“Assumptions about the way God relates to the world lie behind every doctrine in systematic theology. The decision one makes as to how to conceive this relation is arguably the single most important factor in shaping one’s theology” ~ Kevin J. Vanhoozer
“Our Lord has taught us, when we face facts or doctrines which try our faith, to remember the infinite wisdom and rectitude of God and say, ‘Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in Thy sight” ~ Charles Hodge (1797–1878)
In his popular book Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis posits that genuine love for God requires a libertarian conception of human freedom. In this essay I will argue the opposite, demonstrating that genuine love for God is the result of regeneration—the sovereign, unilateral work of God whereby he removes the heart of stone and implants a heart of flesh (Ezek. 36:25–27), thus fulfilling the Deuteronomic vision of the circumcised heart (Deut. 30:6). In short, the biblical witness testifies that genuine love for God does not require libertarian freedom.
“Faith Seeking Undestanding”
In seeking to reconcile God’s sovereignty and human freedom, we are doing theology. And doing theology well requires defining and understanding the theological task properly. As theologian Stephen Wellum reminds readers, doing theology “minimally involves correctly interpreting the whole Bible on its own terms and drawing proper conclusions which are consistent with the entire canonical presentation.” The italicized words in Wellum’s definition serve to remind students of Scripture who reverence its authority that the Bible—and the Bible alone—is our “epistemological warrant” for all theological conclusions. We humbly receive what Holy Scripture discloses, because we are convinced that knowledge of God—including how to reconcile God’s sovereignty and human freedom—comes by way of revelation, not human speculation or intuition. Consequently, we cannot demand that God work within the parameters of what our limited reason can imagine. Rather, we humbly bow before what God’s Word reveals. Lastly, theological students must acknowledge that the goal of theological inquiry is not the resolution of so-called “theological problems,” but the faithful articulation of the biblical witness. Doing theology, therefore, is “faith seeking understanding.”
With these thoughts in place, I will now sketch the differences between libertarian freedom and compatibilism.
Defining Libertarian Freedom and Compatibilism
Supporters of libertarian freedom argue that human beings always have the power of contrary choice. While various reasons and causes may impinge upon a person, inclining him or her to choose a particular course of action, none of these things are ultimately sufficient to sway a person’s will one way or the other. In light of the above, advocates of libertarian freedom maintain that God can only justly hold people accountable for actions they had the power not to perform. Indeed, at least one proponent of this position says it is illogical for God to hold someone responsible for an action or choice if he or she could not have done the opposite.
Alternatively, others hold to a position known as compatibilism. Compatibilists maintain that God’s sovereign foreordination of all things is compatible with the free choices of human beings. In this view, God rightly holds human beings responsible for their actions and choices even though he knows and ordains them beforehand. Nevertheless, one must not confuse compatibilism with fatalism—the notion that humans are mere automatons, controlled by external forces apart from their will. Proponents of compatibilism are careful to note that even though one might label their position deterministic, it is only because human beings are determined by what is inside them. That is, when making a particular choice or decision, human beings always do that which they actually want to do. God does not coerce people to act against their wills.
Genuine Love for God is the Result of Regeneration
In Lewis’s scheme, a person would theoretically be able to express love for God apart from a work of God. The Bible, however, indicates otherwise. Prior to regeneration, Holy Scripture depicts the human heart as desperately wicked (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mk. 7:21–23), loving darkness rather than light (Jn. 3:19), not seeking the will of God (Rom. 3:10–12), enslaved to sin (Jn. 8:34; Rom. 6:16–20), unable (not simply unwilling!) to understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), and unable (not simply unwilling!) to submit to God (Rom. 8:9).
These verses minimally teach that the unregenerate human will is not neutral. As Luther said, the human will does not live in an “intermediate position of ‘freedom,’” and Scripture nowhere portrays God or the Devil as “mere spectators” of humanity. Rather, human beings are identified as either slaves to righteousness or sin (Rom. 6:16–20), either for Christ or against him (Matt. 12:30). In short, Scripture characterizes humans as enslaved. Furthermore, in Ephesians 2:1 Paul says fallen humanity is “dead” in their trespasses and sins. Whatever the word “dead” means, surely all Christians can agree that apart from the grace of God, unregenerate human beings reside in a state of spiritual death, relish their sin, and will remain unresponsive to God. Eminent Dutch Reformed theologian Wilhemus á Brakel (1635–1711) aptly captures my thesis: The unbeliever who is dead in his sin “has no internal disposition, propensity, ability, or power to repent and to believe in Christ.” I contend that Lewis fails to consider the totality of the biblical witness regarding the extent of human depravity.
