The Complementary Balance of God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Free Will

Daryl L. Grimes

THEO 525 Systematic Theology I

February 27, 2024

Contents

Introduction....................................................................................................................................1

A Brief History of the Tension Between Sovereignty and Free Will..................................1

An Overview of Why Sovereignty and Free Will Can Be Harmonized..............................2

Overview of the Sovereignty of God and the Free Will of Man................................................3

Defining God’s Sovereignty................................................................................................3

Misunderstandings of God’s Sovereignty...........................................................................4

Defining Man’s Free Will....................................................................................................6

Cause and Effect or Influence and Response..............................................................................7

Freedom Within God’s Framework.............................................................................................9

A Word About Foreknowledge...................................................................................................11

Biblical Foreknowledge Explained....................................................................................11

Can Biblical Foreknowledge and True Freedom Coexist?................................................11

Conclusion....................................................................................................................................13

Bibliography.................................................................................................................................15
 1

Introduction

For generations the debate regarding God’s sovereignty and the free will of man has

raged. Some assume the freedom of man and the sovereignty of God cannot coexist. This

assumption is exacerbated when individuals do not define their terms according to Scriptural

definitions. A correct understanding of sovereignty is not equal to hardline determinism and a

correct understanding of free will is not equal to open theism or ability of mankind to supersede

God’s will in an area that He has not permitted. This paper will argue that the free will gifted to

man by the sovereign God in no way contradicts His sovereignty but perfectly complements it as

He intended.

A Brief History of the Tension Between Sovereignty and Free Will

R. C. Sproul suggests the “apparent contradiction between the sovereignty of God and the

freedom of man” may be the oldest impasse among believers.1 One such tension can be traced to

Pelagius’ teachings (c. 400 AD). He believed that mankind’s will was not affected by the Fall

and therefore could relate to God solely through human effort. He disagreed with Augustine’s

understanding of original sin among other things.2 Pelagius took the concept of humanity’s free

will to an unbiblical extreme by suggesting man had an unconditional free will.3 Still others have

difficulty with free will because they say it is responsible for evil. In their thought process they

conceive that either free will exists or God exists, but both cannot.4
1
R. C. Sproul, Can I Know God’s Will?, vol. 4, The Crucial Questions Series (Lake Mary, FL:
Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), 47–48.

2
R. Stanton Norman, “Human Sinfulness,” in A Theology for the Church (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic,
2014), 370.

3
James Leo Garrett Jr., Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical, Fourth Edition., vol. 1
(Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014), 591.
4
Luke Teeninga, “God and the Value of Free Will,” Sophia 61, no. 3 (09, 2022): 643-57,
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/god-value-free-
will/docview/2717201044/se-2.
 2

Humanity tends to extremes. God’s Word serves as believers’ standard, not the flawed

opinions of mankind, who though created in God’s image, have been marred by the sin nature

inherited by the Fall. As a result of this tendency toward extremes, hardline determinism and

open theism lie on the periphery of these century old arguments. Sadly, these extremes have

moved so far from their biblical foundations that they bear little to no resemblance to the

Scriptures themselves.5

An Overview of Why Sovereignty and Free Will Can Be Harmonized

As mentioned earlier, this paper means to demonstrate that the free will given to mankind

from the Sovereign God in no way contradicts His sovereignty but serves as the perfect

complement. The biblical view of free will, which will be explored in greater detail below,

affirms the sovereignty of God. Roger Olson correctly argues that sovereignty is not the same as

meticulous control. In God’s sovereignty He has chosen not to exercise meticulous control of

mankind.6

Rather, in His sovereign choice, He has given mankind a limited free will that allows

them to respond positively or negatively to His offer of grace and mercy. Mankind does not have

the unlimited free will to be able to rule the universe, or to defy the laws of gravity on a whim, or

to deter the things God has clearly said will come to pass.

5
D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension (Eugene,
OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002), 220.

