Biblical Commentary & Teaching

Commentary

God’s Sovereignty and Humanity’s Free Will

Read: Jeremiah 1; 2 Peter 3

By Jason Thomas,

Undoubtedly, tension exists between the theological doctrines of God’s sovereignty and humanity’s ability to act and exert a free will. How can one truly reconcile the clear observations in Scripture of a God that sovereign controls creation and directs history with the equally observable free actions and choices of humans? This is a question that needs to be addressed for Christians today because if left unaddressed, wildly different conclusions can be drawn. Without balance, some will assert that God, who is indeed sovereign, is also the author of all pain and suffering even to the extent as being labelled the source of suffering and sin. However, if one over emphasizes humanity’s capability, that same individual will reduce God to nothing more than a passive deity who sits idly by wishing His creation would do better but exhibiting no actual capability or willingness to intercede. While both conclusions represent the extreme positions of either side of the coin, one must wonder if a true, Biblical stance can be found between the sovereignty of God and the free-will of humanity. This paper will contend that a balance can in fact be found. Furthermore, the key to understanding the Scriptural harmony between God’s sovereignty over creation and humanity’s ability to make free choices, stems from the proper understanding of what God ordains and what God permits.

Survey of the Current Theological Landscape

In order to truly understand any theological assertions that seeks to harmonize God’s sovereignty with humanity’s will, a survey of the current theological landscape is in order. There is no need to reinvent or rewrite anything in terms of theology, so before asserting a new position, it is prudent to assess the quality of the current positions. Furthermore, do any of the current positions have strengths that are worth retaining or weaknesses that need to be addressed. However, the main concern is how each present God and how they align with God’s Word. Therefore, four positions will be reviewed: divine determinism, compatibilism, soft-libertarianism, and Arminianism. Each will be presented as honestly as possible with the theological implications they impose upon God and Christians identified.

Divine Determinism

Divine determinism, as presented by Jesse Couenhoven, is not necessarily that God causes everything but rather asserts that God’s will is “the buck stops here” answer to the question of why.1 To clarify further, he asserts that God’s decisions are the ultimate reason things do not go differently.2 Ultimately, he sees divine determinism as “a thesis about explanatory primacy” that its proponents “can remain agnostic about” while simultaneously affirming that the thesis holds true and works.3

However, while not necessarily pinning all events upon God as the primal cause, the question regarding this position’s harmony, or even allowance, of free will must be addressed. Taking this question up in his article, Couenhoven explains that divine determinism can be compatible with “some important kinds of human freedom and agency”, but one type of agency it is incompatible with is “the freedom to choose to do otherwise than God wills.”4 This in turn, brings about another question, if a human, in this view, is unable to act opposed to God’s will, does that make God the author of sin? Once again, Couenhoven takes up this question as well. Here, his conclusion is rather alarming. He concludes that whether God wills for evil to occur or just allows it to exist, there is no moral difference between the two, and God is responsible either way.5

Couenhoven’s article details far more than the scope of this paper, but his position of divine determinism is intact enough to reveal the theological implications. While his definition seeks to distance itself from attributing the blame upon God for evil, his practical application of the position reveals the truth. He has presented a position that now equates “activity and omission”.6 This position very much implies God is the sole source of all things, good and bad alike. After all, a person is incapable of acting in any manner opposed to the will of God.7 Therefore, all actions humans take have to now be viewed through the lens that God wills these actions to occur.

Compatibilism

Compatibilism is the next theological position to evaluate. Compatibilism is the softer, easier to digest version of divine determinism. Rather than asserting that all actions are a result of God8, compatibilism, at least in Francis Turretin’s eyes, states that God does not compel humans to act in a certain way rather they can only act in a manner consistent with their own nature.9 The difference between this view and that of divine determinism is easily observed. While one attributes all action, events, and effects to God10, the other allows more freedom in humanity while binding the individual to a specific nature.

