Tax, total depravity and why I disagree with R.C. Sproul Jr.

Great piece by @rcsprouljr. A man theologically close to me; politically poles apart. Relevant for left & right alike http://t.co/Qi6DDzE7hr

— Stephen Kneale (@steve_kneale) July 24, 2015

As you will gather from the above embedded tweet, R.C. Sproul Jr is a man with whom I have a lot in common theologically. Yes, we differ on the issue of baptism and we would see things differently regarding polity. Beyond that, we're not far apart theologically. And, as he has helpfully pointed our here, we ought to weigh the views and advice of those from different church cultures and theological backgrounds. Without throwing the baby out with the bath water, we should learn to take the good and leave the bad. In all of that, I am total agreement with him even though, of course, we will differ slightly on what constitutes the good and bad (1).

While we are (broadly) theologically on the same page, politically we are poles apart. No doubt there are areas of agreement (2) but when the man considers Barack Obama as far away from him on the political spectrum as one can get, I dread to think how he would categorise one such as me! Which leads me on to a short conversation I recently had with him on twitter.

@rcsprouljr really? Why not emphasise total depravity, inherent selfishness, and if the system takes that into account by redistribution?

— Stephen Kneale (@steve_kneale) July 24, 2015

@steve_kneale Really and truly. Because systems don't undo depravity and selfishness.

— R.C. Sproul Jr. (@rcsprouljr) July 24, 2015

It was this I wanted to dig into.

As I have previously commented here and here, the doctrine of total depravity tells me that a society built on philanthropy, charitable giving and the economics of 'trickle down' will not work in the interests of most. The capitalist model is predicated on greed as a motivator. Unfortunately, greed being deemed good is entirely antithetical to the teachings of the Bible. Moreover, if greed is the motivating factor in creating wealth - and if greed is deemed good by society as a result - we can hardly be surprised when that greed extends to seeking to keep as much money to myself as I possibly can. A society that functions on 'trickle down' or philanthropy as a principle for helping the poor fails to account for the base desire to hoard wealth. Examples of companies and individuals using tax loopholes and avoidance schemes serve only to underline the point. The rich - who become so by being told their greed is good - merely take that view to its logical conclusion and do all they can to keep their amassed wealth and do very little for the poor.

For some on the left, more often than not the secular left - though I may often (but not always) agree with their outcomes - there is far too much confidence in the inherent good of man. Total depravity tells me their optimism is more than misplaced, speaking against the reality of what we see in the human heart and the world all around us. I do not see a world full of people who naturally help each other at great cost to themselves (3). For those on the right, more often than not the Christian right in America, they see through this optimism in the inherent good of man. However, they then presume, despite man being inherently selfish and sinful, those individuals who generate wealth will be philanthropic and generous. They motivate individuals through greed - recognising that sinful human nature can be harnessed this way - but with a ludicrous sleight of hand simultaneously argue these same sinful people will suddenly become generous and philanthropic despite having been motivated to amass their wealth through greed and monetary motivation. It makes no sense and doesn't speak to the reality of a world in which the very rich do all they can to maintain and hoard their wealth.

It would be my contention that because the human heart is sinful we cannot rely on the generosity of rich and wealthy individuals. It is precisely because I believe in the doctrine of total depravity that I cannot see how a low tax system, that relies on philanthropy and trickle-down economics, can possibly work for the good of all. Rather, it makes more sense to recognise that people are inherently sinful. That sinful nature does not suddenly disappear upon the generation of vast amounts of wealth. Therefore, to have a system that imposes redistribution on wealthy individuals seems a far more sensible approach. This allows people to amass wealth whilst simultaneously recognising they are unlikely to share their money for the benefit others.

This brings me back to my twitter conversation. My response to R.C. Sproul Jr's view of economic systems being beneficent if they let you keep your money was this: why not emphasise total depravity and selfishness and assess an economic system by its redistributive effects? His answer was illuminating: because no system can undo total depravity or selfishness entirely we shouldn't even bother trying to mitigate them.

Now, this was surprising. One could argue, using the same logic, that because no system will ever undo total depravity or murder then we shouldn't bother assessing any system based on its efficacy of limiting and preventing murder. He and I share a view on abortion. We would both support a system that limited the proliferation of abortion on demand. But, by his logic, the system shouldn't interfere because it won't undo total depravity or the desires of some to abort children. Unless we can wipeout total depravity and the sin that underlies each and every outworking of it, we must ignore it and allow it to continue. As we can't undo total depravity, and the sins of greed and selfishness, we shouldn't bother to mitigate them and, in fact, should press on with a system that not only allows them but  actively encourages them to thrive. This is madness. As Martin Luther-King said: "morality may not be legislated but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless". To paraphrase another comment by the man: it may be true that the law cannot make a person generous, but it can keep him from the sinful outcome of his selfishness and greed, and I think that's pretty important.

One may seek to argue that it's not the same. One may argue that in allowing selfishness we are allowing state theft with a system that steals from its citizens (4). But this strikes me as a weak argument. Jesus and Paul are both clear enough that taxes do not equate to theft (see Mk 12:17 and Rm 13:6f). They are a legitimate part of governance and cannot be equated with sin - unless of course Jesus and Paul were trying to encourage us into sinful behaviour by telling us to pay them! The selfishness and greed inherent in the capitalist system cannot be deemed anything other than sinful; taxes inherent in almost every system are evidently not forms of state sin.

For me, it is my view of total depravity and sinful human nature that tells me we require a system that does something for the poor and needy. Left to our own devices, there would be no measures in place for them at all. In fact, God himself seemed to recognise this tendency and put such measures into the civil law of Israel. Without such laws, human nature was unlikely to ever come up with any sort of solution (or, dare I say, truly care about it). When the Early Church in Acts 2 were living as they ought under the gospel, we don't see amassed wealth and no giving. We see something much closer to an uneforced version of Socialism. But we must recognise that those who aren't under the gospel, who aren't regenerate and don't have the Spirit of God dwelling in their hearts and changing their desires, aren't going to act like this voluntarily. Hoping that they will is simply pie in the sky. It is for that reason I believe the state is duty-bound to redistribute wealth through a fair system of taxation.

None of this is to turn anyone away from R.C. Sproul Jr - I really do hope this doesn't come across that way. I honestly did mean what I said at the beginning. R.C. Sproul Jr. is a man with whom I agree on so much. I find his blog helpful in many ways. On lots of theological and church issues I think he often gives good counsel. I, frankly, wouldn't engage with him at all were that not the case. I see this as an example of the very principles he outlines here. Only, now, we're not talking specifically about theological and ecclesiastical issues, but political ones. Nonetheless, I suspect if we ever were to meet and become friends, he and I would agree not to "get [our] eschatology from [our] dispensational friends" but I would certainly be the friend from whom he wouldn't get his political or economic insights.

