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.

An Irenic Discussion of Arminianism and (Moderate) Calvinism

For the last week, I have been enjoying a healthy and deeply interesting dialogue about Calvinism and Arminianism with Dr. Roger Olson on his blog site. This has been an occasional but ongoing conversation since he first started blogging back in July of 2010. Although we are poles apart on a number of theological issues, Dr. Olson has been gracious in his dealings with me as an "opponent." I am including our back and forth comments below for the benefit of curious folks who want to know whether this can even be done . . . and for contentious folks who don't think it can be done. I am also posting this because it contains defenses of key Moderate Calvinist stances regarding theological paradox, compatibilism, the extent of the atonement, God's decrees, and other matters.

As followers (and representatives) of Christ, we must be unified in our love for one another, even if we are not unified on every point of doctrine. It's more important for Calvinists and Arminians to love one another than to "defeat" one another.

See it all here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/12/calvinism-and-the-god-as-author-analogy/#comments

1. 
   
2. Derek Ashton says:
   December 29, 2012 at 7:30 pm
   Dr. Olson,

   Interesting topic here! Speaking for myself as a more-or-less Piper-esque Calvinist (and not implying that he would claim my views), I want to address the line of reasoning some previous commenters have chosen. Specifically, I would like to address the idea of taking certain tenets of Calvinism to their “logical conclusion.”

   It is worth noting that the Desiring God article linked in your post is a good bit more in-depth and honest about the tensions than many of your readers may realize. I would also suppose that Calvinists in general have much more sophisticated views than the “determinism taken to its logical conclusion” approach which seems to be a “straw man of choice” in this thread. In itself, the term compatibilism implies that “determinism taken to its logical conclusion” is insufficient to describe the viewpoint to which compatibilistic Calvinists adhere. In fact, the term contains an implicit denial of “determinism taken to its logical conclusion.”

   Compatibilism certainly involves some mystery and tension. But let’s be honest–all Christians embrace logical tensions to some degree. Take the statement, “Jesus is God” to its “logical conclusion” and we have grounds to deny essentials like the virgin birth, the humanity of Christ, the death of Christ (and therefore the resurrection), etc. because God can’t “logically” be born, be a creature, die, etc. Take “Jesus is a human being” to its “logical conclusion” and we have grounds to deny His deity, eternality, etc. Such reasoning is obviously not valid (at least not for Christians), yet I see no difference between this and the kind of reasoning contained in some of the comments above (note that I am not saying anyone here is not a Christian; only that the reasoning employed is invalid for Christians). Many core doctrines of the Christian faith contain this kind of tension, and it would not be proper to take one facet of the doctrine to its “logical conclusion” without overlaying and nuancing through appeals to other aspects of the doctrine. Let’s not sugar coat this, or pretend that every aspect of every Christian doctrine can properly be “taken to its logical conclusion.”

   One could ostensibly take selected portions of the ancient creeds and use them to argue against the truths contained in other portions of the same creeds. Even Arius would have agreed with parts of the Nicene creed; then, by taking them to their “logical conclusion,” he would have argued against the other parts. Arius took portions of the Biblical teaching to their “logical conclusion” without embracing other portions because, in his mind, it would not logically make sense to do so. Is there not a danger in this kind of reasoning, which seems to make human understanding, rather than God’s Word, the ultimate measure of the Truth. Arius was, after all, a genuine heretic on both Calvinist and Arminian terms.

   What I appreciate in the writings of compatibilistic Calvinists like Piper is a willingness to honestly accept all of the Biblical data, even when it goes beyond the ability of the human mind to reconcile all of the ensuing tension. While I admire the rigorous commitment to logic on the part of many Arminians, I have yet to find one that (to my satisfaction, at least) admits all of the Biblical testimony into the system. For me, losing precious Biblical propositions is worse than having inexplicable holes in the system. And with that said, I am a Calvinist today because I do not find a more logically consistent system that takes in all of the Biblical data. I easily find more logically consistent systems that don’t take it in. For me, it’s Sola Scriptura first, and then the fun part of working out the logic as far as possible.

