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.

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.    Continue at Theoparadox

Freedom of the Will and the Five Finger Death Punch of Theology

At some point in nearly every debate about “who does what” in salvation a certain phrase is dropped which strikes fear into the heart of all involved. “I believe men have free will.” Like a triple dog dare issued on a schoolyard, people back up to give the concept space. The discussion of free will is an intensely polarizing subject. It’s more often put forward as a theological trump card against Calvinism than any other concept. “More moderate” theological constructs may take refuge within its walls. For many it is the final and insurmountable fall back defense against the logical minions of Reformed theology. Free will is the mother of all theological comebacks.

In the realm of debate the issuance of free will is a classic emotional appeal intended to play upon the sympathies of the listener. For certain, it is palpable. Within this discussion it is the emotional equivalent of setting a basket of puppies in front of an oncoming and uncaring steamroller of hard determinism. Who would dare advance against a reality as noble as man’s capacity to freely choose and love God? Who would dare trample over the treasured premises that underlie free will?

Free will as a doctrine (men have/retain the capacity to choose God) is intended to protect the quality of love between God and sinner. If it is not a free choice it cannot be real love. If it is not real love it was not a real choice. This sequence eventually leads to the five-finger death punch of theological debate, “Are we just a bunch of robots?” Free will and its corollaries pin the opponent down in an (apparent) inescapable contradiction between sincere love and unfeeling predestination. How can one possibly object to freewill without appearing as the Ebenezer Scrooge of theology? Debate over. Right? Not hardly. “Bah humbug!”  Keep Reading >>>

IMAGE