Notes

1. For example, I favour congregational polity, independency and credo-baptism. But on the doctrines of grace, the ordo salutis, soteriology and any number of other theological areas there would almost certainly be a great deal of agreement. I read his blog and often find it very helpful.
2. He and I share a definite and clear view on the issue of abortion, for example. 
3. Whilst there are individuals like this, they are often notable because of their scarcity
4. This is an argument R.C. Sproul Jr. has made before (see here)

A return to regeneration, indwelling and the coming of the Spirit

Almost exactly a year ago, I began tentatively exploring the nature of belief and salvation; specifically regeneration and the indwelling of the Spirit before and after Pentecost. Briefly stated, I considered passages such as Ezekiel 36:24-28 and John 16:7, among others, which speak of a distinct difference between the pre- and post- coming of the Spirit. However, the Reformed ordo salutis (to which I subscribe) insists regeneration must occur prior to receipt of the Spirit. To state the problem briefly: if the Spirit is required in the work of regeneration and this precedes repentance in the ordo salutis, how did believers come to repentance prior to Christ's ascension when the Spirit was not present in their hearts?

You can read my three previous posts on this issue here, here and here. I last left this discussion having arrived (very tentatively) at the following conclusions: first, and never really in doubt during discussion, salvation was always by faith alone. Second, regeneration was always necessary to counter Total Depravity in both the OT and NT. Third, there appeared to be a distinction between the Spirit 'on' individuals in the OT and the Spirit 'in' believers in the NT (broadly speaking). The mechanics of how this all held together was left unclear.

I was (relatively) OK with this broad position until a recent discussion pointed out 1 Peter 1:10-11: 

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and enquired carefully, enquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.

This verse appears to suggest the prophets had the Spirit of Christ indwelling their hearts prior to the coming of the Spirit himself. This sent me back to the issue for a reappraisal. Here are some further (still tentative) thoughts on this topic.

Before I go on, it's important to affirm what I uphold. Principally, I maintain salvation - in both OT and NT - was by faith alone. Similarly, I maintain the Reformed ordo salutis that Total Depravity demands regeneration by the Spirit prior to conversion. However, I want to uphold a legitimate distinction between Christ's going and the Spirit's coming. I also want to maintain a reasonable distinction between Ezekiel's comment (related to a future reality) and the present experience, at the time of writing, of OT believers.

In previous discussions, I posited the idea the Spirit may not necessarily have indwelt OT believers (though they were regenerate). The question follows: is it possible to have regeneration without indwelling? Certainly, the ordo salutis would allow for this. Further, there is no scriptural reason to insist - just because the Holy Spirit indwells believers as a sign and seal of their faith today - that excludes God's work on unbelievers prior to faith. Even in the church age, where we certainly receive the indwelling Holy Spirit, we believe regeneration occurs prior to conversion from which indwelling follows. Indeed, John 16:8-11, Titus 3:5 and James 1:18 would bear this reading out. If such is true, we have good grounds to argue regeneration occurs without indwelling (though receipt of the Spirit follows for believers today). If it is true that regeneration occurs prior to indwelling, this could readily apply to OT regeneration irrespective of their indwelling.

Given that, Jesus words in John 14:16-17 would also bear out this reading:

I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

Notice Jesus' construction here. His disciples know the Spirit because he dwells, or abides, with you (present tense) but he will be in you (future tense). As John Hendryx helpfully points out:

This is a future tense of an indwelling. Apparently the saints of the OT enjoyed regeneration but may not have enjoyed indwelling... Regeneration and indwelling are not exactly the same for in regeneration the Spirit works to illumine our minds and renew our hearts prior to our faith in which He comes to indwell us. That pre-salvific action is not called indwelling. "WITH YOU" and "IN YOU" appear to demonstrate qualitative differences.

So, just as the OT believing Jews experienced a type and shadow of things to come, so it may be they were regenerate - that is the Spirit worked on the hearts and minds of OT believers - without indwelling their hearts. Today, the ordo salutis is largely logical (not necessarily sequential). That is, regeneration is logically prior to conversion which is logically prior to indwelling and sanctification though the latter three (broadly) occur simultaneously and end in glorification. For the OT believer, the same logical sequence would be true but regeneration and conversion happen in quick succession, whereas indwelling, sanctification and glorification may all occur later in a much more rapid succession.

There is an argument that OT believers were both regenerate and indwelt by the Spirit. Yet, this quashes any meaningful difference, as outlined in Ezekiel 36 and John 16, pre- and post- the Spirit's coming. It is often argued the difference was between a partial experience of the Spirit and the fullness after his coming, the emphasis falling upon Joel 2:28-29 and the post-Pentecost signs and wonders. However, it can't escape our notice that such things also happened in the OT. Visions and dreams were experienced and miraculous works were done as well. This doesn't really provide us with any quantitative or qualitative difference.

How then do we explain OT believers doing miraculous works and specific tasks? It seems, in the OT, the Spirit came upon people and anointed them selectively and temporarily for particular works (cf. Judges 15:14; 1 Samuel 16:12f; 2 Chronicles 20:14; et al). It is notable that the Spirit of the Lord came upon Saul (1 Samuel 10:10) and yet he is widely regarded to have died in unbelief. As such, the Spirit coming upon an individual did not necessarily indicate their spiritual state. The Spirit thus moved individuals to specific acts without necessarily indwelling. Again, such causes a problem for the view that Pentecost was the dawn of the fullness of the Spirit's coming (these acts of the Spirit were occurring in the OT). 

How then do we explain verses such as Numbers 27:18; Ezekiel 2:2; 3:24; Micah 3:8; Luke 1:15, 41, 67; 1 Peter 1:10f? They are best understood as the Spirit moving these individuals at particular times for particular tasks. So, the prophets who enquired "what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating" could be read less as a reference to their ongoing, permanent indwelling and more a reference to the empowering of the Spirit at the point they were prophesying. In other words, this is a manifestation of the selective, temporary anointing of the Spirit. It does not speak to permanent indwelling but their anointing by the Spirit as prophets, spokesmen for God, whom the Spirit also anointed to write the canon.

This reading allows us to make a qualitative difference between the pre- and post- coming of the Spirit. It stops us from quashing all meaningful difference in the words of Ezekiel and Jesus. It also allows us to uphold Paul's statements in Romans that the Spirit - the same Spirit who descended on Jesus, anointed him at his baptism and on whom he relied to live out a perfect human life - will empower us to keep God's law in a way OT  believers could/did not. This reading maintains the continuity of Covenant Theology - salvation by faith alone requiring the regeneration of the Spirit of God to overcome our Total Depravity - without flattening any sense of discontinuity from when the Spirit begins to dwell in the hearts of God's people.

God, Utilitarianism & Deontological Ethics

I have been struck by two interesting (almost certainly not original) thoughts. The first is clear and obvious: God's law exists for our benefit. Though it shows how sinful we are, when we receive his Spirit we are capable of keeping it with the Spirit's help. As such, our actions can be deemed good or bad according to whether we are living in line with his divine decrees. In essence, God calls us to live under a framework of deontological ethics.