6
Roger E. Olson, “The Classical Free Will Theist Model of God,” in Perspectives on the Doctrine of God,
ed. Bruce Ware (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2008).
 3

Overview of the Sovereignty of God and the Free Will of Man

Defining God’s Sovereignty

If God’s sovereignty is not hardline determinism, then it is important to understand what

it is. According to J. Matthew Pinson, “The Reformed confessional tradition prior to Dort…

defines sovereignty as the extension of God’s rule over all of life.”7 God is in absolute control of

the universe and is the sovereign ruler over all of life. Leroy Forlines simplifies this by clearly

stating, “God’s sovereignty entails that he have total control.”8 While Cottrell agrees, he clarifies

how the word control should be understood:

The word control should not be equated here with causation as if God were operating a
universal control panel that manipulates and micromanages every event. Rather, God
controls all things in the sense that he is “in complete control of” every situation: he
monitors, supervises, plans, permits, intervenes, and prevents as he pleases through his
infinite knowledge and power.9

As Creator and Sustainer of the universe He demonstrates His ownership and control over all. As

the New Dictionary of Theology says, God’s sovereignty includes ownership, authority, and

control.10 Mullins notes, “God’s sovereignty means…that he keeps the reins of government in his

own hands. He guides the universe to his own glorious end. That end embodies the highest ideals

of holiness and love.11

7
J. Matthew Pinson, 40 Questions about Arminianism, ed. Benjamin L. Merkle, 40 Questions Series
(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2022), 175.

8
F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville,
TN: Randall House, 2011), 79.
9
Jack W. Cottrell et al., Perspectives on Election: Five Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 102.

10
Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2000), 654–655.

11
Edgar Young Mullins, The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression (Philadelphia; Boston; St.
Louis; Los Angeles; Chicago; New York; Toronto: Roger Williams Press, 1917), 267.
 4

Misunderstandings of God’s Sovereignty

Unfortunately, due to the extremes mentioned earlier, there have been egregious errors

related to the sovereignty of God. Those who follow the extreme of determinism suggest that

God foreordains everything down to minute detail, including one’s choices. They believe that if

humanity could choose from alternative courses of actions, then humanity becomes the measure

of all things. 12 Couenhoven suggests that some finding a deterministic God comforting because it

means that He and He alone is in charge.13

Cotrell reminds his readers that God does not need to predetermine everything to retain

His sovereignty. As the sovereign God of the universe, He is free to determine what He wishes

and is free to bestow the gift of “relative independence” when He so chooses. As he concludes

his discussion on why determinism is not the answer, Cottrell notes, “His sovereignty is greater

than that.”14 Forlines agrees with Cottrell’s assessment. He notes, “a God who can grant true

freedom of will and still retain His sovereign control is a much greater God than a God who must

limit His approach to sovereign control to determinism.15

Others have gone so far to even suggest evil is ordained by God “to make the glory of

Christ shine more brightly.”16 As one looks at passages such as 1 John 1:5, Habakkuk 1:13 and

James 1:13 the concept of God ordaining evil does not mesh with Scripture. It is more accurate

to say that while God permits sin, He is not the cause. As John Marks Hick's article in the Trinity

12
Pinson, 40 Questions about Arminianism, 176.

13
J. Couenhoven, “His Sovereignty Rules Over All: A Review of Recent Work on Divine Determinism,”
Modern Theology, 37:508-522. https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12643
14
Cottrell, Perspectives on Election: Five Views, 106.

15
Forlines, Classical Arminianism, 79.

16
John Piper, Spectacular Sins: And Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway
Books, 2008), 54.
 5

Journal states, “God does not concur in the efficacy of the act, though God does concur in the

ontology and capacity of the act…”17

While some of Augustine’s teachings lean toward soft determinism, he has an interesting

quote regarding the tension between man’s free will, God’s sovereignty and whether God causes

or allows sin:

Because [man] also sins through having free will, we are not to believe that God gave it
to him for that purpose…If anyone uses his free will in order to sin, God punishes him.
That would be unjust unless the will was free not only to live aright but also to sin. How
could he be justly punished who uses his will for the purpose for which it was given?
Now when God punishes a sinner what else do you suppose he will say to him than “Why
did you not use your free will for the purpose for which I gave it to you, that is, in order
to do right?” Justice is praised as a good thing because it condemns sins and honours
righteous actions. How could that be done if man had not free will? An action would be
neither sinful nor righteous unless it were done voluntarily. For the same reason both
punishment and reward would be unjust, if man did not have free will. But in punishing
and in rewarding there must have been justice since justice is one of the good things
which come from God. God, therefore, must have given and ought to have given man
free will.18

He is the only Sovereign; He is King and He is Lord (1 Timothy 6:15). He does all that

He pleases (Psalm 115:3). He has the capability to change the hearts of His creation (Proverbs

21:1). His counsel will stand. His purposes will be accomplished (Isaiah 46:10). His kingdom

rules over all (Psalm 103:19). No purposes of His will be thwarted (Job 42:2). He is the Potter.

