Three Interpretations of Romans 1:26-27

In the past, the Bible has been mis-used to oppose the abolition of slavery, then women’s rights, and then the civil rights movement. Today, it is recognized that the Bible doesn’t actually teach such viewpoints, and that such views are inexcusably backwards. I sincerely believe that the treatment of gay and trans people is the civil rights movement of our time, and that like in these cases, the Bible is being misinterpreted to support incorrect and unloving viewpoints; after all, history does have a way of repeating itself, often in the worst ways possible.

    In this post, we’ll be looking at one specific prooftext that’s often used to support the view that homosexuality is a sin - Romans 1:26-27 - and the different interpretations of this passage that exist today. Here is the entire passage in question, in context:

For having known God, they did not glorify Him as God, or were thankful, but became foolish in their reasoning, and their unwise heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became foolish, and altered the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness of an image of corruptible man, and birds, and tetrapods, and creeping [things]. Consequently, God gave them up in the covetings of their hearts to uncleanness, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who changed the truth of God into the lie, and revered and served the creation above the Creator, who is blessed for the ages, verily! Because of this, God gave them up to passions of dishonor. For even their females changed the natural use into the [thing] against nature. Likewise even also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were kindled in their desire for one another, male with male, working out the unseemliness, and receiving in themselves the retribution which was necessary for their error. (Rom. 1:21-27)

    Interpretation #1: All homosexuality is a sin

This is the traditional interpretation, which sees the passage as saying that

Because of this, God gave them up to passions of dishonor. For even their females changed the natural use [heterosexual sex] into the thing against nature [lesbian sex]. Likewise [= both homosexual] even also the males, having left the natural use of the female [heterosexual sex], were kindled in their desire for one another, male with male, working out the unseemliness [homosexual sex], and receiving in themselves the retribution which was necessary for their error.

According to this interpretation, Paul was condemning all homosexuality as a sin, both lesbian and male homosexuality.

    Advantages

1. Has the advantage of being the traditional interpretation.
   
   
2. The word “likewise” (ομοιως in Greek) at the beginning of v. 27 appears to suggest that the sexual activity in v. 26 is of the same nature as that in v. 27 (that is, homosexual sex).

    Disadvantages

1. The context appears to show a direct connection between cultic, pagan activity and the sexual activity in question, whereas - obviously - very few gay people today are pagans and idolators.
   
   
2. The condemnation of lesbianism has no precedent in the Torah, which is supposed to be the full revelation of God’s law. If it is a sin, this would be the only passage to say as much.
   
   
3. In 25 out of the 28 other instances of the word “likewise” (ομοιως) in the New Testament, it would be impossible or illogical to use it to interpret the antecedent clause in the way that it is traditionally interpreted in Rom. 1:26-27 [1]. Thus, v. 26 probably should not be seen as condemning lesbianism.
   
   
4. According to this passage, the desires of those who were condemned were “changed [from] the natural use into the thing against nature.” This doesn’t lend itself to the traditional interpretation that it is referring to gay people, since their desires were never changed.
   
   
5. The verbs in this passage are in the aorist tense, indicating a single, simple (likely past) action rather than an ongoing one.
   
   
6. Does not explain what the “retribution” was which was received by the males in v. 27.

    Interpretation #2: Temple prostitution is a sin

This interpretation argues that Paul was condemning temple prostitution in this passage. If this is correct, Romans 1:26-27 should be read like so:

Because of this [idolatry and paganism], God gave them up to passions of dishonor. For even their females changed the natural use into the thing against nature [temple prostitution]. Likewise [= both temple prostitution] even also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were kindled in their desire for one another, male with male, working out the unseemliness [male temple prostitution], and receiving in themselves the retribution which was necessary for their error.

According to this interpretation, not all homosexuality is necessarily sin - at least not according to this passage - but only temple prostitution is inherently sinful and wrong, because of its roots in idolatry and paganism (see also 1 Cor. 6:12-20).

    Advantages

1. The context appears to show a direct connection between cultic, pagan activity and the sexual activity in question. This is extremely supportive of a temple prostitution interpretation.
   
   
2. The desires in question were “changed [from] the natural use into the thing against nature.” This fits with certain cults in Rome, in which originally heterosexual men resorted to homosexual temple prostitution and/or heterosexual priests who had taken a vow of chastity were rumored to have homosexual sex with one another [2].
   
   
3. Temple prostitution was already condemned under the Mosaic Law (Deut 23:18) and elsewhere in Paul’s epistles (1 Cor. 6:12-20), so there is precedent for seeing this as sinful, whereas this would be the first (and only) place in which lesbianism is condemned if the traditional interpretation were correct.

    Disadvantages

1. The verbs in this passage are in the aorist tense, indicating a single, simple (likely past) action rather than an ongoing one.

2. Does not explain what the “retribution” was which was received by the males in v. 27.

    Interpretation #3: “Watchers” and Sodom

This is the newest interpretation of Romans 1:26-27, which sees it as referring (in verse 26) to the events of Genesis 6:1-2, in which angels (called “Watchers” in Jewish intertestamental literature) have sex with human women, and (in verse 27) to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, which was the rape of (male) angels by (male) humans [3]. This interpretation would read the passage like so:

Because of this, God gave them up to passions of dishonor. For even their females changed the natural use [sex with humans] into the thing against nature [sex with angels; Gen. 6:1-2]. Likewise [= both unnatural sex with angels] even also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were kindled in their desire for one another, male with male, working out the unseemliness [rape of angels; Gen. 19:4-7], and receiving in themselves the retribution which was necessary for their error [destruction of Sodom].

If this interpretation is correct, Paul was not condemning homosexuality in general, or even necessarily temple prostitution (although he did so elsewhere), but instead condemning these two specific instances and showing how they can be generalized to the larger pagan population.

    Advantages

1. Takes into account the cultural and literary context of intertestamental Jewish literature, which focuses quite a lot on the sin of the “Watchers” (the angels of Genesis 6:1-2).
   
   
2. The verbs in this passage are in the aorist tense, indicating a single, simple (likely past) action. This would fit with the Watchers/Sodom interpretation which sees it as referring to the past events of the Genesis account.
   
   
3. Explains what the “retribution” was - the destruction of Sodom - which was received by the males in v. 27.
   
   
4. 2 Peter 2:4-7 and Jude 6-8 mention these two events in conjunction with one another, supporting the idea that Paul may have done the same. Jude even uses the same word as Paul, ομοιως, to connect the two events.

    Disadvantages

1. Greek-speaking former pagans in Rome, and even Hellenic Jews, may not have known the literary tradition of the Watchers.
   
   
2. The context appears to show a direct connection between cultic, pagan activity and the sexual activity in question, whereas the Watchers and Sodom events had little to do with idolatry according to the biblical accounts.

    Conclusion

So, which of these interpretations seems the most likely to you? Personally, I favor the temple prostitution interpretation, because it appears to make the most sense in context. However, all of the proposed interpretations have difficulties, most of all the traditional interpretation which sees this passage as Paul’s condemnation on all homosexuality.

    Whatever you take away from this post, though, I hope you are able to see that a blanket condemnation of homosexuality is, by far, not the only (or most likely) interpretation of Romans 1:26-27. Although this is the traditional interpretation, so were the pro-slavery interpretations in the pre-abolition period, and so were the anti-women’s-rights interpretations before the mid-twentieth century. Don’t let history repeat itself. See these anti-homosexuality interpretations for what they are: merely interpretations.

______________________________

[1] Banister, Jamie A. “Ὁμοίως and the Use of Parallelism in Romans 1:26-27.” Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 3 (Fall 2009): 569-590.

[2] Gnuse, Robert K. “Seven Gay Texts: Biblical Passages Used to Condemn Homosexuality.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 45, no. 2 (2015): 68-87.

[3] Provance, Brett. “Romans 1:26-27 in Its Rhetorical Tradition.” In Greco-Roman and Jewish Tributaries to the New Testament, edited by Christopher S. Crawford, 83-116. Claremont, CA: Claremont Press, 2018.