According to Kantian deontological ethics, consequences do not determine whether an action is morally good. Rather, good actions are determined by individual motives which are borne out of adherence to universal morals. For Kant, a good will and right motive determines whether an action is good, not the consequences of the action itself. In simple terms, Kant argues for a model of personal integrity. He says individuals should only act (1) according to laws they wish to be universal and (2) treating humanity as an end, not merely a means. This is a remarkably similar statement to Jesus' "Golden Rule" in Luke 6:31 and his comments in Matthew 22:39. It is little wonder then that many deontological ethicists are moral absolutists and often hold to Divine Command Theory.

That God's word calls us to personal integrity, based upon the moral law (summarised in the 10 Commandments), is clear enough. The Penal Substitution model of atonement encourages a guilt-righteousness worldview. All are personally guilty of breaking God's moral law - and thus liable to judgment - and are only counted personally righteous once found in Christ. On this view, our guilt is determined by our ability to keep God's moral law. Our actions are only morally good when motivated by a desire to keep God's law and when we positively manage to do so.

The second thought, in contrast to the first, is that God (in a sense) is the ultimate utilitarian. If Divine Command Theory is to be believed, an action is only morally right when God decrees it morally right. But this means God cannot himself be held to a Kantian ethical model because he is not governed by any external moral law. His motives cannot be judged according to a set rule because he sets the rules. Though his law flows from his divine character, God's goodness is not determined by adherence to a prescribed list of rules. Rather, his goodness is essential to his nature thus he cannot be deemed good according to Kantian ethics.

If we dispense with the Benthamite terminology of 'the greatest happiness principle', it is possible to see that God works for the greatest ultimate good of mankind (a fundamentally utilitarian view). God's greatest desire is that all men everywhere be saved. On both the Calvinist and Molinist views, God has ordered the world such that the greatest possible number of people will freely choose to turn to him. Both the Calvinist and Molinist views differ on the mechanics and order of how he does that, and more fundamentally over the nature of what constitutes freedom, but they do both agree God orders events to win the greatest number freely to himself (1). In essence, God seeks to implement the greatest possible amount of good by his activity in the world.

It is also clear from scripture that God orders the events of the world to work out his greater plan. He orchestrates good and restrains evil to achieve his purposes. He permits - without being the author of - sin and wrongdoing where such will serve his ultimate glory. Plenty of examples can cited from scripture, such as the story of Joseph or the roles of Daniel or Esther during periods of judgment for Israel/Judah, but is seen most clearly through Jesus Christ's death on the cross. A gross act of sin and injustice on the part of those who tried and crucified him. Yet, this was an act of sin permitted by God and determined before the foundation of the world, to achieve his greater salvific purposes. God ordered the act, without being the author of the sin, to achieve his good ends.

So why does God, who appears to be the ultimate utilitarian, demand that those who trust him follow a deontological system of ethics? It is specifically because God is the ultimate utilitarian that deontological ethics are necessary for his followers. Because God is omniscient - holding knowledge not only of all actual events but also of all possible events - he can see how each universal event, from the greatest to the smallest, can work for ultimate good. Further, because God is God, he alone can determine, without interpretative fallibility, those actions that can truly be deemed good and those which are objectively bad. 

As mere human beings, our subjective attempts to determine ultimate good are liable to fail as we cannot see the bigger picture and only know good from bad as a result of God's divine command and general revelation. God requires a deontological ethic of his followers because we cannot truly determine utilitarian principles. God is the ultimate utilitarian because he is the only one in any position to determine the greatest possible good. Our subjective attempts to figure that out will fail because we cannot see the bigger picture and have no knowledge of future possible events (and subsequent consequences). God, on the other hand, is perfectly capable of this and in his sovereign goodness divinely decrees those good actions that will work for the greatest possible good. In such circumstances as individuals fail to obey his divine decrees, it is only because God has permitted their disobedience to bring about an even greater good as part of his ultimate plan of redemption in Christ.

Utilitarianism fails at a human level. We cannot possibly know what actions will bring about the greatest good. The only one who can truly know this is God himself. He gives us divine commands and orders the world so the greatest possible good may come about. He calls us to live under a deontological framework of ethics because to do anything else would result in sub-optimal goodness. 

In layman's terms: if we're charged with bringing about the best of all possible worlds, we'd make a right hash of it. God gives us good commands because he knows (a) what is ultimately good and (b) what direction we need in order to attain it.
Notes

1. For a more full discussion of these issues see here, here and here. For further reading see William Lane Craig's book The Only Wise God, Bruce Ware's God's Greater Glory and John Frame's Doctrine of the Knowledge of God

A tentative answer from an open discussion

I previously posted here and here regarding salvation for believers prior to the coming of the Spirit. The question is as follows: if the reformed ordo salutis is correct, how did believers prior to Christ's ascension come to be regenerate and sanctified if the Spirit, at that time, did not dwell in their hearts? Alternatively framed: if the Spirit is required in the work of regeneration and this precedes repentance in the ordo salutis, how did believers come to repentance prior to the indwelling of the Spirit?

An open discussion took place over the last couple of days which has resulted in a (very) tentative solution. I found the discussion useful and, in the hope others might find it similarly helpful, thought I would reproduce it here (with permission from the contributors):

Alan: 

I sympathise with the problem, and I'd add as strong an emphasis to the giving of the Spirit to indwell as exclusive to the New Covenant as I can.I think my thoughts are very much in line with yours on the solution, that the Spirit worked in the hearts of OT (better OC? Same thing in Greek...) believers but without indwelling them.

Jeremiah 31:33-35 is very clear in showing how the giving of the Spirit, the priesthood of all believers and individual, personal relationship with God are marks of the New Covenant. So is OC salvation dependent on a moment of repentance beginning a personal relationship with God at all? That personal relationship is a wonderful feature of the New Covenant which OC believers can't have known. The Spirit was certainly active under the OC, but came upon and also later left people (i.e. Saul).

I wonder if the problem is one of our own making in drawing up an NT ordo salutis that was never a feature of the OC, where salvation was a matter of being located in the Covenant the same as it is now, requiring the same work of the Spirit, but not with the same wonderful indwelling, and I agree that the next question is how sanctification is impacted.

Sorry that doesn't add much, except hopefully some extra weight behind what you'd already got.

Me: 

Yes, you've rather reframed the same question!

The issue with the above is it makes regeneration all but impossible (and sanctification nonexistent) in the OT. Sanctification is perhaps easier to deal with but Jesus is clear unless one is "born again" they cannot be saved and that necessitates regeneration of the spirit. So how were OT believers ever saved without that regenerating, indwelling work of the spirit?

Dispensationalism offers an immediate answer but the other problems it as a view causes are worse than the presented problem (which suggests it is not the answer). Some of your answer seems to border on the dispensational, which is not particularly satisfying

Alan: 

You seemed like perhaps you'd appreciate a little confirmation of the Spirit's indwelling being distinctly NT, no?

Why exactly does it make them impossible though? Can the Spirit only accomplish those through permanent indwelling, or could he have worked them then without indwelling? It may be that I've not read or thought deeply enough on the specifics, but the indwelling doesn't seem like an absolutely necessary part of regeneration or sanctification.

And I utterly sympathise and am probably be more firm than you in dismissing dispensationalism's solution!

