Predestination and Free Will

Kymberli Cook: 

Welcome to the Table Podcast, where we discuss issues of God and culture. My name is Kymberli Cook and I'm the assistant director of the Hendricks Center here at DTS. And today, we are going to be discussing, drum roll please, predestination and free will. Whew, here we go. 

We are joined by Paul Smalley, who is the teaching assistant of Dr. Joel Beeke and also co-author of Reformed Systematic Theology, which is a hefty systematic theology. So anybody listening should be impressed. And we're also joined by Dr. Tim Yoder, who is a professor of theological studies here at Dallas Theological Seminary. So thank you, gentlemen, for joining us. 

Paul Smalley: 

Thank you. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

It's a privilege to be here. That's great. 

Kymberli Cook: 

So, I was joking in a cartoon manner when I said, whew, here we go, as far as talking about predestination and free will. But sort of not, in that, a little bit about myself, my love of theology actually began with this very conversation. I was in a college bible study, and we were, I don't know why, but the Bible study leaders decided that we were going to talk about predestination and freewill that evening with a bunch of college students who had never really been introduced to the concept. And that was actually from an Arminian perspective. Those were the people that I was under at that point. And that evening, I still remember, it's been almost 20 years and I still remember that evening because everybody got so upset. And especially when double predestination and all of that kind of came around, women started crying. And I'll never forget somebody saying, "That's not my God, that is not my God," just over and over. And one of the other people pointed their finger in her face and said, "Who are you to say who God is?" 

And at that moment, I was sitting there, not really all that emotionally invested in the conversation. But I was like, oh, huh, there might be things about God that I don't know. That's interesting. And so I ended up studying theology for many, many years to come because I wanted to learn more about God. So this is a near and dear conversation to my heart because of that. But I also tell that story just to highlight the fact that it can be a very highly charged conversation. That it seems like maybe more than any other or definitely one of the top five theological conversations, whether you're talking people who are professional scholars or lay theologians, anybody along the spectrum just seem to have very strong feelings at times. And so I wanted to know from you, gentlemen, how did you end up thinking about this area and why do you think it can be so highly charged? So let's start with you, Paul. How did you end up thinking around these things and what are your thoughts as to why people feel so strongly about it? 

Paul Smalley: 

Well for me, it really began right around the time I was converted actually, which I was a freshman in college and was going to a Sunday school class in the church there at college I was attending. And the class was on the Book of Ephesians. And so there you go, it's right there in chapter one. So that was really the beginning of seeing that predestination is not just some philosophical debate that people have in academic settings. It's in the Bible. And so we have to deal with it. We have to look at what does God actually say about this in His word. 

And then when God converted me, I think shortly after I started attending that class, just reading the scriptures, because He gave me such a love for the scriptures, which was quite new for me. As I read through the scriptures, I saw over and over and over again the greatness and the goodness of God. And so that theme of God's sovereignty connected with His goodness and His kindness and love is just constantly present, not as an either or or but as a both and. And so I just found it in the scriptures all over the place. Of course, there were other influences that came after that, but that's really how it started for me. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Okay. And do you have any thoughts as to why people feel so strongly on either side of this? 

Paul Smalley: 

Sometimes it has to do with caricatures that are made. So people have ideas in their minds like, oh, if you believe in God's sovereignty, then you just made us all robots, for example. Which is not what a well-informed Reformed theologian would say. Or if you don't believe in double predestination, then you don't believe that God's in control at all, which somebody like John Wesley would say, "No, I believe in the providence of God in a lot of ways." And so part of it has to do with caricatures, false pictures that are presented. Part of it may have to do with the way that we divide up into parties or groups and just shoot at each other. But I think part of it honestly has to do with the fact that the glory of God is at stake in this debate. And wherever we land on this, it makes a difference in how we view God, how we pray and all that sort of thing. And the glory of God, that's what makes all things have value. It's His glory in them. So it is an important issue. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Fascinating, all right. What about you, Dr. Yoder? 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

Well, I think one of my first memories of these sorts of conversations took place my first year in seminary, I was at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and I had a buddy. And we were regular lunch companions and talking over all the theological things that we were learning. And he was much more Arminian than I was at the time. And he was very upset by the sorts of things that the idea of double predestination and election and did people have freedom? And he was a lot more well-grounded in many of the issues than I was. But we would talk and discuss these things and came up with all kinds of bizarre ways to try to think about these issues. And then I went on, after seminary I went to get my PhD at Marquette in philosophy. And in studying philosophy, I remember being very, very shocked and surprised to discover that the exact same problem that we have in theology between God's sovereignty and human free will takes place in philosophy between determinism and freedom. 

And some of the terms are different and their perspectives are, the answers that things are a little different, but it's the same problem. And I was blown away by that, realizing this isn't just a in-house theological debate between Calvinist, Arminianist or Arminians. But it's a human problem over the degree to which we are free and how much we are determined by the various factors, whether it's our environment or scientific things or psychological things or a deity, and so the same problem. And the more I wrestled with these things, I think I evolved in this way and that way in terms of thinking about these things and have continued to be fascinated by the question and the importance both of God and His sovereignty, and also the challenge of what it means to think of ourselves as having some measure of freedom. And how important that is in understanding our place in this world and also the revelation of God's word. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Why do you think it's so highly charged? 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

I think it gets highly charged because frankly, eternal things are at stake, heaven and hell. And also because I think that the natural inclination that we have as humans is to think of ourselves as being in control, as having freedom, maybe even autonomy. That we have the ability to choose and then to understand that there is something out there if we can put it that way, again, whether it's a determining factor in our genetics or in our culture, or even a divine agent that is electing, predestining, then that shifts the ground in difficult ways, that it is hard to grapple with. And I think that's why there is this frequently very charged nature to these kinds of conversations. 

Kymberli Cook: 

So I want to dig into something both of you actually introduced a little bit, and I think it'd be helpful here at the beginning. Before we hop into what we're actually talking about when we mean all these different opinions. Don't worry if you're listening, we're going to get there. But Paul, you mentioned it affects your prayer. And Dr. Yoder, you mentioned that it affects how you read scripture and how you interpret because it involves the hermeneutical decisions that are a part of, that will happen if you have this commitment. And so I guess what I'm trying to get at is I think if somebody is listening and thinking, yeah, this is kind of like how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin kind of conversation, whether you think that's an important conversation or not. And saying, no, this actually really does impact how you go about your faith. And so I'd like both of you maybe to speak to that a little bit more. And Dr. Yoder, maybe we can start with you of what else does it impact on a regular day-to-day person's walk with the Lord? 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

The first thing that comes to mind is the philosophical concern here, and that is that how we understand the presence or the absence of freedom in our human situation has a huge impact on ethics and whether we are responsible and culpable for the things that we do. And again, I think as Paul mentioned earlier, there are lots of caricatures in these sorts of things. But some people think, well, if I'm determined or if I'm predestined then then I'm not responsible. Then I might have stolen the candy from the store or I might have cheated on this exam, but it's not really up to me. 

But the more we poke at that issue, I think that that is a really important concern. When we think about ethics and how we behave, we are responsible for the things that we do. To be praised if we've done something right or to be punished for the things that we've done wrong. And so the place of my human individual responsibility in these things is really important. What am I responsible for? What is truly up to me? And if I'm to be judged or even punished, am I being judged or punished for the things that I've done or is for something that is outside of my control? So that's a big part of this. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Well, that's helpful. And even taking it a step further, it also is what are other people culpable for? And where does a sense of responsibility lie for them? Because then that starts to impact, well, how do I forgive and how do I interact with somebody else when they have done something wrong to me specifically or in my perception to society, how am I related to them, yeah, responsibility? Paul, what are your thoughts? You already introduced prayer. You can definitely dig into that if you'd like a little bit. And how else do you see it impacting a day-to-day Christian walk? 

Paul Smalley: 

Well, let me start by just interacting with a couple of things that you and Dr. Yoder have said. So one way that it impacts us is if we take God's sovereignty and human responsibility and turn them into an either or proposition, so we have to choose between one or the other, that's going to affect the way that we read the Bible. And we won't be able to see and appreciate the way that the Bible often brings things together that we don't know how they fit together. But in the incomprehensibility of God, His infinite glory, we're just to believe both. There are a lot of examples of that. You think about Christ being both God and man is one example. Or for example, it says in Luke 22:22, this is our Lord Jesus speaking, "Truly the son of man goeth as it was determined, but woe into that man by whom he is betrayed." 

So here we have in one verse, on the one hand, Jesus is saying, everything that's happening to me was predetermined. Everything is the plan of God, scriptures are being fulfilled. And yet in the same breath, he says, "Judas, the man who betrayed me is responsible for his actions and he will be rightly judged for what he has done." So we've got both absolute divine sovereignty there and also true human choice and responsibility. And you say, well, how can that be? And I say, I don't know. But there's a kind of both and approach to the Bible when it teaches us about things that we don't know how they fit together, but we have to believe both of that. And that will have a huge impact on how we read the Bible and whether or not we take parts of the Bible and use them to throw away other parts that don't make sense to us. So that's one part of it. 