Mankind is the clay (Romans 9:21). There is nothing too hard for Him (Jeremiah 32:27).

Nothing is impossible for Him (Luke 1:27). He’s in control of the seasons (Daniel 2:21). He

reigns over all (Revelation 19:6). Scripture after Scripture could be given to demonstrate God’s

sovereignty. But does God’s sovereignty negate man’s free will?

17
John Mark Hicks, “Classic Arminianism and Open Theism: A Substantial Difference in their Theologies
of Providence,” Trinity Journal, No 1 (2012): 3-18.
18
Augustine, “Evil and Free Will,” in Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Sources, ed.
Khaldoun A. Sweis and Chad V. Meister (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 419.
 6

Defining Man’s Free Will

To answer that question, one must define free will correctly, just as one must define

sovereignty correctly. As mentioned earlier, having free will does not mean that one is free to do

whatever they please. They may want to fly like an eagle, but that is not within the realm of

possibilities a sovereign God has outlined. It is the sovereign God who has granted mankind free

will, and in His sovereignty, He has put limits upon that will.19 As Cottrell says:

having free will gives human beings only a relative independence since the sovereign
God maintains the right and power to intervene in the world’s circumstances in whatever
way he chooses.

Through his special providence he can intervene in and influence the laws of nature
without actually violating them and thus use natural events to influence human decisions.
The reality of free will means that such influence can be resisted (Amos 4:6–11; Hag.
1:1–11); thus God sometimes exercises his right to intervene in natural and human events
in a direct way. This means he sometimes suspends natural law and performs miracles; it
also means that he is able to suspend free will itself if his purposes require it (as with
Balaam, Num. 23–24).

That God has such sovereign control means that although the creation has been endowed
with independence, such independence is only relative. True control does not require
causation, predetermination, or foreordination of all things; but it does entail causative
intervention when necessary. Free creatures are usually allowed to go their own way, but
God can and will intervene when his purposes require it.20

According to Pinson, most people assume free will means “the freedom to choose a

course of action or refrain from it.”21 This freedom does not mean that an individual is not

influenced or even pressured in their decision-making process. However, despite the influence or

pressure, they are presented with real options. These options are within the realm of possibilities

19
Paul Helm, Roger E. Olson, and John Sanders, “Responses to Bruce A. Ware,” in Perspectives on the
Doctrine of God, ed. Bruce Ware (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2008).

20
Jack W. Cottrell et al., Perspectives on Election: Five Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 102–104.

21
Pinson, 40 Questions about Arminianism, 170.
 7

that God has ordained, and individuals have genuine freedom to make real choices.22 As one

looks at the issue of influence upon decisions, God’s sovereignty, and man’s free will, it is

helpful to consider two different models as presented by Forlines: The Cause-and-Effect Model

and the Influence and Response Model.

Cause and Effect or Influence and Response

If one holds to a deterministic concept of sovereignty, then they will necessarily adopt the

cause-and-effect model. Forlines uses the example of irresistible grace promoted by Calvinism to

demonstrate his point. He notes:

When the appropriate time comes with regard to the elect, God regenerates him or her.
As a regenerated person, he or she is caused by God to have faith in Jesus Christ as Lord
and Savior. In such a view, faith is considered a gift. It is problematic for faith to be
considered an individual’s choice, act, or response. The possibility of a negative response
does not exist. It was a guaranteed response. The fact that it was guaranteed makes the
terms cause and effect appropriate. Calvinism considers all of this necessary if salvation
is to be a gift.23

While Forlines argument relates to salvation, determinists also suggest that God is the ultimate

cause of everything, including one’s decisions.

