In the latest edition of Philosophia Christi[1], Jerry Walls argues that no Christian should be a theological determinist. What is a theological determinist? It’s someone who believes that God’s sovereignty extends meticulously to every aspect of the world, including human “choice.” The problem with determinism is that it eliminates human freedom since there are factors external to humans sufficient to determine our choices, such that we could not do otherwise (or even want to do otherwise since even our desires are the product of God’s sovereign acts).
Most theological determinists are compatibilists. Compatibilists think determinism can be reconciled with free will: If one acts according to their desires, then their choices are free. But this is a veneer. At best this shows that we may feel like we our will is free, even though it is not. The fact remains that both our desires and our choices are determined by God wholly independent of our own volition. It should be no surprise when our desires match our actions when God has determined both. Given theological determinism, there can be no freedom of human will, despite attempts by some to evade the obvious.
Walls outlines several problems with theological determinism/compatibilism:
- It would make God the author of sin and evil since all of our acts are determined by His will. In order for person X to rape person Y, God had to determine that person X do so. That makes God the cause of X’s rape of Y.
- God could have created a world in which all persons freely did only good, but He did not. Why would God purposely create a world in which so much evil and suffering occurs, when He could have made a world in which there was only good?
- It makes nonsense of the notion of moral responsibility. As Wells describes, “When the actions of a person are entirely determined by another intelligent being who intentionally determines (manipulates) the person to act exactly as the other being wishes, then the person cannot rightly be held accountable and punished for his actions.” How can we be held accountable for thoughts and actions that we never chose, but were chosen for us by God? This is like taking a child’s hand, forcibly using it to hit another child in the face, and then punishing the child for hitting someone.
- Only an evil being could manipulate another being to do evil, and only an even greater evil being could then hold that individual morally accountable for their actions by punishing them.Why didn’t God determine that all men do good if He is in sovereign control over each and every one of our acts? Why did He determine that some people will do evil, and that He will punish them for “their” evil in an eternal hell? Some Calvinists respond that while God could have made a world without sin, or could have chosen to save all sinners rather than punish them, He chose not to do so because it is only by exercising both judgment and mercy that God’s full glory can be displayed. But Walls rightly points out that if “God must display justice by punishing evil in order fully to manifest his glory, then sin and evil must occur for God’s full glory to be demonstrated. The disconcerting consequence here is that God needs evil or depends on it fully to manifest his glory. This consequence undermines not only God’s goodness, but his sovereignty as well.”
J.W. Wartick recently wrote a nice post on this topic as well: “A Denial of Theological Determinism.” He lists a few other problems with theological determinism that are worthy of note:
- It is a philosophy that cannot be lived. People, even theological determinists, act as though they are free. When bad things happen, they pray to God for help as if it may change the course of history, even though history was foreordained to be exactly the way God wanted it before the world ever was. Indeed, even the fact that one is praying about it was determined by God.
- Theological determinism cannot be rationally affirmed. Even if theological determinism were true, I could only know it to be true if God determined for me to know it. And the reason I would know it would not be due to my examination and weighing of the evidence in favor of theological determinism, but because God determined for me to believe it. Likewise, if I think it is false, it is only because God has determined me to think it is false. God’s sovereignty, not our own rationality, is responsible for what we believe about theological determinism.
For these 6 reasons—not to mention the Biblical data—I think theological determinism/compatibilism is incompatible with Christian theism.
[1]Vol. 13, No. 1, 2011. Jerry L. Walls, “Why No Classical Theist, Let Alone Orthodox Christian, Should Ever be a Compatibilist.”
January 18, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Theological Determinism, like Calvinism, is a misguided attempt to make God “Sovereign”. God is sovereign, but He is able to be totally sovereign even though we have true free will. The effect of Calvinism is that we are turned into robots, which attributes much less glory to God than He deserves. Randy
LikeLike
January 18, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Randy,
It should be pointed out, however, that not all Calvinists are theological determinists. Some will say that we have free will in all areas of life except for salvation. None of us would ever choose to submit to God, so God has to sovereignly change our hearts in order for us to do so.
Jason
LikeLike
January 18, 2012 at 5:57 pm
I was basically referring to their salvation stand. I believe the Calvinists and the Armenians are both wrong. The truth is much grander than either of those sides. The Bible teaches over and over that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. That so many committed Christians are so blind to what the Bible is teaching reminds me of the blindness suffered by so many scientists that are committed to unguided evolution.
LikeLike
January 19, 2012 at 10:07 am
I sympathize with the Calvinists because I can see why some hold onto the theological determinism doctrine. What I believe has happened is not uncommon in the Christian world where a truth about God is misapplied or applied in such a way as to distort the truth and create false teachings.
We know that God is Sovereign and no Christian would argue that. The only issue is what we mean when we say Sovereign. There are a lot of scriptures which the Calvinists draw on that seems to illustrate their point, such as :
“No man can come to me(Jesus) unless the Father draws him”
There is definitely a notion of Sovereignty in this scripture but instead of studying it out I think some Calvinists have taken the notion to the extreme where all of our actions are controlled and predetermined.
It is like monasticism for example. We know we are to separate ourselves from the world (“…be ye separate…”) to live a godly life, and here are some people that have taken this notion to the extreme and live in complete isolation from the world to the point where they have no practically no contact with any non-believers with which they are supposed to shine as lights in this dark world as Jesus commanded.
On a smaller scale, there are some churches that teach having a TV in your home is too worldly and will deny you membership to the church and even ostracize you if you do not conform. Again, a misapplication of God’s teaching, it happens all the time.
Back to the sovereignty question : Just because God already knows what you are going to do, doesn’t necessarily means he controls what you are going to. That is how I tend to think of it so I can understand it for myself. I must confess though, there is an element to God’s sovereignty that perhaps echos some of the Calvinistic notions of sovereignty. The understanding eludes me and I have yet to grasp it. But I can confidently say that the Calvin doctrine as it stands today cannot be supported in all its facets by scripture and has many flaws as pointed out by Jason in this post.
All this said, we should not dismiss the Calvinists or their faith but rather try to engage them in thoughtful and meaningful discussion in a loving way.
