Some thoughts concerning Compatibilism

[moonbeam]

Some thoughts concerning Compatibilism


And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt…[Exodus 7:3]


In the example above... the LORD is speaking in the first person.

He states categorically that He, Himself, will harden Pharaoh’s heart.

This statement denies causality...by any other entity...in regards to the outcome.

That being, experientially for Pharaoh, a hardening of his own heart.


Is the LORD responsible for the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart?

If so...on what basis?

If not...on what basis?

.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I can accept the outcome, whether it happened directly by God, first cause or indirect through secondary causes. I believe all of our experiences are conditioned by God, for example, the date, geological location, race, gender, involved in our birth. From there many other outside influences effect or condition choices, like social, financial, cultural conditions. In short, God the all-conditioner "makes" us who we are, like a potter with clay.

 

[moonbeam]

I can accept the outcome, whether it happened directly by God, first cause or indirect through secondary causes. I believe all of our experiences are conditioned by God, for example, the date, geological location, race, gender, involved in our birth. From there many other outside influences effect or condition choices, like social, financial, cultural conditions. In short, God the all-conditioner "makes" us who we are, like a potter with clay.

The OP intends to explore the issue of causality...and the relationship, between causality, and responsibility.

Your response is slightly ambiguous, or so it seems to me.

You affirm that the LORD is responsible for the hardening of Pharaoh's heart…..(Would I be correct in saying that?)

.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

The OP intends to explore the issue of causality...and the relationship, between causality, and responsibility.

ok

Your response is slightly ambiguous, or so it seems to me.

sorry

You affirm that the LORD is responsible for the hardening of Pharaoh's heart…..(Would I be correct in saying that?)

Yes, and that verse is not a shinning example of compatibilism, but I see no need to read anything into the verse that is not there. God does not need me to defend Him, and who am I to question Him? Pharaoh already had a hard heart, so the Lord hardened it further, and? Jesus commanded demons out of a man into swine which killed the poor pigs, and He was responsible. God caused rain, forty days and nights, destroying nearly everything, God was responsible for the rain, He caused it. I'd say hardening Pharaoh's heart is small potatoes compared to a worldwide flood.

 

[lesliedellow]

God is responsible for hardening Pharaoh's heart, and he, with his foreknowledge, knows what the outcome of that hardening will be.

Nevertheless, it is still Pharaoh who undertakes his actions, and he does so in accordance with his own wishes. Therefore, he is responsible for those actions.

 

[hedrick]

Note the context of Ex 7:3. God is telling Moses what is going to happen, in order to prepare him. He is not speaking of Pharaoh's spiritual status. He's giving Moses a rare view into God's normally secret plan. This is perfectly consistent with compatibilism.

 

[moonbeam]

Yes, and that verse is not a shinning example of compatibilism, but I see no need to read anything into the verse that is not there.

The reason that particular verse is not a shining example, I suspect, could have something to do with the light it sheds on the subject of apparent creaturely freedom, namely, that it erodes the notion of free will to such a degree that a more fitting and acurate descriptor regarding Pharaoh’s will, would be that it is a controlled will.

The LORD’s focus is on the internal...where all external stimuli coalesce into an associated whole.

The LORD categorically states that it is the heart which will be His point of influence... the internal locus of cognitive deliberations where motives are formed and developed, where fine nuances are weighed and variant calculus appraised...before, that regulated process, of examining our thoughts, produces the resultant, singular, choice....the one determined by the LORD....which becomes the antecedent....for the desired outcome....which, itself, becomes the antecedent etc.

And I don’t think anything needs to be read into the text to arrive at that conclusion.

God does not need me to defend Him, and who am I to question Him? Pharaoh already had a hard heart, so the Lord hardened it further

Correct...but acknowledging that does nothing to disprove the methodology employed by the LORD...does it?

Rather, the insight revealed, and methodology employed...logically deduced from the scripture here...merely supports the notion that all preceding occurrences in Pharaoh’s life, were similarly regulated to establish the construct which would result in him looking aghast as walls of water collapsed in upon him...”For this reason I raised you up…”

.