Given humanity’s condition, then, the need for regeneration is obvious. Intriguingly, however, Scripture reveals that human beings cannot bring about their regeneration. For example, in Ezekiel 36 God promises his people: “I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules” (Ezek. 36:26–27, emphasis mine). This promise is connected to what God said he would do many years prior: “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live” (Deut. 30:6, emphasis mine). The importance of Deuteronomy 30:6 cannot be overstated, for it reveals that heart circumcision is a sovereign work of God. Human beings cannot circumcise their own hearts. Yet if Lewis is correct, human beings can circumcise their own hearts.
Note carefully Moses’ words in Deuteronomy 29:2–4, however: “And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: ‘You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, 3 the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders. 4 But to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear’” (emphasis mine).
As Deuteronomy 30:6 clearly states “the LORD your God will circumcise your heart . . . so that [purpose clause] you will love the LORD your God.” Please note that the verse does not say that God would circumcise their hearts because they repented, believed, and turned themselves to the Lord. Indeed, the text says the exact opposite. Matthew Barrett’s words are worth quoting: “Nowhere in Deuteronomy 30:6 do we see any indication that Yahweh’s sovereign act of circumcising the heart is conditioned upon the will of man to believe. . . . It is not man’s choice or will which determines whether he will spiritually have a heart to hear and see but it is God’s sovereign choice to give the sinner a heart to hear and see that is the cause and reason for belief.”
The New Testament matches what readers find in the Old Testament, but I will give only a few examples.
That regeneration is a work of God that happens to a person is indicated by the use of the passive voice in John 3:3 and 3:5 when Jesus tells Nicodemus that “unless one is born again,” or “born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” As Paul and his apostolic band preached one Sabbath morning, Lydia was converted. As to how this happened, Luke records: “The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul” (Acts 16:14, emphasis mine). Additionally, in 2 Corinthians 4:6, Paul links the power of God on display in creation to the power of God at work in regeneration: “For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” Hence John Calvin’s (1509–1564) observation that fallen humanity is “no more able to convert themselves than to create themselves.” In regeneration, God so changes the human heart that, whereas previously the individual had no love for God or desire to obey him, he or she now does. Italian Reformer, Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562), said that God, “by regeneration causes the will which rejects the precepts of God to become willing.” In short, he acts omnipotently to transform the disposition of a person’s heart. In Jeremiah 32:40 God says, “I will put the fear of me in their hearts and they shall not depart from me” (emphasis mine). God’s work of regeneration, then, is what creates love for God in the human heart. Medieval theologian Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153) stated the matter succinctly: “God is the cause of loving God.”
In light of the foregoing biblical texts, I suggest once again that Lewis’s comments are overly simplistic and not in line with biblical revelation.
What about the Unregenerate?
At this point a thorny theological question arises: If God is sovereign over regeneration, what do we say about those who remain unregenerate? Put differently, if God is sovereign over who is and who is not regenerate, then is not God the one responsible for those who remain in a state of unbelief? If this is so, then is not he the reason people go to hell?
In answering this question, I respectfully remind readers of the nature of the theological task: Doing theology “minimally involves correctly interpreting the whole Bible on its own terms and drawing proper conclusions which are consistent with the entire canonical presentation.” Consequently, we must derive our theological conclusions from the Bible, not our gut-level reactions. Moreover, human reason is not the cognitive foundation of knowledge of God. Richard Lints rightly observes that oftentimes contemporary people—including Christians—“place rational restrictions on the very notion of God instead of allowing God to define the notions of rationality.” Along with Lints’s words in mind, we must also beware of “bringing to the Bible assumptions that are not taught in the Bible.”
With these reminders in place, we proceed with caution and humility.