Me: 

I agree indwelling is a new covenant phenomenon - Jesus words are meaningless otherwise. That is the crux of the problem. Nevertheless, It is dispensational to suggest salvation was by, and worked through, other means in the OT. So, I want to avoid that. Moreover, it seems regeneration and justification are tied exclusively to the Spirit's indwelling.

Your suggestion that the Spirit could achieve regeneration/ justification without indwelling is interesting. It would solve the issue neatly but I'm not sure there is scriptural warrant for the claim as regeneration is tied so closely to indwelling. That would fit in with my proposed sanctification argument but how can the spirit regenerate and bring perseverance without indwelling?

Alan: 

Before dispensationalism 'proper' theologians and commentators often spoke of dispensations, but dividing history into just two as per the covenants, rather than the fanciful however-many there are in "Schofieldism." We shouldn't avoiding a good solution because a study Bible abused it should we?

Could another angle help crystallise thought here? To be saved, under either covenant, is only a matter of positionally being in it. In the New Covenant that is achieved by the Spirit. I know we will baulk against the suggestion, but wasn't it actually by means of obedience in the Old Covenant? Ah... as I write that I realise the uniting factor is faith. If the uniting factor as Scripture states it is faith, could we accept that regeneration was not actually part of the Old Covenant, where justification is?

If regeneration can't be separated from indwelling, and indwelling was categorically not OC, regeneration not being OC seems to follow. On first thoughts I'm happy with that, being another wonderful benefit of the New Covenant achieved in Jesus. You may have already spelt it out and I've forgotten between sermons, but what's the problem with that?

Me:

I agree - we shouldn't throw out the good because we baulk at the term. However, I'm trying to avoid suggesting salvation was by another means under the old covenant (it wasn't, it was always by faith, and it simply is dispensational to say otherwise).

Where I see an issue with your proposal boils down to total depravity. How can someone ever be saved without a working of the spirit beforehand? We usually call that working 'regeneration'. On your view, justification is reached without regeneration in the OT. That seems to speak against Paul.

So, the question remains: how is one regenerate ie saved without the indwelling of the spirit? Evidently many OT were justified but, if justification necessarily requires regeneration and repentance, how is this possible without the indwelling work of the spirit? 

Mark:

I don't know if any of these thoughts can help but... there are two extremes to avoid: flattening out the distinction between the OT & NT, and creating such a distinction that we fall into dispensationalism. There is both continuity and discontinuity between the two covenantal periods. Mistakes come when we either emphasize the continuity or discontinuity. May I suggest that it might not be entirely helpful to think of the coming of the Spirit as a matter of space-time travel. Clearly, prior to Pentecost, the Spirit was already present. On a basic level, the Spirit, as God, is omnipresent. In a particular sense, the Spirit was present in the Messiah, who had the Spirit without measure. Added to this, John 20:22 records Jesus breathing on his disciples and saying receive the Holy Spirit. This act takes place prior to Jesus' promise in Acts that the disciples should wait in Jerusalem to receive the Spirit. This is clearly not a matter of presence as opposed to absence, lest we rob the Spirit of his deity or ongoing work. It is not that the Spirit was present in heaven and absent on earth prior to Pentecost, yet present on earth and absent in heaven subsequent to Pentecost. Flattening out this 'coming' of the Spirit into a mere space-time travel is an error of catagory tantamount to asking 'what colour is the Holy Spirit?' or 'how much does he weigh?' Rather, the coming must be seen in terms of his work and the capacity of that work. The prophesies of Joel fulfilled at Pentecost were not of a Spirit who had previously been inactive, but of an unprecedented work of the Spirit. The unprecedented work spoken of is not that of regeneration, hence we need not view the OT believers as being absent from the regenerative work. It is helpful, I believe, to view the coming of Christ to see how these 'comings' are utilized in Scripture. Christ is omnipresent, yet the eternal Son of God did come in the incarnation in fresh capacity for the work of salvation. Following the ascension, Christ remained omnipresent as to his deity, yet believers may still speak of Christ's presence with them in public gatherings of the body of Christ. Yet we still await the 'coming' of Christ for the work of consummation. All of these comings are not merely space-time arrivals viewed in contrast to previous absences, but in terms of capacity and work.

Me:

Thanks for your input, some very helpful thoughts.

I certainly agree with you regarding the ongoing presence of the Spirit. Clearly, the Spirit was 'present' in some sense prior to his giving. I was certainly not suggesting the Spirit was somehow inactive and not present prior to Christ's ascension. What I was suggesting was that the Spirit did not dwell in the hearts of believers prior to this. The question then concerns regeneration: how is regeneration possible without such indwelling (not specifically related to his presence altogether)?

I think I disagree with your view of Christ's current omnipresence. Christ's ongoing presence with us is explained through his giving of the Spirit and is tied intricately to the nature of trinity. Indeed, Christ is with us to the end of the age by his Spirit - he is not bodily with us! Christ is currently bodily in Heaven acting as an advocate for us with the Father. The claim to Christ's presence in the gathering of believers, in my view, is rather a red herring because that specifically relates to church discipline. It actually makes clear when church discipline is meted out correctly, just as Christ has given authority to the church and guides them by his Spirit, it is as though such discipline has been enacted by Christ himself. I see no reason from the text to go beyond this application and some reason elsewhere to argue that such a claim would be false if explained apart from the presence of the Spirit. This is not really a reference to his actual, bodily presence. It would be my contention that Christ is omnipresent by the nature of the trinity. He himself is currently resident in Heaven, with the Father, in a resurrection body.

So, clearly you are right to point out the fact the Spirit was present and active prior to his giving. Certainly, Jesus had the Spirit by virtue of the trinity. Jesus giving of the Spirit to the disciples came post-resurrection. The statement in John 20 seems to be an act of Jesus as a pledge of the Holy Spirit to come, not the point specifically at which they received the Holy Spirit (otherwise Thomas is left out). Clearly, just as Acts details the extending out of the gospel in salvation-history, it began with Jesus' giving of the Spirit to the disciples at pentecost and, over time, the extension to larger and wider people groups. Again, the giving of the Spirit strikes me as the first step in the indwelling of the Spirit as part of the account of the extension of the gospel in salvation-history starting with the disciples. So, I'm not sure this really sheds light on the question at hand (this is merely the first time the Spirit is given).


So, this leads me back to the question. How were OT believers (and those whom were with Christ) regenerate without the Spirit's indwelling? That is not to say the Spirit was inactive and unmoving but how was regeneration, repentance and justification worked without such indwelling? If we want to argue that the Spirit did these things prior to the inauguration of the new covenant (which we may well be correct), we must explain the difference in what Jesus says about the Spirit's coming. Why is it better that he goes away if the Spirit already regenerates, justifies and sanctifies? Is not Jesus making a purely artificial and pointless distinction if that is the case?

Alan:

Well, I might have missed the morning this morning...I can't think of any books I'd have that would be specifically on this subject, though commentaries of the key passages might help.

In the systematic theologies I've got there's not so much help, Grudem and Reymond don't seem to say much at all about the issue, though Grudem's citing of the new heart in Ezekiel 36 may suggest a more dispensational than unity-focussed approach.

