that God has beliefs outside of time and that “what it is that God timelessly believes depends, in part, on what I will freely choose to do tomorrow morning.”[17]   

A third view is called “simple foreknowledge” and is like atemporal eternalism, yet its emphasis is on God’s foreknowledge and on the possibilities of various choices. Wellum summarizes this view of foreknowledge as including “all actual free choices, including those that are yet to be made, but not (as in middle knowledge) those choices that might have been made but in fact never are.”[18] This goal in this view is to uphold libertarian freedom at all costs and thus it is only maintained that  God allegedly has a belief that is “brought about by the future event itself.”[19] In this view, God’s knowledge is beholden to knowledge of future free events.

A Fourth view is that of an Arminian natural law view. This view is close to a deistic view in that it affirms that God made the world “in such a way that God does not need to be the direct cause of all things.”[20] This view is also known as the natural law theodicy.[21] It is very different from some other reformed natural law views that have God’s creation connected to his divine providence. In fact Andrew Walker defines natural law is as the “God-ordained, God-upheld system of moral order engraved upon an image-bearer's conscience that enable them to rationally perceive moral goods and moral wrongs by interacting with their world through sapiential investigation.”[22]  On the other hand, this view states that “if there is going to be meaningful choice-making of any kind, then we need to have reliable expectations of the immediate consequences of our choices.”[23] Thus, this expectation for the uniformity of natural laws is the grounding for how a “stable environment requires the possibility of natural evil” and “God can’t get one without the either, and so natural evil is the price God pays to get us stability (and therefore the possibility of meaningful choice-making).[24] This natural law argument is more focused on a cause-and-effect concept. So, in this view it is assumed that you cannot have any meaningful choice making if God influences or determines human choices in any sense of fashion and that is allegedly consistent with God’s natural law ordering of creation.

A fifth larger and more popular sub-category of libertarian free will is the Molinist position. Similar to its cousin libertarian categories, there is a great desire to defend God’s character from any charges of directly being the “author of sin.”[25] As a result, this view attempts to uphold the absolutely sovereignty of God alongside of human free choices by affirming that God knows all future free choices, yet he did not ordain those events rather he made his plan based upon what he knew free creatures would do. This view flows out of a particular view of the character of God. It’s very similar to the simple foreknowledge view, yet different in that the accent is on the “logical moments in God’s knowledge.”[26] These logical orders are God’s (1) natural knowledge, (2) the knowledge that God has before any of His acts of creation all future “possibilities of creation” and (3) “free knowledge.”[27] God is not seen as the “cause for all things” but merely has “foreknowledge of everything that will happen” yet this knowledge is understood as “logically posterior to God’s decision to create the world.”[28] Thus, in the words of Stratton, this view affirms that when he says that “just because God knows what will happen, it does not necessarily follow that God caused it, or forced it to happen.”[29] God’s foreknowledge is said to include “middle knowledge” that includes knowledge about “what every possible creature would do in any possible set of situations.”[30] This middle knowledge is said to uphold God’s Sovereignty and future free choices of human. In summary, this view has a prior commitment to an “overall indeterminism.”[31]

My view

Now, I will defend my thesis, which is the compatibilist position.  First, this position is unashamedly focused on Holy Scripture as our ultimate foundation of knowledge on God’s Sovereignty and human choices as our starting point. Since Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:15-16), it has the very infallible words of God and not the words of fallible reasoning of man. This is contrary to the libertarian positions, which arguably starts with autonomous human reasoning in Baconian style Hermeneutic. The Baconian method, according to Pearcey, involves “[freeing] our minds from all historical theological formulations” and then engaging with “the biblical text as a collection of “facts” that speak for themselves” and “statements in scripture [are] treated as analogues to facts in nature, knowable in exactly the same way.”[32] This functionally led to a type of Enlightenment rationalism that meant that “a scientific method like Bacon’s could be applied to theology.“[33] This view ends up flattening out any rough edges of God’s Sovereignty in favor of the alleged “plain facts” of each literary context of scripture that tends to be read in isolation from the greater canonical context of scripture and various historical interpretations. Pearcey even notes that a ”scientific exegesis of scripture” and its ”empiricist insistence that theology was a collection of ‘facts’ led easily to a one-dimensional, flat-footed interpretation of scripture” and interacting with verses in isolation, which brought about more ”proof-texting” than anything else.[34] The Compatibilist framework is the only position that is consistent with Scripture as the deciding factor on the correct view on God’s sovereignty and human freedom.

