Mr. Erickson in his book, "Christian Theology," takes on the issue of free will versus election, as he discusses the sovereignty of God's plan and human freedom. Are people free to make certain decisions for themselves, or has the outcome or choice already been decided in advance? In the matter of salvation, is an individual free to choose God and be saved, or is that choice, too, automatically made for them by God? Theologians have debated this issue of human freedom and election for many years. Accordingly, Mr. Erickson presents his views on the topic in his discussion about God's plan.
In this matter of God's sovereign plan and human freedom, there are two main schools of thought. The first, which is Calvinistic and includes the doctrine of election, simply suggests that God has already decided who will and who will not make certain choices. Hence, concerning salvation, He has actually chosen who will and who will not be saved. The second school of thought, which is the Arminian perspective, implies that God has left the issue of choice up to each individual. But because He is omniscient and infinite, He knows beforehand what choices will be made, and thus, He can tailor His plan accordingly.
In the moderately Calvinistic perspective, as described by Mr. Erickson, God is able to ordain the future without taking away an individual's right to choose. In his opinion, all God would have to do is create a person with certain traits and then present that individual with the specific set of circumstances or stimuli that would drive the desired result. In the matter of the Pharaoh of Egypt, for instance, Mr. Erickson would not say that the Lord had to harden Pharaoh's heart, as is implied in Exodus 14:8. Instead, he would suggest that the Lord caused those events to occur which would lead Pharaoh's heart to be hardened, and all of those events would have been scripted based on the kind of person that Pharaoh was. With this sort of interpretation, the author can say that the effect of Pharaoh's heart being hardened was acheived. Yet, he can also say that the Lord did not directly force it to happen, thus making it appear to be a matter of Pharaoh's free will.
This description of how a person can choose freely, in addition to being Calvinistic in nature, is also consistent with the view of Mr. Gottfried von Leibniz. Mr. Leibniz presented the idea of the many possible choices which a person can make in a lifetime. With each choice and each situation, the individual's nature is a little more finely tuned. Therefore, under the careful control of the Lord, a person can be created who will be the exact person to react to every choice exactly as God has ordained. In this way, God's plan is still sovereign, but only because He has put the right person or right kind of person at every decision point of life so that He can get the desired result.
In my opinion, this "moderately" Calvinistic approach for explaining God's sovereignty and human freedom falls short of describing the God of the ible. The problem to me exists with this matter of God's attribute of love. As I consider the possibility that He could create a person in such a way as to drive them to a certain conclusion, I am left with the feeling that He is still making the choice, even though He may only be doing so indirectly. To me, the end result is the same, either way, whether He makes the choice directly or indirectly. If God creates a person and then influences that person in a direction which ultimately leads to their eternal damnation, then He, in my opinion, has made the choice for them, and He is not a God of love.
Tom of Spotswood "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." (I John 5:12)
Index to Selected Essays And Book Reviews
Lesson 27 - Erickson's Association Of Creation To Evolution
Send email to: tlee6040@aol.com