Carson on Compatibilism
Monday, April 16th, 2007 : By Eric Farr
A day after Greg’s visit, I’ve got a lot of stuff swirling around in my head that I’d like to write about; but, there is one thing that I want to get out while it’s fresh. During the Sunday morning service and the ensuing Q & A, Greg represented a defense of the problem of evil from a perspective known as compatibilism. This view maintains that the Bible pushes us into a position of affirming that God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom (i.e., responsibility) are both in play simultaneously and must be compatible–even if we cannot fully explain how that works out. I think Jonathan Edwards was one of the first to develop this idea in a philosophically rigorous way.
This is not any easy topic and requires some careful thinking. Hands-down, the best resource I’ve found on this for the non-philosopher is a two-part talk by D.A. Carson. You can find those MP3 at this previous post. If you were bothered by Greg’s approach, you owe it to yourself to listen to Carson. He goes in to much greater detail than Greg was able to in the short time he had.
About The Author
Eric is privileged to be an elder at Grace Fellowship, a husband to an amazing woman (Donna), and daddy to two cool kids (Austin and Savannah). If he had free free time, Eric would probably go fishing, boating, or shoot some amateur photography.
More entries by Eric Farr
25 Comments
-
Eric, like you I had a lot swirling in my head after the Sunday Q&A. I’m glad to see you say that Greg’s position is compatibilism. After all the discussion on being precise, I didn’t feel that he was as precise as he could have been. I had come away still wondering what his position was. Though perhaps that’s a function of my ability to grasp what he was saying as opposed to his precision!
One thought I had was that we were confusing evil and tragedy. Evil to me implies malevolent intent, saying something is evil is a moral judgment. If I’m murdered like one of the students a Virginia Tech, I’m a victim of evil. However, if I’m killed by a tornado or a tsunami, am I not just the victim of a non-moral but tragic event? If so, there’s not as much problem attributing such things to God as it does not imply that God has caused evil.
-
Larry, the distinction you’re aiming at was the question I wanted to ask (but ran out of time). The biblical term I use to describe such “natural evil” is “calamity”. Consider Isaiah 45:7:
I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the LORD, who does all these things. (Isa 45:7, ESV)The ESV and NASB render this “calamity,” the NIV says “disaster,” and the only KJV says “evil”. Even the NKJV says “calamity.” So I think there’s a legitimate biblical distinction between “natural evil” and “moral evil” — in the end, I think it’s a misnomer to call calamity “evil.”
-
I know I usually over-complicate things, but I have to ask: The sense I am getting is that compatibilism is not a good position. Anyone care to explain why, or tell me- if it is a good position, why?
Also, just for thought…is death evil? Then even if people are killed by “natural” means, or calamities, if you will…does that somehow imply that death is then a non-moral occurance?
-
Thanks Eric, for the links. In light of what has happened yesterday there is some talk around work about what happened at VA tech. One question I think would be worthwhile is: Why? What makes people do this to each other. This may be a good place to start a conversation. I have not yet, but I hope to.
Hugh,
I don’t think I understand your argumentation. It looks to me like you are using the different interpretations of the Hebrew word Ra (interpreted here as calamity) as evidence of the difference between evil existing in man as apposed to God having created evil. i.e. What happened yesterday at VA Tech was sin expressed as evil and a Tsunami which does not have the hand of man directly involved. Can you do that? Are differing interpretations of scripture evidence of differing doctrines of evil?In looking at that text, I find the Hebrew word Ra used 19 times in Isaiah, all of which are translated wicked or evil in some sense. Only in the one case is it translated calamity.
Also, I would say a better interpretation of the passage comes from the words used describe what God has done with light/darkness and well-being/evil. It seems to go out of the way to use words form and make for the “good” words light and well being but uses create as words for the “bad” words darkness and calamity. The make and form language seem to me to be more personable. As in God is an active participant in the Light and the well being. The same language is used in genesis 1:26 when God is talking in the God head of creating man in his image. For the bad words, bara is the word used for creation. the same words used in Genesis 1:27 when he actually did the creation of man. I see all this as an interpretation of Genesis 50:20.
-
By the way, I read the link to “compatiblism” above. Not good. It is not true that compatiblists believe that man chooses according to his strongest desire…that would be a gross oversimplification.
-
Adding to what O’Ryan wrote in his last paragraph, bara is not only used for the negative in each pairing but it is also the stronger verb in each pairing. In the Old Testament, only God is the subject of the verb bara (translated above as “create”), indicating that only God can perform such an action. Shalom and ra, translated above respectively as “well-being” and “calamity,” are the strongest Hebrew terms available for well-being and evil. Isaiah 45:5-7 is an excellent text to use in pointing out God’s sovereign control over both sides of the spectrum of good and evil. See also Deuteronomy 32:39 and 1 Samuel 2:6-7.
-
Larry, I would say that the distinction between the death of a murder victim and a tsunami victim is not between moral and non-moral events, but in the immediacy of the moral choice involved. (I don’t so much buy in to the possibility of death before the Fall, because death is called “the last enemy to be destroyed” (1 Corinthians 15:26).) In both cases, death is the result of a moral choice: in the former, the choice of the evil person with a weapon; in the latter, the choice of Adam. Jesus seems to support this explanation when He speaks of the tragedy at Siloam—He points out mankind’s collective guilt for evil, rather than saying that a natural disaster is devoid of moral choice. It’s just the immediacy of the morality involved, methinks.
Jason, I would say that death may not be inherently evil, but is at least result of evil: Genesis 2. Death itself may even be evil, citing the Corinthians passage above, because an enemy of God would seem to be evil by definition.
I think that the overall concept of compatibilism is good. It is obvious that in Scripture we see both man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty. They coexist, though it seems at times they are mutually exclusive. This is a tension that is only resolved in the mind of God. We humans derive great benefit in worship and theology from exploring it, but we will never fully understand it.
