 |
| Banpo Bridge, South Korea-Google Images |
The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University, 2003
More recent work done in the context of the Doctorate and presented in blog format:
Middle Knowledge
PhD Passed
Free will, Sovereignty and Soul-Making (PhD edit)
Reformed Theology and Providence
Calvin On Augustine
Jonathan Edwards (PhD Edit)
Compatibilism (MPhil)
7. Compatibilism Definition Chapter 11, entitled The Mystery of Providence, is the centre piece of Carson’s book and sets out his philosophical outlook concerning the problem of evil in light of God’s sovereignty and human freedom.
Carson stated: The Bible as a whole, and sometimes in specific texts, presupposes or teaches that both of the following propositions are true: God is absolutely sovereign, but his sovereignty never functions in such a way that human responsibility is curtailed, minimized, or mitigated. Human beings are morally responsible creatures–they significantly choose, rebel, obey, believe, defy, make decisions, and so forth, and they are rightly held accountable for such actions; but this characteristic never functions so as to make God absolutely contingent.
In what follows, I shall argue that the Bible upholds the truth of both of these propositions simultaneously. The view that both of these propositions are true I shall call compatibilism. We could call this view anything we like, but for various historical reasons this seems like a good term to use. All I mean by it is that, so far as the Bible is concerned, the two propositions are taught and are mutually compatible. Carson (1990: 201).
Selected Biblical Overview Carson listed and discussed some Biblical examples of compatibilism and I will review some of these. In Genesis 50:19-20 it describes the reactions of the formerly enslaved Joseph to his brothers who had sold him into slavery. Carson stated: Joseph allays their fears, and insists he does not want to put himself in the place of God. Then he looks back at the brutal incident when he was so badly treated, and comments, "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives." The parallelism is remarkable. Joseph does not say that his brothers maliciously sold him into slavery, and that God turned it around, after the fact, to make the story have a happy ending. How could that have been the case, if God’s intent was to bring forth the good of saving many lives? Nor does Joseph suggest that God planned to bring him down to Egypt with first-class treatment all the way, but unfortunately the brothers mucked up His plan somewhat, resulting in the slight hiatus of Joseph spending a decade and a half as a slave or in prison. The story does not read that way. The brothers took certain evil initiatives, and there is no prior mention of Joseph’s travel arrangements. As Joseph explains, God was working sovereignly in the event of his being sold into Egypt, but the brothers’ guilt is not thereby assuaged (they intended to harm Joseph); the brothers were responsible for this action, but God was not thereby reduced to a merely contingent role; and while the brothers were evil, God himself had only good intentions. Carson (1990: 205-206).
The concept here is similar to that of John Calvin whom I mentioned earlier in this thesis. Human beings sin by choice and nature, yet God uses their actions for the greater good. From Carson’s words, the story of Joseph is not merely that God turned the evil will of the brothers into something good, but that God was working sovereignly in willing, in a sense, Joseph’s temporary captivity in order that, eventually, the Hebrew people would be led out of Egypt by Moses. Many Hebrews in Egypt were descendants of Jacob’s sons. In Old Testament Survey it is stated concerning the story of Joseph: "This carefully constructed story, . . . is one long lesson–God’s providence brings to nought the plots of men and turns their evil intent to his own ends." La Sor, Hubbard and Bush (1987: 113).
Another Old Testament passage used by Carson was 1 Kings 8:46ff. He quotes verse 58: At the dedication of the temple, Solomon not only can ask that God will respond to His people in a certain way when they repent of their sin and turn again to Him, but he can also say "May he turn our hearts to him, to walk in all his ways and to keep the commands, decrees and regulations he gave our fathers." Carson (1990: 206). Carson was pointing out that compatibilism, the idea, was a concept known to Solomon as he spoke those words. He knew the human responsibility of the people in Israel to follow God, but also understood that God had the ability to move people’s hearts. Martin noted: ". . . the behavioural condition is made less harsh by the prayer may he turn our hearts to him, but reappears in its stark demand: But your hearts must be fully committed . . ." Martin (1986: 405).