Naz
LikeLike
January 21, 2012 at 4:22 am
Naz,
You make very good points. The marriage of God’s total sovereignty with our absolute free will is not completely understandable. Neither are many other things we know to be true. How is it that God listens to and watches billions of people simultaneously? My understanding of sovereignty / freewill is that God is powerful enough to control any event regardless of what the individuals freely choose. For instance, a father can watch his child at play in a park and make sure that child is safe, at the same time the child is free to play as he chooses. Randy
LikeLike
January 21, 2012 at 9:32 pm
God’s sovereignty must extend to every aspect of the world, if it did not, then that which exceeded or stood outside the extent of God’s sovereignty could perhaps frustrate the promises and plans of God. If something could come to pass apart from His sovereign permission and decree, that thing that came to pass would over-ride (frustrate) the sovereignty of God. If God refused to permit something to happen and it happened anyway, then whatever caused it to happen would have more authority and power than God himself. If there is any part of creation outside of God’s sovereignty, then God is not sovereign. But God is sovereign, which means he over all creation has the only true free will. Should the supreme freedom of God to do as He pleases with His own creation submit to the freedom of man? If God is supremely free to do as he wills, then it necessarily follows that it is man’s free will that has a limited extent, since you cannot have both God and man having supremely free will, man is a creature who’s will is always subservient and inferior to God’s will. Over and over, Scripture bears witness to this…Psalm 135:6 says “Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all the deeps.” and Isaiah 14:27 says “For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it: His hand is stretched out and who will turn it back.” Proverbs 21:1 may be uncomfortable to read but it says “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wills.” Man has as much power, freedom, and liberty as a mere created nature is capable of under the supreme rule of God’s providence. So I reject the idea that our “free wills” have such an absolute and uncontrollable power in the sphere of human actions, that no influence of God’s providence, no certainty of His decree, and no unchangeableness of His purpose, can sway man’s will in all its free determinations. Why keep arguing for the absolute free will of man when Christ has already pronounced man’s will under bondage. In John 8:34-36 He says “Truly, truly, I say to you everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” As for the problems outlined by Walls, under number 1, the point is made that ” in order for person X to rape person Y, God had to determine that person X do so. That makes God the cause of X’s rape of Y.” In 2 Samuel we find Nathan the prophet pronounce the judgement of the Lord upon David for his sin with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah. 2 Samuel 12: 11 states “Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.” The Lord says “I will” twice! Rather than be embarrassed by Scripture, we should rather be content with the knowledge that God is righteous in all He does. The Scriptures have no problem describing God as being just, holy, righteous, and hating evil, while at the same time holding man responsible for acting according to his sinful desires in a manner determined by God. We must seek to be biblical rather than philosophical, even when God’s ways are inscrutable to man (Romans 11:33), and His ways higher than ours. (Isaiah 55:9) He does according to His will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand or say to Him, “What have you done?” Daniel 4: 35. As for Walls second point, both determinist and non-determinist must BOTH answer the question of “Why would God purposely create a world in which so much evil and suffering occurs, when He could have made a world in which there was only good?” This is not only a question for the “determinist” but a question atheists, like David Hume, have posed to all Christians. As for point number three, again we must aim to be scriptural, rather than sit in judgement of God’s unsearchable ways, we should let the Scriptures speak for themselves. In Isaiah 10:5-7 it the Lord says “Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger and the staff in their hands is my fury! Against a godless nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him, to take spoil and seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. But he does not so intend, and his heart does not think so think; but it is in his heart to destroy.” God is using the sinful desires of the Assyrians (it is in his heart to destroy) to judge Israel, even though Assyria “does not so intend, and his heart does not think so” the Lord holds Assyria responsible for its sin, yet the Lord even judges the king of Assyria for boasting it was his own strength and understanding that allowed him to defeat Israel, but God says “Shall the axe boast over him who hews with it, or the saw magnify itself against him who wields it? As if a rod should wield him who lifts it, or as if a staff should lift him who is not wood! Therefore the Lord God will send wasting sickness among his stout warriors” The Assyrians are held responsible and the Lord is behind it all, so I say Amen to Scripture and away with the vain philosophy of Walls. And in point number 4, the question is asked “Why didn’t God determine that all men do good if He is in sovereign control over each and every one of our acts?” Because He didn’t want to. It’s very simple. God does not need to fully reveal His glory. He is need evil. He is not dependent on evil. That He manifests His glory to puny, sinful man is sheer grace. Just because God is necessarily glorified in manifesting judgement and mercy, we must not imply that this is like adding glory to God, rather it is an outflow, an expression of His already fully glorious nature. I would like to write about the last four points but I am quite tired. Thanks for reading! To God alone be the glory!
LikeLike
January 21, 2012 at 9:41 pm
I could not find the edit button, but I meant to say “God does not need to fully reveal His glory. He does not need evil. He is not dependent on evil.” Thanks again.
LikeLike
January 23, 2012 at 10:26 am
James, good post !
I suppose when we use the term “free will” it is really only what we see from our perspective. God’s perspective is a whole lot different than ours.
Naz
LikeLike
January 23, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Naz, since you are still reading I’ll give you my thoughts on the last two points made by Wartick. I was so tired I thought there were four more points, so as far as point five, he says “it is a philosophy that cannot be lived.” and yet many Christians do live by the biblical teaching that God is sovereign over all, that “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28), that “the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps” (Jeremiah 10:23), that “a man’s steps are ordered by the Lord” (Proverbs 20:24), and that “the heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.” (Proverbs 16:9) Apart from God revealing this in the Scriptures, man would not know this, but He has revealed this in His Word, and so we have faith that it is so. When bad things happen, yes we do pray for God to help, he does not only fore ordain the ends, but He also fore ordains the means, if I pray for God help and circumstances change, it only means that God fore ordained that I would pray and for ordained the answer to the prayer. So I don’t see what the big deal about the last sentence in point five, “Indeed, even the fact that one is praying about it was determined by God.” And?? Why wouldn’t it be determined by God if it is the Holy Spirit who moves us to pray in the first place, even when I don’t feel like praying and I “force” myself to pray, I give credit to the Lord for bringing me to my knees, I have no problem living this out. Who would be so bold as to say that they pray apart from the grace of the Holy Spirit? I’m not saying Jason Dulle believes this, but I do believe my statements have implications to point number five.
As for point number 6, it is stated “Even if theological determinism were true, I could only know it to be true if God determined for me to know it. And the reason I would know it would not be due to my examination and weighing of the evidence in favor of theological determinism, but because God determined for me to believe it” Yes, I could only know it to be true if God determined for me to know it. That does not mean it is not true. God can pre determine for me to know something that is true in reality, in fact He does it all the time. And He can pre determine that I come to the conclusions I come to by means of examination and weighing of biblical evidence in favor of theological determinism. Remember, God does not only pre determine the ends, but the means as well. Wartick (or Jason) ends by stating “Likewise, if I think it is false, it is only because God has determined me to think it is false. God’s sovereignty, not our own rationality, is responsible for what we believe about theological determinism.” There is nothing unbiblical about the notion that the Lord determines to suppress certain knowledge (“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever” Dueteronomy 29:29) but also, 1 Kings 22:23 says “”So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you.” and Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 “Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false.” The Scriptures speak clearly to these points, and that is what we want, isn’t it, for the Scriptures to speak, and not lean on the limited, finite rationalizing of man. So in God’s sovereignty, He uses our own rationality and irrationality to accept or reject theological determinism.
LikeLike
January 24, 2012 at 9:09 am
James, what can I say – GOD is in complete control and I’m glad He is. In fact, we should be thanking Him that we can even understand this point. It is a very humbling thought when you think and meditate on it.
Thanks for your thoughts on this topic.
Naz
LikeLike
January 27, 2012 at 2:44 am
I respectfully disagree with theological determinism. I find the internal logic faulty.
For example, to argue that God is the ultimate cause of every single thing that happens in the universe (or at least determines that everything that happens in the universe must automatically happen) means that God is responsible for every action which is completely contrary to His own nature. While we argue the finer points of morality and quibble about whether such things are truly moral in the infinite sense (i.e. from God’s point of view), we nevertheless must admit that God has a sense of morality which determines everything about Him. And anything contrary to that morality is therefore not of or from Him. Scripture bears this out. For example:
We know that no lie is of the truth (1 John 2:21). We also know that God is the God of Truth (Psalm 31:5 and Isaiah 65:16). We also know that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17, 15:26, and 16:13). In fact, 1 John 5:6 teaches us that the Spirit IS Truth.
We also know that the devil is a murderer and the father of lies, i.e that there is no truth in him (John 8:44).
Theological determinism (if true) would say that God intended the devil to be the father of lies, for there to be no truth in him, to be a murderer from the beginning, etc.
This is completely contrary to the nature of the God of Truth. It’s one thing to grant permission to an evil spirit so that it can become a “lying spirit” in the mouth of a false prophet, or to give someone up to their own rebellios nature so that they become sufficiently deluded so as to believe a lie and not be saved. But to be the cause of the lie in the mouth of the false prophet and to, in essence create the very lie that a person who does not love the truth believes so they end up damned for eternity is something else entirely.
Further, God wills for all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9) and for all to come to the knowledge of the truth and so, be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4). Why would God will (i.e. desire) something that He then, in Himself, is going to determine cannot be accomplished? Theogolgical determinism fights tooth and nail to prove that God is absolutely sovereign in all things. So why can’t God fulfill His own will? Secondly, why would God interrupt and even frustrate His own will by determining that He will not save the very people He wills or desires to see saved?
To simply say, this is the mystery of God’s unsearchable ways seems lacking at this point. Granted we may not understand everything about God, and His internal logic of how He operates may be above us, but that doesn’t mean we can’t put two and two together and realize there are some things that God simply will not do or determine must happen for His will to be done and for Him to be glorified. In fact, we are told to not glory, neither lie against the truth (James 3:14). It is evident, then, that, since God is Truth, and since we are not to glory against Truth, that God does not get glory in anything resembling anything less than full and honest Truth (See Romans 3:1-8, where Paul proves that human dishonesty does not, in fact, glorify God).
So, then, what is the solution? I believe it is entirely possible that God, in choosing to create us free, limited His sovereignty over our wills and purposefully made Himself to not have power over all that we do. Yes, the heart of a king may be in the hand of God to be turned howsoever God wills, but that may speak to external actions God brings about in the life of the ruler. Think of it like a chess match. One player can completely dominate the board while at the same time not determine the other player’s course of action. But the more external pressure put upon the lesser player, the less options he or she is going to have, up to and including forfeiture to the more skilled player. Officially and technically, the better player “forced” the results through superior play, but the lesser skilled player still made all their own moves freely, until there weren’t any moves left. Cannot God do the same, without violating free human will? I say yes.
