Will Jesus Save All Infants?

In the online world of theological debate, everyone is talking about “infant damnation.” This is in response to the “#baalgate” controversy, in which Warren McGrew (aka “Idol Killer”) compared the mentality of those who hold this doctrine to that of ancient pagan worshipers of Baal who offered their babies as sacrifices in exchange for their own rewards. His comments were taken by many Calvinists as a slam against Calvinism in general, though he has clarified that he was speaking only of those who also affirm infant damnation. Regardless of whether or not his comparison is valid, the spotlight is shining on this important, yet highly unpleasant topic. While most contemporary Calvinists outright reject infant damnation, some, including one of McGrew’s most vocal critics, James White, affirm it to one degree or another. Why would anyone support such a troubling doctrine? Why is this even a question? 

Historical Background 

The doctrine of infant damnation is inseparably tied to the doctrine of original sin, which can be traced back to Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.). Prior to Augustine, all orthodox Christians agreed that each and every human being suffers the consequences of Adam’s sin, which are a natural bent towards sin and, ultimately, death. This view is commonly referred to as “ancestral sin.” What makes original sin distinct is the added imputation of guilt for all humanity thereafter. All of Adam and Eve’s children, and all children thereafter, were then conceived with his willful sin attributed to their account, and thus they are justly deserving of eternal punishment. This view is echoed by 18th century preacher and theologian, Jonathan Edwards: 

“It is most just, exceeding just, that God should take the soul of a new-born infant and cast it into eternal torments.” 

For Augustine, water baptism was necessary to wash away original sin for each and every person, infants included. Without baptism, the soul would certainly be punished in hell for all eternity. This became the predominant view within the Roman Catholic Church, at least until limbo emerged as a more gracious alternative. “Limbo of the infants” can be defined as an eternal state for those who did not personally commit sin, but also did not receive baptism for the removal of original sin. Opinions have varied through the ages, with some proposing it as a mild form of punishment. Others, such as Thomas Aquinas, suggested that it is experienced by inhabitants as a place of everlasting joy, while they remain ignorant of the greater joy of heaven. In any case, limbo is a permanent state. Such a “middle place” was previously condemned by Augustine:

“…let no one promise for the case of unbaptized infants, between damnation and the kingdom of heaven, some middle place of rest and happiness…”

In the past few centuries, many Catholic theologians have expressed hope that even unbaptized infants could be saved. In 2007, the International Theological Commission, under Pope John Paul II, release the document, “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized.” It reads: 

“Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us. We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.”

While landing short of affirming the salvation of all infants, this represents considerable movement in that direction since Augustine. It is worth noting that no view regarding the eternal destiny of infants has ever been made official Catholic doctrine, which has allowed for this shift. However, the affirmation of the necessity of baptism into the Catholic Church has been consistent.

On the Protestant side, it has always been a question of Heaven or hell with no third option. While reformers such as Calvin and Luther echoed Augustine in regard to God’s justice in damning all humans souls to hell, they also maintained that God has the right to choose to save whoever He pleases. As such, the vast majority of Protestants have maintained that at least some infants who die are saved. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) states: 

“Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ.” (10.3)

Many Calvinistic Protestants insist this doesn’t imply that there are reprobate infants who are cast into hell, but the wording leaves room for most adherents of infant damnation to affirm the statement.

Calvinists divide into at least four camps. Most believe God elect all infants to salvation by appealing to the goodness of God’s grace. Loraine Boettner says: 

“The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith, repentance or good works, whether actual or foreseen.”

Some Calvinists believe that God elects some infants and not others irrespective of their parents, just as he elects and reprobates all people for no reason in and of themselves. Others believe that the children of believers are counted as elect, while those of unbelievers are not. A very small minority believe all infants are punished eternally in hell. (Yes, they do exist) What unites all Calvinists is that salvation is not granted on the basis of faith. 

Arminians and other non-Calvinistic Protestants have the challenge of showing how God can grant salvation to those who haven’t yet placed their faith in Christ. To justify universal infant salvation, most simply appeal to the goodness of God. The only way around this would be to allow for the possibility of postmortem salvation. If infants could be given a chance to mature and place their faith in Christ, then no exceptions would need to be made. A small minority of Protestants have presented postmortem opportunity for salvation as a way in which many could be saved. Among them are C.S. Lewis, and more recently, Jerry Walls. 

Weighing Our Options 

For all our differences, it is interesting how most Christians across denominations seem to be converging on this issue from a variety of angles. That being said, there remains no consensus. From what I’ve observed, there are seven ways Christians have answered the question, “What happens to babies when they die?” What are the pros and cons for each position? Allow me to present and critique each.

Universal Damnation of Infants

Summary: All children who die in infancy, suffer eternal punishment in hell.

Pros: This view is consistent in that it upholds that salvation is obtained through faith in Christ alone. Since infants have not come to understand the Gospel and respond in faith, they have not obtained salvation. This also upholds the universal need for a Savior.

Cons: It is simply unfathomable that the same God revealed in Jesus Christ would condemn billions of children throughout history to eternal punishment without any ability to commit personal sin, or to trust Him to forgive them of such sins they have yet to commit. This view presents God as having the opposite posture towards children as that of Jesus in Scriptures such as Mark 10:14 and Matthew 18:2-6. Also, the Holy Spirit-led conscience of believers cries out against this. It would seem that for this to be true, the Trinity would be hopelessly divided.

Covenantal Election of Infants

Summary: Children of the elect are saved. The rest suffer eternal punishment in hell.