It is worth noting that this position has a very strong Biblical case, especially in Romans 5. Paul, at length, describes the failure of Adam and the result of sin upon humanity. In Adam, all of humanity, except Christ, suffers a sin nature. However, the theological implications are not fully satisfying. If one were not able to exercise any action apart from their own action, how can a depraved human ever exercise faith in Christ? While this discussion has plenty of answers and theories, these are once again out of the scope of the current topic. For the purposes of harmonizing God’s sovereignty with humanity’s free-will, simply the implication that humans cannot possibly act opposite of their own nature is sufficient.

Soft-Libertarianism

The next position is what Braxton Hunter calls soft-libertarianism.11 He asserts that this view “avoids the implication that God is the causal agent behind evil actions by placing individual volition into the hands of mankind.”12 He furthermore explains evil as the result of a libertarian free will that can choose to commit evil.13 He even claims that the cause of natural disasters can be interpreted in light of the fall.14 Ultimately, he concludes that “created beings are the causal agents behind the evil that exists in the world”, and that “[s]uch a charge cannot be made against the Father.”15

There is much merit behind the position that Hunter has established. The primary merit behind his position is the implication that God is in no way the cause of sin. This matter is consistent with Scripture as James reveal that God neither tempts one to sin nor can be tempted Himself. (Jas. 1:13) Hunter’s position also upholds humanity’s ability to make genuine choices better than both divine determinism and compatibilism. However, any position that emphasizes humanity’s ability to act freely could run the risk of implying God cannot, or will not, act. Hunter, in addressing how to reconcile humanity committing evil and God not always preventing it, goes as far as to proport that God’s constant intervention could make natural laws untrustworthy.16 This is an explanation that is at best unnecessary, as a far simpler explanation exists, and at worst prioritizes natural laws and processes over God working within His creation.

Arminianism

The final theological position to survey is that of Arminianism, specifically as Joshua Marshall Strahan ascribes to. Strahan posits that “God is sovereign, but does not exercise meticulous control of every human choice.”17 Furthermore, he asserts that God adapts “to some degree of free human choice”, and that while He is active on even the molecular level, not every event is predetermined.18 Ultimately, God allows genuine choices while working alongside those actions to affect His will.19 In his attempt to explain how God is at work in the world, he also presents an interesting theory regarding quantum entanglement.20 While the theory is rather interesting, Strahan constantly refers to God’s contingency plans, so much so, that he states, “God creates a world that has a vast number of providentially arranged contingency plans that allow for some degree of human autonomy.”21 He mentions God’s “contingency plans for working into his overarching will”, a world in which “all freely made choices have built-in contingency plans”, and a sovereign God that has “meticulously determine[ed] a near infinite number of contingency plans.”22 He concludes that these contingencies are a way for God to “adapt to a vast range of free human acts.”23

While much like Hunter’s position, this position appropriately accounts for free human choices, the question must be asked, at what expense? The implications of Strahan’s vocabulary alone is enough for one to question this position. God has no need of a contingency plan. Does God at times “change His mind”, at least from a human perspective? He possibly does, and this a matter that will be addressed later. However, the notion that God is constantly adapting to humanity is outlandish. God is the Creator of all things, and He has no need to adapt to humanity. As will be demonstrated later, God will affect His will without fail and regardless of human cooperation and/or resistance.

Identifying a Harmonizing Theological Position

Assessment of Current Positions

At this point, one must assess the value and limitations of each position. Are all four positions utterly outlandish or do they each bring a unique perspective? Is any one inherently better than the rest? A quick review is now in order.

The Pros

Each position carries with it some value. Divine determinism does seek to preserve the sovereignty of God, and for that, one must acknowledge the attempt. God is a great and powerful God who has created the world and can do as He please, a fact seen clearly in Romans 9. Compatibilism offers a glimpse into the actions of humanity. Humans have a defined nature, and their actions are often a reflection of that nature. Does a person sin because they are a sinner or are they a sinner because they sin? A compatibilist would probably respond with a simple yes. Soft-libertarianism carries within it the value of retaining God’s holiness and goodness. It is absurd to think that a God, who clearly reveals His hatred and disdain for sin, would or could be the cause of sin. Finally, the Arminian view, at least in Strahan’s eyes, at least give a glimpse into the infinite ability of God to coordinate the actions of all humanity. While a lacking view, one must at least recognize the attempt to show an infinite God.

