Limiting God with Libertarian Free-Will

"Be aware of FALSE spirits whom the teachers of "ISM" peddle with many words and false pretense, for example. that GOD sent HIS son to save the selected Lost and that the Redemption of God was only for selected sinners of the world against John 3:16 with great pretense of "ISM" and nonsense of human falsehood...." ~Anonymous




...Of course, the irony is that the person who said this peddles the doctrines of Secular Humanism, which is both an "ism" and born of the human imagination. IT secularizes our understanding of man's freewill, creating a sovereignty of the autonomous man, which exists quite independently of the Creator, outside the scope of His power and freedom. As a consequent, believers of such a position elevate human liberty to either possess equality with God or superiority over Him.

This unfortunate aspect of elevating human freedom above divine liberty also manifests insecurities about the future. Because eschatology depends on the freewill actions of human agents, and human liberty rests not upon anything within God's control but in the random actions of mortals, the Christian faith comes to depend upon obscurity, as opposed to God. So the life of the mind within such believers becomes one of amazing cognitive acrobatics, since defending error is an infinitely complicated process. Others behold the complexity brought on by their error and choose to attribute it God's massiveness and inscrutability, raising the white flag of "simplicity" as a justification for not thinking about it. We just simply accept it.

Both the the Arminian and the Calvinist limit the atonement of Christ. As many know, the Calvinist limits the scope of cross, so that the shedding of blood is only efficacious, in terms of our eternal salvation, to a particular elect, chosen by God. Lesser known, however, is that while the Arminian widens the scope to include all people, he lessens the power of Christ's blood to be efficacious unto salvation, making it depend wholly on the random freewill actions of human beings. The Universalist is an Arminian who sees the problem, but attempts to "solve" it by retaining both the scope and the power of Christ's blood, so that everyone becomes saved. Ironically, this causes the Universalist to lose humanistic autonomy, of course, but he seems to prefer that debate over weakening the blood of Christ.

One of the staple texts of the Arminian, referenced in the above quotation, reads:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16, ESV)

I think a critical mistake the Arminian makes occurs when he assumes that Calvinism denies that human persons possess freedom of the will, when it does not; and so reads this passage, assuming that it necessitates their position on libertarian freedom. However, the assumption arrives quite independently of the text here, the context necessitates no such thing. Where are the words "freedom," "choice," "choose," etc...? All it says is "whoever believes."

What does the Bible say about who causes the sinner to believe?

“For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.” (Romans 12:3)

This verse says faith is given by God.

“For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake....” (Philippians 1:29)

...and this verse teaches that belief is granted by God.

“Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”” (John 6:29)

Jesus teaches that our belief is produced by the working of God, a rather peculiar doctrine if our choosing and our believing exists independent of God's sovereignty.

So returning to John 3:16, the Arminian ignores the clear teachings of Scripture concerning who actually produces faith and belief when they interpret this text. They unwittingly appeal to Secular Humanism, to a corrupted philosophy of human autonomy, instead of allowing the Bible, or common sense, to shape their view of human agency.

Let us consider something, just on the level of simple, common sense. If I rob you at gun point, saying, "Your money or your life," I have effectively reduced your ability to choose. In your human freedom, my gun and the threat of it, has reduced the very autonomy some elevate to a divine level to a mere two choices: the money or your life. And that's only if I'm graciousness enough to not kill you anyway!

So if I can so drastically limit your autonomy with a gun, then how is it your weak and fragile freedom should be able to limit the all-powerful God who created it in the first place? Doesn't that defy simple common sense?

Notice how many things are affected by introducing libertarian freewill into the system of the biblical worldview? The Arminian actually nests his doctrine of man to an equal or superior status with his doctrine of God. This bit of yeast spreads to his doctrine of Christ and his doctrine of Salvation. It also spreads to his doctrine of sin as well as his doctrine of the heart and mind. It affects his interpretation of Scripture, how he preaches, how he conducts and participates in the orchestration of the church. Indeed, because he elevates human beings choosing to such a divine state, church becomes almost exclusively involved with the the types of choices one makes. The Arminian has become legalistic and does not know it.

What we say about God affects everything else. Just because something is not essential to salvation, does not mean it is not essential to the Christian faith. An essential is an essential not because it is the least common denominator. It is an essential because upon it everything else stands. It is the hinge of everything else within the system. Weaken God at any single point, and everything else collapses, as the yeast manifest itself in the life of the church over time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A response:


The Calvinist, however, does need to temper his view of election with the clearly revealed truth in Ezekiel 18:23: "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?" Too often, we hear Calvinists say that the damnation of the non-elect is "the good pleasure of His will." But here, God states explicitly that He takes no pleasure in damning anyone but prefers that they turn from sin and live. How this idea fits into the Calvinist scheme is not at all clear.

Nor is it clear, from a Calvinistic standpoint, why Jesus should weep over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."

This poses a thorny difficulty for the Calvinist. First of all, he must assume that the reprobation of Jerusalem was "the good pleasure" of the Father. If that is so, why was it so displeasing and heart-rending to Jesus, who was always in agreement with the divine will? Shouldn't Jesus have also been "pleased" with the Father's reprobation of these people?

Secondly, Jesus is here attributing the lost condition of Jerusalem to her own unwillingness, not the want of election. Jesus was willing to receive them but they were unwilling. This seems to contradict the confident assertions of Calvinists about Unconditional Election.




So what doctrine do we put in the place of the Calvinist's Unconditional Election? Do we opt for one of the many Arminian forms of election? Tempting as that may be . . . I don't think so . . . Perhaps further theological works by thoughtful Christians will reveal a more satisfactory resting place for our convictions. I tell you what Jim; I, find the Holy Bible, the most fascinating book that I have ever read! I never tire of reading and contemplating the uniqueness of scripture . . . If we are to take the measuring line of Scripture (which is what canon means) and bend it to fit the wall that one is building in the present. In the end one has neither a measuring line nor a straight wall. Love ya Jim . . . enjoy reading your posts . . . good night my friend . . .

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My reply:




Well, what if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?


What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? ...or does Jesus disapprove of what His Father desires? ...By no means!


The doctrine of (unconditional) election does not teach that God pleasures in the death of the wicked. I cannot really speak for other Calvinists, any more than you can speak for those within your own denomination, but I am sure folks who say such things can be found in any denomination or tradition.


I see no reason why Jesus would not weep over the destruction of Jerusalem. God desires the destruction of many, not because He is sadistic, but because He is the very essence of justice...and justice desires to punish evil.


When we are dealing with human desire and what a human wills, it gets very complicated quickly, if we are really thinking about it in any depth. The same is true of God, since He is a person, and not an inanimate, static thing. Indeed, Scripture teaches that God desires one thing, but does quite another all over the place! For example:


What God desires:


"And the master said to the slave, ‘Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled," (Luke 14:23).


What God does:


"And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false...." (2 Thess. 2:11).


What God desires:


Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, “Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me, As in the day of trial in the wilderness...." (Heb. 3:7).


What God does:


"And the Lord said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go...." (Exodus 4:21).


"So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires...." (Rom. 9:18).


Likewise, the Jesus who spoke in Matthew 23:37, also says, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.” (Matthew 11:25–26)


Indeed, consider the reason Jesus actually gives for speaking in parables:


“And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that “they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.” (Mark 4:10–12)




So why does the Jesus who weeps over Jerusalem also rejoice at such a thing? Maybe it's because God's freedom and God's will and God's glory that is the superior thing? And, perhaps, the moment we question God's motives for doing all that He accomplishes, we actually lose our own moral ground to even question the Potter?