Free will and God's decree

Professor Scott Oliphint on a reformed perspective of free will:

... the event of the sin of Adam, for example, was an event that happened by way of the necessity of the consequence. God knows eternally that Adam will go wrong with respect to the forbidden fruit. His knowledge of Adam's action is infallible; the event itself is (hypothetically) necessary. Necessarily, once God decrees that it will happen, it will happen.

     But that does not change the fact that Adam's decision to eat from the forbidden tree is a decision done by "a previous judgment of the reason and spontaneously." It is not coerced (in that there is nothing extrinsically forcing Adam's hand), and it is not against Adam's will (in that there is nothing intrinsically violating Adam's ability to choose for or against eating the forbidden fruit). Thus, the predetermination of God (by the virtue of the necessity of the consequence) and the freedom of man (by virtue of Adam's ability to choose among the options given) are not in competition with each other, nor does one violate the other. Rather, both are executed according to the providence of God, in which the application of God's decree includes the free decision of Adam to eat the forbidden fruit. Just as with the person of Christ, now with God's knowledge of human decision, God brings together both the divine (decree) and the human (free decision) under one unifying entity, providence, such that the two seeming incompatible properties are made compatible by his sovereign design and plan.

(Oliphint, K. Scott. Reasons [for Faith]: Philosophy in the Service of Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 2006. Print. emphasis mine)

God's sovereignty and human responsibility

As a matter of fact, according to a Reformed theological context, we simply do not have the option of arguing for essential change in God. Nor do we have the option of arguing that God's control over creation is such that the decisions and actions that his human creatures take are all related to his decree in such a way as to be absolutely necessary. Nor do we have the option of maintaining that, since God ordains whatever comes to pass, our decisions and actions are not free or responsible. (Oliphint, K. Scott. Reasons [for Faith]: Philosophy in the Service of Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 2006. Print. 303)

God ordains all things but humans actions are not necessary. God ordains all things but humans are responsible for their choices.

Oliphint suggests the premier challenge to Christianity

This is an interesting excerpt by Oliphint and we should heed what he says. Our response should be to have some answers to this premier challenge for the defense of the Gospel and the promulgation of the Gospel.

Perhaps nowhere in philosophical discussions is the need for a specifically Christian philosophy more evident than in discussions that have to do with the assumed incompatibility between existence of the triune God and the existence of evil in this world. The challenge that comes to Christianity, in light of this incompatibility, must be taken with all seriousness and addressed. This, it seems to me, is the apologetic task in excelsus; it is the premier challenge to Christianity. It is a challenge that comes most often from those wanting to show Christianity to be false. It is a challenge that, at least prima facie, takes seriously much of what we believe about God and much of what we experience in this world. A response to this challenge, therefore, cannot be set aside; it must be careful and biblical. (Oliphint, K. Scott. Reasons [for Faith]: Philosophy in the Service of Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 2006. Print. 262)