The Cons

However, each view is also lacking in certain aspects. Divine determinism, whether it attempts to or not, ascribes too much blame upon God for sin. Compatibilism falls short in that it does not properly account for the incidences where humans do good even when they themselves are sick with sin. Soft-libertarianism, one of the stronger positions, fails in its attempts to answer a basic question held by humanity: How does an all-powerful and good God allow sin? Finally, the Arminian view presented presents God in a far too limited role. God has no contingency plans because God has no need of a contingency plan. There is exactly a zero percent chance that God’s will can go unaccomplished. God is sovereign, and His plan will be done.

Limitations

The reason each of these positions ultimately fail to harmonize God’s sovereignty with humanity’s free-will is due to the limitations of human knowledge coupled with the blindness of self-centered ideology. It is no surprise, or at least it should not be, that humans do not possess all the information. Humans are incapable of fully understanding God. Yet, it is also human tendency to make the attempt. With that, it is inevitable that speculation will ensue.

However, the second issue is a far more concerning problem. Humans suffer from a severe case of “me-mentality”. Whether it is the pursuit to preserve human choice, the conclusion that God is reacting to man, or the idea that God causes every choice people make, the scholars reviewed appear to keep self in the center, or at least near the center.

Final Assessment

The final assessment of these views is while compatibilism and soft-libertarianism provide the best positions, even these are lacking in a sufficient explanation. There is a better way to understand how a sovereign God works while allowing genuine human choice. That process must account for they way God works in His creation.

A Different Approach

A different approach is now in order to account for the issues already observed. This approach begins with an understanding that God has two wills. God possesses what one might call a sovereign will and a permissive will. God’s sovereign will is what is guaranteed to occur. In this will, nothing is left up to chance, nothing changes, and nothing can impact it. This will includes events like creation, the nation of Israel, the life of Christ, all of salvation history, and eschatological events. These events tend to be corporate in nature, they impact humanity as a whole. However, God also has a permissive will. This will is more individualized. It impacts people on a smaller scale. This will includes options like who one should marry, what career they should pursue, and what church to attend.

However, one should not get the full idea that God cannot sovereignly control the events of an individual’s life, nor should one think that any corporate activity is divinely determined by God. God is ultimately free to act however He pleases whenever He pleases. The main idea is that God has no need to cause every action or event to retain sovereign control. God can allow certain events, whether good or bad, and they can in no way override the definiteness of His sovereign will for humanity.

Biblical Assessment of the Theological Position

Understandably, this approach is different than the others considered. Therefore, it is wise to now consider the approach in light of God’s Word. Does this approach and this theological position hold true in Scripture? Can a sovereign will of God and a permissive will of God be observed? Additionally, who is to blame for evil, can God maintain control of creation, does God ever respond to human action, and do all choices need a predetermination?

God’s Two Wills in Scripture

God’s Sovereign Will: Jeremiah 1

God’s sovereign will is clearly observable in the call of Jeremiah the prophet. Jeremiah writes, “Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.’” (Jer. 1:4-5, English Standard Version) God, before Jeremiah had ever existed, set Jeremiah aside for a specific purpose and calling. Regardless of Jeremiah’s personal desires, God had a definitive plan for Jeremiah. Huey asserts that God’s appointment of Jeremiah was done “without consulting him.”24 Goldingay goes as far as to acknowledge God’s shaping of all people, but in Jeremiah’s case, Jeremiah was first chosen for his role and then shaped for that purpose.25 Definitively, then, it is observable that God chose a specific purpose for Jeremiah and this is part of His sovereign will in regards to Israel. In evaluation of this passage, Peters concludes that God’s sovereignty over nations and even individuals is displayed, and despite any objections by Jeremiah, God says he will serve as a prophet.26 This is a clear case of God’s determination of specifics, a feature of His sovereign will.

