Necessity vs. Compulsion

A miscellany from May 17, 2014.

Calvinism is often criticized for destroying human responsibility, since it teaches that fallen man, apart from the new birth, is incapable of exercising faith or repenting of his sins. But Calvin, following Augustine, makes a critical distinction between necessity and compulsion (Institutes 2.3.5).

Consider this distinction, as Calvin does, with respect to the goodness of God. God is necessarily good and righteous, which means that these characteristics are part of his very nature. He thus cannot be anything other than good and righteous. But it does not follow from this fact that God is somehow forced to be good and righteous. That sort of language is simply inaccurate. Rather, these traits flow out of his own nature by necessity, not by compulsion.

Now consider this distinction with respect to the wickedness of man. Outside of regeneration, fallen man is necessarily sinful and rebellious, which means that these characteristics are part of his very nature. He thus cannot, apart from the new birth, be anything other than sinful and rebellious. But it does not follow from this fact that fallen man is somehow forced to be sinful and rebellious. That sort of language is simply inaccurate. Rather, these traits flow out of his own nature by necessity, not by compulsion.

And if this notion of necessity somehow means that fallen man cannot be held responsible for his sin (i.e. that his sin is not actually blameworthy), then it would likewise mean that God cannot be “held responsible,” as it were, for his goodness (i.e. that his goodness is not actually praiseworthy).