Calvinistic Compatibilism: A Discussion of Divine Causation, Human Freedom and Moral Responsibility

Below is an excerpt addressing the subject of divine causation and compatibilism. This has been adapted from a series of responses I recently shared with some non-Calvinist Christians who have taken an incompatibilist position (i.e. their belief is that God's pre-determination of everything is incompatible with human freedom of choice and moral responsibility). I argue here for the opposite view, that God's sovereign pre-determination of everything is perfectly compatible with human freedom of choice and moral responsibility for our actions. This is excerpted from an ongoing conversation in the comments at the following blog post:
http://atheologyintension.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/2376/

Dear Non-Calvinist friends:

You present an interesting argument. The main thrust seems to be that Reformed theology makes God the author of evil, and in so doing removes man's freedom and moral responsibility. This objection is not new; it has been a common challenge faced by Calvinistic thinkers for centuries. I believe the argument is flawed, and I will explain why in detail. First, here is a summary:

1. The argument fails to distinguish between hyper Calvinism and mainstream Calvinism
2. The argument is based on a faulty understanding of mainstream Calvinism, which affirms compatibilism rather than mere determinism.
3. The argument is based on a faulty understanding of compatibilism, which affirms human freedom and responsibility in addition to determinism.
4. The argument groundlessly assumes compatibilism is impossible and self-contradictory.
5. The argument is based rationalism rather than a sound, Biblical epistemology (theory of knowledge)
6. The argument gives undue credit to the human mind's ability to peer into the unrevealed. 
7. The Argument fails to present a Biblically and logically sound alternative to the Reformed approach, which it rejects based on multiple misunderstandings.

Historically, Calvinists have taken a variety of positions, from a VERY SOFT compatibilism to a VERY HARD determinism. You have quoted from several examples of this diversity. A.W. Pink (depending on the day of the week), Vincent Cheung and Gordon Clark are in the line of the more hyper brand of Calvinists, who are most likely to espouse the hardest form of determinism without apology. You extol this as being somehow more “consistent.” Others like Piper, Packer and Frame are more likely to express a compatibilism that affirms human freedom as a mystery within (and even upheld by) divine ordination. I have read Calvin’s discussion of free will in the Institutes; he is a textbook compatibilist, at least in that part of his writings.

So I think it is a bit unfair for you to say Calvinistic ordination always “collapses into causal determinism” and then disparage the softening statements of compatibilism offered by the more moderate voices in the group. This would be akin to me saying that an Arminian view of free will collapses into Pelagianism (or perhaps Open Theism), while ignoring the Classical Arminian’s affirmation of Total Depravity (which strongly inhibits – or rather, kills –  libertarian freedom), and Prevenient Grace (which ackowledges the deadness and – gratefully – affirms our need for divine grace). I prefer to view the more moderate/mainstream Calvinists’ softening statements as evidence of a commitment to Biblical balance, preventing them from falling into the philosophical trap of hard determinism (the kind hypers veritably revel in). I do not see the softening statements as logical contradictions, but an attempt to be consistent with Scripture, grounded in the humility that confesses God’s ways are superior to our highest intellect.

I cannot see how God can be God without ordaining all things. I find this inconceivable simply because it is contrary to His Word:

• Proverbs 16:9 The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.
• Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.
• Proverbs 20:24 A man’s steps are from the LORD; how then can man understand his way?
• Isaiah 46:8-11 “Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.”
• Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will …

At the same time I cannot see man’s God-given freedom as less than a genuine, morally responsible and unconstrained liberty. Here I am just agreeing with Calvin and other compatibilists. We insist that God can ordain everything without denying his creatures real freedom. We cannot turn from either of these conscientiously held convictions.

Photo borrowed from
www.tominthebox.net

One of the great difficulties in this discussion is the fact that you and I are speaking two very different philosophical languages. We embrace opposing assumptions and presuppositions (although I would guess we fundamentally agree that Scripture is inerrant and Christ alone saves, by grace alone through faith alone to the glory of God alone).

Your arguments presuppose that freedom of will is incompatible with God's pre-determinate counsel. If I agreed with this presupposition, I would find your arguments unassailable. However, do you have any way to prove that this really is the case? Do you have a Biblical argument to prove this?

My presupposition is that God's all-determining will, eternal decree, and continuous providential action are not at all incompatible with creaturely freedom of will. I see God's decree clearly taught in Scripture, so I cannot take that away without a total change of heart in terms of the exegesis. On the other hand, I live in a world in which I experience every moment the liberty of my choices. Uncoerced, unconstrained, and apparently including the ability to choose otherwise than I do. But alas, which am I to believe? God's Holy Word or my undeniable experience?

But there is more. Another aspect of my experience has been my absolute and unquenchable rebellion. Only God's sovereign grace could ever have changed my heart and altered my course. And yet by His grace I did not find myself constrained or forced to believe. I chose freely; yet I could (and would) only choose to believe in Christ by sovereign, irresistible grace.

Then again, God's Word commands me to choose and holds me responsible for the choices I make. It nevertheless says I can have no good thing (faith and repentance included) unless God grants it to me by His mercy.

So now I have God's Word on both sides, and my experience on both sides. What can I do but hold on to both of them? I can't explain how God sovereignly ordains all things and yet keeps me free to choose in ways that render me morally responsible, unconstrained, voluntarily motivated, and apparently not without other options.

So I find myself embracing compatibilism, the belief that there can be a pre-determination of everything by an incomprehensible God without any diminishment of natural human freedom and responsibility. A million "rational" arguments against it won't change my understanding of God's Word or my experiences.

To be clear, when I say a million “rational” arguments won’t convince me otherwise, I am referring to arguments that are purely based on human logic, and thus appear to be “rational,” yet do not take Biblical revelation into sufficient account. I would like to think that all of my Arminian brothers will agree heartily with me on this point.