As Martin noted, there are two ideas being put across in the passage, (1) that God has the ability to turn their hearts, and (2) their hearts must be fully committed to God. It appears necessary for both of these concepts to occur for relationships between human beings and God to continue successfully. The sinfulness of human beings in their will seems to mean that God must influence people in order for them to seek him. At the same time, however, God does not force human beings into submission, so there is a need for human beings to follow God willingly. This is not contradiction but it is compatibilism. It could be concluded that once God enlightens the human mind with his spirit, people retain a sinful nature but have the ability to seek the guidance of God, and thus there is human responsibility to obey God as seen in the context of this passage.
Carson stated that Philippians 2:12-13 was an important verse concerning compatibilism: Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed–not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence–continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. This passage is extremely important, as much for what it does not say as for what it does. It does not say that God had done his bit in your salvation, and now it is up to you. Still less does it suggest that because God is working in you "to will and to act according to his good purpose" you should therefore be entirely passive and simply let him take over. Nor is it (as not a few commentators wrongly suggest) that God has done the work of justification in you, and now you must continue with your own sanctification. Paul describes what the Philippians must do as obeying what he has to say, and as working out (not working for!) their own salvation. For assumption is that choice and efforts are required. The "working out" of their salvation includes honestly pursuing the same attitude as that of Christ (2:5), learning to do everything the gospel demands without complaining or arguing (2:14), and much more. But at the same time, they must learn that it is God himself who is at work in them "to will and to act according to his good purpose." God’s sovereignty extends over both their willing and their actions. Carson (1990: 210-211).
According to Carson’s interpretation, God completes all the work for salvation but the pursuing of a Christ like attitude is the working out of one’s salvation; however, Ralph P. Martin, in his Philippians commentary stated concerning this passage: "It seems clear, however, that the true exegesis must begin with a definition of salvation, not in personal terms but in regard to the corporate life of the Philippian church." Martin (1987: 115). H. C. Hewlett agreed and stated: "This salvation is a present one, and not so much individual as collective." Hewlett (1986: 1445). Even if the salvation described in the context of working out is more corporate in nature than it is personal, the compatibilism idea is not dead in this passage for God is still requiring human beings to obey him on a corporate level. As well, any corporate entity is made up of individuals, so if there are not enough individuals working with Christ in obedience then corporate obedience will not be possible.
Compatibilism Discussed First, Carson rightly, in my view, defends compatibilism as logical but somewhat of a mystery. (1) Most people who call themselves compatibilists are not so brash as to claim that they can tell you exactly how the two propositions I set forth in the last section fit together. All they claim is that, if terms are defined carefully enough, it is possible to show that there is no necessary contradiction between them. In other words, it is outlining some of the "unknowns" that are involved and show that these "unknowns" allow for both propositions to be true. But precisely because there are large "unknowns" at stake, we cannot show how the two propositions cohere. I think this analysis is correct. But what it means is that I am still going to be left with mysteries when I am finished. All that I hope to achieve is to locate these mysteries more precisely, and to show that they are big enough to allow me to claim that when the Bible assumes compatibilism it is not adopting nonsensical positions. Carson (1990: 212-213).
I am in agreement with Carson’s concept here. Compatibilism, similar to the idea of God’s existence, has elements of mystery. Christianity does not have to prove that concepts such as these are empirically valid. There are some logical ideas that are neither empirically provable nor, through deduction, can these ideas be completely understood; however, it can be seen in Scripture that compatibilism is taught. There is both God’s sovereignty and human choice and responsibility. One does not cancel out the other. Reason also shows us that human beings have free choice, to some degree, yet there are external factors which influence these choices since human beings are limited and not all powerful. Certainly God could be one of these external factors that influences free choice without determining human choice.
