What does the Bible say about the matter? The Bible is inconclusive on the matter, which is strong evidence of scriptural inerrancy, in my opinion. We can look at the stories of Pharaoh and of Saul to see why.

Pharaoh

In Exodus 4:21, before Pharaoh has had any chance to respond to God’s warnings, God says to Moses:

“The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.”

Later, after Pharaoh saw some miracles, the Bible reports, in Exodus 8:15:

“But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said.”

and Exodus 8:32:

“But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go.”

Clearly, Pharaoh seems culpable in these instances. However, after repeated warnings, when any reasonable human would have relented, Exodus 10:20 reports that God takes over:

“But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.”

What happened here? Who is culpable? Is this a contradiction in the Bible?

Did God preordain all of the heart-hardening? Or did He simply utilize His foreknowledge to make an example of Pharaoh in Exodus 10 after Pharaoh had already irreversibly implicated himself somewhere after Exodus 8? Maybe Pharaoh had already condemned himself by some previous sins, long before Moses’s challenge, and the entire thing was a charade meant to bring glory to God?

I think it’s a mistake to try to parse this story out and conclusively decide which explanation applies. Just fear God and pray that you don’t end up like Pharaoh.

Saul

The story of Saul is very similar. Very early in the story, Samuel anoints David, passing the blessing of God from Saul to David. Saul’s condemnation is already predestined, before David is even anointed (1 Samuel 16:1-2):

The LORD said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.”
But Samuel said, “How can I go? Saul will hear about it and kill me.”

The anointing of David is performed surreptitiously, and to the bitter end David refuses to slay Saul, who he still regards as “The Lord’s anointed”. When Saul dies, he apparently does so by his own hand (1 Samuel 31:1-6):

Now the Philistines fought against Israel; the Israelites fled before them, and many fell slain on Mount Gilboa. The Philistines pressed hard after Saul and his sons, and they killed his sons Jonathan, Abinadab and Malki-Shua. The fighting grew fierce around Saul, and when the archers overtook him, they wounded him critically.
Saul said to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows will come and run me through and abuse me.”
But his armor-bearer was terrified and would not do it; so Saul took his own sword and fell on it. When the armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his sword and died with him. So Saul and his three sons and his armor-bearer and all his men died together that same day.

However, the narrative says that he was already critically wounded. His death was already a foregone conclusion, and he apparently hastened it on only out of a desire to avoid “abuse” by the “uncircumcised fellows”. Who killed Saul? God, the Philistines, or Saul himself?

The situation gets even more complicated in 2 Samuel 1:5-10:

Then David said to the young man who brought him the report, “How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?”

“I happened to be on Mount Gilboa,” the young man said, “and there was Saul, leaning on his spear, with the chariots and riders almost upon him. When he turned around and saw me, he called out to me, and I said, ‘What can I do?’

“He asked me, ‘Who are you?’
” ‘An Amalekite,’ I answered.

“Then he said to me, ‘Stand over me and kill me! I am in the throes of death, but I’m still alive.’

“So I stood over him and killed him, because I knew that after he had fallen he could not survive. And I took the crown that was on his head and the band on his arm and have brought them here to my lord.”

Whoa! So an Amalekite is now claiming credit for Saul’s death. Again, in this narrative, Saul was already in the “throes of death”, so his death was apparently already a foregone conclusion. And the Amalekite claims the slaying as a “mercy killing”. So who is culpable now?

Clearly, David regarded the Amalekite as being culpable (2 Samuel 1:14-16):

David asked him, “Why were you not afraid to lift your hand to destroy the LORD’s anointed?”

Then David called one of his men and said, “Go, strike him down!” So he struck him down, and he died. For David had said to him, “Your blood be on your own head. Your own mouth testified against you when you said, ‘I killed the LORD’s anointed.’ ”

Did the Amalekite kill Saul after Saul had already initiated suicide? Or was the Amalekite simply lying to curry favor with David (despite this clearly being represented as a mercy-killing)? How do we resolve all of these apparent contradictions?

1 Samuel and 2 Samuel are part of the same original book, so this is not an example of clerical error. These apparent contradictions are essential parts of the story. God pre-ordained Saul’s defeat, while Saul, the Philistines, and the Amalekite are all held culpable in one way or another.

Again, I think it’s a mistake to over-analyze these apparent contradictions. Fear God, and pray that you don’t end up like Saul or the Amalekite.

Conclusion

The Bible is clear that determinism is, at least sometimes, a possibility, but that personal culpability is a reality. This appears to be a contradiction, but regardless of our position on determinism or libertarian free will, it is exactly what we intuitively know to be true.