Pros: Comfort can be given to Christian parents who grieve the loss of a child. King David can be cited as an example of one who would be reunited with his child in eternity. One might also point to the conversion of the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:25-40, most notably verse 31: “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Cons: In addition to those of #1, this view lacks consistency in a number of ways. First, it creates a class of “elect” who die without professing faith in Christ. Salvation cannot be through “faith alone” unless this is coupled with the belief in postmortem salvation. Once postmortem salvation becomes a possibility, why then should that be limited to those children with elect parents? Second, how do we suppose that salvation is transferred from parents to children? Can it be father or mother, or must both parents be saved? What if they aren’t believers when the child is conceived, but one or both become believers later in life, after the infant dies? Also, if salvation is transferred, how would it be lost if the child survives to an age that he or she rejects Christ? This distinctly Calvinistic version of infant damnation would have to either reject the Perseverance of the Saints or conclude that salvation was never transferred from the parents. The most glaring issue for the Calvinist is that election based upon the faith of the parents is conditional election.

Unconditional Election of Infants

Summary: Elect children are saved irrespective of their parents. All other children suffer eternal punishment in hell.

Pros: This seems to me to be the most consistently Calvinistic position. There is truly nothing in the child upon which God bases his decision to save. Election is unconditional. The remaining children are left to the eternal consequences of their sinful state.

Cons: Like #2, salvation cannot be said to be through “faith alone” unless there is postmortem opportunity for salvation. Also, this is not comforting for grieving Christian parents. If most adults are not saved believers, certainly most infants would also not be saved, since God saves infants in the same manner as adults. Moral objections to #1 also apply here.

Damnation of Unbaptized Infants 

Summary: Children baptized into the Catholic Church are saved. All others who die without baptism suffer eternal punishment.

Pros: This is a very clear method for knowing if your child is saved. If your child has been baptized, you are assured they are saved if they should die in infancy.

Cons: This does nothing to comfort those who have suffered miscarriages or whose child died before he or she could be baptized. While eternal punishment may be of a lighter form than for adults who added their own personal sin, the implications are still awful for the majority of infants who have died throughout history. From a Protestant perspective, it is easy to see how this can create a system rife for abuse. Since salvation can only be obtained through baptism into the Roman Catholic Church, believers can also have their salvation revoked by the same authority. 

Limbo of the Infants 

Summary: Children baptized into the Catholic Church are saved. All other infants who die remain in limbo for all eternity.

Pros: Children don’t suffer eternal punishment. This middle ground seems more just in that God is neither rewarding with Heaven nor punishing with hell those who have not done anything to deserve either.

Cons: While this offers some consolation, parents are still left grieving the loss of their unbaptized children for all eternity. They have no hope of being reunited. The default position of humans then is to remain lost, and that is a troubling conclusion when considering the salvific work of Jesus. Is He the Savior of all humanity from conception or just a portion? While God may show them mercy, it seems there is no salvific grace for those who die too young, through no fault of their own.

Universal Salvation of Infants

Summary: All children who die in infancy are saved.

Pros: This is truly good news for all parents who grieve the loss of infants, and for the children themselves. The heart of Jesus for children we see in the Gospels is consistent with the gracious gift of salvation for those who have suffered the consequences of sin without personally committing sin.

Cons: As with the previous options, other than universal damnation, salvation is not through “faith alone” since infants are incapable of consciously placing faith in Christ. Thus, the standard for receiving the gift of eternal life is inconsistent across the human race. This may not be a dealbreaker in itself, but it is especially problematic for the Reformed. Central to Calvinism is Unconditional Election. If all who die as infants are saved, how is this not a condition for salvation? For God to say, “You died as an infant. Therefore, I will save you,” is a very clear example of God choosing to save an individual with respect to something about that individual. While most Calvinists today believe all infants who die are saved, they do so in a way that undermines Calvinism.

Postmortem Salvation of Infants

Summary: All children who die in infancy are given the postmortem opportunity to express faith in Christ and be saved.

Pros: In addition to upholding the goodness of God and Trinitarian unity in the welcoming of children, this position also has the advantage of a consistent standard of salvation through faith in Christ alone. There would be no theoretical case of a child being welcomed into Heaven while refusing to worship Christ as Lord. 

Cons: There is no guarantee that all infants would willingly place their faith in Christ. Here is where our views on the created state of human souls will make a huge difference. If souls are created in a fallen, totally depraved state, then it would seem that they would universally reject Christ postmortem, just as they would in this life. However, if souls are created innocent, and not in a hardened state of rebellion against God, it would seem quite likely that most, if not all, would willingly receive the offer of salvation in Christ. So our views on original sin will determine whether we think this will result in some infants being damned. Perhaps the greatest challenge for this view is the lack of clear biblical support. Hebrews 9:27 is often cited as evidence against postmortem opportunities, though it must be interpreted in an absolute, immediate, and final sense to rule them out.

Where I Stand 

As children often repeat in Sunday school, “God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good!” Do we as Christians sincerely believe this? Do we believe what Jesus said about children?

“Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.’” (Matthew 19:13-14)

Considering the goodness of God and his love for children, the only good options are #6 and #7. In years past, I would have ruled out the possibility of postmortem salvation, but I lean towards that view now, especially as I consider how it can resolve all of these difficulties. The words of Jesus, counter to Augustinian anthropology, suggest that children are predisposed to believe. He cites them as possessing the kind of faith we should all desire to have. It is only as we grow older that we can become cynical and jaded. Thus, hearts become hardened. They don’t begin that way. For this reason, I am convinced that all infants, given the opportunity by Christ Himself to place their faith in Him, will do so. 

This could even make sense of the Catholic conviction concerning baptism. If infants have the opportunity to grow enough to place their faith in Christ, it’s no stretch to imagine that they might also have the opportunity to be baptized in a temporary dwelling place prior to entering the eternal Kingdom of Heaven. 

I am not convinced that Hebrews 9:27 rules out postmortem opportunities, and I do think that Scripture teaches of the “Harrowing of Hell” in 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 4:6. In these verses, it seems that Peter is teaching that Jesus preached the Gospel to lost souls in Hades while He was bodily in the grave prior to His resurrection. If I am interpreting 4:6 correctly, Jesus was giving these people the opportunity to receive Him as Savior or be judged for their sins in their rejection. There are alternate theories to explain these verses, but I believe this makes the most sense, and is consistent with the expressed desire of God to save each and every person (see 2 Peter 3:9). If God was willing to give wicked sinners another chance to believe and be saved, why wouldn’t He give innocent children that opportunity?

