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.

Making Sense of Christianity 7: Resurrection

While I have explained the healing purpose of the atonement, and shown how the crucifixion of Jesus was a blood sacrifice that displayed for all people the severity of sin, I have yet to show how any of this is effective in restoring human beings to a right relationship with God. It is common for Christians to look to the cross as the place where we were saved, but I would suggest that it is more accurately the place where the barrier to salvation was removed. Because of the cross, our sin no longer disqualifies us from being reconciled to God. However, the death of Christ alone is powerless to save. Had Jesus simply died on the cross, we would likewise remain in the grave after we die. How then can we be saved? The answer is the resurrection. Because Jesus conquered death, we can likewise be raised to eternal life in the presence of God.

“In Adam” vs. “In Christ”

In reading through Paul’s epistles in the New Testament, I began to notice a theme: the contrast between the “old man” and the “new man.” The old man is represented by Adam. The new man is Jesus Christ. Adam is defined by his sin and the condemnation that followed, resulting in death. Christ is defined by His righteousness (moral perfection) and the resurrection to eternal life. Those who are “in Adam” remain condemned (John 3:18-20). Those who are “in Christ” will rise to eternal life in like manner to how He has risen from the dead. Romans 5:12-21 is a key passage that explains this contrast. Verses 18-19 say, “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” Jesus is the new man who becomes the proxy for many. 

Predestination of Christ

Romans 8:29-30 says: “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” People often focus on the word “predestined” and come to the wrong conclusion about what Paul is saying here. This has nothing to do with the predetermination of individual believers to be saved and everything to do with the predetermined plan of salvation accomplished by Jesus through His incarnation, sacrificial death, and resurrection. Ephesians 1 makes this clearer. Just count how many times you find “in Him” or “in Christ” in that passage, and you will begin to see how Paul is emphasizing Christ as our representative in the “heavenly places.” In Romans 8, he does the same thing. “Whom He predestined” can be translated as “Christ Himself,” with all those “in Christ” being connected to Him through representation. What is true then of Christ is true of those “in Christ.” The link is made: predestined → called → justified → glorified.

Glorified?

While we can certainly make a case that the first 3 steps apply to believers, it can only be said that Christ is presently “glorified:” raised from the dead into an immortal body. So how can we be said to be glorified (past tense emphasized)? Some have suggested that the past tense verbs refer to Old Testament believers. But they are, like us, waiting for the future redemption of their bodies. They cannot be said to be glorified any more than we are. Yet Jesus IS glorified! And because He is, we can be assured that we will be. Notice that Jesus is the “firstborn among many brethren.” How so? He is the first to be raised into a glorified body. Paul here is pointing to the victory of Christ over death that will be shared by all of us who have Him as our representative.

Consider also 1 Corinthians 15:20-23: “But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.” This makes it clear that “firstborn/firstfruits” is a reference to His resurrected body. Just as Adam was the first “old man,” Christ is the first “new man.”

Spiritual Bodies

Paul continues in verses 39-45: “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.’” Clearly Paul is emphasizing the importance of the glorified body in contrast to the fallen flesh we inherited from Adam. The old flesh, with its sinful appetites and inevitable breakdown, is unfit for eternal life. We need our bodies to be renewed. 

Atonement Made Effective

He goes on (48-49): “As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.” There is a mirroring of Christ to those “in Christ.” And it should become clear as we make these connections that the atonement is not summed up in the death of Christ on the cross, but is accomplished through the resurrection. Therefore the atonement has 3 significant steps: incarnation, death, and resurrection. The resurrection required His death to precede it, and His death was only made possible through the authenticity of His incarnation. Each step is needed to bring healing to the human condition.

We can see from all these passages that the atonement is made effective through Christ’s resurrection to eternal life. He died for the sin (singular and plural) of the world. This includes the sins of every individual who has ever lived. But will everyone then be saved? Based on what we’ve read, it is evident that salvation is for those who have their faith in Christ. So we can sum it up by saying that Jesus died for the sins of all individuals in all times and all places, but He is risen for the salvation of those who are in Him. (For an explanation of why those not in Christ suffer eternal punishment, see addendum.)

Spirit vs. Flesh

Those who have their faith in Christ receive the Holy Spirit, which Ephesians 1:13-14 describes as “the guarantee of our inheritance.” The Holy Spirit does the work of restoring our souls to alignment with God’s will. In this sense, eternal life begins at the moment one believes and receives the Gospel of salvation, as the soul is “born again” of the Spirit (John 3:3-8).