 

[moonbeam]

God is responsible for hardening Pharaoh's heart, and he, with his foreknowledge, knows what the outcome of that hardening will be.

Agreed...God is responsible for hardening Pharaoh’s heart.

God’s foreknowledge being the result (by default) of God’s own knowledge of Himself...Knowing Himself, He necessarily knows that which He decrees to occur.

Question - God is responsible for the decree that Adam should sin?

Question - God is responsible for the decreed methodology employed ensuring Adam would sin?

Nevertheless, it is still Pharaoh who undertakes his actions, and he does so in accordance with his own wishes. Therefore, he is responsible for those actions.

Agreed... Pharaoh is responsible for hardening his heart.

.

 

[moonbeam]

Note the context of Ex 7:3. God is telling Moses what is going to happen, in order to prepare him. He is not speaking of Pharaoh's spiritual status. He's giving Moses a rare view into God's normally secret plan. This is perfectly consistent with compatibilism.

I understand that the context is divorced from notions concerning Pharaoh’s spiritual status...but now you mention it...let’s take a tangential deviation and explore some related themes.

Compatibilism is a mechanism whereby God’s determinism (decrees) can be reconciled with free will...and maintain grounds for responsibility.

That is, a will, which is free (responsible free agency)...but not in a libertarian free will sense.


In regards to the effectual and efficacious internal call by the Holy Spirit, resulting in our will responding willingly to repent and believe the Gospel...We acknowledge no part in that acceptance...we acknowledge that even our willingness to will...is not of us.

We are not responsible...for our will, to will...our willingness to believe, what we believe (I know that for a fact from my own personal experience...I just “found” myself “believing” the scripture as I was reading...just out of the blue...is how I describe it)

In this regard combatibilism drops the ball at this particular juncture...and accepts this momentary anomaly and disconnect between our will, and our responsibility for our will, and resultant choice.

Your thoughts?

.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

The reason that particular verse is not a shining example, I suspect, could have something to do with the light it sheds on the subject of apparent creaturely freedom, namely, that it erodes the notion of free will to such a degree that a more fitting and acurate descriptor regarding Pharaoh’s will, would be that it is a controlled will.

I see no need to take a particular instance and make a generalization, it does not follow from the text.

It does not erode freedom so much as it demonstrates the SOVEREIGNTY of GOD over the heart, the will of man, his creation.

The LORD’s focus is on the internal...where all external stimuli coalesce into an associated whole.

I get the first part of the sentence, but you lost me with the second.

The LORD categorically states that it is the heart which will be His point of influence... the internal locus of cognitive deliberations where motives are formed and developed, where fine nuances are weighed and variant calculus appraised...before, that regulated process, of examining our thoughts, produces the resultant, singular, choice....the one determined by the LORD....which becomes the antecedent....for the desired outcome....which, itself, becomes the antecedent etc.

I think I only partially understood what you were trying to convey. Lost me where I emboldened the text.

And I don’t think anything needs to be read into the text to arrive at that conclusion.

Correct...but acknowledging that does nothing to disprove the methodology employed by the LORD...does it?

I see, you mistake me for someone trying to "disprove the methodology employed by the LORD". But you've got the wrong guy, I'm a presuppositionalist.

Rather, the insight revealed, and methodology employed...logically deduced from the scripture here...merely supports the notion that all preceding occurrences in Pharaoh’s life, were similarly regulated to establish the construct which would result in him looking aghast as walls of water collapsed in upon him...”For this reason I raised you up…”.

all for Soli Deo Gloria

 

[moonbeam]

I see no need to take a particular instance and make a generalization, it does not follow from the text.

It does not erode freedom so much as it demonstrates the SOVEREIGNTY of GOD over the heart, the will of man, his creation.

The profound depth of the sovereignty of God in regards an individual persons experiential “thought life” is my point of interest.