Bavinck seems to head that way from what I can tell. Page 47 of the 4th volume of Reformed Dogmatics highlights the impossibility of human input to regeneration, the requirement for it in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Psalm 51, etc, and the promise of God's working through the Spirit in the New Covenant. He then shows how John the Baptist and Jesus spoke of this need for internal renewal, but he doesn't seem to say much about how that worked, or acknowledge the development.He sums up the section (page 52) saying how the presentation was different but the OT and NT both point to the same reality, but he seems to leave it as an expectation as far as OT believers are concerned and doesn't attack the question you're asking.

Culver seems the brightest hope of the Sytematic Theologies I've checked so far. (On page 692-3) He begins by focussing on the presence of the theme in OT history, among the patriarchs, as an underlying theme in Deuteronomy for the generation who had seen their parents perish though redeemed from Egypt. He comments a little on the question of when Jacob was converted, and then says, "it does seem clear, however, that spiritually the sons of Jacob scarcely rose above a coarse level of moral and spiritual outlook. The records of the time do not say anything specific about a persona level of fellowship with God." Deut 30:6 seems to be a promise of regeneration by the hand of the Lord, but more immediate than a Messianic promise. He then says, "in any case the story of Old Testament Israel describes many sincere people who approached the ideal of the circumcised heart," and that "these evidences - and much more - demonstrate that whether called regeneration or not, there were some, even innumerable multitudes, who were 'born again' before Jesus uttered the memorable words of John 3." His treatment of OT prophecy does the same as Bavinck and others, showing that there was something coming of a different order, or a different magnitude at least.

Unfortunately they all seem to brief to really tackle the question, but they confirm the frame some more! There must be a change with the coming of the New Covenant, something that was not present before. But there is also continuity with OT believers being saved through faith, and evidence of spiritual rebirth present in OT characters.

One thing I think we can say is that clarity came with the New Covenant, and what before was a difficult thing to define or even detect is now something that has been revealed and is known by all. Maybe from that we can say that the Spirit's work under the OC was difficult to detect (as in John 3, not knowing where the wind/spirit blows), whereas now the Spirit has been given to permanently indwell us. And so the Spirit was active before, regenerating (but in some somehow lesser sense?), perhaps even indwelling, but now the work is known and appreciated to a far, far greater degree. (I've got a half dozen more I could check, but from the four so far I don't get the feeling it'll be worth the effort! I'll hopefully be in WEST for a couple of days this week, I could see if there's anything on it there.)

Me:

Yes, i checked out Grudem, Berkhof and Milne on this, none of whom really give a satisfactory answer (mainly because they don't deal with the specific problem). I'll keep looking.

Clearly, salvation is, and always was, by faith. The question is how did that faith come to be when the Spirit had not yet dwelt in the hearts of those who believe?

I think the on/in distinction between OT and NT may be significant i.e. the Spirit was 'on' individuals in the OT but was not yet 'in' them. That would potentially accord with your view that regeneration could occur without indwelling and would allow for the view that regeneration occurred whilst the Spirit was 'on' an individual whilst ongoing sanctification only occurred once the Spirit dwelt 'in' believers. Thus, for OT believers, sanctification/glorification were effectively simultaneous whereas for us they are not. The issue with this is whether the biblical data really bears the view out

Alan:

I think it has to be something like that, and I think on/in sounds like a very good way to approach it. Sanctification as a benefit of the NC certainly seems to fit with the prophetic passages that speak of the people then knowing God's word and being able to keep it in contrast with the repeatedly failing OT nation, though perhaps it isn't entirely ruled out of the OC 'on stage.'

Mark:

Steve, I realize I did not answer the question. However, I tried to present something that might help with the reasoning process. It seems the logic goes this way: the Spirit came at Pentecost/in the New Covenant, therefore prior to the 'coming' he must have been absent in some way. I realize that you would not present a position where the Spirit had been previously inactive, yet the activity of the Spirit prior to Pentecost does demonstrate the that the 'coming' does not preclude a continuity between the Spirit's work in NT believers and OT believers (though a discontinuity remains). The question is whether or not the regeneration and indwelling of believers belongs to the continuity or the discontinuity. Paul's discussions in Romans seem to indicate that the means of salvation belongs to continuity despite the discussions in Hebrews that demonstrate the 'shadow-like' nature of the revelation of that salvation to OT believers. I would caution against renouncing Christ's omnipresence in the present age, as omnipresence belongs to the divine nature. The early church fought a long battle against those who claimed Christ lost elements of the divine nature. As you pointed out, the 'special presence' of Christ with his people is 'by the Spirit', yet this is differentiated from omnipresence. However, we are free to use the Biblical language (whilst understanding the underlying systematics). The Biblical language provided in the upper room ministery is that the Father and Son make their home with the believer. Whilst realizing the role of the Spirit in this, the Biblical language is not inadequate to describe this. Have you read Wright on the Spirit in the OT. I haven't read it all, though I seem to remember he addresses the issue.

One thing I've always found helpful with the ordo salutis is that it is not so much a chronological order, as it is a logical order. The logic is driven, in part, by total depravity. If man is radically incapable of pleasing God, then regeneration must logically precede repentance and faith (as you know). As total depravity is traced by Paul to Adam in Romans, the ordo salutis cannot be limited to the NT period, lest we restrict total depravity. Likewise, Paul's 'golden chain of redemption in Romans 8 makes this process an eternal one.

Me:

Let me just deal with easier, side-issue. I am not denying Christ's divine nature nor am I intending to claim he somehow 'lost' his omnipresence. I am arguing, since he is eternally the God-man, his divine nature is now forever linked to his human nature. Thus, whilst Christ's divine attributes are possessed alongside his human attributes, they are not always expressed. As Bruce Ware puts it, "he accepted finite limitations to the full expression of his infinite divine qualities, while he also possessed those divine qualities in their infinite fullness". Given that Jesus continues to live as a man, this means that his omnipresence - just as when he was on Earth - has not ceased to exist. Nevertheless, He possesses omnipresence whilst, as a man, not fully expressing it. Therefore, his presence with us now is better explained by the nature of the trinity rather than by reference to omnipresence.

The harder issue is the one at hand. Clearly, we agree the Spirit worked and was active during OT and NT periods. You state:

"the activity of the Spirit prior to Pentecost does demonstrate the that the 'coming' does not preclude a continuity between the Spirit's work in NT believers and OT believers (though a discontinuity remains). The question is whether or not the regeneration and indwelling of believers belongs to the continuity or the discontinuity. Paul's discussions in Romans seem to indicate that the means of salvation belongs to continuity despite the discussions in Hebrews that demonstrate the 'shadow-like' nature of the revelation of that salvation to OT believers."

I would venture that Ezekiel's comments in 36:24-28 rather rule out your suggestion that indwelling can occur without the 'coming' of the Spirit. It is quite clear Ezekiel sees a time (future) when God will put his Spirit into the hearts of his people. That suggests such an indwelling of the Spirit had yet to occur and the result of this indwelling looks remarkably close to what we might call the ongoing work of sanctification. I see no way around that on your view (unless we want to argue Ezekiel was making a totally arbitrary point where there is no real distinction).

