The gentleman here has a perhaps not fully understood the Arminian objection to Calvinism, but there are two issues that are interesting in his essay. Others can refute his other arguments, but I want to examine these two (not necessarily to refute, just to examine).
DA Carson, whom I think of as one of the better Calvinists approaches it this way[1]. Compatibilism to him is simply saying that God's sovereignty and human responsibility are compatible.
This is a fascinating statement given that the author in the link above happily admits that "we also believe in determinism.". This comports well with the traditional definition of compatibilism; namely that determinism and free will are compatible.
Thus for thereforeGodExists, 'sovereignty' = 'determinism' and 'free will' keeps human responsibility intact. Now, we must make some distinctions;
Fatalism is the belief that everything that happens is forced to happen by 'fate' or the gods or perhaps God. It is irresistible.
Determinism is the idea that the current and future states of the universe are the result of only the prior states and the laws of nature. Thus our brother from 'thereforeGodexists' is not in fact a determinist as he claims. He is a theological determinist. Determinists are normally atheists who subscribe to naturalism. The positions are surprisingly close, but not equivalent.
Theological determinism(my definition, but I don't see that he'd object) is he idea that the current and future states of the universe are the result of only the prior states and the laws of nature and the input of God. While God sustains his creation, he is most definitely separate from it. God is not creation.
So far so good, right?
Well, so the author feels in the case of (theological)determinism and free will, 'We believe that these two concepts can be maintained fully and consistently.' Unlike Carson, et al, he doesn't delve much into the scripture to support his position, which is a pity, but never mind. Carson appeals to mystery, but thereforeGodexists doesn't show how this might be consistent, and I would be very interested to see his reasoning in a way that neither diminishes determinism nor man's responsibility.
What interests me most here is the presentation. Carson dances around 'determinism' in the quote. thereforeGodexists(Horrible handle, I keep accidentally typing, therefore God exits! ;) ) fully embraces that he believes in determinism. Carson also rejects the label 'fatalist', and rightly so. A Christian of whatever persuasion cannot be a fatalist.
The entire premise of the article is we must accept his assertion that determinism and sovereignty are one and the same.
What's interesting is the author of gotquestions here seems to try to deny both the label of fatalist and determinist, since his position fits neither his nor my definition of either. I would class that as theological determinism.
So, my argument is that there might be a class of Calvinist who is uncomfortable with the label 'determinist'. It seems to me the sort of label that even if one grudgingly accepts, should not be an easy or comfortable position to accept... Perhaps what worries me most is that 'thereforeGodexists' is alarmingly comfortable with the label, which is inaccurate anyway.
Let's look at the assertion that 'sovereignty' = 'determinism'.
If read you the original post with that assumption, then his argument might have some weight.
" is God sovereign over man’s wicked heart? Is he sovereign over sin? If
the answer is no, then one must say that God is not sovereign over all
things. Therefore, God is not sovereign."
translated becomes:
' does God determine man’s wicked heart? Does he determine sin? If
the answer is no, then one must say that God does not determines all
things. Therefore, God does not determines all things'
Well, that seems self evident. The Arminian understanding of sovereignty is much more mundane I'm afraid. We mean 'Supreme power or authority' and 'freedom from external control'. More dictionary definitions than anything. Basically, God has the right and power to govern the universe as he pleases. Nobody tells him what to do, or what conditions he may set, what laws he may make. Is he sovereign over sin? Sure, he limits or allows it as he pleases, but he does not determine it. With Orange we hold that, We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. See James 1:12-16.
Under the standard understanding of sovereignty, we are well within our rights to claim God is sovereign, since He is. If Calvinism wants to redefine the term, that's their lookout, we'll keep using language as it is commonly understood.
Let's look at the often brought up passage in Genesis that supposedly supports compatibilism: Genesis 50:20. There are a couple of things to note here;
- This is a specific incident, nowhere that I have been found are we told to generalize that this is how God operates on every little detail. Every example I have been shown is specific to God's historic plan of history to bring about Christ and therefore salvation, so even if we grant determinism here, it is insufficient proof for the whole of history and creation.
- The brothers actually intended to kill Joseph, see Gen 37:18. God providentially provided another option in the form of the Ishmaelites, and perhaps a prompting on Judah's heart. Their intent was different then to what actually happened.
- The interpretation of compatibilism comes therefore not from the text but from the reader's other theological commitments.
Please note that I am not here refuting those other commitments, just rejecting that the text on it's own is sufficient to support them for all cases, no matter how we interpret it.
Rejecting determinism does not mean God is not in control, or guesses at the future. The alternatives are often provided as a false dilemma - either totally deterministic, or totally powerless.
Arminianism actually selects neither. God is totally in control, but in his sovereignty circumscribes limits on our freedom. Not to force one choice, but to restrain the evil we intend (as with Joseph's brothers) or to protect us. That does not mean we can't choose what we do within those limits, neither does it make us free to choose God without his intervention to overcome depravity.
Do we understand his compatibilism? Yes, actually and if you are a Calvinist who wishes to remain orthodox, you must subscribe to it, no matter how contradictory it sounds. If you slip into the coherency of hard determinism, make no mistake, the universal church condemns you as a heretic.
Can we claim God is sovereign? Yes, we can, and nobody has shown otherwise. What we can't do is claim God determines everything. Since everything includes sin, we're actually quite happy with that.
As always comments should be respectful.
[1] "Christians are not fatalists. The central line of Christian tradition neither sacrifices the utter sovereignty of God nor God’s Love and God’s Sovereignty reduces the responsibility of his image-bearers. In the realm of philosophical theology, this position is sometimes called compatibilism. It simply means that God’s unconditioned sovereignty and the responsibility of human beings are mutually compatible.
It does not claim to show you how they are compatible. It claims only that we can get far enough in the evidence and the arguments to show how they are not necessarily incompatible, and that it is therefore entirely reasonable to think they are compatible if there is good evidence for them" DA Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of Love pg 51,52