You mentioned the issue of forgiveness. My mind immediately went to Genesis 50 in verse 20, where Joseph after, of course, the whole Joseph story, what a remarkable story that is. And his father has died and his brothers come to him, and now they're scared that okay, now Joseph's going to get us back for selling him into slavery and basically ruining his life for a long, long time. And Joseph makes that remarkable statement, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." So what was it that allowed Joseph to really forgive his brothers when he spent years in slavery, in prison. 

It was, on the one hand, a frank recognition that they were responsible for their actions. They had done evil. But in the same action, mysteriously, God was executing His plan. He was carrying out His purpose, and His purpose was good and resulted in many people being saved from starvation because Joseph was there to gather the food and you know the story. So being able to bring these things together in a biblical way really helps us to be able to say, you know what? I can forgive you. And part of the reason I can forgive you is it's not because I say, well, you're not responsible for your actions or it was no big deal. But I can trust that even when you are doing evil to me, God was still working out a good plan, Romans 8:28, still true. And so I can let go of this and trust God with it. 

Kymberli Cook: 

That's a really good add to what we were talking about. No, and I love that. I love that you're bringing in specifically Joseph with regard to forgiveness. I can appreciate that. Did you have any other thoughts you wanted to add? 

Paul Smalley: 

Sure, briefly. When I think about one of the great texts that talks about God choosing us before the foundation of the world, Ephesians 1:4-5. What's the point of what Paul's saying? Well, it starts off with, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places." And then it says, even as he chose us before the foundation of the world, and so having a biblical view of God choosing us is designed not to, okay, now we've got something to argue about. It's now we have something to worship about. I can't imagine why God would choose me, but that he would choose me and that he would choose me, sinner though I am, to bless me with this unimaginably rich set of blessings in Jesus that's designed by God to evoke from our hearts just this echo, this answer. 

He blessed us, now we're going to bless Him, we're going to worship Him, we're going to praise Him. And similarly, in Romans 9, where Paul dives deep into these issues of God choosing some people and not choosing others. It's really striking where he ends up with that. He really ends up by reminding us that God is God and we're not. And so it's very practical. It's designed to humble us and to cause us to worship God as He is the great and glorious God. He has mercy on whom He has mercy. And as a consequence, it really drives home the fact that I'm just a creature. I'm just the clay, He's the potter. And so it helps us to put ourselves in a posture of submission to Him and His will. So it is very practical, it's all scriptures designed to be applied. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Yes. Did you have anything to interact with on that? 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

No, I'm with him, I'm with- 

Kymberli Cook: 

Yeah, I know, I know. We're there 100%. All right, so we've talked a lot about opinions in the differing sides, but we haven't actually talked about what they are. So let's map out a bit of the spectrum on this conversation. So Paul, can you give us maybe two to four of the main camps and sketch out for the listeners what we're talking about when we're talking about all these different opinions? 

Paul Smalley: 

Okay, I can try. 

Kymberli Cook: 

No, you're fine. 

Paul Smalley: 

Because it is a very complicated issue, and as you read different people, you discover that there are actually many different positions that are held on this. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

That's true. 

Paul Smalley: 

I think it's helpful for us to realize that even though we often frame it in terms of "Calvinism versus Arminianism", the debate is much, much older than that. It really broke loose, very roughly speaking around the year 400, when the Pelagian debate broke out in the church. And so Pelagius believed that he would say, "Yeah, we're saved by grace, but the grace of God is just the fact that Jesus came and died so we can be forgiven of our sins. God's given us free will so that we can choose Him. And He's given us the word, so we know what we're supposed to do." And against that point of view, that Pelagius was presenting, Augustine said, "No, no, no. Sin has radically corrupted us such that we are so deeply sinful and opposed to God that even though, yes, Jesus died so that we can be forgiven our sins, and God gave us His word…" And Augustine did believe that we do have a free choice of our will. He said, "The will is always free, but it is not always good." In other words, we've become evil. 

And because of the evil of fallen human nature and state of sin, it's impossible for us to choose God unless God does a saving work in our heart first. And then connected with that is the idea that God chose whom He was going to give that saving grace to. So there's Pelagius and then there's Augustine, but then there were other people who, they didn't like what Pelagius said. They realized he was denying that we really need a work of grace in our hearts. But they weren't ready to go as far as Augustine did, that troubled them. And so they tried to find some kind of middle ground, people like John Cassian. And they presented this idea that, well, God gives us enough grace so that we can at least choose to cooperate with that grace. And if we choose to cooperate with that grace, then God will give us more grace, and that'll lead ultimately, to our eternal salvation. And that goes along with the idea that when God predestined people, He didn't so much choose whom He was going to save as He recognized who was going to choose Him. 

In other words, He looked ahead in time and said, "Oh, Bob is going to choose me and therefore I will choose him and I will save him." And so that's kind of a middle position. Sometimes it's called semi semi Pelagianism. I suppose in some ways you could call it semi Augustinianism. But that's that idea, that then that debate went on through the Middle Ages and then broke out afresh with the Reformers. Because most of the reformers, Luther, Calvin, people like that, it's really before Calvin, had a very strong view of God's sovereignty and His predestination. And so the debate between the Reformers and the Roman Catholics also oftentimes revolved around that issue. Although some Roman Catholics still believed the Augustinian view. And then that, so the reformation was the 16th century. Then at the beginning of the 17th century, it broke out again in the Netherlands with a debate between Arminius, who in some ways was just going back to the old kind of halfway position and the Reformed churches. I realize we just covered 2,000 years of church history, probably too many . There you go. 

Kymberli Cook: 

So Dr. Yoder, in light of what Dr. Smalley is talking about, so where would you, in your opinion, so we've got Pelagius on one end of the spectrum where we would say, this is outside of Christian Orthodoxy and has been historically recognized as that. And then we have Augustine on, at least at the beginning with those two conversations, on the other side. And then as Dr. Smalley was talking about, Cassian and the semi Pelagian, semi Augustinians are kind of the middle ground. And everybody is just so familiar with, or so many people are so familiar with the terms Calvinism and Arminianism, where do you see Calvinism and Arminianism in that spectrum? Just to help people understand. I know Dr. Smiley introduced Arminianism sort of as the semi Pelagian, but what are your thoughts? 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

So right, you're right to say that the Pelagius position is extreme because Pelagius thought that we could live, as a result of our free will, live without sin. And that we could, in a sense, save ourselves, that we can live without sin. And that's clearly unChristian, and Augustine was right to oppose him in that regard. The so-called semi Pelagian position, I think in some ways it's distinctive in that it suggests that some human individuals are the ones that initiate the process by which humans and God are reconciled. And I would have a problem with that. I think that God is, as has been mentioned, is the one that elects, even before the beginning of time and initiates the process. In Jesus' words, he draws all that to himself. So I think that one of the challenges that has come up with regards to the Calvinist and Arminian position has to do with the place of God's election and the role of human choices in these things because it feels as though they are mutually exclusive. Either God elects and predestines me, or I choose to express my faith in Christ. 

And as Dr. Smalley said earlier, we need, in some ways, to take things that seem, on their face, to be mutually exclusive and see them together. And how we begin to sort that together, I think is at the crux of this situation. And of course the terms too go well beyond the individuals. We don't need to just talk about Calvin and Arminius. There are long traditions with many important thinkers, and everybody seems to have their own slightly different shade on how these things work. And so it's hard to generalize without stepping on the toes of somebody in this camp or that camp. But I think that one of the distinctives is how should we understand the role of our free will, our ability to make decisions in the context of what is clearly taught in scripture, which is that God elects and God predestines. Ephesians 1, Romans 9, many other places. 

Kymberli Cook: 

So I'm going to push it a little bit. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

Please. 

Kymberli Cook: 

For the sake of people who might appreciate a smidge of generalization. I know we like scholarly nuances. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

Sorry. 

Kymberli Cook: 

No, it's okay. But I do want to help people understand, if they have heard, "Oh, well, you're a Calvinist or I'm a Calvinist," what would they, so let's say we have this picture in our mind, Pelagius, Cassian, Augustine. I don't know why Augustine wasn't in my head. But where would somebody who said, "I'm a Calvinist," where would they say, "Okay, so I've heard this explained, I would categorize them in this general area. Not specifically, but in this general area,"? 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

Well, Augustine is actually a very interesting case because first of all, Augustine is one of the great teachers of the church. In my opinion, one of the smartest people that ever lived and just a tremendous scholar and thinker. And after he was saved, he was very much influenced by Platonic and Neo-Platonic thought and philosophy. Philosophy was really part of the instrument that led him to becoming a Christian. And he wrote as a Christian philosopher. And so he wrote, for instance, a book on the free choice of the will and other things in which he argues for what we call today a libertarian position. 

