Vincent Cheung .com » 2005

Compatibilist Freedom

~ Taken from Vincent Cheung, The Author of Sin. Footnotes excluded. ~

– A –

Regarding compatibilist freedom…My understanding of this is that we willingly choose from a God-directed will – whether for good or evil, depending on whether he has hardened or enlightened us. Is there anything in this that you would consider incorrect/unbiblical?

I agree with what you wrote, but contrary to many Calvinists, I disagree that this should be called "freedom" in any relevant sense.

When speaking of freedom in our context, I always speak of freedom in relation to God – and that is why the issue immediately becomes clear. I can consistently use the same definition whether I am dealing with the nature of God, the decree of God, the nature of man, the nature of salvation, or determinism from a philosophical perspective.

Many Calvinists do not speak this way; rather, they say that we always choose what we most desire, but when they add that this is "freedom" in a relevant sense, and that we are responsible based on this "freedom," then I disagree. Instead, I deny any sense of human freedom and deny any relationship between freedom and responsibility.

Moral responsibility (or accountability) has to do with whether God has decided to judge us; it has no direct relationship with whether we are free. In fact, if we were free from God but not judged by God, then we would still not be morally responsible (or accountable). In other words, moral responsibility does not presuppose human freedom, but it presupposes divine sovereignty. We are responsible not because we are free, but we are responsible precisely because we are not free.

Also, Calvinists often affirm that Adam was free before the Fall. But again, I always speak of freedom relative to God, and from this perspective, I would say that Adam had no freedom whatsoever even before the Fall. To be "free" from sin is irrelevant. The issue is whether Adam was free from God to choose to remain free from sin – he was not. In addition, I would not say that God permitted Adam to fall, but that God caused it. Many Calvinists would also disagree with me on this.

Compatibilists would hesitate to say that we are free from God, but they would insist that since we always act according to the strongest desire of the moment, that this is a real sense of freedom, and that this "freedom" is the precondition for moral responsibility.

Let's say that I have committed a murder. I was indeed free from other creatures when I made my decision, and I acted according to my own internal desire. But this desire was caused and controlled by God, and the fact that I would always act on my strongest desire (which is human nature) was also caused by God. But this amounts to saying that we have no freedom from God to abstain from murder, but that we only have an internal freedom from other creatures to abstain from murder.

Then, if we were to soften this and say that our desires are somehow not determined but merely permitted by God, then, even ignoring for now that this is unbiblical, we must still explain how it is possible for God to permit something without causing it, and yet immutably decree it to happen in a sense that is not merely an expression of prescience. If we can't, then we are Arminians.

Also, if God merely permits us to do something, then I would also demand a metaphysical explanation on how it is possible for a creature to direct and control its own mind. That is, is it possible for a created thing to function at all under God's bare permission without his constant causative determination? How?

Calvin himself wrote, "Indeed, not even an abundance of bread would benefit us in the slightest unless it were divinely turned into nourishment." This sounds like my occasionalism. There is no inherent "nature" or power in bread that always works with the body to provide nourishment, but it must be "divinely turned into nourishment" each time it is consumed.

This is Calvinism – it is a consistent application of divine sovereignty over everything. It is a denial of any form of dualism or deism. Thus I affirm that God controls everything about everything that is anything, including every aspect of every detail of every human decision and action, in such a way that man has no freedom in any meaningful or relevant sense.

In summary, libertarian freedom is indeed freedom, but it is unbiblical and impossible – there is no such freedom. On the other hand, compatibilist freedom is not "freedom" at all (except from other creatures, which is irrelevant), but it is just a description of what happens when God controls every aspect of our decisions and actions, usually (not always) according to a "nature" that he has also created in us. Both the words "compatibilist" and "freedom" are misleading.

– B –

I would consider myself a "Calvinistic" Baptist. According to my understanding, sin entered this world through the disobedience of Adam and not as a result of the determining purpose of God.

Actually, all Calvinistic and Reformed writers would affirm that sin came as a result of God's decree, so that it was determined at least in this sense. The difference is that many say that this is a "passive" or "permissive" decree, whereas my position is that there is no such thing as a "passive" or a "permissive" decree with God, that it is unbiblical and impossible for a divine decree to be "passive" or "permissive."