We are getting down to the root issue here. If I understand your position correctly, you fundamentally disagree with the premise of Christian compatibilism (i.e., that God’s pre-determination of everything is compatible with [and not contradictory to] genuine human freedom), and you do not even think it remotely possible that it could be true.

That last part presents a very strong claim of assurance in the way divine sovereignty and human choices can relate to one another. You are not simply saying they DO NOT relate a compatibilistic way; you seem to be making the claim that they CAN NOT relate this way. The alternative would seem to be a view of divine sovereignty that does not involve pre-determination of everything. I wonder how you distinguish between those events that are pre-determined and those that aren’t? Or is nothing at all pre-determined by God?

Don't fall for "Teeter Totter" theology!

To me, these matters are a great mystery. I view God's sovereign decree and my freedom as much more complex than a mere philosophical "seesaw," which would entail that any gain on one side necessarily results in a corresponding loss on the other. I conceive of my freedom as existing within and being upheld by His all-determining sovereignty.

I find it fascinating that any thinking person would not consider the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human choices to be a mystery. In saying this, I should be careful to define my terms. By “mystery,” I mean an item or area of knowledge which God has not revealed to us explicitly through some means (e.g., the Bible, creation, etc.).

I should also reiterate my definition of “compatibilism,” as mentioned above. It is simply the belief that divine pre-determination of everything does not conflict with genuine human freedom of choice. Jonathan Edwards affirmed this, but also went much further by actually proposing a theory of how it all works. I am not doing that (at least not right now). Although I admire Edwards’ attempt, I don’t view the results as something “revealed by God,” and thus I cannot claim the matter is no longer mysterious to me simply because someone has come up with what they think is a great explanation. Someone else may come up with a better one. Even so, until God reveals this, it remains an area of uncertainty for compatibilistic Christians who regard the Bible as their highest epistemological authority.

So I don't see how compatibilism can ever "collapse" into mere determinism. It involves determinism, yes, certainly. But if you define determinism in a way that automatically rules out the possibility of genuine freedom, I can only say that my compatibilism does not involve that kind of determinism. I would actually join you in arguing against any determinism that rules out human freedom and responsibility. I would equally oppose any version of human freedom that rules out determinism. I refuse to close off these categories as if they are mutually exclusive, since there does not appear to be any compelling reason to do so from a Biblical, philosophical or experiential standpoint.

Do you think it is remotely possible that predestination and freedom are not mutually exclusive?

I am honestly amazed that anyone can have so strong an assurance in ruling out the mere possibility (that God could possibly establish His sovereignty and our choices in a compatibilistic way) that they would even cast accusations of “irrationalism” at those who do affirm it.

By the way, I have never argued that it is virtuous to accept things that don’t make sense. My clearly stated position is that it is sensible for Christians to accept all the teaching of the Scriptures – the whole counsel of God – even if they find some aspects hard to understand or explain.

However, I would challenge anyone to Biblically and logically demonstrate that it is impossible for God to use compatibilism in His administration of the universe. In essence, can you show me how the concept of God’s pre-determination of everything and the concept of human freedom, when taken together, result in a genuine contradiction?

I am not asking whether these concepts strike you as contradictory, if they feel contradictory, if they appear to be contradictory, etc. (or even if you find the idea to be dangerous from a practical standpoint). I am only asking for Biblical and logical proof that they ARE contradictory.

The person who tries to do this faces a very significant problem: GOD is included in the equation! We are discussing a partly unrevealed relationship of metaphysical concepts which involves God’s management of His creation, the relationships of time and eternity, God and humanity (not to mention angels/demons and other entities we may not even know about), choice and freedom, responsibility and volition, etc.

My contention is that the best Biblical and logical sense we can make of the situation (taking all of the Biblical data and our own experiences into account) is to affirm that God mysteriously works (and remember, by “mysterious” I mean something He hasn’t explicitly revealed to us) in such a way that human freedom exists in harmony with divine pre-determination.

I also believe that one can make a much stronger Biblical argument for compatibilism than for incompatibilism. But that is part of the reason I am a compatibilist.

As an addendum, I share many of your concerns regarding the potential ill effects of an imbalanced Calvinism. Much of this can be characterized as hyper Calvinism (I sometimes refer to “high[per] Calvinism,” meaning anyone, whether “high” or “hyper” in his views, who over-emphasizes certain logical implications at the expense of other matters clearly revealed in Scripture). I am not saying all High Calvinists are hyper or imbalanced; but imbalanced Calvinists are almost always High or hyper in their theology.

This is part of the reason I have embraced Moderate Calvinism, and devoted myself to deterring and opposing any form of Calvinism which:

• denies or downplays human responsibility
• calls God the author or direct cause of evil
• uses God’s sovereignty as an excuse for sin
• hinders evangelism/missions on the basis of election or other theological considerations
• leads to apathy in service and devotion
• elevates human logic above the revealed will of God

To be honest, I would rather serve alongside a consecrated, moderate, and fair-minded Arminian who is growing in godliness than a cold high(per) Calvinist who is complacent and arrogant. 

In my view, Calvinism “done right” will actually result in the opposite effects, and to a greater extent than any non-Calvinist philosophy will. That is my conviction, and part of the reason I am a Moderate/Paradoxical Calvinist.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful comments and interactions.

Is Grace Resistible? Sure it is!

The following quotation was found in a recent post on a popular Arminian blog. It is by James Arminius, the founder of Arminianism, and purports to put the whole controversy between Calvinists and Arminians into perspective by getting down to the root issue:

The representations of grace that the scriptures contain, are such as describe it capable of “being resisted,” (Acts 7:51) and “received in vain” (2 Cor 6:1), and that it is possible for man to avoid yielding his assent to it and refuse all cooperation with it (Heb 12:15, Matt 23:37, Luke 7:30).  While, on the contrary, this [Calvinist] Predestination affirms that grace is a certain irresistible force and operation.