I will relay an account of something I said to a workmate to illustrate the degree of sovereignty that God has over His rational creatures (who believe they are autonomous)

I said - “Not only does God know the circumstance of your death, He knows the very minute and hour of your death, and He knows the very thoughts you will be thinking at the point of your death”

Would you agree with this statement?

I get the first part of the sentence, but you lost me with the second.

The compatibilist will often restrict the means that God uses to influence the decision making process of the individual i.e. Pharaoah...to the exclusive manipulation of external stimuli i.e. the particular words and tone used by someone speaking, weather conditions, a persons demeanour or dress, noisy or quite environment all have their effect...the combatabilist position is that the manipulation of external stimuli (forces) is the exclusive means utilised...and it is the coercive effect of these external forces...which ellicits the desired choice from the person concerned (Pharaoah)

They will not accept direct manipulation of internal thought processes by God…any such occurrence violates the principle of free will and therefore undermines responsibility.

I think I only partially understood what you were trying to convey. Lost me where I emboldened the text.

It was my way of expressing the sequential nature of God's decree's unfolding…one decree (event) following the next decree (event)…cause and effect…leading to cause and effect.

God's decree's unfolding sequentially one after the other, moment by moment…being actualised one after the other…constructs the reality we are experiencing.

Where I have used the word event in parenthesis (event) I must emphasis that these apply in the most profound depths of God's exercise of His transcendent sovereignty to singular thoughts (choices)…the choice (thought)…producing the action or decreed effect.

I see, you mistake me for someone trying to "disprove the methodology employed by the LORD". But you've got the wrong guy, I'm a presuppositionalist.

Everyone is a presuppositionist…the only question is which presupposition is the correct one.

all for Soli Deo Gloria

Absolutely.

.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

The profound depth of the sovereignty of God in regards an individual persons experiential “thought life” is my point of interest.

I will relay an account of something I said to a workmate to illustrate the degree of sovereignty that God has over His rational creatures (who believe they are autonomous)

I said - “Not only does God know the circumstance of your death, He knows the very minute and hour of your death, and He knows the very thoughts you will be thinking at the point of your death”

Would you agree with this statement?

yes

The compatibilist will often restrict the means that God uses to influence the decision making process of the individual i.e. Pharaoah...to the exclusive manipulation of external stimuli i.e. the particular words and tone used by someone speaking, weather conditions, a persons demeanour or dress, noisy or quite environment all have their effect...the combatabilist position is that the manipulation of external stimuli (forces) is the exclusive means utilised...and it is the coercive effect of these external forces...which ellicits the desired choice from the person concerned (Pharaoah)

They will not accept direct manipulation of internal thought processes by God…any such occurrence violates the principle of free will and therefore undermines responsibility.

Sorry, but I do not agree with your characterization of the the compatibilist position. Plenty of compatibilists are monergists, and believe in verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. Any high view of Scripture must give serious consideration to "direct manipulation of internal thought processes by God".

It was my way of expressing the sequential nature of God's decree's unfolding…one decree (event) following the next decree (event)…cause and effect…leading to cause and effect.

God's decree's unfolding sequentially one after the other, moment by moment…being actualised one after the other…constructs the reality we are experiencing.

Where I have used the word event in parenthesis (event) I must emphasis that these apply in the most profound depths of God's exercise of His transcendent sovereignty to singular thoughts (choices)…the choice (thought)…producing the action or decreed effect.

Oh ok, ty for explaining.

Everyone is a presuppositionist…the only question is which presupposition is the correct one.

Absolutely everyone is a presuppositionalist...

Though I am not a Clarkian, I'll paraphrase from lecture by Ronald Nash, everyone has a worldview, which one is the correct one, God's worldview!

To even assume a correct one, assumes the ONE who is correct, from which all non-correct deviate.

 

[moonbeam]

yes

There are some interesting ramifications in assenting to that question as you do.

Therefore all thoughts, that are thought, are necessarily known to God, because all thoughts of God's creatures (both human and angelic) are necessarily decreed by Him…that is how He knows them.