It is correct to say that sin came through the disobedience of Adam, but this is not the debated issue. The issue is what caused this disobedience. To say that before the Fall Adam had "free will" is irrelevant unless by this "free will" is meant freedom from God. If this is what is meant, then this is paganism, not Calvinism or Christianity. If only freedom from sin is meant, then again this is irrelevant, since the relevant question in discussing divine determinism should be whether Adam was free from God to abstain from sin, not whether he was free from sin to abstain from sin.

William Lane Craig

(The following is an edited email correspondence.)

You cite William Lane Craig in one of your books. What do you think of Molinism/Middle Knowledge?

Philosophically speaking, it is nonsense. Theologically/biblically speaking, it is heresy.

Craig is a proficient classical apologist, but classical apologetics itself is fatally flawed.

As a theologian, Craig is incompetent and heretical.

Paul at Athens

(The following is an edited email correspondence.)

About your exposition of Acts 17 [Presuppositional Confrontations, chapter 2] — Mr. Cheung, it is the best I have ever read. Many of the brothers that I know are stuck on Bahnsen’s exposition (which is a good exposition), but I persuade them to give you a read. In my opinion your exposition is far more scholarly. Nothing quite compares to it.

Thanks for your comments.

Of course, I am not in competition with Bahnsen, and there is no reason why Christians should not read both and try to get as much out of them as they can. In any case, I do consider mine an accurate expression of the biblical approach to evangelism and apologetics, so I recommend it.

I am glad that I wrote this exposition on Acts 17. At first, I intended it to be only about 5 pages (instead of more than 60 pages), but then, as I noticed how much there is to say about the passage, and since I did not know when I will write about it again, I decided to do a more thorough job.

It is perhaps true that compared to what some of the other theologians and commentators have done, my exposition more clearly shows that Paul’s approach was entirely hostile to non-Christian thinking, and that Paul was confronting presuppositions instead of seeking common ground. In addition, it seems that I was able to fill in some of the gaps in others’ arguments on Acts 17 and made a number of additional applications.

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations

Copeland Deifies Man

(The following is taken from a message sent to members of our mailing list on 02/09/2004. Now that we have created this blog, we will use our mailing list to send out only major updates. If you would like to subscribe, please send a blank message to subscribe@rmiweb.org.)

I received an advertisement that includes a "prophecy" by Kenneth Copeland. I have not been keeping up with his organization, so I started to read it to see what he had to say. It was so bad that I did not finish reading.

Below is a recent quotation from Kenneth Copeland, I think spoken on or around New Year’s Eve:

Adam was created in the image of God. He was not created almost in the image of God. "But after all, no one could be equal with God." That isn’t true. That’s not true, that no one could be equal with God. And we took a lot of criticism for that. I had people gunning at me for years: "Ah, Kenneth Copeland said that we’re God!" No, I didn’t. I just quoted Jesus, he was the one who said it. Adam was created exactly like God. He was not short anywhere in his likeness of God. He had the very creative power of God in him and on him. We know that Jesus thought it not robbery to be called equal with God, and he was called the last Adam. Jesus and Adam were exactly alike.

Of course, this is a terrible distortion of what the Bible teaches about the nature of God, the image of God, and the nature of Christ — thus messing up theology, anthropology, and christology in one short paragraph.

We talk about the menace of Mormonism, Catholicism, and other such damnable religious cults, but what is this?! Certainly we cannot call it evangelical, or even Christian. At least Mormonism teaches that we might become gods later; Copeland says that we are already gods, or exactly like God and equal with God.

The cure? Systematic theology.

Recommended:

Ministry Spending and Favoritism

Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology

Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Philippians

John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos

Robert Bowman, The Word-Faith Controversy

Protecting Your Faith

NOTICE:
This is an outdated and unofficial item. The article was released as a draft/preview to Captive to Reason. For the current and official version of the article, please download the book from the online library.

The following is an edited correspondence between a student and me. I gave him some advice that I would like to share with the many other university students that visit this blog every day. High school students and parents should also pay special attention, and then take time to consider the subject in greater detail, beyond what is said below.