But as Augustine was named a bishop of the church, and he had the responsibility to preach sermons and he continued to write and engage in debates with Pelagius and the Donatists and others and the Manichaes. He became more and more kind of a proto Calvinist and really moved in his position away from a libertarian position towards more maybe we would think of as a kind of compatibilist position on freedom and sovereignty. And in some ways, lays the foundation for the position of the Reformers over millennial later. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Okay, and so the Arminian perspective would then be a smidge toward Cassian? 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

Well- 

Kymberli Cook: 

I know- 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

… I'm not even sure I want to talk about it in- 

Kymberli Cook: 

I know, I know. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

… I think one of… To me- 

Kymberli Cook: 

But I'm trying to help people who are listening get some kind of map in their head. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

Yes. I think we would be better to leave Pelagius and even Cassian, aside because they don't reflect in many, I think, in helpful ways, the more Arminian or Wesleyan positions, because there's some kind of basic mistakes that they make here. And I think we'd be better to, at least in my judgment, not to think of Arminius and Pelagian in the same categories. They're quite different. And just put it this way, Arminius avoids, I think, the mistakes that Pelagius makes. And I think we need to keep them distinct. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Okay. Well, absolutely. Please don't, I wasn't saying it was in the same. I was saying kind of a step between, like a step beyond what perhaps a later Augustine and the Reformers would be. The Arminians would be a step away from that, toward the idea of a free will. But again, not as far as even Cassian, who is a questionable character as far as how much you would want to reflect him in your theology. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

I think that's right. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Yes. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

I think that's right. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Okay, so I got to move us along, gentlemen. So we're talking about this, and clearly everybody is using very careful language and is very concerned with the nuances, rightfully so. Again, it is a complex topic. But I want to talk a little bit about, we've thrown out some passages, but what are some of the key concepts that, and we've already talked about some of the key passages with the interpretation where it says, no, this is the hill that I, not I, but that this particular group feels like they need to defend. I think perhaps that would be helpful, is to say, okay, those who are emphasizing more God's sovereignty and who might find themselves more later Augustinian and Reformed tradition, this is the general hill that they're defending. Here's the general hill Arminius and the Wesleyan tradition, and all of that is defending. So Dr. Smalley, why don't you take the hill that later Augustinians and Calvinism is defending? 

Paul Smalley: 

Okay, well first of all, you don't have to call me Dr. Smalley. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Well, okay, so I'm doing it because I realized, so Dr. Yoder is currently my second reader on my dissertation, and I don't feel right calling him Tim, I just can't. I can't. It feels wrong. 

Paul Smalley: 

I can understand that- 

Kymberli Cook: 

And so then I wanted you to feel respected, and so I started calling you Dr. Smalley. 

Paul Smalley: 

I appreciate that, but you don't need to confer a degree on me too. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Well, thank you. 

Paul Smalley: 

I tell the students here, they don't have to call me Dr. Smalley unless they see me wearing a stethoscope. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Well, fair enough. So Paul, what is the hill that the Reformers are defending? 

Paul Smalley: 

When say the hill, do you mean the passages of scripture or are you talking about the concept, the doctrine that they're trying to defend? 

Kymberli Cook: 

Probably both. What is the general, so how they read scripture, the passages that they see, how they're reading those passages and the theological concepts that arise because of that? 

Paul Smalley: 

So what we would call Arminians today would tend to focus on passages that emphasize the love of God. They would quote John 3:16, "For God's so love to the world that he gave his only begotten son." Or they would quote 2 Peter 3:9, "That God does not will that any should perish." So they would hold those verses and they would talk much about the universal love of God, the goodness of God. They would also talk about the passages that emphasize the necessity of people believing in order to be saved. Which again, you go back to John 3:16 for something like that. So the way that they would view God's grace, talking about the Arminians, is they would view God's grace as starting with a general will of God that everybody should be saved. And going along with that would be an outflowing from God of a universal grace to all mankind, what they would call prevenient grace, which just means grace that goes before us, so that everybody has the ability to choose God according to that grace. Which is one difference between what Arminians believe and what Pelagius believed, Pelagius would've said- 

Kymberli Cook: 

That's the correction to the mistakes, yes. 

Paul Smalley: 

… they don't need that grace. Arminians said, "No, they do need that grace." And so for that, they would go to passages like John 1:9 that talks about Christ is the light which illuminates every man, that kind of a passage. And yeah, obviously there are a lot of different texts that get used in this. But I think that fairly well outlines when we're talking about God's grace. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Okay, Paul, just one second. I saw that you opened up your Bible. Did you have further thoughts on? Because it seems like we're talking about the hill of the Arminian, so let's go ahead and talk about that. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

Yeah, I'm with him on the ones that he cited. Thank you, Paul, for those. But another one that's important would be a passage like Deuteronomy 30 in which Moses is giving his farewell address, and he tells the children of Israel in Deuteronomy 30:15, "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commands of the Lord, your God, that I command today by loving the Lord your God, by walking in His ways, by keeping His commands, then you will live and multiply." And of course, if they fail to do that, they will receive judgment. And so what is set before them is the choice, the ability to make these choices, to act in the right way or to act in the wrong way. And so it seems that there's some measure of human responsibility before a sovereign God in terms of these things. So the significance of human freedom together with the sovereign plan of God is a significant part of that, of the Arminian- 

Kymberli Cook: 

Of that perspective, yes. Okay, okay. So human freedom and emphasizing God's love. We've thrown out a bunch of passages affirming those theological concepts. But those are the big things that the Arminian camp would be defending and would say, "Hey, we've got to be careful we don't lose this. No matter what we do, we can't lose this." And again, both camps are going to agree with the words used by everybody. It's the definitions that create a little bit of sandpaper, okay. So for the Calvinist side, what passages, what theological concepts arising from those passages are being used? Dr. Smalley, Paul, back to you. 

Paul Smalley: 

Yeah, so the Reformed or what are commonly called Calvinists would say, okay, yeah, Moses says in Deuteronomy, "Choose love." So people do have a choice to make, and that's part of our nature. In fact, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 London Baptist Confession, which is very similar, both affirm that human beings are created with a free choice of the will. But they would also go to passages like John 6:37 and verse 44, where the Lord, Jesus says that, "Everyone whom the Father gives to me will come to me." Or again, he says, "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him." And Jesus, our Lord, also connects that with people actually being saved. And so the Calvinist would say, "Look, everyone whom the Father gives to me. So that's sovereign grace. That's the reason why people are saved, but they will come. And in the context of John 6, to come to Christ is not a physical motion. It's a motion of the heart. It's faith." 

And so they say, yeah, it's both. People do have a choice to make. They have to trust in Christ. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you'll be saved." Absolutely. But that text and others indicates that that's only going to happen if the Father does a supernatural work in their hearts. Other passages would be like I mentioned before, passages that clearly talk about God choosing people, electing people. In Ephesians 1, Romans 9, Paul actually talks about how election is illustrated in the fact that God announced for two boys, while they were still in the womb, what their future was going to be. And he says that shows that this is not based upon their good works. This is based upon God's election. So they would go to passages like that. There are other passages. 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul talks about how God has chosen people for salvation through faith and the sanctification of the Holy Spirit. It's really a doctrine that shows up in quite a lot of places in the Bible. 

Kymberli Cook: 

So would you say it would be fair, arising from those passages and others, that that camp is emphasizing God's sovereignty and that particular reading of what it means to be chosen in predestination? How would you characterize some of the key concepts that the reform tradition is defending? 

Paul Smalley: 

So the Calvinist would say, the Bible clearly refers to God's general love for all mankind, at least most Calvinists. Where there are a few who would take an actually separate position and deny that. But the mainstream of Reformed theology through the years affirms, God has a general love for all that He's created. But they would also emphasize that there is a special love that God has, that He has chosen to place upon His certain people. And that that's the love that Ephesians 5:25, "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for them or for her." So they would emphasize, yes, the sovereignty of God. But again, it's not sovereignty versus love. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Of course not. No, no, no. Yeah, and I'm trying very hard but to use specifically the term. I got on y'all about being specific, and here I am doing the same thing. But I'm trying to – 

Paul Smalley: 

You got to do it! 

Kymberli Cook: 

, to be particular and using the word emphasize, so that we're not talking about an either or on either side. Because again, just to reiterate, either side and everybody within the spectrum is affirming all of these things about God and is affirming most of these things, even about humankind. It's just the emphasis, it seems to me, and which way it takes you. So I do want to dig in. You guys have both touched on those different definitions a little bit, where Paul, you were just talking about, okay, so a Reformed perspective on love, for example, would be yes, there is a general and then there's a special. So how is that different from how an Arminian would use the term God's love and we're defending God's love? Either of you chime in. 

Paul Smalley: 

Well- 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

Yeah, please. 

Paul Smalley: 

… again, the Arminian would probably, I want to be careful here, not an Arminian. So I want to be fair to what they would say. They would probably emphasize the fact that no, God loves everybody the same. And everything that God does to save people, He does for everybody. And so they would really strongly emphasize that the equality, the uniformity, the universality of God's love for everybody. In fact, I think that's part of the objection that Arminians raise against Reformed theology. It seems unfair to them that God would love one person in a way that He doesn't love somebody else. And so that just doesn't seem good to them. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

Yeah, I think that's right. So one of the helpful ways, if I could reframe the question or answer it in a little different way, I think of understanding the differences between the Reformed and Calvinist camp and a more Arminian camp is from a Calvinist perspective, the process of salvation is again, to use another academic word, is monergist, which means one energy, one work. And God the Father, God, actually the Triune God is working together to do all of these things on behalf of human beings. So there's election and then predestination, and then the works of atonement and justification. And even the things that typically seem to be human actions like faith and repentance, these are actually gifts that are given. 