God's foreknowledge of events, incorporates all those thoughts that are thought, which produces them.

Sorry, but I do not agree with your characterization of the the compatibilist position. Plenty of compatibilists are monergists, and believe in verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. Any high view of Scripture must give serious consideration to "direct manipulation of internal thought processes by God".

There are variations in compatibilist views as noted "compatibilist will often restrict".

The point you raise is a good one, and we can accept, than, that the direct manipulation of internal thought processes by God…is something which has occurred (using your example) and therefore does occur.

Another example of the same manipulative (persuasion) process of internal thought processes testified to in scripture is the case of the lying spirit used to persuade Ahab.

And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so…[1 Kings 22:19-22]


So we have a number of scriptural examples we can utilise to develop a logical rational that God directly controls the internal thought processes of a particular person to such a degree, that the use of the term compatibility, to describe, what is a completely monergistic, control of the will, is somewhat disingenuous.

And if we have scriptural warrant in more than a few cases, we can extrapolate out from that to a generalisation, that this is in fact the case…God directly controls the thoughts and will of all persons…yet they are fully responsible (also)…but not because they have free will.

.

 

[hedrick]

In regards to the effectual and efficacious internal call by the Holy Spirit, resulting in our will responding willingly to repent and believe the Gospel...We acknowledge no part in that acceptance...we acknowledge that even our willingness to will...is not of us.

We are not responsible...for our will, to will...our willingness to believe, what we believe (I know that for a fact from my own personal experience...I just “found” myself “believing” the scripture as I was reading...just out of the blue...is how I describe it)

In this regard combatibilism drops the ball at this particular juncture...and accepts this momentary anomaly and disconnect between our will, and our responsibility for our will, and resultant choice.

Your thoughts?

.

God does not work in the same way with the reprobate and the saved. That's standard Reformed thought. The reprobate do his will, but he isn't personally involved in moving them to do evil. However in order for someone to follow him, the Holy Spirit must work personally in them.

 

[moonbeam]

God does not work in the same way with the reprobate and the saved. That's standard Reformed thought. The reprobate do his will, but he isn't personally involved in moving them to do evil. However in order for someone to follow him, the Holy Spirit must work personally in them.

In regards the reprobate…we have the example of Pharaoh, upon who's heart (the cognitive sphere) the LORD categorically states, as His, Personal, intended point of influence.

Also…in the example of the lying spirit the LORD dispatches to achieve His intent regards Ahab, through the mouths of the prophets, I think the following scripture would indicate that they were reprobate (despite the office they held)


But Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah went near, and smote Micaiah on the cheek, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee? And Micaiah said, Behold, thou shalt see in that day, when thou shalt go into an inner chamber to hide thyself…[1 King's 24 - 25]


I must stress…my enquires are not intended to establish that the LORD is evil, or dualistic, or capricious…not at all…My intent and interest is to examine the methodology employed by our God…Who IS Light and Love.

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all…[1 John 1:5]

.

 

[hedrick]

Calvin’s commentary on Ex 9:12 doesn’t deal clearly with this, but he does maintain that Pharaoh’s hardness was voluntary. The passage states that God hardened his heart, but doesn’t say how. Thus I don’t think we need to imagine an indwelling of the Holy Spirit making him evil.

I wonder just how literally we should take 1 K 22:19 ff. But at any rate, 1 King 22:23 seems pretty clear that the lying spirit isn’t the Holy Spirit.

 

[moonbeam]

Calvin’s commentary on Ex 9:12 doesn’t deal clearly with this, but he does maintain that Pharaoh’s hardness was voluntary. The passage states that God hardened his heart, but doesn’t say how. Thus I don’t think we need to imagine an indwelling of the Holy Spirit making him evil.


I wonder just how literally we should take 1 K 22:19 ff. But at any rate, 1 King 22:23 seems pretty clear that the lying spirit isn’t the Holy Spirit.