The influence and response model on the other hand, “does not require divine

determinism as the basis of all that happens.”24 This model provides opportunities for creativity

among those created in God’s image to exercise the dominion He has given them (Genesis 1:26).

This model gives mankind the freedom to exercise stewardship in every area of life. Concerning

this stewardship, Forlines goes on to say, “Stewardship involves a creative thinking and planning

22
F. Leroy Forlines, The Quest for Truth: Theology for Postmodern World (Nashville, TN: Randall House
Publications; Worldwide Ministries, 2001), 317.

23
Forlines, Classical Arminianism, 48.

24
Forlines, The Quest for Truth, 321.
 8

responsibility. It is not possible to harmonize divine determinism and stewardship responsibility

to God.”25

Since that is the case, the influence and response model best reflect the balance revealed

in Scripture. A cause-and-effect model is mechanical in nature. God did not create mankind to be

machines, but rather created man in His image. Mankind is relational by nature and are personal

beings designed for personal relationship with God. 26 As Forlines goes on to say, “Influence in

personal decisions can never be equated with cause as in mechanical cause and effect

relationships.”27

Some want to try to bridge the gap between these two models by offering a compromise

referred to as compatibilism. Compatibilists believe that the divine cause and human free will are

compatible. Strahan says, “In [the classical Reformed perspective], free will is understood to be

compatibilist free will. That is, creatures are freely doing what God has ordained for them to

do.”28 They would propose that man’s choices are free, even if they are pre-determined by God.

As Pinson says, this sounds more like manipulation than anything else and “it falls beneath the

glory of the Holy God of the Bible, who relates as a person to free creatures he created in his

image as personal beings.”29 As free creatures, mankind can operate within God’s ordained

framework.

25
Ibid.

26
Forlines, Classical Arminianism, 48–49.

27
Ibid., 12.

28
Joshua Marshall Strahan, “Free Will, God’s Providence, and Quantum Entanglement,” Theology and
Science, 18:1, (2020) 9-73, DOI: 10.1080/14746700.2019.1710350
29
Pinson, 40 Questions about Arminianism, 165–166.
 9

Freedom Within God’s Framework

What is this divine framework that the sovereign God of the universe has established? It

seems clear from Scripture this framework includes the limited free will of mankind. It seems

clear that the framework that God created is based upon the influence and response seen above.

Within this framework He gives mankind real choices about things that really matter. For

instance, Scripture repeatedly demonstrates God reaches out to those who resist and reject His

calling (Matthew 23:37). As Pinson says, “Scripture throughout paints a picture of a personal

God who has created personal beings who think, feel, and make authentic choices.”30

Giving mankind this free will does not diminish His sovereignty in any way. He has the

One who sovereignly decided to do so! His purposes are still accomplished, even though man

can obey or disobey. As Forlines so aptly says, “We are not to assume that God desires man’s

disobedience. We should assume however that God desires that disobedience would be a real

option for man, created as he is with personality.”31 Regardless of man's choices, God, as the

master chess player makes the moves and counter moves necessary to fully accomplish His

purpose and plans, while remaining consistent with His character. Cottrell agrees and says:

through his infinite power and knowledge God maintains complete control over
everything that happens. The word control should not be equated here with causation as
if God were operating a universal control panel that manipulates and micromanages every
event. Rather, God controls all things in the sense that he is “in complete control of”
every situation: he monitors, supervises, plans, permits, intervenes, and prevents as he
pleases through his infinite knowledge and power.32

30
Ibid., 215.

31
Forlines, Classical Arminianism, 339.

32
Cottrell, Perspectives on Election: Five Views, 102–103.
 10

Although Forlines and R. C. Sproul would have major disagreements concerning some of

these issues, Sproul confesses the reality of limited free will when he says, “My freedom is

always within limits. My freedom is always constrained by the sovereignty of God. I have

freedom to do things as I please, but if my freedom conflicts with the decretive will of God, there

is no question as to the outcome—God’s decree will prevail over my choice.”33

The decretive will of God gives mankind some choices about real, impactful, life-

changing decisions, while there are other aspects of His creation and will that mankind does not

have the freedom to make. The God of Scriptures did not make mankind a machine, but rather

made him a human being. Those human beings, as a result of the sin nature passed on from

