Providence, Freedom, and the Will in Early Modern Reformed Theology

by Richard A. Muller

Too often scholars impose on the past modern terms and theories. This is particularly evident concerning discussions of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, where libertarian and compatibilist notions of freedom obscure older understandings of concurrence. Providence, Freedom, and the Will is one historian’s attempt to help us interpret early modern documents in context with attention to their theological and philosophical terminology. In it, Richard A. Muller investigates the Reformed approach to causality and governance as it relates to divine concurrence with creaturely or temporal causes. He examines treatments of grace and freedom concerning the capabilities of the will as a free cause, operating of its own accord. And he explains free choice in the light of traditional assumptions concerning faculty psychology and the way in which external objects are selected or rejected.

Table of
Tum vero voluntas est Vermigli on the Human Will, Free Choice, and Providential Concurrence
Causality, Clocks, and Ezekiel’s Theodore Beza on Providence and Divine Concurrence
Grace, Election, and Contingent Arminius’ Gambit and the Reformed Response
Robert Rollock on the Freedom of Will and the Limits of Free Choice
Lucas Trelcatius, Jr. on Free Choice
Goading the Thomas Goad (1576–1638) on Necessity, Contingency and God’s Eternal Decree
Stephen Charnock on Providence, Foreknowledge, and Divine Concurrence
Jonathan Edwards and the Absence of Free A Parting of Ways in the Reformed Tradition
Jonathan Edwards and Francis Turretin on Necessity, Contingency, and Freedom of Will. In Response to Paul Helm
Contingency, Necessity, and Certainty in Jonathan Edwards’ Freedom of Will

Genres: Theology

304 pages, Paperback

Published May 27, 2022

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

Richard A. Muller (PhD, Duke University) is P. J. Zondervan Professor of Historical Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and the author of numerous books, including The Unaccommodated Calvin and Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. He also edits the Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought series.

Reviews

[Richard Lawrence · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a set of academic essays, it isn't easy reading, and I'm probably not qualified to review it.

BUT here are a few notes on what this essay collection contains:

- A survey of several significant Reformed thinkers from the 16th and 17th century showing they assumed that the human will makes genuine choices with the possibility of choosing differently (nature/nurture/circumstance is not enough to determine what happens)
-A demonstration that in the debates with Arminius and the Remonstrants against the Calvinists, the question was limited to whether one could choose to come to Christ apart from a specific work of God; both sides assumed a genuine ability to choose between multiple options in broader course of life.
- The fall's effect on Human Free Choice (according to the general consensus of the 16th & 17th century reformed) was not to remove it BUT to limit it's options, the fallen will lacks the strength to choice to come to Christ BUT it still makes genuine choices between other things (e.g. to commit Sin A or Sin B)
- Jonathan Edwards presented a very different doctrine in which the human Will is fundamentally mechanical, given a specific person in a specific circumstance the choice they will make will always be the same. Edwards condemned as Arminian the idea of genuine free choice held by the earlier Reformed. Edwards material seemed to owe more to Enlightenment era philosophy than earlier Reformed thought or any new biblical insights.
- At no point (that I saw) is this earlier concept of genuine free choice reconciled to the sovereignty of God in all things - it is stated that God's sovereignty acts in Primary Causality and Human Choice as Secondary Causality; but the relation of the two seems to be quite mysterious (perhaps this is right though - we should not understand all things, we're only human)

Other thoughts
I found this quite hard to follow; and it's not really applied at any point BUT I nonetheless found the basic case convincing; the older theology had more space for mystery and transcendence - God operates in everything BUT in a different order to us; such that we are not robots and genuinely make decisions but in some mysterious way God works all things according to the council of his will.

More modern (post-Edwards) Calvinism tends to describe the universe like one big mechanism limiting the sense of incomprehensible wonder that God and his works ought to evoke. AND making us sound incredibly robotic.

Basic Takeaways: read more older philosophy and theology, embrace mystery, marvel at the wonderful works of God

[Jordan Coy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great survey of the reformed scholastics and the differing views on free choice, providence, and how they interrelate to one another. The last 3 chapters of the book critiquing Jonathan Edwards is particularly interesting.

4/5 stars. Very good

[Josh Anders · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am perplexed at this one. Rather than writing a full review of the arguments presented, I think a few quick points are sufficient.

1. Muller very much stretches to find examples that meet his “Reformed Orthodox” category that he wants to show differ from Edwards. Many of these men I’ve never heard of, nor could I find much on in research (and im a reformed history nerd). Muller wants to argue that there was mass philosophical agreement among the Will & contingencies among this Orthodox group but tends to use B or C players in reformed scholasticism & clout to make his point.
2. Muller very much wants you to think Edwards is flirting with heresy in his semi-determinism in comparison with Turriten. However, Muller does not consult scripture on the matter. Edwards, to me anyway, seems to employ a more fundamentalist interpretation to his philosophy. Muller prefers very old faculty psychology language in these discussions, which is fine. However, Edwards came much after 17th century faculty psychology and was on an entirely different continent than the men Muller uses.
3. Part of the reason for the supposed disagreement (which Paul Helm denies) between Edwards & the “orthodox reformed” that Muller presents, seems to be the extent of sin among human faculties. Edwards makes a much more sweeping judgement in denying contingencies, which I agree with. Muller & friends want to categorize many of these things to death which serves to further complicate the matter of how deep sin infects the hearts of men. I tend, in all theological and philosophical matters, to believe men are incapable of uninflected good. This makes them incapable of choosing God or choosing A or Not-A without sin clouding judgment.

In short, I still side with Edwards here but I should probably read this one again.