Greetings Mr. Cheung,

I am a 20 year old university student at a secular university. I want to thank you for your ministry. Your works are a blessing to me. Your writings have been challenging me greatly. I find your apologetic methodology enlightening and Biblically convincing. You have also challenged me to develop a more consistent Calvinism.

I am going to major in philosophy for my B.A. Your writings have influenced me in this direction. When I first started university I was fearful of pagan philosophy. I wasn’t sure if my faith would be able to hold out against all the pagan thinking. After completing two years of university I am beginning to see how irrational non-Christian systems of thought are. I would never have dreamed that I would be able to challenge my professors in front of an entire class and demonstrate that what they are saying is irrational. Rarely a class goes by where I’m not taught something that makes no sense. It is becoming easier for me to see through non-Christian thought.

Thank you for helping me to see the superiority of the Christian worldview. I am still in the process of digesting your main writings. I know I will be consulting your writings for the next two years of my studies. I am looking forward to digging into your works more fully. I also read your blog every day.

Keep up the good work. May the Lord continue to bless you and your wife.

Thank you for your comments, and for taking the time to introduce yourself.

Yes, once you understand the rational superiority and even necessity of the biblical worldview, you have nothing to fear from non-Christians. No argument is going to be nearly good enough to touch you.

Nevertheless, I will offer you one bit of important advice.

The biblical worldview in itself, being a revealed portion of the mind of God, is rationally invincible, so that no matter how high of a view you have of it, you can never overestimate it. However, we often underestimate the noetic effects of sin, so that we overestimate ourselves. Consider the false confidence that the disciples had before they abandoned Christ.

Thus, a general principle for your Christian life should be to guard your faith as God's precious gift to you, and even though it is secure in Christ, and even though you should boldly express and exercise it, you should not be careless with it or deliberately subject it to abuse.

Therefore, although to major in philosophy at a secular university is one legitimate option on your way to building a life that glorifies God, I urge you to do adequate preparation.

For example, you should look into the curriculum and course requirements for a philosophy major in your university, and get a list of some of the essential works that they will have you study and interact with. Then, over the summer, you should read some of these books to make sure that you can "handle" them.

This approach has several advantages.

First, you will be reading the books, perhaps for the first time, at your own pace and in an environment of your choice. You will have the time you need to carefully construct refutations to all the non-Christian arguments in them, and to look up relevant Christian resources to help you with this, without the rush and the pressure that often accompany the pace of the regular school year.

Second, this will also help you with your performance once school begins again, especially if you take some decent notes while you read during the summer.

Also, while you read during the summer, if you find that your faith cannot yet handle these non-Christian works, you might still have time to reconsider whether it is best for your spiritual life to pursue a major in philosophy. Judging from what you wrote, this should not be a problem, but this way, you will have time to find out and make sure.

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations
Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation
Vincent Cheung, Renewing the Mind
Vincent Cheung, Preach the Word
(See http://www.vincentcheung.com/books.htm)

Vincent Cheung, "Professional Morons"
(See http://www.vincentcheung.com/other.htm)

Gordon Clark, Christian Philosophy
Gordon Clark, The Christian Philosophy of Education
Gordon Clark, Philosophy of Science and Belief in God
(See http://www.trinityfoundation.org)

Carl F. H. Henry, Toward a Recovery of Christian Belief

Oliphint, Reymond, Turretin, Shedd

Someone asked me whether the following books are worth carrying for his bookstore. I would like to share my comments here, since they might help some of you as well.

Vincent,

Are any of these worth carrying?

K. Scott Oliphint, The Battle Belongs to the Lord

Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology

I will give you some comments on these books for your consideration.

Oliphint –
I found out about this book a long time before it was published, and was very much looking forward to its release. It sounded promising as a beginning book on presuppositional apologetics. I read it immediately when it was released, but I was a little disappointed. This is because, although there was nothing very wrong with the book, I don’t think that any beginner can learn to actually defend the faith using the presuppositional approach after reading it. But it is acceptable as a book that introduces the biblical basis for presuppositional apologetics — that is, why we should do it (apologetics), with what attitude we should do it, what it is in the broad scheme of things, why we should use a biblical/presuppositional approach, how unbelievers suppress their innate knowledge of God, etc. So it is fine for this purpose, but then the reader should get something else to supplement it.