Adam, have made horrific choices throughout history that do not conform to the desire of a holy,

and loving God, yet He has given them the choice to do so.34 As John Mark Hicks notes, “God

permits the use of human freedom for divine glory, even when that freedom is used in

malevolent ways.”35

A Word About Foreknowledge

Biblical Foreknowledge Explained

Foreknowledge can be defined: “To know beforehand.”36 Foreknowledge and God’s

omniscience go hand in hand. Not only does God know everything in the past and the present

perfectly, but He also knows everything in the future. He knows not only what has happened,

33
Sproul, Can I Know God’s Will?, 48.

34
Forlines, The Quest for Truth, 336–337.

35
Hicks, “Classic Arminianism and Open Theism,” 3-18.
36
Walter Johnson, “Foreknow, Foreknowledge,” ed. Chad Brand et al., Holman Illustrated Bible
Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 593.
 11

what could have happened, and what will happen. As Ryrie says in his Basic Theology,

“Omniscience means that God knows everything, things actual and possible, effortlessly and

equally well.”37

Can Biblical Foreknowledge and True Freedom Coexist?

If God knows what will certainly happen in the future, then how can foreknowledge and

true freedom coexist? To answer this question, I Samuel 23:9-13 serves as a great example of

God’s foreknowledge of not only what would happen, but also of what could happen. Robert

Picirilli does a marvelous job in explaining this example and God’s foreknowledge of future

events, including the contingencies:

David was attempting to stay away from the reaches of Saul and—presumably by means
of the Urim and Thummim—asked God if Saul would come to Keilah for him. The
answer was unequivocal: “The Lord answered, ‘He will come down.’” Then David asked
whether in that eventuality the people of Keilah would betray him to Saul. Again, the
answer was definite: “They will.”

In fact, neither of these things happened, even though God said they would. Was he
wrong? No, contingency was involved—and contingency does not have to be stated to be
present. When subsequent events reveal that contingency was present, we recognize the
contingency. God understands contingencies and foreknows events accordingly. He knew
what would transpire if David stayed there, and by revealing that information he provided
the impetus for David to move out of the danger. This is a wonderful example both of
what God knows and how he uses his knowledge to influence the response of human
beings without coercing their wills.38

It certainly appears that God’s foreknowledge of what would happen and what could

happen did not violate David’s free choice. Within the realm of possibilities that God allowed,

David could have cross paths with Saul or David could have avoided Saul. Based upon the

37
Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth
(Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 47.

38
Robert E. Picirilli, God in Eternity and Time: A New Case for Human Freedom (Nashville, TN: B&H
Academic, 2022), 65–66.
 12

information that God gave David, David was influenced to decide to avoid him. It was not in the

realm of possibilities for Saul to be able to kill David. Although that was Saul’s desire, God

would not allow it. As Cottrell says, “God exercises his sovereign control especially through his

permissive will, which presupposes divine foreknowledge of future freewill choices. Such

foreknowledge gives God the genuine option of either permitting or preventing men’s planned

choices, and prevention is the ultimate control.”39

Another illustration Picirilli uses is found in the Old Testament book of Jonah. God had

called Jonah to go to Ninevah because He was planning to destroy the Ninevites for their horrific

atrocities and sins. God's message to Jonah was to warn them that destruction was coming in

forty days if they did not repent. After Jonah’s preaching, they did repent, and God withheld His

judgment. God genuinely planned to destroy Ninevah in forty days; He was not bluffing. At the

same time, He gave them the free choice to reject the message or repent. When they did repent,

He withheld the judgment that He previously intended.40

These two examples are shared to demonstrate God’s foreknowledge and man’s free will

can also mesh in the exact way the sovereign God of the universe designed for them to.