And so the process is if you are chosen, especially loved, that if you are chosen to be part of the elect, then God has done all of things for you. And the individual is brought along in the receiving of all of these things. But not all are chosen. And so it seems that, well, why aren't they chosen? And in fact, it's a mystery. They're not chosen because of anything that they do, it's an unconditional election that there's mystery in terms of why God chooses those that He does. That's the monergist position. And in Arminian perspective, that the term synergism is used and that means that two are working, there's a kind of duality, which suggests that at some point in time, there is a response that is part of the process on the part of the human individual. 

So there is a choosing. Some Arminians will understand the nature of election and predestination, different. I don't think we need to get into all of those details about how that's chosen or how that's understood. But part of, and Paul mentioned prevenient grace, there is a kind of common grace prior to salvation that is given which enlivens human being's ability to choose. And so that when a person is drawn by the Father, they can respond appropriately in belief. Now I would understand this to not be a work or a merit, those are traps. I don't think that the faith is a work, Paul teaches us that it's not an Ephesians 2, it's not a merit and using the Catholic term there. But it is, in some ways, a kind of an accepting. I think of it as the most passive kind of action to receive this gift. 

But it has to be received. And in fact, that's the critical moment because those that don't receive it are the ones that will be damned. And those that do, are the ones that are saved. And so there is an obligation, a responsibility on the part of humans to embrace, accept this gift. And so therefore, there's a sense in which there is a human part of embracing the work that God has done, which culminates in salvation. And to me, that's the biggest difference or one of the biggest differences between the two positions from a Reformed or Calvinist side. It's the work of God entirely to bring this about. The Arminians would believe in many aspects of that story, the total depravity and the work of the Godhead to achieve our atonement and to declare us righteous because of Christ's sin. But at the key moment, the humans must embrace this in order to be saved. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Okay. So I feel like you just did a very good job of answering my next question, which was talking through the distinctions in the understanding of sovereignty. So we talked about the distinctions and the understanding of love, which we said is the main-ish hill emphasized by the Arminian side. And then the main-ish hill emphasized by the Reformed would be sovereignty. And so that was a little bit of an understanding of how an Arminian perspective would understand sovereignty, the term and the concept in scripture. So Paul, we've only got just a couple of minutes, but can you very briefly help us understand how that is distinct from how the Reformed perspective would see sovereignty? 

Paul Smalley: 

Okay, I'll try. So yeah, drawing from what Dr. Yoder just said about monergism and synergism, for the Reformed, the initial work of God to save the soul is monergistic, it is entirely the work of God. Like Paul says in Ephesians 2, "Even though you were dead, you were dead in your sins. God made you alive." And so that first step is monergistic. God alone does it, we're just dead. We're enemies of God, we hate God. God does a miraculous work. He raises us from the dead by applying the resurrection of Jesus to us. But from that point onward, there is a synergism that takes place, according to the Reformed view, because now you're alive. And if you're alive, you do things. And so that's when you move into the state that's described in Philippians 2:12-13, where Paul says, "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling." And he says, "For it is God who works in you, both the willing and the doing." 

Kymberli Cook: 

Can I pause you right there? Because I just want to, for anybody who was listening carefully, so earlier you had talked about the Arminian perspective on prevenient grace, which was a grace that went before anybody responded or anything, God's grace that went before. So how is that different than the monergistic grace that you're talking about right now? 

Paul Smalley: 

That's an excellent question, Kymberli. The difference really boils down to the word effectual, which means having power in itself to produce the effect that's desired. In Arminian prevenient grace, or John Cassian believe in this same concept too, there's this universal grace that goes out. It gives people the possibility of choosing, but it doesn't actually make anyone to be saved. In the Reformed view, when God gives that grace, it's not a universal gift, it's only given to some, it's particular, but it is effectual. God doesn't just make us, to use the metaphor that Paul's using, half alive, so that then if we cooperate, we can become completely alive. 

God takes us from spiritual death to spiritual life. And that grace, like it says in Romans 8:30, "Those whom He predestined, He also called. And those whom He called, He also justified." We're justified by faith, Arminians and Reformed people would agree with that. But what that means is God has a kind of calling that He puts on people's lives, that always produces faith. So it's effectual grace, whereas in the Arminian view, grace is not effectual until we add our consent to it. In the Reformed view, grace effectually produces our consent, so that we become willing. 

Kymberli Cook: 

And it's a nuance to anybody who, for people who spend their life studying this, we're like, "Oh, no, that's a big deal." But for people who this might not be quite their jam, but they've been hanging with us for about 54 minutes, that could be a nuance where it's like, no, there is a distinction there and there's a point being made. And we've talked about why that matters in our daily life. But that is one of the key places that it comes down to. All right, I see your Bible open, Dr. Yoder, and then we've got to go to one last question. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

No, I just wanted to respond or to follow up with what Paul was saying. I think that his analysis was fair. From an Arminian perspective, it is the faith that completes the process. That it's maybe to use a philosophical term, it's a necessary condition. Without faith, nobody can be saved. That's Ephesians 2, "For by grace you've been saved through faith." In Philippians, it says, "Without faith, no one can please God." And so the faith, which is to trust God, to love God as Jesus says in the greatest commandment, that is the component which links this together. It is a gift from God. So that's a bit of a paradox. It's a gift from God, and yet, it's something that we must exhibit, that we must display to unlock as it were, maybe the tremendous grace that comes from God. 

Kymberli Cook: 

All right. So we're going to take a little bit of a left-hand turn right here at the end. So at the beginning we talked about how this can be a charged conversation, and we've talked about the nuances of where it really comes down to and why that matters. But what would you gentlemen say to someone who is really upset, even listening to this, who's really upset by the idea that their parent, who has not come to faith has not been chosen by God? Let's start there and then we'll do the loved one too. But what would you say to them? 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

I think I would say that God is God. God has created the world, created us, God has made this tremendous provision for us. God has enacted this tremendous plan of salvation to save us, which involves the incarnation and all, and the crucifixion of the resurrection, and so many wonderful riches here. God's ways are higher than our ways, and there are some things that we are not going to be able to know. In my classes, I like to talk about the desire that we have as human individuals, as theologians, and even as philosophers to understand the great and eternal truths. But we bump our head against the ceiling of our limits. 

There are things that we can't figure out. God has revealed to us a lot, but there are some things that we can't know. And at the end of the day, what it really means to follow God is to trust Him. And if we have these hard questions, which I think we should present and ask and bring before the scripture, even bring before God, as Job did, bring these difficult questions to God. But trust means that we are going to join on God's side, that we are going to place our faith in what the scriptures assert to be a good and loving God. And even if all of our questions can't be answered, we have to trust in that. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Paul, I'm going to do the question a little bit different for you. What would you say to someone who is really upset that others are not taking God's sovereignty more seriously? Because that seems to be that they're not taking God and who He is and who He has revealed himself to be in that manner seriously enough, that they're minimizing it. 

Paul Smalley: 

Right. Well, I think for one thing, I would probably ask them why are they upset? Why does that upset them? And try and draw that out a little bit, because there might be specific reasons why. I know we're just operating in generalities right now, but I think it helps people who believe in the sovereignty of God in a very high sense, to be reminded of how patient God has been with them. And I think about what Paul says to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:24-26, where he says, "The servant of God needs to be patient with people, waiting for them." He's talking in the context of unbelievers. But teach them the truth and patiently wait for God to give them repentance and to set them free from the snare that the devil's sent. It's really quite a contradiction for a "Calvinist" to be impatient. 

We should know the sinfulness of our own hearts. We should recognize, even after our conversion, how many times we've been wrong. It's amazing to me how many times I've been wrong in my interpretation of the Bible and how much I've had to learn over the years, how patient God has been with me. So if you believe that God is sovereign and you believe that people are sinful and corrupt and don't deserve anything except for hell, and anything that God gives them is mercy and grace, then you should be patient with them the way God has been patient with you. You should just keep telling them the truth and pray and love people, because that's what God does. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Well, we are so far beyond our time it's not even funny. But I decided that it was cool for us to plug ahead because the church has been trying to talk about it for thousands and thousands of years, and we needed a little extra time too. So that's just fine. But gentlemen, I want to thank you so much for your time, for your thought, for your study in this area. We really appreciate the time you have taken just today to be with us. Dr. Smalley, Paul, I say both. Thank you for your time. We really appreciate you being here. 

Paul Smalley: 

Thank you, Kymberli. And thank you Dr. Yoder. This has been a very edifying conversation, I feel like. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Kymberli Cook: 

Welcome to the Table Podcast, where we discuss issues of God and culture. My name is Kymberli Cook and I'm the assistant director of the Hendricks Center here at DTS. And today, we are going to be discussing, drum roll please, predestination and free will. Whew, here we go. 