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a term associated, exclusively, with the redeemed sinner…if I am not mistaken…or unless you can establish otherwise?

There are other spirits are there not?…does not the scripture indicate that the spirits [angelic beings] stand on the left, as well as the right, of the throne of God?

And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left…[1 Kings 22:19]

We know from numerous scripture that the right hand position in relation to the throne is the position denoting honour…where as the left denotes otherwise (also seen in the separation of the sheep from the goats..the goats being on the left hand)

We know from the book of Job chapter 1 and 2 that the LORD converses with Satan in the execution of His transcendent providential oversight (Sovereignty)…so the lying spirit would be dispatched by the father of lies Satan…at the LORD's behest as scripture testifies…both in 1 Kings and Job.

Therefore we have a logical rationale to conclude that a lying and seducing spirit was utilised by the LORD to persuade Pharaoh i.e. in the internal deliberations of the cognitive sphere (as the LORD categorically states i.e. "I will harden his heart")…this would agree with the testimony of scripture in Exodus 7:3 and 1 Kings 22:1-40…and so the experiential result, from Pharaoh's subjective point of view, is an increasing desire to resist the request of the LORD, delivered through the mouth of Moses.

The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will…[Proverbs 21:1]

And if the king's heart…why not the pauper's?

I wonder just how literally we should take 1 K 22:19 ff.

On what basis should we not take it literally?

.

 

[moonbeam]

Absolutely everyone is a presuppositionalist...

Though I am not a Clarkian, I'll paraphrase from lecture by Ronald Nash, everyone has a worldview, which one is the correct one, God's worldview!

To even assume a correct one, assumes the ONE who is correct, from which all non-correct deviate.

If we take the view espoused, that only God’s world view is the correct one [what an incredible insight] and that our meagre attempts to fathom the depths of His world view are doomed to error...it raises the question of why He even bothered revealing His truth to us in the scripture?

Was it for the purpose that our futility augment out vanities?

Or is the suggestion made that we avoid the difficult questions that are raised by scripture?

Or better still avoid all discussion completely as it is a fruitless exercise the only benefit being to witness the incredible degrees of error produced...which might at least provide some humour.

Many, if not most, proponents of God’s absolute sovereignty [typically Calvinist] seem only to happy to espouse the position in regards their own election and so forth, yet show little interest in the deeper and wider ramifications of the position they espouse.

Why is that? ..... Fear of what they might discover?

But that fear is baseless... for God is Light… and in Him is no darkness at all...[1 John 1:5]

.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

If we take the view espoused, that only God’s world view is the correct one [what an incredible insight]

Then we will be compatibilists, humbly admitting to the fact that BOTH the absolute sovereignty and absolute responsibility of man is taught in Scripture.

and that our meagre attempts to fathom the depths of His world view are doomed to error...it raises the question of why He even bothered revealing His truth to us in the scripture?

How are our attempts "doomed to error" if we are walking in the Spirit, have put on the mind of Christ, and being led by the Spirit? God the Holy Spirit does not illuminate, and guide His chosen into error when He so pleases to empower a believer in such a manner. The human writers of Scripture were not "doomed to error", they were under the influence, the guidence, and empowerment of the Holy Spirit, elected and chosen as instruments to communicate exactly what God intended for them to say, according to the will of God, for whatever period of time God chooses.

Was it for the purpose that our futility augment out vanities?

Or is the suggestion made that we avoid the difficult questions that are raised by scripture?

How about neither.

Or better still avoid all discussion completely as it is a fruitless exercise the only benefit being to witness the incredible degrees of error produced...which might at least provide some humour.

Humor to what, feed one's pride? All effort to make me a hard determinist will prove unfruitful, I am not a stranger to this subject, and do not wish to attempt discussion with those who cannot have a certain degree of respect for my position, it is pointless.

Many, if not most, proponents of God’s absolute sovereignty [typically Calvinist] seem only to happy to espouse the position in regards their own election and so forth, yet show little interest in the deeper and wider ramifications of the position they espouse.

