Critiquing: #102 — Does God predetermine everything?

January 27, 2022 | Content source: Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Calvinism vs. Free Will — Open Theism — Determinism — Divine Sovereignty — Ethical Quandaries

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	C+	The episode presents a generally accurate overview of theological issues, particularly Calvinism and Open Theism. However, it simplifies some key concepts, such as the relationship between divine sovereignty and human free will. The portrayal of theological determinism lacks depth, failing to fully explore its historical and philosophical foundations, leading to a less precise understanding.
Degree of Coherence	B	The discussion is generally coherent, with logical progression between topics. However, certain transitions, particularly between divine sovereignty and human free will, could be better articulated. The episode connects complex theological ideas with practical ethical concerns, but the coherence is occasionally weakened by the lack of direct engagement with potential counterarguments.
Absence of Fallacies	C-	The episode contains several logical weaknesses. For instance, the discussion on human responsibility under determinism may rely on a false dichotomy, presenting only two extreme positions without acknowledging more nuanced perspectives like compatibilism. There are also instances of circular reasoning, particularly in the defense of the coexistence of free will and divine sovereignty.
Degree of Evidence	D+	The episode’s arguments are largely theological and philosophical, with limited empirical or scriptural evidence to support the claims. While broad theological concepts are referenced, the discussion lacks specific citations or in-depth engagement with primary texts, weakening the overall argument. The reliance on anecdotal examples rather than rigorous evidence diminishes the credibility of the conclusions drawn.
Degree of Testability	D	The theological nature of the discussion inherently limits the testability of the claims. The episode does not offer ways to empirically evaluate the arguments, and it avoids testable propositions. The discussion on predestination versus free will could have been strengthened by exploring historical or contemporary examples where these doctrines have been practically applied.
Rational Confidence	C	The episode’s confidence in its claims is moderate, but it often exceeds the strength of the evidence provided. While the hosts express certainty on complex theological issues, this confidence is not always supported by rigorous examination of underlying assumptions or counterarguments. A more balanced approach, particularly in discussing topics with significant philosophical and theological implications, would enhance the discussion.

---

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Accuracy of Representations
The episode states, “It isn’t a zero-sum game between God or the cosmos on the one hand and me on the other that either the cosmos is doing this to me or I’m doing it all by myself.” While this comment attempts to balance determinism and free will, it oversimplifies the complex interplay between these concepts. The lack of distinction between theological traditions, such as Reformed and Arminian views on free will and sovereignty, leads to a potentially misleading generalization. A more accurate representation would involve a detailed explanation of how different theological perspectives reconcile or struggle with the relationship between divine sovereignty and human autonomy.

2. Coherence in Argumentation
The analogy used in the discussion, “If we’re not determined at all, does that mean that we are simply like random subatomic particles whizzing around, bumping into things without any rhyme or reason?” serves to highlight the perceived absurdity of pure libertarian free will. However, this analogy fails to acknowledge more sophisticated philosophical positions, such as compatibilism, which argue that determinism and free will can coexist. By not engaging with these intermediate positions, the argument presents a false dichotomy between determinism and randomness, thereby undermining the coherence of the overall argument.

3. Logical Fallacies
A potential false dichotomy is introduced when it is stated, “God doesn’t want to cancel our responsibility and simply pull the strings and make us be good little puppets doing what he wants.” This implies that the only alternatives are absolute divine control or complete human autonomy, overlooking nuanced theological positions, such as Molinism or Thomism, which propose that God’s sovereignty can coexist with human free will without reducing humans to mere puppets. The episode could benefit from exploring these intermediate positions, which offer a more balanced perspective on the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument #1: Divine Sovereignty vs. Human Free Will

• Premise 1: God is sovereign, meaning He exercises ultimate control over all events in the cosmos.
• Premise 2: Humans are made in God’s image, endowed with the capacity for free will and moral responsibility.
• Premise 3: The Christian doctrine of creation holds that God’s sovereignty and human responsibility coexist without contradiction.
• Hidden Premise: If God’s sovereignty were to negate human free will entirely, moral responsibility would be impossible, contradicting the notion of humans as responsible agents.
• Conclusion: Human free will exists within the framework of divine sovereignty, allowing humans to act as responsible agents without undermining God’s ultimate control.

Counter-Argument:
While this argument attempts to reconcile divine sovereignty with human free will, it leaves unresolved the issue of how free will can coexist with an omnipotent God. If God’s sovereignty extends to every detail of creation, human actions must be part of this deterministic framework, calling into question the nature of free will. Additionally, the concept of divine omniscience complicates matters, as God’s foreknowledge of human actions implies predestination, where free will becomes illusory. The hidden premise that moral responsibility requires free will is not universally accepted; some argue that moral responsibility can be compatible with determinism. Compatibilism suggests that free will and determinism can coexist—humans act according to their desires, even if those desires are determined by God. However, this solution remains contentious, with critics arguing that true moral responsibility requires the genuine capacity to have acted otherwise, a capacity that determinism negates.