Logically, it would seem that some form of postmortem faith in Christ is necessary for any view where infants are saved. Faith can only be exercised by those who have developed the maturity to understand and believe, and it seems reasonable to assume that infants in the afterlife will not remain infants forever. So the question then is WHEN do they express faith in Christ: before or after they enter Heaven? Additionally, evidences from near death experiences suggest that individuals who have died as infants are present, and they mature in the afterlife. Of course, NDEs are controversial, and it’s debated whether they say anything about eternity. I believe they make a compelling case for postmortem opportunities, but that’s a topic for another day.

Some might object that if infants are not personally guilty of sin then they do not need a Savior. Infants have not sinned, but those who died suffered the consequences nonetheless. Is their suffering in vain? Will those who suffered the cruel injustice of abortion be vindicated, or will such evil remain eternally victorious? Everyone needs a Savior because everyone dies. Only Jesus has the power to raise us up out of our graves. 

I am convinced that the Good News of the Gospel is for all of the human race. Jesus has redeemed the totality of mankind. It is only those who willfully reject Him that will not receive His salvation. It is never a matter of Him first rejecting us. Whether it’s through an act of instantaneous transformation, or the grace to simply allow these souls to choose life with Jesus, I cannot know for certain, but I can be sure that our God loves these infants. He sympathizes with their suffering, and will call them to Himself with His arms stretched out to receive them.

And what a glorious reunion that will be for those of us who have lost a child so young! Many of us have experienced the sorrow of miscarriage, and never had the joy of meeting our child face-to-face. Yet something within our souls knows that this isn’t the end. We will meet them someday, and we will never again have to say goodbye.

Concluding Thoughts 

Looking back on the history of infant damnation within Christendom has left me with conflicted emotions. On one hand, I am saddened to see how pervasive this doctrine has been throughout the centuries. On the other hand, I am greatly encouraged that the Holy Spirit is at work, pricking the conscience of believers to a place where we can all hope for the salvation of “the little ones.” We are, slowly but surely, being brought into conformity with Christ.

Who Gave Me My Soul? (Traducianism vs Creationism)

People love origin stories. We have an inate desire to know, not only those we care about, but also how they came to be the people we care about. We long to connect the present to the past. Origin stories help us to know others more deeply, and to understand how we fit into a grander story. Hollywood gives us origin stories for our favorite superheroes, and even villains, because we have this longing to see the bigger picture. Tracing family history has been of high importance since the time of Moses, and likely from the beginning, as evidenced by the genealogies recorded in Scripture. The practice remains popular to the present day. Origin stories often form the basis of how we introduce ourselves to others. Whether it be on a first date, a job interview, or in a social gathering, we are often prompted to share family history, where we grew up, how we came to where we live now, and so on. Just as this background information helps us to know others, it can also teach us important things about ourselves. Yet all of these details come from the physical world. If we are more than just bodies, as Christians believe, what can we say about the origin of our souls? And what does this mean for us in our own stories?

Four Views

There are four basic views on the soul’s origin:

1. Physicalist: The soul emerges from the body of the individual post-conception. Those who take this option will insist that the soul is dependent on the body for its existence, and thus ceases to exist when the body dies. A small minority of Christians hold this view, and many atheists who are not strict naturalists also believe in a body-dependent emergent soul.
2. Traducian: The soul of a child is the product of the souls of its parents. This is the most commonly held view of Protestants and Roman Catholics. Unlike physicalists, they believe that the soul survives physical death.
3. Creationist: While the body is a product of human parents, the soul is created by God. Most believe this happens at the moment of conception. This is believed to be the predominant view of Christians prior to 400 A.D. and that of most Eastern Orthodox Christians today. 
4. Pre-existence: Souls are created by God prior to conception, and then placed in bodies at a later time. This was deemed heretical at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 A.D.

Since pre-existence is universally rejected by the Christian church, and physicalism is an option very few Christians find tenable, I will focus on the views of Traducianism and Creationism.

Assessing the Case for Traducianism

Most people in the West assume that our souls come from our parents. I recently read a story of a mother and daughter separated at birth and reunited decades later. The mother spoke of how she could see aspects of her personality in her daughter, and how that confirmed that she was hers. Any parent who watches their child develop can relate, but it’s especially compelling when a parent’s nurturing influence is absent. The appeal of Traducianism is easy to see for anyone who looks at their child’s “soulish” qualities and sees their own. For Christians though, such a conclusion must at the very least be compatible with Scripture. Proponents, like apologist Tim Barnett, cite two key arguments for its support:

1. The Sabbath Rest 

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. 

(Exodus 20:11)

Since the universe and all that is in it was completed in six days, God is resting, and therefore cannot be responsible for presently creating human souls. The soul of Adam was clearly created by God on day six (Genesis 2:7), and he was created in the image of God (1:26-27), but all of his children were created in his image (5:3). From this, the Traducian concludes that God created humans with the ability to create humans completely, body and soul. That soul then carries the likeness of its creators.

This argument assumes two things: first, the Sabbath is continual, and second, the six days of creation describe God creating all of every kind of thing he would ever create, not just new kinds of things. If either of these assumptions is false, Creationism remains a valid option. The former would be false if God rested on the seventh day, and then got back to the business of creating on day eight. I am willing to grant that day seven is ongoing. The latter assumption is false, and it is easily demonstrated in Scripture. For example, 1 Kings 18:20-40 records the encounter between Elijah and the prophets of Baal at Mount Carmel, in which the true God of Israel sends down fire from heaven as a demonstration of His power. 2 Kings 4:1-7 records how the prophet Elisha multiplies a widow’s oil, and similarly, Jesus multiplies the loaves and fishes to feed the multitudes (Matthew 14:13-21, Mark 6:31-44, Luke 9:12-17, John 6:1-14). Also, Jesus turns water into wine (John 2:1-11), which undoubtedly involves the introduction of new material into the water, if this is to be real wine and not an illusion of wine. Unless we assume a naturalistic explanation to each of these, along with the vast body of miracles throughout both Old and New Testament, then we must admit that God is still in the business of creating.