Scripture quite clearly demonstrates that God is sovereign over salvation. Building upon the texts cited above, we might turn to Paul once more, highlighting his comments that faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8–9), belief in Christ (Phil. 1:29), and repentance are gifts from God (2 Tim. 2:25). In Romans 9:16 Paul says God’s mercy is paramount in salvation, not the human will. In the gospels, moreover, we find similar language. For instance, on the heels of telling us that the Jews largely rejected Jesus, we read the following in John 1:12–13: “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (emphasis mine). Although the language is clear, many read the text as if John says, “he gave the right to become children of God because they believed in his name.” Please note carefully, however, that the text says no such thing. In contrast, the verse makes clear that the new birth does not depend on the human will. As D. A. Carson notes, this verse discloses that faith in Christ is a result of the new birth, not its cause. Although I could cite more passages—particularly from the Johannine epistles—I pass over those at this time. (But see footnote 18.)
All Christians agree that God is sovereign, but they work out the implications of his sovereignty differently. With respect to the question of salvation, if we ask why some people are saved and others are not, Arminians (like Lewis) give one answer and Calvinists give another.
Since God is sovereign over salvation, is God unjust to save some and not others? If we discipline our thinking in answering this question, we know we cannot begin with an external, extrabiblical standard and then judge God in light of it. Therefore, the answer to this question is no—God is not unjust. God is revealed in the Bible as a just God. The answer to the question, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is Just?” (Gen. 18:25) is a resounding, “Yes.” He is both loyal and faithful (Exod. 34:6–7). He is righteous in all his works (Ps. 145:17). Simply put, then, God is just.
One cannot say the same for fallen human beings, however. Though sin did not infect God’s original creation, human beings fell into sin: “God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes” (Eccl. 7:29). Hence, Solomon’s earlier God-inspired reflection: “Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins” (Eccl. 7:20). Paul’s words in Romans are axiomatic in this discussion: Suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18), image-bearers prefer themselves and their sins over God, and thus not only commit sins but encourage others to do so as well (Rom. 1:24–32). While they may desire the blessings God alone can give, they do not actually seek the one true God on his own terms (Rom. 3:11–12). And biblical revelation leaves no one off limits: All have sinned (Rom. 3:23). Whether one scans the OT or NT, the consequences for our sin is devastating: “The soul who sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:4); “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23).
The foregoing rehearsal of the biblical witness regarding human depravity and sin warrants the following conclusion: Fallen humanity deserves eternal separation from God. Correlatively: God, therefore, does not owe human beings anything.
Thus, we can only answer the question “Is God unjust to save some and not others?” rightly, once we come to grips with the human condition. God would still be just even if he chose to save no one. Emerging from our study, then, we can say that everyone in this world either receives justice or mercy from God, but no one receives injustice.
Remember: Justice concerns what is fair—with what one deserves. Since all human beings have violated God’s law, and thus deserve death (Ezek. 18:14; Rom. 3:23; 6:23) what is just is eternal separation from God. God, however, out of his infinite love and grace chooses to save some out of the state of sin and misery and draw them to himself (Jn. 6:37, 44, 65; Eph. 1:3–14). Remember: This salvation is an act of mercy—and mercy by definition cannot be owed. If it is owed, then it is not mercy, but justice. For one to say that it is unjust for God to save some and not others is to confuse the categories. To say a sinner deserves mercy is to harbor an unbiblical presupposition.
Paul’s words in Romans 9 are germane to our discussion at this point because he anticipates the human response to the teaching of election. After stating that God loved Jacob and hated Esau, he asks, “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part?” (Rom. 9:14). While often read over quickly, readers should pause and ask why Paul brings up the question. The answer is that Paul anticipates the objection. He knows that talking about God choosing some for salvation and passing over others will lead people to think God is unjust. Take note, however: The fact that Paul raises the question proves that he is saying what we think he is saying. If Paul were not teaching that God chooses some and passes over others, no one would raise the question of injustice on God’s part. After Paul raises the question he answers the following way: “By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then [note the conclusion] it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” (Rom. 9:14b–16). Paul does not provide a philosophical resolution to the “problem” of how to reconcile God’s sovereignty and human freedom. He simply asserts God’s sovereignty over salvation.
