Punting to Mystery: A Calvinist Reflection on Free Will and Divine Sovereignty

Introduction

I’ve been mulling over an idea for many years, one I’ve written about before but am now trying to articulate more clearly. It centers on the notion of “punting to mystery,” a concept that resonates deeply with me and encapsulates a significant aspect of my Calvinist belief. This approach, I believe, beautifully combines the apophatic (mystery-embracing) East with the cataphatic (rational) West.

To illustrate what I’m trying to convey, I have an example that involves the Eucharist. While this blog isn’t about the Eucharist, the way different Christian traditions approach the mystery of how the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ serves as a useful analogy for understanding the various positions on free will and divine sovereignty.

The Mystery of the Eucharist

Both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in what’s called the Real Presence. The Real Presence means that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. However, they approach explaining this presence differently.

Roman Catholic View

In Roman Catholicism, the process of the Eucharist is rationalized through the doctrine of transubstantiation. According to this doctrine, during the Mass, the substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, while the accidents (the appearances of bread and wine) remain unchanged. This explanation involves detailed metaphysical distinctions between substance and accidents, attempting to provide a rational account of the transformation.

Eastern Orthodox View

In contrast, Eastern Orthodoxy has a profound acceptance of mystery regarding the Eucharist. The Orthodox Church believes in the Real Presence, meaning Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, but they don’t seek to explain how the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. They simply accept it as a divine mystery that transcends human understanding. While I do not accept the Real Presence in the Eucharist at all, it serves as a useful analogy for the difference in approaching mysteries between the East and the West.

The Problem of Free Will

Both Calvinism and Arminianism believe in divine sovereignty and human responsibility. However, they approach the reconciliation of these concepts differently.

Arminian and Molinist View

Both Molinists and Arminians strive to reconcile divine sovereignty with human free will, each with their unique solutions. Notable representatives of these views include William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, and J.P. Moreland. Molinists, for instance, propose that God, through His middle knowledge, chose from an infinite number of possible worlds the one in which human free will and divine sovereignty coexist most harmoniously. This, they argue, allows for true free will while maintaining God’s providential control.

However, I don’t think this fully solves the philosophical problem of free will. It leaves us with significant questions about the nature of choice and causation. For instance, if God chooses the best possible world based on His middle knowledge, the choices made by individuals within that world must still be examined. Are these choices truly free, or are they ultimately determined by God’s selection? This brings us to a critical issue: if our choices are determined by God’s selection of a particular world, it could imply that our decisions are either arbitrary or predetermined. The challenge here is that it seems impossible to escape a scenario where choices are either random or causally determined by prior events, thus failing to solve the problem of genuine free will.

Clarifying Hyper-Calvinism

Before I delve into the Calvinist perspective on free will, I want to address a common misconception. Some may think that all Calvinists hold to a form of fatalism, known as hyper-Calvinism, which denies any meaningful human free will and emphasizes divine sovereignty to the point of negating human responsibility. This is not representative of mainstream Calvinism.

Most Calvinists, including the ones I’ll discuss here, have always believed in a compatibilist view, where God’s sovereignty and human responsibility coexist. Mainline Calvinism, represented by theologians like Bruce Demarest, Michael Horton, and myself, affirms that while the exact mechanism of this coexistence is mysterious, both truths are upheld.

The Compatibilist Calvinist View

Enter Calvinism, particularly the compatibilist view held by mainline Calvinists. Unlike fatalists, who perceive human actions as entirely predetermined and devoid of meaningful choice, compatibilist Calvinists believe that God’s sovereignty and human responsibility coexist in a way that is ultimately mysterious. We don’t try to solve the intricacies of how this works; instead, we embrace the mystery, much like the Eastern Orthodox do with the Eucharist.

This approach reflects a blend of the apophatic East and the cataphatic West. Calvinists hold to the rational explanations provided by Scripture and the coherent framework of theology, but we also accept that not everything can be explained. We “punt to mystery” where appropriate, acknowledging that some aspects of divine truth are beyond human comprehension.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Calvinism, with its compatibilist view of free will, strikes a balance that respects both the mystery and the rationality inherent in Christian theology. This balance allows us to honor God’s sovereignty and human responsibility without forcing a complete, rationalistic explanation of how they coexist. It is a perspective that, I believe, effectively integrates the best of both Eastern and Western theological traditions.

What do you think of this comparison? Does embracing mystery in this way resonate with you as it does with me?