We are joined by Paul Smalley, who is the teaching assistant of Dr. Joel Beeke and also co-author of Reformed Systematic Theology, which is a hefty systematic theology. So anybody listening should be impressed. And we're also joined by Dr. Tim Yoder, who is a professor of theological studies here at Dallas Theological Seminary. So thank you, gentlemen, for joining us. 

Paul Smalley: 

Thank you. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

It's a privilege to be here. That's great. 

Kymberli Cook: 

So, I was joking in a cartoon manner when I said, whew, here we go, as far as talking about predestination and free will. But sort of not, in that, a little bit about myself, my love of theology actually began with this very conversation. I was in a college bible study, and we were, I don't know why, but the Bible study leaders decided that we were going to talk about predestination and freewill that evening with a bunch of college students who had never really been introduced to the concept. And that was actually from an Arminian perspective. Those were the people that I was under at that point. And that evening, I still remember, it's been almost 20 years and I still remember that evening because everybody got so upset. And especially when double predestination and all of that kind of came around, women started crying. And I'll never forget somebody saying, "That's not my God, that is not my God," just over and over. And one of the other people pointed their finger in her face and said, "Who are you to say who God is?" 

And at that moment, I was sitting there, not really all that emotionally invested in the conversation. But I was like, oh, huh, there might be things about God that I don't know. That's interesting. And so I ended up studying theology for many, many years to come because I wanted to learn more about God. So this is a near and dear conversation to my heart because of that. But I also tell that story just to highlight the fact that it can be a very highly charged conversation. That it seems like maybe more than any other or definitely one of the top five theological conversations, whether you're talking people who are professional scholars or lay theologians, anybody along the spectrum just seem to have very strong feelings at times. And so I wanted to know from you, gentlemen, how did you end up thinking about this area and why do you think it can be so highly charged? So let's start with you, Paul. How did you end up thinking around these things and what are your thoughts as to why people feel so strongly about it? 

Paul Smalley: 

Well for me, it really began right around the time I was converted actually, which I was a freshman in college and was going to a Sunday school class in the church there at college I was attending. And the class was on the Book of Ephesians. And so there you go, it's right there in chapter one. So that was really the beginning of seeing that predestination is not just some philosophical debate that people have in academic settings. It's in the Bible. And so we have to deal with it. We have to look at what does God actually say about this in His word. 

And then when God converted me, I think shortly after I started attending that class, just reading the scriptures, because He gave me such a love for the scriptures, which was quite new for me. As I read through the scriptures, I saw over and over and over again the greatness and the goodness of God. And so that theme of God's sovereignty connected with His goodness and His kindness and love is just constantly present, not as an either or or but as a both and. And so I just found it in the scriptures all over the place. Of course, there were other influences that came after that, but that's really how it started for me. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Okay. And do you have any thoughts as to why people feel so strongly on either side of this? 

Paul Smalley: 

Sometimes it has to do with caricatures that are made. So people have ideas in their minds like, oh, if you believe in God's sovereignty, then you just made us all robots, for example. Which is not what a well-informed Reformed theologian would say. Or if you don't believe in double predestination, then you don't believe that God's in control at all, which somebody like John Wesley would say, "No, I believe in the providence of God in a lot of ways." And so part of it has to do with caricatures, false pictures that are presented. Part of it may have to do with the way that we divide up into parties or groups and just shoot at each other. But I think part of it honestly has to do with the fact that the glory of God is at stake in this debate. And wherever we land on this, it makes a difference in how we view God, how we pray and all that sort of thing. And the glory of God, that's what makes all things have value. It's His glory in them. So it is an important issue. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Fascinating, all right. What about you, Dr. Yoder? 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

Well, I think one of my first memories of these sorts of conversations took place my first year in seminary, I was at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and I had a buddy. And we were regular lunch companions and talking over all the theological things that we were learning. And he was much more Arminian than I was at the time. And he was very upset by the sorts of things that the idea of double predestination and election and did people have freedom? And he was a lot more well-grounded in many of the issues than I was. But we would talk and discuss these things and came up with all kinds of bizarre ways to try to think about these issues. And then I went on, after seminary I went to get my PhD at Marquette in philosophy. And in studying philosophy, I remember being very, very shocked and surprised to discover that the exact same problem that we have in theology between God's sovereignty and human free will takes place in philosophy between determinism and freedom. 

And some of the terms are different and their perspectives are, the answers that things are a little different, but it's the same problem. And I was blown away by that, realizing this isn't just a in-house theological debate between Calvinist, Arminianist or Arminians. But it's a human problem over the degree to which we are free and how much we are determined by the various factors, whether it's our environment or scientific things or psychological things or a deity, and so the same problem. And the more I wrestled with these things, I think I evolved in this way and that way in terms of thinking about these things and have continued to be fascinated by the question and the importance both of God and His sovereignty, and also the challenge of what it means to think of ourselves as having some measure of freedom. And how important that is in understanding our place in this world and also the revelation of God's word. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Why do you think it's so highly charged? 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

I think it gets highly charged because frankly, eternal things are at stake, heaven and hell. And also because I think that the natural inclination that we have as humans is to think of ourselves as being in control, as having freedom, maybe even autonomy. That we have the ability to choose and then to understand that there is something out there if we can put it that way, again, whether it's a determining factor in our genetics or in our culture, or even a divine agent that is electing, predestining, then that shifts the ground in difficult ways, that it is hard to grapple with. And I think that's why there is this frequently very charged nature to these kinds of conversations. 

Kymberli Cook: 

So I want to dig into something both of you actually introduced a little bit, and I think it'd be helpful here at the beginning. Before we hop into what we're actually talking about when we mean all these different opinions. Don't worry if you're listening, we're going to get there. But Paul, you mentioned it affects your prayer. And Dr. Yoder, you mentioned that it affects how you read scripture and how you interpret because it involves the hermeneutical decisions that are a part of, that will happen if you have this commitment. And so I guess what I'm trying to get at is I think if somebody is listening and thinking, yeah, this is kind of like how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin kind of conversation, whether you think that's an important conversation or not. And saying, no, this actually really does impact how you go about your faith. And so I'd like both of you maybe to speak to that a little bit more. And Dr. Yoder, maybe we can start with you of what else does it impact on a regular day-to-day person's walk with the Lord? 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

The first thing that comes to mind is the philosophical concern here, and that is that how we understand the presence or the absence of freedom in our human situation has a huge impact on ethics and whether we are responsible and culpable for the things that we do. And again, I think as Paul mentioned earlier, there are lots of caricatures in these sorts of things. But some people think, well, if I'm determined or if I'm predestined then then I'm not responsible. Then I might have stolen the candy from the store or I might have cheated on this exam, but it's not really up to me. 

But the more we poke at that issue, I think that that is a really important concern. When we think about ethics and how we behave, we are responsible for the things that we do. To be praised if we've done something right or to be punished for the things that we've done wrong. And so the place of my human individual responsibility in these things is really important. What am I responsible for? What is truly up to me? And if I'm to be judged or even punished, am I being judged or punished for the things that I've done or is for something that is outside of my control? So that's a big part of this. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Well, that's helpful. And even taking it a step further, it also is what are other people culpable for? And where does a sense of responsibility lie for them? Because then that starts to impact, well, how do I forgive and how do I interact with somebody else when they have done something wrong to me specifically or in my perception to society, how am I related to them, yeah, responsibility? Paul, what are your thoughts? You already introduced prayer. You can definitely dig into that if you'd like a little bit. And how else do you see it impacting a day-to-day Christian walk? 

Paul Smalley: 

Well, let me start by just interacting with a couple of things that you and Dr. Yoder have said. So one way that it impacts us is if we take God's sovereignty and human responsibility and turn them into an either or proposition, so we have to choose between one or the other, that's going to affect the way that we read the Bible. And we won't be able to see and appreciate the way that the Bible often brings things together that we don't know how they fit together. But in the incomprehensibility of God, His infinite glory, we're just to believe both. There are a lot of examples of that. You think about Christ being both God and man is one example. Or for example, it says in Luke 22:22, this is our Lord Jesus speaking, "Truly the son of man goeth as it was determined, but woe into that man by whom he is betrayed." 

So here we have in one verse, on the one hand, Jesus is saying, everything that's happening to me was predetermined. Everything is the plan of God, scriptures are being fulfilled. And yet in the same breath, he says, "Judas, the man who betrayed me is responsible for his actions and he will be rightly judged for what he has done." So we've got both absolute divine sovereignty there and also true human choice and responsibility. And you say, well, how can that be? And I say, I don't know. But there's a kind of both and approach to the Bible when it teaches us about things that we don't know how they fit together, but we have to believe both of that. And that will have a huge impact on how we read the Bible and whether or not we take parts of the Bible and use them to throw away other parts that don't make sense to us. So that's one part of it. 