The Traducian might form a distinction between creating with existing material and ex nihilo (out of nothing) creation, so they can affirm the words of David:

“For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.”

(Psalm 139:13-15)

Yet the six day creation account is not limited to ex nihilo creation. In fact, much of what is created is formed from existing material. Case in point, the body of Adam is formed from the dust of the earth, and Eve is formed from Adam’s rib. Verse 11 says: “Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.” Similarly in verse 24, “Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.”

Therefore if the Sabbath rest cannot be in reference to the forming of things with existing material, why should we assume it is in reference to ex nihilo creation events? This puts the Traducian believer in an uncomfortable position: affirming that the Creator of the universe sustains His creation, personally intervenes in various ways, becomes one of us, dies on the cross for our sins, defeats death and Satan while resurrecting into a glorified body, and prepares a place for us in eternity, yet He is resting. Perhaps it’s worth reconsidering what is meant by the Sabbath rest to make sure that it doesn’t mean more to us than intended.

2. Augustinian Original Sin (Imputed Guilt)

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—” 

(Romans 5:12)

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.) is generally credited as the first to clearly articulate this view, summarized as follows: Adam, as our representative, committed sin in the Garden of Eden. The guilt for this sin is imputed to all of his children, and consequently, every human being thereafter. 

Assuming this to be true, Traducianism is the only way to keep God free of blame for the creation of sinful souls. Therefore, if Augustinian original sin (AOS) is true, Traducianism must be true. If it is not true, Traducianism could still be true, but the positive case is substantially weakened. I’m not going to go deeply into the arguments for and against inherited guilt, since I cannot do it justice here. (This is a helpful look at the subject.) I will suffice it to say that I side with the pre-Augustinian position of “ancestral sin.” Ancestral sin maintains that all humans are born with appetites for sin in their flesh, but their souls are innocent until they personally commit sin.

“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”

(Ezekiel 18:19-20)

If AOS is false, and either assumption around the Sabbath is false, we are left with little biblical basis for Traducianism.

One Last Biblical Argument?

“Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.” 

(Hebrews 7:9-10)

This verse (and others similar) is perhaps the best remaining Scriptural evidence for Traducianism. Will Compere points out some significant issues that arise from this. First, if we are to believe that souls originate in the loins of male ancestors, we have a problem when paired with similar origin proof texts. He notes five other locations of origin:

1. Adam’s soul is created by God. (Genesis 2:7)
2. Eve’s soul is generated from Adam‘s rib. (2:21-22)
3. Whole human beings derive from Eve. (3:20)
4. Seth was derived from Adam’s likeness and image. (5:3)
5. Souls derive from and are located in human blood. (Leviticus 17:11, Acts 17:26)

While #1 and #2 would be special cases, adding the “loins of his father” view leaves us with four differing locations. Such inconsistencies reveal that it is best not to view these texts as equally pertaining to the soul’s origin. 

Compere points to another glaring issue with the “loins” view. Everyone has two grandparents. Does this mean our fathers carry half of our souls in their loins? We have two grandfathers, four great grandfathers, and eight great great grandfathers. Did they carry 1/8 of our souls in their loins? And we need to multiply everything by two if we are to square “fathers” with the standard Traducian view that the soul is created by father AND mother. Either one ancestor carries your soul and the others do not, or you must view the soul as something composed of parts. We have no problem as Christians affirming that our biology involves the combination of countless people throughout the ages, but it seems to be a very strange way to view the soul. 

Add to this the very uncomfortable conclusion that if our souls were present in the loins of our male ancestors, then souls are pre-existent. Now, if every human soul was present in Adam, this might give some justification for the imputation of guilt since we were all present at the scene of the crime. However, that comes at the cost of embracing pre-existence, and possibly some kind of collective human conscience in Adam. I don't think any Traducian believer would affirm this, so it is probably not helpful for his case to take this route. A better option is simply to affirm, along with the Creationist, that “loins of his father” refers to biological ancestry. 

Scriptural Support for Creationism

For the sake of brevity, I will focus on what I believe to be the five strongest texts in support of the creationist view. Beginning in the Old Testament:

1. “The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.” 

(Job 33:4)

These words of Elihu, the friend of Job whose counsel notably goes unchallenged by God, suggests a similarity between the creation of Adam and the creation of himself. Just as Adam was physically formed by the Spirit of God, and just as God breathed life into him, so he also breathed life into Elihu. The implication is not that Elihu is a special case, but that we are similarly brought into existence by God.

2. “Remember your Creator before the silver cord is loosed, Or the golden bowl is broken, Or the pitcher shattered at the fountain, Or the wheel broken at the well. Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it.” 

(Ecclesiastes 12:6-7)

“Your Creator” implies God’s personal involvement in our creation. But most significantly, it is said that the spirit will “return to God who gave it.” You can’t return what was never given in the first place. Therefore, this is strong support that our souls come from God.

3. “For I will not contend forever, Nor will I always be angry; For the spirit would fail before Me, And the souls which I have made.” 

(Isaiah 57:16)

“And the souls which I have made” is a strange thing for God to say if sinful human souls are responsible for creating sinful human souls.

4. “Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live?” 

(Hebrews 12:9)

“Human fathers” are contrasted with the “Father of spirits.” If these terms mean anything, they must mean that the two are not the same. Therefore, Traducianism must be false.

5. “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.” 

