The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Is compatibilism the only true Calvinist response?

On another board I have gotten into a "God is the author of evil" debate with a gentleman. Now he has said that to be a Calvinist compatibilism is the only philosophical stance we can have. But I read that Schaeffer didn't hold to that, and recently there has been such people like Bruce Ware and Terrance Tiessen who holds to compatibilistic middle knowledge. So what are your thoughts?

My initial response would be that "compatibilism" is the biblical teaching. ANY form of "middle knowledge" is error. To the degree that one diminishes, digresses from or denies compatibilism, one of necessity does likewise to determinism. Thus one's view of compatibilism directly effects one's view of God's sovereignty and foreknowledge and actually, vice versa. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Okay here is a quote from Terrence Tiessen on the compatibilist middle knowledge view:

The critical error made in that statement is that God's actions in time are determined by the actions willed by the creature; in other words, in this view only certain things were preordained in eternity; the rest of history is done in time and space and all dependent upon the decisions made by men.

Secondly, this view is at variance with the biblical and traditional Calvinist view concerning "foreknowledge". God's foreknowledge is dependent upon and the result of foreordination; i.e., God's eternal decree. God "foreknows" simply because He has determined all things in eternity.

There is much more wrong with his view but those two things I think are most critical.

In His grace,

So, let me see if I have this straight. God, who created beings called humans, had to sort of figure out their nature and how they would respond before He could finish decreeing what He wanted. He needed to figure out how His creation was going to act so that He could effectively wrest back control and get what He wanted in the first place?

That's my very amatuerish, layman's understanding of the above quote. I don't think it takes a highly trained theologian to see that this "explanation" weakens God's sovereignty and changes Him from the God of all Creation, who does all things according to the mere pleasure of His will and to the praise of His Glory to a "higher being" who learns by observation how to get what he wants.

Keep in mind Kim I'm just a layman myself with no formal training so I appreciate the viewpoint. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

Sorry, Pete. I feel as though I missed something here. I did not mean my response to be a put down to you in any way! I was responding to the quote from Tiessen. I hope I haven't offended you. It was certainly never my intention.

Oh, for the love of Mike... Kim I beg your pardon. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bow.gif" alt="" /> I'm sorry that you misconstrued my statement as taking offense from you. On the contrary, I am just an over educate oaf. But I appreciate a fellow laypersons view. Unlike our dear friends Joe, Laz, Pilgrim, and the rest I've never taken formal classes in hermenuetics, exegesis, or systematic theology. Everything I've learned I've either taught myself from books or from conversations I've had with people like you, Joe, Laz, Pilgrim and others. I am here to learn please continue to teach me.

Whew! I feel better!

"Everything I've learned I've either taught myself from books or from conversations I've had with people like you, Joe, Laz, Pilgrim and others. I am here to learn please continue to teach me."

Ditto!

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" />

Comments from another lay "oaf" who begs to be taught:

I've heard R.C. Sproul say that there's no such thing as "free will", because "there are no maverick molecules", and God is sovereign over everything, including human will. But if I remember correctly, he follows Jonathan Edwards in claiming that the "will" is nothing but the ability to choose, perhaps with the illusion of having freedom to do so. So if compatibilism "is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism", then it appears that neither Edwards nor Sproul believe in compatibilism, because it appears that neither believe in "free will".

Charles,

Methinks there is a bit of confusion here. The problem is terminology. Calvinists have shunned away from using the term "free-will" ever since the "Council of Orange" (529 AD) where Augustine and others rejected the heretical teachings of Pelagius. And again, at the "Synod of Dordt" (1618-1619) where all the Reformed Churches voted unanimously against the remonstrants; followers of Arminius who like Pelagius asserted that man's will is totally "free". What they meant by that as do all those who embrace their error, either in whole or in part, is that man is capable of choosing that which is contrary to his nature.

