Do We Have Free Will? - by Scott Christensen

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------------

The author wrestles unsuccessfully with the contradictions caused by his Calvinism. The basic problem, unresolved by any Calvinist, is that if God chooses then we did not choose. That's it, the bare, unvarnished equation. But Calvinists like the author wants to hold mankind responsible for choices mankind did not make, for the purpose of absolving God from bad outcomes. 

It requires quite of bit of verbal gymnastics to attempt to escape the Calvinistic trap, a futile thing no matter the rhetorician.

------------------------

The question of whether we have free will has been debated by Christians for two millennia. But what does the Bible say? Can we find any help in God’s Word to answer how we can freely choose our actions and be responsible for them? (This is not the question asked by the title.)

Many Christians, sometimes known as free-will theists (including Arminians), have answered this question one way, embracing what is called libertarian free will. Other Christians associated with Reformed theology (Calvinists) have answered the question another way, embracing what is called compatibilism. (There are, of course, more than two choices, but Calvinists prefer the us-against-them equation.)

Proponents of libertarian free will believe that for any choice to be truly free, it must not be constrained by any outside causal forces. God and other sources can influence our choices, but they cannot decisively determine the outcome of our choices. (This seems obvious. If a choice has been determined it cannot be a choice.)

Furthermore, libertarian free will affirms that we have the power of contrary choice. Suppose you drive your car to a T-intersection and choose to turn right. However, if the clock could be rolled back and the conditions were the same, you could have equally chosen to turn left.

Proponents of libertarian free will believe this model of human freedom allows for moral responsibility and the opportunity for meaningful relationships. For example, some argue that if God determines our love for Him, then our freedom would be constrained and our choices coerced, taking away our moral responsibility. We must possess the ability to freely love God or reject loving God. Free-will theists believe this model of human freedom is assumed by the Bible, citing the “whosoever” passages such as John 3:16. At first glance, these passages seem to support libertarian free will, but this view faces insurmountable problems. (This seems to be a reasonably accurate portrayal of what non-Calvinists believe. Plus, the explanation is largely absent of the typical Calvinist rhetoric like "God is in heaven hoping someone will choose Him," or "for the Arminian, salvation is only theoretical." 

So, let's see what are these "insurmountable problems.")

For example, this brand of free will undermines the sovereignty of God over all things (see Isa. 45:5–7; 46:9–11; Dan. 2:20–21; 4:34–35; Eph. 1:11). (Insurmountable problem #1. But how does "this brand of free will" do this? Astonishingly, the author will never explain.

Further, what does the author mean by "sovereignty?" This is an important question.

Let's quote the references, perhaps that will help: 

Is. 45:5-7 I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, 6 so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other. 7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

This passage suggests that sovereignty means God alone is God, and that certainly makes sense. But there's nothing here about man's free will.

Is. 46:9-11 Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. 10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. 11 From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfil my purpose. What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.

Again there is nothing here about man's free will. However, we are beginning to suspect that the author thinks "sovereignty" has something to do with God dictating everything that happens. But Him being sovereign [that is, the highest king and ruler] does not mean He must dictate everything. 

In fact, if God's sovereignty requires him to dictate everything, then He is at the mercy of the dictates of His own sovereignty. His sovereignty forces to Him to dictate everything, a logical absurdity.

Let's look at the rest of the references:

Da. 2:21 He changes times and seasons; he sets up kings and deposes them. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning.

Da. 4:35 All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No-one can hold back his hand or say to him: “What have you done?”

Ep. 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will...

Ok, we are now sure that the author thinks that sovereignty means dictating everything. But we are still left to wonder how "libertarian" free will would impede His sovereignty.)

It also does not square with the doctrine of human depravity, (Insurmountable problem #2, which is nothing more than a conflict with another Calvinistic doctrine, Total Depravity. Total Depravity actually means Total Inability, i.e., the idea that people have no ability to make a decision to follow Christ. While it is certainly true that we were lost and unable to save ourselves, there is no Bible verse that tells us we cannot choose salvation.)

as the Bible makes clear that unbelievers are in bondage to their sin (Rom. 3:10–18, 23) and have no power within themselves to escape this bondage (Rom. 8:7–8). (Why would "libertarian" free will violate the idea of human depravity? Again the author does not explain. The referenced verses do explain our previous state, most certainly. But being sinners does not tell us why free will is not possible.)

Furthermore, libertarian free will cannot account for divine foreknowledge. (Insurmountable problem #3.)

How could we have the power of contrary choice when God already knows with certainty what we will choose? (Interesting. The "Arminian" perspective is typically presented as, God sees who will believe and thus includes them in salvation. This is foreknowledge in the sense that God simply knows who will choose salvation but does not pre-determine their salvation. But the author appeals to foreknowledge as a problem for the Arminian. Odd.

The problem is, the author thinks that because God knows in advance that this somehow constrains Him or forces Him to make all He foresees happen. Again, this violates the true sovereignty of God if He is at the mercy of His foreknowledge.

But more to the point, does God have the ability to decide the nature of His own sovereignty? Does He get to decide His own character? Does He have the power to decide what He does with His foreknowledge? 

Or, does His foreknowledge force Him to act? Does His sovereignty compel Him to decide? What part of God's nature obligates Him to submit to other parts of His nature?

The Calvinist wants to anthropomorphize what God knows and does, thus reducing God's mind to a series of binary equations.)

The compatibilist view of human freedom and responsibility better corresponds with Scripture. It teaches that every human choice has a dual explanation. First, God has ordained in eternity past and providentially ensures in the present all the choices human beings make without coercing us to act against our will. (This is ridiculous. God ensures that every free choice conforms to what He ordained? If our choices are ordained, then they are not choices.)

For example, the book of Exodus says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. 7:3; 9:12). Yet simultaneously, it says Pharaoh freely and sinfully hardened his own heart (Ex. 8:15, 32; 9:34). (Or maybe both things happened. But really, we need to understand that the entire history of the Jews features predomination: 

Rom. 11:2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. 

Rom. 11:5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.

What God did with Israel is quite the different matter from Him dictating everything. In fact, we happily assent to the idea that God predetermined His people, the firstfruits [Rom. 11:16] out of the remnant of Israel. This remnant is known as The Elect [Rom. 11:7]. But we later Christians are not in this category. We were included when we believed [Eph. 1:13].

The predestination of The Elect is a separate matter than the inclusion [or, grafting in, Rom. 11:17] of the gentiles.)

Second, God’s sovereignty is compatible with what we voluntarily, unconstrainedly choose as dictated by the condition of our hearts, whether good or evil. (No, the author previously told us that God "providentially ensures in the present all the choices human beings..." That is in fact involuntary and a constraint, sir.)

Corrupted hearts can only make corrupted choices (Matt. 7:17–20; 12:33–35). (Let's quote, shall we: 

Matt. 7:18-20 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Mt. 12:33-35 Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him.

We first note that bearing good fruit is not the same thing as simply doing good things. Both good and bad people do good things all the time. This is obvious. So it is factually false that "corrupted hearts can only make corrupted choices." Second, Matt. 12:35 directly tells us that a good man does good things. It doesn't tell us about a righteous man, or a godly man, it's simply a good man. We cannot assume the extension.

Unregenerate men most certainly do have the ability to make choices to do good. We see it all the time. That doesn't mean their good choices commend them to God [Isaiah 64:6], it only means that people do make observably good choices.)

To make God-pleasing choices, the heart must be transformed, regenerated by the Holy Spirit (John 3:5–8). (Sigh... Let's quote: 

John 3:5-8 Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no-one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

With the text before we can see there is nothing here about men making choices of any kind, let alone God-pleasing choices.

The reader can be forgiven for not knowing that the author is hinting at one of Calvinism's stranger doctrines, as outlined in the ordo salutis. This is the idea that one must be born again BEFORE one can be saved. In other words, in order to make a decision for Christ the depraved man must be made alive by the Holy Spirit. As soon as one is made alive one can receive the revelation of Christ and become a believer.

So, being born again is required to be saved. Odd.)

Solomon understood this mysterious intertwining of human and divine wills, saying,

The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps. (Prov. 16:9) (Our first actual Bible quote, finally.)

He also said,

Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand. (Prov. 19:21; see also Prov. 16:33; 21:1)

These proverbs indicate that God is the remote but primary cause of human actions, (?? We read these verses and we don't see that God causes our actions. Having our steps established [made sure and solid as we walk] does not speak to predetermination. And, man's plans that are at odds with the purposes of God will certainly fail. Again, this does not speak to the idea that God dictates everything.)

whereas humans are the immediate but secondary cause of their own actions. Thus, we are not helpless puppets dangling from some grand puppeteer’s strings. (This conclusion does not follow. An irresistible primary cause [God] obviates any contingency. Thus if God ordains something, the person as secondary cause cannot make any other choice than what has been chosen by the primary cause. 

Under Calvinism we are most certainly puppets on a string.)

Our choices are real and meaningful. (No, they are illusory, empty and irrelevant.)

The Bible is full of specific examples of compatibilism. Consider how Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery, an act for which they bore moral responsibility. Yet simultaneously, God brought about their actions (Gen. 45:4–9; 50:15–18). Joseph declared to his brothers, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20). (Sigh... In other words, God had another purpose in mind for what they did. 

But they did evil things even though God brought good out of it? Did God do only the good, or did He also do the bad that was necessary to bring forth the good? Was His intention to do good negated by the bad so that God needed to subsequently act to make good come out of the bad? Was the bad necessary in order for God to redeem it?

One can see the logical problems caused by Calvinism.)

In Acts 27, an angel reveals to Paul that he and his sailing companions shall all be divinely rescued from a fierce storm. He tells the sailors, “Take heart, men, for I have faith in God that it will be exactly as I have been told” (Acts 27:25). (Paul prophesied. However, his first prediction was that there was going to be a great loss of life [Acts 27:10]. This did not happen. In verse 22 Paul subsequently tells them that no lives will be lost. And that is what happened. So did God choose to kill them, and then change His mind? Did He pre-ordain something and then re-pre-ordain the opposite?

In actual fact the Calvinist is forcing his doctrine into this story. But clearly Paul's faith in God is the relevant part of the story, not some imagined idea that the lesson to be learned is that God made direct, individual choices that dictated the sailor's choices.)

God will sovereignly ensure their safety. Yet, when some of the sailors tried to escape from the faltering ship, Paul urged the centurion in charge, “Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved” (Acts 27:31). (But as we mentioned, Paul told them in verse 22 that no lives would be lost. The author seems to want God to be arbitrary.)

Thus, God’s providence is not fatalism in which human choices do not matter. (??? The author keeps telling us our choices matter but that God sovereignly ensures everything. It cannot be both ways.)

Rather, God exercises His sovereign plans through the freely exercised wills of His creatures. (But the choice was already made. God chose. These men had no choice because God chose. There is no "freely exercised wills" in operation here. End of story.)

The most significant example of compatibilism is the death of Christ. Scripture is clear that God sovereignly ordained the grand plan of redemption that required Him to send forth His Son to be our crucified and risen Redeemer. (No one disputes this. But this is quite different than human choice. To suggest that God's pre-ordained plan of salvation somehow extends to the idea that everything is pre-ordained cannot be justified.)

Peter declares to the inhabitants of Jerusalem that Jesus was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). And yet, Peter does not exonerate the Jews of their moral responsibility here: “You crucified and killed” Jesus “by the hands of lawless men” (see also Acts 4:27–28). (Indeed, as we mentioned, there is a lot of predetermination all through the history of Israel, including the death and resurrection of Jesus. But again, it is not justifiable to extend this into the idea that God pre-ordains every thought and action of every person.)

There is tension and mystery in the relationship between the divine and the human in the choices we make. (The author punts. After many assertions about Calvinism he is reduced to attributing it all to a mystery. 

We would ordinarily agree, but in actual fact Calvinism robs us of this mystery. Because if God chooses, and His choice is irresistible, then subsequent choices are illusory. They are not choices at all because the choices have already been made. This negates the mystery.)

Scripture usually emphasizes the divine or the human side of the equation. Sometimes both perspectives are placed side by side. In either case, the two always go together. God is completely sovereign, and we are responsible for our voluntarily (freely) made choices. (One might see how the author uses conventional language that gets us to nodding our heads in agreement, then slips in Calvinism. The result is skewed meaning and leaps of illogic.

All of this is for no reason. The author's entire argument, indeed the whole of Calvinism, makes no difference to us who are saved.)