Universalism: the only possible theodicy

    The greatest problem for theism (belief in God), as traditionally conceived, is thought to be the problem of evil or suffering. According to this argument, it is impossible for God, who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent [1], to create a world which contains evil, and because our world contains evil, it cannot have been created by God. This argument is traditionally formulated as follows:

Premise 1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

Premise 2. A being who is omnibenevolent would desire to create a world with no evil.

Premise 3. A being who is omniscient would know how to create a world with no evil.

Premise 4. A being who is omnipotent would be able to create a world with no evil.

Premise 5. God will always create a world with no evil [P1-P4].

Premise 6. Our world contains evil.

Conclusion. Our world was not created by God [P5-P6].

Solutions to the problem of evil - called “theodicies” - fall into two main categories. The first is called “Irenaean theodicy,” argues that the development of conscience requires the existence of evil, and that the good which results from this development is greater than the evil which causes it. This has since been developed further into what is now called “soul-making theodicy,” which argues that the formation and development of souls requires the existence of evil.

    The second category is called “Augustinian theodicy,” which argues that the existence of free will requires the potential of evil, and that the existence of free will is a greater good than the evil which can potentially be caused by it. The modern form of this theodicy is Platinga’s free-will defense, which is probably the theodicy most commonly appealed to by theologians.

    All of these theodicies essentially boil down to one basic premise: the idea that a world with evil ultimately results in a greater net good than a world without evil, because the resulting good is greater than the temporary evil, and therefore it is not inconsistent with an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God (if “omnibenevolence” is defined as “desiring the greatest possible good”). In this post, I will demonstrate that the only way for this to work is if all people will be saved and experience bliss in the afterlife. If our world was indeed created by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, universalism cannot but be true.

    Abbreviations used

This post is going to get somewhat philosophical, so please try to bear with me. I’ll be using several abbreviations here as shorthand, so that the premises of my argument don’t become too long or confusing:

W_ECT: the set of all possible worlds in which eternal conscious torment is true; that is, in which (1) all of those who die in unbelief experience conscious suffering without end in the afterlife, and (2) at least one person dies in unbelief.

W_Ani: the set of all possible worlds in which annihilationism is true; that is, in which (1) all of those who die in unbelief are annihilated with no further conscious experience, and (2) at least one person dies in unbelief.

W_NA: the set of all possible worlds in which there is no afterlife; that is, in which all people are annihilated with no further conscious experience at death.

W_Uni: the set of all possible worlds in which universalism is true; that is, in which either (1) all people experience bliss without end in the afterlife regardless of whether they died in unbelief, or (2) no person dies in unbelief.

Furthermore (although this probably goes without saying), I will also be using “God” as shorthand for a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Although there are many conceptions of God around the world which lack one or more of these factors, all three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) believe in this view of God, and this is how the problem of evil is traditionally formulated. Now, let’s get into the actual argument.

    What kind of world would God create?

The argument for atheism from the problem of evil usually begins like this (as also described above):

P1 [2]. A being who is omnibenevolent would desire to create a world with no evil.

P2. A being who is omniscient would know how to create a world with no evil.

P3. A being who is omnipotent would be able to create a world with no evil.

C1. God will always create a world with no evil [P1-P3].

It is then argued that, because our world does indeed contain evil, it cannot have been created by God. Theodicies (solutions to the problem of evil) usually attack Premise 1, arguing that an omnibenevolent being would not necessarily desire to create a world with no evil, because a world which contains evil may ultimately result in a greater net good for every individual (either due to the “soul-making” process, or due to the existence of free will). Based on this, we can reformulate this argument like so:

P1. A being who is omnibenevolent would desire to create a world with the greatest possible net good for every individual.

P2. A being who is omniscient would know how to create a world with the greatest possible net good for every individual.

P3. A being who is omnipotent would be able to create a world with the greatest possible net good for every individual.

C1. God will always create a world with the greatest possible net good for every individual [P1-P3].

But what, exactly, would be “the greatest possible net good for every individual”? Because it is possible for God to create no world, in which case there would be net zero good for every individual (since they would not exist), the worst-case scenario is that the good and evil experienced by an individual perfectly balances out such that the net good experienced is zero. If, in a world, any single individual experiences more evil than good (net negative good), then God would simply not create that world, since a better world is possible for that individual (namely, no world) and God, being omnibenevolent, must always desire the greatest possible net good for every individual.

    This can be summed up in the following logical argument:

P1. It is possible for God to create no world.

P2. If no world is created, the net good experienced by every individual is zero (because they would not exist).

P3. God will always create a world with the greatest possible net good for every individual [C1].

C2. In any world created by God, every individual will experience a net good of zero or greater.

Thus, from these arguments, we can see that - because of His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence - it is not possible for God to create any world in which even one individual experiences more evil/suffering than good. If any individual in this world ultimately experiences more evil than good over the period of their existence, then this world cannot have been created by God, simply because it would not be among the set of worlds possible to be created by God.

    Comparing infernalism, annihilationism, and universalism

Now that we have determined what a world created by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God would look like, we can compare the set of worlds possible to be created by God with the three different theological positions (infernalism, annihilation, and universalism).

    First of all, in the set of all possible worlds in which eternal conscious torment holds true (W_ECT), at least one person experiences suffering without end in the afterlife. The evil/suffering experienced by this individual (and any others who die in unbelief) would be infinite, and any good that this individual experienced during their lifetime would be negligible in comparison. Essentially, this person would experience a net good of negative infinity over the period of their existence.

P1. In W_ECT, at least one person’s experience of evil/suffering is infinite.

P2. In W_ECT, at least one person experiences net negative good (in fact, infinitely negative).

However, this conflicts with [C2]:

P3. In any world created by God, every individual will experience a net good of zero or greater [C2].

Because in all worlds within the set W_ECT, at least one individual experiences net negative good, it is impossible for God to create such a world. Creating no world at all would be more favorable to an omnibenevolent God, because in that case such an individual would experience net zero good. Thus, it is impossible for God to create a world in which eternal conscious torment occurs to one or more individuals. Or in other words:

C3. W_ECT is not within the set of worlds possible to be created by God.

The second position to be considered is annihilationism, the view that all of those who die in unbelief are annihilated with no further conscious existence. In the set of all possible worlds in which annihilationism holds true (W_Ani), at least one person is annihilated after dying, with no afterlife. Thus, in any world in which annihilationism holds true, the net good which at least one individual experiences is the same as the net good experienced during their lifetime, because they have no conscious experience afterward. This is the first premise of our next argument.

P1. In W_Ani, the net good which at least one individual experiences within this life is the extent of the net good which they experience fully (because they are annihilated afterward).

In such a world, it is only possible for every individual to experience net positive good over the period of their existence if all of those who are annihilated experience more good than evil during their lifetime.

P2. In W_Ani, every individual only experiences net positive good if all of those who are annihilated experience net positive good during their life.

Let us call the subset of worlds within W_Ani in which this occurs WAni-NPG, meaning “Annihilationism-Net Positive Good”). But because of [C2],

P3. In any world created by God, every individual will experience a net good of zero or greater [C2].

no worlds within the set W_Ani are possible to be created by God unless they are also within the subset WAni-NPG.

C4. Only the subset of worlds within W_Ani in which all of those who are annihilated experience net positive good within this life (WAni-NPG) is within the set of worlds possible to be created by God.

Although a world within WAni-NPG is theoretically possible, our world is clearly not within this set. In this subset of worlds, every person who dies in unbelief must also experience net positive good over their lifetime. However, this is clearly incompatible with our own observations of this world. For example, consider the six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust; few would doubt that the suffering which at least some of them experienced outweighed the good which they experienced throughout their life, and yet they died as non-Christians, and so would be annihilated if Christian annihilationism is true. This is a fairly extreme example, but there are certainly many other people who experienced more suffering than good throughout their lives and still died in unbelief. Thus, our world is not within the subset WAni-NPG. 

