<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 
THE DECREE
AS IT RELATES TO MAN'S FREE WILL AND GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY
By Pastor Matt Smith
 
 
Introduction
 
Psalm 103:19 (NASB95)19 The Lord has established His throne in the heavens, And His sovereignty rules over all.
Psalm 115:3 (NASB95)3 But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.
Psalm 135:6 (NASB95)6 Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.
Proverbs 19:21 (NASB95)
21 Many plans are in a man's heart, But the counsel of the Lord will stand.
Proverbs 16:33 (NASB95)33 The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the Lord.
 
Job 42:2 (NASB95)2 "I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.[1]
 
 
            How do these statements square with the notion that God's will can be thwarted by our choices?  They don't.  Scripture is clear and unequivical in its statement of God's sovereignty over all things.  Even when we think we are in control of our choices and life, Scripture affirms something quite different.  God's sovereignty is related intrinsically to His plan, called His decree.  This is not difficult to see, as it is revealed so clearly and abundantly in the Bible, but how does it relate to human freedom, if it does so at all?  Many great men of God, having struggled with this question, decide ulitimately to accept, by faith, the seeming contradiction that man has "real" free will and that God has "real" sovereignty.  Of course the definition of these terms need clarification, leaving many to decide, in an attempt to protect the idea of human free will, that God is not in control despite the clear revelation of Scripture.  Others have conversly decided that there is no such thing as "free will," accepting a sort of fatalism whereby God is the only actor and we are but puppets.  The Bible however makes the claim that both are somehow true, that we are unequivically chosen but free nonetheless.  Is it necessary, then, to actualize a contradiction for this to be the case?  No.  The Bible teaches both free will and sovereignty, and this paper contends that there is no contradiction in these ideas.
The Big Idea:The Divine Decree and Human Free Will
 
According to Feinberg, God is not just a soveriegn King, but He is a King who cares.  In defining his view of specific sovereignty, he lays out what this paper argues is the proper relationship between free will and sovereighty.  He says:
A final form of specific sovereignty is the position I am defending in this book.  The God espoused in this view is definitely king, but He is a king who cares.  My model incorporates compatibilistic free will, which claims that even though actions are causally determined, they are still free as long as the agents act according to their wishes, i.e., without constraint.  According to this model of sovereignity, God did not have to create anything, but having decided to create, He chose our world from a number of possible worlds.  His decision to create this world was unconditional, i.e., it was based on nothing other than His sovereign purposes and the counsel of His will.  Because the decree is efficacious (irrestible), whatever God decrees comes to pass, and Scripture teaches that the decree covers all things.  Hence, God is absolutely sovereign and has not limited that sovereignty to make room for libertarian free will.[2] 
What Is the Decree?
 
 
            In discussing a subject requiring so much precision it becomes necessary to define ones terms.  This becomes even more important as we realize that many people when discussing this subject tend to build up straw men, who they then proceed to tear down, supposedly demonstrating the viability of their own ideology.  Most of the books arguing against the "Ariminian" position, for example, or the "Calvinistic" position do this leaving the sincere disciple an unfortunate choice; one extreme that leaves God sovereign and man little more than a puppet (Hyper-Calvinism) and the other where man has absolute freedom at the cost of a God who is not really God at all (Hyper-Arminianism).  This paper, if it is to shed any light at all, must begin with definition so as to be absolutely clear what is being spoken of.
To begin with, we should begin where God did; at the decree.  According to The Moody Handbook to Theology the definition of the decree, or as he puts it decrees, is as follows:
The decrees of God have been established in eternity past and have reference to God's sovereign control over every realm and over all events. The decrees are reflected in Ephesians 1:11 in that He "works all things after the counsel of His will." Question 7 of the Westminster Shorter Confession states: "The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass." Ultimately, there are only two options. Either God is sovereign and has absolute control over the world and universe or God does not have sovereign control, and the world and universe carry on in defiance of His holy will. Of course, the former is true; the world does not operate by chance. God has absolute control. Yet it must also be affirmed that man is responsible for sinful actions. God is never the author of sin nor does His sovereignty eliminate man's responsibility.[3]
 