God’s Permissive Will: 2 Peter 3

However, does a sovereign will over an individual negate the Biblical case for a permissive will? 2 Peter argues for a permissive will. Peter writes, “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” (2 Pet. 3:9, emphasis mine) An examination of other translations reveals the phrase “not wishing that any should perish” in the ESV as “not wanting anyone to perish” (2 Pet. 3:9, New International Version), “not wanting any to perish” (2 Pet. 3:9, Christian Standard Bible), and “not willing that any should perish” (2 Pet. 3:9, New King James Version). At first glance, one may deduce that this is simply English verbiage and nothing more. However, the Word Biblical Commentary offers an interesting translation to consider. It translates this portion of the verse as “because it is not his will that any should perish.”27 While acknowledging the tendency of some to assert either universalism or God’s hiding of His true purpose, Green contends that the “plain meaning” is God has a desire to save all and makes that possibility available, yet God will not intercede to remove “the very freedom of choice that marks us out as men.”28 Even Schreiner, while holding to a more Calvinistic understanding of the passage, acknowledges the existence of two will: “a decretive will of God and a desired will of God.”29 While not treating this will the same as this paper contends, he does admit that “God desires the salvation of all in one sense.”30

What does this mean for the scope of this theological position? Essentially, there is a clearly observable end that God desires, yet without intervening, He permits alternate options. This is the case for a permissive will. Unlike the sovereign will that definitively called Jeremiah regardless of Jeremiah’s actions, the permissive will of God desires certain outcome, but as Green posits, God does not intercede in order to maintain the genuine choice of humanity.31 When considered together, God can clearly be seen working sovereignly in some cases and permissively in others.

Who Is to Blame for Evil?

With two clear wills defined in Scripture, the culpability of sin and evil must be addressed. After all, this is a major contention among the existing theological positions. Some assign responsibility to God to maintain His sovereignty while others shudder at the thought of blaming God for such evil. What must be considered, though, is what does God say about the matter?

In Jeremiah, God addresses the sinful, idolatrous practices of His people that built up idolatrous “high places” and partook of heinous, pagan sacrifices. (Jer. 32:35) In all this, God states, “‘though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’” (Jer. 32:35) This statement appears to be a disclaimer against those that would claim to be fulfilling God’s commands.32 Lalleman comments that this passage affirms the certainty of judgment for “disobedience to God and breaking the covenant stipulations (God’s commandments).”33

This passage’s relevance lies in God’s view of the matter. Judah was engaged in heinous behavior, and they would be punished for it. Furthermore, it was behavior that God did not desire nor command them to partake in. If God were the ultimate cause behind every action in history, why does He take the time to inform Judah of its grave error and separate His name from the matter. The obvious conclusion is that God did not ordain these actions, rather He permitted them as part of His permissive will. However, in the larger context, His sovereign will, in this case to punish Judah for His sovereign purposes towards them, is also seen.34 As a result, humanity, not God, is to blame for the sins and evil that are committed.

God’s Control Despite Humanity

However, even if genuine choice is observed inside of God’s permissive will, does God relinquish any control over His creation, especially regarding His sovereign purposes? After all, the notion of contingencies plans by Strahan is an unacceptable contention. The story of Joseph and his brothers provides insight to this query.

Joseph, after having been sold into slavery by his brother, eventually ends up as the second in command in Egypt. In this position of leadership, he is able to save Egypt and his family from starvation. After the death of Jacob, the brothers feared retribution for their actions against Joseph, however, Joseph assures them that what they meant for evil, “‘God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.’” (Gen. 50:20) Steinmann notes that despite the brothers wickedness, “God was accomplishing a larger good.”35 Matthews asserts “Evil succumbs to God’s gracious purposes in behalf of his creation.”36 In other words, the brothers actions, which are ultimately allowed in the permissive will of God, had no capability or possibility of setting God’s sovereign will and control over His creation off course. Despite the evil actions that God allows, God retains full control without any need of a contingency plan.

