Soft determinism, often called compatibilism, and hard determinism are two perspectives within the broader discussion about how human freedom relates to divine sovereignty or causal determinism. Both views affirm that every event or action is determined, but they differ fundamentally on the nature of human freedom and moral responsibility.
Hard Determinism
Hard determinists, unlike compatibilists, deny that any meaningful concept of freedom or moral responsibility can coexist with determinism. While both reject libertarian free will—the idea that individuals can choose otherwise in a given situation—hard determinists contend that determinism excludes any form of free agency or moral responsibility. According to this view, human actions are like dominos in a chain reaction, with each action being the inevitable result of prior causes. Because humans lack the capacity to act otherwise than they do, hard determinists argue that concepts like guilt or moral accountability are rendered problematic. For instance, if a person commits a sin, it is seen as an unavoidable consequence of prior events or divine causation.
Hard determinists reject free agency as it is understood in compatibilism. They deny any meaningful sense of freedom, including the compatibilist notion of acting voluntarily according to one’s desires, because they see all human actions as fully determined by prior causes in a way that negates even voluntary agency.
Here’s why hard determinists reject free agency:
No Voluntary Freedom: Hard determinists argue that, because a person’s desires, inclinations, and actions are entirely determined by prior causes (e.g., biological, psychological, or divine factors), even the appearance of acting voluntarily is an illusion. In their view, individuals are not genuinely “choosing” anything; they are simply playing out a predetermined causal chain.
Incompatibility with Determinism: Hard determinists believe that all notions of freedom, including compatibilist free agency, are incompatible with determinism. To them, any action that is causally determined cannot be free in any meaningful sense, even if it aligns with the agent’s desires.
Implications for Responsibility: Since hard determinists reject free agency, they also reject traditional notions of moral responsibility. If every action is the unavoidable outcome of prior causes, holding individuals morally responsible for actions they had no ultimate control over is, in their view, unjustifiable.
Critics of hard determinism often highlight its implications for moral agency. If all human actions are fully determined and human freedom is entirely illusory, then justice and ethics lose their foundation. They argue that moral responsibility presupposes at least some capacity for individuals to make genuine choices, which hard determinism denies.
Soft Determinism (Compatibilism)
Soft determinism, or compatibilism, by contrast, maintains that determinism is true, but it is compatible with free agency—where humans act voluntarily according to their desires—and with moral responsibility. The key distinction lies in how freedom is defined. Compatibilism defines freedom not as the ability to choose otherwise in an absolute sense (commonly called "libertarian free will"), but as the ability to act according to one’s desires, inclinations, and motives, without external coercion. In this view, a person is free when they act voluntarily, even if their desires and choices are ultimately shaped by prior causes operating within the framework of God's sovereign decree.
From a theological perspective, compatibilism aligns with the Reformed understanding of the human will in its fallen state. Human beings are free in the sense that they act according to their desires, but their desires are bound by their sinful nature (Romans 8:7-8). This is why the unregenerate cannot please God apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Compatibilism preserves moral responsibility because individuals choose in accordance with their will, even though their will is determined by deeper factors such as God’s decree and their own sinful nature. Human actions, including sinful ones, occur within the scope of God’s consequent will. This does not mean God causes sin in the same way humans choose sin, but rather He decrees or ordains sinful actions to occur for His greater purposes (e.g., the crucifixion of Christ, Acts 2:23). Compatibilism shows how God’s consequent will harmonizes with human moral responsibility: people act according to their sinful nature (their will is inclined to sin), but their actions fulfill God’s ultimate decree without God being the author of sin.
John Calvin captures this distinction succinctly when he writes:
“We deny that choice is free, because through man’s innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced.” - John Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will: A Defence of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice against Pighius pg.70)
Calvin distinguishes between necessity and coercion, a critical compatibilist concept. He argues that human beings sin necessarily—their actions are determined by their corrupted nature—but not because they are coerced or forced against their will. The sinner chooses sin freely in the sense that they willingly pursue what their corrupt heart desires. This aligns with the compatibilist idea of free agency, which holds that humans act voluntarily, even when their choices are determined by their nature.
How compatibilism works with God's eternal decree
Compatibilism works with God’s eternal decree by affirming that God sovereignly ordains all things, including human actions, in a way that ensures His purposes are accomplished while maintaining human moral responsibility. This is achieved through the following principles:
God’s Decree and Human Nature:
- God’s eternal decree encompasses every event, including human choices, but He ordains them in harmony with the nature of the agents involved.
- Humans act according to their desires and inclinations, which are shaped by their fallen or regenerate nature. These choices are voluntary, even though determined by God's decree.
Human Freedom as Free Agency:
- Compatibilism defines human freedom as acting voluntarily according to one's will, not as the ability to act contrary to God’s decree.
- This means people are morally responsible because they willingly choose their actions, even though those actions are ultimately part of God’s sovereign plan.
