Exegetical Defense of Libertarian Free Will

Think of this as a friendly challenge. Arguments against Reformed soteriology start with the assumption that God has granted man a "free will" that operates in what philosophers would classify as a libertarian fashion -- i.e., man is only free if he has the power to choose, without compulsion from within or without, either A or B. The idea that God would damn men for not making a choice they do not have the power to make in the first place is abhorrent to one who embraces libertarian free will.

Of course, the Reformed account of free will runs along different lines: as a result of the fall, man has lost his freedom and his will is now in bondage to sin. He has no moral ability to act outside the framework of that bondage. For an exegetical defense of this view, one need look no further than the relevant chapter of the WCF or the LBC 1689.

But where does one find the exegetical basis for libertarian free will? I assume that there must be one, but it doesn't seem to figure prominently in the debate. Advocates of libertarian free will treat their theory as if it were an a priori on par with the existence of God, but is it really the case that we cannot explain reality without the assumption of libertarian free will? It seems not, especially when an exegetical case for a rival view can be put forward.

At best, libertarians point to passages in Scripture and then draw assumptions from them -- i.e., "How can he say 'Choose you this day...' if men do not possess libertarian free will?'" but this kind of inference doesn't make for a very solid, positive statement of the doctrine. Considering how important libertarian free will is to so-called "Biblicism," there ought to be a positive statement of the doctrine with which we can interact.

Mark

[ May 31, 2002, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: J. Mark Bertrand ]

 

In a book about theodicy, it made a similar reference to "libertarian freedom" that I don't agree with.

Ii's obvious to me that one's freedom to choose does not operate in a vacuum. There are various forces or influences at work, to one degree or another, within or without that favors or demands a decision one way or another, however, it is not an influence or force that leads us to inevitably make a choice consistent with that compulsion.

I do not agree that God predetermines all of our choices, the evil and the good, or the idea that before we can have faith in God or repent God gives us those respective acts as a gift.

I believe man has the moral ability to do what is morally good and right; what he does not have the ability to do is to obtain God's favor (and this fact may be, if I understand your intent correctly, "the framework" of man's bondage to sin).

I think the Bible, experience and common sense supports this.

My question would be, how can God say, "Choose," if our choices were predetermined and irrevocably fixed by Him? How can free will be genuine if we cannot make a choice otherwise than God has determined for us to make?

I think the command to choose strongly implies the idea of free will defined quite differently from the Reformed/Calvinistic position.

 

First, I appreciate each of the responses. This is an important question, and because it overlaps with philosophical concerns it is essential that we keep the focus Scriptural.

Let me reiterate that I am asking for a positive, exegetical statement of an alternative doctrine of free will, not a critique of the Reformed doctrine. I am already familiar with the Reformed doctrine, its critics, and their shortcomings. What I would like is a positive, exegetical statement of an alternative version of free will. Remember, it is not enough to feel strongly that one's view is correct; there needs to be direct Scriptural evidence to support it. Present this evidence so that your Reformed brothers and sisters may interact with it.

Also, I mentioned in my original post that the most I have ever seen offered is an inference drawn from passages such as Joshua's statement. So how could pointing me right back to Joshua's statement and what you feel it implies take things much farther! The argument "How could God say x if y?" is not same as "God says x here, and here, and here."

I am assuming that a person who opposes the Reformed account of free will does so because he holds to a rival doctrine he believes is more biblical. I have never seen this alternative set forward in a positive, exegetical way, so I am hoping that someone who holds to it will be able to assist.

Mark

 

Note that I am not asking for an exegetical argument in support of free will -- there already exists a perfectly good one in the LBC/1689, among other places. What I am asking for is an alternative to this account, specifically a positive statement of libertarian free will.

Let me put it this way. Both Calvinists and Arminians (to use the term broadly) agree that free will exists. The question is how we are to define the term. The Calvinist definition of free will is found in the confessions, along with the exegetical rationale for viewing free will in this light. My suspicion is that the alternative view that is so frequently argued here is based not on Scriptural necessity but on philosophical necessity. I could be wrong, and the best way to show that I am is to produce a positive, Scriptural argument to support libertarian free will.

The debate is often formulated as if Calvinists denied free will and their critics defended it, when in fact we are dealing with a case of (at least) two rival 'versions' of the doctrine. In such cases, the usual practice is to compare the Scriptural support for each. I know of the Scriptural support for the Reformed doctrine, and I know of the philosophical reasoning behind libertarian free will -- but I don't know about the Scriptural support for libertarian free will.

Naturally, inferences drawn from narrative are weaker than the direct testimony of didactic passages, since we tend to draw our inferences based on our existing assumptions. The Reformed doctrine makes use of both direct and indirect testimony, and I would expect an alternative account to do the same. However, it would be strange if that alternative could only point to inferences, since they are capable of being consistently read from a Reformed perspective -- i.e., they don't have to be interpreted the way a libertarian wants them to be. After all, people aren't Calvinists because they aren't familiar with the story of Joshua and didn't realize the word 'choice' appears in the Bible.

Mark

 

I'm not a scholar but in my readings of the Bible I have not yet come across a Scripture verse explicitly supports the Reformed view of free will. It seems that both views of free will are inferences within certain texts like, as you noted, the one in Joshua.

However, willing to be enlightened, I would like to know what is the Reformed definition of free will and the didactic verses that support it or if I can be led to a website that gives that information, I would appreciate it.

If someone can also show me the Arminian definition and didactic verse of the same (especially "libertarian" free will), that also would be appreciated

To avoid a change of subject, you may Email or private message it to me.

Thanks

 

Nelson,

I've copied and pasted Chapter 9 from the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). This should give you an idea of the Reformed account of free will and some of the Scriptural support for it. To critique it, I suppose you would need to start a new thread, but I've included it here as an example of the kind of thing I was hoping an advocate of libertarian free will might provide.

And Nelson, in the "Choices" thread you wrote:

It's fairly cheeky, to say the least, to ask someone else to post the Arminian brief for libertarian free will.

Mark

 

Cheeky means "impudent." Kind of politely harsh on this little fella, ain't you?

I just wanted to be sure I was on the same page as everyone else. I assume I have a good definition of libertarian free will.

 

Nelson,

I used the smiley and 'fairly' in the hope of taking the sting out of it.

Mark

 

That's why I stated it was politely harsh.