I agree with you, that the ordo salutis is both logical and driven (in part) by total depravity. I also agree regeneration must logically precede repentance and this cannot be anything other than a working of the Spirit. If we tie indwelling and regeneration tightly together (and I see why we would do this), this is rather where the conundrum arises for, unless we make a nonsense of Ezekiel, we must argue there was an indwelling of the Spirit where Ezekiel makes clear there was none.

This is what makes the on/in distinction between OT and NT quite attractive. If it is possible (and this is a big IF) for the Spirit to regenerate without indwelling e.g. the Spirit regenerates a believer whilst 'on' them without being 'in' them, then we have grounds for saying Ezekiel was really talking of the new covenant in which we are given God's Spirit whilst also maintaining regeneration as a work of the Spirit in both OT and NT. The potential resulting difference in these two states, to which Ezekiel seems to allude, is that the indwelling Spirit allows us to keep God's commandments (i.e. there is a process of sanctification) whereas with the Spirit 'on' a believer, sanctification and glorification may be simultaneous.

Now, that seems to be a compelling position but I am not yet wholly convinced this is borne out in the biblical data. It is certainly attractive but my concern is whether it is correct

* Two further comments were written under the original article (accessible here) following this discussion. I reproduce them here for completeness:

Sarah:

I think the distinction is between the spirit being given for particular people at particular times for a particular purpose in the old testament - eg. Bezalel, gideon, samson list goes on 'spirit was on them' and as you rightly point out God's desire to pour out his spirit on all people (Joel) and put a new heart within them (Ezekiel). This outpouring very clearly begins on the day of Pentecost and is very clearly distinct from all that has gone before - i think before only a few good experience the in filling of Gods presence and power, and maybe even then it was in a different way. I don't think its about how you experience salvation. Clearly people could identify Jesus as messiah and believe in him before the day of Pentecost, and in acts we see believers who then receive the holy spirit. Your question was primarily about salvation but i think its coming down to whether there is a distinction between God's ability to influence hearts and minds (by his spirit) and God's desire to create people experiencing the presence of his spirit drenching them as a separate thing. Peter sees that Jesus is the Christ and Jesus says that is because his father in heaven has revealed it to him, the Peter who then has a dramatic encounter with Gods spirit on the day of Pentecost is then a separate issue not just restricted to the question of salvation. In the OT they achieve their salvation through faith, though they do not know the means, and it is credited to them, but they do not get to know the Holy Spirit the way we do. And perhaps if that is not clear in many churches, if it looks just like knowing God in the old testament, maybe that is because the teaching on the Holy Spirit isn't in line with what God has done.

Me:

Thanks for your comments. Certainly some helpful things in there.

I think we must be careful about suggesting “the distinction is between the spirit being given for particular people at particular times for a particular purpose in the old testament”. This is the very Dispensationalism we are trying to avoid!

Scripture is clear that salvation was (a) always by faith and, (b) never limited to the Jews alone. Paul says “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Rom 9:7f) and the OT is replete with non-Jews coming to faith (Rahab, Ruth, Nebuchadnezzar, Naaman, etc). In the case of Nebuchadnezzar specifically, here we have a nation used as a judgment against the Jews becoming a light to other nations at a time when Israel were spiritually nowhere. So, faith was always themeans of salvation and this always extended beyond a “particular people”.

You seem to be emphasising the manifestations of the Spirit and bring Joel to boot in your comment. On this, you are right that Pentecost marks the first point in salvation-history where Joel’s prophecy takes hold. However, I specifically didn’t refer to Joel because he is dealing with an altogether different issue that is not really pertinent to the question (though not entirely unrelated). 

Ezekiel, on the other hand, envisages a time at which God’s Spirit will be placed into the hearts of believers, the fruit of which is an ability to keep God’s law as we ought. Unless Ezekiel is wrong, or making an arbitrary distinction, this must mean that God’s Spirit was not in the hearts of believers (at the time of writing) and they were not able to keep God’s law as they ought. This seems to be directly related to the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

Paul makes clear that saving faith is the result of the regenerating work of the Spirit in our hearts. So, the question follows, how were believers previously saved if the Spirit did not dwell in their hearts? It may appear either Ezekiel is wrong (the Spirit already dwelt in hearts despite his statement to the contrary) or, Paul is wrong (the regenerating work of the Spirit is not always necessary for salvation (cf. Rom 8:9ff). Of course, the truth is there must be some answer that unifies both...

...I think the on/in distinction between covenants is significant and Paul’s comment could easily apply to the Spirit ‘on’ those in the OT just as it applies to the Spirit ‘in’ those in the NT. The distinguishing feature between the on/in would appear to be (a) the ongoing process of sanctification prior to glorification (Rom 8:26) and; (b) the inner testifying witness of the Spirit (cf. Rom 5:5; 8:16) both of which accord with Ezekiel’s view of the differences between these two covenantal states.

Still seeking a convincing answer... insights welcome

A few weeks ago I posted here regarding a conundrum relating to regeneration, salvation and Old Testament believers. 

In his farewell message to his disciples, Jesus promises to send the Holy Spirit. He states "it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you" (John 16:7). Unless Jesus is making an arbitrary distinction, there must be some difference between the current state of affairs and the Spirit's coming. In other words, the Spirit cannot simply have been present with the disciples prior to Jesus' ascension with no actual difference between the two states.

In the Old Testament, the prophet Ezekiel (36:24-28) stated:

“I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put 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 be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God."

Ezekiel sees a time in the future when God will put his Spirit in the hearts of his people. Again, unless Ezekiel is making an arbitrary distinction, it seems clear this Spirit is not currently in the hearts of God's people and there will be a notable difference when this occurs.

To restate the problem briefly, if the Spirit is required in the work of regeneration and this precedes repentance in the ordo salutis, how did believers come to repentance prior to Christ's ascension when the Spirit was not present in their hearts?

The best answer I have achieved can be found in the final paragraph here. I am essentially trying to avoid two horns of a dilemma: (a) on the one hand, arguing repentance is not entirely a work initiated by God whilst; (b) on the other, claiming that Ezekiel, and Jesus in particular, were somehow making an arbitrary distinction relating to the Spirit's coming.

I would really value some comments on this as I have yet to reach a satisfactory answer. 

Something of a conundrum...

An issue cropped up in two separate conversations I had recently. In the first, both I and my fellow interlocutor independently reached the same conclusion on the issue but were both uncertain about the mechanics and the validity of the position. I thought I would share the problem and the tentative solution in the hope some kindly readers would interact with it and share some helpful thoughts. It is very much an honest question with only an attempted answer.

In the reformed view of the ordo salutis, the Spirit regenerates, leading to conversion and justification, and then follows the lifelong work of sanctification which ultimately culminates in our glorification (which can be understood as complete sanctification). Evidently, the work of regeneration which leads to our conversion and justification is a work of the Spirit. Similarly, the ongoing work of sanctification, culminating in our glorification, is also a work of the Spirit.

