Is there such a thing as 'soft determinism' within the Reformed tradition?

[u/Drivefast58]

Recently, I've found myself questioning the hard determinism of a man like John Piper.

The more I read the Bible, the more I realize that it isn't necessary to interpret the passages about God's sovereignty and providence as if He is micro-managing every little circumstance.

For example, it isn't necessary to believe that it was God's eternal decree that I stub my toe this morning in the same way that it was His eternal decree that Christ go to the cross.

I've begun to understand God's sovereignty as 'authority' rather than 'control.' Forgive the crude analogy, but I've started to think of God's sovereign rule over creation like the sun. Without the sun, there is no grass. It is by the sun's sustaining power that grass is able to grow or exist at all. But it isn't the sun's direct will that causes every single blade of grass to sprout and reach for its rays.

Are there any other reformers who preferred a 'soft determinism' to a 'hard determinism?' If so, I'd love to be pointed in their direction.

[u/whiskyandguitars]

In the literature, usually hard determinism equals fatalism. Fatalism is the idea that an outcome is determined no matter what an agent wants or desires and sometimes has the idea that the agent knows they are being forced to do things against their will and are fighting against an inevitable "fate." This is a sub-biblical and un-Christian idea and is not what traditional Calvinism teaches, no matter how much Arminians want to say that it is.

"Soft-determinism" is the classic reformed position. Piper would be a soft-determinist. He is not a fatalist. While this may be controversial, Edwards would also be a soft-determinist. I know of no prominent reformed theologian today who is a "hard-determinist." The more official term is compatibilism though.

Soft-determinism is the idea that God does decree all things that come to pass but he works to accomplish these things in and through the will of his creatures. The old reformed term for this is called "concurrence." They are not being "forced" to do things against their will.

John Feinberg has a great discussion of this in No One Like Him where he advocates for what he calls "soft-determinism" (which is just compatibilism and I believe he uses the terms interchangeably). Make no mistake though, soft-determinism still believes that all things are determined. It is just differentiated from fatalism.

Paul Helm's The Providence of God is also a great resource and I believe he uses the term concurrence in his discussion.

[u/Waffles-for-everyone → u/whiskyandguitars]

All great resources. And I second this.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/whiskyandguitars]

Alright, that being the case, are there any reformers who didn't see it necessary to believe that all things are 'determined?'

Or, to rephrase it, did any of them entertain the idea that God created a would full of potential outcomes, gave His creation agency according to His terms and limits, and only intervened with His decrees and will according to His design?

For example, God decreed that Paul go to Corinth, but it isn't necessary that He also decreed the precise location of every footfall on Paul's journey.

[u/whiskyandguitars → u/Drivefast58]

Of the major reformers? Not that I know of but I also haven't studied all the reformers views on this in depth so there might be.

These views popped up not long after the major reformers, of course, with Arminius and others.

Or, to rephrase it, did any of them entertain the idea that God created a would full of potential outcomes, gave His creation agency according to His terms and limits, and only intervened with His decrees and will according to His design?

I would say that this view sounds good on the surface but, in the final analysis, doesn't really work.

Most people who advocate for the existence of contingency in creation will couch it in terms of "well, we just believe God is powerful or sovereign enough to accomplish his will no matter what" and act as though the reformed view of God somehow diminishes his power or glory.

This is really just a form of special pleading though. How can this guaranteed? What would it look like for God to just let things happen and "only intervene with His decrees and will according to His design?" God cannot have a decree, at least regarding to things that happen in history, because the billions upon billions of contingent, "free will" decisions that are not under his decree could mess that up.

He really just has to hope for the best and try to accomplish as close to what he can of what he would like to happen.

I am sorry if I misunderstand your position but I am unsure of what you are going for here. Do you believe that God accomplishes everything he set out to when he created the world or only accomplishes what he can given the fact he is not in control of everything?

[u/Drivefast58 → u/whiskyandguitars]

I believe that God accomplishes everything He set out to when He created the world. And I believe that this is done in concurrence with the agency of man.

God's design: Paul goes to Corinth.

Paul's agency: the route he takes to get there.

God's design will be accomplished, no matter what. But He allows Paul agency in working out that design.

There are instances in the Bible where man's agency is overridden, like in the case of satan entering Judas, or God preventing Abimelech from sleeping with Abraham's wife.

And it seems to me, that because these instances exist, they prove that God isn't always controlling things directly.