Why is that? ..... Fear of what they might discover?

Oh you got me, I'm afraid...not. I do find your combative tone interesting coming from one bearing the Calvinist icon. Perhaps you're of the misconception that the Reformers and Calvinist giants are also on your side of philosophy, that is hard determinists. Well, I hate to be the one to break the news, but such is not the case. Historically, compatibilism is the majority position among Calvinists, recognizing hard determinism and libertarian free will as extremes both equally in error. You may call it what you want, but hard determinism, is in fact nothing more than "fatalism" with a Christian mask. Fatalism is worse than LFW, you could not help it, God made you do it, the devil made you do it, you had no choice in the matter...even if you didn't know how you would choose. Fatalism makes the categorical error of not distinguishing between FIRST and SECONDARY causes. It is so disgusting, that even Satan's words, thoughts, and actions are ALL ultimately caused by God, what an evil theology. Hard determinism, vindicates the Arminian strawmen accusations against Calvinism. It is a dangerous unbiblical philosophy worth speaking out against.

 

[moonbeam]

Then we will be compatibilists, humbly admitting to the fact that BOTH the absolute sovereignty and absolute responsibility of man is taught in Scripture.

That position is equally held by the libertarian free will advocate....they are compatibilist as well...only not your particular variety.

Why not refine the compatibilist position to its true quintessence...God is sovereign and He is in absolute control of everything that can be called by any name at all [all thoughts, the good the bad and the ugly necessarily included]...Doing so absolves neither angel, nor man, from responsibility for their intent or actions.

All effort to make me a hard determinist will prove unfruitful, I am not a stranger to this subject, and do not wish to attempt discussion with those who cannot have a certain degree of respect for my position, it is pointless.

A person can hold strongly to a position and still engage the opposing view with vigour...Why is that construed as showing insufficient respect?

I would have thought quite the opposite...having our thoughts challenged helps develop a robust defence and a deeper understanding of contentious points...iron sharpens iron [good biblical principle]...temperament issues aside.

I do find your combative tone interesting coming from one bearing the Calvinist icon.

There are always contentious issues of one kind or another. Powerful arguments are met with equally powerful responses by those who disagree...even within the Calvinist fold.

Perhaps you're of the misconception that the Reformers and Calvinist giants are also on your side of philosophy, that is hard determinists. Well, I hate to be the one to break the news, but such is not the case. Historically, compatibilism is the majority position among Calvinists, recognizing hard determinism and libertarian free will as extremes both equally in error.

Well I prefer to think for myself...not to say that I eschew reading and considering the thoughts of those who have gone before, not at all...I think that there will be points of agreement with some...and points of digression with others.

You may call it what you want, but hard determinism, is in fact nothing more than "fatalism" with a Christian mask.

It can be characterised like that...but the absolute providential sovereignty of God over all things would be another way of framing the concept envisaged.

Fatalism is worse than LFW, you could not help it, God made you do it, the devil made you do it, you had no choice in the matter...even if you didn't know how you would choose.

The absolute providential sovereignty of God over all things [exhaustive determinism] allows for the exercise of creaturely freedom in regards the choices they make [that is to say] subjectively the rational creature experiences an overwhelming sense of autonomy [aka free will] which is not violated from their subjective perspective.

Fatalism makes the categorical error of not distinguishing between FIRST and SECONDARY causes.

What is the cause...of secondary causes?

It is so disgusting, that even Satan's words, thoughts, and actions are ALL ultimately caused by God, what an evil theology.

Is Satan independent of his Creator?

Or does Satan impose his will upon his Creator?

Hard determinism, vindicates the Arminian strawmen accusations against Calvinism. It is a dangerous unbiblical philosophy worth speaking out against.

Hard determinism...aka the exhaustive providential sovereignty of God over all things...is the “Arminian straw man” which they use to vindicate their false accusations against Calvinism.

So what....its only a straw man.

Soft determinism upsets them as well.

Actually...anything to do with determinism upsets them.

.