   Note: I am not saying Arminians don’t believe the Bible; I am saying their system, especially as represented in this thread, seems to inconsistently elevate human logic in opposition to the Calvinistic doctrine of Providence while readily accepting the logical tensions of the Incarnation and other orthodox doctrines. No Arminian says of the humanity of Christ: “Whatever the Bible means in those passages, it can’t mean that!”

   Finally, to answer your questions in the post, I would take the position that evil does not become good simply because God ordains it. It would never become a ground for rejoicing simply because God ordained it. Our sadness at the atrocities in this world may in fact reflect God’s own heart and mind in the matter. However, along with Him, we rejoice exuberantly in all of the good that He ultimately brings about through the evil that is done. Per Romasn 8:28.

   To illustrate this in a more personal way: by God’s grace, I hate and abhor my own sins. I am deeply saddened and shamed by them. Yet I also rejoice in the forgiveness and grace that I could never have experienced if I was sinless. I don’t love being a sinner; but I love being redeemed from sin! Yet I couldn’t have been redeemed if I had never been a sinner. Thus, as a forgiven perpetrator of heinous crimes against a holy God and His creatures, my Calvinistic theology lines up perfectly with my experience and what I find in the Scriptures. If anything, a true Calvinist will ask God for MORE feelings of moral repugnance against evil. And at the same time he will ask for more JOY in God’s good grace as well. All of this lies right at the heart of Jesus’ teaching: “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.” Apparently He believes in paradoxes, too.

   A happy New Year to all, and much joy in Christ!

   Derek Ashton
   Reply
   • rogereolson says:
     December 30, 2012 at 1:36 pm
     Derek, I always appreciate your civility even when we sharply disagree. You will not be surprised to read me say that, in my opinion, it is Calvinism that seeks logical consistency over biblical fidelity. I will point this time to only one example: limited atonement (which I realize some Calvinists reject but which seem to be part and parcel of what you call eloquently “Piper-esque” Calvinism). As I have explained in Against Calvinism, the high Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement must ignore much Scripture. Of course, I think you would agree, neither side in this debate really “ignores” any Scripture. What we are calling ignoring is really interpreting in a non-natural sense. I hope you will agree that no intelligent Arminian literally “ignores” any of Scripture. What we do is interpret Scripture differently (than Calvinists). So, to be fair, I don’t believe any informed, intelligent Calvinist literally ignores any of Scripture. What happens, in my opinion, is that much of Scripture is interpreted in non-natural ways in order to make it fit with the system. I’m sure you would admit that’s what you really mean when you say non-Calvinist systems of theology overlook or ignore crucial passages of Scripture. In my opinion, limited atonement does exactly what Piper argues we must NOT do in his long footnote about Clark Pinnock in (I think) Desiring God. He argues that Pinnock believes some things because Scripture allows it and logic requires it. I can’t believe any Christian does otherwise. We all believe some things because logic (or evidence) requires it and Scripture allows it. That’s how I view limited atonement. I don’t say Calvinists who believe in it ignore or overlook Scripture; I say they take something they believe (e.g., unconditional election of some sinners and irresistible grace granted to them only) and force it to its logical conclusion (limited atonement) and then interpret Scriptures no non-Calvinist would interpret this way as supporting limited atonement. As for your explanation of your feelings about evils God ordains I will just say I can’t even imagine living with that level of cognitive dissonance. If I came to believe that God ordained and rendered certain an event such that he manipulated the thoughts and motives that sinfully caused it I would have to celebrate all of that and not isolate the good results and celebrate only them. That seems absurd to me. I realize it doesn’t to you. However, I thank you for joining the discussion. Your Calvinist voice is always most welcome here because you are not insulting or uncivil. I wonder if you would answer this question I have put to many Calvinists without satisfactory answers? From where did the first evil inclination come?
     Reply
     • Derek Ashton says:
       December 31, 2012 at 4:36 am
       Dr. Olson,

       Thank you for your very kind words.