First, the very nature of God demands that compatibilism is the only logical option. Since scripture speaks of God as what all of creation it dependent upon (Acts 17:28), as eternal and self-existent (Exodus 3:14), God must be understand as a simple being. This is referring to the doctrine of divine simplicity, which means that God is “not composed of parts” but “all that is in God is God” and is properly defined as “absolute in being, alone sufficient for Himself and all other things, and so cannot in any respect derive His being from another.”[35] Since scripture upholds that God does not need anything (Acts 17:25), then it follows that He “does not derive knowledge from outside himself, and neither is He informed by creatures (Isaiah 40:14)”[36] In fact, Dolezal points out that the “dependability of God’s ways in redemptive history is rooted in His history-transcending self-sufficient acts of existence.”[37] As noted above, while various libertarian or Arminian views attempt to uphold God’s foreknowledge, they functionally make God’s knowledge limited to the creature in some sense. Wellum points out how this thinking attacks God’s nature because it “results in a redefinition of divine aseity”[38]  when “theologies that adopt a libertarian view inevitably make God’s knowledge dependent on the creature, [by] embrac[ing] some concept of God’s self-limitation, and redefine dual agency.”[39]  Also, the dual agency that Wellum is speaking of is how in every action, “God and humans simultaneously act” yet all according to “what God has eternally decreed/planned will come to pass.”[40] Thus, it logically follows that “God’s decree and knowledge is not conditioned on creation or the creature” but upon his Sovereign foreordination and knowledge of all that comes to pass. Indeed, it is only in the Compatibilist position can you have any assurance of God’s promises being fulfilled through the free choices of humans (secondary causes) and the Divine providence of God. If God is not truly self-sufficient (aseity) and depends upon creation for part of his knowledge, “then our confidence in Him must look to some source of being prior to Him, a reality more fundamental than Himself”.[41]

Second, I will define human freedom and look at how scripture defines it. Frame gives a philosophical definition of freedom that says it must involve a (1) “human activity” and (2) “an actual or potential barrier to that activity.” Thus, freedom must be understood as “being able to do what you want to do, with no barrier that keeps you from doing it.”[42] According to theologian Hoekema, true freedom is “the ability of humans, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to think, say, and do what is pleasing to God and in harmony with his revealed will.[43] Indeed, it is certainly understood that man has in some sense the ability to make choices and are held “responsible for the decisions they make”- which is consistent with various scriptures that hold man accountable.[44]   Since actual human choices to serve the Lord (Joshua 24:14)  and choosing to “no longer walk as the Gentiles do” ( Ephesians 4:17) and God’s Sovereign appointing unto eternal life only to God’s Sheep (Acts 13:48; John 10:11) is clearly found in scripture, freedom must be understood within the defined boundaries of Scripture. This freedom does not mean libertarian free will. Yes, there are free moral choices, but they are not choices that supersede God’s Sovereign providence. The Biblical compatibilist view is contrary to the libertarian view and defines freedom as determined by ”our ability to choose what we must desire and to act free of constraint” and our ”choices are mine” and ”are sufficiently influenced by my own internal dispositions and various external influences.”[45] This position denies the libertarian view of the Power of Alternative Possibilities (PAP), yet it “does not deny that we would be able to make ”contrary choices if the antecedent factors were different and provided a sufficient motive that appeals to our self-interested inclinations.”[46] This is consistent with scripture since it affirms that our choices are the result of our nature since ”out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45).