    Now, just for the sake of argument, let’s consider the set of all possible worlds in which there is no afterlife (W_NA), i.e., in which the conscious experience of all individuals ends at death. This set of worlds can be described much the same as WAni, except for the fact that in W_NA, all individuals are annihilated, rather than just some.

P1. In W_NA, the net good which every individual experiences within this life is the extent of the net good which they experience fully (because they are annihilated afterward).

P2. In W_NA, every individual only experiences net positive good if they also experience net positive good during their life.

Let us call the subset of worlds within W_NA in which this occurs WNA-NPG, meaning “No Afterlife-Net Positive Good”).

P3. In any world created by God, every individual will experience a net good of zero or greater [C2].

C5. Only the subset of worlds within W_NA in which every individual experiences net positive good within this life (WNA-NPG) is within the set of worlds possible to be created by God.

This suffers from the same problem as WAni-NPG; although such a world in which every individual experiences net positive good in this lifetime is technically possible, this does not occur in our world. No one would doubt that, sadly, there are at least some people in this world who experience greater evil/suffering than good throughout their life. Thus, although WNA-NPG is within the set of worlds possible to be created by God, our world is not within this set.

    Finally, we can consider the set of all possible worlds in which universalism holds true (W_Uni). In W_Uni, every person experiences bliss in the afterlife without end. The infinite good which they ultimately experience outweighs any possible evil/suffering that they experienced during their lifetime, and so in any world in which universalism holds true, every individual will experience net positive good over the course of their existence. Thus, based on [C2], we can conclude that W_Uni is within the set of worlds possible to be created by God. This is summed up in the following logical argument:

P1. In W_Uni, every individual experiences net positive good.

P2. In any world created by God, every individual will experience a net good of zero or greater [C2].

C6. W_Uni is within the set of worlds possible to be created by God.

In summary, out of all of the theological options which we have considered (infernalism, annihilationism, universalism, and no afterlife), only three scenarios could have been created by a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. These are WAni-NPG, WNA-NPG, and W_Uni. And since observation indicates that our world is not WAni-NPG or WNA-NPG - sadly, many of those who die (whether in unbelief or not) experience more suffering than good throughout their life - the only possible option is that our world is within the set W_Uni (that is, universalism holds true in our world).

P1. The only sets of worlds possible to be created by God, among the options considered, are WAni-NPG, WNA-NPG, and W_Uni [C3, C4, C5, C6].

P2. Our world is not within the subset WAni-NPG, nor WNA-NPG, based on simple observation.

C7. Our world is either within the set of worlds W_Uni, or is not created by God.

Or, in other words, the only way to solve the problem of evil in our world is if universalism is true. Our world can only have been created by a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent if every individual will be saved and experience bliss in the afterlife. Otherwise, at least one individual would be ultimately experience more suffering than good over the course of their existence, and creating no world at all would be more desirable to an omnibenevolent God than such a world.

    Possible objections

As far as I can tell, there are only two possible philosophical objections to this argument:

First Objection. Perhaps the nature of God’s omnibenevolence is such that He does not desire the greatest good for every single individual, but the greatest net good overall.

This is possible, but would entail reframing the debate around the problem of evil, which has traditionally been about individual suffering. Furthermore, although such a definition of God’s omnibenevolence is possible in theory, it does not match up with God’s nature according to the Bible. Scripture tells us that God wills the best outcome (salvation) for every individual (1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9), and that He loves every individual, even His own enemies (Matt. 5:43-48). Love works toward the greatest possible good of the individual, even if it includes temporary suffering (Lam. 3:31-33, Rom. 13:10, Heb. 12:5-11). Therefore, if we accept the Bible as a valid source of theological truth, we must conclude that God’s omnibenevolence extends to every individual person, rather than being some sort of cosmic karmic force, and so the above argument still holds true.

    Moreover, even if it is true that God’s omnibenevolence only desires the greatest good overall, rather than the greatest good for every individual, this is still incompatible with the traditional Christian doctrine of eternal conscious torment. Based on statements like that of Matt. 7:13-14, Christians have traditionally believed that the majority of people will undergo “eternal conscious torment.” But if more than fifty percent of individuals undergo suffering without end, then the net good experienced throughout the universe as a whole must be negative - the good can never overtake the evil. An omnibenevolent God, even according to the modified definition of omnibenevolence, would never create such a world, because creating no world at all (in which the net good is zero) would be more desirable than such a world.

Second Objection. Perhaps the suffering experienced under eternal conscious torment is neutral or even desirable to an omnibenevolent God, because such suffering is primarily justice-oriented. In this case, it would still be possible for God to create a world in which eternal conscious torment holds true.

Again, this would require a fundamental re-framing of the problem of evil and of the definition of omnibenevolence. The “all-goodness” of a deity who desires the eternal, conscious suffering of any individual must be called into question. And furthermore, just as with the other objection, this ignores what the Bible itself says about God’s omnibenevolence; according to scripture, God “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezek. 33:11 cf. 18:23). The suffering of “the wicked”, then, is not of the sort which would be neutral or desirable to an omnibenevolent God.

    But that’s a heresy/the Bible doesn’t teach it/universalism would make people want to sin!

While I don’t believe that any of these typical reactions to universalism are actually valid arguments anyway [3], the beauty of this argument is that it renders these other debates pointless. As far as I can see, it is only possible to solve the problem of evil if universalism is true. In order to deny universalism, one must also deny at least one of the three characteristic traits of God - omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence - or deny that God created this world altogether. Thus, if the Bible teaches against the salvation of all, as most Christians believe it does, then it does not present a self-consistent set of claims and should be rejected as a source of truth. There is no possible middle ground on this issue that I can see.

______________________________

[1] These terms are usually defined like so:

Omnipotence: being able to do everything which is logically possible

Omniscience: knowing every possible truth and falsehood

Omnibenevolence: desiring the greatest possible good in every circumstance

[2] For those who are unfamiliar with this philosophical shorthand, “P1” simply means “Premise 1,” and “C1” means “Conclusion 1.”

[3] See my other articles on this blog, many of which argue that the Bible actually does teach universalism.

The Bible and Free Will: Answering Objections (part 5 of 5)

Part 4: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-bible-and-free-will-monergism-vs.html

    “God gives us a choice”

One of the most common objections to the biblical view of free will and God’s sovereignty laid out in the last three posts is the argument that “God gives us (humans) a choice to follow Him or not, and He allows us to exercise free will in this matter, because He would not force Himself on us.” Now, it should be clear that this is not a proper argument, but instead an assertion, one which I believe is unsupported by the scriptural evidence which I have meticulously laid out over the past few weeks. However, there are a number of specific passages thought to teach this. Here are some of the most commonly used:

“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving Yahweh your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding close to Him.” (Deut. 30:19-20)

“But if it is disagreeable in your sight to serve Yahweh, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served, which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve Yahweh.” (Josh. 24:15)

Yet however many received it [God’s word], it gave to them authority to become children of God, to the [ones] believing in its name. (Jn. 1:12)

For God loved the world thus: that He gave the only-begotten Son, so that all the [ones] believing in Him may not perish, but may have age-during life. (Jn. 3:16)

Now, these passages (among many others) certainly show that humans have a choice to follow God or not, and that our choice must arise from within ourselves (that is, our will must align itself with God’s preceptive will; Matt. 7:21, 12:50, Rom. 12:2). But it is simply begging the question to say that this requires libertarian free will as opposed to compatibilist “free” will. After all, the very definition of free will according to classic compatibilism is that the outcomes of one’s choices align with one’s inner desires. But this does not require that, per libertarianism, the possibility to have chosen otherwise must be legitimate. Thus, these passages are just as compatible with monergism and compatibilism as they are with synergism and libertarianism.