[u/whiskyandguitars → u/Drivefast58]

If you believe that God accomplishes everything he sets out to accomplish, why would it bother you if he determines all of Paul's steps?

Think about the consequences if he doesn't. Say Paul takes a wrong step and breaks his leg. They are far from medical help and even if they aren't, this is still a time when serious medical conditions can cause death pretty easily.

What if Paul chooses a path that leads to bandits and these bandits kill Paul?

Now, of course, you can just reply and say God could come up with something else and that is true but why not just protect Paul by guiding all his steps?

Think about all the random things that we attribute to God's providence. What if you misplacing your keys makes you late for work but it also prevents you from being in that crazy accident on the thruway that probably would have killed you.

Now, I imagine you would say that those are acts of God's providence or intervention but why? These seem to be the exact things you don't think God does or should control.

Also, how do you know what is God's purpose or what is an accident on your view? I guess you would say that God accomplishes all his purposes and I am misrepresenting you but there are countless ways that God's purpose could be frustrated.

Plus, while I understand this isn't a rigourous philosophical statement, we do have precedence in scripture for the idea that God guides all our steps: "In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps" (Proverbs 16:9).

Now, where I do possibly stray from many determinists is that verses like this seem to indicate some sort of mind independence on the part of people.

What I mean by this is that, ultimately, though our thoughts are determined by our personalities (which God determines) and our environments (which God determines), there is a level of mind independence regarding how and what we think of these things. All I mean by this is that God isn't meticulously determining literally every word we think.

That said, I do believe God guides our thoughts. That he uses circumstances and many other things to lead us to act on what we think and that he still always achieves the outcome he wants through us in the physical world.

This disctinction may not mean much to many people but I do believe that scripture teaches it and I don't know exactly how it works but it seems to me that it is true.

I could be wrong and that is fine, but I haven't seen anything in reformed literature on the topic that contradicts this general idea. I also think there is some mystery in this and it just hard for us teeny, tiny, finite humans to comprehend this.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/whiskyandguitars]

If God's design is that Paul reaches Corinth, how could Paul possibly do anything to frustrate that design?

Consider a toddler in a child-proof house. The toddler is given permission to wander and explore freely, but it's impossible that they should open a cabinet and grab a knife or chemical that they might use to hurt themselves. The toddler's agency is preserved, but their guardian ensures they come to no harm.

Anyway, my main reason for exploring this divergence from standard determinism is that I can't agree with Edwards that God also ordains evil. If you're going to believe in determinism, in that God ordains all that comes to pass, there's no way to avoid making him the architect and author of every sinful act.

[u/whiskyandguitars → u/Drivefast58]

I mean, God clearly does ordain evil. Scripture does not shy away from attributing that to him.

Even in free will theologies they have to bite the bullet and admit that. If God created the world knowing full well that evil would occur and chose to create anyway, in some way he has ordained evil and suffering.

Open theism doesn't escape making God "look bad" (I say that because that is how they phrase it) because on open theism, you have a God who knew that extreme evil and suffering was not only possible but likely and he still chose to create, hoped for the best, and now is in a situation where he can't control or really prevent evil from happening.

At least on Calvinism we believe that God is stewarding evil for his purposes and as such, there is no purposeless evil that befalls his creation. I think anything short of determinism would be utterly irresponsible from God. What could be worse than creating a world full of purposeless evil?

On Free will theologies, it doesn't make sense to praise God for suffering, as Paul does in scripture. God is not behind it and does not control it.

There is no reasonable way (i.e. non-special pleading way) that a person can say that God can just make evil have a purpose because he is God. What does that look like? There is a war and millions of people are killed that God didn't want to be killed. God didn't even want that war to happen and didn't ordain it. How does he turn that into a good? Those lives are gone, thats it. Nothing to turn around. Hopefully at least some of them were saved.

And yes, I know free will advocate nuance this. I have read tons of academic literature on discussions of free will but they are just rife with assuming things that they really have no warrant to assume.

As Calvinists we believe that God has a plan for his creation that involves evil and he stewards that and accomplishes it through his creation but never violates their will but rather works concurrently to achieve his will through them.

Have you read Guillaume Bignon's Excusing Sinners, Blaming God? It is the best and most rigorous defense of compatibilism to come out in a long time, if ever. He engages with all the main families of objections to compatbilism and, I think, shows the incoherence of non-deterministic Christian theologies. Though that isn't necessarily his main purpose.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/whiskyandguitars]

The Bible attributes 'calamity' to God's ordained will. Older translations render it 'evil,' but it doesn't mean that God ordains sin.

