A Look at Sovereignty & "Free Will"

"We love Him because He first loved us."

1 John 4:19

Many believers are convinced by Scripture of the sovereignty of God in all things, yet not quite reconciled to "the fairness" of it in their mind. They know Scripture is true and their thinking in error, but find they can't quite reconcile their personal ideas about "fairness" and "free will" with God's sovereignty, and they would like to be able to.

I believe part of the answer lies in having an accurate understanding of "free will". "Free will" does not mean an individual can do whatever he wants. As Americans, we are "free", but we are not "free" to do "whatever we want". We can not murder, steal or drive drunk and expect there will be no adverse consequences for our actions. Even the much-touted idea that "As an American I can grow up to be whatever I want to be" is fallacious. I may "want" to be a nuclear physicist, but I am limited by my intelligence and a lack of funds to expend on the required education. I may "want" to be President, but only one person is elected every four years. Do the math ... every American cannot become President, no matter how much they might desire the job.

From a Scriptural point of view, "free will" means a man has the freedom to act according to his nature. An unregenerate heart/mind is at enmity with God. [Rom.8:7]. (By the way, that verb is in the Greek Present Tense, which indicates a progressive, on-going, "lifestyle" kind of action.)

It takes a "golden chain" of effort on God's part to bring a mind at enmity towards Him into a relationship of loving Him. "For those whom He forekenew, He also predestined... and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." [Rom.8:29-30]

For months I have been trying to think of an illustration that might demonstrate "free will" in a scenario involving outside intervention. Remembering the above definition of "free will", that an individual is "free" to act within their nature, I recalled an incident I think might help illustrate the concept.

When we were raising sheep, it was not uncommon for people to dump their pregnant cats in our neighborhood. While doing chores one morning, the kids were surprised to have a kitten drop down from the loft into the grain bin. A litter of kittens had been born in the loft above. Understanding that I would incur a cost, I called the animal shelter to make arrangements to bring the new family into their care. I was told I could not bring the kittens to the shelter until they were weaned. I was also warned that if I left them on their own in the barn, they would be feral cats by the time weaning occurred - untameable and unsuitable for adoption.

So, with considerable effort on our part, we finally caught all of the kittens and their mom, and brought them into the house. We fed them, held them, patted them, put up with their propensity to scratch furniture and climb curtains ... until they were weaned and could be brought to the shelter, which for a fee would neuter each one and give the appropriate shots, making them presentable for adoption by loving owners.

Now, if I had not intervened, what would have happened to those kittens in the barn? They would have had the "free will" to be feral. What happened when I DID intervene, paying the price of scratched kids & curtains, feeding & vet costs, nurturing time, etc.? Their "nature" was changed and they had the "free will" to be tame cats. In both cases they possessed "free will" to follow their nature. My intervention did not remove their "free will".