    Furthermore, the surrounding context of these passages is far more supportive of a monergistic interpretation. Deuteronomy 30:19 is in the context of a much larger prophecy in which God states that the Israelites would, one day, turn away from God and be destroyed, but eventually would turn back to Him and be restored (Deut. 29:27-30:9; 31:14-32:43). This implies that, though the choice to follow God was theirs alone, God was still ultimately in control and had predestined the future rebellion (and restoration) of Israel.

    Likewise, John 1:12 must be quoted entirely out of context to support a synergistic interpretation. The very next verse states that the children of God “were born not out of blood, nor out of the will of flesh, nor out of the will of man, but out of God.” Clearly, then, the passage as a whole supports monergism, not synergism. The same out-of-context quoting can be seen in John 3:16, since earlier in the same discourse, Jesus made it clear that in order to be saved one must be born from above, of the spirit of God (Jn. 3:3-8).

    Therefore, the idea that God gives us alone a choice to follow Him using libertarian free will, without involving Himself in our decision at all, is extremely unbiblical. Like so many other aspects of the debate surrounding free will and monergism, this idea stems from a confusion of libertarian and compatibilist free will. Although nobody doubts that our decision to follow God must arise from within ourselves, this view is consistent with both compatibilist and libertarian accounts of salvation. And as shown above, the surrounding context of the verses which are oft-quoted by Arminians actually supports compatibilism and monergism over against libertarianism and synergism.

    “God is not the author of sin”

Another argument often used against theological determinism is the assertion that “God is not the author of sin,” and therefore He cannot be the ultimate cause of anyone’s sin or evil actions. This statement has been quoted so often that many people actually believe it is from the Bible. But this statement is not from the Bible; it is from the Westminster Confession (5.4), a Reformation-era confession of faith [1]. Furthermore, this statement - if taken to mean that God is never the cause of anyone’s sin - would seem to contradict the many instances in scripture where God is explicitly shown to be the ultimate cause of certain evil actions, which I documented in my earlier post on God’s two wills.

    Although the statement that “God is not the author of sin” is not directly biblical, it does stem from legitimate concerns which non-determinists have about God predestinating evil actions. One passage of scripture which is usually pointed to as supporting these concerns is James 1:13, which states that “God is not tempted by evils, and He tempts no one.” However, if taken to mean that God never causes temptation in any way, this would directly contradict 2 Samuel 24:1 which states that God tempted David to sin, as well as 1 Corinthians 10:13 which implies that God provides us with both temptation and escapes from temptation. This contradiction only be resolved if Jas. 1:13 is stating that God never directly causes temptation, but instead acts through agents to cause temptation [2].

    Another passage which is thought to support the view that God can never cause sin is 1 John 1:5, which states that “God is light, and there is absolutely no darkness in Him.” However, the fact that God is light and love does not preclude the belief that He predestined or created darkness and evil. Consider the following passages, some of which were quoted earlier in this series:

And I set my heart to seek and search out concerning all that is done under the heavens. It is an evil experience that God has given to the sons of men, to humble them by it. (Ecc. 1:13) 

“I am Yahweh, and there is no one else. I form light and create darkness, make peace and create evil; I, Yahweh, do all these things.” (Isa. 45:6-7)

“Shall we accept good from God and not evil?” In [saying] all this, Job did not sin with his lips. (Job 2:10)

Who speaks, and it comes to pass, if Yahweh has not commanded it? Does not the evil go out from the mouth of the Most High along with the good? Why should a living man complain about his sins? (Lam. 3:37-39)

If a trumpet is blown in a city, will not the people be afraid? If there is evil in a city, has not Yahweh caused it? (Amos 3:6)

All these passages clearly teach that God is the ultimate cause of evil actions. Indeed, there is nothing that a person can say or do without God having predestined it (such is the nature of determinism).

    The problem that many people see with this view is that this makes God Himself seem evil and unloving. This causes Him to be responsible, directly or indirectly, for all manner of horrors throughout history - from slavery to genocide, and even the original introduction of sin into the world - all of which were bound to occur from the moment God created the universe. However, this apparent difficulty only occurs when we try to project human attributes onto God. After all, scripture makes clear that all of the evil which God creates in accordance with His will is, ultimately, for a greater purpose:

For the Lord will not cast off forever. For though He causes suffering, yet He will show compassion according to the abundance of His goodness. For He does not afflict from the heart, nor suffer the sons of men. (Lam. 3:31-33)

...having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His pleasure, which He predetermined in him [Christ], for the administration of the fullness of the seasons, to sum up the all things in the Christ, the things upon the heavens and the things upon the earth. (Eph. 1:9-10)

From these passages, we can see that the evil which God causes to be perpetuated in the current wicked age (Gal. 1:4) all works toward a greater purpose, the mystery of God’s (providential) will, which is to bring all things together in Christ. The suffering which God temporarily brings is not “from the heart,” that is, God does not cause us to suffer out of His own morally evil condition, but for the fundamentally good purpose of later showing mercy. We must have faith that every evil which we suffer now will make our experience of eternity that much better [3]. This shows that God can create evil without compromising His own perfect goodness and light.

    One possible objection to this view is the idea that, if all sin works toward an ultimate greater good, then sin cannot be considered morally wrong when committed by humans. However, this ignores what the actual meaning of “sin” is. According to the apostle John, “sin is lawlessness” (1 Jn. 3:2). Sin occurs when we fail to follow the laws to love God and our neighbor (Matt. 22:34-40; Rom. 13:8-10), regardless of how this comes about. Even though our actions are predetermined, when we fail to act in the best interests of others and are unloving, we are sinning. In contrast, God cannot sin, because His very nature is love (1 Jn. 4:8, 16 cf. Matt. 5:43-48). Even though He causes humans to sin, this is in the best interest of others, due to the greater ultimate purpose - the “mystery of His will” (Eph. 1:9-10). Thus, sin is still morally wrong, and God is still morally good, even if theological determinism is true [4].

    God’s Sovereignty vs. God’s Love, or Both?

Although Arminians do use some biblical arguments for their position, the weight of the biblical argument is clearly in favor of monergism. Instead, virtually all Arminian arguments against the validity of Calvinism (such as this one or this one) boil down to an argument that, if God is truly sovereign and salvation is monergistic (as the Bible states), then God must not truly be loving, because He chooses to save some and not others in an apparently arbitrary fashion. This can be represented in the following way:

Premise 1. The God of Calvinism predestines who will be saved and who will not be saved according to His will.

Premise 2. Not all will be saved.

Premise 3. The God of Calvinism does not will all to be saved [P1-P2].

Premise 4. The God of the Bible loves all people and wills all to be saved (Matt. 5:43-48, 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9).

Conclusion. The God of Calvinism is not the God of the Bible [P3-4].

Calvinists usually respond by arguing that “all mankind” in 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 doesn’t really mean every human without exception, but instead all of the elect. However, this stretches the meaning of the Greek text to its very limits, and ignores the context of these passages which shows that “all mankind” truly does refer to all people without exception. Furthermore, this answer does not satisfactorily answer the fact that God also states elsewhere that He does not delight in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11) and that He loves even His enemies [5], indeed, His love of all people without exception is integral to His very perfection (Matt. 5:43-48) and being (1 Jn. 4:8, 16).

    I believe that Arminians have correctly identified this as a fatal point of weakness for Calvinism. God’s love for all people is integral to His perfection and being. If God failed to always act in the best interests of others, He would be sinning (Matt. 22:34-40; 1 Jn. 3:4), and yet God cannot sin; therefore, God must always act in the best interests of others. This is incompatible with the belief that God predestines some to salvation and not others. However, Arminianism is just as incompatible with the fact that God loves all people and wills all to be saved. Consider the following syllogism:

Premise 1. The God of Arminianism foreknows who will choose to be saved, and who will not.

Premise 2. Not all will be saved.

Premise 3. It is impossible for a being to have a choice in their own creation.

Premise 4. The God of Arminianism creates beings whom He foreknows will not be saved, without their own choice in the matter [P1-P3].