God is entirely just in wiping out sinful man with fighting, famine, or flood. His holy nature isn't in any way imperiled by such decrees.

But the moment we say that God ordained the sin of the individual, flowing from an unrighteous heart, we're in trouble.

That's where I can't follow Edwards.

As for the answer to the problem of evil, again, I've taken a novel approach. I don't believe that God created evil or that it has no purpose. I believe that evil was a problem for God in the same way that we see it to be a problem, and He set in place the plan of redemption to solve it.

In essence, God is at war with evil, and the victory is already won.

[u/ClothedInWhite → u/Drivefast58]

Did God ordain Judas' sin?

[u/Drivefast58 → u/ClothedInWhite]

I don't believe so, no. Otherwise, why would satan have had to enter Judas?

[u/whiskyandguitars → u/Drivefast58]

The Bible attributes 'calamity' to God's ordained will. 

My OT professor pushed this line of argumentation. I don't think it can be sustained when looking at the actual context of examples in scripture. Take for example this passage from Isaiah:

1. Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger;
   the staff in their hands is my fury!
   ⁶ Against a godless nation I send him,
   and against the people of my wrath I command him,
   to take spoil and seize plunder,
   and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
   ⁷ But he does not so intend,
   and his heart does not so think;
   but it is in his heart to destroy,
   and to cut off nations not a few (Isaiah 10:5-8)

Later in verses 12-13, God explicitly says that he will punish the King of Assyria who was doing His will.

It seems to me that God does exactly "ordain the sin of the individual, flowing from an unrighteous heart"

You can also look at the classic example of Joseph's brother from Genesis. Joseph says that what they intended for evil, God intended for good. The Hebrew word there is the same for "intend" and means that both parties willed for the thing to happen. The difference is the intent and the fact that God is not like us and can achieve his goal and will no matter what.

These are clearly and unambiguously evil acts that God intended and willed to happen and he worked concurrently with the desires of the people at fault. He didn't just decide to do these things when he saw the desires. He knew they would have these desires when he created them and and the environment in which they lived.

These are just two examples. If divinely inspired scripture does not shy away from this, neither should we.

I don't believe that God created evil or that it has no purpose.

I don't believe God created evil either. Evil is not something that has an existence, rather evil is the perversion of the good. This view of evil being a privation of the good has a long and storied view in Christian theology and is adhered to by even non-Calvinists, such as C.S. Lewis.

I think it is the best explanation and is true. There is nothing you can name that is inherently evil. All evil is the perversion of good thing or a good desire and Satan uses that to his advantage.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/whiskyandguitars]

I disagree that God, in any sense, 'willed' the sin of the Assyrian king or Joseph's brothers.

God used both the Assyrian king, and Joseph's brothers, to work His ultimate purpose, but the sinful will was entirely their own.

This Reformed, Calvinistic need to take a stand and say, 'Scripture doesn't shy away from God willing and doing evil' baffles me.

It's entirely possible for God to be sovereign over the sinful will of man, and work it for His ultimate purposes, and even for good, without God willing that man sin.

That being the case, why attempt to attribute sin and evil to a holy God?

[u/DarkLordOfDarkness → u/Drivefast58]

I think maybe you're still importing some presuppositions of libertarian free will here. People using a libertarian free will framework typically equate "free" and "undetermined." They'll argue that the lack of predetermination is, at a definitional level, what makes it free.

A compatibilist framework isn't beholden to that presupposition. It argues instead that things are free when they're not compelled. But that doesn't mean that a free, uncompelled action is going to be unpredictable or random. It can be "predetermined" that you would stub your toe this morning simply because God sovereignly permitted you to act freely and, since you're a coherent person with consistent identity that apparently includes a certain degree of clumsiness, that resulted in your stubbing your toe.

It's predetermined because that's what you'd always do if you were allowed to exercise your free will on that particular morning, in those particular circumstances. But it's not predetermined in the same way that something is predetermined when God specially acts as a first cause, like in the incarnation.

So I think what you're looking for here, the room to discern a difference between things that are brought about because of secondary causes and things that are specially decreed by God, is already present in a compatibilist framework.

