I
also explained that I hold to a view of freedom known as compatibilistic
freedom, i.e. a decision is free if the person making it truly wants to make
that decision, regardless of the level of causality or what kind of alternativity
is present. Alternativity refers to the ability to do other than what one chooses.
So, if a person chooses to eat cheese cake at his birthday party, he also has
the ability to choose not to eat it.
In the previous post I also said I had three main
responses to Tim’s biblical arguments for libertarian freedom. The first was
that I agree with much of what Tim said about ability in those passages. In
other words, my point is one that British philosopher and theologian, Paul
Helm, has made multiple times: The compatibilist can say much of the same
things that one can say who advocates for libertarian freedom. For example, the
person advocating libertarian freedom speaks of people changing their mind or
responding to a rational argument or making a decision that flows from their
own will. Yet, compatibilism, if properly understood, can say the same things.
So, I outlined some of these places of agreement.
The remaining two responses to Tim I take up in this
post and in a following post. They are: 1. I have a few important disagreements
with Tim on what he says about ability from these passages. (I actually began
introducing this response in the first post as I delineated what I mean by
different kinds of ability humans can possess) 2. These passages are best
explained as advocating compatibilistic freedom. I will deal with these responses
together as I look at each of the passages. I will look at the first four
passages in this post and then the last one in a subsequent post.
Deuteronomy 30:14
This
text reads: “But the word is very near you. It is on your mouth and in your
heart, so that you can do it.” To understand this verse we need to see it in
context.
Deuteronomy
30 is part of the third sermon Moses preached to Israel while they were
positioned to enter into the Promised Land (1:1-5a). In this third message the
leader sets before the nation the blessings and curses of the covenant (ch’s.
27-28), then leads them in renewing their commitment to the covenant with God,
which includes words about what will happen if they do not keep the covenant
(29). Then in chapter 30 he teaches the people the importance of repentance in
the future if and when they turn away from God (and the text strongly suggests
they will!)—so covenant blessings can be restored (30:1-10).
In
the first ten verses of the chapter it is important to note that in such future
repentance, God’s heart transformation will (and must) lie behind it, a
transformation that will enable them to love Yahweh their God with
all their heart and soul, that they may live (30:6). This “circumcision” of the
heart is a work of God’s grace whereby he removes their stubbornness and gives
them the desire to respond positively to him (cf. Dt. 10:16). This positive response results in their obeying
the voice of the LORD and keeping his commandments
(30:8)—fueled by their faith in God (30:10).
In
verses 11-14 Moses challenges those who would conclude that the righteousness
of God is attained through self-effort, rather than faith-fueled obedience.
Since “this commandment” (v. 11) is the only place in Deuteronomy we find the
singular of mitzvah (“commandment”), it most likely refers specifically
to the command to repent and trust in Yahweh, to seek him in
the event of future rebellion, a command found in the immediately preceding
context. This would be opposed to the plural of this word found throughout the
rest of the book (sometimes along with “statutes”) that refers to the totality
of the Law (e.g. 10:12-13).
The
point that Moses makes in 30:11-14 is that this call to return to Yahweh
is
not one that is so far off that a person has to ascend to the skies through
self-effort or go beyond the sea. Rather, the word (i.e. the word of God, the
Law) is in the mouth and heart of a person who has been changed by Yahweh
(this
last clause is added because of the context of verses 1-10). In other words, the doing of God’s will, the
following of him, is by his grace that transforms—a grace available to all
kinds of persons without distinction, rather than by super-human efforts done
only by a select few. This appears to be how Paul understood this passage in
Romans 10:6-8. So, life comes by God’s
grace and is available to all without distinction.
So,
to use the different kinds of ability to choose I introduced in the previous
post, it is better to see this passage as consistent with the idea that people
possess the natural ability to respond to God in faith and obedience (they have
the faculties to do so). However, they do not possess the moral ability (including
the desire) to respond to God in the ways he commands, for the purposes he
commands, and to the extent he commands. For this moral ability to be present,
there must be an effective work of God’s grace. In fact, the language of this
text causes the reader (especially the New Covenant reader) to lean forward
toward those later Old Testament promises in which God said he would cut a new
covenant with his people that would change them from the inside out and enable
them to carry out his will (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:25-27). With such a work of
grace, then surely the person can say that the doing of God’s will is in us,
not far from us, and can be done without some kind of additional extraordinary
strength.
