Friday, October 27, 2017

What Kind Of Freedom?

“Calvinists believe in God’s sovereignty and Arminians believe in man’s Freedom.” This is what many Christians believe. What is also often assumed is that Arminians do not believe in God’s sovereignty and Calvinists do not believe in man’s freedom. Yet, the reality is that Arminians also believe in God’s sovereignty and Calvinists also believe in man’s freedom. The difference comes down to how sovereignty and freedom are defined for each.

Though the average Christian may not be familiar with a third group of Christians, Molinists, those who are in this camp share at least two things with Arminians:  They both define freedom the same and they both disagree with how Calvinists define freedom. As such, some may be tempted to conclude, as is done with Arminians and Calvinists, that Molinists believe in freedom and Calvinists do not. However, such is not the case. Both believe in freedom, but define it differently.

I won’t define Molinism in this post. I will leave that for another time. I introduce the difference that Molinism has with Calvinism on man’s freedom because a friend of mine, Tim Stratton, of Free Thinking Ministries and a former pastor at the Kearney Evangelical Free Church, has blogged frequently the past three-four years, advocating Molinism, and, as a committed Calvinist, I have decided to interact with him on the subject. It should be fun!

Where I have decided to jump in is on the subject of freedom.

Now, before turning to the subject at hand, I need to make an admission in the interest of full disclosure. I really like and respect Tim a great deal. And, I highly respect the Molinist view and others who advocate it and who have made wonderful contributions to the Church in so many ways—not the least of which is William Lane Craig. I do not believe that Molinists are the Visigoths threatening the gates of the kingdom.

Tim, Bill Craig, and other advocates of Molinism seek to put forth a view of God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom that does several things which I appreciate very much: They seek to be biblical, deal with the whole of Scripture, preserve a strong view of God’s sovereignty at the same time they preserve man’s freedom, and they also seek to deal with the material in a manner that is philosophically sound. So, though I disagree with their position, this is a debate between two brothers who love and respect each other (and want to represent accurately the other’s position). I would gladly lock arms with Tim on the front lines and gladly stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him to serve Christ together in almost 100% of ministry opportunities. I do believe the debate is important, but it also needs to remain a family dialogue between brothers. I believe Tim and I are positioned to do just that. So, let’s get to it.

Tim’s View Of Human Freedom
In a June 8 Free Thinking Ministries post Tim, in contending that Molinism is a biblical position, argues that “humans possess libertarian freedom” and that this is taught in Scripture. Tim not only defines libertarian freedom in explanations he offers from some key biblical texts, but he also argues these cited texts defend libertarian freedom. The key defining statements, along with  the texts that allegedly defend them, are as follows: 
1. Deuteronomy 30:14 ("But the word is very near you. It is on your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it." [emphasis added]): Tim focuses on the last six words which, in his mind, strongly suggest libertarian freedom, namely that disobeying or unbelieving people have the ability to choose otherwise than what they are currently choosing.

2. 1 Corinthians 10:13 (“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.”): Tim comments, “Accordingly whenever one sins, they did not have to as there was a genuine ability to do otherwise (‘a way of escape’) available for them to choose.” (emphasis is his)

3. 2 Corinthians 10:5 (“We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ”); Colossians 2:8 (“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit… and not according to Christ”); Ephesians 6:12 (“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places”): Tim comments on this cluster of texts: “Paul states that ‘we’—and implies that we  ought to—take our thoughts captive to obey Christ. Paul seems to teach that we are responsible free thinkers of the libertarian variety…. that our thoughts are not causally determined and forced upon us from external sources; we possess the ability to think otherwise…. that we ought to take our thoughts captive to obey Christ—to obey reality! He also teaches that we can be taken captive by incorrect thinking… [and] that humanity is engaged in a battle…. No, whether we realize it or not, each and every one of us is in a battle for our mind!” Tim then concludes: Paul urges us to take our thoughts captive before they take us captive. We are responsible for our thoughts and thus, we ought to be free thinkers! Which is not even possible on a deterministic view as many Calvinists affirm.” (emphasis added)

4. 2 Timothy 1:7 (“for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.”): Tim writes: “Paul is clear that Christians are not controlled by anything external to ourselves. He makes it clear that God has given Christians an ability to be in control…. If Christians have self-control, then something other than the self is not in control.” (emphasis added)

5. Philemon 14 (“but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own [free will].”[1]): Tim, in essence, says that this text, read in light of the above texts (the larger biblical context), certainly would seem to speak of libertarian freedom.

My careful and scholarly friend defines libertarian freedom in the following ways. To begin, it is a kind of freedom that means a person can think and do otherwise than what he is currently doing and ultimately that person has the ability to choose to think or do other than what he chooses or thinks. In other words, if a genuinely free person is currently not exercising self-control when it comes to the cheese cake set before him, he can choose to have self-control and say, “No.” And, in fact, if he chooses to exercise self-control by saying, “No,” to it, being truly free in the libertarian sense, he could have also chosen to eat the cheese cake. Additionally, libertarian freedom means a person’s decision is made within himself and not decided by causes external to himself. To be force-fed or hypnotized to eat the cheese cake is not a free decision.

The Calvinist holds to what is often called compatibilistic freedom. This view that believes 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) is so called since it is alleged that genuine freedom is compatible with a view of God’s sovereignty that sees the latter as absolute. In other words, God’s sovereignty is not conditional upon or limited by anything outside himself, such as human decisions. If libertarian freedom is the kind of freedom humans possess, then it must be said that at least some humans’ decisions could not go a different way, even by God’s governance or his deciding to create a different world based upon his innate middle knowledge (as Molinists argue). This would mean that even though Molinists have a strong view of God’s sovereignty as exercised through his meticulous providence, it is still at least somewhat conditional upon or limited by man’s choices.

With our different views of freedom delineated, I can now go on to respond to Tim. My response is threefold:
1. As a compatibilist, I agree with most of what Tim writes about freedom.

2. However, as a compatibilist, I have a few important disagreements.

3. I believe each of the texts is better explained by compatibilistic and not libertarian freedom.

In the remainder of this post I will address the first part of the response in more detail and then address the remaining two in future posts.

My Agreement With Tim
To begin, I agree with Tim that Dt. 30:14 is saying that readers or listeners can obey God’s Word or his will. I have no problem believing that God has given people the faculties to respond to his revelation, in other words intellect, affections, and will. Man lacks nothing he needs to understand and obey.  What is more, in no way did God create human beings unable to understand and obey God’s Word, or make his revelation such that only a select few can follow him. This is one of the reasons Paul asserts that no one can stand before God someday and argue, “God, I did not have a chance.” After all, not just Special Revelation, but also General Revelation is within human grasp and ability. (Rom. 1:20).

I would say that man has the natural ability to understand, choose, and obey. Though I will address what natural ability is in greater detail in the next post, here I will simply give an example. An example of a natural ability in the physical realm is a person who has the “tools” it takes to walk up a flight of stairs—he has two legs that function. A natural inability would involve a paraplegic who is unable to walk up a flight of stairs. God created mankind with the natural ability to trust in and obey him and this is part of why man is responsible for his lack of trust and obedience.

Second, I agree with Tim that in 1 Corinthians 10:13 the Christian has the ability to say, “Yes,” to God and “No,” to sin. In fact, this reality is one of the reasons Calvinists are so adamant in defending compatibilistic human freedom and absolute sovereignty in salvation (more about this in the next post).

But, again, I want to be more specific in my answer. The person who has been regenerated by the Spirit of God not only has the natural ability to trust in and obey God (and say, “No” to temptation), he also has the moral ability to do so. This is because God has so transformed the Christian in salvation that he sees the need for trusting in God, wants to trust in the gospel, does so, and all this because he has the Spirit in him to transform his intellect, affections, and will, and so has what might be called the general desire and ability to trust in and obey God.

This general ability is similar to the person who is characterized by the ability to swim. This says nothing about whether or not she is near water right now and can actualize that ability, but she has it generally. A fellow passenger might jokingly ask her after hearing their seats can be used as flotation devices if the plan crashes, “Hey, can you swim?”  She answers, “Yes.” She means she has the general ability to swim, not that she has the particular ability to do it at that time.  After all, she is not near water.

In regard to 1 Corinthians 10:13, I would also say that for many Christians who are trusting in this promise of God and have habituated themselves to say, “Yes” to God and “No” to temptation (e.g. 1 Tim. 4:7; Heb. 5:14), or at least have not habituated themselves in the other direction toward temptation (e.g. 2 Pt. 2:14), they have the particular ability to obey God and avoid temptation in a particular situation. However, there is also the possibility that a Christian with moral and general ability to avoid sin can lack the particular ability, if their antecedent choices (including habituation) take them in a direction in which they cannot at that moment say, “Yes,” to God. Why? Because God created them this way or forced them?  No, but because their desire to make the other choice, shaped by antecedent movements in their own heart, is so strong.

An example, going back to the swimming analogy would be this. Suppose a woman who is an accomplished member of a college swim team and who enjoys swimming, has the natural, moral, and general ability to swim, yet she finds herself at a friend’s house for a party. She did not understand from the invitation how long the party would last, nor that it a pool party and so she had planned a date with her boyfriend after this party and she did not bring a swimming suit. Given these antecedent movements, which also include her desire for her hair to remain intact for her date and her distaste of using anyone else’s swimming suit, she has a strong desire not to swim. Does she have the natural, moral, and general ability to swim, to choose otherwise than saying, “No,” to swimming? Yes. But, given her strong disposition to decline, she lacks the particular ability to decide to swim.

Finally, I agree with Tim on the cluster of passages that call us to take captive our thoughts and that to do so suggests our free choices are not causally determined and forced upon us from external sources. In fact, any informed compatibilist says, “Amen!” to this. Compatibilists believe a free choice is one that a person truly wants to make and emerges from their own will. This is the essence of how a compatibilist defines a free choice. It is a common misconception that Calvinism believes God forces people against their will to make a choice. Of course, this says nothing yet about the relationship of God’s absolute sovereignty to man’s decisions. That will also await a future post.

This should show that the compatibilist or Calvinist approach is more nuanced than many suspect and it has more in common with Molinism than some would admit. However, there are important disagreements when it comes to freedom. To those disagreements I will turn next time.

Joyfully Following Our Sovereign God With You As We Love Those Who Disagree With Us,

Tom









[1] This is an earlier ESV edition’s translation. The current ESV reads “accord” in place of “free will.”

No comments:

Post a Comment