 Furthermore, man in his fallen state cannot be said to retain an ability to make a choice born out of true biblical freedom until he is born again (John 3:3). In fact, Jesus even affirms that “everyone who sins is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). Thus, while unregenerate sinners still have the ability to make choices, they “willingly” make the “wrong choices” in their “bondage to sin.”[47] Contrary to the various libertarian position, Scripture clearly implies moral inability. Wright notes that humans have a “natural ability” in that they have the “stuff required” to obey God, but do not have the “moral ability” because our unredeemed inclinations are not bent towards God left to ourselves.[48]  

Furthermore, this view is in opposition to the libertarian position that libertarian freedom as their highest value to the exclusion and limitation of God’s sovereignty. God’s sovereignty is the highest value in this view. Thus, the libertarian view ends up flattening man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty through failing to make distinctions between the “dual agency” of God and man. Yet, the compatibilist position understands that God is the “primary” causal agent and humanity is the secondary agent, “thus absolving God from evil and affirming the reality of the created order, especially human freedom and responsibility.”[49]  Piper puts it well when he says that “human willing and doing are not finally decisive in determining the way God’s mercy is shown.”[50] Freedom must always be defined as “within the limitation of God’s ordinances.”[51]  Human freedom must be understood within God’s absolute Sovereign freedom so that “God, in his absolute freedom- rooted in his being as God- is finally decisive, not human willing or doing.”[52]

Objections to my view

One of the objections to my view is that God’s attribute demands libertarian free will. Stratton argues that God’s omnipotence does not mean that his determines (in any sense) human choices. He says that “since limited libertarian freedom has been demonstrated to be possessed by humans, it seems to follow that an omniscient and maximally great being even knows what free agents could, would, and will freely choose to do” and “this is why people are held responsible for their actions.”[53] In like fashion, Flowers argues that if God determines human choices, then “it removes the responsibility that Scripture clearly places on man and puts it onto God.”[54] Furthermore, Flowers goes further and says that “ought strongly implies moral ability” to obey the commands of God.”[55] He appeals to a human analogy of commanding his kids to walk up the stairs without using the stairs themselves. The point he is making is that his kids must ask for his help instead of trying to do it themselves and even their ability to ask for help allegedly refutes the compatibilist position.[56] However, this is a begging the question fallacy (assuming libertarian free will without scriptural proof) and an appeal to a false analogy. The false comparison is with this utilization of a Baconian hermeneutic with a human analogy that does not find its grounding within scripture on human will.  According to John 1:13 humans are not born out of the “will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” and “caused us to be born again to a living hope” (1 Peter 1:3) and we were not the cause of making our spiritually dead self be born again, but it was God who “made us alive” (Ephesians 2:5) so that “no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:9) since “it is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all” (John 6:63). So, spiritually dead humans do not possess the moral ability to choose God. It requires a Sovereign work of God alone.

A second objection to my position is that of arguing for an alleged uncaused cause in nature being a demonstration of the existence of an uncaused libertarian free will. According to Hasker, free will libertarianism is “defined as the view that some human actions are chosen and performed by the agent without there being any sufficient condition or cause of the action prior to the action itself.”[57]  Thus, libertarians like Hasker assume that his definition of freedom is demonstrated in creation itself. Hasker says that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle shows that “ultimate particles [are] governed by chance and is predictable only in probabilistic terms.”[58] 

However, this view does not work because “the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does not prove that the movement of electrons is uncaused; it only describes our inability to predict their location and speed at any given time.”[59] What’s more, the logical conclusion of the libertarian view of human freedom presupposes that humans must be able to make decisions without a cause, which effectively leads to ”events of pure chance or randomness.”[60] Thus, an appeal to Leibniz’ “principle of sufficient reason,” which means that “there must be some sufficient reason why that thing occurs rather than something else, is an appropriate next step.[61] It is a logically insufficient to argue for anything to be the result of chance in God’s world. Every cause must have a sufficient reason for it.

According to Compatibilism, however, the sufficient cause of our choices is “our own internal dispositions and various external influences” and that we do have the ability to make different choices if the “antecedent factors were different and provided a sufficient motive that appeals to our self-interested inclinations” as we choose based upon our greatest desire.[62] Also, this uncaused caused view contradicts scriptures plains teaching that God “make[s] known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” (Isaiah 46:10). For human choices to be a free action, it does not necessitate that they have “to be without a cause.” Frame rightly makes the distinction that sometimes  “causality does impair freedom, as when someone grabs [your] arm and pushes it around” yet that does not mean that all causality impairs freedom.”[63] Furthermore, the Arminian  “free will does not do justice to the scope of the Biblical witness because of its insistence that libertarian choices be uncaused, indifferent, and unnecessary.”[64] Wright correctly points out that the human will is not a “component” of who we are, but that the “entire person chooses” and scripture makes clear that it’s the sinful nature (including the human will) that is in bondage to sin before regeneration.

