Earlier this year Braxton Hunter wrote a great article opposing Compatibilism published in The Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry and reposted in the SBC Today Blog.
That article was rebutted by the Founders Blog in a post titled: A Brief Response To Braxton Hunter’s Article on Libertarian Free Will. Below is one excerpt from that article that I would like to address today:
Proponents of libertarian freedom say that given all the causes and influences involved, including the man’s own character, personality, and preferences, his choice to turn left or right is not determined. The man is free to choose against all influences and causes such that there is no determining or governing reason for his particular choice.
This is an incomplete picture of the claims made by proponents of Libertarian Free Will. If one desires to understand and thus address this perspective it might better be defined in the following manner:
Proponents of libertarian freedom say that given all the influences involved, including the man’s own character, personality, and preferences, his choice to turn left or right is determined by his will alone. The man is free to choose for or against any or all influences such that there is no determining factor for his particular choice outside the own function of his will, which is mysterious and beyond full comprehension.
Too often those from the deterministic mindset beg the question of this debate by asking why a particular free moral choice is made. For example, Calvinists are notorious for asking the unsuspecting believer, “Why did you believe in Christ and someone else does not; are you smarter, or more praiseworthy in some way?” What the Calvinist and likely the target of his inquiry often do not understand is that the question itself is a fallacy known as “Question Begging.”
Begging the question is a debate tactic where your opponent presumes true the very point up for debate. For instance, if the issue being disputed was whether or not you cheat on your taxes and I began the discussion by asking you, “Have you stopped cheating on your taxes yet?” I would be begging the question.
Likewise, in the case of the Calvinist asking “Why did you made this choice instead of that one,” he is presuming a deterministic response is necessary thus beginning the discussion with a circular and often confounding game of question begging. The inquiry as to what determines the choice of a free will presumes something other than the free function of the agent’s will makes the determination, thus denying the very mystery of what makes the will free and not determined.
The Founder’s blog article made the same foundational error in their assessment of Libertarian Freedom by presuming a deterministic premise and neglecting to affirm that the mysterious function of the will itself is what determines the agent’s choice. The cause of a choice is the chooser. The cause of a determination is the determiner. It is not an undetermined determination, or an unchosen choice, as they attempt to frame it.
If someone has an issue with this simply apply the same principle to the question, “Why did God choose to create mankind?” He is obviously all self-sustaining and self-sufficient. He does need us to exist. Therefore, certainly no one would suggest God was not free to refrain from creating humanity. So, what determined God’s choice to create if not the mysterious function of His free will?
In short, whether one appeals to mystery regarding the function of man’s will or the function of the Divine will, we all eventually appeal to mystery. Why not appeal to mystery BEFORE drawing conclusions that could in any way impugn the holiness of God by suggesting He had something to do with determining the nature, desire and thus evil choices of His creatures?
What are you thoughts on Luther’s Bondage of the will and or Edwards Freedon of the will?
How much time do you have?
I did a pretty extensive study on Luther in college so I’m more familiar with “Bondage of the Will” than I am with Edward’s work. I have read bits a pieces of it along the way, but even that was a while ago.
So, in brief I’ll just say Luther’s polemic is chalk full of the typical vitriol, sarcasm and plain uncharitable language we have grown accustom to in these types of discussions (from both sides). Some people are drawn to that, “YEAH, SHOW THEM WHO IS SMARTER” kind of “dialogue,” which in my opinion often never ends up in any real dialogue because the emotions are so high neither side really understands the other. As Braxton Hunter’s article well stated, “we talk past each other.”
I’m going by memory here, but I recall Erasmus making the typical point that God would not give man a command without also giving him the ability to obey it. Luther responds with an illustration of a man who is bound in chains but who believes himself to be free. He then goes on to suggest that the command for the chained man to lift up his arms could not be followed, but he at least could be become aware of his chains (which is the actual purpose of the command itself).
This could be compared to our natural condition of being born bound in our sin and blind to that fact (an affirmation of the natural wills bondage if left to ourselves, which I wholeheartedly affirm). However, God uses the law as a “tutor” or “schoolmaster” to reveal our chains (a revelation Calvinists suggest we cannot come to unless first regenerated, which I wholeheartedly deny).
“Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.” (Romans 3:20)
Are we to believe that we are also born unable to “become conscious of our sin” on the basis that we cannot attain forgiveness from it through works? I don’t see this taught anywhere in the bible.
