God's Sovereignty and Man's Will

[AlwaysLoved]

Intending to protect God's sovereignty, Calvinism makes Him the cause of every thought, word, and deed, and thus of sin. This libels God, mocks man, and erases motivation, as well as any meaning of punishment or reward.

The Bible teaches what daily experience proves: Man has a will he must exercise for or against God, and his will does not impinge upon God's sovereignty. If God's work in man "to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13) is all of God and nothing of man, why doesn't every Christian live a perfect life? If God irresistibly works His grace in the elect to regenerate them while they are totally depraved, why doesn't He do as good a job after they are His born-again children?

(Debating Calvinism, p. 335, by Dave Hunt)

[bjrscj]

Very good questions. I think at the end of it all, we'll both have plenty left. I came from an Arminian background, but after researching the whole concept, it just doesn't make sense to me. I'll give you my best answers for your questions, then I have one or two I'd like you to help me with. I don't intend for these to be "gotcha" questions. I sincerely want to know where you're coming from and how I need to modify my understanding.

I think your question assumes that the stamp of salvation is the end goal of God in his creation. I think this overlooks the process of sanctification. Just as Paul realized his salvation that was his since he was chosen in his mother's womb (Gal. 1), yet still struggled with being the "greatest" sinner, so it is with us. God works fruit of the spirit in a believer's life, as they walk through the process of putting off their flesh and living in the spirit. When one is regenerated, there are finally warring factions in the believer. Prior to regeneration, we don't see this war, as we are slaves to sin. It's only when God works in the soul that we are given a new nature. Most who were saved later in life (that I've talked to) don't portray their life as being a battle until God began to work in them nearer their conversion. I don't think most unbelievers see their sin and therefore don't see the struggle. Yet you'll see some of the most mature believers who just can't get over their sin, and are appalled by it. This war and conviction of sin is not evidence that God has failed, but evidence that God is doing a great work.

I really appreciate the Arminian perspective in that they attempt to preserve responsibility as they see it. I think Calvinists can tend to be stoic and relish too much in grace without a more balanced perspective. However, I think both sides err here in their own regard. When it comes to Arminianism, I struggle with how God is any less responsible for sin. I wrote a huge paper on determinism that details my biggest problems with the Arminian viewpoint in regard to free will, as well as defenses of common attacks against determinism. Below I will put an excerpt that directly relates to this. If you are interested in seeing more defenses so you can attack them, or where I would go to attack the Arminian point (so you can bolster your defenses), let me know and I'll provide you with a link. Here is my excerpt:

So God is seen as being over all,
while man has free will. God's sovereignty comes in the fact that he chose this particular world,
but we remain free creatures because we make the choices we do. However, it is in the meshing
of God's omniscience, omnipotence, and libertarian free will that the libertarians find themselves
in quicksand. For if free will is truly free, and not contingent upon anything, then a possible
world would exist where everyone would freely choose to do right all the time. If such a
possible world does exist, God has obviously ordained that evil enter the world, when it could
have been another way. While there are other obvious dilemmas they face (why would God
choose a world with sin? wouldn't God be desiring evil? wouldn't this make God responsible for
evil, as is usually ascribed to Calvinist thinking? etc), the fact that a possible world would exist
without evil is thefocal point of this section.

The free will defense that has sheltered modern Christians from the bombardment of
secular scrutiny would dissipate in a moment if people realized what libertarian free will
truly was (or wasn't). The whole argument centers around the notion that libertarian free
will is logically incompatible in every circumstance with a world in which only
good choices are made. The libertarian may shoot back several arguments, but I believe
most of them are self defeating in light of my main idea (see bolded sentence above). I
will list and rebut the libertarian claims I foresee.

1. Maybe an individual would choose to perform evil action X in every possible
circumstance, thus preventing a possible perfect universe: Here the libertarian asserts that
there may be no possible worlds in which an individual would choose otherwise (known as
transworld damnation). Craig seems to be a huge fan of this, as he theorizes that the non-elect are
possibly those who would not choose Christ in any given world. But this completely demolishes
their free will defense for evil. If choosing to do something or choosing not to do something is
contingent upon the individual, then free will is not of the libertarian sort. There is something
inherent in the individual that produces a given choice. Do those who choose God have better
souls? Better innate characteristics? Stronger wills? Better desires? Better genes? What is it that
makes them always choose one way or another?

2. Maybe a particular individual would choose to only perform evil action X in a given
circumstance, thus preventing a possible perfect universe: This argument falls into the
same problem the previous point did. If an individual will only choose X in a given
circumstance, their choice is contingent upon the circumstance. So if there was another
world in which the EXACT same stimuli occurred up to Peter's denial of Christ, Peter
would theoretically not deny Christ. To say that this is not the case is to say that the
choice of individuals is grounded in their circumstances at the moment. The libertarian
would have to say that Peter's situation would always influence him to choose to deny
Christ. That sounds like they're affirming the determinist mantra, "could, but wouldn't."
Either the circumstances are such that an individual would not choose otherwise, or an
individual is such that in a given circumstance, their character and reason would always
mean their choosing the same action.

3. Libertarians don't say circumstances and character don't influence things, just that they
don't have the final say: Well, if who we are (character) doesn't have the final say, howcan we be said to perform an action or be responsible for an action in any meaningful
sense? But if who we are does choose an action, that's contingency and Reformed
thinking (see point 1). If circumstances and character don't produce a final say, and some
neutral part of us does (but neutrality, of course, can’t produce anything, since it’s… neutral),
then it is always possible to choose otherwise (the libertarian mantra). If it's always actually
possible to do otherwise, then a possible world exists where everyone always chooses good. A
world exists where everyone will choose to do other than evil, every time. If it's not possible,
choice is contingent upon something, not arbitrary, and therefore of a deterministic bent.

It seems as though those holding to libertarian free will (LFW) cannot hold to a free will defense on grounds
that a perfect world is logically impossible. If libertarian free will is defined as one being
able to choose otherwise, then a perfect world could have been created. Their goal is to let God
off the hook for evil, which he is not in their system, as they define culpability. If one could
always chose otherwise, and if God has an infinite amount of worlds he could have produced, it
makes no sense that one world would not be perfect. The logical
impossibility of LFW and evil has no foundation on which to stand. I believe there are
several implications that can be drawn from this. The following list is not exhaustive, and
I will explain more of the implications throughout my paper.

1. The will becomes arbitrary in a system of LFW. Why would Peter choose to deny
Christ in one world, yet choose to not deny him under the same circumstances in a
different world? To retort that he always would make the same decision is to give into
determinism based on contingency of the individual or circumstance (seen in my
previous two points). To say he wouldn’t is to ascribe to arbitrariness – which is more hopeless
than determinism could ever seem to be.

2. God is the "selfish" God of Calvinism. Since there is no logical inconsistency between
LFW and God actualizing a perfect world, God must have chosen this world for some
other reason than human freedom and human salvation - since all would be free and
saved in the perfect world God could have created. Libertarians constantly bash
Calvinists for their use of Romans 9 and declaration that God's goal is his own glory (see
also John Piper's, "Desiring God"). However, God obviously has some other goal than
libertarians purport if LFW is true, as is evidenced by the world that was actually actualized.
Libertarians are in no better shape than their despised counterparts in this area.

3. Evil is a desire of God's. What is really bad for the libertarian is the notion that in their
system, evil is a desire of God's. Under most Reformed or deterministic theodicies, evil
is truly a logical contradiction to free will. However, free will would be defined as
creatures doing what they most want. So man created in the image of God - a being with
his own desires, creativity, etc - is logically incompatible with a world in which there
would never be sin. In this world, God does not have to introduce evil for his name to be
glorified, but he is able to use the evil that must be for his glory and the best possible
world (however that is defined). So while God may never have created creatures who
would knowingly sin if he could have created them otherwise, he can use their necessary
sin to glorify his name. A prime example of this would be the sin that Joseph's brothers
committed. They did it for evil, but God did that for good.

[AlwaysLoved]

I'll address your opening comment since all your other comments flow from your first mistaken thought. Arminians don't believe in libertarian free will since we believe all our choices are within God's divine providence. Why does one person choose Christ and another not? Because God made us sovereign free willed beings in His image, thus we have the choice. Since you reject this God you are going to Hell. It is not that a person is inherently better since we have all received sufficient grace to have the free choice. You've made the choice to reject God so to Hell you will go and lock yourself from the inside. It's what you want. This universe God created saves the most and damns the least. Any other world ensemble a person would not be saved that is not saved in this world. Calvinism is wrong because God does not irresistibly impose salvation. We are talking about initial salvation. Of course there is the matter of overcoming that follows. And Craig and the Roman Church are wrong since obviously when God saves a person He does so eternally. Craig thinks he could lose eternal life tomorrow. That would be a strange kind of eternal life one which a person can get saved, lose it, get it back only to lose it again. This is a works based salvation like other religions. Craig is going to Hell. It's easy to see as was just explained.

If there is a person who would not be saved in every possible world then it only shows that person nothing could convince him as God saves the most and damns the least. He truly belongs in Hell. In fact it is true everyone who goes to Hell does so because there is no world in which they would accept Christ. That is their choice. God never prevents the creation of someone who would be saved on account of someone who does not want to be saved.