Now, without going into a long and drawn out excursus on this subject, the difference between the two camps is: Calvinists hold that man will always choose and is only capable of choosing that which is most desirable at any given moment according to his nature. Pelagians, semi-Pelagians and Arminians hold that man is can choose whatever he desires even that which is contrary to his nature. Calvinists hold that all men from the Fall are totally depraved, i.e., their entire being is corrupted by sin and thus the only thing an unregenerate (natural) man can and thus will choose is sinful. The natural man's nature is in total opposition to God and all that is good. In fact, the Bible teaches that man hates God and anything that is good. All others hold that man is not totally depraved but is either good or has some good remaining in him so that he can choose anything and everything he wants. The implications of the two views directly impacts the doctrine of salvation.

Anyway.... the point is that Calvinists do and have always affirmed that man's will is "free", i.e., free to choose according to the individual's nature. Thus, compatibilism does not exclude a freedom of the will but only "free-will" as defined by Pelagianism and Arminianism. Another way of phrasing the Calvinist position is to say that all men by nature are "free agents" and therefore they are totally responsible for all they think, say and do. Therefore there is no contradiction in affirming Calvinism and compatibilism.

PS - I would highly recommend that you read Jonathan Edwards' treatise (if you haven't already), entitled "A Careful and Strict Inquiry into the Prevailing Notions of the Freedom of Will".

In His grace,

Pilgrim,

Thanks for the clarification, especially regarding the distinction between the Calvinist shunning of "free-will" and simultaneous acceptance of "freedom of the will". I think your explanation is very clear, and I take it as reliable and consistent with the 5 points of Calvinism, and therefore with the Bible. And I therefore accept your defense of compatibilism as valid and reliable. Even so, Terrence Tiessen apparently has a concern that might be valid. I don't know. According to Boanerges, Tiessen says,


By "meticulous providence", I suspect Tiessen means essentially the same thing that Sproul means when he says, "no maverick molecules". When Tiessen says "human freedom", he probably means the same thing as the Calvinist "freedom of the will". When he talks about , if it's true that traditional Calvinism holds this view of God's timelessness, then I suspect that this may be a legitimate concern. If traditional Calvinism holds to a timeless view of God, then it looks reasonable to me to wonder if this timelessness was imported into Christian theology from Greco-Romans, because it appears to me that the God of the pre-Christian Hebrews was, and is, a "highly relational personal being". I don't doubt that you're right in indicating that Tiessen's "middle knowledge" doesn't do justice to the sovereignty of God. I'm trying to figure out if he has an inadequate solution to a legitimate problem.

Tiessen's problem is very typical of non-Calvinists. Let me try and make this as simple as I can without distorting things. First of all, Calvinism isn't derived from "Greco-Roman" philosophy in any of its doctrines. I can assure you that the Scriptures are the sole source for them, which makes Calvinism rather unique, wouldn't you say?

Secondly, the Bible teaches two fundamental truths: 1) God is absolutely and indisputably sovereign. To use Sproul's analogy, if there was even one rogue molecule out there in the universe, then God would not be sovereign and we would all be forced into Atheism. (paraphrased from his lecture) Why? simply put, everything that exists is dependent upon the existence and action of some other thing. If God hasn't determined ALL things, their coming into being, their every movement and their end, then that leaves room for "chance" and thus God is not in total control. God's "foreknowledge" is inseparably linked and is derived from His eternal decree, i.e., His eternal council to determine what shall be and everything related to the existence of all things. If God had to "figure out" what some mere creature would do under a given set of circumstances, then God would therefore be in debt, dependent upon the creature and not as it is according the Scripture, man totally dependent upon the Creator. 2) Man is wholly responsible for what he is and all that he thinks, says and does. This is probably one of the most difficult and often rejected truths of Scripture. This relates back to the Fall and Adam's appointed position of the Federal Head of the human race. Whatever Adam did in his first estate would effect all his posterity.

Romans 5:12 (ASV) "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:"

It is this text that we find that "all sinned" in Adam; i.e., we are all culpable of Adam's transgression and equally share in the punishment which God delivered for that transgression, aka: death. Thus all men are born a)inheriting the guilt of Adam's sin and b) born with a corruption of nature. (cf. Rom 5:12-18; Eph 2:1-3). The Bible also clearly teaches that all men will have to stand before God at the last day and give account for every thought, word and deed for they are only responsible for their lives AND for their inherited guilt and corruption (sin nature). Thus, as I stated in my first reply, men are truly "free" to do as they wish but according to their natures (predisposition/inclination).