LikeLike
January 27, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Again, I say, let us hold to Scripture. And the scriptures do affirm that God caused evil events to come about and evil deeds to be done. Yet, Scripture nowhere shows God as directly doing anything evil. He brings about evil deeds through the willing actions of moral creatures. Yet God cannot be charged by man, as though man sits as the judge and holds God morally responsible for his determinations instead of acknowledging that the Lord sits upon the Judge’s throne and hold man morally responsible. Scripture never blames God for evil or shows God as taking pleasure in evil, so we conclude that God is righteous in all of his absolutely free determinations. For God to “limit his Sovereignty” is utterly illogical. To say limited sovereignty is like saying square circle. God would cease to be God if He limited His sovereignty.
So let us hold to Scripture. If the Scriptures say that God is a God of Truth (Psalm 31:5) and also states as judgment against Israel “And if the prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him” (Ezekiel 14:9), then we must conclude that God is righteous in his absolutely free determinations to deceive. It is here we must pause and put a hand over our mouths after saying with Job, ” I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.” (Job 42:2-3) What we cannot do is say that a Scripture like Ezekiel 14:9 is not saying what it is saying, we want exegesis not eisegesis. Let God be true and every man be a liar. (Romans 3:4)
The most evil thing that has ever happened was determined by the hand of God, and yet God remains holy and righteous. Everything that led up to the crucifixion, from the betrayal of Jesus by Judas immediately inspired by Satan, the lies of the false witnesses, to the shouting of the crowds “Crucify him!” and the Roman soldiers’ mockery and torture of Jesus were all sinful attitudes and deeds, yet Luke 4:27 states “For truly in this city were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” The Scriptures say that it was ultimately it was God’s hand and God’s plan that predestined this to take place and yet in Act 2:23 it was “by the hands of lawless men.” The foreordination of an evil act is not itself evil, since God need not will what He wills for the reasons others may will them. Yes, God despises liars and lying, and yet who can deny that when the Scriptures state, “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, who are called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28), “all things” even includes “lies.” There is a sense in which lying contributed the most glorious event of all, the crucifixion, yet God remains free from falsehood in His own nature.
When God says in 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 “Therefore God sends them a strong delusion,to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness,” The Scriptures do not reveal how He did it, but it clearly says He “made them believe what was false.” and yet, He holds them responsible for believing what was false. Let’s just not say “oh, it must mean this” and change the Scriptures to suit our limited judgments or much less, ignore certain Scriptures altogether.
In 1 Timothy 2:4, context is key, it states “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, FOR KINGS AND ALL WHO ARE IN HIGH POSITIONS, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Christians were being persecuted, and persecution usually comes from those who are in authority and high positions. It’s easy to see why Paul must give the apostolic command to pray “for kings and all who are in high positions” it’s to lead a “peaceful and quiet life.” Kings and all in high positions are kinds of men, classes of men. It is consistent for Paul to use the phrase “all people” to refer to different kinds of people, not literally every single person. In Titus chapter 2:11, Paul states “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,” in it’s correct context, referring to the different kinds of people he just mentioned such as “older men” Titus 2:2, “older women” Titus 2:3, “young women,” “husbands,” and “children” Titus 2:4, “younger men” Titus 2:6, “slaves” and “masters” Titus 2:9. Either God wills not to save all, or there is a power in the universe greater than God’s power which is frustrating him by overruling what He wills. Let us not then imagine that God violates his own free-will in order not to violate the oh- so- precious free-will of man.
In 2 Peter 3:9, the apostle states “The Lord is not slow to fulfill His promises as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” But we cannot isolate “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” from what comes right before that, “The Lord is…patient toward YOU.” The “any” and “all” of you he is addressing is the called and elect (2 Peter 1:3,10). Christ says “this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of all that He has given me, but raise it up on the last day.” (John 6:39) Christ shall lose none of all that the Father has GIVEN Him (the elect) because God is not wishing that any of the elect should perish.
Aaron states “Yes, the heart of a king may be in the hand of God to be turned howsoever God wills, but that may speak to external actions God brings about in the life of the ruler.” The Scripture is plainly speaking in unequivocal terms about “the heart of a king,” something internal. We cannot escape the force of this verse by not dealing with the Lord turning the heart wherever he wills, something internal and going straight for the external. Besides, external actions are produced first by internal motives, so it doesn’t help at all to say “that may speak to external actions God brings about in the life of the ruler.”
One cannot deal with Scriptures like Isaiah 10:5-7, all the Proverbs verses I quoted, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, and all of the other Scriptures that put Christ in control of everything, for in Him all things hold together (Colossians 1:17) and again, “In Him we live and move and have our being” we can’t just sweep all this under the rug by using 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 out of context as the final word. Well, Aaron, I greatly appreciate your tone, and I hope I haven’t come off as rude either, thanks for reading.
James
LikeLike
January 27, 2012 at 3:23 pm
James,
Due to a crazy work schedule right now, I have not been able to follow the comments of my posts or respond as I would like. And your last comment was a long one! I cannot get into a discussion about Biblical interpretation at this point. Let me just say that I understand that certain passages do seem to teach theological determinism, and see how people come to that conclusion. Of course, others seem to teach the opposite. Reconciling the two is very difficult for either side of the aisle.
What I want to focus on here is the logic of your position. For example, you state “And the scriptures do affirm that God caused evil events to come about and evil deeds to be done. Yet, Scripture nowhere shows God as directly doing anything evil. He brings about evil deeds through the willing actions of moral creatures.” This makes no sense. If one is the cause of evil, then one commits evil even if they used an intermediary to do so.
For example, if I was able to cause a boy through coercion to walk into a bank and rob it, then I would be guilty of the robbery even though it was not my hands that took the money. The only way one could possibly be the cause of an evil act through an intermediary, and yet not be held morally responsible for the evil act is if a person did not intend to cause the intermediary to perform his evil act. For example, imagine a boy who is contemplating robbing a bank, and he says to himself, “I will rob this bank only if the next person who walks out of the bank says hello to me.” I am the next person who walks out, and I say hello to the boy. This, then, causes him to rob the bank. I would not be morally responsible for this because while it was my action that caused him to act in the way he did, I did not know or intend for him to act that way.
But in the case of God, for Him to cause someone to do evil He would have to both know and intend for that person to do evil. If one purposely uses an intermediary to accomplish the evil, it is no morally different than if they had committed the evil themselves. Indeed, on your view, it is meaningless to say that God brings about evil deeds through “willing action of moral creatures.” On your view, the only agent who has the capability of exercising free will is God. The person who does evil, then, does not do so willingly. They cannot be said to have chosen evil. They were caused to do evil by God. They have a will, but that will is completely controlled by God, and can do only what God makes it do. God makes it desire evil, and God makes it choose evil. So God is not bringing about evil “through” creatures that are willing to do so. He is bringing about evil via creatures that He has made to do evil. This is evil.
What if I created and programmed a robot so that it would shoot someone I did not like. Would any rational person say, “Well, while Jason caused the evil to occur, He is not responsible for the evil. The robot is.” No!! Clearly I am responsible because only I have a free will to choose morally, and I chose to kill someone. The fact that it was through a robot does not matter. Indeed, if one is not responsible for evil if they did not do the deed themselves, then Charles Manson should not be behind bars since he did not kill anyone himself. Luckily our judicial system recognizes that the moral issue is not who does the evil per se, but who caused the evil, and that if one is coerced into doing evil by another person, it is the person doing the coercion who is held responsible, not the person who committed the crime.
Jason
LikeLike
January 27, 2012 at 11:16 pm
Hi, James
Thank you. I also appreciate you tone and know you mean your words in a good spirit. Ultimately, I concur with you on this point: let God be true and every man a liar.
Since God’s ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not ours because they are so much higher than our capacity to comprehend, I say, thank you for the dialogue, admitting that perhaps we don’t all know as much as we think we do. My bottomline is we are saved by faith (obviously in the Lord Jesus Christ) through grace, which as we know is a gift of God. If you have a love of the truth, and I have the same, then I suspect we will all get there eventually, to a more complete revelation of the mysteries of God. Until then, let’s strive toward perfection, love the appearing of the Lord, and seek the stature of the fulness of Christ.