You mentioned the issue of forgiveness. My mind immediately went to Genesis 50 in verse 20, where Joseph after, of course, the whole Joseph story, what a remarkable story that is. And his father has died and his brothers come to him, and now they're scared that okay, now Joseph's going to get us back for selling him into slavery and basically ruining his life for a long, long time. And Joseph makes that remarkable statement, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." So what was it that allowed Joseph to really forgive his brothers when he spent years in slavery, in prison. 

It was, on the one hand, a frank recognition that they were responsible for their actions. They had done evil. But in the same action, mysteriously, God was executing His plan. He was carrying out His purpose, and His purpose was good and resulted in many people being saved from starvation because Joseph was there to gather the food and you know the story. So being able to bring these things together in a biblical way really helps us to be able to say, you know what? I can forgive you. And part of the reason I can forgive you is it's not because I say, well, you're not responsible for your actions or it was no big deal. But I can trust that even when you are doing evil to me, God was still working out a good plan, Romans 8:28, still true. And so I can let go of this and trust God with it. 

Kymberli Cook: 

That's a really good add to what we were talking about. No, and I love that. I love that you're bringing in specifically Joseph with regard to forgiveness. I can appreciate that. Did you have any other thoughts you wanted to add? 

Paul Smalley: 

Sure, briefly. When I think about one of the great texts that talks about God choosing us before the foundation of the world, Ephesians 1:4-5. What's the point of what Paul's saying? Well, it starts off with, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places." And then it says, even as he chose us before the foundation of the world, and so having a biblical view of God choosing us is designed not to, okay, now we've got something to argue about. It's now we have something to worship about. I can't imagine why God would choose me, but that he would choose me and that he would choose me, sinner though I am, to bless me with this unimaginably rich set of blessings in Jesus that's designed by God to evoke from our hearts just this echo, this answer. 

He blessed us, now we're going to bless Him, we're going to worship Him, we're going to praise Him. And similarly, in Romans 9, where Paul dives deep into these issues of God choosing some people and not choosing others. It's really striking where he ends up with that. He really ends up by reminding us that God is God and we're not. And so it's very practical. It's designed to humble us and to cause us to worship God as He is the great and glorious God. He has mercy on whom He has mercy. And as a consequence, it really drives home the fact that I'm just a creature. I'm just the clay, He's the potter. And so it helps us to put ourselves in a posture of submission to Him and His will. So it is very practical, it's all scriptures designed to be applied. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Yes. Did you have anything to interact with on that? 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

No, I'm with him, I'm with- 

Kymberli Cook: 

Yeah, I know, I know. We're there 100%. All right, so we've talked a lot about opinions in the differing sides, but we haven't actually talked about what they are. So let's map out a bit of the spectrum on this conversation. So Paul, can you give us maybe two to four of the main camps and sketch out for the listeners what we're talking about when we're talking about all these different opinions? 

Paul Smalley: 

Okay, I can try. 

Kymberli Cook: 

No, you're fine. 

Paul Smalley: 

Because it is a very complicated issue, and as you read different people, you discover that there are actually many different positions that are held on this. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

That's true. 

Paul Smalley: 

I think it's helpful for us to realize that even though we often frame it in terms of "Calvinism versus Arminianism", the debate is much, much older than that. It really broke loose, very roughly speaking around the year 400, when the Pelagian debate broke out in the church. And so Pelagius believed that he would say, "Yeah, we're saved by grace, but the grace of God is just the fact that Jesus came and died so we can be forgiven of our sins. God's given us free will so that we can choose Him. And He's given us the word, so we know what we're supposed to do." And against that point of view, that Pelagius was presenting, Augustine said, "No, no, no. Sin has radically corrupted us such that we are so deeply sinful and opposed to God that even though, yes, Jesus died so that we can be forgiven our sins, and God gave us His word…" And Augustine did believe that we do have a free choice of our will. He said, "The will is always free, but it is not always good." In other words, we've become evil. 

And because of the evil of fallen human nature and state of sin, it's impossible for us to choose God unless God does a saving work in our heart first. And then connected with that is the idea that God chose whom He was going to give that saving grace to. So there's Pelagius and then there's Augustine, but then there were other people who, they didn't like what Pelagius said. They realized he was denying that we really need a work of grace in our hearts. But they weren't ready to go as far as Augustine did, that troubled them. And so they tried to find some kind of middle ground, people like John Cassian. And they presented this idea that, well, God gives us enough grace so that we can at least choose to cooperate with that grace. And if we choose to cooperate with that grace, then God will give us more grace, and that'll lead ultimately, to our eternal salvation. And that goes along with the idea that when God predestined people, He didn't so much choose whom He was going to save as He recognized who was going to choose Him. 

In other words, He looked ahead in time and said, "Oh, Bob is going to choose me and therefore I will choose him and I will save him." And so that's kind of a middle position. Sometimes it's called semi semi Pelagianism. I suppose in some ways you could call it semi Augustinianism. But that's that idea, that then that debate went on through the Middle Ages and then broke out afresh with the Reformers. Because most of the reformers, Luther, Calvin, people like that, it's really before Calvin, had a very strong view of God's sovereignty and His predestination. And so the debate between the Reformers and the Roman Catholics also oftentimes revolved around that issue. Although some Roman Catholics still believed the Augustinian view. And then that, so the reformation was the 16th century. Then at the beginning of the 17th century, it broke out again in the Netherlands with a debate between Arminius, who in some ways was just going back to the old kind of halfway position and the Reformed churches. I realize we just covered 2,000 years of church history, probably too many . There you go. 

Kymberli Cook: 

So Dr. Yoder, in light of what Dr. Smalley is talking about, so where would you, in your opinion, so we've got Pelagius on one end of the spectrum where we would say, this is outside of Christian Orthodoxy and has been historically recognized as that. And then we have Augustine on, at least at the beginning with those two conversations, on the other side. And then as Dr. Smalley was talking about, Cassian and the semi Pelagian, semi Augustinians are kind of the middle ground. And everybody is just so familiar with, or so many people are so familiar with the terms Calvinism and Arminianism, where do you see Calvinism and Arminianism in that spectrum? Just to help people understand. I know Dr. Smiley introduced Arminianism sort of as the semi Pelagian, but what are your thoughts? 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

So right, you're right to say that the Pelagius position is extreme because Pelagius thought that we could live, as a result of our free will, live without sin. And that we could, in a sense, save ourselves, that we can live without sin. And that's clearly unChristian, and Augustine was right to oppose him in that regard. The so-called semi Pelagian position, I think in some ways it's distinctive in that it suggests that some human individuals are the ones that initiate the process by which humans and God are reconciled. And I would have a problem with that. I think that God is, as has been mentioned, is the one that elects, even before the beginning of time and initiates the process. In Jesus' words, he draws all that to himself. So I think that one of the challenges that has come up with regards to the Calvinist and Arminian position has to do with the place of God's election and the role of human choices in these things because it feels as though they are mutually exclusive. Either God elects and predestines me, or I choose to express my faith in Christ. 

And as Dr. Smalley said earlier, we need, in some ways, to take things that seem, on their face, to be mutually exclusive and see them together. And how we begin to sort that together, I think is at the crux of this situation. And of course the terms too go well beyond the individuals. We don't need to just talk about Calvin and Arminius. There are long traditions with many important thinkers, and everybody seems to have their own slightly different shade on how these things work. And so it's hard to generalize without stepping on the toes of somebody in this camp or that camp. But I think that one of the distinctives is how should we understand the role of our free will, our ability to make decisions in the context of what is clearly taught in scripture, which is that God elects and God predestines. Ephesians 1, Romans 9, many other places. 

Kymberli Cook: 

So I'm going to push it a little bit. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

Please. 

Kymberli Cook: 

For the sake of people who might appreciate a smidge of generalization. I know we like scholarly nuances. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

Sorry. 

Kymberli Cook: 

No, it's okay. But I do want to help people understand, if they have heard, "Oh, well, you're a Calvinist or I'm a Calvinist," what would they, so let's say we have this picture in our mind, Pelagius, Cassian, Augustine. I don't know why Augustine wasn't in my head. But where would somebody who said, "I'm a Calvinist," where would they say, "Okay, so I've heard this explained, I would categorize them in this general area. Not specifically, but in this general area,"? 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

Well, Augustine is actually a very interesting case because first of all, Augustine is one of the great teachers of the church. In my opinion, one of the smartest people that ever lived and just a tremendous scholar and thinker. And after he was saved, he was very much influenced by Platonic and Neo-Platonic thought and philosophy. Philosophy was really part of the instrument that led him to becoming a Christian. And he wrote as a Christian philosopher. And so he wrote, for instance, a book on the free choice of the will and other things in which he argues for what we call today a libertarian position. 