Argument #2: Theological Determinism and Moral Responsibility

• Premise 1: Theological determinism posits that all events, including human actions, are predetermined by God.
• Premise 2: Humans are held morally responsible for their actions.
• Premise 3: Moral responsibility requires the ability to choose freely between different courses of action.
• Hidden Premise: If humans cannot freely choose their actions, holding them morally responsible would be unjust.
• Conclusion: Theological determinism, by undermining the premise of free will, challenges the concept of moral responsibility, leading to a potential contradiction in holding individuals accountable for their actions.

Counter-Argument:
The tension between theological determinism and moral responsibility is significant. If all actions are predetermined by God, the concept of free will seems undermined, challenging the basis for moral responsibility. Compatibilists argue that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive; moral responsibility does not require absolute freedom but rather the ability to act according to one’s desires, even if those desires are determined. This view attempts to reconcile theological determinism with moral accountability by suggesting that as long as individuals act according to their desires and intentions, they can be held responsible, even if those desires are shaped by divine determinism. However, critics of compatibilism argue that true moral responsibility requires the genuine capacity to have acted differently, a capacity that strict determinism would negate. This unresolved debate has significant implications for both theology and ethics.

Argument #3: Open Theism and Divine Foreknowledge

• Premise 1: Open Theism posits that God does not have exhaustive knowledge of future free actions.
• Premise 2: God’s sovereignty is consistent with the genuine freedom of human agents.
• Premise 3: The future is not entirely determined, allowing for human actions to shape outcomes.
• Hidden Premise: If God’s foreknowledge were exhaustive, human freedom would be compromised, as all actions would be foreknown and thus predetermined.
• Conclusion: Open Theism preserves human freedom by limiting the scope of God’s foreknowledge, allowing for a dynamic relationship between God and creation where human actions contribute to the unfolding of the future.

Counter-Argument:
Open Theism’s attempt to reconcile divine sovereignty with human free will by limiting God’s foreknowledge raises significant theological challenges. Traditional theism holds that God’s omniscience includes knowledge of all temporal events—past, present, and future. Limiting God’s foreknowledge, as Open Theism suggests, could be seen as diminishing God’s omnipotence and omniscience, leading to a portrayal of God that is less than all-powerful. Additionally, if God does not fully know the future, divine promises and prophecies, which rely on God’s complete foreknowledge, could be called into question. Critics argue that the desire to preserve human freedom must be balanced with the need to maintain traditional attributes of God, such as omniscience and omnipotence. This tension suggests that Open Theism may not provide a fully satisfactory solution to the problem of reconciling divine sovereignty with human freedom, as it risks compromising essential aspects of the divine nature.

◉ Addressing Argument #2:

The Absurdity of Moral Responsibility for Unchosen Impulses

In Christianity, moral responsibility is a central tenet. The doctrine insists that individuals are held accountable for their actions, judged based on their capacity to discern right from wrong, and ultimately punished or rewarded in the afterlife. But this notion is intrinsically flawed when examined through the lens of human nature and the unchosen impulses that drive behavior.

Consider the concept of sin, which is often defined as a willful transgression against divine law. The Christian tradition asserts that humans are born with a sinful nature, predisposed to act against the moral directives set forth by God. This inherent predisposition is not something an individual requests; it is imposed upon them by the mere fact of their existence. Yet, despite not choosing this nature, individuals are held morally accountable for their actions, as if they had freely chosen to sin.

This is absurd. If a person’s actions are driven by impulses they did not choose and cannot fully control, how can they be morally culpable? To illustrate this absurdity, consider how we treat animals. We don’t punish puppies for barking because it’s in their nature to do so. They don’t have the capacity to act otherwise; barking is an expression of their natural instincts. Why should it be any different for humans?

The Christian narrative posits that humans are endowed with free will, allowing them to choose between good and evil. However, if this free will is compromised by impulses that are deeply ingrained in one’s nature, which are themselves a product of factors beyond individual control, then the notion of moral responsibility becomes a farce. Punishing someone for acting in accordance with their nature is not justice; it’s cruelty disguised as moral righteousness.

Faith, in this context, only exacerbates the issue. It asks believers to accept this flawed premise without question, to trust in a moral framework that punishes individuals for being exactly who they are. It demands adherence to a doctrine that equates natural impulses with moral failures, without providing a rational basis for why these impulses should be punished in the first place.

This approach is not only unjust, but it also undermines the very concept of morality. If morality is to have any real meaning, it must be based on principles of fairness and rationality. Holding individuals responsible for actions they are predisposed to perform violates these principles, reducing morality to a set of arbitrary rules that serve more to control than to guide.

In the end, the Christian doctrine of moral responsibility for sin is nothing more than a mechanism of control, designed to instill fear and obedience rather than promote true ethical behavior. It punishes individuals not for their choices, but for their nature—an absurdity that should be rejected by anyone who values justice and reason.

---

Thank you for reading. I warmly welcome you to share your thoughts and continue the discussion in the comments section below. Let’s explore this topic further together.