We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.

Confronting Divine Determinism
Part of the fallen human condition inclines us to shirk our moral responsibility and accept that everything is predetermined, whether by God, the gods, fate, or blind chance. Various forms of determinism have been prevalent in most primitive religions, in much ancient philosophy, in most forms of Islam and even, most surprisingly, in much traditional Christian theology. [For a brief analysis of this deterministic view of God, click here.]
This belief in fate or divine determinism is as tragic as it is unbiblical. Among other things, fatalism inevitably leads people to blame God for evil. If God is the ultimate cause of everything, how could this conclusion be avoided? Moreover, by undermining our freedom of choice, determinism strips us of our dignity and moral responsibility. It reduces us to pawns of fate and robs us of our potential to love. In other words, it destroys the beauty of the biblical proclamation that we are made in the image of God.
While it’s undeniable that the Bible depicts God as predestining some things, it’s also clear that free decisions do not fall into this category. To a significant extent, humans freely determine their own destiny. And the first step in understanding how an all-good God could create a world that is as messed up as the one we find ourselves in is to fully appreciate this fact.
If God does not determine everything and humans have free will we must ask this question: how does human free will fit in with God’s plan?
We can think of free will as our capacity to have “say-so” in the world. That is, by our free choices, God grants us a genuine “say” in what comes to pass. This “say-so” is our domain of responsibility. We might even call it our own kingdom, since a kingdom is any domain over which someone is king.
God’s goal for us is for us to align our “say-so” with his and thereby to make our kingdom his Kingdom. To the extend that we do this, God’s fullness of life is poured into us and we use our “say-so” as a means of expressing God’s “say-so.” God’s will now begins to be accomplished “on earth as it is in heaven.” As the domain of responsibility given to humans becomes yielded to God, humans and the whole earth that has been entrusted to us becomes a domain over which God reigns, the Kingdom of God.
Yet, because the goal of the whole project is love, none of this can be coerced. Before creating the world, the omnipotent God had all the “say-so” there was. The moment he decided to create humans and angels as free agents, however, his “say-so” became limited to some extent. Every element of “say-so” that a human or angel has is an element that God does not have. It’s up to the human or angel to determine whether they’ll use their “say-so” to advance God’s will, or to hinder God’s will.
This is why the Bible depicts God’s government over the world—what theologians call God’s “providence”—as more a matter of God’s wisdom than of God’s power (Eph 1:7-9; 3:10; Rom 9). If God controlled everything that came to pass, he wouldn’t have to rely on his wisdom at all. His power would decide everything. Wisdom is about problem solving, and God only needs to solve problems if he is dealing with agents who have genuine “say-so” that he can’t control. To accomplish his will “on earth as it is in heaven,” therefore, God uses his wisdom to get angels and humans on board with his plans and to outsmart opponents.
Because agents are genuinely free, many things God wills don’t get accomplished, and many evils God wishes could be prevented take place. Yet, because God is infinitely wise and retains over-all control of the cosmos, we can rest assured that his promise to eventually overcome all opposition and achieve his purposes will come to pass.
For a sermon that delves into this with specific reference to Romans 9, click here.
If you want to read further on this topic, God of the Possible, especially chapter 3, provides further information.
Category: General
Tags: Calvinism, Determinism, Free Will, Love, Open Theism, Predestination, Responding to Calvinism, Woodland Hills Church
Related Reading

Roger Olson’s Review of The Cosmic Dance
Today we wanted to share a review of The Cosmic Dance by esteemed theologian Roger Olson. You can check out an excerpt below or you can read the whole review here. You can place an order for The Cosmic Dance here. The Cosmic Dance is Greg’s (and friends’) attempt to present the case that the best contemporary science supports viewing…

Sermon: Diaper Power
In this short clip from Greg Boyd’s Sermon Diaper Power, he introduces the theme of the sermon where talks about how the poverty of the manger exemplified the power of God. In this sermon, Greg shows that God really is like the baby swaddled in clothes in the manger. The kind of power that God…

No Room for Judgment
In the light of the horrible violence in Orlando, and in response to the sickening judgmental statements that some Christian leaders have been making since the mass shooting about the victims who belong to the LGBTQ community, this is a time to remember our calling to revolt against all judgment as kingdom people. In the…

God’s Aikido Way of Defeating Evil
Greg continues his thoughts on the atonement with this installment highlighting the way God uses the evil intentions and actions of his enemies to bring about good. And because this strategy is based in love, the demons who encountered Christ could not possibly imagine what he was up to. They ended up participating in their…

What About the Harsh Words of Paul? A Response to Paul Copan (#4)
This post is my fourth response to a talk given by Paul Copan at the Evangelical Theological Society in November in which he raised a number of objections to Crucifixion of the Warrior God. A major part of Copan’s critique centered on my claim that the love of God that is revealed on the cross,…

What do you think of Thomas Aquinas’ view of God?
Question: You have written (in Trinity and Process) that the relational God of the Bible is the antithesis of the immutable God of Thomas Aquinas. Could you explain this? Answer: Aquinas and much of the classical theological tradition borrowed heavily from Aristotle’s notion of God as an “unmoved mover.” God moves the world but remains…