A mere two verses later Paul says: “So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” (v. 18). In saying this, Paul knows that the natural human response will be to ask, “Well, then, if God has mercy on some and hardens others, isn’t it unfair for him to condemn those whose hearts he has not softened?” Please note carefully v. 19: “You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’” Again: The fact that Paul raises the question—anticipating our objection—proves that Paul is saying what we think he is saying. However, similar to the previous point, Paul does not provide a philosophical resolution to the “problem.” Instead, he asks his readers a few questions: “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” (Rom. 9:20–21).
Why does God not defend himself or his actions? John Frame’s words are worth taking to heart: “Often in Scripture, when something that happens that calls God’s goodness into question, he pointedly refrains from giving an explanation. Indeed, he often rebukes those people who question him.” Therefore, we must remain ruthlessly biblical in our thinking, preferring exegetical conclusions over philosophical speculation.
Since the Bible does not define concepts like sovereignty and free will, Christians must search the Scriptures, doing their best to make sense of the data. Inasmuch as the Scripture’s serve as our epistemological warrant for all theological conclusions, it seems that Lewis’s conviction that genuine love for God demands human freedom in the libertarian sense is an unwarranted inference. While it might make sense theoretically, the Bible does not demand such a conclusion.
Rather than anchoring love for God in the unrenewed will’s choice, I have argued that genuine love for God is the result of God’s regenerating work of the human heart. Such a sovereign work is demanded due to the deadness of the human heart, which has neither the propensity nor the desire to seek God. Although God is sovereign over who does and who does not believe, one cannot charge God with injustice since God is not obligated to give equally that which he is not obligated to give at all.
 God, Scripture & Hermeneutics: First Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2002), 96.
 Systematic Theology, Abridged Edition, ed. Edward N. Gross (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 425.
 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 183. To be clear, Lewis does not reference “libertarian freedom” per se. Nevertheless, it is clear throughout Lewis’s writings that he has a high view of human freedom. For instance, in The Problem of Pain (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 129, Lewis wrote that a human being’s free will could potentially defeat God’s omnipotence: “In creating beings with free will, omnipotence from the outset submits to the possibility of such defeat.” This is a striking contrast from someone like, say, Augustine who argued the exact opposite. See, e.g., Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, trans. J. F. Shaw (South Bend, IN: Regnery/Gateway, 1961), 110. Lewis fails to account for the ontological distinction between Lord and servant, on which see Michael Allen, Sanctification, New Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 245. Nevertheless, one cannot deny the continuing popularity of Lewis’s viewpoint. For example, it appeared most recently in Hassan John, “Boko Haram Put a Bounty on My Head,” Wall Street Journal (October 26, 2018): A13.
 John D. Meade, “Circumcision of Flesh to Circumcision of Heart: The Typology of the Sign of the Abrahamic Covenant,” in Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenant Theologies, eds. Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker (Nashville: B&H, 2016), 127–157. Since the purpose of this essay is not to rebut Arminian interpretations of biblical texts, I shall refrain from interacting with their exegesis of the passages cited in support of my arguments. For interaction with Arminian exegesis, see Matthew Barrett, “The Scriptural Affirmation of Monergism,” in Whomever He Wills: A Surprising Display of Sovereign Mercy, eds. Matthew M. Barrett and Thomas J. Nettles (Cape Coral: Founders, 2013), 120–187. See esp. 147–187; idem, Salvation by Grace: The Case for Effectual Calling and Regeneration (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2013); Jonathan Hoglund, Called by Triune Grace: Divine Rhetoric and the Effectual Call, Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2016).
 Stephen Wellum, “God’s Sovereignty over Evil,” in Whomever He Wills, 233–234, emphasis mine.
 Ibid., 234. I say this knowing full well that while the Bible is our sole infallible authority, it is not our only authority, on which see Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow: Canon Press, 2001), 238ff; one may also wish to consider Anthony N. S. Lane, “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan,” in A Pathway into Holy Scripture, ed. Philip E. Sattherwaite and David F. Wright (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 297–327; D. H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999). I am fully aware of the chaos that can ensue when the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura is misunderstood or abused as it was early on in American history. See, e.g., Nathan O. Hatch, “Sola Scriptura and Novus Ordo Seclorum,” in The Bible in America: Essays in Cultural History, eds. Nathan O. Hatch and Mark A. Noll (New York: Oxford University Press), 59–78.