************

In this manner, I ascribe to grace the commencement, the continuance and the consummation of all good.  To such an extent do I carry its influence that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will, or do any good at all, nor resist any evil temptation , without this preventing [i.e. preceding] and exciting, this following and co-operating grace.

From this statement it will clearly appear, that I by no means do injustice to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man’s free will.  For the whole controversy reduces itself to the solution of this question, “Is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?’  That is, the controversy does not relate to those actions or operations which may be ascribed to grace (for I acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions or operations as any man ever did), but it relates solely to the mode of operation, whether it be irresistible or not.  With respect to which, I believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered. (From Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will and the Nature of God, ed. John Wagner, pp. 45, 69)

Resistance is Futile.

If I was an Arminian I would avoid presenting this quotation, for it only proves that Arminius did not understand the teachings of Calvinism on this subject. We do not teach, "Grace is Irresistible," and just leave the statement there as if it was an absolute fact in all cases. On the contrary, we teach that "Grace is Irresistible when it Works to Effect the Salvation of the Elect." We name this working of grace the Effectual Call because it consists in both the outward and inward call of the Gospel, which, working in combination, bring us out of our blind rebellion and into genuine faith. We call it "saving grace" simply because its effect is to save. Grace is extended and offered to the non-elect as well, but it does not result in salvation. Thus it is not called "saving grace" and it is not irresistible. The person effectively (and voluntarily) resists this grace that could have saved him, had he not resisted. Arminius thoroughly misreads the Calvinist's view.

Scripture is clear regarding the fact that grace is resisted by unbelievers:

Jonah 2:8 Those who pay regard to vain idols forsake their hope of steadfast love.
Isaiah 26:10 If favor is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals corruptly and does not see the majesty of the LORD.

Calvinists actually affirm, with these and other statements of Scripture, that grace is resisted continually by the non-elect--and by the elect themselves prior to their conversion. This is mankind's default mode under Adam. The obvious question is: what could ever be so powerful as to turn a person from this self-destructive course? Well . . . nothing but the irresistible saving grace of a Sovereign God!

It has been said that the real divide between Calvinists and Arminians lies in this question: Whose will is ultimately decisive in salvation: my will, or God's? Both wills are clearly involved; but which one is ultimately decisive? Those who say "God's will" are monergists of one sort or another; those Christians who say "my will" are synergists of some kind (and badly mistaken, I might add). Calvinists are among those who joyously declare, "God's will was ultimately decisive! He chose to save me when, otherwise, I would only have resisted Him forever." And they thank Him for turning their stubborn hearts, granting repentance, bestowing faith in Christ, and bringing them from death to life.

They know it was not their will, but His mercy, that accomplished their salvation. They know because they remember how utterly lost they were when they themselves resisted that mercy.

Here is a song by Sovereign Grace Music that sums it all up very well:



10/13/13 Addendum 
An Arminian commenter has insisted that Arminius actually did understand the Calvinistic teaching on Irresistible Grace, and has asked that I amend my post to reflect this. So noted. I may have misread Arminius (which seems easy to do, since his writings are not as clear as, say, Calvin's, or even Wesley's). In any case, I believe Arminius is now in heaven with the Lord, so he certainly understands the whole truth today, including Irresistible Grace, and likely thanks God for it on a regular basis. Perhaps he is even singing the song in the video above right at this moment!

Elect or Non?

Recently, a friend was struggling with assurance and the concept of divine election. He looked at me and said, "How do I know if I am one of the elect? How do I know I am not among the non-elect?"

I replied, "The answer to that question is simple. What do you want? Anyone can be lost if they want to be. The rest are elect."

It is a disarmingly straightforward truth: lost people are lost because they want to be lost. Saved people are saved because God has given them the will to know Him. Damnation is according to our own choice; salvation is according to His. 

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 19 - ESV Study Bible on Acts 13:48

The ESV Study Bible's note on Acts 13:48 says it perfectly:

Throughout Acts, Luke affirms the sovereignty of God over all of life while at the same time affirming the significance of human activity, as evidenced by the remarkable human effort and sacrifice involved in proclaiming the gospel. Thus Luke, without contradiction, maintains a dual emphasis on divine election ("appointed") and on human response ("believed") ... The emphasis here in 13:48 is on the way in which divine sovereignty (appointment) results in the belief of the Gentiles, demonstrating that their belief was due to God's grace alone.

That's good stuff. THEOparadox approved!

Big Shoes, Small Minds (or "Sovereignty and Freedom in Perspective")

So ... I believe that God, who created the world and everything else that exists, exercises absolute, meticulous and exhaustive sovereignty over all events, including every thought, word and deed of mankind, through His definite predestination and continual providence. I also happen to believe that human beings make real, significant, voluntary and uncoerced choices for which they are morally responsible in a just economy.


This is not "hard" determinism or "soft" determinism, but FREE DETERMINISM.

Does this compatibilistic belief in FREE DETERMINISM strike you, upon reflection, as contradictory, irrational or illogical? Then I suggest you read the fifth word in the first sentence again. In case you have forgotten, we are speaking about GOD. My friend, have you come to to terms with the fact that the self-existent, eternal God created the world and everything else from exactly nothing? If you think it is impossible for Him to give His creatures genuine freedom without relinquishing His meticulous sovereignty, you may have never imagined a God big enough to wear His own shoes. You may be trying to fit Him into a small space that can't hold Him. That small space is the sum of what you consider logically conceivable. If God must fit into this space, then your mind's capacity, rather than His omnipotent ability, has become the measure of Truth. Yet Truth was there before your mind came into being; and Truth contains your mind within it, not the other way around.