(Acts 17:24-29)

While Traducians point to verse 26 to make their case, the broader context of Paul’s message to the Athenians is devastating to their position. “He gives to all life, breath,” as verse 25 states, could be adapted to the Traducian view if such giving is understood in reference to God as the “Prime Mover.” This could carry into verse 26, where the entirety of the human race is formed from “one blood.” Of course, the Creationist doesn’t deny biological ancestry, so this works with either view. Where Traducianism falls apart is in the latter half of the verse and following. “And has determined their pre-appointed times” can work in two ways; 1) God has determined every detail of human history, therefore ensuring that you would be conceived at a specific time to specific parents, or 2) God has determined for you to exist at a specific time, but that could have been a different time to different parents. Option one could be true with either Traducianism or creationism, but option two could not be true with Traducianism. Therefore, Traducianism requires meticulous determinism to be true. 

Consider how many variables had to be just right for your parents to meet and expand that outwards to your grandparents, great grandparents, and so on. Tracing that all the way back to the beginning, and you can see how staggeringly improbable your existence would be if you could only come to exist through your parents at the right time. No problem for the meticulous determinist, but this is an insurmountable problem for Traducians who affirm libertarian free will. Some Traducians are determinists, and won’t be fazed by this. The problem is, verse 27 becomes nonsensical if determinism is true. “In the hope that they might” strongly implies a variable outcome. Every individual could or could not seek for God and find Him. If meticulous determinism is true, God is not “hoping” for what he has determined will or will not happen. Therefore, if God’s placing of individuals in their place and time is because he is actually hoping it will lead them to seek Him and find Him, then meticulous determinism is false. And if meticulous determinism is false, Traducianism is incompatible with the preceding verses. Creationism is left standing. Which leads us to interpret “we are the offspring of God” in the following verses to be saying that God is the Creator of each and every human soul.

Advantages of Creationism

1. The Incarnation

Christians universally affirm that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary. Since Traducianism sees the soul as the product of the souls of both parents, this would mean that Jesus was dependent upon Mary for His existence. Half of His soul would come from Mary. He could not have been born to a different mother without being an entirely different person. There might be a way out by allowing Jesus to be a unique case, like Adam. To be fair, the Creationist must also except that Jesus is unique in that He is the pre-existing Son of God, the eternal Word of God. A key difference would be that for Traducianism, Mary would be unique in being the only mother in history who contributed nothing to the creation of her child’s soul. Creationists can still affirm that Mary contributed everything to Jesus that any mother can contribute to her child.

2. Anti-Abortion Arguments

In the article linked above, Tim Barnett argues that Creationism weakens the argument against abortion because one could suggest that the soul is created by God separately from the physical act of the parents. This would allow for its creation to occur anywhere between conception and “first breath” outside the womb. While it is true that a Creationist could hold such a view, it is also true that someone could hold a similar view as a Traducian. One could argue that the soul contributions of the parents emerge later on as the child develops, much like its nose or any of its physical traits do. What someone could believe is much less important than what they do believe. Creationists and Traducian believers usually agree that the soul is present at conception. So I see no advantage for Traducianism. In fact, I would argue that the Creationist has a stronger case against abortion.

Traducianism could give parents a stronger sense of rights to their children. If I am the child’s creator, I might feel justified in choosing whether or not it should be born. However, if it is God’s creation, I am a steward of the life He has placed in mine. God, as the Father of its soul, has the right to the life He has given. 

Additionally, Creationists can rightfully claim that abortion is the taking of innocent life. Since Traducians usually affirm imputed guilt, every human life is on some level guilty of sin and deserving of death from the moment of conception. The Creationist can affirm that souls are absolutely innocent until they consciously choose to sin. The taking of innocent human life is the very height of injustice. Of course, even assuming imputed guilt, the child could not possibly be guilty of a crime against the mother, father, or anyone else, and is unjustly punished by the legal standards of our society. But the affirmation of absolute innocence of the victim makes abortion even more grievous. Therefore, while Traducians do have sufficient reasons for opposing abortion, Creationists who affirm that God creates human souls at conception have the strongest basis for defending the right to life. 

3. Identity

The most crucial advantage of Creationism is the grounding of our identity as human beings created in the image of God. Most Traducians, who claim that our souls are made in the image of our parents, will also affirm that every individual is made in God’s image. The problem is that the image of our parents, when applied to the soul, greatly conflicts with the image of God. Some of us have wonderful parents, but many do not… or perhaps one parent is objectively bad. If Traducianism is true, the soul of the child cannot help but be defined by the sins of the parents.

Children naturally look to their parents to find their identity, but we ultimately discover that no human relationship can fulfill us. As Christians, we discover that our true identity is found in unity with God. As a Creationist, this makes perfect sense. We find ourselves when we find the One who created us as personal beings. We long to be united with our personal God. This gives hope to those who have suffered abuse, or whose parents were addicts, or criminals, or completely absent. It gives hope to those who were told by parents that they were an “accident,” or that they wish they were never born. It even gives hope to those, like myself, whose parents were pretty great overall, yet flawed in their own ways. We are not defined by the circumstances of our birth, yet our Creator has chosen those circumstances as a means to draw us to Himself. None of us are accidents. We are all here because God wants us here.

Creationism gives us the best reason to believe that our lives have purpose and meaning and value. Each of us, by virtue of the fact that we exist, are a testament to the fact that our Creator is alive and active in our world today. Life truly is a miracle!

Responding to Humanist Yard Signs

In this house, we believe:

Black Lives Matter
Women’s Rights are Human Rights
No Human Is Illegal
Science Is Real
Love Is Love
Kindness Is Everything

In the past few years, these words have been displayed on yard signs and in the windows of homes on virtually every block of every neighborhood in my town and the areas where I work. Perhaps this is not the case in less “progressive” areas of the United States (I live near San Francisco), but I suspect we are all at least familiar with the statements held within the sign, as many of them are ubiquitous in American culture. 