Peace,
Aaron
LikeLike
January 30, 2012 at 8:27 am
Jason,
I appreciate your response, though I would not have thought it impolite in the least bit if you had not responded, I know you must be busy. But since you did…I’d like to say I also appreciate the fact that you wanted to start by showing me the logic of my position, but it seems to me we should start with the Scriptures. If we are to understand anything about the nature of divine sovereignty, we should obviously begin with God’s revelation of Himself. His Word is the ultimately infallible truth of His lordship and sovereign rule over the entire universe.
You say my reasoning makes no sense, yet it is your position that significantly weakens if placed side by side with several of the Scriptures I have presented in the last 3 posts. You say ” The only way one could possibly be the cause of an evil act through an intermediary, and yet not be held morally responsible for the evil act is if a person did not intend to cause the intermediary to perform his evil act.” Yet, when we look at the story of Joseph in the Scriptures, we find Josephs brothers were wrongly jealous of him (Genesis 37:11), hated him (Genesis 37:4,5,8), wanted to kill him (Genesis 37:20), and sold him into slavery (Genesis 37:28). Yet all of these events were God’s intentions…but though the intentions of Josephs brothers were evil, God’s intentions were good, as Joseph states to his brothers, “You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today” (Genesis 50:20). Also, God gave satan permission to harm Job’s possessions and children, and though the harm came through the evil actions of secondary causes, Job says “the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord” (Job 1:21). Following this it states “In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.” (Job 1:22) It seems that charging God with wrong for intentionally permitting this evil to come upon Job through secondary causes is sinful, rather than logical.
Analogies are good, but they obviously have their limits when we’re talking about God. In your analogy, you say you cause a guy to rob a bank by saying hello him, though you did not know he would rob the bank, nor did you intend for him to rob the bank. But God is omniscient, He does know beforehand, and the Scriptures I have already presented show that God does intend evil, but for good and righteous reasons. The Scriptures also show, for instance, that the evil that was done to Christ the day He was crucified was done “by the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23), so it does not help in the analogy to begin by saying the boy already contemplated and purposed in himself to rob the bank the next time someone came out and said hello to him because, though the boy is morally responsible for his own treacherous act, we cannot that ultimately it would have to be done, Scripturally speaking, by the direct plan and foreknowledge of God.
Suppose we tweak your analogy. Suppose the boy says “I’m going to randomly shoot men, women, and children in this bank the next time someone says hello to me.” Now the next person that says hello next is a person who knew what the boy was going to do if he said hello to the boy, the man who says hello next also had thousands upon thousands ready to swarm that bank in a split second, and yes, the man had more than sufficient power to stop the boy. Would you charge the man with evil if he still walked in and said hello to the boy? If you would, do you believe this would be analogous to charging God with evil? Why or why not?
You also say that in my view “it is meaningless to say that God brings about evil deeds through “willing action of moral creatures.” On my view, “the only agent who has the capability of exercising free will is God. The person who does evil, then, does not do so willingly.” I do say that God is the only one with a truly free-will. Man’s will is but a reflection of the perfectly free-will of God, but man’s will is created, subservient to God, and has limits that God’s will does not have. I believe that man has the power of choice, but that man’s choice will always be based on his desires. In your original post, you state, “Compatibilists think determinism can be reconciled with free will: If one acts according to their desires, then their choices are free.” If someone does what they want to do, what they desire to do, they are free. But, what does man desire, apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit? The Scriptures say “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5) and Romans says “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks God.”
People can only will what they desire. And people’s desires either flow from a nature still dead in sins (Ephesians 2:5) or a nature made alive in Christ (Ephesians 2:5). This is Bible, Jesus states ” For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a good tree bear bad fruit, for each tree is known by its fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person, out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person, out of his evil treasure, for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. (Luke 6:43-45) The will of a person apart from Christ is in bondage to sin, that is why I hesitate to call it free will, but I reject the idea that the will is so free that it is outside of God’s control. A freedom outside of God’s sustaining and controlling activity would be impossible if Christ is “continually carrying along things by His word of power” (Hebrews 1:3). And to say that choices somehow caused by God cannot be real? On what Scriptural basis can that proven? God tells us that He ordains all that comes to pass, and He also tell us that are choices and actions are significant in His eyes and we are responsible for them. I rest comfortable in the Scriptures, I believe them. The way God describes reality in the Scriptures is how reality is.
Jason, I enjoy reading your blog. Thanks for the conversation. In Christ alone.
James
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 9:27 pm
Just a couple of points:
James wrote:
“The most evil thing that has ever happened was determined by the hand of God…”
Can we really say that the crucifixion is the most evil thing that has ever happened? That seems subjective to me. While I’m aware of the implications of the just for the unjust, and Jesus becoming sin for us, etc, I’m not sure I’m convinced that His death is the most evil thing ever. This is why: If something is evil, then it is simply that. But if, intermingled or adjacent to the evilness of that something, is some level of good, it might only be considered morally ambiguous at worst, or at least require a clear separation of what was evil about the act and what was good, which makes for at least two categories.
But Christ’s death is the atonement whereby remission of sins is achieved and many are saved. While understanding the humiliating agony of the cross and the spiritual ramifications of such, including the fact that it brought about the heinous murder of the Son of God, it nevertheless was to fulfill all righteousness. It even behooved Christ to suffer because of all that was written of Him in the Law, Psalms, and Prophets. While no doubt evil, I think argument can be made that other evils may be greater in scope or degree. Jesus knew He was the resurrection and the life, after all.
On a different note: James, is your exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 filtered through Calvin’s idea of Limited Atonement? I don’t want to make assumptions before I address this section of your post.
Finally,
James wrote:
“Aaron states “Yes, the heart of a king may be in the hand of God to be turned howsoever God wills, but that may speak to external actions God brings about in the life of the ruler.” The Scripture is plainly speaking in unequivocal terms about “the heart of a king,” something internal. We cannot escape the force of this verse by not dealing with the Lord turning the heart wherever he wills, something internal and going straight for the external. Besides, external actions are produced first by internal motives, so it doesn’t help at all to say “that may speak to external actions God brings about in the life of the ruler.” ”
I see your point, but I would like to offer that externalities often have profound impact upon internal considerations. In fact, internal considerations may (in certain circumstances) only be understood through the external stimuli. For example, even God’s influence upon the king’s heart is an external influence (originating in God’s will) affecting the king internally, i.e. in his heart.
It would look like this: God, who is external to the heart of the king, acts internally upon the heart yet from an external position, by bringing about certain, determined external stimuli (e.g. war, pestilence, death, blessings, etc.). This causes the heart of the king to respond internally in such a way as was foreknown by God due to the external stimuli. Once the heart has responded according to the foreknown decision (which was made possible by the fixed, pre-selected external stimuli), it can be reasonably concluded that God turned the king’s heart wheresoever He chose through such a process. Not by forcing the will against itself inside the heart of the king, but in working with the heart of the king through external stimuli until God’s will was accomplished. To me, this is much different that God simply overriding the king and in effect, essentially saying, you are my marionette. I do with you as I please.
If this is the case (as you seem to see it) then, it has to be admitted that God sent the serpent to Eve to purposely deceive her, even planting the lie that led her to eat. God then determined for Adam to eat, even against God’s own strict command not to (God setting Adam up to fail???) so that Adam could usher sin and death into the world (Romans 5) only so God could send His Son into the world for the express purpose of having Him murdered (i.e. the most evil act that ever occured) so as to undue the very act God caused in the first place through the serpent, Even, then Adam.
That’s the logical progression of such a position. I do not believe it so, and I do not believe that Scripture bears it out. Nothing personal, James.
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Here would be a Biblical example of my hypothesis:
1 Chronicles 21:9-14,
9. And the LORD spake unto Gad, David’s seer, saying,
10. Go and tell David, saying, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things: choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee.
11. So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee
12. Either three years’ famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me.
13. And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall now into the hand of the LORD; for very great are his mercies: but let me not fall into the hand of man.
14. So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men.
After David immorally numbered the people and it displeased God (See v. 7), God spoke to David the King through the prophet, giving him three options, thus limiting his ability, i.e. God put certain censures upon David’s will without violating it.