While our minds can hold the knowledge of His greatness, they cannot hold His greatness. This is an important fact to remember when we feel we must tell God what He can and can't do. Indeed, you may not happen to believe that God employs FREE DETERMINISM in His administration of the universe. But if you don't think it is possible for Him to do so, it is possible that you may not actually believe in the Biblical God at all.

And if you go to the Bible with an open heart to find out how God actually administers His universe, you will find FREE DETERMINISM is the only real possibility.

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 15 - Brad Bigney

I've Got Questions about Election and Predestination . . .

That was the title of pastor Brad Bigney's recent message about the paradox of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. His remarks are insightful and balanced, emphasizing the greatness of our God and the meagerness of our capacity as fallen creatures. For this humble and God-honoring approach, he gets a THEOparadox t-shirt!

Click Here to Listen (MP3)

A few sobering quotes from the message . . .

"You're never going to escape a measure of mystery in the Bible."

"The issue really boils down to: how comfortable are you with a measure of mystery in all that we know about God and what He's doing - including as it relates to salvation?"

"Your human logic will never be fully satisfied."

"There's no way we're going to be able to fully understand the whole scope of God's work."

"When mystery is kept alive humility will characterize you."

You might also like this one about divine incomprehensibility, it is super!

Your God is Wise and Loving yet Unsearchable (MP3)

For 18 pages of faith-building sermons like these - approximately 360 messages - visit this link:

http://www.graceky.org/index.php?c=sermons

It's the single most reliable sermon resource I know of. The style and content are along the lines of John Piper, C.J. Mahaney/Sovereign Grace Ministries, Paul Washer, and Paul Tripp. Messages here are usually topical, but LOADED heavily with insightful Biblical content and great theology. There is a strong emphasis on application, with plenty of encouragement and exhortation. Messages are available in multiple audio formats, and there are downloadable PDF outlines, too.

John Piper on the Paradox of God's Sovereignty and Human Choice

I enjoyed John Piper's recent blog post about "Real Choice, Divine Sway, and the Way Paul Lived."

If I hadn't already given him a THEOparadox t-shirt, I'd give him one now. Well, okay, I'll just give him another one . . .

Here's a quote from Piper's post . . .

"One of the most influential passages in the Bible that God used to open my mind to his sovereignty over my will is Philippians 2:12-13.

Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

So my working and willing are necessary. They are real. But they are not first or ultimately decisive. God’s willing and working is decisively under and in my willing and working. The word “for” is crucial. I work because he is working in me. I will, because he is willing in me."

The final sentence says it all . . .

"So abandon any anti-Bible intellectual baggage you have inherited from planet earth, and recalibrate your brain to embrace the paradoxes of real human choice and decisive divine sway."

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 6 - C.J. Mahaney

This time it's C.J. Mahaney of Sovereign Grace Ministries who wins the T-shirt (actually, I gave him an "iron on" version). What follows is an excerpt from his extremely helpful little booklet entitled, Sovereign Grace and the Glorious Mystery of Election (Click here for a free PDF download of the book).

Like many others, C.J. offers a perfect example of the THEOparadox concept: God is great, we're not, God knows the secret things, we don't, so trust Him.

C.J. has had a major impact on me - not just theologically, but practically. He emphasizes a Gospel-centered life, serving others, receiving observations and criticisms from those around us, persistently fighting against indwelling sin, and exalting Christ above all. These happen to be the areas where I have needed the most help (based on the observations of those around me), so C.J.'s ministry was literally a God-send.

Here's the excerpt:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out of Our Depth
Election, of course, is a doctrine issuing from the deep end of the theological pool. As soon as we encounter it, we must all acknowledge that we are in way over our heads. This is a place of mystery, a place that spawns a hundred questions, all of them variations on a single question: “How do I reconcile divine sovereignty with human responsibility?” On the topic of theological mystery, I find this quote from J. Rodman Williams most helpful:

“Because all Christian doctrines relate to God who is ultimately beyond our comprehension, there will inevitably be some element of mystery, or transcendence, that cannot be reduced to human understanding. Nonetheless, within these limits the theological effort must be carried on.”

Indeed, God has announced the following non-negotiable arrangement: “The secret things belong to the Lord and the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deut 29:29). As one who loves secrets, my pride does not respond well to such a declaration. So, partly as an aid to my humility, God has allowed me to live near Washington, DC. Here, among the members of the church I am privileged to serve, are a number of people who must be rather secretive about the details of their government-related jobs. Sometimes, when talking with one or another of them, my pride and self-importance rises up, and I begin to crave a little insider access. Why don’t they share some cool stuff with me? Can’t they trust me? Can’t they make an exception for their pastor? To their credit, they never satisfy my prideful craving. Usually they don’t even admit they know any secrets. I can behave the same way with God. I implore him to explain some theological mystery, arrogantly assuming that my brain would not be microwaved by exposure to such divine illumination. But in his goodness, wisdom, and mercy, he doesn’t tell me any secrets, either.
How comfortable are you with the secret things of God?…with the difficult to understand?…the paradox?…the apparent contradiction? Are you at peace in the deep end of the pool?

In Scripture, God has asserted both divine sovereignty and human responsibility, without seeking to harmonize them completely. But they are certainly harmonized in his infinite wisdom, and that should be enough for us. John Calvin offers wise counsel on this matter:

The subject of predestination, which in itself is attended by considerable difficulty, is rendered very perplexed, and hence perilous, by human curiosity, which cannot be restrained from wandering into forbidden paths…Those secrets of his will which he has seen fit to manifest, are revealed in his Word—revealed in so far as he knew to be conducive to our interest and welfare.…Let it, therefore, be our first principle that to desire any other knowledge of predestination than that which is expounded by the Word of God, is no less infatuated than to walk where there is no path, or to seek light in darkness.…The best rule of sobriety is, not only in learning to follow wherever God leads, but also when he makes an end of teaching to cease wishing to be wise.