Though this paper agrees with this statement, there are a few points needing clarification.  To begin with, even though the above statement refers to the plural decrees instead of the singular decree, this paper will stick to the singular.  This is for the reason that God in His planning came up with one plan incorporating all things that are in one decree.  In fact, it is this point that later will come in to play as we discuss the problem of evil in its relation to the decree. 
Let the reader not miss the end part of the statement above that there are only two options where God is either sovereign or not.  This is the straw man argument taking place.  In reality there are many God-fearing Christians who hold to a nuanced definition, differing from the one stated here in one way or another.  This is precisely the argument that keeps evangelicals from making more headway on this issue.  For example, Feinberg lays out possible models for understanding the relationship to these big issues.  In his chapter on Divine Providence he discusses Indeterminism, the idea that there is more than one possible future.[4]  Generally speaking, an indeterminist would believe that genuine, real, freedom is incompatible with Determinism; often called Incompatibilism.[5]  This differs from Determinism whereby everything that happens, relies on conditions such that, given them, nothing else could occur.[6]  Determinism delineates from here into many different forms like Fatalism, which is really the inevitability of what is outside of anything we do.  It is the most extreme form and is essentially the straw man.  Hard Determinism, holds, less strongly than Fatalism the idea that all that happens is causally determined.[7]  Finally, Soft Determinism, the view taken in this paper, agrees with Hard Determinism, that everything that happens is causally determined, but also that some actions are free.[8]  This belief is also called Compatibilsm which "contends that there are free actions and that those actions, though causally determined, are free because they are done in accord with the agent's wishes."[9]      
It is apparent that there are many nuanced positions that people can hold.  Being that we are speaking of something so beyond us in many ways, it seems prudent to have much grace with one another when discussing this in-house debate.  The Easton Bible dictionary reflects this when it says:
The decree being the act of an infinite, absolute, eternal, unchangeable, and sovereign Person, comprehending a plan including all his works of all kinds, great and small, from the beginning of creation to an unending eternity; ends as well as means, causes as well as effects, conditions and instrumentalities as well as the events which depend upon them, must be incomprehensible by the finite intellect of man.[10]
 
Characteristics of the Decree
 
            According to Scripture, the decree is eternal (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13), unchangeable (Ps. 33:11; Isa. 46:9), and comprehends all things that come to pass (Eph. 1:11; Matt. 10:29, 30; Eph. 2:10; Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28; Ps. 17:13, 14). [11]  According to Ephesians 1:11, "we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, (Eph 1:11)."  This means that nothing is outside the scope of God's sovereign rule.  This verse emphasizes "all things" being brought to pass by this decree (singular). 
The decree covering all things was formed in eternity past but is manifested in time. (Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Pet. 1:20).  The decree is a wise plan because God, who is wise, has planned what is best (In Romans 9–11; Rom. 11:33–36; Ps. 104:24; Prov. 3:19).  The decree is according to God's sovereign will-He does as He pleases (Dan 4:35; 2:21, 31–45).  The decree has two aspects (Isa. 45:18; Dan. 4:35; Dan. 2:21; Eph. 1:4; 1 Sam. 8:5–9, 19–22; Gen. 17:6; 35:11).  The purpose of the decree is the glory of God (Ps. 19:1; Eph. 1:4–5; Eph. 1:6, 11–12; Rom. 9:23; Rev. 4:11).  Although all things are encompassed in the decree, man is responsible for sinful actions (Acts 2:23; Hab. 1:6; 1:11).  Some aspects of the decree are carried out by people (Eph. 1:4; Acts 16:31).[12]
 
Grace and Election in Salvation as it relates to the Decree
 
According to the Scripture, we are saved by the grace of God.  Man, being totally depraved cannot choose to accept Christ apart from the work of the Holy Spirit.               1 Corinthians 2:14, expresses this fact well: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (KJV).  John F. Walvoord, in his book on the Holy Spirit, gets to the point when he says that:  "A man spiritually dead cannot do a spiritual work.  Total depravity demands as its corollary the doctrine of efficacious grace."[13]  The final say must go to Scripture which confidently asserts that in regards to salvation it is by grace and that not of ourselves but it is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8).
The Scripture is plain that God chose to whom He would give His efficacious grace before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4).  Charles C. Ryrie says thus:
The basis of the choice is God's own good pleasure, not man's works.  His purpose, His good pleasure, and His will are all involved in that choosing.  God's purpose is to glorify Himself.  In this fact lies the resolution of all the problems and questions concerning God's elective purpose.[14]
 
This is a hard doctrine to swallow because it takes away from most people's view of what they perceive as their own free will.  When exercising his will, man is only aware of his own freedom for action and choice that he determines by his circumstances of which God is the author.[15]  On the incoherence of the freewill theism theory, R. K. McGregor Wright makes an interesting comment.  He asks: "If it is really true that 'God never overrides the free will,' how can the Christian honestly pray for anyone's salvation?"  Good thing it is the God upon the throne in whom we trust, not the imperfect man with a fallen nature. 
            Isaiah has this to say about our King who cares:
Isaiah 46:9-11 (NASB95)9 "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me,10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.
God knows and has declared the end from the beginning, and related them directly to His purpose, a purpose that involved our salvation from sin and, consequently, the death of Christ.  In the book of Acts we see this from the lips of Peter when he says: "this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death (Acts 2:23)."  If this is true, and it is,  then God planned beforehand that He would put Christ to death.  This means that the cross was not some kind of failure on God's part due to the rejection of His people, but rather a specific plan carried out and executed by God through the "free choice" of the godless men being spoken to.  The Moody Handbook of Theology goes further to say that this demonstrates our culpability for sin as decreed by God:
     
In Acts 2:23 Peter explained that Jesus died because of the "predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God." "Plan" (Gk. boule) stresses the predetermined will or decision of God. Foreknowledge is a rough equivalent and suggests not merely previous knowledge but action. Hence, Christ died because of the decision of God in eternity; nevertheless, Peter held the people responsible for killing Christ saying, "you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." Although Christ's death was a result of the decree and plan of God, wicked men were responsible for His death.
Similarly, in Habakkuk 1:6 God explained to the prophet that He was raising up the Chaldeans to chastise His disobedient people in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Judah. But when the Chaldeans concluded their work, God would hold them responsible (Hab. 1:11). Although God has decreed all things, man is responsible for his sins.[16]

