This is the fourth part of a series of responses by Calvinists’ 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.
You said, “Are you claiming both determinism and libertarian freedom (what you call “otherwise will”)? Either way, your earlier comment which I quoted “He has always known who the elect were…and for anyone to deny that God always knew who would be saved seems beyond the pale of orthodoxy” is hardly an “emphatic affirmation”, as you call it, of God determining from eternity who is elected.
Just for clarification, I do not think I used the term “otherwise will”. I use “otherwise choice” quite often in order to highlight a crucial distinction between libertarian free will and compatibilism in order to help others understand the two positions better. I am ok with you referring to it in the way you did for our limited discussion, but I would not be for describing my overall position or if we were in more technical discussions regarding responsibility. Also, you ask “Are you claiming both determinism…” NO! I never claim to espouse “determinism.” I affirm that God determines…but I reject determinism, and they are not synonymous.
Now as for my response, I disagree with your assessment because my statement is an “emphatic affirmation” of God determining who the elect are, but it is not an affirmation of Calvinism’s understanding of such (unconditional election, compatibilism). I reject determinism as found in compatibilism and/or Calvinism, but I most emphatically do not reject the truth that God determines (Acts 2:23). You believe He determined who the elect would be by unconditional election, and I believe He determined who the elect would be by conditional election. The rejection of your deterministic view of God, free will, election, etc., is not equal to your conclusion. Further, the rejection of determinism as an explanation of man’s free will or why everything is the way it is does not entail a rejection of all predetermination by God.
I believe the Scripture is clear. God sovereignly (from all eternity) knew (determined) that He would create man in time and space. He determined to create man with libertarian free will (agent causation). He always knew that creating man as such would result in man using his freedom to sin. Thus, God created Adam, allowing him to choose to sin or not sin in the garden. Of course he did in fact choose to sin, but he was designed to be able to choose otherwise (contra-Compatibilism). God’s determination to endow man with libertarian free will is the reason there is such a reality as choice between or among two or more accessible options. As a result, man’s ability to choose between or among options exists because God determined that it would, and He also determined that the option chosen would be the result of agent causation rather than a causal line of determinative antecedents.
Neither I nor the libertarian free will position argue that every decision is of such a nature, only that man’s free will is of this nature. Consequently, the option chosen by man has always, eternally, been known by God. He did not look down the corridors of time to learn this, but rather this comprehensive knowledge exists exhaustively and eternally in His being. Additionally, God knowing does not necessarily entail that God caused through determinative antecedents (events, states, nature, etc).
Further, God always simultaneously (not subsequently) knew that His perfect plan would be a co-extensive creation/redemption plan. God did not determine who would be saved by unconditional election and selective regeneration, but rather He determined to grace-enable (provide everything necessary) each person to be able to accept His provision or reject it; therefore, He determined to create, permit the fall, provide unconditional, accessible redemption for all, and condition salvation upon the exercise of grace-enabled faith, thereby determining who would and who would not be saved. In other words, nothing happens outside of God’s sovereign eternally known plan.
To wit, in Calvinism God knows because He set up a causal chain where only the unconditionally elect who are forcibly regenerated can freely believe unto salvation (not only can believe but must, i.e. it is a predetermined free choosing with no options). I believe the biblical portrait is that God knows because He determined a plan of creation/redemption which included grace-enabling the lost to believe unto salvation or reject unto damnation. Since that is the only way of salvation, God has always known the elect by determining the plan and to save everyone who accepts. Additionally, this is a rejection of Calvinism’s determinism, and our discussions will not change that. If you are unwilling to see that God has the ability to design a plan other than a minutely deterministic one, then I can only see that as quite unfortunate. Â Finally, because this position is incongruent with Calvinism and its deterministic view of reality does not thereby constitute it as being illogical.
You said, “Even the previous decisions that a person makes that resulted in change in later experiences were determined by nature and nurture before those decisions. I would guess you are familiar with this based on part of your response. The difference in our positions seems to be that you think that these factors do not determine a person’s choice while I believe they do.”
The first part of this is simply a restatement of compatibilism, which of course, as clearly as I am capable of, I am articulating my utter rejection of that as the best reflection of Scripture. I disallow that each “decision” (I use that term in a compatibilist sense which excludes an option) is merely the result of determinative antecedents. And yes, the fundamental difference (which generates much of the discussions on this topic, or at least is inextricably connected) is that I do not think every choosing is determined by determinative antecedents and you do. Thank you for being so clear about this. You may have seen where I desire for Calvinists to avoid double talk (wittingly or unwittingly obfuscate the entailments–disquieting realities–of Calvinism). Well, with the clarity of such statements as you have made here, I am very satisfied. I just want people to understand we do not mean the same thing when we use terms like choice, free will, “God offers the gospel to whosoever,” etc. I do understand this is the Calvinist position, but I often have a difficult time getting many Calvinists to see or say that they believe what you just rightly articulated. I would further request that Calvinists’ everyday speech reflect this kind of choosing without choice.
