The debate between Calvinism & Non-Calvinism with respect to free will is about the internal mechanics of free agency as an action theory of the will.
How is the concept of a free will offering an example of the existence of libertarian free will?
Calvinists affirm what James 1:14 - 15 affirms: When moral agents sin, they do so by following their own desires into sin, condemnation, & death.
Arminianians & other advocates of libertarian free will argue that people have either by virtue of their creation or by way of the application of Universal Prevenient Grace, the ability to make & follow through with choices that run counter to their own (prevailing) desires as well as the ability to make & follow through with choices that do not run counter to their own (prevailing) desires, or maybe with no underlying cause at all.
The concept of the free will offering doesn’t support the concept of free will.
First, the Bible is clear that the free will offering is predicated on the person offering it in good faith doing so because they love God & others, themselves included, enough to do so. In other words, their choice is underwritten by a specific set of motives.
Second, the Bible defines righteousness as perfectly loving God first, then all others before yourself & then yourself. We see this is Matt. 22 & Romans 13. Perfect love fulfills the Law. Perfect love loves God totally & completely FIRST & only then anybody & anything else. Love others SECOND, & then THIRDLY love yourself.
The Bible also tells us that God judges people by way of evaluating the internal workings of our hearts & minds —- not by way of outward appearances. We see this in 1 Samuel 16:7 & Jeremiah 17:9, 10.
In Matthew 5, we are taught that murder comes from anger that turns to hatred & that adultery requires lustful intent. If there is no lustful intent, there is no sexual immorality in looking at someone else’s spouse. Lustful intent tells us that the look was a leer & the identity of the person on the receiving end of the leer determines what sort of sexual immorality the Judge is judging.
In other words, all the available evidence in the Bible points us to the truth that our choices center on our internal motives, especially our love. Sin is a fundamental failure to love God first. Instead of loving God first, the moral agent loves themselves first & proceeds from there.
They go where their love goes, following their number one priority love for themselves first & only then anybody &/or anything else, especially God thus falling into condemnation & death.
If LFW obtains, then maybe they acted in a manner that runs contrary to the priority of their self love or maybe they did not. If so, then it might just be possible to bypass the chain of events leading to condemnation & death by doing works that run contrary to our own internal desires, which leaves open the possibility that the mind set on the flesh CAN please God even though Romans 8:7 says the exact opposite.
The meme posted above doesn’t reflect how moral determinism actually works. It conflates 2 separate issues: meticulous providence (external determinism) & how free agency operates in the heart & mind of a moral agent (internal determinism).
As to the latter, Calvinism affirms that we form & follow our own internal desires. Every choice is underwritten by a moral agent choosing to love who, what, when, where, how, & why.
As to the former, Calvinism affirms meticulous providence, meaning that we live in a world of causes & their effects. Some causes & effects are external to us. God created us & placed us in a particular time & place, & this all has something to do with an overarching grand plan, like a novel that spans all of time & space & forever.
Others causes & effects have human causes, insofar as they reflect our moral choices. The means by which these choices are made involves the inner workings of our hearts & minds. God might communicate with us in our spirits, but He doesn’t substitute His own desires in place of our desires. Thus, our choices are real, arising from our own moral attributes that we exercise every time we make choices.
Comments
Post a Comment