I recommend carrying this.

Reymond –
Reymond has many things that I like — he is sympathetic to Clark, exegetical, supralapsarian, a 7-day creationist, etc. There are a number of small points that I don’t like, some of which have little to do with the contents of his theology. For example, the table of contents is too complicated — it should be called a detailed contents or analytical outline, and come after a brief table of contents. I am picky about things like that, but I think it is a valid criticism, especially because this affects comprehension. Since it is a generally good work, and many people are already buying it anyway, why not have them buy it from you?

I recommend carrying this.

Turretin –
Yes, by all means! This work is detailed, comprehensive, historically significant, truly Reformed, etc. I cannot agree with him on every point, and some arguments he offers are fallacious. But of course, he is certainly not worse than most theologians.

I recommend carrying this.

Shedd –
I pestered Alan Gomes about this work several years before he finished working on it. But to be honest, I was very disappointed with Shedd when I read him. Being very anti-empirical myself, I was eager to read Shedd since he was one of the less empirical theologians. But instead of turning from sensation to revelation, he turns to intuition. Whatever he considers true but could not establish by Scripture, he considers true by intuition. Even God's justice and action are judged by our intuition. This is wrong and futile. I also think that his whole attempt at arguing about how we are guilty in Adam is unnecessary, fallacious, and misguided — we are indeed guilty in Adam, but Shedd’s explanation and arguments about it are poor. He makes some good points on many of the topics covered, but nothing unique that cannot be found elsewhere. It was a tedious read, too, although Gomes did a great job in editing it.

Even if you were to carry this, I would put it last on the list. I can recommend carrying this only because of its historical significance, and I would recommend it to people who already have a good grasp on the basic topics of Reformed theology.

I hope these comments are helpful to you.

Recommended:

Louis Berkhof, Summary of Christian Doctrine

The Futility of Pragmatic Arguments

The following is an edited correspondence. One loyal reader sends me an article in which he tries to provide a biblical perspective on drug use. My response focuses on the futility of pragmatic arguments.

Mr. Cheung,

In the attachment you will find the completed essay on drug use. I have added some new information. It is complete except for the final editing.

I think it is a good essay. It is written in what I have dubbed the "Vincent Cheung style." What I mean by this is that you have a deadly logic in your books. It has rubbed off on this young man.

In my reply, I refer to something said by John Frame in one of his articles. The quotation in question reads as follows:

Legalizing drugs is, in my mind, a live option. The "war on drugs" doesn’t seem to have been successful, and it is unlikely to succeed in the near future. Legalization would lower the cost of drugs and therefore the crime rate. I’m inclined toward a position that would legalize drugs for adults but provide harsh penalties for those who sell to children. This parallels the regulation of alcohol and tobacco. I'm inclined to think that adults should have to take responsibility for their own choices in this area.

Here is my reply:

About your essay on drugs, I haven’t had time to read it as carefully as I would like to, but I wanted to get back to you about it quickly.

I think that it is fine. I have not read the quote from John Frame before, and was surprised that he used such a poor pragmatic argument. By now I shouldn’t be surprised by bad arguments, but sometimes they are so obviously bad that I still am, especially when they are asserted by people who are supposed to know better. Perhaps I should lower my expectation even more.

Now, we could agree that the "war on drugs" doesn't work, but pragmatic arguments are weak because there are often ways to make something work that doesn’t work — it’s just that people won’t make it work.

For example, consider the policy of punishment with the war on drugs — I suspect that if we make even minimum drug use a capital crime punishable by immediate shooting on the spot regardless of age, then the war on drugs would indeed "work" better. Better yet, if it is the policy that the government would kill the drug user, all his friends, and all his relatives immediately, I am pretty sure that there would be fewer drug users.

Of course I am not suggesting that this should be the policy, but I am saying that if people argue against something for pragmatic reasons, then I can often make a suggestion that turns the conclusion around.

Another example is the death penalty. People against the death penalty often say that it is no good because it does not deter. Ignoring for now the fact that punishment should not be only for the purpose of deterrence, we must ask why capital punishment does not deter. Maybe it is because after we catch and even convict the criminals, we feed them, make them comfortable, let them repeatedly appeal for 10 years, give them all kinds of rights and privileges, and then after all that kill them with a painless injection.