A big question inevitably follows: “Why do Christians still sin?” Paul anticipates this as he transitions from his explanation of Christian freedom from sin (Romans 6) to the inconsistency we find in our actions (Romans 7). Verses 18-20 say: “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.”‭‭

While there is much controversy around this passage, it makes perfect sense in the context of all that I have explained up to this point. Going back to the idea that we are souls that have bodies, we can see that while our souls are reconciled to God in Christ, the body remains in its fallen state. We still suffer, and we still die. We experience the working of the Holy Spirit in our desire to please God and forsake sin, but the flesh still pulls us toward disobedience. This is why Paul can say that it is no longer “I” who sins, but the body of sin that he inhabits. He explains further: “I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.” ‭‭(Romans‬ ‭7:21-25‬) 

Our Future Hope

Paul points to Jesus Christ as our hope to be freed from the desires for sin that continue to war against our souls. That hope will be realized in the future resurrection, when Christ returns, as we receive bodies that perfectly align with our souls, enabling us to live sin-free in the presence of God. Then, as Revelation 22:1-5 describes, we shall eat from the “tree of life,” whose leaves are for the “healing of the nations.” (v. 2) “And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads.” (v. 3-4) Having our identity “in Christ,” we will be reconciled to God, the curse will be undone, and we will live forever with Him.

Atonement Summarized 

The Word of God became a man so that He could, like the rest of us, suffer the curse of death, and that through His resurrection, He would defeat death and offer the same victory to those who desire to be free of sin. As the unblemished “Lamb of God,” He suffered the consequences of sin in a bloody, horrific display of self-sacrifice on the cross that demonstrates the severity of sin and God’s wrath towards it. Through His resurrection, He displayed the victory over the devil and sin in His glorified body, showing how we can likewise be made new and freed from the body of death that we currently inhabit. Jesus died for all “in Adam.” He rose for those “in Christ.” The atonement shows how the curse is both shared and overcome by God, and how those who place their faith in Him will ultimately be restored to a place of moral innocence where they can dwell in His presence forever and ever. 

Looking Ahead / Catching Up

How then can we be “in Christ?” Join me next time to find out, as we conclude this series with “Grace Through Faith.”

1. The Creator God
2. Personhood & the Image of God

3. Sin & Death

4. The Spiritual War

5. Atonement Through Incarnation

6. Atonement Through Sacrifice

7. Resurrection

8. Grace Through Faith 

Addendum: Eternal Punishment

Since “ the wages of sin is death,” it might seem cruel and unnecessary for God to punish unbelievers in hell. However, I think there is a distinction to be made in the kinds of sins that Jesus atoned for and sin that results in eternal punishment, whether that be eternal conscious punishment or a second physical death that also kills the soul. 

As I explained earlier in this series, there are sins we commit as we follow the desires of our flesh, but there is also the sin of willful rebellion against God. This may be a temporary rebellion out of anger or frustration with God, but it might also become a hardening of the will at the deepest levels of the soul in rejection of the one true God. In this sense, the human has joined forces with Satan and the demons in war against Him, whether they are conscious of this fact or not. This individual will regard the truth of Christianity and the Gospel of salvation with contempt. He/she will reject the conviction of the Holy Spirit that draws the unbeliever towards Christ, regarding that very conviction as evil. In so doing, what the unbeliever is guilty of is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. 

Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation.” (Mark 3:28-29) It seems that Jesus is saying that one kind of sin is different from all others, and is unforgivable. Other sins are forgiven. Jesus has provided atonement for these, but not the other. 

His intention has always been to reconcile sinners to our Creator by restoring us to the purpose for which we exist. Yet He cannot restore those souls that are unwilling to bow before Him as Lord. They, like Satan and his demons, will never surrender to Him. This alignment with the Satanic rebellion is made evident in Jesus words: “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’” (Matthew 25:41) Therefore, eternal punishment is a distinct punishment for joining in the Satanic rebellion. 

This should give comfort to those who mourn the loss of children and others who die before they can understand the Gospel. All sins done in ignorance are covered in the saving work of Christ. God is the source of all goodness, and we can know that how He deals with those who have not expressed faith in Him is good and right. By the nature of who He is, it cannot be otherwise. 

With all of this in mind, consider the following passages, which demonstrate that our God is compassionate and just:

“But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd.”

Matthew 9:36

“And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left. Then Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.’”

Luke 23:33-34a

“And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left—and much livestock?”

Jonah 4:11