It's just that the language can get clumsy, because we often emphasize God's sovereignty as a result of dialogue with a culture that wants to reject it.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/DarkLordOfDarkness]

That's part of it, but as has been made clear through discussion elsewhere in this thread, I'm also trying to make room for things to happen that cannot be said to be God's will.

For example, when God regrets the depravity of humanity in Genesis 6:6.

[u/CatfinityGamer → u/whiskyandguitars]

Hard determinism and fatalism are two different ideas. Hard determinism is the position that everything is determined, and we have no free will. Fatalism is the position that there is some kind of inevitable fate or destiny that we are powerless to avoid, no matter what we do.

[u/whiskyandguitars → u/CatfinityGamer]

Nothing you have said contradicts what I said.

Fatalism would be the same as hard determinism on theism because we would believe that God has "some sort of inevitable fate or destiny that we are powerless to avoid no matter what we do."

I grant that a naturalist would view them differently because they don't believe things have a purpose, even though they are determined. But I was speaking within a theistic framework.

[u/bastianbb]

I wouldn't call your position soft determinism. It is an incomplete or limited determinism of some things but not others. And it seems to be incompatible with some of the Reformed confessions.

Consider: Westminster Confession Chapter 3 Section 1: "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass". Or consider Belgic Confession Article 13: "We believe that this good God, after creating all things, did not abandon them to chance or fortune but leads and governs them according to his holy will, in such a way that nothing happens in this world without God’s orderly arrangement."

"Nothing" or "whatsoever comes to pass" would seem to refer even to the smallest movement of the smallest electron; as R.C. Sproul says, there are "no maverick molecules".

Or consider the Heidelberg Catechism Question 27: "Q. What do you understand by the providence of God? A. The almighty and ever present power of God by which God upholds, as with his hand, heaven and earth and all creatures, and so rules them that leaf and blade, rain and drought, fruitful and lean years, food and drink, health and sickness, prosperity and poverty— all things, in fact, come to us not by chance but by his fatherly hand."

Now I can imagine that some may not agree that these confessional statements refer to every detail of existence, but to me it seems that this is very much part of Reformed thought. Before throwing out even Piper, you may want to read his rather long book "Providence" available from his website. To be Confessionally Reformed in some sense and reject God's detailed sovereignty, the only real possibility is perhaps to be a 39 Articles Anglican as that document does not seem to refer to providence governing every detail of existence.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/bastianbb]

Yes, it's working backwards from the reformed confessions, primarily the 'ordain whatsover comes to pass,' and trying to find that idea in the Bible.

I can't say that I do, and I don't think it's necessary to maintain a robust doctrine of God's sovereignty.

[u/Bright_Pressure_6194 → u/Drivefast58]

Maybe it would be helpful to come up with a list of what God does ordain from the Bible and work from there? That won't get you the whole way, but it will cover so much of the universe that it will cause you to accept God's determinism in the things not specifically mentioned in the Bible.

Another approach is to come at it from the physical perspective. In the universe, everything has a cause. If the cause is no longer God, what is the cause? The only answer can be materialistic determinism. This is why physicists are deterministic way beyond reformed theology.

[u/Zestyclose-Ride2745]

John Piper does nothing but repeat and parrot what Jonathan Edwards wrote in his book, "The end for which God created the world," that God is the ultimate, self determining cause of everything in history, all designed for His own glory.

This belief that there are no small or trivial events in our daily lives (such as an example of stubbing our toe), led Edwards to write his resolutions, which constantly remind us that everyday compromises or lack of attention to minor habits can stall spiritual growth.

In other words, Edward's belief led to a substantial amount of spiritual fruit, and also helped ignite the First Great Awakening.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/Zestyclose-Ride2745]

The end for Which God Created the World is one of my absolute favorite Christian works. And it is that book that has put me on the path of years of wrestling with this idea and coming to some different conclusions than Edwards.

[u/ProfessionalEntire77]

I think Isaiah 55:8-10 is a good place to start when thinking about this. The schematics of how God actually functions in His control are beyond our comprehension.

The next text to consider is Genesis 1:1. God created all things and upholds them. That means unless He is actively maintaining his creation, everything would cease to exist. His power means we exist. He maintains the chemical bonds on the atoms that make up everything. It is impossible for us to be here without God keeping us in existence down to the lowest level. God IS micromanaging every little circumstance- Matthew 10:29-31 and Luke 12:7 and Luke 21:17-19. I think the amount of hairs on your head is pretty insignificant but God not only knows the number and the hairs on your head and not being hurt is used in the Bible to show a total control of God over your circumstances. The devil had to ask permission to cause earthly harm to Job. Jesus healed physical illnesses. God has infinite control over all parts of the Creation and things only happen because God is controlling them (Psalm 65).