Okay... now the crux of the matter and the problem with which divides mankind into two basic philosophy/theological camps. 1) Calvinists accept these two truths and are adamant that neither can be diminished nor denied. God is totally sovereign and man is wholly responsible. God has determined all things and man is totally free to do as he pleases within the confines determined by his spiritual state. 2) All others refuse to accept the totality of these two profound truths and try desperately to fabricate some way to combine them. Unfortunately, doing so always ends in diminishing and thus denying both truths. Tiessen and all those like him try to offer some "reasonable" explanation which conforms to their presupposition(s), e.g., their own sense of fairness, compatibility, human autonomy, etc. ad nauseam.

The truth is men simply cannot accept these two truths for it removes the control from them and makes them solely dependent upon the wisdom, judgment, providence and grace of Almighty God.

Whew...... perhaps that is enough for now.

In His grace,

I suppose we'd have to ask Mr. Tiessen for clarification as to what he means when he indicates that the doctrine of God's timelessness may not do justice to God's nature as a personal being. It's not clear to me why or how the timelessness of God would impinge upon His personal nature or His ability to engage in personal relationships with His creatures—except that Mr. Tiessen seems to suppose that it is not possible for God to "respond" to His creatures without first "learning" about them.

But then it is a question of God's self-sufficiency (what would an omniscient God need to learn, and from whom?), and so ultimately a question of God's sovereignty—for if God has sovereignly decreed whatsoever comes to pass (and it cannot be doubted that this is the biblical picture), then He necessarily knows all events before they occur. As Pilgrim has indicated, God's foresight flows from his foreordination.

I've encountered several people, influenced in large part by "process/openness theology" (also "Open Theism"), who criticize the doctrine of God's timelessness as a Greco-Roman import into Christian thought, an idea supposedly unknown to the ancient Hebrews. In my opinion, one need only read through Job to dismiss such claptrap.

If we reflect on God's omnipotence, His Lordship (i.e., sovereignty) over all, we must conclude that He is also Lord of Time. If He is not timeless, then He is in time, therefore subject to it. In such a case it is impossible that He should know what the future holds, much less that He should ever have decreed it. Instead, He is "growing," "evolving," and "learning" as time goes by. He is reduced to an exalted weatherman, predicting the future but never quite knowing how exactly it will work out. This is not the God of Scripture, who says of Himself, "Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, 'My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure'" (Isa. 46:9–10).

In short, Mr. Tiessen's concern is illegitimate, and his proposed solution inconsistent.

Sproul gave an analogy (from my modified memory) in class that I believe really helps “somewhat.” God knows the future in more than one way. He can know the future because He has determined the future and He can know it as a spectator. Suppose you are standing at the corner of the roof atop a multi-story building. As you look down to the street below, you see two runners on the sidewalk. One of them is approaching the edge of the building below you from south to north. The other runner is approaching the edge from west to east. They cannot see each other because their view is obscured by the building. From where you are standing you can see that the two runners are going to collide (you know the future as a spectator). They are a split second away from crashing into each other. They crash as you knew they would.

The analogy suggests a human way of knowing the future without causing or forcing the future to happen. (Of course, all analogies are imperfect. It is possible that one of the runners will step into a manhole just before he reaches the corner, etc. Thus, our knowledge (but not God’s) of the future is therefore not really certain). However, the point of the analogy is simply to illustrate that we can have knowledge of future events without causing those future events.

However, we must also realize that from God’s perspective He is the mover of these events. If He had not willed that the two runners to collide, they never would have. It is God (through more than likely secondary and not primary causes) that gave both runners an interest in running (according to their nature), that they would be running a specific route on a specific day and time, etc., etc., etc.

Thus, God does not need to “force” the future “immediately,” (i.e. violate man’s will), but “may” merely watch (but is still involved, transcendent, but immanent) as His eternal plan unfolds. Of course, He as God may intervene in anything … Our freedom of the will and God’s sovereignty are “compatible.” God has made timeless decisions out of time (foreordain all from creation) and sees them unfold in time without violating the freedom of man's will and yet is still sovereign "over all."

You may enjoy John Frame’s article, “ Determinism, Chance and Freedom”