W.G.T. Shedd vs. EDD

After surveying the writings of prominent Reformed theologians, I have concluded that many were/are quite open to the concept of what I refer to as limited libertarian freedom. That is to say, although these Reformers might have rejected libertarian freedom when it comes to soteriological matters (issues pertaining to salvation), they seemed to leave metaphysical room and, as Oliver Crisp writes in Deviant Calvinism, “conceptual space, so to speak, to prescind from determinism touching all human choices and to affirm some limited version of libertarianism.” At the least, many who practice Reformed theology (as I do) reject the notion of exhaustive divine determinism (EDD) as Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) espoused. 

Edwards lived up to his name and put the “ED” in exhaustive determinism by rejecting both manners in which libertarian freedom can be understood. Michael Preciado makes it clear: “We have seen that Edwards denied the sourcehood and alternative possibilities conditions.” Edwards rejects the idea that a human could ever be the ultimate source of his thoughts or actions, and also rejected the idea that humanity ever possesses the ability to choose otherwise in a specific circumstance.

The eminent reformed scholar Richard Muller, however, believes Edwards (and his followers) are mistaken by affirming this extreme view:

“Not a few of the proponents and critics of the Reformed doctrine of free choice and divine willing have confused the specifically soteriological determination of the Reformed doctrine of predestination with a ‘divine determinism of all human actions.'”

There is good reason to believe that the early Reformers, although they may have rejected the idea of libertarian freedom regarding salvation issues, would also reject the idea of exhaustive divine determinism (EDD) that many Calvinists and Reformed theologians affirm today. It seems that they affirmed the idea of limited libertarian freedom in external matters and mundane issues (libertarian freedom limited to things unrelated to salvation).  

An event is determined if antecedent conditions are sufficient to necessitate said event. Exhaustive divine determinism (EDD) is the idea that God’s decree (His choice) provides the antecedent conditions which are sufficient to necessitate all events — including all the sinful, bad, wrong, incorrect, and evil thoughts and actions of humanity. If EDD is true, then no human (from Adam to you) has ever made a libertarian free action (mental or physical). An agent possesses libertarian freedom — at minimum — if the agent possesses the power to think, act, or choose such that antecedent conditions are insufficient to necessitate the thought, action, or choice. This can be understood as “sourcehood libertarian freedom.” An agent possesses libertarian freedom — at maximum — if an agent ever possesses the opportunity to exercise an ability to choose between a range of alternative options, each of which is compatible with his nature at that specific time and place. This idea can be referred to as “alternative possibilities libertarian freedom” or "leeway libertarian freedom."

With clarified definitions in mind, consider also the words of W.G.T. Shedd (1820-1894). Dr. Shedd has been described as a "high Calvinist" and was one of the most notable systematic theologians of the American Presbyterian church. Interestingly, this Reformed systematic theologian seems to affirm the sourcehood libertarian freedom (at minimum) of Adam:

“In respect to its having no sinful antecedent out of which it is made, sin is origination ex nihilo. Sin is the beginning of something from nothing, and there is this resemblance between it and creation proper. In holy Adam, there was no sinful inclination or corruption that prompted the first transgression. Adam started the wicked inclination itself ex nihilo, by a causative act of self-determination.”

If a sinful thought or action is an example of creation “ex nihilo” by a human, then this sinful thought or action cannot be necessitated via antecedent conditions. Thus, not all thoughts and actions are determined by God. If this is the case, and God did not determine the original sin, then God does not determine ALL things. Thus, according to the great Reformed theologian W.G.T. Shedd, EDD is false! 

I’m definitely not the first to reach this conclusion. In fact, other scholars have noted that the original Reformer — Martin Luther — would affirm limited libertarian freedom. Kirk MacGregor writes:

"Advanced by Luther and Calvin, this doctrine held that unregenerate humans, while possessing the freedom to choose between opposites in the physical realm (in matters below), lack the ability to choose between spiritual good and evil (in matters above) due to original sin."

William Lane Craig has made similar claims regarding the original Reformer:

"Martin Luther, for example, held that human beings are, as he put it, free in things below but bound in things above. That is to say, Luther was willing to grant that human beings have freedom of the will with respect to earthly affairs, for example, the decision to shop at Publix instead of at Trader Joe’s. But, when it comes to things above (that is to say, spiritual matters), man’s sinfulness has bound his will, so that man is not free to choose for God and to appropriate his grace. Rather, redemption must come entirely from God’s side. It is God who chooses and saves whom he wills."

Determinists often counter that these alternative possibilities are not morally relevant, but that misses the point. They are still alternative possibilities in the actual world. This means that antecedent conditions are not sufficient to necessitate all human choices. Thus, EDD is false. 

Bottom line: A Reformed theologian is under no obligation to affirm the radical metaphysical view of exhaustive divine determinism (EDD). Sure, God determines some things, but it does not follow that God determines ALL things. If one makes that logical leap it will ultimately result in suicidal self-destruction since no Christian theologian possesses perfect theology. With that important fact in mind, consider a version of the Deity of Deception argument:

1- If God determines all things about humanity, then God determines all Christians to have some false theological intuitions and to hold some false theological beliefs.

2- If God determines all Christians to have some false theological intuitions and to hold some false theological beliefs, then God is an untrustworthy source of theological beliefs.

3- If God is an untrustworthy source of theological beliefs, then, there is reason to doubt God’s inspired word.

4- There is never reason to doubt God’s inspired word.

5- Therefore, God is not an untrustworthy source of theological beliefs.

6- Therefore, God does not determine all Christians to have some false theological intuitions and to hold some false theological beliefs.

7- Therefore, God does not determine all things about humanity.

The deductive conclusion is proof that the Reformers who rejected EDD were right.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton

Notes

Crisp, Deviant Calvinism (p. 75).

Preciado, A Reformed View of Freedom, 215

Muller, Divine Will and Human Choice, 222-223

Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 521.

MacGregor, Luis de Molina, 50.

See William Lane Craig’s Defenders: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/doctrine-of-god-part-1/doctrine-of-man-part-26/

Victor Reppert, in C.S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea, writes, “C.S. Lewis’s dangerous idea is the idea that if we explain reason naturalistically we shall end up explaining it away, that is, explaining it in such a way that it cannot serve as a foundation for the natural sciences that are themselves the foundation for naturalism” (p. 128). Similarly, the dangerous idea I’ve advanced with J.P. Moreland is that if we explain human reason via divine determinism we shall end up explaining it away, that is, explaining it in such a way that it cannot serve as a foundation for theological knowledge which is itself the foundation for EDD. This provides a powerful reason to reject EDD and instead adopt a view which makes sense of the reality of reason and -- perhaps more importantly -- does not relegate our creator to an untrustworthy source of theological beliefs (at best) or a deity of deception (at worst).