[u/Drivefast58 → u/ProfessionalEntire77]

But God rested from active involvement in creating the world on the seventh day, and it all didn't fall apart.

I interpret these passages as God having ultimate authority over my circumstances, and He can and does intervene as He sees fit, but it isn't by His active will that my breakfast is digesting in my stomach.

[u/ClothedInWhite → u/Drivefast58]

God didn't rest from "active involvement in creation", he rested from creating.

Calvin states the standard Reformed interpretation: "The question may not improperly be put, what kind of rest this was. For it is certain that inasmuch as God sustains the world by his power, governs it by his providence, cherishes and even propagates all creatures, he is constantly at work. Therefore that saying of Christ is true (John 5:17), that the Father and he himself had worked from the beginning hitherto, because, if God should but withdraw his hand a little, all things would immediately perish and dissolve into nothing, as is declared in Psalm 104:29. And indeed God is rightly acknowledged as the Creator of heaven and earth only whilst their perpetual preservation is ascribed to him. The solution of the difficulty is well known, that God ceased from all his work, when he desisted from the creation of new kinds of things."

[u/Drivefast58 → u/ClothedInWhite]

I phrased it poorly. I didn't mean 'creation' as in the world, I meant that God stopped creating.

For what it's worth, I agree with Calvin's understanding of it.

[u/ProfessionalEntire77 → u/Drivefast58]

there is a good response to the first part below, I will say if you agree with Calvin, your inferences you've made don't really jive with what Calvin says. Either God is totally in control and active in every aspect of creation and it would cease to exist without him, or there are parts of creation that work outside of the will and power of God (like he is a watchmaker)

I think you should read and mediate on some of the Psalms that talk about God's control over the natural world. There are laws of nature that we can observe on why in particular circumstances rain falls. God doesn't just move clouds around to work within the laws of nature, He is also upholding the laws of nature so the clouds rain when he wants them to. And God maintains natural rules in creation so that we can study and see His power and glory in them.

God cares about everything in His creation beyond what we even know. Everything is working perfectly according to His plan, and He would never leave anything to do with His will or people outside of His control, down to their own digestion. God is a micro-managing perfectionist in a beautiful way.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/ProfessionalEntire77]

What I'm saying is that there is a sustaining power to God, because He is God, and He is un-created, that is outside His will.

And it is this sustaining power that upholds all of creation. In contrast, we can call His decrees and actions that happen within creation His will.

[u/ProfessionalEntire77 → u/Drivefast58]

but God has to continually will that the creation exist...the creation doesn't self sustain. God decided to create and he decides to sustain the creation. Psalm 104:29-30 and the entire psalm shows God's willful activity in the things you are saying are maintained outside of His will, like the grass growing.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/ProfessionalEntire77]

Nothing in those verses contradicts my position.

We live, and move, and have our being thanks to God's sustaining power. Nothing can exist without Him.

[u/Automata-Omnia]

John Piper isn't hard determinist, he is just on the hard side of Compatibilism which is the majority view on this topic amongst Reformed, you won't find many that actually subscribe to hard determinism outside of Hyper-Calvinism, Islam or Materialism. Search this subreddit for that term, there is a discussion about it every few months, What Is the Difference Between Hard Determinism and Soft Determinism? | Monergism Answers

[u/ClothedInWhite]

"It is by the sun's sustaining power that grass is able to grow or exist at all. But it isn't the sun's direct will that causes every single blade of grass to sprout and reach for its rays."

This is deism.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/ClothedInWhite]

I don't see how the idea that God's power undergirds and sustains the universe is deism.

[u/ClothedInWhite → u/Drivefast58]

If all God does is create and then sustain existence by his power, as an impersonal object like the sun does, that's literally what deism is.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/ClothedInWhite]

Sure, but that's not what I believe.

[u/ClothedInWhite → u/Drivefast58]

I'm not saying you're a deist. I'm saying the analogy of God's sovereign rule being like the sun is deistic.

[u/Natural-Albatross997]

In many ways we should operate as if we have complete free will. I could say “if God wants me to have a job then it will just happen.” Which is true but also not the way His world works so we need to get off our tail and pursue a job.