If the Bible took a strong conclusive stance in either direction (either that determinism is never true, or that culpability is false), the Bible would not be credibly inerrant. Such bickering is the domain of fallen man.

One of the really dumb reasons that is used by both sides is the idea that Christianity is a “security blanket”. Often, you’ll see Christians trying to sell Christianity as if it will get you a job, a new bicycle, and provide smooth, happy sailing for the rest of your life. Atheists likewise argue that Christianity is an escapist delusion that panders to people’s desires for security and happiness. One side says that Christianity is exactly what you want, while the other says that Christianity is deceiving you by telling you what you want to hear.

Does Christianity really tell people what they want to hear? Christ says, “Give all of your money to the poor”. He says, “Turn the other cheek”. He says, “Deny yourself and take up your cross daily and follow me.” He says, “You will be persecuted”. “You will suffer”.

This theme of self-denial and suffering is pervasive. It’s not some edge case; it is Christianity. The greatest role models of Christianity are people who gave up everything and suffered humiliating martyrdom with no reward in the world.

Yeah, that’s exactly the kind of security blanket people want.

As a Calvinist, I’m not going to take a glorified view of man’s free will. But I find it interesting that atheists proudly hew to such determinism. Determinism is the only honest position for a materialist to take, but it’s ironic that the atheists are so proud of this position. The topic generally comes up in discussions of justice (“How can God be just if he predestined me to evil?”) or in discussions of the stupidity of Christians (“Those stupid Christians talk about free will, but we atheists don’t believe in such illusions!”).

Evolutionary biology suggests that altruism is a sort of “costly signal” which signals one’s suitability as a mate. Standing up for something we believe to be true, at great cost to ourselves (and especially in the face of universal opposition) is sexier to women than a peacock’s feathers are to a peahen. Such intellectual honesty is the sexiest thing in the known universe. A man’s willingness to extinguish his own ego in service to the truth of determinism is, therefore, the most costly signal man could give to a woman. It is the ultimate altruistic “costly signal”, right?

The problem is, costly signals are, by definition, signals that cannot be faked. If you can fake it, it’s not a properly costly signal. And the atheist’s commitment to determinism is nothing if not fraudulent.

Atheist materialists like to explain that there is no such thing as free will. They want you to know that they are totally cool with that fact. They want you to find them to be sexy and courageous (or at least, they want you to admit yourself superstitious and delusional for believing in free will). But it’s all a bunch of posturing. For all practical purposes, these proud atheists operate under the same delusion, and adopt the same lie, that they claim to reject.

What, exactly, is different about the atheist who professes determinism on the Internet, and the Pelagian who professes free will? In practice, how is the life of the professed determinist different? Do these atheist determinists “cut to the chase” and commit suicide, since “all ends in death”? Do they reject “atman” in daily practice, and fully realize “anatman”? Hardly! Every act of the atheist determinist belies his professed belief, proving that his profession is a sterile, impotent, and purely intellectual assent; far removed from any practical manifestation. Indeed, the only practically measurable difference between the atheist and the Pelagian is the belief about free will that each professes on Internet message boards! And this professed belief has no impact on actual behavior.

In species where female sexual selection is operative (e.g. peafowl and humans), any public forum which includes females is a platform for lekking. In such forums, women need to be extraordinarily skeptical of any feather displays, and need to ensure that feather displays are authentically costly (i.e. not fraudulent). The best females do not tolerate male beliefs which are fictional, imaginary, and which impose no cost. In practice, any professed belief in determinism is virtually indistinguishable from a belief in free will, and is therefore useless for signalling.

Few atheists seem to realize that this implies the immortality of the soul. Computer programs can be run on a new computer, even if the old computer passes away. For a small handful, this is an exciting fact, promising a future where we can upload our souls to the singularity. But for most atheists, this is a disturbing implication. These atheists want to believe that we can obliterate our souls forever by destroying our bodies. As if we can make a troubling computer program disappear forever, simply by frying the CPU of the machine that’s running it.

The most popular theist alternative to materialism is dualism, which asserts that the universe is composed of both the material, which follows the laws of physics, and the immaterial (e.g. “spiritual”), which doesn’t follow the laws of physics. You can see how the dualist could invent a soul that is not immortal. The “spiritual” plane could theoretically devise anything, including a soul that disappears without chance of reconstitution.

It’s hard to imagine a materialist mind that could not be reconstituted. If you reconstruct the exact physical configuration, you’ve reconstituted the mind. If you buy the theory that the mind is like a computer, you don’t even need to reconstruct the exact physical configuration — you need only create a functionally equivalent substrate and upload the mind. It’s the difference between replicating a running computer atom-for-atom and copying a program from one computer to the other.