God’s Sovereign Purpose:
- God’s decree ensures that every action, whether good or evil, serves His ultimate purposes (e.g., Acts 2:23: Christ's crucifixion was both predestined by God and carried out by human agents acting freely).
- Yet, God remains holy and not the author of sin because humans, not God, are the proximate cause of their sinful actions, motivated by their own desires.
In short, compatibilism harmonizes God’s eternal decree with human responsibility by affirming that God ordains human actions without coercing them, allowing individuals to act freely according to their will while fulfilling His sovereign plan.
Summary of the Difference
The key difference between hard determinism and soft determinism lies in their treatment of human freedom and moral responsibility. Hard determinism denies that free agency exists, often struggling to account for moral responsibility. In contrast, soft determinism (compatibilism) defines freedom as free agency—acting voluntarily according to one’s desires—and maintains that moral responsibility is fully compatible with determinism. Compatibilism asserts that divine sovereignty and human responsibility coexist harmoniously under God’s eternal decree, as seen in passages like Philippians 2:12-13, where human effort and divine working are presented as complementary.
-----
What Is the Difference Between Free Agency and Libertarian Free Will?
Free agency and libertarian free will are two distinct concepts about human freedom and responsibility, particularly in relation to divine sovereignty and human nature. Free agency fits within the framework of compatibilism, while libertarian free will is associated with a view of freedom that denies determinism. To understand their differences, let us define and expand upon these terms.
Free Agency Defined
Free agency, as understood in compatibilism, describes the capacity of human beings to act freely when their actions align with their desires, inclinations, and motives, and are not externally coerced. In this view, people are considered free agents because their choices are made voluntarily, even if those choices are ultimately determined by deeper factors such as their sinful nature or God's eternal decree. Key aspects of free agency include:
Acting According to Inner Desires: Free agents make choices that reflect their internal desires and reasoning. For example, a person with a sinful nature willingly chooses to sin because it aligns with their heart’s inclinations (Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9). Similarly, a regenerate person willingly chooses to obey God because their heart has been transformed to delight in Him (Psalm 119:32).
Absence of External Coercion: A free agent is not forced against their will to act in a particular way. Even when their desires are shaped by their fallen nature or renewed heart, the individual acts willingly and voluntarily.
However, free agency operates within the bounds of causal determinism. This means that:
- A person's choices are determined by their internal motivations, which are themselves shaped by their nature, experiences, and ultimately God’s sovereign decree (Ephesians 1:11; Proverbs 16:9).
- Though determined, these actions remain voluntary because they align with the person’s will. For example, a sinner sins because their corrupt nature desires it (Romans 8:7-8), while a believer obeys God because their renewed will delights in His commands (Philippians 2:13).
Libertarian Free Will
Libertarian free will, in contrast, is the belief that human beings have the ability to choose between options in a way that is entirely free from external constraints or causal determination. This view insists on contra-causal freedom, meaning that a person has the capacity to act differently in a given situation, entirely independent of prior causes, influences, or even God’s sovereign decree. Key characteristics of libertarian free will include:
Absolute Freedom to Choose Otherwise: Advocates of libertarian free will argue that for a choice to be truly free, the individual must have the ability to choose differently under identical circumstances. This perspective denies that human actions are determined by prior causes, such as a fallen or redeemed nature, and affirms that the will is entirely autonomous.
Rejection of Causal Determinism: In this view, human decisions are not governed by nature, environment, or divine decree. This raises significant theological challenges for understanding God's sovereignty and foreknowledge since it implies that God cannot determine human choices without compromising libertarian freedom.
Contrasting Free Agency and Libertarian Free Will
The fundamental difference lies in how freedom is understood in relation to causality:
- Free Agency: In compatibilism, freedom is defined as acting according to one’s will, desires, and inclinations without coercion, even if those desires are determined by deeper factors such as God’s decree or human nature. A sinner freely rejects God because their will, bound by sin, desires to do so (John 8:34; Romans 3:10-11). A believer freely follows Christ because their renewed will desires to obey Him (Philippians 2:13).
- Libertarian Free Will: In this view, freedom requires the ability to act without being causally determined by nature, influences, or divine decree. This entails the capacity for absolute self-determination, which denies the biblical teaching of the bondage of the will (Romans 8:7-8) and the sovereign control of God over all things (Isaiah 46:9-10).
Theological Implications
Free agency aligns with Reformed theology’s emphasis on the bondage of the will, as articulated by Luther and Calvin. Human beings act in accordance with their nature—fallen or redeemed—and are therefore morally responsible for their choices. Libertarian free will, on the other hand, struggles to reconcile God’s sovereignty with human freedom, often leading to views that diminish God’s control over human history and salvation.
Thus, free agency, grounded in compatibilism, preserves both the sovereignty of God and the moral accountability of human beings by affirming that individuals act freely according to their desires while those desires remain causally determined by God’s ultimate purposes. Would you like to explore how this distinction applies to specific theological doctrines or biblical texts?