God Responding to Humanity

While God has no need of a contingency plan, does that mean that He cannot, or will not, respond to the actions of humanity? This matter is under consideration in Jonah 3. Here, Jonah is seen as the prophet entrusted with a message of judgment upon Nineveh. The message: “‘Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!’” (Jon. 3:4) However, the people of Nineveh repent (3:5-9), and in response, God saw their repentance and “relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them.” (Jon. 3:10) Nogalski connects the actions of Nineveh, repentance, with the action of God, relenting.37 Page makes the same connection, and in response to those who would balk at the notion that God could change His mind, he states it is perfectly consistent with God’s “justice, righteousness, and mercy.”38 Alexander also sees this as a change of mind stating it “does not represent a divine failing, but rather reveals his earnest desire to be true to his own immutable nature.”39 In each case, all three see a clear response by God to the actions of the Ninevites. This idea is so clear, that the Word Biblical actually translates the verse by stating, “When God saw what they did, that they gave up their evil practices, he changed his mind about the harm he had said he would cause them and did not do it.”40 Undoubtedly, God responded based off the actions of humans.

The implications this presents for the theological position proposed is that God can respond to His creation. While not a contingency plan to the actions of humans, this concept does reveal that not all actions, events, and decisions are the result of predetermined courses by God. Di Muzio takes up the topic of God changing His mind. In his summary, he addresses the notion that a perfect God should have not reason to change His mind, but he concludes that God’s willingness to do so “proceeds from his free decision to accept his human creatures’ input as he partners with them to realize his plan for the world.”41 If the divine determinist can assert God exercises complete control because He can, those that contend God can change His mind can equally assert, “because He can.” This is the fatal flaw with over-emphasizing the sovereignty of God. All too often, those scholars actually diminish God’s sovereignty by presenting Him as a God who can only maintain control if all actions are predetermined by Him. This position contends for God’s sovereignty in spite of human action, yet without any degree of surprise or backup plan necessary.

Christian Liberty

Finally, to follow up on the idea that not all actions and events are predetermined and that God can work and respond in His creation, Christian liberty can be addressed. This argument is rather rudimentary, but one that has a very logical conclusion of proof.

In Romans 14, Paul addresses various topics that would fall into a category called Christian liberty. The idea is that some practices are neither inherently right or inherently wrong. Therefore, if one eats a certain food and another does not, show love not judgment. (Rom. 14:3) If one esteems a certain day with priority and another does not, be convinced of your own convictions and show love not judgement. (Rom. 14:5) Bruce, in addressing this topic, posits the hypothetical question, “What is to be done when Christians of such different convictions find themselves in the same fellowship? Must they start to thrash the matter out, one side determined to convert the other?”42 His answer, no let each be content with their convictions.43 Moo agrees, noting that Paul does not encourage one practice over another, rather he encourages the convincing of one’s own convictions.44 With this notion fully established, one is left to wonder, if God decrees all actions, why would He not address an absolute consistent behavior among all Christians? The simple answer, God is not always concerned with all the specifics, rather the holiness of His people.

Conclusion

In summary, how can one truly understand the relationship between God’s sovereignty and humanity’s free will? How can a God in full control of His creation allow for genuine human choices and actions? He can as He operates in a sovereign will and a permissive will. God has an absolute plan for His creation that will be accomplished regardless of humanity, but He also has a desire to genuinely interact with His creation and allow people to freely respond to Him. God has no need to control every minute detail in order to accomplish His purposes, He transcends such limits. Does He allow evil to occur, and if so is He responsible? He does allow evil, but as 2 Peter informs, it is not because He is responsible for it, it is an act of patience and love to allow for repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

Furthermore, the position asserted here is thoroughly supported in Scripture. Whether through the clear distinct wills found in Jeremiah 1 and 2 Peter 3, the responsibility of humanity for evil in Jeremiah 32, God’s control despite humanity in Genesis 50, God’s response to humanity in Jonah 3, or just the general conclusions drawn when God does not clarify a specific path as in Romans 14, this theological notion finds full grounding in Scripture. Rather than arguing over every detail as it pertains to God’s sovereignty and control, one should respond in thanksgiving for a God that is powerful enough to hold all things in His hands but loving enough to facilitate genuine relationships with His creation and the humanity He has created.