So,
to read Deuteronomy 30:14 as if any person has full ability to respond to God
positively without a previous effective work of God’s grace seems to ignore the
context. In other words, they do have natural ability. Yet, the corrupt nature
of man’s heart leaves him ever unwilling to respond positively to God. His can’t is actually a won’t! To understand
this text in its context supports the compatibilistic freedom of the Calvinist,
a freedom that argues that the positive response of faith, repentance, and obedience
will arise only from God’s effective and decisive previous work in the heart.
1
Corinthians 10:13:
This
text reads: “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is
faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the
temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to
endure it.”
Here
we discover several pertinent points.
To
begin, when we face temptation to sin, we can be assured that none of us is
facing a temptation that goes beyond what other humans have faced.
Next,
when we face temptation to sin, we can be assured that God is sovereign over
that temptation. Though God does not author sin or tempt us to sin (cf. James
1:13), nevertheless, he can limit the level of temptation so it fits with the
general moral ability of the Christian, or he can provide grace such that the
general moral ability of the person matches the temptation. Part of the way he
does this is to provide a way of escape so the person can endure the temptation
and not give into it. Here Paul may be thinking of other believers who come
along to pray with, for, to exhort, and to encourage the person (Heb. 3:12-14;
10:24-25; James 5:19-20), or he may be thinking of the Spirit bringing to the
Christian’s memory biblical promises that help him escape (e.g. 1 Cor. 10:13; 2
Cor. 7:1). Whatever Paul has in mind, he is not suggesting that a Christian has
the ability within herself alone to say, “Yes,” to God and “No” to temptation
without a previous, effective, and decisive work of God.[1] Nor can she do so without
the ongoing work of God’s Spirit in her from moment to moment applying the
person, power, presence, and work of Christ.
What
Paul appears to be promising to the Christian is general moral ability in all
cases of temptation. However, in line with God’s immeasurable combination of causative
and permissive governance in the believer, along with whether or not the
believer is putting sin to death and pursuing holiness (i.e. disciplining self
unto godliness and forming positive habits), and whether or not they are
trusting in Christ at the time to be obedient, will determine whether or not
they possess particular moral ability at the time. We can say that the presence
of particular moral ability to avoid sin in the Christian is always ultimately
brought about by God’s saving and transforming grace—and through the intellect,
affections, and will of the person. The lack of particular moral ability in the
Christian is due to the person not resting in the promises of God and also due
to their own sin.[2]
2
Corinthians 10:5; Ephesians 6:12; Colossians 2:8:
In
regard to this cluster of passages, Tim writes that they call us to take our
thoughts captive to obey Christ and we are responsible to act upon this and can
act upon it. So far so good. A compatibilist, as I wrote in my previous post,
can and should agree. But then he writes: “Our thoughts
are not causally determined and forced upon us from external sources; we
possess the ability to think otherwise…. Which is not even possible on a
deterministic view as many Calvinists affirm.”
I
will deal with each clause individually.
I
disagree with Tim’s assertion, “Our thoughts are not causally determined.” To
be precise, what the Calvinist means by saying one’s thoughts are causally
determined is that they flow from antecedent movements of their heart and
decisions, which the Bible makes clear in explaining how humans make choices (e.g.
Mt. 7:17-18; 15:18-20; 1 Cor. 2:13-14; Eph. 2:1-10).[3] The second intent of the
Calvinist is to say that all such antecedent movements, decisions, and current
decisions are determined by God and realized through an immeasurable (from the
human perspective) combination of causative and passive divine acts of governance.
The result is that man acts freely and responsibly, to do what he desires to
do. At the same time, God, in absolute sovereignty, exercised through
meticulous providence, works to bring about all he has foreordained.
Yet,
when God works decisively in a Christian to give general and/or particular
moral ability, he works upon the will (cf. Phil. 2:13), he enables the person
to desire to do what is right and so he is not forcing them from an external
source. So, I disagree with Tim’s implication that this is what Calvinists
teach, namely that God forces upon people an action from an external source.
In Tim’s
last two clauses he suggests that according to Calvinist thought a person does
not have the ability to think otherwise. The implication would be that a person
could not change their mind. This is simply not accurate. Take, for example, a
person’s decision to eat cheese cake or not. Each person has the natural ability
to eat it or not. One person may have the general moral ability to say, “No,”
because they have done it many times previously. Yet, given the fact they have
not eaten anything all day previous to the offer and they have not developed a
strong disciplined approach to their eating (a habit), they may lack the
particular moral ability at that moment, which simply results in a strong
desire to eat that is not off-set by a greater desire not to, so they eat.
Another person, because they have developed a habit of disciplined eating and
saying, “No,” may possess the particular moral ability to say, “No,” and so
they do so. A greater affection (e.g. their desire to maintain their weight
loss) offsets the desire for the cheese cake at that moment. Yet, in each
situation, the Calvinist believes the person can change their decision. What
the Calvinist does not argue is that the person has the power to choose what
they do not want (in accordance with their greatest desire at the time). What
the Calvinist does believe is that whatever choice is made, it is not only
free, but also in accordance with God’s absolute sovereignty, exercised through
an immeasurable combination of his active and passive governance.
2
Timothy 1:7:
This
text reads: “For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and
self-control.” Here I merely note two things. To begin, Paul is clearly
speaking of what God has done in Christians (which Tim recognizes), so these
effects or characteristics flow out of a previous gracious work of God (cf. 2 Tim.
1:5-6).
Second,
I would simply note that the word translated, “self-control” (sÅphronismos) does not
necessitate that a person is controlling himself by himself, as if he is the only
cause of the control, which, if I understand Tim correctly, he seems to be
arguing. In fact, a word that has an overlapping field of meaning and so is
translated “self-control” (egkrateia) in Galatians 5:23 is said there to be
part of the fruit of the Spirit (i.e. what the Spirit produces). What both
texts seem to be saying is that one must control self, but this does not demand
that the desire or ability to control self arises only in the person at that
time and does not have other internal antecedent causes and/or external causes.
In fact, it demands also the causation of the Holy Spirit!
The
best forms of Calvinism reject any sense of monocausality, i.e. that in our
decisions there is only one cause of a decision. It is recognized there are
multiple causes. Some forms of Calvinism seem to suggest God is the only cause
of all things and so man is not free in any sense or responsible. At the same
time, some advocates of libertarian freedom can, at times, sound as if they are
suggesting a free act must arise only from the person without any other causes.
The best forms of Calvinism reject both.
This
can be seen in the state that both Tim and I call home, Nebraska. Many young
men and women here grow up to cheer for the Nebraska Cornhusker football team freely.
Though I would argue that desire flows from the will of the fan and so is free,
it is not only the will of the fan that decides it. There are multiple causes,
not the least of which is living in this state and growing up in a family that
cheers for the Huskers.
Conclusion
I
realize I have not answered all questions or scratched all itches in just two
posts. That will take many more to unpack the Calvinist view. I plan to keep
plugging away at this and trust it will be of help to all who read the posts,
whether they agree or not. I have certainly been very positively impacted by
interacting with Tim and his writing on the subject, even though I do not agree
with him on all things.
In
my next post I will take up Tim’s final passage he mentioned (Philemon 14) and,
along the way, will introduce more on what the Calvinist believes about freedom
and why libertarian freedom is rejected. After this, I will move on to explain
about God’s absolute sovereignty exercises through his meticulous providence
and how this includes both causative and permissive governance.
Joyfully
Following Our Sovereign God With You And Loving Those Who Disagree With Us,
Tom
[1] This is in line with the larger
context of 1 Corinthians, in which Paul argues that in order for a person to
accept the things of the Spirit of God, the gospel in particular, demands a
previous effective and decisive work in them, as well as an ongoing work
(2:13-14).
[2] Such an understanding, then,
demonstrates how God can ordain all things in his absolute sovereignty, worked
out through his meticulous providence, and yet with the result he is not
responsible for sin, his grace is necessary for man’s righteous acts, and in
both cases man acts responsibly and freely in the compatibilistic sense.
[3] In all of these passages in the
cluster, if the reader looks at the preceding larger context, she will find
Paul’s emphasis upon a previous effective gracious work in the person that is
necessary for both general and particular moral ability to be present to trust
in and to follow Christ. For example, in Eph. 6:10, just two verses prior to
the verse Tim cites, the reader is commanded, “Be strong in the Lord and in the
strength that comes from his might” (author’s own translation). When Paul goes
on to delineate the spiritual armor the believer has at her disposal to fight
the enemy, it is understood that both this armor and the ability to use it are
given through Christ. The spiritually dead person is made alive by God so she
can carry out the works that God prepared for her to do (Eph. 2:1-10) and must
continually trust in Christ to have the ability to stand against the enemy.
No comments:
Post a Comment