Category Archives: Compatibilism

Predestination and the Actions of Men

Posted on by
Reply

Article “Predestination and Human Actions” by Dr. James N. Anderson, who is the Carl W. McMurray Professor of Theology and Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, N.C., and an ordained minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. He is the featured teacher of the Ligonier teaching series Exploring Islam and author of What’s Your Worldview? (original source: https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2020/04/predestination-and-human-actions/)

The legend of Oedipus is often considered the classic example of Greek fatalism. Troubled by doubts about his parentage, the protagonist consults an oracle who declares that he is destined to murder his father and marry his mother. Although Oedipus repudiates the awful prophecy, events cruelly conspire to bring about its fulfillment. All his efforts to evade his fate prove futile.

The Reformed or Calvinistic doctrines of providence and predestination are often charged with being fatalistic. Yet this characterization trades on some deep confusions. Calvinism does indeed affirm that all events in creation are foreordained by God. As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (3.1). Nevertheless, the confession immediately adds that this divine foreordination does not render meaningless the wills of God’s creatures. On the contrary, God normally works out His eternal purposes though secondary causes such as human agents and natural processes. Biblical examples of God directing human actions to His own ends include the story of Joseph (Gen. 45:5–8; 50:20), the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel (Isa. 10:5–11), and the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus (Acts 4:27–28).

How, then, does Calvinism differ from fatalism? Shouldn’t a Calvinist admit that Judas was fated to betray Jesus (John 17:12; Acts 1:16) just as Oedipus was fated to kill his father? We should note first that “fate” was understood by the ancients to be an impersonal force or principle that applied equally to men and gods. Just as the Greeks failed to acknowledge a transcendent personal Creator, so they lacked any notion of a sovereign God who directs all things “to his own holy ends” (WCF 5.4). For the pagan fatalist, there is no divine hand of providence, no overarching plan of God. There is no rhyme or reason to the fated outcomes; the universe is a theater of absurdity and tragedy. Contrast that with the biblical worldview, according to which God “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11) and “all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28).

A second major difference between Calvinism and fatalism has already been touched on. Calvinism maintains that God determines not only the ends—the final outcomes of events—but also the means to those ends. In other words, in God’s providence the means are coordinated with the ends such that the ends depend on the means. Thus, God did not merely ordain that Joseph would end up second in authority to Pharaoh; He ordained the entire series of events that culminated in that outcome, including the sinful actions of Joseph’s brothers. We shouldn’t imagine that God planned for Joseph to become so significant to Pharaoh regardless of how his brothers treated him.

Fatalism, on the other hand, tends to disconnect the ends from the means, implying that our lives will turn out a certain way no matter what we do. A contemporary illustration is provided by a recent series of movies in which a group of people initially cheat Death, but their escape always turns out to be short-lived. The Grim Reaper eventually catches up with each of them, despite their attempts to avoid his scythe. Fatalism suggests that our actions are truly futile; they make no practical difference to the outcome. Yet that idea is entirely foreign to the Reformed doctrine of providence. Our future outcomes most surely depend on the choices we make in this life. There’s no contradiction in affirming both that future outcomes depend crucially on our choices and that God sovereignly orders all things, including future outcomes and the choices that lead to them. Yes, God foreordains the actions of His creatures, but He also foreordains that their actions have significant consequences.

A sporting illustration may help clarify the point. Imagine you’re playing a round of golf with a friend, Jacob, who has a habit of conflating Calvinism and fatalism. At the fifth tee, you hit a sweet drive down the fairway. The ball lands squarely on the green and rolls triumphantly into the cup for a hole-in-one.

Instead of congratulating you, Jacob has a mischievous grin on his face. “You’re a Calvinist, aren’t you?” “Indeed,” you reply, intrigued to hear where this is going. “So you believe that God has foreordained all things from eternity, including that hole-in-one. Well, if God foreordained it, it didn’t really matter how you hit the ball. It was predestined to end up in the hole regardless.”

Jacob isn’t nearly as clever as he thinks. By his confused reasoning, the ball would have landed in the hole even if you hadn’t hit it at all. But clearly that’s absurd. The hole-in-one depended on your striking the ball—and striking it well. The consistent Calvinist will say that God foreordained not only the hole-in-one but also that it would happen as a result of your hitting the ball accurately. Your well-aimed drive really did matter.

This isn’t philosophical hairsplitting. The distinction between Calvinism and fatalism has enormously significant implications for the Christian life. It means our prayers really make a difference, for God has ordained that future events will take place in answer to our prayers. It means evangelism is essential, for God has decreed that His elect will be saved by hearing and believing the gospel. It means that we must be diligent to confirm our calling and election (2 Peter 1:10), for although the Shepherd will lose none of His sheep, those sheep will be finally saved only if they persevere in faith to the end.

Understanding that God ordains both the means and the ends, Calvinists can truly say, “If we had not prayed, it would not have happened; if we had not shared the gospel, they would not have heard it; if we do not stand firm in the faith, we will not receive the crown of life.” Yet at the same time, Calvinists will give ultimate credit for all this to the sovereign grace of God.

The “Why” Question

Posted on by
Reply

Sproul_blog2Dr. R. C. Sproul which comes from the Greek word for “goal” or “end” (telos), is the study of purpose. The “why” questions are purpose questions. We seek the reasons things happen as they do. Why does the rain fall? Why does the earth turn on its axis? Why did you say that?