Premise 5. The God of Arminianism does not will all to be saved [P4].

Premise 6. The God of the Bible loves all people and wills all to be saved.

Conclusion. The God of Arminianism is not the God of the Bible.

Therefore, although Arminians claim to have a doctrine which is more compatible with God’s love for all people, the fact is that the God of Arminianism - in creating beings which He foreknows will not choose to be saved - is still incompatible with the God of the Bible who actually wills all to be saved. And although Open Theists, who believe that God does not foreknow the decisions made by humans with free will, claim to have the upper hand in this matter because they believe God did not foreknow who would choose not to be saved, they actually have the exact same issue. Consider the following syllogism:

Premise 1. The God of Open Theism, before creating, would have either expected all to be saved or not.

Premise 2. Not all will be saved.

Premise 3. If the God of Open Theism expected all to be saved, He is a fool for believing so.

Premise 4. If the God of Open Theism did not expect all to be saved, He must not will all to be saved.

Premise 5. The God of Open Theism is either a fool, or does not will all to be saved [P1-P4].

Premise 6. The God of the Bible is not a fool and does will all to be saved.

Conclusion. The God of Open Theism is not the God of the Bible.

From these logical syllogisms, we can clearly see that, regardless of which soteriological position one assumes - whether Calvinism, Arminianism, or Open Theism - their God does not love all people without exception and is therefore not the God of the Bible. Although it is true that Calvinism compromises God’s love in favor of His sovereignty, both of the alternatives to Calvinism end up compromising God’s sovereignty and His love.

    So where did we go wrong? Is God an unloving monster who changes His will on a whim? Of course not. Instead, I believe that this demonstrates an even greater underlying problem in Christian theology, and that is the assumption that not all people will be saved. If we reject this premise, then it again becomes possible to affirm God’s love for all people, even along with God’s sovereignty. And in fact, one would be hard-pressed to find evidence for this premise in scripture; although the Bible definitely says that many will be judged and found guilty, it does not state that anyone’s punishment will be without end (and any translation which makes it appear as such is a mistranslation [6]).

    Once we reject the premise that not all people will be saved, the testimony of scripture to God’s nature as being simultaneously sovereign and perfectly loving becomes self-consistent. After all, there is nothing contradictory about saying that, “God opened the hearts of myself and others to believe the truth, but He has not yet opened the hearts of all,“ or that “God granted myself and others repentance and faith, but He has not yet granted this to all people.” Because of this, I believe that the only position which is consistent with God’s self-revelation and logic is the position that I myself hold, namely Monergistic Universalism.

______________________________

[1] Although even the authors of the Westminster Confession believed that God is the ultimate cause of all sin (see chap. 5), so one wonders what they meant by “God is not the author nor approver of sin.”

[2] For example, comparing 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1 demonstrates that God was acting through Satan to tempt David to sin.

[3] Of course, this balancing act between God’s sovereignty and goodness only works in a universalist worldview. In order for God’s actions to be justified, the eventual good must outweigh the good which would have resulted had there been no evil. Yet in traditional Calvinism, there remains an unregenerated humanity whose suffering continues into eternity. Since, under this view, evil continues to be perpetuated by God infinitely, the good can never finally outweigh the evil.

[4] This also solves the “problem of evil” which has been sometimes considered to be insurmountable for Abrahamic theism. The traditional solution, Platinga’s free-will defense (which argues that evil must exist in any universe with libertarian free will), has certain documented problems, not least of which is the issue that libertarian free will itself is logically impossible due to the “luck problem.” The solution of theological determinism advocated here has no such problems, but has been ignored by the vast majority of Christians due to the necessary consequence of universalism.

[5] Since love does no harm (Rom. 13:10), and God does not cast off those whom He loves forever (Lam. 3:31-33), God’s love for all people is incompatible with the Calvinist view that God arbitrarily assigns some to eternal torment or annihilation.

[6] See my previous posts on the meaning of the Greek words αιων and αιωνιος, which are the words used in scripture to describe punishment, and which are not properly translated “forever” or “eternal” but instead “pertaining to/of the ages.”

The Bible and Free Will: Monergism vs. Synergism (part 4 of 5)

Part 3: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-bible-and-free-will-open-theism-and.html

     In the last post of this series on theological determinism, we looked at the view of open theism (the belief that God does not have perfect foreknowledge of the future regarding human ‘free will’) and found it lacking, based on a number of prooftexts which open theists fail to recognize are employing the literary device of anthropopathism. However, there is another, more common view at odds with theological determinism: synergism, or as it is more commonly known, Arminianism. Synergism (or Arminianism) is the view that salvation is a joint action between God and humanity, and that humans must exercise their (libertarian) ‘free will’ to make a choice to be saved. In contrast, monergism (or as it is more commonly known, Calvinism) is the view that salvation is a unilateral act of God. In this post, we will see why monergism is a much more scriptural and correct view than synergism.

    “I will give you a new heart”

One major synergist/Arminian talking point is the idea that God would not ‘violate’ human free will by ‘forcing’ anyone to love and follow Him. According to them, if God unilaterally acted to save any human being (as proposed by monergism), it would actually be an unloving action because He would be bypassing the ‘free will’ of those people [1]. As one major Christian website, “Got Questions,” states,

God respects what He has created to such an extent that He will not allow even His overwhelming love to violate our free will... [God] won’t force the love, because forced love is not love at all.. He won’t force salvation on the unwilling. [2]

Although this view is extremely common among Christians, it also goes entirely against what the Bible says about God’s complete sovereignty even over the human will. I discussed most of the pertinent passages in the first post of this series. Most notably, God is said to fashion “the heart” and “all the deeds” of “all the inhabitants of the earth” (Ps. 33:13-15), and He is said to have the ability to “turn [the heart of man] wherever He desires” (Prov. 21:1), as He “gives to everyone... everything” (Acts 17:25), which necessarily includes thoughts, emotions, desires, etc. 

    Keeping in mind that God is in absolute control of the human will at all times, it should be a simple task for Him to naturally cause someone to love and follow Him without ‘forcing’ their love, or ‘violating’ their (compatibilist) free will [3]. And indeed, according to several passages, God is quite able to cause someone to love Him without ‘forcing’ that love:

“And Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your descendants, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart and all your soul, that you may live.” (Deut. 30:6)

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me... Restore to me the joy of Your salvation, and uphold me by Your generous spirit. (Ps. 51:10, 12)

“And I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am Yahweh, and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.” (Jer. 24:7)

“And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you, and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh, and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and My judgments, and you will keep and do [them]... Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and your abominations.” (Ezek. 36:26-27, 31)

Here, we are told in no uncertain terms that God has the ability to give someone a “new heart,” to cause them to “love Yahweh [their] God with all [their] heart,” and to “walk in [His] statutes and [His] judgments.” The sequence of events here is quite clear; it is not that one makes a choice to follow God, and then He gives them a new heart, but that God gives them “a heart to know [Him]” which causes them to “return to [Him] with their whole heart.” These passages make it absolutely clear: salvation is a unilateral act of God, and can only be considered synergistic in the sense that a person must choose to come to God because He caused them to do so.

    And really, who could ever doubt God’s ability to do so in the first place? In the human realm of events, we have only an imperfect knowledge of our fellow human beings, and so any attempt to cause another person to ‘love’ us will inevitably fail; they must come to that love organically, on their own. But when it comes to God, who “is greater than the heart and knows all things” (1 Jn. 3:20), would He not know the exact set of events and circumstances needed to bring one of His own creations to organically love Him? Even granting the existence of libertarian free will, God’s total knowledge of our hearts means that He has the ability to naturally bring us to love Him without ‘violating’ our free will. But a better question would be, does God do this?

