Reformed doctrine of predestination - Boettner - XI - Chapters 15 &16

Required reading
Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner (Available from Amazon or free on the internet, here for example).  Read Chapters 15 (That it is fatalism) and 16 (Inconsistent with free agency).

My summary
Today we begin a new section of the book which looks at objections commonly urged against the Reformed doctrine of predestination.

In Chapter 15 the charge that predestination is fatalism is answered: 'There is, in reality, only one point of agreement between the two, which is, that both assume the absolute certainty of all future events. The essential difference between them is that Fatalism has no place for a personal God. Predestination holds that events come to pass because an infinitely wise, powerful, and holy God has so appointed them. Fatalism holds that all events come to pass through the working of a blind, unintelligent, impersonal, non-moral force which cannot be distinguished from physical necessity, and which carries us helplessly within its grasp as mighty river carries a piece of wood.'

In Chapter 16 the charge that predestination is inconsistent with the free agency and moral responsibility of man is answered.  Basically Boettner shows in a number of ways that man never has a free will as it is commonly claimed - his choices are always influenced and in some way predictable.  Yet Scripture continues to affirm that man is a free agent while God is in sovereign control of him: 'Predestination and free agency are the twin pillars of a great temple, and they meet above the clouds where the human gaze cannot penetrate. Or again, we may say that Predestination and free agency are parallel lines; and while the Calvinist may not be able to make them unite, the Arminian cannot make them cross each other.'

What grabbed me
In Part 3 of Chapter 15 Boettner claimed certainty is consistent with free agency: 'We are often absolutely certain how we will act under given conditions so far as we are free to act at all...A father often knows how his son will act under given circumstances and by controlling these he determines beforehand the course of action which the son follows, yet the son acts freely. If he plans that the son shall be doctor, he gives him encouragement along that line, persuades him to read certain books, to attend certain schools, and so presents the outside inducements that his plan works out. In the same manner and to an infinitely greater extent God controls our actions so that they are certain although we act freely. His decree does not produce the event, but only renders its occurrence certain; and the same decree which determines the certainty of the action at the same time determines the freedom of the agent in the act.'

It is tempting to try and explain something that is unexplainable and I think the above illustration of father and son tries to do that.  If the circumstances surrounding the son force him to pick a particular path (i.e. to be doctor), then he is no longer responsible for his action. 

But Scripture does not give such illustrations.  It gives paradoxes where, for example, Joseph's brothers are in God's control yet held completely responsible for their actions against Joseph.

I know Boettner does believes God's sovereignty and man's free agency is a paradox from elsewhere in the chapter, but I think this part of the chapter contradicts what he has said elsewhere.  Certainty is not consistent with free agency - well, at least not in our little minds.

Next week's reading
Read Chapter 17 (That it makes God the author of sin).

Now it's your turn
Please post your own notes and thoughts in the comments section below.