In Ezekiel 36:24-28, the prophet writes these words:

“I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put 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 be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God."

Ezekiel is clear there will come a time when God will give his people new hearts and put his Spirit within them. It seems apparent this had yet to happen at the time of writing and, when it did, this would help God's people to walk in his ways.

Similarly, in John 16:4b-7, Jesus says these words:

"I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you."

Unless Jesus' is making an arbitrary, or untrue distinction, we must conclude the Spirit [Helper] had not yet come and did not yet dwell in the hearts of believers at the time Jesus was with the apostles. It would appear from Acts 2, the indwelling of the Spirit - as per Jesus' words - followed his ascension.

Jesus teaching in John 3 is clear that one must be born of the Spirit in order to see the kingdom of God. Reiterating this teaching, 1 John 3:24 states "Whoever keeps his [Jesus'] commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us." John goes on in 4:13 "By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit."

The problem is thus: if the reformed ordo salutis is correct, how did believers prior to Christ's ascension come to be regenerate and sanctified if the Spirit, at that time, did not dwell in their hearts?

The dispensationlist has a ready answer to the problem; namely, God works differently across the dispensations. Unfortunately, this view is less tenable than the problem presented to the reformed view. It does not account for the universal nature of Jesus' teaching in John 3 nor John's statements in 1 John. Neither does it account for Abraham's credited righteousness, and the salvation of plethora other characters in the OT, which only ever refer to salvation by faith - belief in a future messiah just as NT believers looked back to a historical messiah.

The tentative answer (to which I am not particularly wedded and of which I am not wholly convinced) seems to lie in the nature of repentance. It is possible God moved individuals to repentance in the OT without dwelling in their hearts. Certainly, our current experience of justification and ongoing sanctification is never complete until our ultimate glorification when we reach Heaven. For OT believers, there could have been a process of justification without the ongoing sanctifying work of the Spirit in their lifetime with sanctification coming simultaneously upon their glorification. Just as there are some further along the road to sanctification than others, but none of us ultimately sanctified until glory, OT believers may have begun and ended their process of sanctification in glory whilst still being justified.

Anyway, thoughts would be appreciated.

Middle Knowledge, Free Will and the Reformed Schema

I previously outlined a theodicy which sought to integrate the Molinist conception of Middle Knowledge into a framework of compablist free will that would synchronise with the reformed schema. 

I argued a framework of libertarian free will, as postulated by Molinism, presumes there exist freedom permitting circumstances under which one can ever freely respond to the call of the gospel. Similarly, on this framework, the grounding objection has traction. True libertarian free will, by definition, means God cannot know how an agent would freely act because he has no grounds for knowing. The Molinist argues circumstance as a basis for decision making makes any choice, the circumstances around which had been set by God, a compatiblist notion. As such, an agent's decision making becomes totally arbitrary. Conversely, on a compatablist framework, such objections do not arise. God's middle knowledge is grounded in an agent's nature and their decision making is not arbitrary but flows from the deepest desires of the agent, now rooted in an inherited sin-nature.

However, given that sin is grounded in an agent's deepest desire rooted in their nature, such a view leads us to suggest Adam and Eve must have been made with an inclination to sin before the fall. Therefore, I argued Adam and Eve had libertarian free will prior to the fall but, following Adam's sin, humankind was limited to compatablist free will. This meant that pre-fall Adam and Eve were capable of neutral moral decision making thus initially acted without specific inclination toward sin and without God being the author of sin. Post-fall, humankind lost libertarian free will and inherited a sin nature such that any agent now has an inclination to sin and God merely permits their desire to sin for sufficient reason without being the author of the sin itself. You can view the full argument here.

For issues of space, there were a couple of questions I left unanswered and it seems right to address those now. The two key questions are these: (1) if pre-fall Adam and Eve had libertarian free will, how can God conceive his salvific plan in accordance with the reformed schema; (2) if the grounding objection has traction, is it not special pleading to exclude pre-fall Adam and Eve from its scope?

The first of these objections has a relatively straightforward answer. The concept of Middle Knowledge contends that God's foreknowledge not only extends to what he knows will happen but also what would have happened across an infinite number of possible worlds. If God conceived a possible world in which he foreknew Adam and Eve would fall, it is fairly easy to see how - having used his middle knowledge to conceive of such a world - this would also extend to his salvific plan post-fall. Libertarian free will contends that, given freedom permitting circumstances, an agent can act in any way they choose. Middle Knowledge argues that under such freedom permitting circumstances, although an agent can freely choose to act in any way, God conceived a world in which he knows they will act in a particular way. If we leave aside the grounding objection for a moment, God's salvific plan on a reformed schema still holds if we posit libertarian free will for pre-fall Adam and Eve. God merely conceived of a world, using his middle knowledge, in which Adam and Eve would freely sin, lose their libertarian free will such that God could enact a greater plan of salvation through compatiblist means.

The second question is much more difficult. I am convinced the bigger problem for the Molinist is not the grounding objection but the argument there exist any freedom permitting circumstances under which an agent can freely choose to respond to the gospel call given our inherited sin-nature. Nevertheless, if the grounding objection is valid (and I think it probably is), is it not special pleading to allow Adam and Eve libertarian free will whilst claiming the grounding objection rules out libertarian free will for everybody else? 

It strikes me there are three possible solutions to this problem: 

(1) The most straightforward solution is that there were no possible worlds in which Adam and Eve would not have sinned given free choice. Therefore, God had to conceive a possible world each of which involved Adam and Eve's fall.

(2) The second possible solution is that whilst Adam and Eve had libertarian free will, God nonetheless grounded his middle knowledge in the nature of Adam and Eve. Although their nature was not, at this point, a sin-nature and was therefore not inclined to sin, it is at least possible their neutral moral nature - being unique in human history - was created in such a way that God could ground his middle knowledge.

(3) The third possible solution: God's conception of any possible world begins with the question of whether Adam and Eve obey God or fail to follow the single command he gave them. However long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden pre-fall and whatever they did prior to their disobedience is really of no moral importance. The only moral question was whether they would obey God or not. As such, there was no reason for God to give Adam and Eve compatablist free will because their every decision was morally neutral except in respect to God's one command. For the reformed schema, this means God had to conceive a world in which he foreknew Adam and Eve would sin without making the circumstances in which they were placed the sole basis of the decision itself. It seems possible, given their freedom to act neutrally entirely apart from God's command, that a world could be conceived in which Adam and Eve would sin of their own free volition given passage of time foreknown by God. In fact, this argument is backed up by God's guarding of the tree of life, the inference being that further passage of time would have likely allowed Adam and Eve to also eat of this tree too. Therefore, God conceived a world in which he foreknew Adam and Eve would sin allowing him to enact a greater plan of salvation that depended on the loss of libertarian free will. 

I am thoroughly unconvinced of solution (1). This solution fails because freedom permitting circumstances insist Adam and Eve could act another way but will act in a particular way. This solution leaves absolutely no room for that. Equally, it does nothing to take us away from the problem that Adam and Eve must therefore have been inclined to sin prior to their inherited sin-nature. 