       I actually agree with what you mentioned concerning non-natural exegesis used in support of limited atonement. My views on that topic are more in line with Richard Baxter (and many other puritans, including numerous Westminster divines), R.L. Dabney, William G.T. Shedd, Bruce Ware, and (I suppose) John Calvin. I am drawn to the moderate historical stream within Calvinism whose adherents are apt to take texts such as I John 2:2 at face value. I disagree at least partly with Piper’s approach on this.

       There are admittedly those on both sides of the Calvinist/Arminian spectrum who engage in system-driven exegesis (and some on both sides who tend not to, thankfully). One of the arguments I have made to fellow Calvinists is that they should take a more moderate view on limited atonement simply because it fits more consistently with God’s universal love/saving desire for all people (which is strongly affirmed by Piper) and the free offer of the Gospel (also strongly affirmed by Piper). These mainstream Calvinist essentials, which unfortunately aren’t conveyed well by the TULIP acronym, logically argue for a less limited atonement than most of today’s vocal Calvinists are promoting.

       Concerning the doctrine of Providence, I don’t think a Reformed view requires that God “manipulates the thoughts and motives” behind sinful actions. All mainstream Calvinists retain, at the very least, the concept of “unconstrained” and “voluntary” creaturely actions (thus no one is “manipulated” under normal conditions). This is one of the critical distinctions entailed in compatibilism. Of course, I understand that this quibble probably doesn’t make the Reformed approach any more attractive for committed Arminians.

       Your question about the first evil inclination certainly provokes thought. My Biblicist side wants to say Scripture leaves this entirely in the realm of mystery. And that is probably the best place for me to leave it, as much as I would like to speculate. Do you see Open Theism, Arminianism, Molinism or any other non-Calvinist system answering this in a more satisfying way?

       You probably know that Augustine danced around with this question in the Enchiridion, chapters 10-23. His answers are paradoxical: God only created good; evil is a corruption/privation of that good; thus evil cannot exist apart from good, while good can exist apart from evil; anything totally evil would cease to exist because in it there would be no good thing left to corrupt with evil; thus a being cannot be evil without also being good in some sense.

       Augustine’s answer is sensible enough, but still leaves your question unanswered. What prompted the initial privation of good? I suppose only God truly knows.

       Blessings,
       Derek
       Reply
       • rogereolson says:
         December 31, 2012 at 10:11 pm
         Derek, I always appreciate your irenicism (which doesn’t in any way dilute your strongly held theology). The problem I have with any Calvinist appealing to mystery when faced with the question of the source of the first evil inclination is the typical Calvinist doctrine of providence which, according to my understanding of it, anyway, excludes anything real (and even evil, though a privation of the good only, is real in that it exists) from escaping God’s ordination. Surely, if God is as all-determining and controlling as most Calvinist theologians assert (e.g., Helm and Sproul), then nothing, not even the first evil inclination, can fall outside God’s plan and determination. The way most Calvinists have handled this (including Edwards) is to say that God brought it about by withholding the grace needed for the creature not to develop an evil inclination. Edwards admits that this amounts to making God the author of sin and evil in a restricted sense. God, he argues, is not the cause of them, but, like everything else, they only exist because God desires them to and renders them certain. (I have expounded this and documented it in Against Calvinism.) It seems to me a key difference between Calvinism and Arminianism (and this difference existed also between, say, Luther and the Anabaptists) is that one side sees evil as having purpose above, higher than the purpose of the creature (e.g., selfishness). It has divine purpose, ultimate purpose. The other side regards evil as a surd, lacking any purpose at all. God can bring good out of it, but it has no divine purpose behind it. God never intended for it to come into existence. The problem with the first view, it seems to me, is that, from an ultimate perspective, evil is not really evil. Anyway, that is how I would have to regard it did I hold that view.
         Reply
         • Derek Ashton says:
           January 2, 2013 at 10:17 am
           Dr. Olson,

           I see your point, and this is truly an important difference, as you noted. On Calvinistic terms, no event (including the first evil) can ever be viewed as non-ordained or unforeseen by God. He could not have been “surprised” when the first evil occurred.