The Decree and the Problem of Evil
 
            In the previous section  Acts 2:23 was brought up in reference to the prior plan of God to put Christ to death through the free actions of sinful men.  This brings up another significant point, namely that God has decreed certain acts that He did not wish to occur.  In this instance at least, it is abundantly clear that God decreed an evil act, even though He did not wish it or actually take part in it as an agent.  This goes along with everything that has been said so far and is really just vetting out a fact as stated earlier, yet it does not sit well with us.  This is where the problem of evil comes in.   
            As Feinberg states it:
The problem of evil traditionally has been understood to center on the alleged inconsistency of three propositions deemed central to theism.  Those propositions are 1) God is all-loving, 2) God is all-powerful, and 3)evil exists in our world.[17]
 
These three propositions are, according to critics, self contradictory.  Since the logical problem of evil is about contradiction it means that we cannot both declare God as good and yet the author of evil at the same time because we would be affirming two opposite facts at the same time. 
At this point we must remember that God's omnipotence requires Him to do only what is logically possible.  In relation to the decree it means that He could not actualize a world with contradictory states of affairs.[18]  Chafer said it well when he said that out of all the plans God could have chosen to actualize in the decree:
The present plan as ordained and as it is being achieved is, and in end will prove to be, the best plan and purpose that could have been devised by infinite wisdom, consummated by infinite power, and that which will be the supreme satisfaction to infinite love…This fact but serves to emphasize the point in view, which is that the present plan is as perfect as its Author.[19]
 
 
In creating our world, God, in the decree, had to choose between actualizing one of two things.[20]  According to Feinberg: "Regardless of the particular theology, one of the two options is removing evil."[21]  So then, hypothetically, let us say that God could create either the best of all possible worlds to bring most glory to Himself, as Chafer says above, though it would include the temporal existence of evil, or He could create a world with non-glorified human beings where no possibility of evil existed.[22]  God cannot do both at the same time.  If He removes evil, He cannot also create non-glorified human beings and let them function as they were intended to function. 
Stated in simple terms, if God had removed evil He would have done a good thing.  Yet, we have to believe that God did the best thing, and it includes for the time being the temporal existence of evil, to bring about the best of all possible worlds in the end.  This allows God to have decreed evil and yet be good at the same time.  When I take my daughter to the doctor to get her flu shot she will not like the experience and she may get sick along the way but in the end she will be healthier than she would have been had she not gone at all.  Though this be true, she still would not understand it when she was hurting staring at a big needle.
Conclusion
Borrowing heavily from Feinberg, we learn that God is not just a sovereign king, but He is a king who cares.  Feinberg's model incorporates compatibilistic free will, which claims that even though actions are causally determined, they are still free as long as the agents act according to their wishes, i.e., without constraint. 
According to this model of sovereignity, God did not have to create anything, but having decided to create, He chose our world from a number of possible worlds.  His decision to create this world was unconditional, i.e., it was based on nothing other than His sovereign purposes and the counsel of His will.  Because the decree is efficacious (irrestible), whatever God decrees comes to pass, and Scripture teaches that the decree covers all things.  Hence, God is absolutely sovereign and has not limited that sovereignty to make room for libertarian free will.[23] 
 
From a practical standpoint, it is absolutely encouraging to know that the all-powerful, all-wise God has already planned everything that will happen to us.  Paul's words to the Christians in Ephesus are the ultimate illustration of this:
Ephesians 1:3-12 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace8 which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.Matt Smith
n       Pastor, Barabbas Road Churchpastormatt@whoisbarabbas.comwww.whoisbarabbas.com619.459.3873

[1]  New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
 

[2] John S. Feinberge, NoONe Like Him:The Doctrine of God  (Wheaton: Good News Publishers, 2001), 651.
 

[3]Enns, P. P. (1997, c1989). The Moody handbook of theology (203). Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press.

 
[4] Feinberg, 626.

 
[5] Feinberg, 628.

 
[6] Feinberg, 631.

 
[7] Feinberg, 635.

 
[8] Ibid.

 
[9] Feinberg, 637.

 
[10]Easton, M. (1996, c1897). Easton's Bible dictionary. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

 
[11]Easton, M. (1996, c1897). Easton's Bible dictionary. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

 
[12]Enns, P. P. (1997, c1989). The Moody handbook of theology (204). Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press.

[13] John F. Walvoord, The Holy Spirit: A Comprehensive Study of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit  (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), 125.
 

[14] Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation  (Chicago: Moody Press, 1997), 137.
 

[15] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology volume 1 (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1976), 241.
 

[16]Enns, P. P. (1997, c1989). The Moody handbook of theology (205). Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press.

[17] Feinberg, 777.

 
[18] Feinberg, 781.

 
[19] Chafer, 225.

 
[20] Ibid.

 
[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] John S. Feinberge, NoONe Like Him:The Doctrine of God  (Wheaton: Good News Publishers, 2001), 651.