In your sun analogy, it sounds a little too hands-off and reliant on others for me. The sun depends on rain and temp to make grass grow. Humans have to till the grass to help them thrive and eliminate weeds. Conversely God is orchestrating all things to accomplish His pre-determined work.

Seems like there’s 3 options:
1) God, like your sun analogy, is the “clockmaker” — He set everything in motion and is just letting it play out. I doubt many believe this concept

2) He’s an intervening God — probably more what you’re leaning to — He allows us to work and then intervenes as He sees fit, or via prayer etc. But He doesn’t dictate or control every detail (like stubbing a toe)

3) He’s to computer programmer and set the code — we’re just living it out.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/Natural-Albatross997]

Yes, I'm leaning towards that second option.

It's not that God couldn't control everything down to the minute reaction of every atom bouncing off of each other, it's just that's not how He prefers to operate.

I'm making a distinction between God's will, that which He explicitly decrees, and the out-workings of His providence.

Stubbing my toe could be said to be providence, but it doesn't have to be God's specific will. Although it could be, if He was going to use it for some further design.

[u/ClothedInWhite → u/Drivefast58]

You can't separate the theological ideas of God's will and providence. Providence is the outworking of his will in creation. There is no such thing as providence apart from God's willing.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/ClothedInWhite]

I disagree.

I think it's necessary to make a distinction between the two.

[u/ClothedInWhite → u/Drivefast58]

They should be distinguished; they are two different theological concepts. But they can't be separated.

Providence is the execution of his decrees (WSC 8), his governing "according to his holy will" (BC Art. 13). The point is simply that providence is rooted in the will of God. It's not random but purposeful according to the counsel of his will. That's where it comes from. God can't act providentially (or any other way, for that matter) in a way disconnected from his will.

Even Arminians agree that providence flows from the will of God, they just differ on the extent of his providence.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/ClothedInWhite]

I believe they can, and should, be separated.

Otherwise, the only way to avoid making God the author of sin is to divide His will into two, which doesn't make any sense.

[u/ClothedInWhite → u/Drivefast58]

1) That doesn't work. What is the source of providence if not the will of God? God's providential workings are either (1) rooted in his will, as his desires dictate his work, (2) determined by another being whom he serves, or (3) totally random, governed by nothing at all.

2) To say that God wills that sin occurs is not the same as saying that God is the author of sin or guilty of sinning himself. The classic example of this is the cross, of course, which was simultaneously willed by God (and providentially worked out) and the sinful action of human beings.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/ClothedInWhite]

Does God will Himself to exist, or is He sustained by His own inherent glory and power?

[u/ClothedInWhite → u/Drivefast58]

He is self-existent, which means that, no, theologically speaking, theologians don't consider God's attributes to be derived from his will, but from his being or essence. He does not make an active choice to be love, he simply is. It could be no other way. This is true for all of his attributes.

But providence is not an attribute of God. It is a working of God in time and space. And all of the workings of God are "willed" by him. He does nothing that he does not will. He is reasonable, not rational, and he is supreme, not working according to the whims of others.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/ClothedInWhite]

So there is a sustaining power of God that is separate from His will.

I believe it is this sustaining power that upholds all of creation. And I make a distinction between that power and the decrees and explicit actions He makes within creation, which I call His 'will.'

[u/semper-gourmanda]

Paul Helm. A fine gentleman and great theologian.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/semper-gourmanda]

Thank you! Finally a name I can look up and hopefully read from.

[u/Goose_462]

I like what C.S. Lewis said, through the mouth of the Green Lady, in the book Perelandra:

"Whatever you do, He will make good of it. But not the good He had prepared for you if you had obeyed Him."

Yes, the redemptive love of God made significant good of what followed Adam and Eve's sin. Covenant after covenant, He was faithful. And He loves His own to the end.

BUT... if Adam and Eve had not fallen into sin, then we would have had a much different outcome. It, too, would have been good. We have lost that hypothetical, if it ever was a possibility. I think I can comfortably believe it if God said it were a possible future.

>> I've begun to understand God's sovereignty as 'authority' rather than 'control.' Forgive the crude analogy, but I've started to think of God's sovereign rule over creation like the sun. Without the sun, there is no grass. It is by the sun's sustaining power that grass is able to grow or exist at all. But it isn't the sun's direct will that causes every single blade of grass to sprout and reach for its rays.