           However, does the classical Arminian approach really view evil as entirely purposeless? It would seem that God’s omniscience entails an awareness on His part of every evil that ever will or can occur, and His omnipotence would include the ability to prevent or allow it. If this is so, then He must maintain ultimate control over evil (and therefore have some kind of purpose in allowing it). If not, He could choose not to allow it.

           Blessings,
           Derek
         • rogereolson says:
           January 2, 2013 at 2:05 pm
           Purposeless in terms of intentionality. Of course God had a purpose in allowing it. The difference lies in intentionality. In Calvinism, as I understand it (having read scores of books by Calvinists including Calvin himself), every event is foreordained and rendered certain by God for a specific purpose. God intends it to happen, not just to permit it to happen (Calvin rejected the language of permission in discussing divine providence). In Arminian theology we distinquish between two wills of God: antecedent (in which evil does not exist at all) and consequent (in which God permits evil in order not to control creatures so that they can only do what he intends for them to do). Thus, in Arminian theology, evil has no purpose in God’s overall plan. It happens. God deals with it, overcoming it and, when possible, bringing good out of it.
         • Derek Ashton says:
           January 3, 2013 at 2:17 am
           Dr. Olson,

           Thank you for explaining this in further detail; those are useful distinctions. Does this approach make the cross “plan B” rather than God’s original design?

           Much has been made of Calvin’s critique of divine “permission,” but he makes it clear that what he opposes is a “bare permission” by which God would relinquish His Lordship and Providence, and merely respond to human wills rather than rule over them.

           I really appreciate your taking time to discuss these matters with me. At the end of the day, we are fellow Christians. That is what counts!

           Blessings,
           Derek
         • rogereolson says:
           January 3, 2013 at 3:10 pm
           Thanks, Derek. I always enjoy having dialogue with you. But, as I’m sure you have noticed, we tend to go around in circles–always returning to the same questions and answers and differences. I wonder to what extent our basic differences (also between most evangelical Calvinists and evangelical Arminians) are a matter of perspective? I’m not relativizing the matter because I do believe one of us is right and the other wrong (or we’re both wrong). But I’m continually puzzled by how equally sincere, God-fearing, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, reasonable people can see God’s sovereignty in Scripture so differently? To answer your question. I don’t think of the cross as “Plan B” in the ordinary sense because, as a classical Arminian (not an open theist) I think God knew all along what was going to happen. I do think the cross is part of God’s consequent will, not God’s antecedent will. But just in case you have difficulty with that, think about the fact that ONLY (not shouting, just emphasizing) a supralapsarian can really say that the cross is God’s “Plan A,” part of God’s antecedent will. An infralapsarian (most Calvinists) will also have the same challenge (from a supralapsarian) as you give me. I once asked John Piper about this, hoping to trap him (we were having a very irenic, civil discussion but he was trying to trap me, too–into affirming open theism) and he said he “might be” a supralapsarian. He indicated he was leaning in that direction. I think that would be the way anyone would have to go if they affirm that the cross is “Plan A” in the sense of logically preceding God’s decree to permit the fall. What do you think? Can an infralapsarian say that the cross is God’s “Plan A” in the sense you mean–”God’s original design?”
       • Derek Ashton says:
         January 5, 2013 at 10:02 pm
         Dr. Olson,

         Yes, I have noticed that our discussions (and most between Calvinists and Arminians) seem to always take the same turns. It is easy to get frustrated with this and start pressing harder (or louder) in an effort to get things resolved. But I doubt it is necessary to get past the differences; perhaps just understand them better. That is what I most appreciate about our dialogues. You have been involved in this discussion with many different Calvinists and for a good while, so your restraint in this regard is very much appreciated. It says much about your character.