For Christians, this sign reminds us of Joshua 24:15: “And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve… But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” It is also reminiscent of early statements of faith like the Apostle’s Creed, which says:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

Being fashioned as something resembling a creed, the message is clear: these are the values held dear in this household. Considering that the sign neglects to acknowledge any Creator God or supernatural authority, it is safe to assume that what is valued in the household within reflects those of humanism: a secular values driven philosophy. The American Humanist Association defines humanism as: “…a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good.” The Humanist Magazine states: “Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values-be they religious, ethical, social, or political-have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.”

A common thread through all definitions of humanism is that morality is sourced within humanity, and is not to be given or discovered from anything or anyone (God) outside of ourselves. While humanism is often seen as the moral philosophy of atheism, there are many spiritually-minded people who also ascribe to it, whether or not they are familiar with the term. I thought I would take this opportunity to examine the 6 statements on this popular yard sign from a humanistic perspective, and provide a Christian response to each. 

Black Lives Matter

As with most of these statements, there is nothing controversial in the words themselves. There are very few Americans who would deny that the lives of black people matter. However, there are substantial differences in what we mean by these three words. For the humanist, “Black Lives Matter” could be an endorsement of a social justice movement with political aspirations for the restructuring of Western society, or it could simply be a statement of support for those who have suffered hardship and racial prejudice throughout American history up to the present. Leaving politics aside, when a humanist speaks of life as something that “matters,” they cannot mean that it matters in the same sense as the Christian. 

For Christians, any and every individual human life matters because it is created “in the image of God.” Therefore value is God-given, and no human or any institution of society can affect that value. By contrast, the humanist has ruled out God as the source of value, and must source any human’s value in other humans. The weakness becomes apparent. Human value is made contingent on whether it is valued by other humans, whose values are collectively in a constant state of evolution. Since “the greater good” is the greatest value to society at any given time, circumstances may change to make the lives of particular individuals not “matter” to those of society as a whole. Wherever human value is detached from the Creator, this inevitably follows, as the interests of the many outweigh those of the few. 

The clearest example in America today is abortion. Christians agree that God’s image resides in every human being, no matter how small or how little they contribute to society. Yet our secular world has decided that value is dependent on the mother (or whoever who has coercive power to make the choice for the mother) granting value to that life. Since the preborn child hasn’t contributed anything to society, its life does not yet “matter.”
Many Christians got themselves in hot water by countering “Black Lives Matter” with the saying, “All Lives Matter.” To avoid charges of being dismissive of the positive affirmation of value in the lives of black Americans, we would be wiser to reply, “All Black Lives Matter.” The humanist cannot genuinely affirm this and abortion, of which about 30% of its American victims are black. The Christian can boldly declare that we affirm the value and dignity of all black people, as each and every one is made in the image of God. 

Women’s Rights are Human Rights

This statement is formed as an equation. In other words, women’s rights equal the rights of humans in general. This is not controversial in most corners of the world, and Christians absolutely agree! The question I have is whether the equation works both ways. Do human rights equal women’s rights? If women’s rights are as good as any human’s rights, then we can affirm this so long as any human’s rights are as good as any woman’s rights. Problem is, the vast majority of humanists cannot affirm this. Once again, the abortion issue makes this clear. We know as scientific fact that children in the womb of their mothers are human beings from the moment of conception. Secularists can no longer hide behind the myth that the child is not alive or is a fish or some other creature going through the stages of evolution to reach humanity at the time of birth. DNA analysis shows that we have a unique human being at every stage. So, by the logic of humanism, this statement doesn’t say much for human rights, since we know that being a human does not grant someone any rights in our society. The humanists who have actually thought this through will appeal instead to the rights of a “person” instead of a human being. Arguing that preborn children are not persons is necessary to justify the brutal killing of the defenseless human. While such a claim is a statement of faith in itself (you cannot prove that a human being can lack personhood), the sign should say: “Women’s Rights are Person’s Rights” in order to be consistent. 

No Human Is Illegal

Here we have another statement whose very existence implies a controversy where none is to be found. Certainly this is in reference to the term “illegal immigrant.” However, nobody who uses that term believes that the human who illegally crosses a border is a human illegally. To imply such is to either completely misunderstand the term, or to intentionally mislead so as to demonize those who believe that national borders should be legally enforced. The irony of calling a preborn child a “parasite” is not lost here.

Science Is Real

Who denies that science is real? I have yet to find such a person. What I suspect they are trying to say is that man-caused climate change is real, or possibly that Darwinian evolution is real. These positions remain controversial with the public, though they reflect the general consensus of scientists. However, there are dissenters in the relevant fields, and science itself deals in the realm of fact, not opinion. If the humanist wants to lend their support to the majority of scientists, they could perhaps rephrase this as “scientific consensus is fact.” This would avoid creating a strawman of opponents of the strong majority views. The downside though, is that this might undermine other values they want to affirm. Scientific consensus supports that human life begins at conception. Science itself (apart from opinion) confirms that male and female are biological realities, and that both are necessary for human reproduction. To affirm that “science is real,” the humanist who wants to deny these facts must then appeal to a yet unknown “science” that will overrule them someday, thus making today’s science in these areas unreal. Perhaps they should reconsider the broadness of this statement and simply state an affirmation of climate change and/or Darwinism. 