Calvinists take proof texts which show man is born sinful and cannot earn righteousness by works through the law as support for their unfounded premise that man is born totally unable to attain the imputed righteousness of Christ by grace through faith. Proof we cannot earn our own righteousness by works is NOT proof that we cannot recognize that fact and respond to God’s gracious appeal to help us.
I hope that helps. Let me know if you have a specific part of either work you’d like me to address and as I have time I would be happy to look at it.
This question that you posit from Calvinists (which I have heard forms of before my self) “Why did you believe in Christ and someone else does not; are you smarter, or more praiseworthy in some way?” also suffers from a false assumption that virtually the entirety western Christianity suffers. That is the idea that a man is not meritorious or praiseworthy for humbling himself and coming to God rather than rejecting him, or for doing good instead of evil, or for acting out of selfless love rather than selfishness. Yet this is precisely those who God lifts up, gives merit / honor to and praises. The Early church and eastern church has never had a problem saying that a man who does such things is to be praised.
Just by way of a couple examples consider:
Tatian (110-172AD) – Each of these two orders of creatures [men and angels] was made free to act as it pleased. They did not have the nature of good, which again is with God alone. However, it is brought to perfection in men through their freedom of choice. In this manner, the bad man can be justly punished, having become depraved through his own fault. Likewise, the just man can be deservedly praised for his virtuous deeds, since in the exercise of his free choice, he refrained from transgressing the will of God.
or
Justin Martyr (100- 150ish AD) We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be.
Now the thing to realize here is that a Godly believer in Jesus, while deserving of praise from others (and apparently even God himself) will not be one to boast in himself, so he will deflect praise to God the father for enabling him by grace to act correctly or believe and trust on Him. So he would not be one when asked if he deserves praise more than another to affirm such an idea but from the outside looking in we understand it is his humble cooperation with God’s provided grace that sets him apart from others. This is something we should not fear to praise in others and that God himself praises and lifts up that person who not only believes but deflects the praise he is due for the love of God and others.
Another Good Post! Maybe I am the only one going back over those oldies but goodies! 🙂 I would add that though a mystery in some ways, the free will of humanity is affirmed by verses like 1Cor 7:37 – “…having no necessity, but has power over his own will….” At least the believer has it, according to this passage, though the indefinite pronoun in vs. 36 probably opens it up to anyone.
I would also say that we probably should address the understood limits to free will, in the sense of the limits brought on by limits in opportunity and ability. I know this opens up the theological “can of worms” concerning depravity and pre-salvation grace, but I think you would agree that we are only free to choose from choices we see are there! Maybe its only the difference between freedom in ability and freedom with legitimate opportunity, but the results vary significantly in both free-will situations.
Keep up the good work!
Hi,
If this is your definition of free-will, how on earth do you reconcile it with prophecy? I don’t see how you can.
“Proponents of libertarian freedom say that given all the influences involved, including the man’s own character, personality, and preferences, his choice to turn left or right is determined by his will alone. The man is free to choose for or against any or all influences such that there is no determining factor for his particular choice outside the own function of his will, which is mysterious and beyond full comprehension.”
At best you end up with open thiesm. Or do you suppose God can foresee the arbitrary will and outcome of all people’s actions? But in everything hypothetical universe one amendment would reset the arbitrary choices of all humanity. How could anything be forseen let alone predestined(prophecy) . All i can see is open thiesm where God doesnt know the future but is just taking really good educated guesses.
Thats why im currently a compatibilist. I dont know how to reconcile Libertarian Freewill and prophecy/foreknowledge. If mans decisions are influenced by external things (you deny this) then i can see God amending and shaping the world so all men respond freely as God would have them. Men do as they will and are fully responsible and God fulfills his plans. If God cant touch a mans will and according to you external things dont influence the will (which God could use to shape the will of men still leaving them free and responsible) then how are you not an open thiest and how does God achieve anything he desires? I don’t see how he can.
Every* not everything. Sorry – im on my phone.
Hi Aaron! You said – “If mans decisions are influenced by external things … then i can see God amending and shaping the world so all men respond freely as God would have them.” I agree with you, and I also believe that God’s “amending and shaping” was not all predetermined before creation, but prophecy shows that some ends have been chosen already, so any free-choices He or man might have, must be all worked together to reach those pre-determined ends. I believe this is the normal reading of Scripture’s depiction of the future, as partially determined and partially open.