These three options were external stimuli created by God so that God could work out an internal decision in David’s heart. David still freely chose out of his own will the course to come, but the external stimuli nonetheless fulfilled the Proverb. King David’s heart was in God’s hand, and through the external stimuli, God turned it the way in which He wanted it to go, knowing what David would chose beforehand. Nothing here was determined prior to David’s decision. It was entirely up to him, within the confines of the situation. God just knew what David would decide before it was done.
And so, human free will was not forced or violated, and yet God sovereignly accomplished His will, and thus fulfilled the Proverb.
LikeLike
February 1, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Aaron,
I love your bottom-line bro, that we are saved by grace through faith, all being a gift of God! I passionately agree! Amen! Thanks for the conversation, it has really been a blessing to me.
I’m quite perplexed when you say “While no doubt evil, I think argument can be made that other evils may be greater in scope or degree.” Can you name just one example? While the results of the crucifixion of Christ were good beyond comprehension, the means to these results were quite evil. There was no level of good “intermingling” or “adjacent” to the evil in the hearts the “lawless men” (Acts 2:23) who crucified and killed Jesus. The only two categories that can be distinguished is one of concurrence, while the intentions of the “hands of lawless men” were pure evil, the intentions of the “hand and plan of God” (Acts 4:27) were good. Also, Christ is of infinite value. I don’t see how you could say that “other evils may be greater in scope or degree” without placing more value than Christ on the other subject. While it is true that evil is evil, Jesus does say to Pilate, “Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.” (Acts 19:11). Jesus differentiates between lesser and greater sins. Again, Jesus states of Capernaum, “it will be more tolerable on the day of judgement for the land of Sodom than for you.” (Matthew 11:24) Both of the implications in these verses, that there is a sense in which there are gradations of evil, concern how Christ is treated.
As for my exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9, it was demonstrated to be based on context, not on Calvin.
And I can say that I agree the Lord can and does move in the way that you reasoned (external/internal), though I also believe that the Lord also puts things in the hearts of men. “Blessed be the Lord, the God of our fathers, who put such a thing as this into the the heart of the king” (Ezra 7:27) John states “for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast” (Revelation 17:17) Talk about being set up for failure! God put it into the hearts of leaders to hand over power to the beast! Yet, he remains Righteous. And when God does use external stimuli, I would never say God forced the will against itself. I would say that God can know the circumstances giving rise to our highest desires, and by knowing these, he can know the choice that we would make, given those particular circumstances.
Now as far as the Garden of Eden, the Scriptures do not say that God sent the serpent. But if you mean to say the the serpent did something that the Lord did not intend to happen, then you grant the devil more power than God and you make God out to be less than omniscient. The text doesn’t say that God planted the lie, the serpent deceived Eve. Why would we want to say more than that. We cannot imagine that satan was outside the bounds of God’s control though. We also cannot say that God cannot somehow deceive, if He explicitly states “I, the Lord have deceived that prophet” (Ezekiel 14:9). It sounds as though you don’t believe that God could determine that one of His creatures break one of His commands, yet we find Sampson wanting to marry a Philistine woman(Judges 14:2), breaking God’s command against intermarrying in Dueteronomy 7:3-4. Yet, in Judges 14:4, it states, “However his father and mother did not know is was of the Lord, for He was seeking an occasion against the Philistines.” And yes, God sent His Son into the world to be murdered(Acts 4:27).
And in the biblical example of your hypothesis, you fail to mention that God offered those three choices of judgment for David to pick from was because he sinned against the Lord by taking a census. Why did He take a census? 2 Samuel 24:1 says “Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” Talk about set up for failure! We find that God used satan to do this, since 1 Chronicles 21:1 says “Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.” So to punish Israel for what He himself ultimately incited David to do, he gives David three options. I believe you err in saying nothing was determined before David made a decision, God’s anger was burning against Israel, so He determined to punish them. I also believe you err in saying it was entirely up to David which choice He would pick. He says “Let us fall into the hand of the Lord, for His mercy is great, but let me not fall into the hand of man.” (2 Samuel 24:14) David proclaims the mercy of God in the midst of judgment! Surely this was the Lord moving directly in the heart of David to make such a holy and good proclamation.
Well, the kids are a-callin! Thanks for the convo, it has been edifying!
James
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 12:37 am
Hi, James
As far as the most evil thing ever, I’m not trying to be overly dogmatic, only thinking out loud. I think one could argue that Adam’s disobedience could be seen as the greatest evil, since his action caused sin and death to enter into the world, whereby, through it, millions and perhaps billions of souls were and are going to be lost eternally in the lake of fire, whereas Christ’s death, which was most certainly an evil act, actually redounds to the eternal saving of many millions. In fact, Adam’s disobedience, and only that, necessitates the cross. Perhaps this is a chicken and the egg argument, but I’m just saying. Food for thought, at least.
Secondly, I ask about Limited Atonement and those passages because your exegesis of them falls in line with how many Calvinists explain those passages. I simply wanted to know if you are or consider yourself to be a believer in the TULIP paradigm, as some might call it.
“…I also believe that the Lord also puts things in the hearts of men.”
I agree. I think it’s obvious that God constantly and consistently inspires people with many thoughts, ideas, etc. Though I hesitate to say that such inspiration determines a demanded action. I believe inspiration from God upon the heart can be turned away or rejected. We know that the grace of God has appeared to all men, while at the same time many can do much evil despite the spirit of grace, with grace of course being that inward action upon the heart whereby God draws all men unto Himself.
“Now as far as the Garden of Eden, the Scriptures do not say that God sent the serpent. But if you mean to say the the serpent did something that the Lord did not intend to happen, then you grant the devil more power than God and you make God out to be less than omniscient. The text doesn’t say that God planted the lie, the serpent deceived Eve. Why would we want to say more than that. We cannot imagine that satan was outside the bounds of God’s control though.”
Intention, control, etc. versus permission and a willingness to not force a matter are different. Did God omnisciently know beforehand what was to occur? Yes. Did He determine for it to happen apart from the agents involved so that they had no say in the matter? I don’t think so. It’s one thing to say God knew and didn’t stop the event. But theological determinism indicates that God’s sovereignty forces Him to control all situations to such a degree that no one acts freely in any way, thus, while not stated explicitly, it seems to me that it can be inferred safely that, should TD be true, God determined for Eve to be deceived, for Adam to disobey, and for the serpent to be the one who started it all. After all, if, since as you mention, the Scriptures do not say that God send the serpent, then how is it that God still detemined for the serpent to be there deceiving Eve?
For me, it’s a parallel to 1 John 4:1-2. We are told to try the spirits to determine whether or not they be of God. The preposition here is “ek” meaning out of or from. So not every spirit is sent from God into the world, up to and including the spirit of antichrist. So if not from God, where does it come from? And if TD is true, how is that such spirits can be not “of God” and yet, have been determined by God to be in the world doing exactly what they do, which is steal, kill, and destroy? They simply are not of God.
As far as Samson and all the rest, I think it fair to say we could go round and round regarding God’s prescience and causation. Did God desire an occasion against the Philistines? Yes. Was He going to use Samson to do it? Yes. Did Samson want a woman against the will of God? Yes. But the implications of saying more are a very slippery slope, and this is what I mean:
God commands a certain action. He expects obedience to the command. As the sovereign God, He has every right to do so. But then, He inspires a person to disobey Him and determines for them to do so, so that they in fact break one of His commandments, so that they only way in which they could actually be obedient to the will of God in that moment is by actually breaking His command, since God’s will in that situation actually supercedes and supplants His original command. Such a situation makes it impossible to obey God because at any moment he may turn our hearts to actually disobey Him for the express purpose of fulfilling His will, even though His will is for us to obey Him.
Do you see my dilemma with this line of thinking? It appears to make God as capricious as the gods of Egypt, Greece, and Rome. But we read that God’s word is forever settled in heaven. To obey God’s commandments is eternal life (John 12:50). But how can we obey if God is constantly and consistently moving us, like as you say He did with Samson, to disobey Him? Are you saying that God actually wants and fosters rebellion in us against Him just so He can have an ocassion to do whatever His will is in the moment that the desired rebellion is engendered?
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 12:49 am
PS.