I am pretty sure that capital punishment would work to deter if we kill all convicted criminals within six months with the most painful and gruesome punishment imaginable — and do it on public television.

Again, I am not suggesting that this ought to be the policy, but only that the pragmatic argument is no good, because if the argument is that it doesn't work, then all I have to do is to suggest something that would make it work. And when you base an argument on whether something works, the opponent can often just give a counter-example.

Besides this, of course, there are many other problems with pragmatic arguments. For example, it identifies the good or the "ought" with the practical. Also, it assumes that the end by which the means are judged is indeed the end that ought to be desired.

Good essay. Keep writing.

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount

John Murray, Principles of Conduct

Violence for Heaven

Alas, what little violence for heaven is to be seen in most people’s worship! In all the sacrifices of the law there was fire. How can those duties be accepted which have no fire in them, no offering of violence?

If there must be this offering of violence to heaven, then it shows us how dangerous moderation in religion is. Violence and moderation are two different things. Indeed, moderation in the things of the world is commendable. We should moderate our desires here and use the world as if we used it not (1 Cor. 7:31). We may, as Jonathan, dip the end of the rod in honey but not thrust it in too far. In this sense moderation is good, but moderation in matters of practical piety is sinful; it is contrary to offering violence.

Moderation in the world’s sense means not to be too zealous, not to be too fierce for heaven. Moderation is not to venture further in religion than may coexist with self-preservation. As the king of Navarr told Beza: He would launch no farther into the sea than he might be sure to return safe to land. To keep on the warm side of the hedge is a main article in the politician’s creed.

Moderation in the world’s sense is neutrality. The moderate person finds a medium between strictness and profaneness; he is not for debauchery, not for purity. It was the advice Calvin gave Melanchthon, that he should not so affect the name of moderate that at last he lost all his zeal. To be lukewarm in matters of religion is far from offering violence to heaven. "Be zealous therefore, and repent" (Rev. 3:19).

If any should ask us why we are so violent, tell them it is for a kingdom. If any shall ask us why we make such haste in the ways of religion, tell them we are running a heavenly race and a softly moderate pace will never win the prize. Moderation has made many lose heaven; they have not made haste enough; they have come too late, like the foolish virgins, when the door has been shut.

Thomas Watson, Heaven Taken by Storm,
(Soli Deo Gloria Publications), p. 49–50.

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Prayer and Revelation

Vincent Cheung, Renewing the Mind

Vincent Cheung, Godliness with Contentment

Thomas Watson, Heaven Taken by Storm

Solomon Stoddard, A Guide to Christ

Matthew Henry, The Pleasantness of a Religious Life

The Imprecatory Psalms (4)

That the Old Testament considers it a task of the people of God to destroy evil is so obvious that it is often made the basis of unfavorable criticisms of its ethics. It is said that it is an evidence of the rudeness and non-Christian spirit of Old Testament ethics that it requires of the people of God that they shall destroy their enemies. Christian apologists all too often practically admit this criticism by giving no better defense of it than that we must figure with the general characteristics of the times….

More important than this is to note the fact that the commands of complete extermination of the enemies of the people of God marks off the Old Testament ethics as being essentially one with the New Testament ethics rather than the contrary. Instead of apologizing for this aspect of Old Testament ethics we should glory in it. It is the best proof of the genuinely theistic character of the Old Testament that one could desire. If God is what the Christian theist says he is, sin must be absolutely destroyed, and it is naturally to be expected that God would order his people to destroy evil. It is equally natural that this should be done in an externalistic way in the Old Testament times when the whole of the divine revelation to man was given in an externalistic way.

It is at all times a part of the task of the people of God to destroy evil. Once we see this we do not, for instance, meanly apologize for the imprecatory psalms but glory in them….

Cornelius Van Til, Christian Theistic Ethics,
(Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1980), p. 83-84.

Recommended:

The Imprecatory Psalms (1)

The Imprecatory Psalms (2)

The Imprecatory Psalms (3)

The Imprecatory Psalms (5)

James E. Adams, War Psalms of the Prince of Peace

Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount

Next entries »

Archive May 2005