Aaron, the short answer to your question is Molinism, which you touch on when you say this: “If mans decisions are influenced by external things (you deny this) then i can see God amending and shaping the world so all men respond freely as God would have them.” However, proponents of LFW would not deny that man’s decisions are influenced by external things, but would say that after taking such influences into consideration, the man is still able to choose between his available options. We (LFW proponents) also don’t say that God can’t touch a man’s will; most LFW proponents I’ve heard say simply that God generally chooses not to interfere with a man’s LFW, for His own (mysterious) reasons.
I recognize that Dr. Flowers is not a Molinist; however, Molinism purports that God does, in fact, know how all people would freely choose in all possible circumstances, and uses that knowledge (that we call “middle knowledge”) when deciding how to create the world. So God foreknows all things (and therefore can prophesy with 100% accuracy), yets man’s decisions are still free.
“Middle knowledge” implies that God is waiting for things to unfold. I think a much simpler explanation is that God is divine, and He knows all things because it is part of His divine nature to know all things. God doesn’t prophecy. He simply provides His divine knowledge to His prophets at the proper time, and compels them to share it. The Bible states that anyone who does not prophecy with 100% accuracy is a false prophet. How could they prophecy with this level of accuracy if God himself is waiting for events to unfold? That is not to say that God causes events to happen the way they do; knowing is not the same as causing. And yet, even so, He sometimes intervenes to make all things work together for the good of those who love Him. His ability to intervene on our behalf while not causing His omniscience to be falsified is part of the mystery of His divine nature.
br.d
Hello Pamela
.
Lets look at this statement:
I think a much simpler explanation is that God is divine, and He knows all things because it is part of His divine nature to know all things.
.
That is in fact what “Middle Knowledge” stipulates
It is full and complete knowledge of what the creature WOULD DO in any given circumstance – because the creator has full and complete knowledge of every aspect of the creature he creates.
.
So Middle Knowledge” does not compromise divine foreknowledge according to its ORTHODOX definition.
.
The ORTHODOX definition of divine foreknowledge – is that it is an ESSENTIAL attroibute
Which means – there is no instance in which it is lacking.
.
However – that is not the case in Calvinism.
Calvin’s god cannot have CERTAINTY of what [X] will be – until *AFTER* he decrees what [X] will be
Thus – in Calvinism – foreknowledge is simply “A-POSTIORI” knowledge (knowledge after the fact)
.
John Calvin
-quote
He foresees future events *ONLY* in consequence of his decree (Institutes 3.23.6)
.
Calvinist Tom Hicks – Founders Ministry
-quote
God cannot know what something will be until He has first decreed what it will be.
.
.
Therefore – in Calvinism – there is a point (PRIOR TO THE DECREE) in which foreknowledge is lacking
.
.
.
Now lets look at this statement:
That is not to say that God causes events to happen the way they do; knowing is not the same as causing.
.
Yes – it is TRUE that knowing [X] will happen – is not the same thing as CAUSING [X] to happen.
.
However – remember how foreknowledge works in Calvinism
Calvin’s god cannot know what [X] will be – until *AFTER* he decrees what [X] will be
.
The way he derives CERTAINTY of what [X] will be – is simply by decreeing what [X] will be – because an infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
.
The decree is what CAUSES the earth and the solar system to be formed – and what CAUSES the earths orbit around the sun.
.
The decree is what CAUSED Adam to become a living organic being – out of dust.
.
And the decree is what CAUSES every movement of every atomic particle within creation.
.
The Calvinist objection to the word CAUSE is typically – because of its inferences to the word FORCE
The Calvinist does not like the idea that Calvin’s god would FORCE the creature to do what it does.
However John Calvin himself did not have that objection.
.
John Calvin
-quote
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly…..can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate…..they are not only bound by His fetters but are even *FORCED* to do Him service.”(Institutes 1, 17, 11)
.
.
The big problem for the Calvinist – is the complete eradication of human AUTONOMY from the doctrine.
What is especially troubling for the Calvinist – is the eradication of human *MENTAL* AUTONOMY.
.
So all of these arguments by Calvinists are representations of their discomfort with the doctrine and its consequences.
.
