Compatibilism, Necessitarianism & Freedom of Action

Compatibilism & Necessitarian Theory

In following its predecessors, “Augustine” and “John Calvin”, “TULIP”, has adopted the theological viewpoint of “Compatibilism” in attempt to reconcile the concept of Man’s “free will” with their theological view that because man is so “depraved”, and “unable to respond” to God’s “general revelation” and message of salvation, that God has had to “sovereignly” and “causally”,  choose, or determine, and thereby “select”, who will, and who will not, be saved.

The concept of Compatibilism, is in part, traced back to the Hellenistic era and the philosophical study of all things (metaphysics) by Greek Stoics who had come to view the Laws of Nature through the lens of Necessitarian Theory. In accord to their ontology, God, unlike the gods of Greek mythology, is perfect and His divine actions are therefore not random or unpredictable but orderly, rational, and providential.  God is the active principle, the eternal reason (logos) and intelligent immanent breath that structures and directs the development of all matter (to its smallest detail) throughout the cosmos in accordance with His plan. Cosmic nature in all its parts is the determining factor by which the laws of nature inherently govern the natural phenomena of the world.

Therefore, the natural world, is necessitated to abide by (bound to) all the Laws of Nature. However, this ontology not only applied the laws of nature to that which are of physical nature, but also to that which is of moral nature, and thus subject to moral law. “Moral Law”, also known as “Natural Law”, pertains to, the immaterial rational, of beings like God, Angels, and Man (not animals, plants, or inanimate matter) and should therefore not be confused with God’s written law. The inclusion moral nature, under the governance of the laws of nature meant that which of moral nature (God, Angels, and Man) can only “Will” to act in accordance with or as determined by its moral nature. While some schools of philosophy viewed Necessitarian theory (AKA Determinism) as irreconcilable with the concept of free will, others argued that both do exist and that they are compatible with one another. Thus, the concept of Compatibilism was developed. 

Compatibilism & Free Will

The compatibilist concept of free will is founded on how “Will” is defined. From a TULIP theological viewpoint, the definition of the will must be viewed in its relation to the original sin and the spiritual depravity of man. Both of which render the definition of “will” regarding fallen man as captive to sin, a slave of sin and subject only to its master, which is sin. As per this viewpoint, the natural man is essentially “free” to do as he “wills” and the natural man “wills” only to actively suppress the truth of his unrighteousness. Therefore, because the natural man is bound by his sinful nature, the natural man is essentially rendered unable to respond to God.

One of the biggest challenges for Compatibilism however is in its own incompatibility with Scripture, for it collapses under its own weight as early as in the third chapter of Genesis where we read how both Adam and Eve, having been created with sinless natures, were able to act contrary of their sinless nature and sin. According to Necessitarian Theory of the Laws of Nature and Compatibilism itself, it should have been impossible for Adam and Eve to do anything contrary to their sinless nature. Furthermore, It would also be as impossible as it should be unthinkable that God would act contrary to His perfect, righteous, and Divine nature and cause Adam and Eve to sin. James 1:13 ESV: “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one”.

Freedom of will or freedom of action

However, it would be as equally problematic to believe that Man has unconstrained free will, for will itself in all practicality, is somewhat of an abstract thing that depends in part on factors wholly beyond Man’s control. There are always external constraints on the range of known possible options that man can freely undertake. Therefore, it is important to make a distinction between freedom of will and freedom of action.

Adam and Eve had no more the ability to sin than they had the ability to grow physical wings without God providing them the ability to not only act on the option to do so, but also awareness of it.  In creating the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and commanding Adam and Eve to not eat of its fruit, lest they die, God had provided them the option, the awareness (and even warning) of the option, and therefore the ability (God enabled them) to freely act in obedience or to freely act in disobedience, and sin. Thus, while God created the potentiality for Man to act in sin, never did He necessitate, nor did He cause Man to act in sin. It was by Adam and Eve’s disobedient and free action, (not God’s) that they brought the catastrophic consequences of corrupted physical and spiritual natures, death, a cursed world, and separation from God, not only upon themselves but that has ever since, been visited upon, and inherited by all of Adam’s posterity, each born with the propensity to commit sin and fall under judgement and penalty of sin.

Being sinful, mankind now has no more the ability to be free of sin and its consequences then he has the ability to grow physical wings, without God providing man the ability to not only act on the option to be free of the judgement of sin, but also awareness of the option. God has made salvation possible by providing man the option, as well as awareness not only of the option but our need of it. Therefore, God has given man the ability (God has enabled man) to freely act in obedience of God’s command to repent of sin and accept by faith the substitutionary and sacrificial works of Christ, or to freely act in disobedience, reject Christ and