I believe that Christian maturity includes an increasing comfort with divine mystery and a growing trust in God, so that we can say with David, “O Lord, my heart is not lifted up; my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great or too marvelous for me” (Ps 131:1). As one grows in Christ, there won’t be less mystery. But there ought to be more humility, that we may be more at rest in the presence of divine mystery. May it be great enough and marvelous enough for us to know that the doctrine of election is sound and reliable, representing the clear teaching of Scripture.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Piper on Free Will and Antinomy

A link to a short video of John Piper is at the end of this post. But before watching it, let's explore the background a little bit.

3 things are at work here:

1. Awhile back, J.I. Packer wrote a chapter in a book called, "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God." It offered a very fine and well-reasoned defense of the paradox of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. However, Packer did something unusual that significantly altered the conversation. He chose to use the word "antinomy" rather than the word "paradox." As a result, the two words have become nearly synonymous in the modern Evangelical mind. Their close cousin is the term, "mystery." Antinomy properly means laws that genuinely contradict one another, while paradox designates seemingly contradictory truths. I think Packer was trying to rescue the truth of Biblical paradox from its misuse in Dialectical theology, and so he opted for a different word. Piper follows suit. As for me, I still like the word "paradox," as long as it is defined and applied properly.

2. John Piper has a high enough view of God that he is forced to admit to an element of mystery. He is also humble enough to admit some things are beyond his grasp. All the while, he wisely and carefully distinguishes between that which is clearly revealed and what is actually mysterious.

3. The author of a website called "Truth Matters" occasionally posts material related to Biblical paradoxes (or antinomies, or mysteries, or whatever you want to call them), which is part of the reason Truth Matters is on my list of recommended sites. The other reason is that the site aggregates many challenging, God-centered messages and articles from around the web.

Watching this video reminded me of the reason I awarded John Piper a THEOparadox T-shirt. But it also made me wonder if I should have written "THEOantinomy" on the shirt, instead.

What Piper says here is also a very good argument for what is commonly referred to as the "free offer of the Gospel." That is, the notion that God commands us to preach the Good News to everyone, not only those we happen to believe are elect. But that's a subject for another series of posts.

Click here for the video from TRUTH MATTERS.

Hardened Hearts and Human Choices - Part 2

As promised, here is part two. I've probably bitten off more than I can chew, but I'll try to offer a few edifying thoughts on the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. This is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject by any means, just a little excursion into the wonder of God's grace and mercy toward sinners, with Pharaoh as an illustration. Let's take a brief look at Romans 9:6-24 ...

The Question at Hand

In Romans 9, Paul begins a lengthy discussion concerning the salvation of God's elect nation, Israel. He has just written eight chapters decisively showing that Jesus Christ is God's one and only remedy for man's sin. Yet the leaders of Israel rejected that remedy. Doesn't this mean that God's promises to Israel failed to come true? Paul will show in many ways over the next three chapters that this is not the case, beginning with the statement, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants . . .” (Romans 9:6-7)

The Matter of Choosing

Paul shows that in Israel's history the chosen were divided from the unchosen according to God's sovereign choice (Romans 9:7-13):

Isaac and Ishmael were both sons of Abraham – but only Isaac was heir to the promises
Jacob and Esau were the twin sons of Isaac – but only Jacob was chosen to carry on the Jewish line

Significantly, in both examples the younger son was chosen, not the older. This reversal of tradition emphasizes God's sovereignty, since no one can say it was the “natural” choice that was made. It was SUPERnatural choice.

This picture has some bearing on the discussion, but don't take it the wrong way. Arminians would say that God chose first and now it is up to us. But Scripture teaches us that mankind universally chooses sin, that no one seeks God on his own, so it is GOD ALONE who can save us. Jesus Christ is the AUTHOR and the FINISHER of our faith.

In the passage we are examining (or is it examining us?), divine sovereignty is shown in the following phrases:

v. 5 “Christ ... who is over all”
v. 11 “So that God's purpose according to His choice would stand ... because of Him who calls”
v. 16 “So then, it does not depend on the man ... but on God ...”
v. 20 God is referred to as “the molder” and man as “the thing molded”
v. 21 God is referred to as “the potter” who has “a right over the clay ...”
v. 23 vessels of mercy are “prepared beforehand for glory”

These verses proclaim that God is completely sovereign over His creatures, and therefore He can choose to do as He sees fit with them.

The Issue of Justice

At this point, Paul preempts the logical leap of the fallen human mind, which immediately accuses God of injustice by asking, “If God is that powerful, why does He choose one over the other, and not choose BOTH?” In our sinful way of thinking, we believe that if we were God, we would choose both. We THINK we are smarter than God.

Paul proposes a different question and offers a decisive reply: “What shall we say, then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!” The reason for the final outcome – some saved, some lost – cannot be injustice on the part of God. So it must be rooted in something else.

The main theme of the book of Romans is the justice of God (or “righteousness” of God – it's the same word in Greek). This justice is demonstrated in the Gospel, through the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross, where God poured the wrath we deserve down upon on His own Son, Who lovingly offered Himself as our substitute. Thus, God's justice was fulfilled and we were saved by grace. We aren't getting what we deserve – Jesus got our punishment. Instead, we have received GRACE. The the righteousness of God has been vindicated in Christ, and sinners can be saved (see Romans 3:21f). But is God's sovereign choice of some and not others unjust? If it is, this will undo all that Paul has said in the first eight chapters. How can a God who goes to such great lengths to prove His justice be involved in an inherently unjust transaction? Paul has proven God's justice in saving sinners, now he must demonstrate the justice of God in His sovereign work of election. To accomplish this, Paul calls Pharaoh as a key witness.

For He (God) says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then, it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then, He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. (Romans 9:15-18)

Notice Paul's theme in this paragraph: MERCY. With these words, the entire discussion is turned from a question of perceived injustice, in which some are not getting the chance they deserve, to a question of MERCY, in which we are receiving a salvation we most assuredly do NOT deserve.

This Wonderful Thing Called Mercy

Charles R. Erdman explains:

“The sovereignty of God is absolute; yet it is never exercised in condemning men who ought to be saved, but rather it has resulted in the salvation of men who deserved to be lost.” (Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 1925, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, pg. 109)

You and I have no place at all to call for justice for ourselves or to cry out for what we deserve. As sinners, the justice we deserve is death and hell. Early in the book of Romans, Paul lists a catalog of traits including “full of envy ... gossips ... arrogant, boastful ... disobedient to parents ... untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful,” and then he declares “... those who practice such things are worthy of death ...” (Romans 1:29-32). That is the sentence passed by God in Eden, when He said, “you will surely die.” The sentence remains upon all of Adam's children. Each one of us is guilty enough to go into the fiery hell (Matthew 5:22). We have exercised a stubborn self-will in turning against God, disobeying His commands, discounting His advice, and going a way we believe is better than His way. Isaiah calls it “our own way ... the iniquity of us all.”

God's judgment against sinners is just. It is what we deserve, and since by our own choice we have rebelled against Him, it is in some sense giving us the very thing we WANT. Heaven would likely be far less comfortable than hell for an unredeemed soul who has rejected the grace of God. Hell itself may be one final mercy by which God spares sinners from having to suffer even more torment by dwelling IN HIS IMMEDIATE PRESENCE FOR ETERNITY. Instead, they go into the place prepared for the punishment of evil spirits, to outer darkness. No unrepentant sinner wants to live perpetually in the magnificent light of God's holy presence, in the shadow of an omnipotent being they do not trust. To the lost, hell would most likely be preferable to heaven (at least initially).

Mercy is not a matter of fairness, or justice, or deserving. If deserved, it would not be mercy. If merely just, it would not be amazing. If fair, no one could ever be saved. Mercy is undeserved kindness shown to depraved wretches who are headed headlong for hell.

In His mercy, God does not allow all of fallen humanity to perish. He sovereignly selects those who will be saved, and this is His absolute right as Creator. “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy.” In doing this, He leaves the lost to their choice and the justice they deserve. The saved are brought to a point of choosing Him, and often they do not realize until much later that they were first chosen by Him. This is pure irony: God chooses us, therefore we choose Him, but we cannot know He chooses us until after we have chosen Him.

A Hint of Explanation

In view of this undeserved mercy, no one can accuse God of injustice in election. But the relentless logic of the human mind jumps to another question: if God is absolutely sovereign and exercises His right to choose some while allowing others to perish, how can He condemn those He does not save? (Romans 9:19)

Paul has already called us to an exalted view of God. Now he calls us to a less exalted view of ourselves, answering once again with a question: WHO ARE YOU? Who are YOU to “talk back” to God, to answer your Creator to His face, as if you were His equal? (Romans 9:20). Paul is going to address the question that has been asked, but only after our pride has been confronted and our attitude adjusted. He skillfully combines the explanation with a brilliant rebuke and question wrapped together. What good is it be to be full of knowledge about the ways of God if that knowledge inflates our pride?

Another question follows: WHAT IF? What if God is showing His great patience in the way He deals with man's depravity? What if He is doing this in order to magnify the glory of His saving work on behalf of the elect? The question is designed to be humbling, to stop us in our tracks and get us thinking in a new direction. It gently and purposefully leads us to think about a possibility we may never have considered. The previous verses have shocked our man-centered sensibilities, but now we get a bit of the divine rationale to ponder and digest - now that we have been firmly reminded of our creaturely status.

By leaving the lost in their condition, God makes grace shine brighter and clearer on the redeemed. In Exodus, Pharaoh's hardened heart led to Israel's first Passover celebration, and mercy was wondrously revealed to the Hebrew people. In our day, a believer looks around and wonders, “Why me? Why did God save me and not leave me as I was? There are so many still in their sins, but I, a mocker and rebel, have been saved by His grace.” The gratitude and joy flowing from this realization can be overwhelming at times. It is not a pride or arrogance of being among the “elect” – rather it is a profound appreciation for the mercies God has rained down on a being who is utterly undeserving.

The lost are “prepared” for destruction. A.T. Robertson notes, “Paul does not say here that God did it or that they did it.” (Word Pictures In The New Testament, note on Romans 9:22). According to Robertson, the Greek word means “to equip” and refers to a “state of readiness.”Some would argue that God actively works against the lost, bringing them to reprobation, but that is unlike God and also unnecessary. The lost are already on the path to destruction, and God is actually delaying it for a time. Sin is inherently self-destructive. The lost are, through their rebellious choice, in a state of readiness to be destroyed. God's response is to “endure with much patience” rather than making His power known by swift, active judgment. This is further evidence of His mercy.

The saved are “prepared beforehand” for glory. A completely different word is used here than in the case of the lost, and God is clearly the active agent. Only He can prepare us BEFOREHAND. Although we have “fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), He has planned our restoration and He is working to bring it to pass. Blessed be His name! This is far more amazing than the fact that God allows some sinners to go their way and remain hardened against Him.

I will go no further. After considering just this first part of Paul's discourse, it is no wonder that the apostle of grace is overflowing with praise by the end of chapter 11. “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!” (Romans 11:33) His ways are unfathomable because they are laden with paradoxes too mysterious for human minds to fully grasp. In Paul's rather sharp mind, this was a good reason to worship the One Whose wisdom and knowledge vastly exceed our own. And a compelling motivation for humble service to his own people, Jews by birth, and also to Gentile "sinners" whom God has called out for faith in and obedience to His Son. All according to His great mercy!

Soli Deo Gloria – to God alone be glory!

Notes

A few great books helped me with this post, most notably "Romans Verse By Verse" by William R. Newell and "Handbook On The Pentateuch" by Victor P. Hamilton. "IVP New Dictionary of Theology" also offered some helpful insight. In addition, my discussions with Tony Hayling at agonizomai concerning election and reprobation played a role.

Hardened Hearts and Human Choices - Part 1

This post is a response to the issues raised here (see comments). My friend Jawara has made some great points in his comment, and I hope I can build on the sound Biblical thinking he has articulated.

Many have struggled with the account of Pharaoh's hardened heart, and especially with Paul's explanation of the phenomenon in Romans 9. Jawara has mentioned that some interpretations of this seem to imply double predestination (i.e., God specifically elected or predestined Pharaoh for destruction just as He elects and predestines believers for salvation), and some imply that God is the author of evil. In this first part, I'm going to examine these questions dealing only with the historical account found in Exodus. In part 2, the scope will be expanded to include Romans 9 and other relevant passages.

First, let's look at what Pharaoh was like BEFORE his heart was hardened. He was a rebel, a God-hater, a proud and selfish king ruling over an ancient empire. He was a cruel tormentor of the Jewish people and a worshiper of false gods. So, whatever God did in hardening Pharaoh's heart did not MAKE him a lost sinner. He was a lost sinner already, of his own choice and nature. God simply "strengthened" his heart in this condition because it suited God's purposes to do so. In no way did God violate Pharaoh's freedom of choice.

Second, let's talk about WHO hardened Pharaoh's heart. There are 20 references to the hardening of Pharaoh's heart in the Exodus narrative. In 10 cases, God is the one who hardens Pharaoh's heart (although 2 of these are God stating prior to the showdown with Pharaoh that He intends to harden his heart). On 6 occasions, the condition of Pharaoh's heart is described without any indication of WHO did the hardening (e.g., “Pharaoh's heart was hardened.”). 4 times Pharaoh hardens his own heart.

When the confrontation between Moses and the Egyptian king begins, there is no indication that God directly hardened Pharaoh's heart until late in the game, the first instance being in Ex. 9:12. By this time Pharaoh has already hardened his own heart two times (Ex. 8:15, 8:32). So, both God and Pharaoh are given credit for the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. It was evidently a cooperative effort, not something God imposed upon Pharaoh against his will.

Three different Hebrew words are used to describe the hardening of Pharaoh's heart:

1. Kabed - to be heavy*

2. Hazaq - to be strong, hard (“perhaps our closest English equivalent is 'bullheaded'”)

3. Qasha – to be hard, difficult, severe*

When Pharaoh hardens his own heart, Kabed is used three times, Qasha once, and Hazaq never. When God hardens Pharaoh's heart, Hazaq is used 7 times, Kabed twice, and Qasha once. The implications of this are worth pondering, but I won't offer any theories here. Suffice it to say that Pharaoh's heart was hardened by both his own choice and by God's intervention.

I have not mentioned the verb tenses, but there are instructive details in them for those who have the time and resources to do a deeper study.

There is also an interesting play on words in Ex. 14:4 and 14:17 -- Pharaoh's heart is hardened (Kabed), but God is going to be honored (Kabed) from this! Kabed is the usual Old Testament word for “glory, honor” as well as “heaviness.” Someone like John Piper or Jonathan Edwards could write an entire series of books on this.

Third, let's look at HOW Pharaoh's heart was hardened. Pharaoh's heart was hardened as he saw the display of God's mercy toward Israel and rejected that mercy for himself and his people. Consider this insight from Rex Andrews**

"Two things were to happen. Exodus 6:7, "Ye shall KNOW that I am the Lord your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians." Israel should know the Lord, as Redeemer, by His mercy. And, Exodus 7:5, "The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them." The same circumstances were to issue in knowing the Lord. Israel to know Him as redeemer and deliverer. Egypt to know Him in His power to judge them and to break their power over Israel. Israel to RECEIVE the delivering mercy and to prosper; Egypt to RESIST the delivering mercy and be overthrown. The same Lord, and the same mercy. Two different reactions to Him and to it. Two opposite effects produced and results established: I will have compassion on Israel and do him mercy. I will harden Pharaoh's heart and destroy his power over Israel. Yet only ONE mercy. And, as we shall see, it was offered to both." (What the Bible Teaches About Mercy, Zion, IL: Zion Faith Homes, 1985, Page 40)

Pharaoh's choice to harden his heart was God's opportunity to display His glory. This was God's sovereign work, but Pharaoh was still responsible and culpable for his decisions. God offers His own (authoritative) interpretation of these events in Exodus 9:15-17,

“For if by now I had put forth my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, you would then have been cut off from the earth. But, indeed, for this reason I have allowed you to remain, in order to show you My power and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth. Still you exalt yourself against My people by not letting them go.”

To paraphrase: “I've allowed you to remain when I could have ended your life already. I'm going to use your stubbornness to accomplish something great, but you're the one responsible for your sin.”

So, God extended and strengthened Pharaoh's chosen disposition in order to accomplish His own purpose. Pharaoh could justly have been destroyed at any time during the process, but God patiently bore with him until the appointed time. Although Pharaoh could choose to resist God, he could not do so on his own terms. In His own way and in His own time, God would use Pharaoh's sinful decision to reveal His glory.

“The Lord causes Pharaoh's heart to become hard (lit. “difficult”), not by implanting evil in it, but by giving it over to its evil direction without restraint. . . . God's judgment on Pharaoh issued in mercy to Israel, Egypt, and the nations as they saw His power to save.” (The Reformation Study Bible, Note on Ex. 7:3)

Fourth, let's glory in God's great mercy toward us! Why did God redeem Israel? Mercy. Why did He choose, and call, and purchase, and rescue, and forgive, and save us? MERCY.

Surely we have all been guilty of hardening our hearts against the Holy One. We have disobeyed, exalted ourselves, chosen our own way, accused God of injustice, persecuted His people, made light of His judgments and rejected His kindness times without number. Every one of us is as liable to judgment as Pharaoh was, and it is only by God's mercy that we do not share his final end.

The nation of Israel was no more deserving of God's mercy than Pharaoh. They questioned God's motives, challenged His representatives, and scarcely escaped from Egypt before complaining about it. Most of those who crossed the Red Sea with Moses died in the wilderness over the course of 40 years' wandering – cursed because of their unbelief. And yet God graciously met their needs, fed and clothed them, and remained with them until the day of their death. Then He took their children into the Promised Land with victory, in spite of the fact that this generation also sinned in various ways during the campaign in Canaan. Faithful mercies.

The plagues that brought judgment on Egypt were a mercy to Israel. God revealed His power to SAVE His people by defeating their oppressors. His mercy was shown to the Hebrews as they were preserved and protected during the course of the 10 plagues. This display of mercy reached its culmination in the Passover, an event which painted a vivid picture of the Gospel – and it continues to speak even to this day. Fathomless mercies.

Had Pharaoh relented, the Passover would not have been necessary. Israel would have departed from Egypt without passing through the blood-stained door posts and partaking of the sacrificed lamb, which are illustrations of Christ's work on the cross. And there is no greater revelation of mercy than that found in the cross. Supreme mercy.

So, Pharaoh's seemingly insane resistance to God, resulting from his hardened heart, led to a wondrous display of amazing grace that reaches even to us!

Finally, let's marvel at the awe-inspiring sovereignty of God over all things. In Moses' day, there was no man more sovereign than Pharaoh. A word from this king could move armies, end lives, build cities, oppress peoples, and free slaves. His authority was absolute and his decrees were binding. Yet Pharaoh was no match for God.

God had Pharaoh under complete control, even while He allowed him the freedom to make his own choices. Pharaoh's worst choice could not possibly thwart a single purpose of God. All creatures exercise their wills within the bounds of God's overarching plan. Sovereignty means "God limits, orders and controls all things for His glory and our good." That limiting, ordering and controlling includes you, me . . . and Pharaoh.

I know your mind is probably protesting this because mine is protesting as well. But we are touching the fringe of a deep mystery. Walther Eichrodt insightfully points out the Old Testament's dual affirmation of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility:

“The fundamental postulate of moral freedom is thus found in equal force alongside the religious conviction of God's effective action in all things; and no attempt is made to create a harmonizing adjustment between them. It is testimony to the compelling power of the Old testament experience of God that it was able to affirm both realities at once, and to endure the tension between them, without discounting anything of their unconditional validity.” (Theology of the Old Testament, 2 vols., translated by J. Baker, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967, pp. 178-179)

Does your experience with God have this “compelling power” that is “able to affirm both realities at once?” If you've got God wrapped up tight in a theological hat box, you may have missed the point. Knowledge about God is not a hat to be worn. It is more like a fog-shrouded mountain city to be explored and wondered at with new discoveries and new applications and new mercies every day. The Word is our flashlight and also our map. It leads us to find God in His city. But like Moses, we can only see His back as He passes by and declares His Name: “The LORD, the LORD GOD, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in mercy and truth . . .” (Ex. 34:6). Our response should be the same as that of Moses, who “made haste to bow low toward the earth and worship.” (Ex. 34:8) If you're wearing your theology like a little crown, bear in mind that you're bound to bump into the REAL King and get humbled before long. Seek humility now!

The account of Pharaoh's hardened heart boldly reflects the paradox. It warns us to be wary of making choices that God might use for His own purposes in a way that would lead to our justly deserved destruction. It also calls us to lay hold of His offered mercies, seeing that He is fully able to deliver those who are His. Thus, belief in a sovereign God does not make our choices insignificant and meaningless. On the contrary, such belief makes our choices more weighty than they would or could otherwise be. Yet they are kept firmly within the bounds of His choice.

Have we solved the mystery? No, we have only examined it and stated it in Biblical terms. We are not called to solve these mysteries, but rather to adore the One who CAN solve them, and to affirm the truth He reveals: that His choices are sovereign, and ours are merely significant.

Conclusion

By asserting that the hardening was initiated by Pharaoh's own choice, we can remove any possible implication that God was the author of Pharaoh's sin. And by the same assertion, we can do away with the unbalanced idea of double predestination. At the same time, we are able to place strong emphasis on God's sovereignty without removing human responsibility. And since the mercy shown to Israel is according to God's choice, not their deserving or merit, the doctrine of election is preserved to the glory of His grace. In this way we have done no damage to the Scriptures or our faith. Rather we have upheld both.

There's more to say about this, but it will have to wait for part 2.

Soli Deo Gloria – to God alone be glory!

NOTES
*I am indebted to Victor P Hamilton's Handbook On The Pentateuch for an excellent discussion of the Hebrew words and a scholarly treatment of the entire subject. Refer to pages 167-174 of this book for deeper study.
**What The Bible Teaches About Mercy, by Rex B. Andrews, is a devotional study which traces the theme of God's mercy through the entire Bible. Andrews devotes an entire chapter to the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. Although the chapter does not directly address the tension between God's sovereignty and human choice, it is nonetheless an illuminating and provoking study. Andrews was a Pentecostal minister at the Zion Faith Homes in Zion, Illinois. Among those he influenced was Leonard Ravenhill, who is said to have consulted him for advice on many occasions. Andrews' teaching on divine mercy ripped my legalistic mindset to shreds and helped to build the bridge that eventually led me from Pentecostalism to Reformed theology. I recommend What The Bible Teaches About Mercy to everyone, based not on the theological background of its author, but on the foundational concept it presents. It is packed with useful exegesis that will directly challenge the heart and draw the soul to Christ, regardless of one's doctrinal persuasion.