Blessings!
br.d
Thank you for correcting my understanding of the definition of “Middle knowledge”. As I continue to think on this, another possibility occurs to me. While I do not believe that God has determined everything that ever happens, I do believe He determined the events that are recorded in the Bible (some, most, or all–it doesn’t matter), in order to reveal His character to us and point us toward worship of Him. If we extend that idea to prophecy, then it’s easy to make the leap that God determined the events that were prophesied, and that is how they were able to be prophesied–because God used his prophets to speak what God had already determined would occur.
I’ve noticed Calvinists like to treat it as an all or nothing proposition–either you believe God has predetermined all, or everything that happens must be completely random. As my daughter would say, “Por qué no los dos?” Why not both, indeed? For the unbeliever, life is pretty random. Their thoughts, actions, and beliefs have nothing to govern them other than their own desires. I picture steam, with all the water molecules vibrating rapidly and bouncing off each other randomly. As they begin to contemplate who God is, some of those molecules condense into water droplets, inclined to move in a particular direction. The more they mature in their faith, the more inclined they are to flow into the River of Life and follow its course. Occasionally their lives will be interrupted by a blast of steam (murder, robbery, wars, etc), but in general, they will stay the course.
br.d
Yes! Excellent thoughts!
You are a critical thinker.
.
Concerning Determinism – it has always been my observation that we must concede to *SOME* forms or degree of determinism – because it is an aspect of physics.
.
A person who is an expert at the billiard table – is someone who is familiar with the physics of how the billiard balls interact with each other – one ball’s movement causing another ball’s movement etc.
.
Or the man who works with a computer program which is designed for the engineering of air-plane wings.
That computer program must contain all of the laws of physics which determine how a given design will respond to environmental factors such as wind and speed and up-lift, gravity and centrifugal force.
.
These are all aspects of physics in which determinism plays a significant role.
.
However – as you point out – Determinism as a belief system can be taken to an extreme in which it has devastating consequences on human perceptions of reality – and human perceptions of normal human functions.
.
The normal human function of having a CHOICE between ALTERNATIVES for example.
.
Augustine drew his embrace of Determinism as a belief system from Platonic Determinism (doctrines of Plato)
.
For example – Calvin who follows Augustine – gets his conception of “Divine Immutability” from Plato.
.
During Augustine’s day – the predominant form of Christianity was Roman Catholicism.
And the leaders of the Catholic church were extremely superstitious.
Instead of casting off pagan belief systems – they incorporated them – believing them to have supernatural powers.
.
So the days of Augustine – are days in which the RC church synchronized pretty much every form of paganism that existed in those days.
.
Plato – and doctrines of Plato were considered to be of great power
Plato was sometimes called the MIDWIFE of scripture – because without Plato one could not rightly understand the hidden mysteries within scripture
.
English historian, Theodore Maynard, in The story of American Catholicism writes: “It has often be charged… that Catholicism has been overlaid with many pagan incrustations. Catholicism is ready to accept that charge – and to make it her boast. The great god Pan is not really dead, he is baptized.”
.
Augustine – as a Catholic Bishop in those days – does not baptize pagan deities – he baptized pagan doctrines and synchronized them into Catholic doctrine.
.
So Calvinism – is in all probability – the synchronization of Gnostic doctrines, and Platonic doctrines – with Christianity.
.
The DUALISM that is integral with Gnosticism can be found in Calvinism.
And Platonic Determinism can be found within Calvinism
.
So this is where Calvinism takes Determinism to an extreme
But no human can live coherently with Determinism – and at the same time – retain a sense of human NORMALCY.
.
No one can live *AS-IF* every impulse that comes to pass within the brain – is infallibly fated.
We would indeed be PUPPETS or ROBOTS.
.
And as you point out – Calvin does take Determinism too far.
This is what causes Calvinists to be forced into a state of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS
They hold Determinism to be TRUE – while living *AS-IF* it is FALSE in order to retain a sense of human NORMALCY.
.
Theo-Paradox is familiar with the conundrum
But he does not want to acknowledge that it produces a state of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS for obvious reasons.
.
This is why Calvinists are so heavily reliant upon DOUBLE-SPEAK language tactics.
They have an urgency to be faithful to their doctrine (DETERMINISM)
But the consequences of doing that are not bearable.
So everything becomes a DOUBLE-SPEAK TAP-DANCE routine.
.
I consistently ask the Lord to help them recognize the ensnarement
But there is a spiritual pride element that keeps them captured
And in order to be set free from the ensnarement – they need to let go of the spiritual pride.
The Lord can set them free – if and when they want to be free.
.
Blessings!
br.d