         Regarding your question, I believe the cross was/is “Plan A,” but not because of supralapsarian leanings. Some infralapsarians would take all of the decrees together and call that, collectively, “Plan A.” From this standpoint, every Calvinist can (and should) view the cross as “Plan A” or God’s original design. This is perhaps similar to your approach in the comment above, which seems to take God’s antecedent and consequent will(s) together as “Plan A.” The move seems warranted in both cases, and perhaps points to an important similarity between the two schools of thought when backed into the same corner!

         As a side note, I like the approach taken by R.L. Dabney, who said the following (so much better than I can say it):

         “… he who apprehends the action of the infinite mind reasonably and scripturally at once, sees that, while the sublapsarian is right in his spirit and aim, both parties are wrong in their method, and the issue is one which should never have been raised. As God’s thought and will do not exist in his consciousness in parts, so they involve no sequence, neither the one nor the other. The decree which determines so vast a multitude of parts is itself a unit. The whole all-comprehending thought is one coëtaneous intuition; the whole decree one act of will. But in virtue of the very consistency and accuracy of the divine plan, and infinity of the divine knowledge, facts destined to emerge out of one part of the plan, being present in thought to God, enter into logical relation to other parts of the same plan. As the plan is God’s thought, no part precedes any other. But none the less those parts which are destined to be, in execution, prior and posterior, stand in their just causal relations in his thinking. One result decreed is to depend on another result decreed. But as the decree is God’s consciousness, all is equally primary. Thus there will be neither supra- nor infra-lapsarian, and no room for their debate.” (This is from Dabney’s essay entitled, God’s Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy, as Related to His Power, Wisdom and Sincerity)

         While slightly more sympathetic to the infralapsarian position, Dabney stands with a number of other Calvinists in the moderate stream who disparaged the lapsarian debates in general. In their view, the whole project goes well beyond the bounds of Scripture and involves us in questions that are ultimately unanswerable (or at least defy systematization). Herman Bavinck was another notable representative of this viewpoint.

         So it would appear that we can both agree that the cross is viewed as God’s original design from each of our perspectives. Now, please don’t take the following as an attempt to “trap” you (and I doubt I could successfully trap you, anyhow) . . . but does this put you in the position affirming that evil, in general, was also part of “Plan A,” or God’s original design? And would this not make evil “intentional” and “purposeful” from the divine perspective, even if taken as God’s consequent will? Finally, does this potentially put us in the same boat as far as theodicy is concerned? Maybe the differences can be illustrated more succinctly in this attempted summation:

         ***The Calvinist says God (in His secret, sovereign will) deliberately decrees to permit evil (for a purpose), and every evil is used for the greater good.
         ***The Arminian says God (in His consequent will) knowledgeably chooses to permit evil (for a purpose?), and some evils are used for the greater good.

         Both are taking measures to maintain that God is not directly “responsible” or “culpable” for the evil that occurs. Yet both view evil as God’s “will” in some sense. However, if my summations above are correct, Calvinism more satisfactorily vindicates God’s permission of evil by putting every evil to good use. For Calvinists, this is part of what is meant by “works all things together for good” in Romans 8:28.

         Blessings,
         Derek
         Reply

Monday Morning Humor

Kevin DeYoung is in the habit of posting something funny on Mondays. So I decided to give it a try this week just for fun. But this one is a double header. 
 
First, we have an amazing song extolling the wonders of "free will" (actually, this is probably more sad than funny, but something about the song makes you want to laugh involuntarily). Please choose to watch this video.
 

 
I'm glad you chose to watch it.
 
Next, we have this great video entitled, "John Piper Preaches Against Calvinism." It really is a great video. The only thing funny about it is the title. It's funny that someone thinks this is preaching against Calvinism. I was really expecting something more or less un-Calvinistic, but instead there was just this . . .
 

 
There you have it! A clear contradiction of everything he's ever preached in the past!
 
Choose to have a great Monday, friends.