But as Augustine was named a bishop of the church, and he had the responsibility to preach sermons and he continued to write and engage in debates with Pelagius and the Donatists and others and the Manichaes. He became more and more kind of a proto Calvinist and really moved in his position away from a libertarian position towards more maybe we would think of as a kind of compatibilist position on freedom and sovereignty. And in some ways, lays the foundation for the position of the Reformers over millennial later. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Okay, and so the Arminian perspective would then be a smidge toward Cassian? 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

Well- 

Kymberli Cook: 

I know- 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

… I'm not even sure I want to talk about it in- 

Kymberli Cook: 

I know, I know. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

… I think one of… To me- 

Kymberli Cook: 

But I'm trying to help people who are listening get some kind of map in their head. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

Yes. I think we would be better to leave Pelagius and even Cassian, aside because they don't reflect in many, I think, in helpful ways, the more Arminian or Wesleyan positions, because there's some kind of basic mistakes that they make here. And I think we'd be better to, at least in my judgment, not to think of Arminius and Pelagian in the same categories. They're quite different. And just put it this way, Arminius avoids, I think, the mistakes that Pelagius makes. And I think we need to keep them distinct. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Okay. Well, absolutely. Please don't, I wasn't saying it was in the same. I was saying kind of a step between, like a step beyond what perhaps a later Augustine and the Reformers would be. The Arminians would be a step away from that, toward the idea of a free will. But again, not as far as even Cassian, who is a questionable character as far as how much you would want to reflect him in your theology. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

I think that's right. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Yes. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

I think that's right. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Okay, so I got to move us along, gentlemen. So we're talking about this, and clearly everybody is using very careful language and is very concerned with the nuances, rightfully so. Again, it is a complex topic. But I want to talk a little bit about, we've thrown out some passages, but what are some of the key concepts that, and we've already talked about some of the key passages with the interpretation where it says, no, this is the hill that I, not I, but that this particular group feels like they need to defend. I think perhaps that would be helpful, is to say, okay, those who are emphasizing more God's sovereignty and who might find themselves more later Augustinian and Reformed tradition, this is the general hill that they're defending. Here's the general hill Arminius and the Wesleyan tradition, and all of that is defending. So Dr. Smalley, why don't you take the hill that later Augustinians and Calvinism is defending? 

Paul Smalley: 

Okay, well first of all, you don't have to call me Dr. Smalley. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Well, okay, so I'm doing it because I realized, so Dr. Yoder is currently my second reader on my dissertation, and I don't feel right calling him Tim, I just can't. I can't. It feels wrong. 

Paul Smalley: 

I can understand that- 

Kymberli Cook: 

And so then I wanted you to feel respected, and so I started calling you Dr. Smalley. 

Paul Smalley: 

I appreciate that, but you don't need to confer a degree on me too. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Well, thank you. 

Paul Smalley: 

I tell the students here, they don't have to call me Dr. Smalley unless they see me wearing a stethoscope. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Well, fair enough. So Paul, what is the hill that the Reformers are defending? 

Paul Smalley: 

When say the hill, do you mean the passages of scripture or are you talking about the concept, the doctrine that they're trying to defend? 

Kymberli Cook: 

Probably both. What is the general, so how they read scripture, the passages that they see, how they're reading those passages and the theological concepts that arise because of that? 

Paul Smalley: 

So what we would call Arminians today would tend to focus on passages that emphasize the love of God. They would quote John 3:16, "For God's so love to the world that he gave his only begotten son." Or they would quote 2 Peter 3:9, "That God does not will that any should perish." So they would hold those verses and they would talk much about the universal love of God, the goodness of God. They would also talk about the passages that emphasize the necessity of people believing in order to be saved. Which again, you go back to John 3:16 for something like that. So the way that they would view God's grace, talking about the Arminians, is they would view God's grace as starting with a general will of God that everybody should be saved. And going along with that would be an outflowing from God of a universal grace to all mankind, what they would call prevenient grace, which just means grace that goes before us, so that everybody has the ability to choose God according to that grace. Which is one difference between what Arminians believe and what Pelagius believed, Pelagius would've said- 

Kymberli Cook: 

That's the correction to the mistakes, yes. 

Paul Smalley: 

… they don't need that grace. Arminians said, "No, they do need that grace." And so for that, they would go to passages like John 1:9 that talks about Christ is the light which illuminates every man, that kind of a passage. And yeah, obviously there are a lot of different texts that get used in this. But I think that fairly well outlines when we're talking about God's grace. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Okay, Paul, just one second. I saw that you opened up your Bible. Did you have further thoughts on? Because it seems like we're talking about the hill of the Arminian, so let's go ahead and talk about that. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

Yeah, I'm with him on the ones that he cited. Thank you, Paul, for those. But another one that's important would be a passage like Deuteronomy 30 in which Moses is giving his farewell address, and he tells the children of Israel in Deuteronomy 30:15, "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commands of the Lord, your God, that I command today by loving the Lord your God, by walking in His ways, by keeping His commands, then you will live and multiply." And of course, if they fail to do that, they will receive judgment. And so what is set before them is the choice, the ability to make these choices, to act in the right way or to act in the wrong way. And so it seems that there's some measure of human responsibility before a sovereign God in terms of these things. So the significance of human freedom together with the sovereign plan of God is a significant part of that, of the Arminian- 

Kymberli Cook: 

Of that perspective, yes. Okay, okay. So human freedom and emphasizing God's love. We've thrown out a bunch of passages affirming those theological concepts. But those are the big things that the Arminian camp would be defending and would say, "Hey, we've got to be careful we don't lose this. No matter what we do, we can't lose this." And again, both camps are going to agree with the words used by everybody. It's the definitions that create a little bit of sandpaper, okay. So for the Calvinist side, what passages, what theological concepts arising from those passages are being used? Dr. Smalley, Paul, back to you. 

Paul Smalley: 

Yeah, so the Reformed or what are commonly called Calvinists would say, okay, yeah, Moses says in Deuteronomy, "Choose love." So people do have a choice to make, and that's part of our nature. In fact, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 London Baptist Confession, which is very similar, both affirm that human beings are created with a free choice of the will. But they would also go to passages like John 6:37 and verse 44, where the Lord, Jesus says that, "Everyone whom the Father gives to me will come to me." Or again, he says, "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him." And Jesus, our Lord, also connects that with people actually being saved. And so the Calvinist would say, "Look, everyone whom the Father gives to me. So that's sovereign grace. That's the reason why people are saved, but they will come. And in the context of John 6, to come to Christ is not a physical motion. It's a motion of the heart. It's faith." 

And so they say, yeah, it's both. People do have a choice to make. They have to trust in Christ. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you'll be saved." Absolutely. But that text and others indicates that that's only going to happen if the Father does a supernatural work in their hearts. Other passages would be like I mentioned before, passages that clearly talk about God choosing people, electing people. In Ephesians 1, Romans 9, Paul actually talks about how election is illustrated in the fact that God announced for two boys, while they were still in the womb, what their future was going to be. And he says that shows that this is not based upon their good works. This is based upon God's election. So they would go to passages like that. There are other passages. 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul talks about how God has chosen people for salvation through faith and the sanctification of the Holy Spirit. It's really a doctrine that shows up in quite a lot of places in the Bible. 

Kymberli Cook: 

So would you say it would be fair, arising from those passages and others, that that camp is emphasizing God's sovereignty and that particular reading of what it means to be chosen in predestination? How would you characterize some of the key concepts that the reform tradition is defending? 

Paul Smalley: 

So the Calvinist would say, the Bible clearly refers to God's general love for all mankind, at least most Calvinists. Where there are a few who would take an actually separate position and deny that. But the mainstream of Reformed theology through the years affirms, God has a general love for all that He's created. But they would also emphasize that there is a special love that God has, that He has chosen to place upon His certain people. And that that's the love that Ephesians 5:25, "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for them or for her." So they would emphasize, yes, the sovereignty of God. But again, it's not sovereignty versus love. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Of course not. No, no, no. Yeah, and I'm trying very hard but to use specifically the term. I got on y'all about being specific, and here I am doing the same thing. But I'm trying to – 

Paul Smalley: 

You got to do it! 

Kymberli Cook: 

, to be particular and using the word emphasize, so that we're not talking about an either or on either side. Because again, just to reiterate, either side and everybody within the spectrum is affirming all of these things about God and is affirming most of these things, even about humankind. It's just the emphasis, it seems to me, and which way it takes you. So I do want to dig in. You guys have both touched on those different definitions a little bit, where Paul, you were just talking about, okay, so a Reformed perspective on love, for example, would be yes, there is a general and then there's a special. So how is that different from how an Arminian would use the term God's love and we're defending God's love? Either of you chime in. 

Paul Smalley: 

Well- 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

Yeah, please. 

Paul Smalley: 

… again, the Arminian would probably, I want to be careful here, not an Arminian. So I want to be fair to what they would say. They would probably emphasize the fact that no, God loves everybody the same. And everything that God does to save people, He does for everybody. And so they would really strongly emphasize that the equality, the uniformity, the universality of God's love for everybody. In fact, I think that's part of the objection that Arminians raise against Reformed theology. It seems unfair to them that God would love one person in a way that He doesn't love somebody else. And so that just doesn't seem good to them. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

Yeah, I think that's right. So one of the helpful ways, if I could reframe the question or answer it in a little different way, I think of understanding the differences between the Reformed and Calvinist camp and a more Arminian camp is from a Calvinist perspective, the process of salvation is again, to use another academic word, is monergist, which means one energy, one work. And God the Father, God, actually the Triune God is working together to do all of these things on behalf of human beings. So there's election and then predestination, and then the works of atonement and justification. And even the things that typically seem to be human actions like faith and repentance, these are actually gifts that are given. 