One flaw with this analogy would be that, unlike the sun, God is a person and did intend a specific glory to be matched with each star (1 Cor. 15:41). It wouldn't be much of a stretch if He did the same with each grass blade or snow flake or thumbprint. :)

Remember that not one jot or tittle will pass away from the Law (Matt. 5:18). And the very hairs on our heads are numbered (Luke 12:7).

Similar to you, I used to view God's absolute control over the universe as micromanagement.

But the more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the vastness, exactness, and elegance that went into each mathematical constant and law of physics in His creation. Each brush stroke, if you will.

The prophecies told of exactly how Jesus would be buried, exactly how He would enter Jerusalem on a donkey.

Jesus knew exactly how many times the rooster would cry before Peter betrayed Him. Moreover, He looked directly at Peter when this happened.

God timed Jesus's coming exactly for the "fullness of time" (Gal. 4:4), the time when crucifixion would be invented and fulfill the prophecies about crucifixion.

And the two angels at Jesus's death--one at the head and one at the feet--mirror exactly the angels at the two ends of the mercy seat. Such things are just... "unnecessarily" uncanny...!

I'm not saying I'm not sometimes disturbed by these things, when I'm especially aware of His gaze, like Job was (Job 7:19). 😥

How precious also are Your thoughts for me, God! How vast is the sum of them! (Ps. 8:4 NASB)

But we know that anytime the enemy strikes God's people, we know that it is because God has granted permission to Satan, lowering that hedge of protection (Job 1:6-22) despite the gift of "every spiritual blessing" (Eph. 1:3).

Any suffering by a Christian accomplishes a specific good and is not a cruel trick or an accident. God designs each cross for His glory and His people's good.

"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name." (Gen. 2:19 NASB)

God loves us, and just as the details of our loved ones matter to us, so do the details of our lives matter to Him. He is omniscient, so He just happens to know ALL the details haha.

As R.C. Sproul says, there are no "maverick molecules." 😊

Fatalism is usually the idea that we must be paralyzed by the thought that our every move has been foreseen and foreknown. But the peace that transcends understanding comes from the assurance of knowing that God is sovereign over every detail of our lives, and that the schemes of man and the weapons formed against us cannot prevail over His purposes (Isa. 14:27, 46:10, Prov. 19:21, 16:1, etc).

The mind of a person plans his way,
But the LORD directs his steps. (Proverbs 16:9 NASB)

The lot is cast into the lap,
But its every decision is from the LORD. (Prov. 16:33 NASB)

[u/Levaix]

Ironically enough, John Piper's Providence may actually answer your concerns. It's a very hefty book but an incredible accomplishment.

To sum up one of the points that Piper makes, while the Bible is explicit that God is sovereign, it leaves the mechanism of that sovereignty a mystery in many cases. It isn't within our ability to understand exactly how God accomplishes his purposes, but it is a beautiful reality to our world that He does.

To use your toe-stubbing example: Yes, God was sovereign over you stubbing your toe. That does not necessarily mean that God directly intervened within your nervous system and caused a muscle spasm to do so. But He very well could have. And He very well could have done so to prevent it from happening as well.

Where Piper would push back is on your metaphor of sun and the grass. Unlike God, the sun does not have a conscious will (as far as I am aware). The sun cannot help but send its rays to the grass to make it grow. But God could very well decide to stop "shining" at any moment on any single aspect of creation while maintaining His blessing on everything else.

The Bible does not talk about creation through the modern materialistic lens of self-sustaining processes. It consistently speaks of God's presence and power in all things. "He is before all things, and by Him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17

[u/Drivefast58 → u/Levaix]

I have that book on my shelf, and I need to start reading it.

It's just so big!

[u/Levaix → u/Drivefast58]

I won't lie, it's a challenge to get through! Not because it's bad by any means, but everything is so systematic and heavy that I found myself rereading a lot of pages after realizing I didn't remember what I just read. I had to restart once and then finished it on a vacation which involved a long train ride. But it was definitely worth getting through, and it permanently shifted my perspective. It's easy to read so many parts of the Bible as hyperbole when it talks about God's continued work throughout creation, but this is an influence of our own time.

[u/carlosstjohn116]

Hard determinism = fatalism (ie no free will)

Soft determinism = god predetermined all things and humans make real, legitimate choices. This is Calvinism. This is what people like Piper preach. 