In regards to the mention of Satan in 1 Chronicles 21:1, a reading of the Hebrew will show that the definite article “ha” does not proceed the use of the word “satan”, meaning it does not refer to THE Adversary, but rather to AN Adversary. The point being that it was God who was David’s adversary, as the parallel passage in 2 Samuel 24 shows. And why? Because God resists the proud. David’s heart was lifted up in pride, perhaps because of Israel’s military might, so God decided to teach David a lesson, by provoking Him to number the people so that God could decimate the ranks and show David that pride in military might is foolish compared to the all-powerfulness of God. God wanted David to know that 1,300,000 valiant men will not prevail against Him should He turn His wrath toward them.
This isn’t setting David up to fail, so much as it is God making a statement to David to help the king understand that David had already failed by removing his faith in God’s might and placing it in the power of Israel and Judah’s army. Again, a big difference.
LikeLike
February 3, 2012 at 11:20 am
James,
I try to respond to all comments, but as of late it has been extremely difficult to do as the traffic to my site has increased, and my workload for my “real job” has increased as well. I cannot respond to all that you and others have said since my last comment, but I do want to respond to a couple of things.
You wrote, “I also appreciate the fact that you wanted to start by showing me the logic of my position, but it seems to me we should start with the Scriptures. If we are to understand anything about the nature of divine sovereignty, we should obviously begin with God’s revelation of Himself.” I wholly agree with you about the supremacy of Scripture. It is the source of our doctrine and the basis of our faith. But in some instances the Bible is vague, difficult to interpret, or lacks a discernably consistent and clear teaching on a subject. In such cases, philosophical reflection may help us sort through the interpretive options. I think this is true regarding the nature of divine sovereignty, human freedom, and moral responsibility.
Would you agree that if something is contradictory, self-refuting, or nonsensical it cannot be true? I presume so. Since God’s Word is true, it cannot teach nonsense. When I consider the concept of God ordaining men to perform evil acts (acts which they cannot not perform), I conclude that it is impossible for God to do so without Him being morally responsible. Responsibility requires that one choose to do X, and genuine choice requires freedom to choose –X. On your view, you have to say that the agent (God) who has the freedom to choose X rather than –X is not morally responsible for that choice, but the agent who lacks the freedom to choose X rather than –X is morally responsible for that choice. This is completely backwards. It is literally irrational to claim that God can cause evil, but not be responsible for that evil. If causing X does not make you responsible for X, then what can possibly make one responsible? You seem to think that God escapes moral responsibility because rather than doing X Himself He causes someone else to do X. But whether a cause produces the intended effect through immediate or mediate means, the fact remains that the agent who initiated the chain of events is responsible for the effect since He alone is responsible for causing it. Back to the robot…if I created a robot and programmed it to kill your dog, would you buy my defense that “I did not kill your dog. The robot did”? So then why do you expect for anyone else to buy your line that God causes people to do sinful things, but He is not responsible for it?
Rather than showing why my logical assessment of your position is mistaken, or showing how it is rational to conclude that one is not morally responsible for actions that they and they alone cause, you cite Scripture. I appreciate your attempt to affirm the Bible even if the message is unpopular or seems strange, but if your interpretation of the Bible results in a view that is incoherent, then that is good reason to revisit whether or not you have interpreted the Bible correctly. I think that approach is required by a high view of the Bible, and an orthodox view of God as the embodiment of truth.
Consider for a moment if it was you dialoguing with someone who held to a view that was logically incoherent, but when you point out the error in their thinking they continue to hold to that view because it is taught (or at least understood to be taught) in their particular holy book. What would you say to such a person? Would you not consider the person to be more committed to their religion or interpretation of their holy book than to an honest assessment of what is true? Let’s say they believe the universe created itself, but even after you point out that this cannot possibly be true because it would require the logically incoherent situation of the universe having to exist before it existed, they persisted in their belief citing their Scriptures as proof. Wouldn’t you think it is a dangerous place to be in when one would rather affirm nonsense than admit that (a) their holy book is wrong or (b) their interpretation of their holy book must be mistaken? And yet this is precisely what I see you doing. It is just as obvious to me that one can no more escape moral responsibility for actions they were wholly responsible for causing as it is that the universe cannot create itself. And I would hope it is just as obvious to you too. I think the incoherence of your view is so evident that it behooves you to reassess your interpretation of the Bible—which is quite different than reassessing the authority or truth of the Bible. You think that by continuing in your view you are affirming Scripture, but all you are really doing is affirming a particular interpretation of Scripture that is highly disputed by and rejected by most Christian theologians. It’s not as if the truth of the Scriptures or the Christian faith depends on your particular interpretation. And since the very minds that God has given us to assess truth claims makes it clear that your view cannot be true, and since the Bible is true, that leads me to believe that your view is not the teaching of Scripture.
So for me, the incoherent nature of saying God is the cause X without being responsible for X eliminates this as an interpretive option. Whatever the Bible has to say about divine sovereignty and human freedom, it cannot be understood to mean that God causes evil and humans lack free will because God’s truth cannot be incoherent, and theological determinism is incoherent. That does not rule out Calvinism as a way of understanding how salvation works, but it does rule out determinism as a way of understanding divine sovereignty. While man may not be free to choose the good, and while man may not be free to choose salvation, that does not mean man has no freedom whatsoever. Limited freedom (limited by our fallen nature) is not the same thing as no freedom. Which brings me to the next statement I wanted to comment on.
You said, “I believe that man has the power of choice, but that man’s choice will always be based on his desires.” And then you go on to show how man’s desires are based on his fallen nature. This is a valid point, but it does equate to theological determinism. One can hold to that point of view and yet admit that people still have choice. For example, while I will not choose the good because of my moral rebellion, I can choose which evils I will commit. I can choose which girl to sleep around with, and which drug to pump into my system. But what you are saying is more radical than this. You are saying that person X can only sleep around with girl Y (as opposed to girl Z) because God has determined that he desire to sleep around and that he desire to sleep with girl Y, and the man cannot choose otherwise (either for the good, or for an alternative evil). While the former view is coherent and consistent with moral accountability for man, the latter is not. You can’t say God gives someone the desire to do X, and that one must therefore do X and only X, and yet they are morally responsible for sin and God is not.
If God causes men to do all that they do, then how is that a choice on their part? You are redefining what choice means without saying so. On your view, humans have no choice, classically understood. They are just doing what they are being made to do by God (even if they think they are choosing to do so freely). I would suggest coming up with another word to describe what men do because choice doesn’t work. And this is made clear by the fact that you equally use the word of God, and yet your understanding of the nature of God’s choice and the nature of man’s choice is radically different. God can choose to do otherwise, but man cannot. To describe both by the word choice is confusing.
Let me end by saying that there is no question that God can use evil for His purposes, but that does not require that He cause the evil to begin with. God knows the evil that men will freely choose, and He is able to incorporate their evil acts into His larger plan.
God bless you.
Jason
LikeLike
February 3, 2012 at 12:02 pm
How’s it going Aaron?
Wow! I feel like I’ve made a friend! Again, I appreciate the conversation. Your responses are very thoughtful and I’m thankful for any wisdom I can glean from you.
Getting right into our discussion, you stated, ” I think one could argue that Adam’s disobedience could be seen as the greatest evil, since his action caused sin and death to enter into the world, whereby, through it, millions and perhaps billions of souls were and are going to be lost eternally in the lake of fire.” I do not agree for this reason. All things in heaven and earth, angels and men, are nothing in comparison with Christ. The infinite value of Christ is such that it leaves the value of billions, even trillions of souls as but dust on the other end of the balance. To grant that it was more evil for Adam to eat the forbidden fruit because it led to the damnation of maybe billions of souls is to give more value to the billions of souls than to Christ, in effect giving more glory to the billions of souls. And even if the evil done to Christ led to such a great good as the salvation of many, the life of Christ is still worth more than these. This is why His blood is effectual, His life of greater worth, and therefore, worthy to propitiate. It really does no good to say that Adam’s disobedience alone necessitates the cross. The cross was necessary to save man, but it was not necessary in the sense that God was obligated and had to send Christ to be crucified. It was because His life is of such infinite worth that He was able to be a ransom for the many, and this because of sheer grace, not necessity. This is why I do not believe this is an example of a chicken and egg argument. I’m not trying to be picky either, but I believe ascribing more worth, and therefore more glory to something other than Christ is pretty serious. I’m not saying you are doing this knowingly, but if you can show me how you’re not doing this in the way you are reasoning, perhaps I would understand you a little better. I admit I can be pretty slow to understand sometimes.
