Human free will is a foundational biblical truth. But what happens to free will when someone redefines God’s sovereignty in a way that clashes with scripture? Calvinism claims sovereignty means God causes everything. That includes everything from atomic vibrations to your lunch choice. If God controls every detail, then human choice is just an illusion. This creates a problem: if God determines all events, how can people be truly responsible for their choices? A philosophy known as “compatibilism” has been introduced to address this tension. It tries to solve the contradiction by redefining free will in a way that fits Calvinistic sovereignty.
Compatibilism
The textbook description of compatibilism is:
“Soft determinism, or compatibilism, insists that some things are determined by the decrees of the personal God; but with respect to our choices, we are free insofar as we are not constrained to act in a manner that is not consistent with our own character and nature.”1
Compatibilism claims people have free will, but only in a limited sense. It says you always choose what you most desire, but those desires are ultimately determined by God. According to Calvinism, human desires are entirely corrupt, meaning we can never choose good on our own. So, while you feel like you’re making a real choice, you could never make a choice that is inconsistent with your corrupt nature. God has set parameters that constrain every decision, from major life choices to minor actions.
However, the problem still exists: if you could never have chosen otherwise, then it wasn’t really a choice. If God controls your nature and desires, then your will isn’t free—it’s programmed. Calling it “free will” doesn’t make it so. Consider the following story which illustrates Compatibilism.
The Clockmaker’s Compatibilism: Choice Without Freedom
There was once a renowned clockmaker who built the grandest timepieces in all the land. His work was flawless, his gears precise, and his designs so intricate that many swore his clocks must have a will of their own.
One day, the clockmaker summoned the townsfolk and presented them with his latest creation—a magnificent clock, tall and gilded, with hands that moved smoothly and chimes that rang like the songs of angels.
“This,” he declared, “is no ordinary clock. Unlike all others, this one may choose the hour it shall strike!”
The people marveled. “A clock that chooses?” they murmured. “Surely this is a wonder!”
A curious boy stepped forward. “But sir,” he asked, “did you not place the gears? Did you not set the springs, forge the weights, and arrange every cog in its place?”
“Indeed,” the clockmaker admitted, “I fashioned each piece with care.”
“And did you not know, even before you built it, which hour it would strike?”
The clockmaker chuckled. “Of course! I am no careless craftsman. I designed it perfectly, so it will strike precisely as I intended.”
The boy furrowed his brow. “Then in what way does it choose?”
The clockmaker smiled. “Ah, but does it not move? Do its hands not turn? The gears within spin of their own accord. It is not held fast by my hand—it follows its nature.”
“But its nature,” the boy insisted, “is only what you gave it. It may turn, but only as you have determined. It seems to choose, but only as you decreed from the start.”
At this, the clockmaker frowned. “You are too young to understand such mysteries.”
Yet the townsfolk, hearing the exchange, began to murmur. The clock was no more free than the stones in the road—it could do nothing but what it had been built to do.
And so the people left, wiser than before. But the clock, unaware of the debate, continued ticking as it always had—just as it was made to do.
Just wordplay?
Compatibilism collapses under its own contradiction. It claims human choices are real while denying access to a full range of options. But true choice requires real alternatives. If every thought, desire, and action follows a path set by external conditions, then calling it “free will” is just wordplay. It’s like offering a menu where every dish leads to the same meal. A will that can only choose within preset boundaries isn’t free—it’s just an illusion of freedom.
Compatibilism claims you’re free, but only to do what God has predetermined your corrupt nature will desire. Yet since those desires come from Him, it all comes full circle—God remains the true cause of every choice.
It is a “mystery”
Many Calvinists ultimately appeal to mystery when confronted with the logical contradiction in compatibilism. They argue that God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are both fully true, even if they seem irreconcilable to human reason. Some claim this is a divine paradox beyond our comprehension, while others insist the tension is only apparent due to our limited perspective. However, critics argue that this isn’t a true mystery but a logical contradiction—one that results from forcing an unbiblical system onto Scripture.
Dr. Daniel Akin points out that the so-called mysteries and paradoxes are, in fact, scandalous logical problems that even Calvinists acknowledge.
“[D]ecretal theology [i.e., Divine orchestration] is a logical system that ultimately fails logically. Thomas Schreiner, like many other thoughtful Calvinists, acknowledges this when he states, ‘The scandal of the Calvinist system is that ultimately the logical problems posed cannot be fully resolved.’”2
Akin comments further:
“[D]ecretal theology is highly speculative about issues on which the Bible gives little or no information. Detractors point out that trumpeting the humility of ‘the doctrines of grace’ while divining the mind of God by discerning the logical order of the decrees can be seen as an act of inconsistent hubris. Thus, decretal theology is actually a philosophy masquerading as theology.”3 (emphasis added)
Logical contradictions
In conclusion, the concept of compatibilism, when applied to free will and divine sovereignty, ultimately undermines the very idea of freedom it seeks to preserve. By insisting that our choices are merely the outcome of God’s predetermined design, it turns free will into an illusion, much like the ticking of a clock that can only move as its maker intended. While some may appeal to mystery or paradox to defend this system, the logical contradictions remain.
Scripture presents true free will as requiring genuine options and personal responsibility; compatibilism’s rigid framework compromises both. At its core, compatibilism fails to reconcile the biblical truths of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility in a way that honors both.