And so the process is if you are chosen, especially loved, that if you are chosen to be part of the elect, then God has done all of things for you. And the individual is brought along in the receiving of all of these things. But not all are chosen. And so it seems that, well, why aren't they chosen? And in fact, it's a mystery. They're not chosen because of anything that they do, it's an unconditional election that there's mystery in terms of why God chooses those that He does. That's the monergist position. And in Arminian perspective, that the term synergism is used and that means that two are working, there's a kind of duality, which suggests that at some point in time, there is a response that is part of the process on the part of the human individual. 

So there is a choosing. Some Arminians will understand the nature of election and predestination, different. I don't think we need to get into all of those details about how that's chosen or how that's understood. But part of, and Paul mentioned prevenient grace, there is a kind of common grace prior to salvation that is given which enlivens human being's ability to choose. And so that when a person is drawn by the Father, they can respond appropriately in belief. Now I would understand this to not be a work or a merit, those are traps. I don't think that the faith is a work, Paul teaches us that it's not an Ephesians 2, it's not a merit and using the Catholic term there. But it is, in some ways, a kind of an accepting. I think of it as the most passive kind of action to receive this gift. 

But it has to be received. And in fact, that's the critical moment because those that don't receive it are the ones that will be damned. And those that do, are the ones that are saved. And so there is an obligation, a responsibility on the part of humans to embrace, accept this gift. And so therefore, there's a sense in which there is a human part of embracing the work that God has done, which culminates in salvation. And to me, that's the biggest difference or one of the biggest differences between the two positions from a Reformed or Calvinist side. It's the work of God entirely to bring this about. The Arminians would believe in many aspects of that story, the total depravity and the work of the Godhead to achieve our atonement and to declare us righteous because of Christ's sin. But at the key moment, the humans must embrace this in order to be saved. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Okay. So I feel like you just did a very good job of answering my next question, which was talking through the distinctions in the understanding of sovereignty. So we talked about the distinctions and the understanding of love, which we said is the main-ish hill emphasized by the Arminian side. And then the main-ish hill emphasized by the Reformed would be sovereignty. And so that was a little bit of an understanding of how an Arminian perspective would understand sovereignty, the term and the concept in scripture. So Paul, we've only got just a couple of minutes, but can you very briefly help us understand how that is distinct from how the Reformed perspective would see sovereignty? 

Paul Smalley: 

Okay, I'll try. So yeah, drawing from what Dr. Yoder just said about monergism and synergism, for the Reformed, the initial work of God to save the soul is monergistic, it is entirely the work of God. Like Paul says in Ephesians 2, "Even though you were dead, you were dead in your sins. God made you alive." And so that first step is monergistic. God alone does it, we're just dead. We're enemies of God, we hate God. God does a miraculous work. He raises us from the dead by applying the resurrection of Jesus to us. But from that point onward, there is a synergism that takes place, according to the Reformed view, because now you're alive. And if you're alive, you do things. And so that's when you move into the state that's described in Philippians 2:12-13, where Paul says, "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling." And he says, "For it is God who works in you, both the willing and the doing." 

Kymberli Cook: 

Can I pause you right there? Because I just want to, for anybody who was listening carefully, so earlier you had talked about the Arminian perspective on prevenient grace, which was a grace that went before anybody responded or anything, God's grace that went before. So how is that different than the monergistic grace that you're talking about right now? 

Paul Smalley: 

That's an excellent question, Kymberli. The difference really boils down to the word effectual, which means having power in itself to produce the effect that's desired. In Arminian prevenient grace, or John Cassian believe in this same concept too, there's this universal grace that goes out. It gives people the possibility of choosing, but it doesn't actually make anyone to be saved. In the Reformed view, when God gives that grace, it's not a universal gift, it's only given to some, it's particular, but it is effectual. God doesn't just make us, to use the metaphor that Paul's using, half alive, so that then if we cooperate, we can become completely alive. 

God takes us from spiritual death to spiritual life. And that grace, like it says in Romans 8:30, "Those whom He predestined, He also called. And those whom He called, He also justified." We're justified by faith, Arminians and Reformed people would agree with that. But what that means is God has a kind of calling that He puts on people's lives, that always produces faith. So it's effectual grace, whereas in the Arminian view, grace is not effectual until we add our consent to it. In the Reformed view, grace effectually produces our consent, so that we become willing. 

Kymberli Cook: 

And it's a nuance to anybody who, for people who spend their life studying this, we're like, "Oh, no, that's a big deal." But for people who this might not be quite their jam, but they've been hanging with us for about 54 minutes, that could be a nuance where it's like, no, there is a distinction there and there's a point being made. And we've talked about why that matters in our daily life. But that is one of the key places that it comes down to. All right, I see your Bible open, Dr. Yoder, and then we've got to go to one last question. 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

No, I just wanted to respond or to follow up with what Paul was saying. I think that his analysis was fair. From an Arminian perspective, it is the faith that completes the process. That it's maybe to use a philosophical term, it's a necessary condition. Without faith, nobody can be saved. That's Ephesians 2, "For by grace you've been saved through faith." In Philippians, it says, "Without faith, no one can please God." And so the faith, which is to trust God, to love God as Jesus says in the greatest commandment, that is the component which links this together. It is a gift from God. So that's a bit of a paradox. It's a gift from God, and yet, it's something that we must exhibit, that we must display to unlock as it were, maybe the tremendous grace that comes from God. 

Kymberli Cook: 

All right. So we're going to take a little bit of a left-hand turn right here at the end. So at the beginning we talked about how this can be a charged conversation, and we've talked about the nuances of where it really comes down to and why that matters. But what would you gentlemen say to someone who is really upset, even listening to this, who's really upset by the idea that their parent, who has not come to faith has not been chosen by God? Let's start there and then we'll do the loved one too. But what would you say to them? 

Dr. Tim Yoder: 

I think I would say that God is God. God has created the world, created us, God has made this tremendous provision for us. God has enacted this tremendous plan of salvation to save us, which involves the incarnation and all, and the crucifixion of the resurrection, and so many wonderful riches here. God's ways are higher than our ways, and there are some things that we are not going to be able to know. In my classes, I like to talk about the desire that we have as human individuals, as theologians, and even as philosophers to understand the great and eternal truths. But we bump our head against the ceiling of our limits. 

There are things that we can't figure out. God has revealed to us a lot, but there are some things that we can't know. And at the end of the day, what it really means to follow God is to trust Him. And if we have these hard questions, which I think we should present and ask and bring before the scripture, even bring before God, as Job did, bring these difficult questions to God. But trust means that we are going to join on God's side, that we are going to place our faith in what the scriptures assert to be a good and loving God. And even if all of our questions can't be answered, we have to trust in that. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Paul, I'm going to do the question a little bit different for you. What would you say to someone who is really upset that others are not taking God's sovereignty more seriously? Because that seems to be that they're not taking God and who He is and who He has revealed himself to be in that manner seriously enough, that they're minimizing it. 

Paul Smalley: 

Right. Well, I think for one thing, I would probably ask them why are they upset? Why does that upset them? And try and draw that out a little bit, because there might be specific reasons why. I know we're just operating in generalities right now, but I think it helps people who believe in the sovereignty of God in a very high sense, to be reminded of how patient God has been with them. And I think about what Paul says to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:24-26, where he says, "The servant of God needs to be patient with people, waiting for them." He's talking in the context of unbelievers. But teach them the truth and patiently wait for God to give them repentance and to set them free from the snare that the devil's sent. It's really quite a contradiction for a "Calvinist" to be impatient. 

We should know the sinfulness of our own hearts. We should recognize, even after our conversion, how many times we've been wrong. It's amazing to me how many times I've been wrong in my interpretation of the Bible and how much I've had to learn over the years, how patient God has been with me. So if you believe that God is sovereign and you believe that people are sinful and corrupt and don't deserve anything except for hell, and anything that God gives them is mercy and grace, then you should be patient with them the way God has been patient with you. You should just keep telling them the truth and pray and love people, because that's what God does. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Well, we are so far beyond our time it's not even funny. But I decided that it was cool for us to plug ahead because the church has been trying to talk about it for thousands and thousands of years, and we needed a little extra time too. So that's just fine. But gentlemen, I want to thank you so much for your time, for your thought, for your study in this area. We really appreciate the time you have taken just today to be with us. Dr. Smalley, Paul, I say both. Thank you for your time. We really appreciate you being here. 

Paul Smalley: 

Thank you, Kymberli. And thank you Dr. Yoder. This has been a very edifying conversation, I feel like. 

Kymberli Cook: 

Yes, and thank you, Dr. Yoder for being here as well. And we want to thank those of you who are listening for your time. And we would encourage you that the next time you want to chew on something theologically and discuss issues of God and culture to come on back.