There
has been some attention given to the recent debate on the subject of free will
between Dr. Sonny Hernandez, Dr. Theodore Zachariades and Dr. Leighton Flowers
and Dr. Johnathan Pritchett. The debate took place at the First Evangelical
Lutheran Church in Houston Texas. I am not a man with political proclivities. I
will not defend someone’s behavior simply on the ground that they happen to be
mostly in the same theological camp I am in. I don’t take sides. What I am
interested in is that the truth of the gospel and the reputation of our Savior
be revered at all costs. Since this debate took place, men have been gathering
on two sides. Some happen to fall to one side or the other while others seem to
be actively taking a side, and perhaps doing so for reasons other than those
concerning the debate itself. That is unfortunate. My focus in reviewing the
debate is simply to share my observations on how the debate carried on as well
as to interact in a small way with some of the claims expressed during the
debate.
To
begin with, the question of the debate was quite broad: What is a Biblical View
of Free Will? What does the Bible teach about free will? I believe this is
where the debate had room for improvement. In other words, I think the
structure of the debate was fated because the question around which the debate
centered was inadequately framed. This is the sort of question you might ask at
the beginning of a class or series of lectures or sermons on the subject of the
nature of human freedom. The debate question should have been narrower and
stated as a proposition with one side answering in the affirmative and the
other answering in the negative. For example, “The Bible affirms libertarian
free will.” Or, “The Bible affirms that human freedom is compatible with the
divine decree.” Or, “The Bible affirms a deterministic view of the human will.”
At any rate, this is my first criticism of the debate. The debate question
itself opened the door for too broad of a discussion. And everyone who attended
the debate and many of those who have since watched it surely felt the
consequences.
The
initial opening by Dr. Pritchett was terribly sarcastic and immediately set the
tone for what was to follow. It was unbecoming for a lettered man to engage in
such behavior and certainly unseemly for a Christian. Christians ought to
refrain from employing techniques designed to deliberately throw one’s challenger
off their game. Christian brothers must rise above the tactics of the world,
especially in settings like formal debates. The world should see us doing it
differently! Pritchett begins by saying that he and Flowers affirm the absolute
maximal sovereignty of God. He then says that God is sovereign over all our
choices. My first criticism of Pritchett is that he offered no definition of
absolute sovereignty or of the fallen condition of sinful man. What does it
mean that God is absolutely sovereign even over the choices of men? What does
it mean to say that all men are fallen sinners and unable to save themselves?
Pritchett did throw in the qualifier “on their own” when he said that men are incapable
of saving themselves. The most passionate disciple of Roman Catholicism would
agree that no man can save himself “on his own.” Stating this belief as
emphatically as Pritchett did should not impress anyone. It is in the category
of obvious and uncontroversial where Christian belief is concerned.
Apparently, Pritchett thinks such a view is specific to Evangelicals or perhaps
Protestants. It is not. It is as broad a belief within Christian circles as a
belief could possibly be.
The
real problem from the start is the lack of definition around divine
sovereignty. Historically speaking, when a Christian says that God is
absolutely sovereign over all the affairs of men, what exactly is he saying? The
affirmation of God’s masterful ordering of all things in life shows up as early
as The Didache: Accept the troubles that come to you as good, knowing
that nothing happens without God.[1]
We see it also in the martyrdom of Polycarp: Those martyrdoms are blessed and noble, then, which take
place according to the will of God, for we must be careful to ascribe to God
the power over all occurrences.[2] It is beyond the
scope of this review to provide an extensive history of the Church’s view of
God’s sovereignty and how that works itself out in our daily affairs. To be
sure, this view did not begin with the fathers. Indeed, we find it in the text
itself. In fact, the doctrine of divine sovereignty is by far one of the most
prominent revelations of God in the Scriptures. The Bible emphatically reveals
to us the God who is absolutely sovereign over the affairs of his creation down
to the smallest details. The prophet Isaiah gives us a glimpse into what the
church has historically understand as “absolutely sovereign:” This is the
purpose that is purposed concerning the whole earth, and this is the hand that
is stretched out over all the nations. For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and
who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? (Is
14:26–27) Luke gives us a glimpse into the concept in Acts 4:27-28, for
truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant
Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the
Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had
predestined to take place. When we say that God is absolutely sovereign, we
mean that God is at work in every detail of every action that takes place in
the course of creation and human history from the beginning to the end. We mean
that no human being, by the act of their own autonomous will, is able to act
contrary to the divine decree. We also mean to say with William G.T. Shedd
that, “The Divine decree is the necessary condition of the Divine
foreknowledge. If God does not first decide what shall come to pass, he cannot know
what will come to pass. An event must be made certain, before it can be known
as a certain event.”[3]
I will come back to this point in due course. The point then is that Pritchett
failed to give an adequate definition of “absolute sovereignty.” My criticism
up to this point simply this: following
a poorly framed question for the debate, is Pritchett’s opening statement that
on the one hand affirms a soteriological position that the most passionate
Roman Catholic could affirm, and on the other hand is far too ambiguous to be
of much help.