    Salvation: an act of (God’s) will

Most Christians (specifically synergists/Arminians) see salvation as a gift which God grants to those who first seek Him. Contrary to this view, Paul states that “there is none seeking out God” (Rom. 3:11), and David writes that

Yahweh looks down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, they have become corrupt together; there is none who does good, no, not one. (Ps. 14:2-3)

In light of this, it should be clear that anyone who seeks God and does good only does so because God has granted it to them to do so. No one can do good of their own accord. John writes that “we love because He first loved us” (1 Jn. 4:19), and Paul says that there is nothing we can give to God that He has not first given us (Acts 17:25; Rom. 11:35-36), and that spiritual things can only be discerned if given by the spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14). Based on this information, it should be clear that salvation must be a unilateral act of God; otherwise, no one would ever seek God or be saved.

    This idea, that salvation can only come if God first draws the sinner to Himself, was explicitly taught by Jesus during His earthly ministry. In one of His dialogues with the Jewish leaders, found in the gospel account of John, He tells them that

“No one is able to come to me, unless the Father, the [One] having sent me, may draw him.” (Jn. 6:44)

At the end of the same discourse, Jesus privately confides to His disciples,

“There are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from [the] beginning who are the [ones] not believing and who it is who will be betraying him. And he was saying, “Because of this I have said to you that no one is able to come to me, unless it may be having been given to him from the Father.” (Jn. 6:64-65)

Now, Jesus’ statement that only those drawn by the Father can come to Jesus would be a strong enough statement by itself to, at the very least, prove monergism a very real possibility. However, the fact that Jesus then cites this very statement as the reason why some of His disciples did not believe proves monergism virtually beyond a doubt. Some of His disciples did not believe simply because it had not been granted to them by the Father.

    These statements of Jesus correspond well with the what we find throughout the other gospel accounts. At the beginning of his gospel account, John writes that believers are “born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God” (1:13). Jesus’ disciples did not choose Him, but He chose them (Jn. 15:16). No one can receive anything, including faith, unless it is given to them from God (Jn. 3:27). Jesus praised God for revealing the truth to “infants” while hiding it from “the wise and prudent,” stating that only those “to whom the Son determines to reveal [the Father]” may know God (Matt. 11:25-27), and later explained to His disciples that the reason they were able to understand His teachings while the crowds were not able was simply because “to you it has been given... but to them it has not been given... lest they may return and may be forgiven” (Mk. 4:10-12 cf. Matt. 13:10-11).

    Although it is clear all throughout the Bible, monergism is nowhere taught more clearly than in the epistles of Paul. As he wrote in his first letter to the Corinthians,

Yet [it is] out of Him [that] you are in Christ Jesus, who has been made wisdom from God to us, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it has been written, “The [one] boasting, let him boast in [the] Lord.” (1 Cor. 1:30-31)

According to Paul, it is God who “has allotted a measure of faith to each” (Rom. 12:3). He may have mercy on whomever He wills, and He may harden whomever He wills (Rom. 9:15-18). God placed each believer in the body of Christ “according as He willed” (1 Cor. 12:18, 15:38), and so the mystery of the gospel has only been revealed “to whom God willed to make [it] known” (Col. 1:26-27). Although evangelists and ministers aid in the spread of the gospel, analogous to “planting” and “watering,” it is ultimately only God who “gives the growth” and brings people to Christ (1 Cor. 3:5-9). So then, in Paul’s eyes, salvation is an act of God’s will, not anything that the believer themself does.

    The reason that God willed to bring us to salvation is solely because He predestined it to be so before the foundation of the world, “according to the good pleasure of His will” (Eph. 1:4-5, 11 cf. 2 Tim. 1:9). And so, when the appointed time came, because of God’s selection (ekloge) of us, the gospel came to us “not only in word, but also in power and in holy spirit” (1 Thess. 1:4-5). God then grants us repentance to be able to know the truth (2 Tim. 2:24-25 cf. Acts 5:31; 11:18; Rom. 2:4), resulting in our salvation - not because of anything righteous that we did, but because of God’s kindness and mercy, we have been regenerated and renewed by holy spirit (Titus 3:4-7). For we are saved by grace, through a faith which is not of ourselves, but was “freely given” to us (Eph. 2:8-9, Php. 1:29). In every step of the salvation process, it is God, not the (future) believer, who is completely in control.

    Furthermore, even after God graciously saves us, the good works which we do are also from Him and not out of ourselves. Paul states that “[we are] created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God predestined that we may walk in them“ (Eph. 2:10), and that “God is the One working in [us] both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Php. 2:12-13 cf. Gal. 2:20). He predestines us for glory (Rom. 9:23 cf. 8:29-30), sanctifying us and qualifying us for “the inheritance of the saints” (Col. 1:12; 2 Thess. 2:13-14). Furthermore, it is only possible for us to move on to spiritual maturity if God permits us to do so (Heb. 6:1-3). Thus, both our salvation and good works are graciously given by God, and ultimately not out of ourselves.

    Paul’s entirely God-centered view of salvation is generally confirmed throughout the epistles of Peter and John. As previously noted, John makes the statement that “we love [both God and neighbor] because He first loved us” (1 Jn. 4:19-21), showing that even our love for God - which results in salvation - also essentially amounts to a God-given gift. Both Peter and John refer to the believers that they are writing to as “elect” (eklektos), a word which literally means “chosen” (1 Pet. 1:1; 2:9; 2 Jn. 1, 13 cf. Rev. 17:14). Peter also says that all unbelievers have been appointed to that unbelief (1 Pet. 2:7-8), a statement which necessarily implies the opposite, that all believers have been appointed to that belief.

    All of these passages demonstrate beyond a doubt that salvation is a unilateral act of God, and that He may cause the salvation of whomever He wills. Some are appointed to age-during life, while others are appointed to unbelief (Acts 13:48; 1 Pet. 2:7-8) [4]. But if this is true, why does there appear to be a legitimate offer to all people to repent, if He only grants repentance to a few (Acts 5:31; 11:18; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:24-25)? And how can unbelievers truly be considered responsible for their unbelief, if that also is predetermined by God [5]?

    The human vs. the divine perspective

One helpful way to think of these apparent contradictions is to view them from two different perspectives: the human (or relative) perspective and the divine (or absolute) perspective. Although from our limited, human perspective, we have the ability to choose freely, from God’s perspective, our choices were already predetermined (since He knows everything at the present time, and given determinism, this means that He can extrapolate everything at any future time). Both of these perspectives appear throughout scripture, which can sometimes cause confusion due to apparent contradiction.

    For example, consider Jesus’ words from His sermon on the mount: “Seek, and you will find... for the one seeking, finds” (Matt. 7:7-8). This gives the impression that humans can seek God and thereby find Him. Yet the Psalmist, and Paul quoting him, says that there is not a single person who seeks God (Ps. 14:2-3; Rom. 3:11). Is this a contradiction? No; the Psalmist is speaking from God’s perspective, as he makes explicitly clear in v. 2, whereas Jesus is speaking from the human perspective. Although no one is able to seek God of themselves, God does draw some people to Him (Jn. 6:44), and so from the human perspective (without intimate knowledge of God’s workings) it appears that they are seeking God.

    Another good example of the human perspective is Revelation 3:20, in which Jesus says, “Lo, I have stood at the door and I knock. If anyone may hear my voice and may open the door, I will come in to him, and will eat with him, and he with me.” This is commonly appealed to by Arminians (and synergists in general) to prove that humans can either accept or refuse God’s calling for them. However, this verse does not explain why someone would open the door; is it necessarily an act of ‘libertarian free will’ to do so? Not according to other passages like Mk. 4:11-12, which states that God actively keeps the truth from unbelievers “lest they may return and may be forgiven,” and 2 Tim. 2:24-25, which states that God provides repentance to certain individuals. Therefore, one only has a ‘free choice’ to open the door from the human perspective; if we pull back the curtain to look at the inner workings, it is God who brings someone to ‘open the door,’ so to speak.