Nevertheless, I think (2) and (3) may be valid solutions. The central problem with (2), however, is that one cannot take the argument any further. I cannot go any of the way to explaining the inclinations of this neutral moral nature. Whilst it is possible to show the inclinations of a post-fall sin-nature and how this affects action I cannot do the same with this moral nature. Nonetheless, that there is an element that cannot be readily explained does not necessarily make it an invalid solution. One must accept that Adam and Eve had a unique nature in human history and the biblical writers, especially Paul, tend to emphasise inherited sin nature rather than Adam's unique pre-fall nature. It is also possible to argue that in grounding the pre-fall nature this way we effectively posit a compatablist framework pre-fall and are led back to the same initial issue: that Adam and Eve were created with an inclination to sin. Nevertheless, it still seems valid that God could ground his middle knowledge in Adam and Eve's pre-fall nature whilst still granting them libertarian free will.

The central weakness in (3) is that it could be read as God guessing that over the course of time Adam and Eve would probably fall at which point he could enact his real plan. Such a reading leads us to the God of Open Theism - a conception totally rejected by reformed theologians. Nonetheless, it still strikes me as eminently possible that God could conceive a world in which he knew, with clarity, that Adam and Eve would freely sin given passage of time. This is not guess work on God's part but certain knowledge that Adam and Eve's freedom permitting circumstances would lead them to sin thus necessitating a conceived world in which they would fall, libertarian free will would be restricted and the reformed schema of God's salvific purposes are enacted from a plan conceived in eternity past. This third option seems the most compatible with both the reformed schema and the concept of middle knowledge.

Free will, sin and the sovereignty of God

I have had cause to think through issues of theodicy, sovereignty and free will of late. Specifically, I have been keen to re-evaluate how far Molinism and classical statements of Reformed theology are compatible. To some extent, one would not expect Molinism to synchronise with reformation theology given that Molina himself was a Jesuit and counter-reformer. Nevertheless, several theologians and philosophers, including Bruce Ware and John Frame, have sought to synchronise aspects of Molinism with a compatibilist view of free will. Specifically, they are keen to argue in favour of God's Middle Knowledge without adopting a framework of libertarian free will.

William Lane Craig, probably the best known contemporary defender of Molinism, outlines three positions on God's sovereignty and human free will here. The specific problem with this Molinist view, as outlined by Craig, is the assumption that there exist freedom permitting circumstances under which an individual would freely choose to respond to the universal offer of salvation. According to scripture, our sin-nature means that without the working of the Holy Spirit one cannot come to faith in Christ. For the Molinist, such intervention is just as deterministic as the Calvinism they eschew yet they continue to uphold this truth. Further, I find the grounding objection compelling - that God could not exhaustively know an individual's free actions by simply knowing their circumstances. If an individual possesses libertarian freedom, God cannot know for certain what this free agent will actually choose in any set of circumstances as they are perfectly able to choose otherwise.

However, Ware and Frame both contend Middle Knowledge is validated and strengthened when viewed within a compatibilist framework of free will. On this view, the grounding objection simply does not apply. God knows precisely how an agent will respond in any given set of circumstances because such knowledge is predicated on the nature of that individual. Ware argues that it is neither God working on the will of the individual, nor the circumstances themselves, that ultimately cause the individual to choose as they do. Instead, he argues, it is the nature of the individual - when particular circumstantial factors are present -  that causes the agent to do what they, by nature, most want to do.

On Ware's view, God's sovereignty is maintained without making Him the author of evil. God grounds his Middle Knowledge in the nature, and thus deepest desires, of each agent. Therefore, God knows an agent will do action A in circumstances X based upon the very nature and deepest desire of the individual. However, God can know (and be assured) if he actualises circumstances Y the agent will freely choose action B, equally according to his nature. Thus, God uses his Middle Knowledge to determine which actions to permit according to the deepest desire of the agent or whether to alter the circumstances. An individual is responsible for their own action because they freely chose them and God is not responsible as he merely permits the choice. It is neither God, nor the circumstances, that  determine the choice but rather the deepest desire of the agent according to his nature. 

God's permission of evil is then best explained through the principle of sufficient reason. This is seen most clearly in Christ's salvific work on the cross. 1 Corinthians 2:8 makes clear had those who crucified Christ known what they were doing, they would never have done it. However, God had sufficient reason to actualise a world in which the deepest desire of the individuals involved, the sinful act of crucifying an innocent, would take place. Namely, the salvation of the world. God did not cause the sin, it was borne from the desire of the agents involved, yet through his middle knowledge God permitted the circumstances through which this sin would take place for sufficient reason.

Jonathan Edwards argued, along these lines, that the will is never neutral. As Ware suggests, every decision is borne from the deepest desire of any agent, rooted in their very nature. The problem, as Dr John Gerstner highlights, comes not in the present but in the pre-fall world. Outlined here, the issue is as follows: "if Edwards was right in saying the will could not be neutral (no decision could stem from neutrality, there must be an inclination toward whatever choice is made) then it HAS to follow that God created man with a nature that was inclined to sin". Gerstner calls this the "thorn in the flesh" of all reformed theologians.

However, this is not a problem if we argue that pre-fall Adam and Eve had libertarian free will. Pre-fall, Adam and Eve had no sin-nature and were indeed capable of making neutral decisions. However, post-fall, they inherited a sin-nature and thus lost their libertarian free will. Indeed, God's restraining hand became necessary because libertarian free will would lead to continual, unending sin without restraint. Thus, post-fall, Adam and Eve lost their libertarian free will and inherited compatibilist free will. The Devil's lie - that Adam and Eve were shackled by God - led to the sad irony of their previous libertarian free will being lost and their becoming more shackled than ever they were before. On this reading, Adam and Eve's sin was entirely their own. Post-fall, God permitted (but did not cause) the deepest desires of individual agents - based upon inherited sin nature such that He can know how any being will act in any given circumstance - in order to bring about his divinely appointed will. 

Therefore, we can posit the Molinist view in respect to the pre-fall creation of the world. God indeed actualised a world, including libertarian free will, in which Adam and Eve sinned. However, following the fall - based on the principle of sufficient reason - God limited human agency to a compatibilist framework. Within this compatibilist framework, we no longer face the pitfall of Molinism which maintains, despite acknowledging the reality of human sin-nature, there exists freedom permitted circumstances under which individuals freely choose Christ caused by nothing outside of the agent. Terrence Tiessen is apt to comment:

. . . if the complete set of factors leaves the person with a final choice that is influenced by nothing in or outside himself, then it escapes me how the decision between two equally viable and possible courses of action can be anything but arbitrary. Granted, there are many contributing factors or “reasons” but, since the sum total of them is insufficient to explain this choice rather than that one, the decision appears to be “random.” I see no way to escape that conclusion given all the premises.

On the compatibilist view, decisions are not arbitrary. They are based on the deep-seated desires of the agent which are borne out of the individual's very nature. However, such choices are not caused by God for He uses his middle knowledge to permit certain desires based on the principle of sufficient reason.