Following is a Calvinist’s response to my article on SBCToday. (September 2013). (([1] http://sbctoday.com/2013/09/13/is-libertarin-free-will-eternal/#comment-41520)) The full title of the article is “Can Man Endowed with Libertarian Free Will Live Righteously Forever in Heaven?” You may also search this site for the article. The blogger’s comments are emboldened, followed by my response.
Blogger said, “Some people, including some Calvinists, have coined that term to describe the co-existence of God’s sovereignty with the free will of man.”
I believe this is a misunderstanding of compatibilism. Compatibilism is actually the belief that free will and determinism are compatible. This is held by Darwinists, Atheists, Naturalists, Materialists, and Calvinists, as well as anyone who believes that there are “determinative antecedents” prior to a person choosing–whether one believes in God is not entailed in compatibilism.
Additionally, so long as the person freely chooses (no external force, e.g. no gun to the head), compatibilists say the choice is free. Lastly, compatibilism rejects the notion of “otherwise choice” being necessary for free will or responsibility to exist. Consequently, the determinative antecedents in compatibilism change depending upon the proponent, i.e. a Darwinist might argue material antecedents whereas a Calvinist would argue God’s sovereignty. I hope that you can see that while Calvinists default to compatibilism in order to explain Calvinism’s view of sovereignty and soteriology, it does not mean that God’s sovereignty is compatible with man’s freedom. That is often said by Calvinists, but it really clouds the issue and misrepresents (no ill-motive intended) the issue at hand.
To wit, it is not that Calvinists believe in God’s sovereignty and are therefore compatibilists; whereas, non-Calvinists are not compatibilists because they either do not believe in, understand, or hold as high a view of God’s sovereignty as Calvinists. It is not the existence of sovereignty and free will that requires compatibilism or that compatibilism merely seeks to explain that relationship; rather, it is Calvinism’s view of sovereignty (which I think is a diminished view since God cannot be sovereign over otherwise choice beings) and the compatibility of determinism and free choice.
Unfortunately, many who claim the title Calvinist, as well as many who do not, do not realize how dependent mainstream Calvinism is on compatibilism (or even know what it is). I attribute this in large measure to the fact that some are not aware of its ubiquity in Calvinism and that some of those who do know this continue to becloud the reality with double talk. However, there are enough Calvinists who both understand and articulate it to corroborate that it is the perspective of Calvinism. If it is not, please explain (don’t quote an inconsistency of someone) how it fits with Calvinism. At this time, I do not know of one knowledgeable, consistent Calvinist who attempts a consistent articulation on incompatibilism, because if one does then why be a Calvinist?
Blogger said, “Even in the garden, where Adam had libertarian free will, the influence of Satan on the decision to sin seems to have destroyed the “libertarian” aspect of Adam’s free will…I think many people tend to understand that the sovereignty of God is not compatible with the ‘libertarian free will’ of man.”
First, you argue for libertarian free will in the garden, and then you argue that the sovereignty of God is not compatible with libertarian free will. So, was God not sovereign in the garden? If He was sovereign over libertarian beings then, when did He lose that ability? If He was not sovereign in the garden when His creatures had libertarian free will, we have even a bigger problem. If He was at anytime sovereign over libertarian beings, then why cripple Him with compatibilism now?
Blogger said, “If ‘libertarian’ free will is to allow such influences [you are referring to Eve and Satan’s influence on Adam in the garden] in the ‘ability to choose otherwise,’ then why call it ‘libertarian’ free will as opposed to that ‘free will’ acknowledged by Calvinists?”
Libertarian free will does not exclude “influences,” even very strong ones (this is why we rear children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, etc). The difference in libertarian and compatibilism (in Calvinism and elsewhere) is this: in libertarianism, there are influential antecedents which encourage choices but they do not determine what the person chooses. He may very well go against all heretofore influence. He can act or refrain within the range of choices that he has. Whereas in compatibilism, the antecedents are not merely influential, but they are determinative; so that the person with compatible free will freely chooses to act a certain way, but he did not have a choice to do other than he chose, i.e. it is freely choosing without a choice to do otherwise. Calvinism does not espouse soft-libertarianism, and to think that it does is inaccurate. Further, when Calvinists unwittingly present it as the same as incompatibilism, the real nature of Calvinism is obscured.
Three easily recognizable and essential determinative antecedents in Calvinism are unconditional election, selective regeneration, and regeneration preceding faith. Without the determinative antecedent of regeneration prior to faith, man cannot believe. He can only disbelieve.
Calvinists defaulting to compatibilism in order to explain how God can be sovereign is one of the major flaws of Calvinism, which actually diminishes the very God they wish to exalt–He is apparently incapable of working His will with true otherwise choice beings.
In both libertarian and compatibilism, God establishes the range of options. The difference is that with compatible free will, God limited the range of choices to one (that which the individual always chooses). Whereas, according to the libertarian perspective, God limited the choices to what was chosen and to what man could have chosen other than what he did in fact choose. Using salvation as an example, we believe that God grace-enables individuals to hear the gospel and either reject it or accept it, and whatever the individual does in fact choose, he could have chosen otherwise. Whereas, Calvinism says that the lost can only freely reject the gospel and the unconditionally elected, once regenerated, can only believe the gospel. These decisions are free, but they are determined by other than the choice between options. Thus, to understand Calvinism as soft-libertarian is inaccurate on many levels.