Love Is Love

Finally we have a statement that can be disagreed with on its face. What we are talking about here are different kinds of love being of equal value; specifically different kinds of romantic love. We’re not concerned with equating the love of a mother for her child with the love of a soldier for his fellow countrymen, or the love of Christ for His Church and vice versa. Those different kinds of love possess unique qualities that are certainly not equal in value. For example, an American soldier may be willing to die for the freedom of other Americans, but if given the choice to save the life of his daughter or the lives of two strangers, we wouldn’t fault him for choosing his daughter’s life because we understand that his love for her is of greater value than for the average American. The humanist would probably agree. The loves they are comparing then are specifically those of heterosexual couples and those of individuals in the LGBTQ+ community. 
For the humanist, no combination of consensual individuals is better than another… well, with the exceptions of incest and pedophilia (at least for now). These exceptions are dismissed as irrelevant by the affirming, but they are worth exploring because they reveal how this statement is ultimately self-defeating. You cannot say, “love is love, except those kinds of love.” These three words must be all-encompassing if they are to mean anything at all. If there are exceptions, then some kinds of love are better than others. If this is so, on what basis can we conclude that there is no value differentiation between those kinds of love our society has decided are acceptable? Why not say that some kinds of love are good and others are a little better? Why is it only some are good and those others are not good at all? We have no basis to judge the value of one against the other if we are simply appealing to things like personal happiness and the consent of those involved. There is nothing about incest or pedophilia that requires a lack of consent (not discounting that this will often be the case). It is certainly possible that individuals who are in those kinds of relationships are there by their own choice. They might be quite happy and feel that they are being unfairly maligned by society. Shouldn’t we affirm and fight for their free expressions of love?

For the Christian, we have a different standard to measure what is good. We have God’s design for human sexuality (teleology). We can objectively see that the human body was designed for the unity of man and woman. We can see that only this physical union is capable of creating a new human being. From a purely scientific view, we can see that only heterosexual unions can propagate the species. Heterosexual unions on the whole are good for procreation, while others are not. In addition, we have the written commands for a man and a woman to join together in marriage, therefore defining sexual unions outside of marriage as less than good. Scripture specifically calls them out as sins of “fornication” and “adultery.” Scripture also calls us to “submit to one another” and to “love your neighbor as you love yourself,” which leaves no room for violations of consent. 

Kindness Is Everything

Kindness is important, that’s for sure. What does it mean for kindness to be everything? Well, it could be a reference to how we handle conflicts or debates with those who disagree with our views. It could also be a call to be an “ally,” someone who lends support to those who belong to minority or marginalized groups. In general, it seems to be a call to be friendly and welcoming of others. That is, for the most part, a good thing. However, it becomes meaningless and contradictory to the 5 statements before it when it is said to be “everything.” Certainly truth matters. These “belief statements” must themselves matter or we could scrap them all and simply display a “Kindness is Everything” sign. No need for anything else because “everything” is already covered. Perhaps a simple change to “kindness is essential” would do. 

For Christians, kindness is an outworking of love. 1 Corinthians 13:4 tells us that “love is kind.” This heavily quoted chapter is centered on love, which is the quality from which kindness flows. Verse 13 says, “And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” It is important then to distinguish kindness from love itself, as kindness is merely one aspect of love. Verses 4-7 give a definition: “Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” Taking the whole of what love entails, it must take a stand for right and wrong, and sometimes that looks unkind to the world. It may be withholding support from those who are practicing sin. It may be challenging the lies of the culture. To be loving is to be in alignment with what is good and what is true. Scripture tells us that God is love. Jesus says that He is the truth. Love and truth converge in God, who is the source of all that exists. To truly love is to be in alignment with Him. 

Conclusion

What is noticeably missing from the humanist’s yard sign is an acknowledgement of the source of all that gives us value. There is no love apart from God. Consequently, there can be no genuine kindness in a godless world, and there is no grounding for the value of human life. The “real” world and everything in it ultimately doesn’t matter. That house is built on sand. As Christians, we must stand in stark contrast by building our homes on the solid rock of Jesus Christ.

“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.” (Matthew‬ ‭7:24-27‬)

Reformed Theology Roundtable: Does the Author Analogy Succeed?

Last week, while multitudes of theology nerds were still digesting the Molinism vs Calvinism debate between William Lane Craig and James White, our friends at the Complete Sinner’s Guide brought us a fascinating deep-dive on the intricacies of Reformed Theology. Co-hosts Tyler Fowler and Joshua Davidson were joined by frequent guest Joshua Sherman and, to represent the Reformed position, Chris Date, Andrew Elliott, and Jeremiah Short. The purpose of this panel discussion was to clearly articulate the relationship between the Reformed/Calvinistic concepts of God’s eternal decree and man’s free will, as described by the philosophy of compatibilism. While all three affirm God’s meticulous determination of all history, each reject hard determinism and the idea that God is the author of sin. This was a central sticking point in the discussion, especially as Date proposed that their position is best compared to the relationship between an author and his story. I would like to do my best here to represent this view, and to show how I believe this analogy fails to remove God as the author of sin in the Calvinistic system. (Much of the discussion was led by Date, with Davidson doing most of the pressing for clarity. For this reason, I will primarily be addressing their interactions.)

Compatibilism Defined

The heart of the discussion begins about 15 minutes in as Date gives a succinct definition: “Compatibilism… is just the idea that… determinism is compatible with moral responsibility. The whole point of compatibilism is to affirm determinism.” Determinism, from a theological standpoint, is the idea that everything which happens, to the most minute detail, is by God’s determined will. This, of course, raises the question of how we factor in the idea that humans have free will. Date explains that “they have a sufficient degree of freedom as to be held morally responsible.” Elliott adds, “God determines all things, but He does it in such a manner that you will freely choose to do so.” 

This determination is made effective by God’s decree prior to creation. Biblical evidence is cited from Genesis 50:20 and Acts 4:27-28, which show God’s will being accomplished through the sinful acts of men. However, Molinists equally appeal to such passages for support. Like Calvinists, they affirm God’s decree of all things prior to creation. The key difference is that in Molinism, God’s decree is based in part on His foreknowledge of what human beings would do (allowing for libertarian free will), as opposed to His foreknowledge simply being what He has determined them to do in compatibilistic Calvinism.