    Finally, let’s take a look at one last passage. In Matthew 23:37, Jesus states that Israel was unwilling to be gathered together under Him “as a hen gathers together her chicks under her wings.” Yet in Romans 11, Paul states that it was God who gave Israel “eyes to not see and ears to not hear” and hardened them. Again, this is an example of the difference between the human and divine perspective. Although from the limited, human perspective, it appeared as though Israel was resisting God’s will, if we examine what God has revealed about His providential will, we see that their rebelliousness was actually brought about by God.

    A good analogy to think of God’s relationship to human beings is that of a playwright to his play [6]. For a specific example, think of Shakespeare and his play Macbeth, in which the main character Macbeth commits regicide by killing King Duncan of Scotland. From the limited perspective of the characters in the play, who was it that killed King Duncan? Of course, it was Macbeth who killed King Duncan. But if we ‘zoom out,’ so to speak, and look at the play from the perspective of the outside world, it was in fact Shakespeare who killed King Duncan. It is equally true that Macbeth and Shakespeare killed the king, depending on which perspective you look at it from. It is likewise equally true that God causes everything that happens (including salvation), as well as that humans cause certain things to occur, but in different ways and from different perspectives.

    Furthermore, though it is true that Shakespeare killed King Duncan from the perspective of the outside viewer, it is not true that Shakespeare shares any of the ‘blame’ in this regicide. In contrast, Macbeth certainly is blameworthy for this evil act, despite the fact that he was ultimately ‘caused’ to do so by forces outside of his control (namely, Shakespeare’s playwriting). In the same way, God can predestine humans to commit evil acts without sharing any of the ‘blame’ in those acts, especially because He causes it to happen for a greater purpose (although we may not yet fully understand that purpose).

Part 5: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-bible-on-free-will-answering.html

___________________________________

[1] It is also sometimes argued that true love requires the existence of libertarian free will. This assertion is answered in my post, “Can free will exist?”

[2] https://www.gotquestions.org/God-save-everyone.html

[3] See my post, “Can free will exist?” for the difference between libertarian and compatibilist notions of ‘free will.’

[4] Which is not to say that all mankind will not eventually be saved, for it is the salvation of all mankind which God wills (1 Tim. 2:4 cf. Eph. 1:9-11). However, He will not save the rest of the non-elect until the end of the ages (1 Cor. 15:22-28, Heb. 9:26).

[5] This question actually ties back into the solution to the problem of evil which I offered at the end of the second post in this series, “The Two Wills of God.”

[6] After all, according to Psalm 139:16, every one of our days is written in God’s ‘book’ before we are even formed. So imagining God as the author of a book, or the playwright of a play, is a very scriptural analogy.

The Bible and Free Will: Open Theism and Anthropomorphism (part 3 of 5)

Part 2: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-bible-and-free-will-two-wills-of.html

     In the first two posts of this series, we examined the scriptural evidence for theological determinism and the total sovereignty of God. We saw that, according to the Bible, absolutely everything (including human choice and action) is brought about by God in His providential will (Ps. 33:13-15; Eph. 1:11). We also saw many examples throughout scripture in which God brought about a sin, in apparent contradiction to His commandments or ‘preceptive will.’ Furthermore, we saw how the perfect moral character of God is compatible with the evil that He causes if (and only if) He does it for the greater good of all people, and thus out of the love which forms the basis of His preceptive will (Matt. 22:37-40).

    However, despite the vast scriptural evidence for this view that God’s plan and will is all-comprehensive, there are a number of passages that are thought to support the alternative view of open theism [1]. Open theism is the view that God does not have comprehensive control over or knowledge of the future, but instead has chosen to give us free will, out of love for us, limiting His sovereignty and foreknowledge in the process. This is largely based on passages like Exodus 32:14 which appear to demonstrate that God can change His mind, which according to open theists rules out the idea that He has perfect foreknowledge.

    The idea that God is not able to know the future with perfect accuracy seems to be refuted by passages like Isaiah 46:10, which states that God is “declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done” (cf. Isa. 41:23; 42:9; 44:7; Dan. 2:28; 1 Pet. 1:2). God has demonstrated this knowledge of the future (including the ‘free choices’ of humans) many times; for example, in 1 Sam. 23:10-12, God tells David that Saul and the citizens of Keilah would conspire to hand him over (which requires foreknowledge of the future ‘free choices’ of those people), and in Rom. 8:29 and 1 Pet. 1:2 we are told that God foreknows who will become a believer (likewise). Despite this, a good case can still be made for open theism based on a number of verses which appear to support it. In this post, we will be taking a look at that evidence and seeing why it does not really support open theism.

    Does God change His mind?

The case for open theism is largely based on several passages which state that God changed His mind, or relented (Hebrew nacham), regarding certain actions. See the following examples of this:

And Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man in the earth was great, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil, all the time. And Yahweh relented [nacham] that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. (Gen. 6:5-6)

And Yahweh said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed, it is a stiff-necked people. Now therefore leave me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them, and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.” And Moses pleaded with Yahweh his God, and said, “Why, Yahweh, does your wrath burn hot against your people Israel, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should Egypt speak and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth?’ Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent [nacham] from this harm to Your people”... So Yahweh relented [nacham] from the harm which He said He would do to His people. (Exod. 32:10-12, 14)

And the word of Yahweh came to Samuel, saying, “I relent [nacham] that I have established Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments.” (1 Sam. 15:11)

And when the angel stretched out his hand over Jerusalem to destroy it, then Yahweh relented [nacham] from the destruction, and said to the angel who was destroying the people, “It is enough! Now restrain your hand.” And the angel of Yahweh was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. (2 Sam. 24:16)

“And if that nation turns back from its evil, against whom I have spoken, then I will relent [nacham] of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it... And if it does evil in My sight, so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent [nacham] concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.” (Jer. 18:8, 10 cf. 26:3, 13, 42:10, Ezek. 33:13-16)

I said, “Lord Yahweh, forgive, I pray. How can Jacob stand? For he is small.” So Yahweh relented [nacham] concerning this. “It shall not be,” said Yahweh... And I said, “Lord Yahweh, cease, I pray. How can Jacob stand? For he is small.” So Yahweh relented [nacham] concerning this. “It also shall not be,” said the Lord Yahweh. (Amos 7:2-3, 5-6)

And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way, and God relented [nacham] from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. (Jon. 3:10)

According to these passages, God occasionally relents concerning disasters - and even blessings - which He promised would come upon an individual or nation. Because of this, the prophet Joel urged the people of Israel to repent in light of the fact that “[God] relents from the evil. Who knows if He will turn back and relent?” (Joel 2:13-14) Open theists point to passages like these to support their claim that God does not know the future perfectly. After all, if God is able to change His mind due to the choices that humans make, this shows that (1) He does not know in advance what choice they will make, and (2) He does not know in advance what choice He will make.

    Now, if these verses were all that we had to go on, it would be a valid inference that God does not perfectly know the future. However, as it so happens, there are several other verses which indicate that God is in fact unable to change His mind, for with Him there is “no change or shadow of variation” (Jas. 1:17). Consider the following passages:

God is not a man that He should lie, or a son of man that He should relent [nacham]. (Num. 23:19)

And also the Glory of Israel will not lie nor relent [nacham], for He is not a man that He should relent [nacham]. (1 Sam. 15:29)

For I, Yahweh, do not change; therefore you, sons of Jacob, are not consumed. (Mal. 3:6)

Every good giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the lights, with whom there is no change or shadow of variation. (Jas. 1:17)

This appears to present a clear contradiction. We are explicitly told that God does not relent (nacham), while being told elsewhere of multiple instances in which God did relent (nacham). How can this possibly be resolved?

    Anthropomorphism and anthropopathism in scripture

Open theists suggest that this contradiction should be resolved by applying the principle that “God does not relent” only to these two situations; namely, His covenant with Israel and His having taken the kingdom away from Saul (Num. 23:19-21; 1 Sam. 15:28-29). However, this does not fully explain these two passages - they do not merely say that God will not relent in these two situations, but that He cannot relent because He is fundamentally not a human.