Bibliography

Bauckham, Richard, David Allen Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, John D. W. Watts, and Ralph P. Martin. Jude-2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary 50. Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2014. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=5397297.

Bruce, F. F. Romans: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 6. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985.

Couenhoven, Jesse. “HIS SOVEREIGNTY RULES OVER ALL: A REVIEW OF RECENT WORK ON DIVINE DETERMINISM.” Modern Theology (Cambridge) 37, no. 2 (December 2021): 508–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12643.

Di Muzio, Gianluca. “Changing God’s Mind.” Neue Zeitschrift Für Systematische Theologie Und Religionsphilosophie 61, no. 2 (December 2019): 241–55. ATLAi9KZ190610000630, pp. 241–55. Atla Religion Database with AtlaSerials PLUS. https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2019-0013.

Goldingay, John. The Book of Jeremiah. Edited by E. J. Young, R. K. Harrison, Robert L. Hubbard Jr., and Bill T. Arnold. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021.

Green, Michael. 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 18. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987.

Huey, F. B. Jeremiah, Lamentations. The New American Commentary 16. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993.

Hunter, Braxton. “Commentary on Article 8: The Free Will of Man.” Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry 10, no. 1 (December 2013): 19–28. Atla Religion Database with AtlaSerials PLUS.

Johnson, Randall K. “Christological Arguments for Compatibilism in Reformed Theology.” Themelios 48, no. 1 (December 2023): 125–39. Atla Religion Database with AtlaSerials PLUS.

Keown, Gerald, Pamela Scalise, Thomas G. Smothers, David Allen Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, John D. W. Watts, and Ralph P. Martin. Jeremiah 26-52. Word Biblical Commentary 27. Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2016. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=5608084.

Lalleman, Hetty. Jeremiah and Lamentations: An Introduction and Commentary. Edited by David G. Firth. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 21. Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2013.

Mathews, K. A. Genesis 11:27–50:26. New American Commentary 1B. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005.

Moo, Douglas J. The Letter to the Romans. Second Edition. Edited by Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, Gordon D. Fee, and Joel B. Green. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018.

Nogalski, James D. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah. Edited by E. J. Young, R. K. Harrison, Robert L. Hubbard Jr., and Bill T. Arnold. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2023.

Peters, Joseph. “God’s Sovereignty in Jeremiah’s Call (Jer. 1:4-19).” Eleutheria 8, no. 2 (December 2025): 73–96. Atla Religion Database with AtlaSerials PLUS.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. New American Commentary 37. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003.

Smith, Billy K., and Franklin S. Page. Amos, Obadiah, Jonah. New American Commentary 19B. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995.

Steinmann, Andrew E. Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Edited by David G. Firth. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 1. London: Inter-Varsity Press, 2019.

Strahan, Joshua Marshall. “Free Will, God’s Providence, and Quantum Entanglement.” Theology and Science 18, no. 1 (December 2020): 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2019.1710350.

Stuart, Douglas, Bruce M. Metzger, David Allen Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, John D. W. Watts, James W. Watts, Ralph P. Martin, and Lynn Allan Losie. Hosea-Jonah. Word Biblical Commentary 31. Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2014. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=5397258.