Piper on Marriage

"So I start with the assumption that my own sin and selfishness and cultural bondage makes it almost impossible for me to feel the wonder of God’s purpose for marriage. The fact that we live in a society that can defend two men or two women entering a sexual relationship and, with wild inconceivability, call it marriage shows that the collapse of our culture into debauchery and anarchy is probably not far away.

I mention this cultural distortion of marriage in the hopes that it might wake you up to consider a vision of marriage higher and deeper and stronger and more glorious than anything this culture—or perhaps you yourself—ever imagined. The greatness and glory of marriage is beyond our ability to think or feel without divine revelation and without the illumining and awakening work of the Holy Spirit. The world cannot know what marriage is without learning it from God. The natural man does not have the capacities to see or receive or feel the wonder of what God has designed for marriage to be. I pray that this book might be used by God to help set you free from small, worldly, culturally contaminated, self-centered, Christ-ignoring, God-neglecting, romance-intoxicated, unbiblical views of marriage.

The most foundational thing to see from the Bible about marriage is that it is God’s doing. And the ultimate thing to see from the Bible about marriage is that it is for God’s glory. Those are the two points I have to make. Most foundationally, marriage is the doing of God. And ultimately, marriage is the display of God."

-John Piper, This Momentary Marriage, pp. 20-21 (Online PDF Version - FREE!)

New "Arminocalvinist" Music Group Features Roger Olson and John Piper

At the risk of losing any credibility this blog might have gained in the last two and a half years, we now submit what some will certainly consider to be a profane and horrifying display of disrespect and worldliness. To such I would simply urge a loosening of the phylacteries.


Seeing as the rest of you have a sense of humor, you will probably enjoy this video featuring the irenic Arminian, Roger Olson, rocking out with some of our Calvinist friends at a local seeker church. This group calls itself "45:12", which apparently means "four 5-pointers and one 2-pointer." But some have hinted that the name might be a cryptic reference to Isaiah 45:12, sneaked in by Piper in an attempt to subliminally influence Olson toward meticulous sovereignty. Olson mentioned to me in a private conversation that he was aware of this plot, and was planning to write 3 books, published by 5 different publishers, in response. Piper will not be named explicitly in any of the books, but will rather be referred to as "a leading Baptist proponent of the Young, Restless, Reformed movement who has authored many books and pastors a big church in Minneapolis, whose name you would recognize . . ."


Piper says he knows that the group is controversial, but he is committed to reaching out to seekers. "I know some will say this is compromise, but I say, uh, 45:12 is all about sharing great contemporary music with the whole world - even seeker sensitive, um, for lack of a better word - false shepherds - who masquerade as Gospel preaching Evangelicals. But, as Roger would say, we have to keep the doors of the [finger quotes] big tent wide open for whatever heresy wants to call itself Evangelical."


Disclaimer #1: This is only a joke. None of this actually happened.
Disclaimer #2: Don't get too excited, Spurgeon has not been resurrected (yet).
Disclaimer #3: No, John MacArthur has not become charismatic (yet).
Disclaimer #4: No theologians were harmed in the making of this motion picture.

Personalize funny videos and birthday eCards at JibJab!

Other Disclaimers

This is not an endorsement of rock music, "Christian" rock music, Roger Olson's theology, the "arminocalvinist" spectrum, infant baptism, men wearing wigs, contextualized Christianity, secular Christmas music, men's jewelry, bandanas, mega churches, or smoke machines. I do, however, endorse disco balls and sequin covered guitars.

Also, just to reassure his critics, Piper's antics in this video are not taken from actual footage.

Piper Paradox - Unconditional is the Ground of Conditional

Yesterday John Piper posted an interesting bit of insight about the paradox of Moses' prayer in Exodus 33:13. 

Here's a link:  http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/2271_unconditional_is_the_ground_of_conditional/

One of the things I appreciate most about Piper is his willingness to take ALL of the Biblical data at full face value, without removing anything to make it more "logical." He also has a good ability to philosophically work through possible explanations to make sense of the difficulties.

If I have found favor in Your sight, 

please show me now Your ways, 

that I may know You, 

in order to find favor in Your sight.

Exodus 33:13

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."

John Piper: In Search of the Perfect TULIP

John Piper recently posted a near perfect summation of the famous "5 points of Calvinism." Every informed Calvinist knows these points are a little too limited and incomplete (perhaps this is why Piper has referred to himself as a "7 point Calvinist."), but they are nonetheless a helpful way to articulate some important facets of orthodox, Biblical theology. It's essential to view these concepts through an understanding of God's complete sovereignty and divine attributes, and I would also recommend a healthy appreciation for philosophical paradox, theological tension, and deep mystery. The thoughtful acceptance of divine mysteries, without the slightest hint of uncertainty concerning things that are clearly revealed, is part of the beauty of Calvin's theology - and Augustine's - and, ultimately, that of the Biblical writers (reflecting God's own declaration that His ways and thoughts are higher than ours).


Paradox is inherent in Piper's TULIP. It is especially evident in his synopses of limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance. Piper's explanation of TULIP is well balanced because he has been refining it for many years as he has pursued good theology and devoted himself to a careful study of Scripture. I've heard other attempts at explaining TULIP that were so unbalanced you wanted to rent a tower crane and try to set them back up again.

Here is Piper's TULIP . . . no cranes needed:

We believe that these 5 truths are biblical and therefore true. We believe that they magnify God’s precious grace and give unspeakable joy to sinners who have despaired of saving themselves.

Total Depravity

Our sinful corruption is so deep and so strong as to make us slaves of sin and morally unable to overcome our own rebellion and blindness. This inability to save ourselves from ourselves is total. We are utterly dependent on God’s grace to overcome our rebellion, give us eyes to see, and effectively draw us to the Savior.

We were dead in our trespasses. (Ephesians 2:5)

The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7-8)

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)

Unconditional Election

God’s election is an unconditional act of free grace that was given through his Son Jesus before the world began. By this act, God chose, before the foundation of the world, those who would be delivered from bondage to sin and brought to repentance and saving faith in Jesus.

He chose us in him before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4).

As many as were appointed to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (Romans 9:15-16)

God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise. (1 Corinthians 1:27)

Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened. (Romans 11:7; cf. 9:11-12; John 6:37)

My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me. (Isaiah 43:10)

Irresistible Grace

This means that the resistance that all human beings exert against God every day (Romans 3:10-12; Acts 7:51) is wonderfully overcome at the proper time by God’s saving grace for undeserving rebels whom he chooses freely to save.

Even when we were dead in our trespasses, [God] made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved. (Ephesians 2:5)

No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father. (John 6:65)

God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 2:25)

Limited Atonement

The atonement of Christ is sufficient for all humans and effective for those who trust him. The full, saving effectiveness of the atonement that Jesus accomplished is limited to those for whom that saving effect was prepared. The availability of the total sufficiency of the atonement is for all people. Whosoever will—whoever believes—will be covered by the blood of Christ. And there is a divine design in the death of Christ to accomplish the promises of the new covenant for the chosen bride of Christ. Thus Christ died for all, but not for all in the same way.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16; cf. Revelation 22:17).

This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. (Luke 22:20)

Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. (Ephesians 5:25)

I lay down my life for the sheep. (John 10:15)

I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. . . . And for their sake I consecrate myself [that is, prepare to die], that they also may be sanctified in truth. (John 17:9, 19)

He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? (Romans 8:32)

Perseverance of the Saints

We believe that all who are justified will win the fight of faith. They will persevere in faith and never surrender to the enemy of their souls. This perseverance is the promise of the new covenant, obtained by the blood of Christ, and worked in us by God himself, yet not so as to diminish, but only to empower and encourage, our vigilance; so that we may say in the end, I have fought the good fight, but it was not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8:30)

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. (John 10:27-28)

I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. (Philippians 1:6)

I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. (Philippians 3:12)

Resting in Christ and reaching for the goal,

Pastor John

---

© Desiring God

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.