Second, Carson noted that compatibilism being true means God stands behind good and evil, but in different ways. To put it bluntly, God stands behind evil in such a way that not even evil takes place outside the bounds of his sovereignty, yet the evil is not morally chargeable to him: it is always chargeable to secondary agents, to secondary causes. On the other hand, God stands behind good in such a way that it not only takes place within the bounds of his sovereignty, but it is always chargeable to him, and only derivatively to secondary agents. In other words, if I sin, I cannot possibly do so outside the bounds of God’s sovereignty (or the many texts already cited have no meaning), but I alone am responsible for that sin–or perhaps I and those who tempted me, led me astray and the like. God is not to be blamed. Carson (1990: 213). Carson, like Calvin, sees God as willing evil for the greater good, but God remains untainted by sin. This certainly is a mysterious concept but logical. All analogies break down but compatibilism can be deduced in creation. It is as though God’s creation is a chess game. He has sovereignty over the game yet is one of the players, and is the chess master. No matter what moves God’s opponent makes against him, God will ultimately prevail. The moves are freely made by the opponent, but the nature of the game created by God, who is infinite, means that God is in ultimate control and he will not lose the match. The creation, like this chess game, is God’s domain, so it is logical for him to create an opposition and give opponents free will, yet still work out his ultimate purposes without contradicting his perfect nature.
Some points on Carson’s use of mystery with regard to compatibilism. First, intellectually, I would prefer that the term mystery never be mentioned when formulating theological and philosophical concepts. However, in regard to God we are dealing with an infinite being who has chosen not to provide in Scripture, or anywhere, his specific viewpoint on how he can be sovereign and yet deem human beings responsible regarding the problem of evil. Yet, as Carson’s states compatibilism is not an illogical concept and is Scriptural.
Second, Carson’s purpose is writing his text was not to provide a theological defence of the concept of compatibilism. I think that if one was to write such a defence, then a further logical, speculative theology could be developed. The term mystery then could be largely avoided, but some questions about God would still remain unanswered. In my view, because of God’s infinite transcendent nature, all attempts to try to completely understand him will fail. This is true regardless of theological bias, but I think God has revealed himself somewhat in Scripture.
Third, my purpose in writing this thesis is to review four authors and survey their two denominations. I would perhaps, in the future, like to write a theological defence and try to somewhat eliminate the mystery of compatibilism, but this is not my mandate here.
Note I wrote the PhD obviously to accomplish this goal and then there is this blog forward and potential other writing.
Fourth, I think Thiessen’s point on God’s omnipotence can be helpful here. He stated: By the omnipotence of God we mean that He is able to do whatever He wills; but since His will is limited by His nature, this means that God can do everything that is in harmony with His perfections... The possession of omnipotence does not, however, imply the exercise of His power, certainly not the exercise of all His power. God can do what He will to do; but He does not necessarily will to do anything. That is, God has power over His power; otherwise He would act of necessity and cease to be a free being. Nor does omnipotence exclude but rather imply the power of self-limitation. God is limited to some extent by the free will of His rational creatures. That is why He did not keep sin out of the universe by a display of His power; that is also why He does not save anyone by force. Thiessen (1956: 126).
With Thiessen’s idea, God has divine sovereignty, but for the sake of human beings fulfilling their purpose, he limits himself in order that they can freely choose to sin. God could remain in full control of his creation and use evil for the greater good, yet still will freedom for humanity to disobey him, and thus he could rightly hold them responsible for their sinful actions. God is limited by his free creatures by his choice, but he still has every right to hold them responsible for sin against him, and has the power for his ultimate plans to take place.
CALVIN, J. (1539)(1998) Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II.
CALVIN, J. (1543)(1998) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
CALVIN, J. (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
CARSON, D.A. (1981) Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, Atlanta, John Knox Press.
CARSON, D.A. (1990) How Long, O Lord?, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
LA SOR, W.S., D.A HUBBARD and F.W BUSH (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MARTIN, R.P. (1987) Philippians, in Leon Canon Morris (gen. ed.), Tyndale New Testament Commentary, Leicester/Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press/William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
THIESSEN, H.C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
 |
| Facebook-It must be very warm in Europe I deduce by the plate and at least the cats are not on the hood. |