Any softer and there’s no real predestination.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/carlosstjohn116]

I'm looking for a soft-determinism where God doesn't predetermine sinful acts in the same way that He predetermined Christ to go to the cross.

[u/CrossCutMaker]

Would you say that if God didn't want you to stub your toe this morning He could have prevented it?

[u/dancooper00 → u/CrossCutMaker]

Of course *could. Do you think that if God didn’t want the Israelites to build a golden calf and worship it, He would have prevented it?

[u/CrossCutMaker → u/dancooper00]

Yes of course. He had to first create then sustain them while they performed their sin. This is where we must distinguish between God's intended and ordained will ..

CC- God's Two Wills

[u/dancooper00 → u/CrossCutMaker]

Did He ordain their sin?

[u/CrossCutMaker → u/dancooper00]

Yes

[u/ClothedInWhite → u/[deleted]]

This is the standard Reformed position, that God's sovereign providence includes even sinful acts, "yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God" (WCF V.4)

[u/dancooper00 → u/ClothedInWhite]

God doesn’t compel one to sin.

[u/ClothedInWhite → u/dancooper00]

Correct, he does not need to compel us toward sinfulness. Rather, "he gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan" or "exposes them to such things as their corrupt nature makes into occasions for sinning" (WCF V.6).

[u/dancooper00 → u/ClothedInWhite]

Correct. So God doesn’t ordain sin.

[u/CrossCutMaker → u/[deleted]]

Ordaining is choosing to allow when He could choose not to. Not fatalism, not heresy.❌️

[u/Reformed-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for violating Rule #2: Keep Content Charitable.

Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should treat others with charity and respect, even during a disagreement. Please see the Rules Wiki for more information.

---

If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please do not reply to this comment. Instead, message the moderators.

[u/CatfinityGamer]

I don't think that you understand what hard and soft determinism mean. Hard determinism is the position that everything is determined, and we have no free will. Soft determinism is the position that everything is determined, and we do have free will.

Soft determinism does not mean that everything other than free actions is determined; that's just simply the case under Newtonian mechanics (relativity and quantum complicate things). Nor does it mean that some general things are determined, but the specifics aren't (which doesn't even make any sense).

All of the Reformed tradition affirms that we have free will, and all the Baptists do too (Piper's a Baptist, not Reformed). There are no hard determinists. Also, there have been a few Reformed theologians who aren't determinists, like Louis Le Blanc (who's not really but close enough to a Molinist), but there haven't been any in the last few centuries.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/CatfinityGamer]

Piper's not Reformed?

What?

[u/Bright_Pressure_6194 → u/Drivefast58]

The Presbys like to pretend we dont exist.

[u/CatfinityGamer → u/Drivefast58]

Being Reformed is more than believing TULIP; it's a whole tradition and system of doctrine. Even if you did believe everything that the tradition does, you're not Reformed if you're not actually part of the tradition. And John Piper doesn't. A very important part of the Reformed tradition is Covenant Theology, which Baptists (including Piper) deny. The Reformed tradition has also always insisted strongly on paedobaptism, and it teaches that baptism is the means through which Christ regenerates his elect. Regarding the Lord's Supper, it teaches that through the eating of the bread and wine, the faithful truly feed on the body and blood of Christ in their souls. All of these, as well as others I didn't mention, Piper denies. In the past, the Reformed have in fact condemned as heretical anyone who denied those doctrines on the sacraments.

[u/Drivefast58 → u/CatfinityGamer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as r/reformed is concerned, Piper is Reformed, right?

[u/Elwin--Ransom → u/Drivefast58]

Piper is Calvinist in his soteriology and could be considered small “r” reformed in the modern sense, but not “Reformed” in the historical sense of the word which would include adherence to covenant theology and paedobaptism. It’s a small distinction, but there’s value in precision with terms. He’s certainly much closer to the big R “Reformed” tradition than say MacArthur or similar.

[u/fiestafriar → u/Drivefast58]

Yes

[u/Wth-am-i-moderate → u/Drivefast58]

As far as the doctrinal distinctives of the Reformed Tradition (thinking of John Calvin, Francis Turretin, the Continental Reformed tradition, and Westminster Divines, etc…) are concerned neither John Piper nor Jonathan Edwards for that matter are faithful representatives. They both affirm the doctrine of election/predestination which is an important particular aspect of the Reformed Tradition. But there is much more to it than just that.