    Rather, I believe that these instances in which God is said to relent are examples of the literary devices of anthropomorphism and anthropopathism, in which God is described using human attributes in order to make Him more relatable to human readers. For example, although “God is spirit” (Jn. 4:24) and so does not have a physical body, He is said in the Old Testament to have hands and arms (Exod. 6:6; 7:5; Deut. 4:34; 5:15; Isa. 23:11; etc.), feet (Exod. 24:9-10; Isa. 66:1 cf. Gen. 3:8), a face (Exod. 33:20; Lev. 20:6; Num. 6:25; Ps. 27:8; etc.), eyes, ears (Deut. 11:12; 2 Kings 19:16; Neh. 1:6; Ps. 34:15; etc.), nostrils (Exod. 15:8; Deut. 33:10; Job 4:9), a mouth (Num. 12:8; Josh. 9:14; Job 11:5; Isa. 11:4, etc.), and many other physical human characteristics.

    Likewise, scripture also describes God as having human emotions, despite that, seeing as He is outside of time and emotion is a reaction to events in temporal succession, He does not experience emotion in the same way that humans do [2]. For example, He is said to delight or rejoice (Deut. 28:63; 30:9; Ps. 104:31; Jer. 32:41; etc.), be sorrowful and grieve (Judg. 10:16; Ps. 78:40; etc.), remember past events (Gen. 9:15-16; Exod. 2:24; 6:5; 1 Sam. 1:19; etc.), forget past events (Ps. 9:18; 13:1; 42:9; Hos. 4:6; etc.), have anger, vengeance, and hatred (Exod. 15:7; Ps. 5:5; Isa. 1:14; Jer. 9:9; etc.), jealousy (Exod. 20:5; Num. 25:11; Nah. 1:2; Zech. 1:14; etc.), zeal (Isa. 9:7), pity (Joel 2:18), and ignorance (Gen. 3:9; 4:9; Num. 22:9; 1 Kings 19:9, 13). These are all examples of anthropopathism, or the attribution of human emotion to God [3].

    When we read that God “relented” of certain actions, we should understand it as another type of anthropopathism. This is especially clear in light of Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29, both of which state that “relenting” (nacham) is an emotion limited solely to humans and is not experienced by God, by virtue of the fact that He is not a human. Therefore, it can only be said that God relents in the sense that it can also be said that He has human physical characteristics and is ignorant or even able to ‘forget’ past events; not that those attributes actually belong to God, but that He describes Himself in that way in order to condescend to our level and make Himself more relatable to us [4]. God’s foreknowledge of the future is, therefore, not jeopardized by these passages which state that He “relented.”

    Instances where God ‘didn’t know’ the future

Apart from the passages which state that God changed His mind or relented concerning certain actions, there are a few other instances in scripture where open theists believe that God demonstrated His lack of knowledge about the future. Two of the most commonly cited examples are found in the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah:

“Let me sing now for my well-beloved, a song of my beloved concerning his vineyard. My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill. He dug it all around, removed its stones, and planted it with the choicest vine. And he built a tower in the middle of it and also hewed out a wine vat in it; then he expected it to produce good grapes, but it produced only worthless ones. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between Me and My vineyard. What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones?”... For the vineyard of Yahweh of hosts is the house of Israel and the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress. (Isa. 5:1-4, 7)

Then Yahweh said to me in the days of Josiah the king, “Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there. I thought, ‘After she has done all these things she will return to Me’; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.” (Jer. 3:6-8)

In both of these passages, God states that He expected Israel to return and remain faithful to Him, producing “good grapes,” but instead they remained unfaithful and produced “worthless grapes.” If taken at face value, these passages would indicate that God does not have perfect foreknowledge of the future, since He expected one result while getting another. However, if this is the meaning of these passages, it would directly contradict the book of Deuteronomy in which God actually prophesies the coming Israelite apostasy and subsequent exile (29:19-28; 32:25-26). Surely, if God actually prophesied that this apostasy would happen, He could not have expected the opposite to occur.

    To properly understand these passages, it is important to note that both of them are part of extended metaphors in which God is presented as a man, and Israel as His vineyard (in Isaiah) or adulterous wife (in Jeremiah). Obviously, poetic metaphors and parables are not meant to be sources of absolute doctrinal truth. Since God is a man in these parables, some amount of anthropopathism - which includes ignorance of present and future events (cf. Gen. 3:8; 4:9; Num. 22:9; 1 Kings 19:9, 13) - is to be expected.

    Another possible interpretation of the Isaiah passage is to see it as a reflection of God’s preceptive will rather than His providential will (see my recent post on “The Two Wills of God”). The word which is translated “expected” here, qavah, can also mean “to look for” or “to search eagerly.” If that is the sense in which it is being used, then it might not saying that God actually expected Israel to do good, but rather that He wished them to do good rather than evil.

    Another passage, which open theists also argue demonstrates that God does not know the future, is from the book of Jeremiah:

They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My mind. (Jer. 7:31 NASB cf. 19:5; 32:35)

Since God, in this passage, says that this particular sin of Israel “did not come into [His] mind,” it is argued that He could not have foreknown its occurrence. Furthermore, this verse is seen as particularly challenging to theological determinism, since if God actually predestined the occurrence of this sin, it would certainly be a lie to say that it never even entered His mind. However, even under open theism, God knows all truths both possible and actual (which is the very definition of omniscience), so if we interpret this verse as saying that God did not even think that this could occur, it would be incompatible with open theism as well. Because of this, there must be another more valid interpretation of this passage.

    The key to properly understanding this verse is to look at the original Hebrew text, which states that the sin did not come into God’s leb - a word which more properly means “heart” than “mind.” (In fact, the LXX translates the last word of this verse as kardia, the Greek word meaning “heart.”) As far as I can tell, leb is only ever used to describe God's preceptive will, and not His providential will; this would also better correspond to the previous clause of the sentence, which states that "[God] did not command [it]" (assuming that synonymous parallelism is being employed here). Thus, this verse is only saying that God did not command it in His preceptive will, not necessarily that He could not have providentially ordained it. After all, His preceptive and providential 'wills' do often conflict (again, see my recent post, "The Two Wills of God").

    In summary, open theism is a shaky position built on equivocal passages that do not necessarily support it. Open theists fail to consistently apply the literary device of anthropopathism, accepting that it is used elsewhere in the Old Testament but not applying it to the instances in which God is said to "relent." Furthermore, they entirely ignore the fact that God created (and is thus outside of) time, which makes it impossible that He could be completely ignorant of the future, as well as ignoring passages that explicitly describe God's foreknowledge of the future. In the next post of this series, we will take a look at the debate between monergism/Calvinism (the belief that salvation is a unilateral act of God) and synergism/Arminianism (the belief that salvation is a joint act of both God and humans).

Part 4: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-bible-and-free-will-monergism-vs.html

______________________________

[1] Although the main opposing view to theological determinism is Arminianism, most of the prooftexts for this view center around God’s love for all people and desire for all to be saved, which (as a universalist) my position has no difficulty with.

[2] Which is not to say that He is limited in any way. Jesus, who is “the image of the invisible God,” certainly experienced emotion, and so God must in some way be an emotive being. However, seeing as He is outside of time, His emotions cannot be comparable to human emotions (cf. Isa. 55:8-9; Rom. 11:33-34).

[3] For even more examples of both anthropomorphism and anthropopathism, see https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/bullinger/a/anthropopatheia-or-condescension.html

[4] This is also how it can be said that God does not know the state of the human heart (Gen. 22:12; Exod. 13:17; 16:4; 2 Chron. 32:31; Judg. 2:21-22; Ps. 26:2; Jer. 17:10). This is not because He is ignorant, but because He is describing Himself in anthropopathic ways when He talks about “searching the hearts” of humans. After all, even open theists believe that God knows everything at the present time, which necessarily includes the thoughts of humans (1 Jn. 3:20), so how could it be that He does not know the state of the human heart?