The Author Analogy

From here, Date goes on to give his author analogy, as he explains how God’s decree plays out in space-time events in a comparable way to those of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings.” The world imagined by Tolkien is actualized within those stories, but the characters experience them in their own sense of time with their own sense of agency. Date gives a good summary of his mission in this discussion when he says: “I want to encourage my fellow Calvinists to think of… the relationship between God and time as something analogous to the relationship between an author and a story, because I think that non-Calvinists are right to object if there is a meaningful sense in which God is causing people to sin.” He hopes to solidify the discussion around this analogy, as opposed to robot or puppet analogies (which he rejects), adding, “Let the battle happen on that ground.”

What then is the advantage of the author analogy? For Date, the difference is what he calls a “transcendence gap.” In other words, because God exists in the eternal realm and we live out His decree in space-time by our own thoughts and actions, God is not responsible for what we do. This transcendence gap is, in his words, “critical for maintaining moral culpability for humans.” The blame for sin then resides in humans, even though God has determined prior to our existence that we would sin. Since Date has admitted that non-Calvinists have good reason to object to the idea that God causes people to sin, the point of debate becomes clear. Does the eternal decree “cause” people to sin? If it does, compatibilism fails to defend the holiness of God. All three Reformed participants agree that the decree does not equate to “cause.” And this is where I am left genuinely perplexed.

Competing Views of Freedom

Representing the non-Calvinists in the audience, Davidson challenges this notion: “I think the disconnect is that if there is a first cause, and it is not the individual agent, that the freedom is then compromised.” To this Short responds, “You are presupposing incompatibilism.” This phrase will be repeated multiple times throughout the remainder of the discussion, as the Reformed participants take the position that the libertarian concept of free will makes false assumptions about freedom that the compatibilist successfully avoids. 

Date explains: “I come to the issue of freedom, and I try to make no assumptions about what that requires. And one of the assumptions I refuse to make is that in order for an agent’s choice to be free, their choice has to ultimately, full stop, originate with them.” At one point, Davidson seeks clarification: “It just needs to SEEM as though there could be the alternate possibility.” Date gladly affirms: “That’s great! I like that!” 

This exchange reveals that in compatibilism, the choice between competing options is an illusion. You may think you are making the choice, but it has been chosen for you. Yet you take responsibility for that choice because you are the one who performs it, believing you are making it. Date summarizes: “Their will is influenced by all sorts of factors including their genetics, their prenatal development, their upbringing, their life experiences, their addictions, everything. Their friends, their relationships, all of that influence the will, including their own desire, and the result of all that influence is that the will makes a choice. But… that choice has been pre-determined by God.” Wouldn’t all those factors be included in the eternal decree? 

Force vs. Decree?

Date further explains: “Ultimately, they make a choice, and God has decreed that, but nothing is forcing their hand.” He goes on: “…there is no programming that is firing, in the world God has created, that brings about the action that God has decreed. So that’s what I mean by free. There is literally nothing forcing the agent’s hand to do what they nevertheless do, exactly as God has decreed.” 

In response, Davidson makes what I believe to be a fairly obvious point: technically, they are “forced.” Date asks what is forcing them, to which he responds, “the authorship.” And I have to ask, if the eternal decree of God is not powerful to “force” what happens in space-time, what is it good for? It seems to be simultaneously all-powerful and powerless. Anyone noticing a problem here? 

Date resorts to his escape hatch of the transcendence gap by insisting that the “authorship” doesn’t exist in time, therefore it doesn’t force individuals to act out the parts that have been written for them from eternity past. All that matters is that we “seem” to have a choice. That illusion of choice is sufficient to make each of us morally responsible, and it lets the God of Reformed theology off the hook. How convenient!

How the Analogy Fails

What the author analogy ultimately presents is an illusion of reality. Just as the choices of characters in a novel do not originate in themselves, but in the mind of the author, so too do the sinful thoughts, desires, and actions of human beings originate in the mind and will of God, according to compatibilism. Fictional characters are incapable of producing anything that doesn’t reside in their source. Just the same, human beings could not produce sinful thoughts and behaviors that did not originate in God. Fictional characters possess no actual agency, but we willfully adopt the illusion for the sake of the enjoyment of the story. In compatibilism, human agency is likewise a useful illusion. We are left to deceive ourselves into believing that we are actually making choices, and that we were able to have chosen differently than we did. Since all things that happen in space-time are included in God's decree, this illusion of free choice is also decreed from eternity past. 

The transcendence gap, as described by Date, only succeeds in separating reality from fiction. It effectively does the opposite of what he hopes by diminishing the sinfulness of sin. An author can write stories full of violence, death, and all sorts of sinful behaviors, yet himself retain innocence of those sins because those fictional characters are not actually sinning in real life. Their world carries no actual consequences for real individuals. They do not actually suffer pain or misery or death, so we do not hold the author accountable for any crimes or acts of cruelty committed within the story. Yet we know that what we experience is real. All the evils of this world are real. Our suffering is real, and we cannot be convinced otherwise. Likewise, our sin is real, and because it is, our guilt is real and deserving of judgment. And because all the evils of this world are real, the grace of God is every bit as real, possessing incomparable value.

Conclusion

If God has "authored" all history, He has inevitably written every aspect, including all the suffering and death that results from the sin that is within that story. To argue that God has meticulously authored every detail of the story and deny that He has authored sin is an irreconcilable contradiction. This analogy leaves us to conclude that either the “reality” we experience is pure fiction, or God is the author of real sin. The former does damage to God's power to create real beings made in His image. The latter is fatal to His holiness (Jeremiah 32:35). Neither option is acceptable, therefore we should reject the author analogy. If it is the best representation of compatibilism, we should reject compatibilism. If compatibilism is the best Reformed theology has to offer, we should reject Reformed theology. As Date said, “I think that non-Calvinists are right to object if there is a meaningful sense in which God is causing people to sin.” The author analogy cannot remove that meaningful sense, therefore we are right to maintain our objections.