Furthermore, the Libertarian view also ends up supporting a closed-system universe that runs by natural laws where in the words of Baugh, “God may fiddle with it here and there to try to get his programs accomplished, but it is essentially an autonomous system. Divine Foreknowledge of human decision is the key for the Arminian to give God a foot in the back God. God foresees that someone will exercise his or her autonomous will, without any divine interference, and God responds by choosing and predestining that one.” Thus in this case, Baugh affirms that God would know not of his elect for “certain” but only know “possibilities.”[65] Yet, the compatibilist position acknowledges God’s “meticulous providence” over all human choices and how He “sovereignly intends all evil to happen that he does not prevent” and that humans are not “independent of God” as the “sources of primary causality.”[66]

Additionally, the libertarian view of scripture contradicts what scripture has to say about human will.  The libertarian view of human nature is so committed to defending itself that it does violence to the text of scripture and twists what the context says on how “out of the heart comes evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander” (Matthew 15:19). Romans 6:20 also makes clear that we are “slaves of sin” before receiving eternal life and it’s contrasted with being “slaves of God” in Romans 6:22. What’s more, Romans 9:14-16 (ESV) makes clear that the libertarian free will is not the ultimate cause of  those who have received God’s mercy in Jesus: “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So, then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” It is both true that God is completely Sovereign over human choices yet is not unjust in punishing humans that he holds accountable for their slavery to sin. Paul in Romans 9:19-20 (ESV) even anticipates the objection of the libertarian free will position by bringing up their objection when he says, “why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? But who are you, O Man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘why have you made me like this?”  Romans 9 makes clear that it is wrong to object to God’s Sovereign judgment and act like God is unjust in giving salvation only to those whom he foreknew and foreordained unto eternal life (Romans 8:29). Certainly, how this works is a mystery. Wellum also notes that the mystery is “located in how God can foreordain all things, including our free human actions, and by doing so guarantee his decreed will and establish our secondary agency.”[67] In summary, we must let scripture determine what we believe on God’s absolute Sovereignty human choices and not human sensibilities of what it means to be free.    

Conclusion

       In summary, it has been shown that God foreknows future free actions and humans can still be said to be free. This is doctrine is grounded in the truth of sacred scripture and not merely discovered through autonomous human reasoning. We must restrict our definitions of freedom and God’s Sovereignty to sacred scripture instead of flawed human reasoning. The truth of God’s absolute Sovereign rule and Providence over His creation should lead us to delight in the God who gave us a heart with a new nature that is free to obey Christ! This should comfort us because our God is a righteous ruler of the universe, does all that he pleases (Psalm 115:3) and pleases is good (Psalms 145:17) all that he ordains is for our good and truly directs everything to his ultimate Glory (Romans 8:28; Romans 11:36.) Humans are both responsible before our Creator, and yet nothing happens apart from His good Sovereign rule (Job 42:2). This truth should bring us great comfort, since it enables us to trust that He is working “all things according to the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11).  While this topic has brought about a lot of debate, it should lead the church to stand in awe of the mystery that God is completely sovereign and has granted His sheep to have a new nature that willingly desires to obey and follow him. Indeed, the goal of God’s good providence is “the gladness of man in the glory of God, revealed in all his ways and works.”[68]

[1] Stephen J. Wellum, Systematic Theology: From Canon to Concept. (Brentwood: Tennessee, 2024), 1:900.

[2] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 1:635.

[3] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 1:898.

[4] Shawn D. Wright, 40 Questions about Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic,2019), 80.

[5] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 1:898.

[6] John Piper., Providence (Wheaton, Il: Crossway, 2020), 398.

[7] Shawn D. Wright, 40 Questions about Calvinism. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2019), 71.

[8] Shawn D. Wright, 40 Questions about Calvinism, 69.

[9] Shawn D. Wright, 40 Questions about Calvinism. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2019), 69.

[10] Scott Christensen, What About Evil? A Defense of God’s Sovereign Glory. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2020), 86-87.