-
Thanks Jeffrey. Your explanations were very helpful. I agree that death is the result of evil. I appreciate your reference to the tragedy at Siloam. Very insightful. I had forgotten all about that debate.
-
Hey Jeffrey, where does Genesis say they couldn’t/wouldn’t have physically died had they not disobeyed God?
Sidenote: Considering Isa.45:7 (”I form light and create darkness”) the analogy of shadows and donut-holes doesn’t really work. Did God did not also create space?
-
That’s part of it I guess. The analogy makes it seem like shadows and space just happen — there was no intentionality to them — like the bumper sticker.
Is this the time or place to get into a time and space discussion?
-
Agreed about trying to make a philosophical treatise.
This would be a lot easier if we could just define something before God created “nothingness”.
-
Hey David, you’re arguing with rhetorical questions. Where in your debate training were you taught that was good form?
I didn’t claim that Genesis stated they would never have died. However, seeing as death is called the last enemy to be destroyed, it doesn’t seem plausible that it was a natural part of the original creation.
Also, Genesis 2:17,
for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die
In the Hebrew, the verb “die” is an imperfect tense of sorts (I don’t know precisely), literally meaning “dying you will die.” In other words, not only would they die as a result of sin, but their beginning to die on that day would be the result of sin. If they were going to die anyway, they would have begun to die the day they were created, not on the day they sinned.
Unless, of course, you delve into Greg’s hypothesis of conditional physical immortality…
-
Debate training?! I went to art school.
Health, it’s the slowest way to die.
If Eve held Adam’s head underwater long enough (there were 4 rivers) it seems like Adam would have surely began to die. Think of it as pre-fall, death was a possibility. Post-fall, sin made physical death inevitable.
…it doesn’t seem plausible that [death] was a natural part of the original creation.
As we discuss physical death, are we talking about death as a whole, or just human death?
-
What about Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death.” If death were a natural part of the created order, then why would it be used as a punishment? Why would it need to be conquered? Why is it called an enemy?
If Eve held Adam’s head underwater, then she would have had to have already fallen before planning and executing murder.
I would say that given the language of scripture, the idea that death is not as God originally intended is a necessary consequence of scripture.
-
If Eve held Adam’s head underwater, then she would have had to have already fallen before planning and executing murder.
No, she had no knowledge of good or evil at the time and very little aquatic safety training. Or if Adam accidentally impaled himself on his walking stick. Or if an elephant sat on him … or whatever.
Is it possible that the wages of sin are both physical death AND spiritual death (separation from God)? That does not eliminate the possibility of a sinless creature having physical death and spiritual life.
Again, are we talking about death as a whole or just human death?
-
David….I was just kidding about the Eve thing.
Eric, I would probably leave behind your question for just a second it is less clear than this issue of death being the result of sin. Once we establish this principle, then all of our observations about the natural world must fit into what is clear from scripture and we should not use our observations of the natural world as a more reliable authority than scripture (not that you are).
Romans 5:12 says, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” This raises the question, “what type of death are we talking about? Spiritual? Legal? Physical?” It seems based on the context that the answer is all of the above. Based on what Paul is trying to prove by the comparison, Gen 2-3 and v 16 (condemnation/justification), v 17 (death/life reign), v 19 (sinners/righteous), v 21 (eternal life), we should conclude that “death” = judicial, spiritual, physical.
It seems clear that death is the result of sin, and not what God intends for his creation. Now, back to your question. You are asking about animal death (which I am not so sure there needs to be a distinction between animal/human death; death is death). Animal death seems to be the result of the curse that the natural world incurred as a result of Adam’s sin. Maybe the animals became predatory after the flood (man was first permitted to eat the animals after the flood possibly because of a climate change? Gen. 9). That is pure speculation and it might not even be good speculation at that.
The answer is….I don’t know how to answer your question. I am just trying to move from what is clear from scripture and let that inform what is less clear.
-
The scriptures clearly say that human death is the result of sin. That is the only point I have been trying to make. That is the only thing that I think is clear from scripture.
When I discussed animal death…I stated that this was less clear. I think based on our previous posts we agree on this subject. It seems that a presupposition of certain scientific data would be the only thing to drive us to make a distinction between animal and human death when that distinction is not in the language of scripture itself. Are you sure that when the scriptures say “death” they are only talking about mankind’s death? I think your assumed distinction isn’t clear from scripture.
To your interesting aside- it seems that the Fall only occurred due to Adam’s sin…not Eve’s or Satan’s. Only Adam was our representative head. If he had not sinned (hypothetically) he would have secured eternal life for his children.
-
I’ve been thinking about this conversation a lot. I feel that even though the distinction between human and animal death is not clear from scripture…I would be inclined to adopt it myself to deal with some of these issues.
In thinking through the whole idea that it was acceptable to eat meat after the flood, and therefore, maybe that was when animals became predatory…you have major evolution implications (whole systems developing for predatory purposes). Also, if you adopt the premise that the flood killed of the dinosaurs then you have to deal with the fact that many of the dinosaurs appear to be viciously predatory. It seems animals killed one another before the flood. This begs the question, when did they start killing each other? After the Fall, and yet Post-creation? I don’t know.
I love thinking through this stuff even when the answers aren’t immediately apparent.
-
Just ran across an interesting line of questioning that ramps it up a level.
So did all of creation get altered based on man’s sin? Did the stars - including the sun - all of a sudden become limited sources of energy? Did meteors all of a sudden change their coarses to collide with earth and create large amounts of death and destruction?
And from my own personal collection, if man was going to live forever then why was he originally forbidden to eat from the tree of life?
Eric Farr : April 17th, 2007 at 7:16 am