 I agree with Calvin: “. . . the knowledge of God does not rest in cold speculation” (Institutes 1. 12. 1).
 On these last several points, see Michael Allen, “Knowledge of God,” in Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic, eds. Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2016), 7–29; Kelly M. Kapic, A Little Book for New Theologians (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2012), 27; Thomas G. Weinandy, “Doing Christian Systematic Theology: Faith, Problems, and Mysteries,” Logos 5:1 (Winter 2002): 120–135.
 David Basinger, “Middle Knowledge and Classical Christian Thought,” Religious Studies 22 (1986): 416.
 Gregory E. Ganssle, Thinking about God: First Steps in Philosophy (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004), 135–137.
 R. C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 1992), 176–177.
 That is, if Lewis is correct (along with Arminians and semi-Pelagians) someone with an unrenewed will could surrender his or her life to God. See further Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison Jr. (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1994), 519. In contrast to Lewis and the Arminian tradition more broadly, I agree with Hoglund’s recent treatment, wherein he argues that in regeneration God reorders a person’s affections and loves (Called by Triune Grace, 6).
 While Christians affirm the reality of the noetic effects of sin (i.e., that the fall effects the way we think), Christians also believe that because human beings are created in the image of God, have been endowed with the ability to think, reason, communicate, and comprehend what is written or spoken. See, e.g., John Bolt, “Sola Scriptura as an Evangelical Theological Method?” in Reforming or Conforming? Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church, eds. Gary L. W. Johnson and Ronald N. Gleason (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 62–92. Nevertheless we also believe that “Sin creates a moral deficiency within us by which we are indisposed to truth” (R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], 51).
 Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1957), 262.
 Wilhelmus á Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, trans. Bartel Elshout, ed. Joel R. Beeke (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 2:218.
 See further Meade, “Circumcision of Flesh to Circumcision of Heart,” 132–144. Also, if Lewis (and Arminians more generally) is correct, the Holy Spirit is not the cause of salvation as much as the consenting individual. Interested readers can see Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, New Combined Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 430.
 Matthew Barrett, “The Scriptural Affirmation of Monergism,” 147–148.
 See also John 1:12–13, 1 John 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, and 5:4, 18. Also, note that the NIV does not translate 1 John 5:1 accurately. For some reason, they translate the perfect tense as if it were present tense. The ESV translates it correctly.
 John Calvin, The Acts of the Apostles 1–13, ed. David W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance, trans. W. J. G. McDonald, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 149 (on Acts 5:30).
 Peter Martyr Vermigli, “The Authority of Scripture,” in The Peter Martyr Reader, eds. John Patrick Donnelly, Frank James III, and Joseph C. McLelland (Kirksville, MO: Trueman State University Press, 1999), 78.
 Á Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 2:226. Also Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 3, Sin and Salvation in Christ, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 580.
 “On Loving God,” in Bernard of Clairvaux: Selected Works, ed. Emilie Griffin, trans. G. R. Evans (New York: HarperCollins, 1987), 72.
 Stephen Wellum, “God’s Sovereignty over Evil,” in Whomever He Wills, 233–234, emphasis mine.
 Richard Lints, The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 169. Also cf. 126.
 Ibid., 82.
 John Piper, Spectacular Sins and Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 56.
 D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1994), 182.
 Thomas R. Schreiner, “Does Scripture Teach Grace in the Wesleyan Sense?” in Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace, eds. Thomas R. Schreiner & Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000), 245 says, “Those who believe that God must extend mercy equally to all are subtly falling into the trap of believing that God would not be good without showing mercy to all. . . . In this view mercy extended to all is demanded by justice. This kind of reasoning should be rejected because the Scriptures make it clear that no one deserves to be saved, that all people could be justly sent to hell, and that God’s mercy is stunning because it is undeserved.”
 John M. Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2001), 138.
 John Piper, “Are There Two Wills in God?” in Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace, 124. Also, I say this realizing that speculation is part of a philosopher’s work. See, e.g., Richard E. Creel, Thinking Philosophically: An Introduction to Critical Reflection and Rational Dialogue (Malden: Blackwell, 2001), 36, 60.