[11] John Frame, We Are all Philosophers: A Christian Introduction to Seven Fundamental Questions (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019), 29-30.

[12] Stephen J. Wellum, Systematic Theology: From Canon to Concept. Vol. 1. (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 554.

[13] Timothy, A Stratton, Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism: A Biblical, Historical, Theological and Philosophical Analysis (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2020), 188.

[14] Stratton, Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism, 186-193.

[15] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 1:636.

[16] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 1:636-637

[17] William Hasker, Metaphysics: Constructing a Worldview. Contours of Christian Philosophy. Edited by C. Stephen Evans (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983), 54.  

[18] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 1:638.

[19] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 1:638

[20] F. Leroy Forlines, The Quest for Truth: Answering Life’s Inescapable Questions (Nashville: Randall House, 2001), 322 quoted in Shawn D. Wright, 40 Questions on Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2019),  70.

[21] Greg Welty, Why is there evil in the world (and so much of it)? (Ross-Shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications Ltd., 2018), 123.

[22] Andrew T. Walker, Faithful Reason: Natural Law Ethics for God’s Glory and our Good (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 28.

[23] Greg Welty, Why is there evil in the world (and so much of it)? (Ross-Shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications Ltd., 2018), 124.

[24] Greg Welty, Why is there evil in the world (and so much of it)? (Ross-Shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications Ltd., 2018), 125.

[25] Scott Christensen, What About Evil? A Defense of God’s Sovereign Glory (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2020), 88.

[26] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 1:640.

[27] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 1:640.

[28] William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge & Human Freedom, (Eugene, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999), 129, quoted in Stephen J. Wellum, Systematic Theology (Brentwood: B&H Academic), 641.

[29] Tim Stratton. A. Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism: A Biblical, Historical, Theological and Philosophical Analysis (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2020), 187.

[30] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 1:641.

[31] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 1:898.

[32] Nancy Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity. (Wheaton, Il, Crossway Books, 2005), 299.

[33] Pearcey, Total Truth, 299.

[34] Pearcey, Total Truth, 301.

[35] James E. Dolezal, All That is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 47. 

[36] James E. Dolezal. All That is in God, 49.

[37] James E. Dolezal. All That is in God, 50.

[38] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 1:877.

[39] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 1:898.

[40] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 1:877.

[41] James E. Dolezal. All That is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 49.

[42] Frame, John M. We Are all Philosophers: A Christian Introduction to Seven Fundamental Questions (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019), 25-26.

[43] Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), 228.

[44] Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), 229.

[45] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 1:898.

[46] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 1:898.

[47] Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 233.

[48] Wright, 40 Questions about Calvinism, 79-80.

[49] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 1:865.

[50] Piper, Providence, 399.

[51] Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 231

[52] Piper, Providence, 399.

[53] Timothy A. Stratton, Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism: A Biblical, Historical, Theological and Philosophical Analysis (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2020), 188.

[54] Leighton Flowers. The Potter’s Promise: A Biblical Defense of Traditional Soteriology. (Trinity Academic Press, 2017), 164.

[55] Leighton Flowers, The Potter’s Promise: A Biblical Defense of Traditional Soteriology (Trinity Academic Press, 2017), 169.

[56] Flowers, The Potter’s Freedom, 170-172.

[57] William Hasker. Metaphysics: Constructing a Worldview. Contours of Christian Philosophy. Edited by C. Stephen Evans. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983), 32.

[58] Timothy A. Stratton, Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism: A Biblical, Historical, Theological and Philosophical Analysis (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2020), 42.

[59] Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), 87.

[60] John Frame, We Are all Philosophers: A Christian Introduction to Seven Fundamental Questions (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019), 28.

[61] Hasker. Metaphysics, 38.

[62] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 898.

[63] Frame, We are All Philosophers, 30.

[64] Wright, 40 Questions about Calvinism, 72.

[65] S.M. Baugh, “The Meaning of Foreknowledge,” In Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace. Edited by Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware, 183-200. ) Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books), 2000. 199.

[66] Scott Christensen, What About Evil? A Defense of God’s Sovereign Glory. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2020) 91-92.

[67] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 909.

[68] John Piper, Providence (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 330.