Knowledge of an event does not determine the outcome of the event. If an individual sees the

score of a ballgame and knows the outcome and then goes home to watch a replay of the game,

his knowledge of the outcome did not cause the outcome. God knows what individuals will

choose, but His knowledge of that future choice does not cause the choice.41 Pinson concurs. He

says, “While abundant Scripture passages teach God’s sovereignty over his creation, no text

39
Cottrell, Perspectives on Election, 103.

40
Picirilli, God in Eternity and Time, 114.

41
Ibid., 82.
 13

establishes that he necessitates human choices and thus human beings have no choice but to do

what they do.”42

Conclusion

The sovereign God of the universe has created humanity with genuine freedom.43 This

genuine freedom does not contradict His sovereignty. God is sovereign and He has the sovereign

right to decide how He wants to interact with His creation. Scripture and logic both demonstrate

that He has chosen to interact with mankind in an influence and response model.

In His sovereignty He has also chosen to place limits on mankind’s free will. He has

provided boundaries in which mankind can operate. They are not allowed to operate outside of

those boundaries, they cannot choose to do anything they can imagine, and they are limited to

some degree. However, this does not mean they are limited in every way. Just as David could

have made a different decision when he was dealing with Saul, and just as the Ninevites could

have rebelled against Jonah’s preaching, many will resist God’s real and genuine invitation to

find “shelter under His wings.” As a result, God will allow them to have their will, even though

His will is that none would perish (2 Peter 3:9). The tension between God’s sovereignty and

man’s free will, will continue to be debated. However, as Scripture and logic points out, it is a

perfect tension, just as He designed.

42
Pinson, 40 Questions about Arminianism, 157.

43
Ibid., 175.
 14

Bibliography

Augustine. “Evil and Free Will.” In Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Sources,
edited by Khaldoun A. Sweis and Chad V. Meister. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012.

Carson, D. A. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension.

Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002.

Cottrell, Jack W., Clark H. Pinnock, Robert L. Reymond, Thomas B. Talbott, and Bruce A.
Ware. Perspectives on Election: Five Views. Edited by Chad Owen Brand. Nashville,
TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006.

Couenhoven, Jesse. “His Sovereignty Rules Over All: A Review of Recent Work on Divine
Determinism.” Modern Theology 37, no. 2 (2021): 508-522.
https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12643

Ferguson, Sinclair B., and J.I. Packer. New Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Forlines, F. Leroy. Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation. Edited by J. Matthew

Pinson. Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2011.

Forlines, F. Leroy. The Quest for Truth: Theology for Postmodern World. Nashville, TN:
Randall House Publications; Worldwide Ministries, 2001.

Garrett, James Leo, Jr. Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical. Fourth
Edition. Vol. 1. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014.

Johnson, Walter. “Foreknow, Foreknowledge.” Edited by Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie
England, Steve Bond, E. Ray Clendenen, and Trent C. Butler. Holman Illustrated Bible
Dictionary. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.

Mark Hicks, John. “Classic Arminianism and Open Theism: A Substantial Difference in Their
Theologies of Providence.” Trinity Journal. 33 no. 1 (2012): 3-18.

Mullins, Edgar Young. The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression. Philadelphia; Boston;
St. Louis; Los Angeles; Chicago; New York; Toronto: Roger Williams Press, 1917.

Norman, R. Stanton. “Human Sinfulness.” In A Theology for the Church, 337–387. Nashville,
TN: B&H Academic, 2014.

Olson, Roger E. “The Classical Free Will Theist Model of God.” In Perspectives on the Doctrine
of God, edited by Bruce Ware. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2008.

Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical

Interpretation. Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.
 15

Picirilli, Robert E. God in Eternity and Time: A New Case for Human Freedom. Nashville, TN:
B&H Academic, 2022.

Pinson, J. Matthew. 40 Questions about Arminianism. Edited by Benjamin L. Merkle. 40

Questions Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2022.

Piper, John. Spectacular Sins: And Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ. Wheaton, Ill:
Crossway Books, 2008.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding

Biblical Truth. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999.

Sproul, R. C. Can I Know God’s Will? Vol. 4. The Crucial Questions Series. Lake Mary, FL:
Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009.

Strahan, Joshua Marshall. “Free Will, God’s Providence, and Quantum

Entanglement”, Theology and Science (2020), 18:1, 59-
73, DOI: 10.1080/14746700.2019.1710350

Teeninga, Luke. "God and the Value of Free Will." Sophia 61, no. 3 (09, 2022): 643-57,
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
journals/god-value-free-will/docview/2717201044/se-2.