Regarding the opening statement from the reformed side, I
think Hernandez was essentially right in terms of what he said regarding human
freedom and divine sovereignty. I do believe it would have been more helpful if
he had laid out the reformed position on the relationship between divine
sovereignty and the human will. However, I am not sure Hernandez is a
compatibilist and so perhaps this might explain why he didn’t go there. At
least he did use the word “autonomous” to qualify what he meant by free will
and that much was somewhat helpful. On the other hand, I think it was
distracting and inappropriate as well as factually wrong to label Arminians as
heretics and to imply that they are preaching a false gospel. Are we prepared
to say that one only becomes regenerate when he arrives at a full or consistent
understanding of the doctrines of grace? There is no biblical warrant to the
claim that we have to reach a certain level of consistency in our theology
before we are born of God. Such a notion is misguided and disturbing. I believe
that far more humility and a lot more charity in this area is needed. It is one
thing for a Christian to be inconsistent in their theology and quite another
for one to crusade against reformed theology. From my perspective, this is an
important distinction that should kept in mind. After all, it took Luther a
decade to reject purgatory. Is that when he was actually converted? I think
not!
Flowers opened by implying that Calvinism is misguided when
it teaches that our eternal destiny is determined by God in eternity past
without regard for our future choices. Eph. 1:4 says that “he chose us in
him before the foundation of the world.” Rom. 9:11-12 informs us, “though
they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that
God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of
him who calls— 12 she
was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Paul is actually informing
both the Ephesian church as well as the Roman church that our eternal destinies
were decided upon by God in eternity past. Notice that in the Romans text Paul
goes out of his way to point out that neither one of the children had done
anything good or bad and that God’s choice was not grounded in some supposed
knowledge of future free choice, but rather, it was grounded in God’s purpose
of election, what the Calvinist calls, the divine decree.
Flowers then goes on a rant about how we see choice
throughout Scripture. This is a moot point. This isn’t something a Calvinist
would dispute. Of course, we see choice throughout Scripture. Jonathan Edwards,
whose Calvinist credentials are unrivaled wrote, “And therefore I observe, that
the Will (without any metaphysical
refining) is, That by which the mind
chooses any thing. The faculty of the Will,
is that power, or principle of mind, by which it is capable of choosing: an act of the Will is the same as an act of choosing or choice.” [4]
Flowers then proceeded to provide a blatantly wrong
definition of what libertarian free-will actually is. He equated libertarian
free-will with the ability to choose. That is not just an over-simplification,
it is sadly mistaken. Whether or not it is a willful misrepresentation or not
is not for me to say. Libertarian free-will is not defined as simply the
ability to choose. Rodney Holder is helpful: Supposing the universe to be
indeterministic, this third group of philosophers argues that what matters is
having genuine alternative choices. I may choose to throw the brick, but I
could have done otherwise. It was in my power either to throw the brick or not
to throw it. Moreover, only if this is the case can I be held responsible for
my actions. This is “libertarian free will.”[5] For
starters, Libertarian free-will is incompatible with determinism of any kind.
The two cannot co-exist. In other words, indeterminism is a necessary condition
for libertarian free-will. Immediately, this view begins to run into some
serious conflict with Scripture. For instance, God spoke through Isaiah the
prophet, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not
yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my
purpose,’ (Isa. 46:10) Did I choose to be a sinner? Yes. Could I have chosen
otherwise? No. If those two statements are true, then libertarian free-will is
an utter failure and should be rejected. If Isa. 46:10 means anything at all
resembling what it says, then libertarian free-will is false. Jesus said that
it would have been better had Judas never been born. Now, if Jesus was
right, Judas could not have chosen to do anything but what he was predestined
to do, what he was determined to do. I said that the necessary condition for
libertarian freedom is indeterminism. The Greek word προορίζω (prooridzo)
appears in the New Testament 6x. It means to determine beforehand, to come to a decision beforehand.[6] In five of those
occurrences it is translated predestine and in one of them, it is translated
decree. God’s plan was predestined in Acts 4:28. Believers are predestined by
God in Rom. 8:29. The called ones are predestined in Rom. 8:30. The secret
wisdom of the gospel was decreed before the ages for our glory in 1
Cor. 2:7. God predestined us for adoption in Eph. 1:5. We have been predestined
to an inheritance according to the purpose of his will in Eph. 1:11. So the
word predestined means to determine beforehand. In other words, predestined is synonymous
with determinism. Since Scripture unambiguously affirms a form of determinism,
albeit not a philosophical hard determinism, the libertarian free-will cannot obtain.
Think of it like this: in any possible world where libertarian free-will
obtains, every form of determinism is necessarily false. In the world that God
created, God also predestines. To predestinate an event is to determine the
event. To determine an event is a form of determinism. Therefore, if it is true
that God predestines in the world he created, then libertarian free-will is
false. