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.

St. Bernard (of Clairvaux) Bites the Fins Off of Free Willy

I've been on vacation this week and have finally had time to continue reading through Calvin's Institutes. The section on Total Depravity and the bondage of the will is spectacular. Calvin seems to revel in paradoxes in the Second Book, Chapter Two, Part 5, where he approvingly quotes a passage from St. Bernard of Clairvaux:

Bernard, assenting to Augustine, thus writes: "Among animals, man alone is free, and yet sin intervening, he suffers a kind of violence, but a violence proceeding from his will, not from nature, so that it does not even deprive him of innate liberty," (Bernard, Sermo. super Cantica, 81.) For that which is voluntary is also free. A little after he adds, "Thus, by some means strange and wicked, the will itself, being deteriorated by sin, makes a necessity; but so that the necessity, in as much as it is voluntary, cannot excuse the will, and the will, in as much as it is enticed, cannot exclude the necessity." For this necessity is in a manner voluntary. He afterwards says that "we are under a yoke, but no other yoke than that of voluntary servitude; therefore, in respect of servitude, we are miserable, and in respect of will, inexcusable; because the will, when it was free, made itself the slave of sin." At length he concludes, "Thus the soul, in some strange and evil way, is held under this kind of voluntary, yet sadly free necessity, both bond and free; bond in respect of necessity, free in respect of will: and what is still more strange, and still more miserable, it is guilty because free, and enslaved because guilty, and therefore enslaved because free." My readers hence perceive that the doctrine which I deliver is not new, but the doctrine which of old Augustine delivered with the consent of all the godly, and which was afterwards shut up in the cloisters of monks for almost a thousand years. (bolding and underlining added)

There you have it, folks. Calvin (not to mention Bernard and Augustine) is clearly a friend of the paradoxical, and plainly agrees that the will is both "free" and "bound"--though certainly in different senses. That's THEOparadox approved.

Calvin emphasizes two key distinctions:
1. The will of fallen man is bound by sin, but not in such a way that he acts involuntarily. Though he does not have "free will," he is free enough to act voluntarily.
2. Fallen man sins of necessity (he cannot keep himself from sinning), but he does not sin by compulsion (i.e., nothing outside of himself "forces" him to sin). His motivation for sinning lies within himself, thus he is fully responsible.

This section of the Institutes is, of course, merely a subpoint and summary of the larger argument, and is designed to show that Calvin's position has firm historical precedent. Reading through Calvin's thoughts on the subject of human freedom, it is clear that his primary and overarching concern is exactly that of Augustine: to affirm absolutely and unequivocally that every good thing is from God alone, and all evil is only from the creature. It is this driving axiom that leads both to conclude that man cannot of his own "free will" choose what is pleasing to God, and that he cannot even of his own "free will" think right thoughts about the subject. The basic principle, that all good is from God alone, seems to me to be so obvious and foundational in Christian theology that one wonders how any believer can think of challenging it. What value can there possibly be in saying that the good choice of embracing the Gospel somehow originates within the sinner himself? As the saying goes, "you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip."

Surely man's rejection of the Gospel comes from himself. But let all the glory for everything good remain with the only One who is worthy of it.

GOD'S FREE AND SINCERE OFFER: Calvin on Isaiah 65:1-6

2. I have stretched out my hands. He accuses the Jews, and complains of their ingratitude and rebellion; and in this manner he proves that there is no reason why they should say that the Lord does them wrong if he bestow his grace on others. The Jews conducted themselves proudly and insolently toward God, as if they had been elected through their own merit. On account of their ingratitude and insolence the Lord rejects them as unworthy, and complains that to no purpose did he "stretch out his hands" to draw and bring them back to him.
 
By "the stretching out of the hands" he means the daily invitation. There are various ways in which the Lord "stretches out his hands to us;" for he draws us to him, either effectually or by the word. In this passage it must relate chiefly to the word. The Lord never speaks to us without at the same time "stretching out his hand" to join us to himself, or without causing us to feel, on the other hand, that he is near to us. He even embraces us, and shews the anxiety of a father, so that, if we do not comply with his invitation, it must be owing entirely to our own fault. The heinousness of the guilt is greatly aggravated by long continuance, that, during a long succession of ages, God did not cease to send one Prophet after another, and even, as he says elsewhere, to rise early in the morning and continue the same care till the evening. (Jer 7:13, 11:7, 35:14).
 
To a rebellious people. First, he calls them "rebellious" or disobedient, but immediately afterwards he declares what is the nature of that rebellion, namely, that the people walk after their own thoughts. Nothing is more displeasing to God than for men to be αὐθάδης "self-willed," (2 Pe 2:10); that is, devoted to their own inclinations; for he commands us to surrender our own judgment, that we may be capable of receiving the true doctrine. The Lord therefore testifies that it was not owing to him that he did not retain and continue to exercise towards them his wonted favor, but that they alienated themselves through their own madness, because they chose to abide by their own natural inclinations rather than to follow God as their leader.
 
Having pointed out the cause of this rejection, we must come to the calling of the Gentiles, who succeeded in the room of the Jews; for that is undoubtedly the subject treated in the first verse. The Lord had long ago foretold it by Moses, so that they ought not to have thought that there was anything new in this prediction.

"They have provoked me by that which is not God; they have moved me to anger by their vanities; and I also will provoke them by that which is not a people, by a foolish nation I will enrage them." (De 32:21).

Finally, the Prophet now threatens the same thing which was afterwards foretold by Christ when that blinding was at hand.

"The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation which shall bring forth fruit." (Mt 21:43).

1. To them that asked not. {1} When he says that God manifested himself "to them that asked not," he shews that the Gentiles were anticipated by the grace of God, and that they brought no merit or excellence as an inducement to God to give it to them. This obviously agrees with that passage which we quoted, in which Moses calls them "a foolish nation." (De 32:21). Thus, under a universal type, he describes what is the nature of men before the Lord anticipates them by his mercy; for they neither call on the Lord, nor seek him, nor think about him. And this passage ought to be carefully observed, in order to establish the certainty of our calling, which may be said to be the key that opens to us the kingdom of heaven; for by means of it peace and repose are given to our consciences, which would always be in doubt and uncertainty if they did not rest on such testimonies. We see, therefore, that it did not happen accidentally or suddenly that we were called by God and reckoned to be his people; for it had been predicted long before in many passages. From this passage Paul earnestly contends for the calling of the Gentiles, and says that Isaiah boldly exclaims and affirms that the Gentiles have been called by God, because he spoke more clearly and loudly than the circumstances of his own time required. Here we see, therefore, that we were called by an eternal purpose of God long before the event happened.
 
Behold I, behold I. By repeating these words twice, he confirms still more the declaration that God hath manifested himself in so friendly a manner to foreign and heathen nations, that they do not doubt that he dwells in the midst of them. And, indeed, that sudden change needed to be confirmed, because it was difficult to be believed; although by that very novelty the Prophet intended to magnify the unexpected grace of God. The meaning may be thus summed up: "When the Lord shall have offered himself to the Gentiles, and they shall have been joined to the holy family of Abraham, there will be some Church in the world, after the Jews have been driven out." Now we see that all that is here predicted by the Prophet was fulfilled by the Gospel, by which the Lord actually offered and manifested himself to foreign nations. Whenever, therefore, this voice of the Gospel is sounded in our ears, or when we record the word of the Lord, let us know that the Lord is present, and offers himself, that we may know him familiarly, and may call on him boldly and with assured confidence.
 
[Underlining and bolding added]
______________________________________________________________
 
NOTES:
  
Calvin incorporates Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, and the Effectual Call throughout these comments. He places affirmations of those doctrines alongside affirmations of the Gospel Offer, God's love for the reprobate, and His desire to save them. He does not view these truths as contradictory, but places them side by side. Why are so many of today's Calvinists unwilling to do the same?
 
Note how explicitly and emphatically Calvin speaks of God's sincere, desirous offer and invitation. Even when God's call is general and not effectual, Calvin says God's desire is "to join us to himself." Context shows the "us" here is fallen humanity, not just the elect. He even goes so far as to say God "embraces" the ones who reject Him. Calvin clearly believed that God calls the reprobate, loves the reprobate, and desires to save the reprobate (while at the same time not choosing to save them).
 
Calvin reasons that nothing on God's part prevents the reprobate from returning to Him. All the fault lies with the one who rejects God's call. The fact that God did not "decree" or foreordain their repentance in the secret counsel of His will is a separate issue. Calvin has no problem saying "they chose" to abandon God, while at the same time exhorting his readers not to follow their example.

Calvin on the Sufficiency of Scripture

"But let us know, as faith can be grounded nowhere else than in the Word of the Lord, so we must only stand to the testimony thereof in all controversies."

-from Calvin's Commentary on Acts 17:2

A Hymn by Calvin

I greet Thee, who my sure Redeemer art,

My only Trust and Saviour of my heart,

Who pain didst undergo for my poor sake;

I pray Thee from our hearts all cares to take.

Thou art the King of mercy and of grace,

Reigning omnipotent in every place:

So come, O King, and our whole being sway;

Shine on us with the light of Thy pure day.

Thou art the life, by which alone we live,

And all our substance and our strength receive;

Sustain us by Thy faith and by Thy power,

And give us strength in every trying hour.

Thou hast the true and perfect gentleness,
No harshness hast Thou and no bitterness:

O grant to us the grace we find in Thee,

That we may dwell in perfect unity.

Our hope is in no other save in Thee;

Our faith is built upon Thy promise free;

Lord, give us peace, and make us calm and sure,

That in Thy strength we evermore endure.

- by John Calvin, 1545; translated by Elizabeth L. Smith, 1868, alt.

This hymn reinforces my suspicion that the mere sovereignty of God may not be the preeminent feature of Calvin's theology. I wonder if his soteriology, at least, was driven more by a firm faith in God's absolute saving strength and goodness?


Here is the original version, nicely sung and played by Zachary Harris.





And a contemporary version by Brian Moss.

Three Good Reads in Reformed Theology

I've been enjoying these and finding them very beneficial.

#1 The first "good read" is this group of extended quotations from some leading theologians regarding the secret and revealed will of God. This is direct source material, so you can get it from the proverbial horse's mouth. I like this bit from Calvin:

"In fine, give up all fondness for your puerile dilemma, for the Scriptures assure me of the secret will of God; asserting what I have learned from them I do speak of an ascertained truth; but because I do not reach so great a height, I reverently adore with fear and trembling what is too sublime for the angels themselves. Often therefore in my writings I admonish my readers, that on this subject nothing is better than a learned ignorance; for those rave like madmen who arrogate to know more about it than is fit."

And this one from Jonathan Edwards caught my attention:

"... all that own the being of a God own that he knows all things beforehand. Now, it is self-evident, that if he knows all things beforehand, he either doth approve of them, or he doth not approve of them; that is, he either is willing they should be, or he is not willing they should be. But to will that they should be, is to decree them."

Apparently Edwards never met an open theist! God alone knows if Edwards will ever meet one in the future (think about it).

_____________________________________________________________

#2 A second "good read" is Paul Manata's Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Reformed Theology - A Contemporary Introduction. Lots of deep philosophical stuff here. Manata has a gift, and I am grateful that he uses it to advance good theology! He argues that Reformed Theology is, by definition, both deterministic and compatibilistic, and decidedly unaffirming of libertarian free will. It's all worth reading and considering, and well documented, too.

_____________________________________________________________

#3  The third "good read" is David Ponter's response to James Anderson's attempt to reconcile the Free Offer of the Gospel with a provisionally Limited Atonement using Newcomb's Paradox (see here and here). It's a deeply complicated argument, but worth thinking about. To me, this is a little bit like Gandalf vs. Saruman (I won't say which one is which). Although James Anderson is a personal hero for expounding so brilliantly on theological paradox, in this case I concur with Ponter (also a personal hero for expounding brilliantly on historic Moderate Calvinism) in his closing remarks:

"Anderson wants to argue that if a moderate Calvinist insists that limited atonement precludes a sincere offer, he must accept that election likewise precludes a sincere offer, for the same reasons. However, a proper rebuttal rejects the assumed univocal relationship between limited atonement and election in relation to the sincere offer, such that one can counter that limited atonement is incompatible with the free offer, while election is not. The only avenue Anderson can have, as I see it, is to attempt to claim that we should see election as equally incompatible with a sincere offer (given our assumptions?). But on what grounds could he suggest that? and does he really want to argue that in the first place? Perhaps Anderson might say both election and limited atonement bare a paradoxical relationship to the sincere offer. My reply would be limited atonement and the sincere free offer entail a contradiction (you cannot offer what you are not able to give), while election and the free offer entail a paradox (one offers, by revealed will, what one does not intend to give, by secret will). We would say we are warranted in rejecting the contradiction, while retaining the paradox. Anderson could only claim that one can indeed sincerely offer what one is not able to give."

The issues in these three "good reads" are tied together, and each of them has bearing on both hyper Calvinism and Arminianism (mind you, I'm not saying any of the people mentioned in this post are hyper Calvinists - far from it - only that the issues covered have direct bearing on refuting that error). To be balanced, I believe we must hold to the paradox of God's revealed and secret wills which are united perfectly in the glorious mystery of His eternal wisdom; we must hold to the paradox of compatibilism so that man is responsible for his actions under the total sovereignty of God; and we must hold to the Free Offer of the Gospel backed up by an infinitely powerful atonement, which, paradoxically, is not intended to save all people. Thank God it saves some!

Bavinck on the Limits of Theology and Philosophy

The will of God is, and from the nature of the case must be, the deepest cause of the entire world and of all the varietas and diversitas found in it. There is no more ultimate ground for this than the absconditum Dei consilium (the hidden counsel of God). The unfathomable mystery of the world compels the intellect and the heart, theology and philosophy alike to fall back upon the will of God and seek rest in it.


It frequently happens, however, that theology and philosophy are not contented with this. They then endeavor, after the manner of Plato and Hegel, to offer a rational explanation of the world. Or, while falling back upon the will of God, they make out of this will a Βυθός άγνωστος (deep unknown), as is done by Gnosticism, or a blind, irrational and unhappy will, as is done by Schopenhauer, or an unconscious and unknowable power, as is done by von Hartmann and Spencer. By his Christian faith Calvin was kept from these different forms of pantheism. It is true, Calvin upholds with the utmost energy the sovereignty of the divine will over and against all human reasoning. Predestination belongs to the divinae sapientiae adyta (shrine of the divine wisdom) which man may not enter and in regard to which his curiosity must remain unsatisfied; for they form a labyrinth from which no one can find the exit. Man may not even investigate with impunity the things God meant to keep secret. God wants us to adore, not to comprehend, the majesty of His wisdom.

Excerpted from Herman Bavinck's article, "Calvin and Common Grace"
Source: The Princeton Theological Review, Vol. 7, No. 3 (1909), p. 450, the parenthetical translations of Latin and Greek terms are mine.

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 16

Pastor Richard Ostella of Westminster Reformed Church in Plymouth, Michigan has graciously granted permission to re-publish his March 2009 ETS paper on theological paradox here at THEOparadox. To understand these thoughts in context, please begin with part 1.

Conclusion 

 Therefore, theological paradox is not only legitimate, but it is also helpful in calling us to a most humble use of logic in subordination to Scripture. It does so by giving conscious priority to faithful handling of Scripture above logical consistency. Then we can follow Calvin’s pastoral encouragement to stop inquiry where the Holy Spirit closes His holy lips.47 At that point, the reasoning self rests, we rest, on Christ the solid Rock; and there we bow in worship and praise.    

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

47 “When God stops speaking, we end our quest. Scripture is the school of the Holy Spirit, in which, as nothing is omitted that is both necessary and useful to know, so nothing is taught but what is expedient to know. Therefore we must guard against depriving believers of anything disclosed ….in Scripture, lest we seem either wickedly to defraud them of the blessing of their God or to accuse and scoff at the Holy Spirit for having published what it is in any way profitable to suppress. Let us, I say, permit the Christian man to open his mind and ears to every utterance of God directed to him, provided it be with such restraint that when the Lord closes his holy lips, he also shall at once close the way to inquiry”(Institutes, 3.21.3). 

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ALL POSTS IN THIS SERIES

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 14

Pastor Richard Ostella of Westminster Reformed Church in Plymouth, Michigan has graciously granted permission to re-publish his March 2009 ETS paper on theological paradox here at THEOparadox. To understand these thoughts in context, please begin with part 1.

3) The model promotes humility in biblical study 

 It is a reasonable attempt to do justice to the connection between the secret things [that] belong to the LORD and the things that are revealed [that] belong to us and to our children (Deut. 29.29). For example, that Jesus is both fully God and fully man while remaining one person is clearly revealed. How these facts fit together is in many ways beyond our grasp as secret things. Likewise, the moral inability and full responsibility of fallen man are clearly revealed facts and the inference from responsibility to the denial of inability is a stab in the darkness of divine secrecy.  

In the words of Calvin, we do “not investigate what the Lord had left hidden in secret” and “we should not neglect what he has brought into the open, so that we may not be convicted of excessive curiosity on the one hand, or of excessive ingratitude on the other.”39  Therefore, 

within a Christian philosophy regarding critical thinking,40 we may appropriately refer to 

accepting theological paradox as the most humble use of logic.41

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

39 Institutes 3.21.4. 

40 By a “philosophy of logic,” we are referring to the wise principles necessary in the use of logic. Thus, to say Christians need a philosophy of logic is to say that even the pursuit of wisdom must have a godly foundation. We need wisdom to strive for wisdom. Bottom line: a philosophy of logic means that true knowledge begins with the fear of God and knowledge of His will. Five components show how the fear of God and knowledge of His will give us the foundation for wisdom in a philosophy of logic: logical skill, contextual sensitivity, open-minded humility, presuppositional awareness, and the acceptance of paradox (picture a pie with five slices that represent the basic elements in a Christian philosophy of logic). If any of these components are lacking in our reasoning then to that degree we are unwise, which means we are to that degree ungodly. To be a critical thinker is a matter of godliness. For explanation of these components and for a fuller picture of how paradox fits into a philosophy of logic see “A Christian Philosophy of Logic,” by R. Ostella, JBA, Spring 2008.  

41 Noting the fact of biblical paradox aids presuppositional awareness that is essential in humble self-criticism by which we look at and evaluate the theological bifocals by which we see. Like bifocals presuppositional glasses determine how we see things, but we can tilt our heads and at times see that with which we see. Awareness of our presuppositions is a way for us to bow our heads and, though difficult to do, go through the door to self-critical thinking. Of course, it is important that we engage biblical context with this awareness in order to do our best to examine our beliefs by Scripture knowing that some of our beliefs color how we read every text. Furthermore, self-criticism is something that we must undertake by prayer and meditation because we tend to wear masks when we look into the mirror of Scripture. As Augustine put it, we tend to put ourselves behind our backs; in our context, this means that we tend to put our cherished, even if false, presuppositions behind our backs so we cannot see them for what they are in the light of Scripture. False presuppositions are like demons: they only come out by prayer and fasting! Switching analogies, we can say that we must be concerned with every relevant thread that intersects the piece of fabric at any given time; otherwise, our work of interpretation will come apart at the seams. Paradoxical truths are threads of truth that are clearly and tightly woven together in the fabric of Scripture even though how they can co-exist in the same fabric may be difficult or even impossible to grasp. 


PART 15 - Click Here

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 11

Pastor Richard Ostella of Westminster Reformed Church in Plymouth, Michigan has graciously granted permission to re-publish his March 2009 ETS paper on theological paradox here at THEOparadox. To understand these thoughts in context, please begin with part 1.

6) Free will doctrine misconstrues the rich biblical notion of freedom 

 Fallen man does not have free will because the ability to do evil is not a component of freedom. The part of the definition that is true (the ability to sin) has nothing to do with being a free person. Consider the following examples.  

 In the garden, Adam’s ability to do evil was not part of his freedom. Instead, it revealed the incompleteness and mutability of his freedom. As the WCF states: “Man, in his state of 

innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to 

God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it” (IX, 2).  

 For Christians who can live righteously but who may also sin, is their ability to sin central to their new found freedom in Christ? No, it shows that they have freedom now partially and not yet fully. Their ability to sin is not evidence that they are free. Instead, it is evidence that their freedom is incomplete. What demonstrates their freedom? What shows that they are free persons is their ability to do good from the heart, even though it has to grow. 

 Furthermore, saints in heaven do not have the ability to sin (i.e. they do not have free will) and this does not alter their personhood, praiseworthiness, or responsibility. Being free from sin completely is the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Rom. 8.21). The free person is the person who is able to do good deeds; he is free for “slavery” to righteousness (Rom. 6.18, set free from sin, [you] have become slaves of righteousness). To be ultimately and supremely free is to be delivered from the ability to sin. Accordingly, heaven is a place where free persons enjoy a glorious God-like freedom.33

   

 Notably, God is a free person without the ability to do evil (so, He does not have “free will”). What makes Him free is His ability to act with perfect holiness. Surely, God is praiseworthy for His holy actions even though He cannot lie. Thus, the idea of free will as the ability to choose between good and evil confuses the biblical teaching about freedom.34

  

 Therefore, fallen man does not have free will; he does not have the ability to do a single good thing such as submitting to Christ in faith (Jn. 6.44; Rom. 8.7), but he is fully responsible.  

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

33 The old Star Trek TV shows spoofed this point more than once. They would present a world of perfect peace and harmony where everyone performs only good actions. But this state of affairs is rejected by Captain Kirk because man has no free will. For Kirk, if personal beings are not able to choose good or evil, then it is not utopia. He must be able to choose evil but not do so for it to be utopia. We should note that this is a wholesale attack on heaven. It is a denial that heaven as described in the Bible is a good thing. It denies that heaven is utopia. Why do I say this? Because there are all kinds of personal beings in heaven who cannot choose to do evil and that is part of what makes it heaven.  To whom do I refer? They are the saints, angels, and God!  What kind of heaven would it be if we thought that there could be another host of fallen angels? What kind of heaven would it be if the saints, rescued from sin for eternal life, could fall again like Adam and Eve? Would you even think of it as heaven, if God were capable of sinning?  The elect angels can only choose to do good. The saints in heaven can only choose to do good. God can only choose to do good. The epitome of free will, that is, of the free person with the capacity of will, is the immutable ability to choose only to do good.  

34 Perhaps, we would be better off if we stopped using the confusing words “free will.” Calvin refers to “free will” as “a proud name” for “a slight thing” that is all too commonly used in an erroneous sense and should therefore be avoided (Institutes, 2.2.8; cf. Calvin's "Refutation of the Objections Commonly Put Forward in Defense of Free Will," Ibid., 2.5.1-19). Dropping the term would help clarify things in discussion of the “sovereignty/responsibility” paradox. Ciocchi (JETS, September 2008, 573-90) however makes matter worse by moving in the opposite direction and claiming that the SR tension should be called the sovereignty/freedom or the sovereignty/free will tension. There are two problems: a) he fails to distinguish the freedom that belongs only to Christians from the slavery of non-Christians, and b) he apparently assumes the definition of free will in which the natural man is able to do good or evil.  

PART 12 - Click Here