When you state,”I believe inspiration from God upon the heart can be turned away or rejected,” I agree that there is a sense in which this is true. In Acts 7:51, Stephen says, ” You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit.” Yet, the Scriptures teach that when God purposes to do something He fulfills it unwaveringly, “The LORD will fulfill his purpose for me; your steadfast love, O LORD, endures forever. Do not forsake the work of your hands.” Psalm 138:8. For instance, in the case of Lydia, the Lord did for her what she could not do for herself. Acts 16:14 says “The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.” The Lord mentions this because He wants us to know that behind Lydian’s faith, was the Lord opening her heart. When the Lord opened her heart, it necessarily led to her faith because God purposed it, otherwise He wouldn’t have told us “The Lord opened her heart.”
You also state, “We know that the grace of God has appeared to all men, …, with grace of course being that inward action upon the heart whereby God draws all men unto Himself.” In your view, what is the particular nature of that inward action upon the heart? Is it an influence of the Spirit distributed equally to all? If the influence of the Spirit is distributed equally upon all hearts, what was the reason you were saved, as opposed to someone else who maybe sat under the same preaching and other external influences. Was is it ultimately your righteousness (it is a righteous choice)? Was it ultimately your wisdom (it is a wise choice)? Was it ultimately your prudence (it is a prudent choice)? What was it? I don’t claim to know your view, so I’m just asking. If the influence of the Spirit was given equally to your heart and the heart of someone who did not believe under equal external influences, and you believe while they do not, isn’t it ultimately something good in you, that the other person was lacking, the reason you are saved? And if you made the choice for Christ under the same influence of the Spirit as the other person who didn’t believe, then it sounds like the ultimate reason rests in how each of you used your wills. But if it comes down to that, what difference did the equal influence of the Spirit make on your hearts? It sounds eerily like the influence of the Spirit makes no difference ultimately and there seems to be no need for grace. If God’s grace is taken away from the power of the will, what can it do? Surely not anything good apart from the grace of God. So it will not do what God or His grace wills. Why? Because God’s grace is taken away from it, and what the grace of God does not do is not good. So it follows that free will without God’s grace is not free at all, but a prisoner and slave of evil that cannot turn itself to good. Your thoughts would be a blessing.
About the discussion concerning the garden of Eden, when I say the Scriptures do not say that God sent the serpent, it’s simply because they don’t. I do think that since the serpent was there in the Garden, the implication is that God intended for him to be there. If something can happen without God intending for it to happen, then there is a possibility His promises may be thwarted. And He doesn’t determine for things to happen apart from the agents involved, He determines things happen in concurrence with their strongest inclinations. You state, “theological determinism indicates that God’s sovereignty forces Him to control all situations to such a degree that no one acts freely in any way.” I wouldn’t say that God’s sovereignty forces Him to control all situations to such a degree that no one acts freely in any way. There is mystery here and I’m happy to submit that. I realize I can’t answer all of your questions, but I do believe that God has created a world in which humans retain the power of choice (according to strongest inclination) while God goes out of His way to point out to us in Scripture that He is the ultimate determiner of things. This isn’t indicated by theological determinism, this is indicated by the Bible,
“I am the Lord, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.” Isaiah 45:6-7
“Who has spoken and it came to pass unless the Lord commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?” Lamentations 3:37-38
“See now that I, even I, am He and there is no god besides me, I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand” Deuteronomy 32:39.
“My counsel shall stand, I will accomplish all my purpose” Isaiah 46:10
“I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.” Isaiah 46:11
As for 1 John 4:1-2, we must look at the context in which the Lord speaks. In this context, “from God” speaks about “confessing that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” This means not every spirit is from God with a view toward salvation. But this must be balanced with a Scripture like I Samuel 16:14, which states “Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and a harmful spirit from the Lord tormented him.” In this context, the spirit from the Lord intends harm with a view toward judgement.
Next, you admit “Did Samson want a woman against the will of God? Yes. But the implications of saying more are a very slippery slope.” But you see, we are not the ones who say more, it is Scriptures themselves that say more, “it was of the Lord.” Now the Lord put that in there for a reason. He wants us to know He was behind it. If the Lord says it, I’m going down that slope. I leave the implications to God to work out after the counsel of His own will. I think it is fit that God should not give any account of some matters to us, worms of the dust, so that we may be sensible of our infinite distance from him, and adore and submit to him in humble reverence.
You said “Such a situation makes it impossible to obey God because at any moment he may turn our hearts to actually disobey Him for the express purpose of fulfilling His will, even though His will is for us to obey Him.” Like I said, I confess I can’t answer all your questions. But is your theology free from these charges if God simply permits things by “working with the heart of the king through external stimuli until God’s will was accomplished.” Doesn’t it make it equally “impossible to obey God” if He is always working through external stimuli to get His intended results while not “violating free-will”?
And finally, about, 1 Chronicles 21:1, I was merely quoting my translation, which says Satan. Obviously many translators believe Satan is a valid interpretation or so many translations would not say Satan. But even if we can’t be sure, that is one thing we can be sure of, that we can’t be sure who the adversary was, so we cannot just say it cannot mean satan, especially when satan is consistently referred to as (the) adversary as opposed to the few if any Scriptures that refer to God as adversary. You also say “The point being that it was God who was David’s adversary, as the parallel passage in 2 Samuel 24 shows. And why? Because God resists the proud. David’s heart was lifted up in pride.” But the Scriptures clearly state that he incited David to number Israel and Judah because “the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.” Then you say “This isn’t setting David up to fail, so much as it is God making a statement to David to help the king understand that David had already failed” but the Scriptures explicitly state that David’s faith failed because “the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. God is making a statement, by letting us know that He was behind this, He is letting us know that He is God and does as He pleases.
LikeLike
February 3, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Hi, James
I am also appreciating the interaction. I’m getting a lot of what your’re saying, while at the same time admitting that perhaps we are not reaching a consensus. Which is okay. Like you, I am happy to announce God’s ways are highly above ours and as Paul’s doxology indicates, “His ways [are] past finding out”.
As far as Adam’s sin and Christ’s crucifixion, I think I’m coming at this from a different angle. I don’t think I’m talking of worth, as if to indicate some quantity of souls is equal to or superior to the Lord. I’m only talking about the act, in and of itself. I admit separating the parties from the act is impossible, so my ramblings are more academic than meaningful.
With Lydia, suffice it so say I affirm that verse and often pray God would do the same for those who are lost, i.e. open their hearts. But we don’t know God’s method, or what He had to work with within her to do so.
As far as the operation of grace, I see it through the parable of the seeds and soil. When God’s Word finds good soil, it brings forth. As fas as I was concerned, when God’s call to repentance was upon me (and my heart) there was a moment where I had to decide, give in or fight. I yielded. So, it wasn’t anything but obedience, as it is written, “Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him” (Hebrews 5:9. Also see Acts 5:32). Some fight and do not obey.
So I did nothing but turn from my sin as Godly sorrow effected change within me. I became passive to God’s will and not my own and gave my life to the Lord. And so was fulfilled Revelation 22:17’s promise:
“…let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely”.
I was merely a lowly sinner, one of the “whosoever”. I accepted the gracious invitation of the Savior to join with Him in everlasting life. (If you want the long version, you can email me. I will share.)
LikeLike
February 8, 2012 at 12:53 pm
I was going to reply to the logic of James’ argument until I saw Jason’s Post 21.
I will only add another analogy. Imagine a man taking a starving hyena and putting it in a back yard where a little two-year-old girl is playing. The hyena naturally kills the girl and eats her. This man knows that in the future said child will kill a lot of good people, so he decides to eliminate her by using the hyena. So far, this parallels theological determinism (TD). The man has choice, but the hyena does not. The hyena acts according to its nature, and the man uses the nature of the hyena to fulfill his plan–to kill the little girl and save lives.
The man then proceeds to torture the hyena for killing the little girl. While the hyena is howling with pain, the man justifies it because the hyena committed an immoral act. Again this is in accordance with TD. God will punish the wicked. Why would God punish the wicked? Because they committed wicked acts that God caused them to commit. Makes sense? Of course not. Take your two-year-old daughter and make her slap you, then turn here over your knee and spank her because she’s not supposed to hit her daddy. Such is the irrational force of TD.
As Jason pointed out, TD employs equivocal terminology, especially with the word choice. Such an approach is rationally unintelligible which means it doesn’t even get off the ground in a logical sense.
