The Problems with Divine Determinism

William Lane Craig just posted a wonderful summary of some of the problems with divine determinism, which is what most Calvinists believe in the form of compatibilistic human freedom. He suggests that Molinism (or middle-knowledge) gives a much more coherent and powerful explanation of how divine sovereignty and human freedom coexist. Indeed, the Molinist maintains a robust account of human freedom and at the same time wholeheartedly affirms the following statement from the Westminster Confession: "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." (Section III).

Below are the problems Craig lists with divine determinism:
1. Universal, divine, causal determinism cannot offer a coherent interpretation of Scripture. 
The classical Reformed divines recognized this. They acknowledge that the reconciliation of Scriptural texts affirming human freedom and contingency with Scriptural texts affirming divine sovereignty is inscrutable. D. A. Carson identifies nine streams of texts affirming human freedom: (1) People face a multitude of divine exhortations and commands, (2) people are said to obey, believe, and choose God, (3) people sin and rebel against God, (4) people’s sins are judged by God, (5) people are tested by God, (6) people receive divine rewards, (7) the elect are responsible to respond to God’s initiative, (8) prayers are not mere showpieces scripted by God, and (9) God literally pleads with sinners to repent and be saved (Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension, pp. 18-22). These passages rule out a deterministic understanding of divine providence, which would preclude human freedom. Determinists reconcile universal, divine, causal determinism with human freedom by re-interpreting freedom in compatibilist terms. Compatibilism entails determinism, so there’s no mystery here. The problem is that adopting compatibilism achieves reconciliation only at the expense of denying what various Scriptural texts seem clearly to affirm: genuine indeterminacy and contingency.

2. Universal causal determinism cannot be rationally affirmed. 
There is a sort of dizzying, self-defeating character to determinism. For if one comes to believe that determinism is true, one has to believe that the reason he has come to believe it is simply that he was determined to do so. One has not in fact been able to weigh the arguments pro and con and freely make up one’s mind on that basis. The difference between the person who weighs the arguments for determinism and rejects them and the person who weighs them and accepts them is wholly that one was determined by causal factors outside himself to believe and the other not to believe. When you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and that even your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined, a sort of vertigo sets in, for everything that you think, even this very thought itself, is outside your control. Determinism could be true; but it is very hard to see how it could ever be rationally affirmed, since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.

3. Universal, divine, determinism makes God the author of sin and precludes human responsibility. 
In contrast to the Molinist view, on the deterministic view even the movement of the human will is caused by God. God moves people to choose evil, and they cannot do otherwise. God determines their choices and makes them do wrong. If it is evil to make another person do wrong, then on this view God is not only the cause of sin and evil, but becomes evil Himself, which is absurd. By the same token, all human responsibility for sin has been removed. For our choices are not really up to us: God causes us to make them. We cannot be responsible for our actions, for nothing we think or do is up to us.

4. Universal, divine, determinism nullifies human agency. 
Since our choices are not up to us but are caused by God, human beings cannot be said to be real agents. They are mere instruments by means of which God acts to produce some effect, much like a man using a stick to move a stone. Of course, secondary causes retain all their properties and powers as intermediate causes, as the Reformed divines remind us, just as a stick retains its properties and powers which make it suitable for the purposes of the one who uses it. Reformed thinkers need not be occasionalists like Nicholas Malebranche, who held that God is the only cause there is. But these intermediate causes are not agents themselves but mere instrumental causes, for they have no power to initiate action. Hence, it’s dubious that on divine determinism there really is more than one agent in the world, namely, God. This conclusion not only flies in the face of our knowledge of ourselves as agents but makes it inexplicable why God then treats us as agents, holding us responsible for what He caused us and used us to do.