Theists often criticize atheists by pointing out that materialism has no explanation for intentionality. That is, materialism has not yet explained how the physical layer can be composed into intentionality. Committed materialists insist that this leap will eventually be made. Even if we don’t have an explanation for intentionality today, we will, they say. But the day that we do, we will have proven immortality of the soul in a manner than is stronger than any dualist could make.

Once the atheists prove that our minds can be wholly composed of atoms, they will face the insurmountable task of proving that our minds can never be re-composed of atoms. Proving that the soul can be composed of atoms will make it infinitely more difficult to prove that the soul can be eternally extinguished, and it’s the latter that most atheists want desperately to prove.

Just as you’ve undoubtedly seen ad hominem attacks, you’ve seen people accuse others of making ad hominem arguments.  Accusing someone of making an ad hominem argument is a foolproof way to shut them down and force them back into whatever logical trap you’ve constructed for them.  C.S. Lewis was often irritated by people who made circumstantial ad hominems, and he even gave this argument a special name, “Bulverism”.  Anyone who engaged in “Bulverism” was considered immediately illogical and wrong.

As much as I respect C.S. Lewis’s philosophical instincts, I think he misses the point on this one.  People who throw about accusations of “ad hominem” and “Bulverism” reveal what their true motives are.  They see logic and reason as weapons which can be deployed to bend the will of another.

To be sure, there is nothing wrong with reason.  God is never illogical or irrational, and a firm commitment to intellectual honesty is an absolute necessity for Christians.  But when you start beating people up with “ad hominem”, you are obviously not thinking about your own character and humility; you are thinking about binding another person’s mind.

And Christianity at it’s core is an ad hominem proposition.  We believe that man is fallen and that the desires of his heart are sinful.  Christianity is entirely about the battle of man’s will against God.  Accusing people of “Bulverism” presupposes that those same people will arrive at God via logic, if only they close their eyes and pretend that neither of us has ulterior motives.  This fantasy is not only preposterous, it is non-Christian.

Circumstantial ad hominem is a logical fallacy in pure syllogistic reasoning.  But Christianity (and life and truth in general) is not an abstract syllogistic exercise.  Christianity is not illogical, but you never arrive at Christianity through pure logic that is ignorant of human motives.  Christianity addresses human nature and the desires of our own heart.  I don’t know why Christians would be afraid of admitting this.

When someone says, “You are a Christian!  Of course you would say that!”, you can take it as a compliment, and say “Yes!  And it’s not even illogical!”.

Of course, major chess tournaments are advertised as battles between titans, but the relationship between chess and violence goes far deeper than metaphor.  Chess is violence.  Chess is about unilaterally imposing your will on another human being, while he tries desperately to avoid having your will impose.  And if you fail, his will will crush yours.  Some might argue that all two-opponent games could be tarred with this same brush of “violence”.  But no other voluntary game presents such a distilled essence of violence, except perhaps for the middle game and tesuji of the game of Go.

Violence is about will power.  With physical violence, the body is simply an instrument of the will.  In fact, wrestling could be seen as half cooperative dance, and half violence.  Boxing is much closer to pure violence.  And chess is pure violence – all that is preserved is the ruthless wills locked in combat.

To understand why chess is unique, you need to consider what other sorts of non-violent mental activities can be involved in games.  Cooperation, clarity of communication, pun and fancy, metaphor, narrative, empathy, persuasion, seduction, estimation of probabilities, and so on.  None of these mental skills are very important to chess, and are not developed with chess practice.  To become great at chess, you need brute force mental capability and extreme will power and concentration.  Your killer instinct and desire to crush the opponent needs to be strong and sustained over much longer periods than in the typical physical confrontation.  There is a reason that chess is physically exhausting, and that chess masters often go mad.

What else compares?  Maybe only love.  As Shakespeare said, “all’s fair in love and war”.  St. Paul gave the most beautiful definition of love in his letter to the Corinthians, saying that “love is not self-seeking”.  We all know that most human love affairs are completely the opposite of St. Paul’s description, and end up looking a lot like chess boxing: periods of intense mental calculation and scheming punctuated by bouts of overwhelming physicality.

~

Note that this is not a criticism of chess.  I personally enjoy the intensity of chess.  And when I play Go, I often play on a smaller board, to increase the element of battle and will power and to reduce the component of broad strategy that is critical on a larger board.  I am simply arguing that chess is a fun game because it strengthens and exercises the selfish will; a point which I intend to revisit in a future post about C.S. Lewis’s “Bulverism” and the “ad hominem” fallacy.