When we raise the question of purpose, we are concerned with ends, aims, and goals. All these terms suggest intent. They assume meaning rather than meaninglessness. Despite the best attempts of nihilist philosophers to deny that anything has ultimate meaning and significance, the perennial question “Why?” shows that they haven’t been successful. In fact, even the cynic’s glib retort of “Why not?” is a thinly veiled commitment to purpose. To explain why we’re not doing something is to give a reason or purpose for not doing it. Purpose remains in the background. Human beings are creatures committed to purpose. We do things for a reason—with some kind of goal in mind.

Still, there is complexity in this quest for purpose. We distinguish between proximate and remote purposes, the proximate being what is close at hand and the remote referring to the distant and ultimate purpose. To use a sports analogy, the proximate goal for the Pittsburgh Steelers offensive line is to make a first down. Making a touchdown is the more remote goal. A goal that is even further off for the team is to win the game. Finally, the ultimate goal is to win the Super Bowl. Continue reading →

God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Responsibility in Harmony

Posted on by
Reply

packer-245x300“the living God, who created the entire universe and actively upholds it in being (otherwise it would vanish away, and so would we as part of it), knows everything that has been and now is and foreknows everything that will be just because, in a way that totally passes our understanding, he plans and decides and controls everything that takes place. From inside (and we are all insiders at this point) the cosmos appears as a huge interlocking system of cause and effect, the working of which scientists can examine, map out, and within limits predict because the processes all operate with what appears as built-in regularity. But Christians know what science can never find out, namely, that all the processes of nature are willed and sustained directly by the Creator, every moment, down to the smallest detail, as also are the free-flowing thoughts that run through our minds, and the dreams that befuddle us while we sleep, and the self-determined, accountable decisions about what we will and will not do that we make in a steady stream throughout our waking hours. Let us say it clearly: all the regularities of nature, including the functioning of our own minds and bodies, are as they are because God wills and keeps them so. Nothing would be as it is – nothing, indeed, would exist at all – were it not for the active will of God…

To affirm God’s sovereignty over everything around us, within us, happening to us, and issuing from us takes nothing from our certainty (which Scripture confirms) that all our thoughts, words, and deeds, including all our motives, purposes, attitudes, and reactions, are truly our own, not forced upon us from outside but coming out from within us, so that we are in truth responsible subjects, open to assessment both by other people and by our own consciences, and finally by God himself. Rather it adds to our certainty that, as our continued existence and all our living really involve God, so God really involves himself in an overruling way, somehow (just how, no creature can conceive), in all our circumstances, motives, actions, relationships, experiences, joys, pains, pleasures, griefs, and ventures, which form the situational reality of our daily lives.”

J. I. Packer and Carolyn Nystrom, Guard Us, Guide Us: Divine Leading in Life’s Decisions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 199-200.

Compatibilism

Posted on by
Reply

What is compatibilism?

they believe, they disobey, they respond, and there is moral significance in their choices; but human responsibility never functions in Scripture to diminish God’s sovereignty or to make God absolutely contingent.
Carson right argues that “We tend to use one to diminish the other; we tend to emphasize one at the expense of the other. But responsible reading of the Scripture prohibits such reductionism.”

“Hundreds of passages,” he suggests, “could be explored to demonstrate that the Bible assumes both that God is sovereign and that people are responsible for their actions. As hard as it is for many people in the Western world to come to terms with both truths at the same time, it takes a great deal of interpretative ingenuity to argue that the Bible does not support them.”

Carson briefly works through a number of representative passages: Genesis 50:19-20; Leviticus 20:7-8; 1 Kings 11:11-13, 29-39; 12:1-15 (cf. 2 Kings 10:15; 11:4) 2 Samuel 24; Isaiah 10:5-19; John 6:37-40; Philippians 2:12-13; Acts 18:9-10; and Acts 4:23-30. I’d encourage readers to study each passage in context and see if they comport with Carson’s two statements above.

After looking at Acts 4:23-30, Carson makes this telling comment:

Christians who may deny compatibilism on front after front become compatibilists (knowing or otherwise) when they think about the cross. There is no alternative, except to deny the faith. And if we are prepared to be compatibilists when we think about the cross—that is, to accept both of the propositions I set out at the head of this chapter as true, as they are applied to the cross—it is only a very small step to understanding that compatibilism is taught or presupposed everywhere in the Bible.

Elsewhere he writes, “At Calvary, all Christians have to concede the truth of these two statements [above], or they give up their claim to be Christians.”

I especially appreciate Carson’s conclusion as he locates the deepest foundation of compatibilism:

So I am driven to see not only that compatibilism is itself taught in the Bible, but that it is tied to the very nature of God; and on the other hand, I am driven to see that my ignorance about many aspects of God’s nature is precisely that same ignorance that instructs me not to follow the whims of many contemporary philosophers and deny that compatibilism is possible. The mystery of providence is in the first instance not located in debates about decrees, free will, the place of Satan, and the like. It is located in the doctrine of God.

——

Carson’s popular-level writings on compatibilism can be found in chapter 9 (“A Sovereign and Personal God”) of A Call to Spiritual Reformation: Priorities from Paul and His Prayers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 145-66; and chapter 11 “(The Mystery of Providence”) of How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 199-228. For a more technical treatment (based on his doctoral dissertation), see Carson’s Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspective in Tension.

For more technical discussions on the philosophical nature of freedom and responsibility, see the chapters in John Feinberg’s No One Like Him. Among the best things I’ve read—accessible but philosophically informed—are the relevant chapters in John Frame’s The Doctrine of God.

For a brief overview of passages on God’s absolute sovereignty, see this post.