Wiseman, Donald J., T. Desmond Alexander, and Bruce K. Waltke. Obadiah, Jonah and Micah: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 26. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

Notes

  1. Jesse Couenhoven, “HIS SOVEREIGNTY RULES OVER ALL: A REVIEW OF RECENT WORK ON DIVINE DETERMINISM,” Modern Theology (Cambridge) 37, no. 2 (December 2021): 509, https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12643. ↩
  2. Ibid. ↩
  3. Ibid. ↩
  4. Ibid., 511. ↩
  5. Ibid., 516. ↩
  6. Ibid. ↩
  7. Ibid., 511. ↩
  8. This is a conclusion that Couenhoven seeks to avoid, but one that is the logical implication of the position. ↩
  9. Randall K. Johnson, “Christological Arguments for Compatibilism in Reformed Theology,” Themelios 48, no. 1 (December 2023): 131, Atla Religion Database with AtlaSerials PLUS. ↩
  10. Ibid., 125. ↩
  11. Braxton Hunter, “Commentary on Article 8: The Free Will of Man,” Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry 10, no. 1 (December 2013): 21, Atla Religion Database with AtlaSerials PLUS. ↩
  12. Ibid., 25. ↩
  13. Ibid. ↩
  14. Ibid. ↩
  15. Ibid. ↩
  16. Ibid. ↩
  17. Joshua Marshall Strahan, “Free Will, God’s Providence, and Quantum Entanglement,” Theology and Science 18, no. 1 (December 2020): 61, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2019.1710350. ↩
  18. Ibid. ↩
  19. Ibid. ↩
  20. Ibid., 63–71. ↩
  21. Ibid., 67. ↩
  22. Ibid., 67–68. ↩
  23. Ibid., 68. ↩
  24. F. B. Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, The New American Commentary 16 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 50. ↩
  25. John Goldingay, The Book of Jeremiah, ed. E. J. Young et al., The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021), 79–80. ↩
  26. Joseph Peters, “God’s Sovereignty in Jeremiah’s Call (Jer. 1:4-19),” Eleutheria 8, no. 2 (December 2025): 92, Atla Religion Database with AtlaSerials PLUS. ↩
  27. Richard Bauckham et al., Jude-2 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary 50 (Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2014), sec. Reply to Objection 4: (b) The Forbearance of the Lord (3:8-10), http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=5397297. ↩
  28. Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 18 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 160. ↩
  29. Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, New American Commentary 37 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 381. ↩
  30. Ibid. ↩
  31. Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, 160. ↩
  32. Gerald Keown et al., Jeremiah 26-52, Word Biblical Commentary 27 (Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2016), sec. XVIII. A Promise, Signed and Sealed (32:1-44[LXX 39:1-44]), http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=5608084. ↩
  33. Hetty Lalleman, Jeremiah and Lamentations: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. David G. Firth, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 21 (Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2013), 238. ↩
  34. Ibid. Lalleman identifies the certainty of judgment, as previously stated, and this judgment is an item that falls within the scope of God’s sovereign purposes towards Israel (my assertion). ↩
  35. Andrew E. Steinmann, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. David G. Firth, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 1 (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 2019), 472. ↩
  36. K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, New American Commentary 1B (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 928. ↩
  37. James D. Nogalski, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah, ed. E. J. Young et al., The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2023), 377. ↩
  38. Billy K. Smith and Franklin S. Page, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, New American Commentary 19B (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 269. ↩
  39. Donald J. Wiseman, T. Desmond Alexander, and Bruce K. Waltke, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 26 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 137. ↩
  40. Douglas Stuart et al., Hosea-Jonah, Word Biblical Commentary 31 (Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2014), sec. Preaching and Repentance at Nineveh (3:3b-10), http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=5397258. ↩
  41. Gianluca Di Muzio, “Changing God’s Mind,” Neue Zeitschrift Für Systematische Theologie Und Religionsphilosophie 61, no. 2 (December 2019): 241, ATLAi9KZ190610000630, Atla Religion Database with AtlaSerials PLUS, https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2019-0013. ↩
  42. F. F. Bruce, Romans: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 6 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 245. ↩
  43. Ibid. ↩
  44. Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, Second Edition, ed. Ned B. Stonehouse et al., The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018), 859. ↩

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *