Calvinism vs Human Free Will

Dr. Craig contrasts elements of Calvinism and Molinism.

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[rkghawgs]

I still can't believe Calvinism is as popular as it is, logically, it's completely incoherent.

[rickshafer]

I've got an idea. Read 'The Bondage of the Will', book by Martin Luther. Then you can judge for yourselves.

[ctt]

The beginning point is God's Sovereignty and what it means. Does God in his sovereignty rule man's actions? Or not. Calvin seems to say God controls even the will of man and therefore selects who would be saved and the condtion is not man's work but God's mercy.

[gregorycocco]

What do you think of Ezekiel and the dry bones? Even though the people of Israel were like dry bones, completely dead, and without hope, they still recognized their state and wanted to be saved. I’d say we at least can see our depraved state and recognize our need for and cry out for a savior.

[davidrobinson]

Few things would be more edifying for me than sitting down with Craig and discussing 6 day creation, literal Adam, libertarian free will, Calvinism, and Molinism. I disagree with him on each one, but I really respect his analytical ability and civil demeanor in these things.

[nemoliberestquicorpo]

Dr Craig does not suggest that the libertarian view of free will (LFW) is directly taught in Scripture. Rather, he attempts to draw inferences from certain biblical facts/suggests certain truths are best explained by LFW. It seems to me that a clear and inescapable issue with the LFW idea is that it seems to directly contradict so many biblical texts, and on the whole requires a denial of the biblical doctrine of man, as far as I can see.

[rickshafer]

Read 'Bondage of the Will' by Martin Luther.

[aide-toietlecieltaidera]

Human free will was standard in the early church. Jesse Morrel did good work on that. The Manichaen determinism was introduced by Augustine who happened to have been a Manichaen before he converted to Christianity.
The Pelagians called him out on that one. Funny thing is, that eastern Orthodoxy has still some Pelagian 'inclinations'. That means they still kept a more benevolent picture towards human nature in general.

[Wenkebach]

Seems to me that there is simply some disagreement about human depravity and limited atonement.

[rickshafer]

The keys to the kingdom are what would lead a common man toward humility.

[believingtruth]

Dr. Craig how many people in the O.T. and N. T. may the choose to follow God or Jesus without being Chosen. Paul said in Romans 8 and 9 that we much be chosen, it not our free will but God will to save people.

[stGruhn]

For those who haven't followed the use of words, Craig is espousing a view, as he says, of libertarian free will. The stipulations of such is that the will is free if and only if, in any given deliberation, the ability to do otherwise is a viable option.

First off, Calvin fully agrees. Luther is a bit more mixed. Both Luther and Calvin do advocate for secondary causation. Luther tends not to adequately differentiate between secondary and primary. But Calvin differs from Luther here and agrees with Augustine.

The area that Calvin and Jonathan Edwards do move away from Libertarian notions of free will is with regard to interior disposition. They agree that nothing from outside can coerce, manipulate, or control a person and that person be meaningfully free. But that says nothing of their character and interior disposition.

As for God creating them that way. That is an oversimplification. Remember Augustine's teaching on the 'nature' of evil as being the absence of good. God doesn't create any person's soul evil. But persons are born without the necessary grace to desire God adequately. Salvation is a gift of God, bestowed by grace, through faith. Grace elevates the desires of the heart, thus it can be said to give us a new heart, to desire God. Apart from grace, we will not desire God.

[joshuamosborn]

Dr. Craig, could you help me find the logical conclusion of my current understanding of Calvinism? From reading Spurgeon, Edwards and other reformed theologians, my understanding is that Calvinism is expressly a soteriology, and it holds both human free will and the Sovereign election of God as two concurrent, paradoxical views. It seems to me that God could choose to be fully sovereign in one area, i.e. salvation, and choose to grant us freedom bound by his sovereignty in others, for example choosing a restaurant, car, etc. Is there a logical conclusion I am missing here that would show this understanding to be irrational? Thank you for inspiring my faith!

[jfrontier]

Human free will is the only thing that makes sense. How can one read the Bible and assume really does not like some of us so He sends some of us to hell. That makes no sense once you read scripture.

[ricksonora]

I’m somewhere between the poles. I’ll defend either side when it’s misrepresented. That’s my disclaimer.

Could Dr Craig have unfairly represented Calvinism? As I understand it, God did not causally determine any to go to hell, except in the sense that He created a world in which some would be born and go to hell.

God foresaw us ratifying Adam’s fall with our own sins. Predestining some means He predestined Himself to save some from their deserved fate. Reprobation of the rest means He chose to leave to the rest to their deserved fate.

One choice was to actively intervene, whereas the other choice was to remain passive. Thus, the choice to save was causally deterministic, whereas the choice not to save others was not causal.

I suppose it depends on which Calvinist you ask.

As for the “will” of God, the relevant verses require careful attention to two elements that Arminians and Wesleyans commonly fail to recognize.

- The Greek texts have two different words. One means a desire, whereas the other means a determination to bring about a result. God can desire one thing, yet, due to conflicting goals or principles, choose another.

- “All” is an adjective, so one must qualify it by looking for its antecedent noun. In at least one case, the antecedent is “us.”

I’ll leave it to the reader to re-read the cited verses with those issues in mind.

[Drater]

I sincerely believe God calls sinners to repentance through Calvinists and Molinists when they preach a clear biblical gospel. Free will must be considered "a secondary" doctrine, debating the process of humans ability to "respond" to God. The Holy Bible seemingly gives us scriptures to support both views.

Take for example Isaiah 30:15 "For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and _ye would not_."

See also Proverbs 1:23-25 and Isaiah 65:11-12 for similar wording. It's quite clear that humans are able to refuse the call from God.

However, when you read Romans 9, it makes it crystal clear that God intervenes with the Human will in the examples of Faraoh and Esau. So, isolated, Romans 9 teach Calvinism. However, Scripture must never be understood isolated or in pieces, but in the full picture. "The sum of Your word is truth" - Psalm 119:160. Since God "will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1. Tim 2:4), we are left with a mixture here. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the general biblical rule and doctrine is that God created humans with free will and with this will, we are able to respond to Gods initiative. But whenever He sees best, to glorify His holy name, He have the right and the power to intervene with the Human will. A natural response to this would be: Isn't this unrighteous? If God just picks someone here and there and intervenes with their will? Well my friend, you just sited Romans 9:14-16:

"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." Who does God show mercy to? All who responded to the gospel and have faith in Jesus Christ as their saviour, not by works, but by grace, a free gift.

[redacted]

Was Luther really a determinist? And if so was it only with respect to salvation or did extend beyond that?
I'm assuming of course Dr.WLC is referring to Martin Luther of the Protestant Reformation here.

[czgiomn]

Why would God want things that he knows are never possible? Wouldn't that be a defect in his power?

[SonOfTheLion]

The conflation of Luther and Calvin is wrong. Luther affirms the universal atonment Craig speaks of at the end and absolutely affirms that it is human choices that condem us. Lutherans are not double predestinarians. God saves but man condemns himself. To say humans have free will in no way defeats the clear teaching of the scripture that man is dead in sin and God saves him.

[CoranceLChandler]

Gentlemen, what is free will? And how does it work?