Against this it is argued that Scripture takes precedence over logic, but even that assertion is unintelligible because one must use logic to make that statement. Using logic to deny the efficacy thereof is self-stultifying. One must use logic to explain Scripture, else all James need do is say his brand of determinism is true because peanut butter is peanut butter.
LikeLike
April 4, 2012 at 1:17 am
Is there such thing as a compatibilists Arminians? or Can a Calvinist believe in prevenient grace?
How would a compatibilist that does not believe salvation (at least in most cases) is a special miracle but rather all men are given prevenient grace through which the Holy Spirit influences men to seek God.
However but by nature the influence of the sin, flesh and Satan has a greater influence on man making him antagonistic towards the Holy Spirit and unwilling to obey God.
As God designed all things and set the parameters of mans will he knew exactly how it would behave under all circumstances.
With this knowledge he created the world in such a way that some men would experience certain combinations of life experiences that would make them more susceptible to the outward call of God.
He did this with the intention that at least a predetermined select number (if not all susceptible men) from this group will hear the outward call and respond to the word of God by surrendering to the influence of the Holy Spirit within. Is this just classic Calvinism or is it something else?
LikeLike
April 14, 2012 at 1:49 pm
If it weren’t for Romans chapter 9 there would be no theological determinists. Oh that someone would toss Paul out of the canon!
LikeLike
April 14, 2012 at 1:50 pm
From point #3 “How can we be held accountable for thoughts and actions that we never chose, but were chosen for us by God?”
Sounds like the questioner in Romans 9 who says “How then can God still find fault?” to whom that freak Paul responds “Who are you to answer against God?”
Paul is evil.
LikeLike
July 8, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Scalia Says: “I will only add another analogy. Imagine a man taking a starving hyena and putting it in a back yard where a little two-year-old girl is playing. The hyena naturally kills the girl and eats her. This man knows that in the future said child will kill a lot of good people, so he decides to eliminate her by using the hyena. So far, this parallels theological determinism (TD). The man has choice, but the hyena does not. The hyena acts according to its nature, and the man uses the nature of the hyena to fulfill his plan–to kill the little girl and save lives.”
This analogy breaks down in many ways…
In a TD world (or any predestined plan) there is no need for God to presume that this girl would “kill a lot of people”, because it would either be in his plan or it would not. For this girl to be a future killer, it would need to be in God’s plan. If God determined her to be a killer, there would be no reason for him to “intervene”. Why would God thwart his own plan? There is no reasonable purpose for this killing as described. Why would God believe her to be a killer if it was not in his plan? In a TD world, God does not “react” to possibilities.
If you are trying to illustrate that God can “use” our natural instincts to work out his plan, then this is an argument an Arminian would agree with. This is not a Calvinist argument. God does not have to temp or cause one to do a certain sin. This makes God indistinguishable from the Devil. God can work with evil acts (by nature) towards a good end.
The “nature” argument is not the issue. God can allow sin (obviously) and can work it out toward his purposes, but this in no way makes God the instigator of an evil act, or that evil has a purpose, but that God can bring good out of it.
Dane
LikeLike
July 16, 2013 at 2:47 pm
[…] my post on theological determinism at https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/against-theological-determinism-compatibilism/, as well comments 13 and […]
LikeLike
September 21, 2015 at 7:33 am
[…] In my estimation, this is not a very robust sense of freedom. Indeed, I would argue that it is not freedom at all. If desires cause actions, but the desires are determined by something other than the self, then the actions are determined as well, even if only in a secondary or intermediate sense. More could be said in the way of critique, but I have done so elsewhere. […]
LikeLike
June 16, 2017 at 4:20 pm
Actually it can be observed, that Calvinists themselves have a love-hate relationship with Theological Determinism. Even the ones who boast of putting absolute trust in God whether or not his pleasure is to throw their babies into the fire of Moloch. Even with all of this outward bluster and proud phylacteries, we still see them cherry picking determinism. They want to reserve the exclusive right of qualifying how, where, and what God predetermines. And qualify, how, where, and what God does not predetermine. The result is, they make Theological Determinism appear and disappear like a magician’s favorite rabbit trick. Of course, this is a form of altruistic dishonesty and self-contradiction. But then as has been the case, Calvinists historically have reserved the right to qualify self-contradictions as “apparent” contradictions. And so the business of making Theological Determinism appear and disappear at will, simply adds to the “illusion” factor in this belief system.
LikeLike
December 20, 2018 at 10:04 am
Jason
it should be pointed out, however, that not all Calvinists are theological determinists. Some will say that we have free will in all areas of life except for salvation.
br.d
Calvin himself would violently reject this and have a few pejorative names to call such Calvinists.
They would fall into the category of “confused” or “inconsistent” Calvinists.
The doctrine is very rigid – and stipulates *ALL* things (without exception) are determined by the THEOS at the foundation of the world.
Calvinist R. C. Sproul: “If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, God is not God”.
Calvinist Paul Helm: “Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each of these is under the direct control of God”.
That being said – Calvin was also highly aware of the problems listed above by Jerry Walls. And he also recognized the general narrative of scripture as IN-deterministic.
His answer to these problems was to teach: -quote “go about your office AS-IF nothing is determined in any part”.
In other words – believe [A] is TRUE – but go about your office AS-IF [A] is FALSE.
This is actually a natural response to determinism. And its called embracing double-mindedness.
It is also why Immanuel_Kant stated:
“Compatibilism is a wretched subterfuge with which some persons still let themselves be put off, and so think they have solved lives problems with petty word- jugglery.”
And William James stated:
“Compatibilism is a quagmire of evasion. The Compatibilists strategy relies upon stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism. They make a pretense of restoring the caged bird to liberty with one hand, while with the other they anxiously tie a string to its leg to make sure it can’t get beyond determinism’s grasp.”
LikeLike
March 5, 2019 at 12:04 pm
Whoa! I came across this old thread and found a post I had intended to reply to but had forgotten. I apologize in advance for my tardiness.
Dane writes:
True enough, but I think you’re missing the point of the analogy (more on that later).
Look at it from another angle. You’re walking through the forest and in said forest is a very hungry cougar. In accordance with his nature, said cougar will kill and eat you, but since it’s not God’s plan for the cougar to kill you, He prevents it from doing so. This isn’t reactive at all. God simply knows from eternity that your path will cross with a cougar’s (also His plan), but God wills from eternity that the cougar will not eat you, its nature to eat notwithstanding. This is similar to Daniel not being eaten by lions. God sent His angel to close the lions’ mouths, and they avoided Daniel all night.
No, that is not at all what I’m trying to illustrate. Please re-read my post. What sense does it make to torture the hyena for eating the little girl? The hyena merely did what it was made to do. So, if God made the hyena to eat the little girl, why torture said hyena everlastingly for doing exactly what God made him to do?
Under TD, God deliberately caused mankind to be sinful, elected a tiny minority of them to be saved, and will torture the remainder forever for doing exactly what God made them to do. That’s the point I was making. Sorry, but I find it odd that you missed it.
LikeLike
March 5, 2019 at 12:16 pm
@Dane
Moreover, I also think you’re mischaracterizing the man in the analogy. It’s NOT the man’s will for the little girl to kill people, so he simply prevents it. You say this is incompatible with TD, but how so? Christ said that some people would have repented had they seen the miracles the Jews were witnessing. He knew what they would have done, but that wasn’t His will. He knew Herod would seek to kill Him (from eternity) but also willed to warn Joseph about it. These scriptural examples are indistinct from the analogy I offer.
LikeLike
March 8, 2019 at 4:56 am
I’m afraid we will find with Theological Determinists today – the same psychology noted by them when they were called “Stoics”. They were and are today conflicted and double-minded.
It’s a religion that ends up believing *ALL* things are determined by the THEOS *AS-IF* they aren’t. Here double-think is noted as the human mind’s solution for the unpalatable aspects of a THEOS determining *ALL* things.
The Theological Determinist creates a compartment in his mind in which for evil events – Nature is the determiner – and the THEOS magically disappears from the picture.
This is essentially punting to Natural Determinism. But the mind is able to accomplish the equivocation so subtly that its able to camouflage its own temporary denial of the THEOS as the determiner.
As Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, Stephen Hawkins all agree – every determinist is forced to live *AS-IF* determinism is false in order to maintain a sense of normalcy.
LikeLike