5. Universal, divine determinism makes reality into a farce. 
On the deterministic view, the whole world becomes a vain and empty spectacle. There are no free agents in rebellion against God, whom God seeks to win through His love, and no one who freely responds to that love and freely gives his love and praise to God in return. The whole spectacle is a charade whose only real actor is God Himself. Far from glorifying God, the deterministic view, I’m convinced, denigrates God for engaging in a such a farcical charade. It is deeply insulting to God to think that He would create beings which are in every respect causally determined by Him and then treat them as though they were free agents, punishing them for the wrong actions He made them do or loving them as though they were freely responding agents. God would be like a child who sets up his toy soldiers and moves them about his play world, pretending that they are real persons whose every motion is not in fact of his own doing and pretending that they merit praise or blame. I’m certain that Reformed determinists, in contrast to classical Reformed divines, will bristle at such a comparison. But why it’s inapt for the doctrine of universal, divine, causal determinism is a mystery to me.

Book Preview: Arminian Theology

I've recently been reading the book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities by Roger E. Olsen. I'd highly recommend this book to Calvinists and Arminians alike. The author rightly distinguishes popular Arminianism (which is actually Pelagianism) from classical Arminianism, and then proceeds to dispel common myths about Arminianism. The table of contents will give you a taste of the substance of the book:

Myth #1: Arminian Theology is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed Theology
Jacob Arminius and most of his faithful followers fall into the broad understanding of the Reformed tradition; the common ground between Arminianism and Calvinism is significant.
Myth #2: A Hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism is Possible
In spite of common ground, Calvinism and Arminianism are incommensurable systems of Christian theology; on issues crucial to both there is no stable middle ground between them.
Myth #3: Arminianism is Not an Orthodox Evangelical Option
Classical Arminian theology heartily affirms the fundamentals of Christian orthodoxy and promotes the hallmarks of evangelical faith; it is neither Arian nor liberal.
Myth #4: The Heart of Arminianism Is Belief in Free Will
The true heart of Arminian theology is God's loving and just character; the formal principle of Arminianism is the universal will of God for salvation.
Myth #5: Arminian Theology Denies the Sovereignty of God
Classical Arminianism interprets God's sovereignty and providence differently from Calvinism without in any way denying them; God is in charge of everything without controlling everything.
Myth #6: Arminianism Is a Human-Centered Theology
An optimistic anthropology is alien to true Arminianism which is thoroughly God-centered. Arminian theology confesses human depravity, including the bondage of the will.
Myth #7: Arminian Theology is Not a Theology of Grace
The material principle of classical Arminian thought is prevenient grace. All of salvation is wholly and entirely of God's grace.
Myth #8: Arminians Do Not Believe in Predestination
Predestination is a biblical concept; classical Arminians interpret it differently than Calvinists without denying it. It is God's sovereign decree to elect believers in Jesus Christ and includes God's foreknowledge of those believers' faith.
Myth #9: Arminian Theology Denies Justification by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone
Classical Arminian theology is a Reformation theology. It embraces divine imputation of righteousness by God's grace through faith alone and preserves the distinction between justification and sanctification.
Myth #10: All Arminians Believe in the Governmental Theory of the Atonement
There is no one Arminian doctrine of Christ's atonement. Many Arminians accept the penal substitution theory enthusiastically while others prefer the governmental theory.

The book is a historical explanation of Arminian thought in which the author moves easily from Arminius himself, to Wesley, and finally to modern Arminian thinkers. He explains Arminian thought and judiciously shows how it compares and contrasts to Calvinist thought. This book is needed because Arminianism is often demonized by neo-reformed thinkers who equate Arminian thought with the heresy of Pelagianism. It can be embraced by Calvinists for at least three reasons: (1) Calvinists will be educated as to not misrepresent Arminianism so that genuine dialoge and critique can take place, (2) Calvinists can earnestly hope that the large number of people who Olsen rightly recognizes to be Pelagians will be converted to classical evangelical Arminians, and (3) Calvinists may realize that they are closer to Arminian thought than they once realized. Arminians will appreciate this book as an excellent historical statement of their views which will dispel the Pelagianism that has infiltrated our culture. And finally, those who read this post without an understanding (or perhaps only a vague understanding) of the terms "Arminian," "Calvinist," and "Pelagian" will appreciate this book because it will help them grow in their understanding of theology, salvation, and God Himself.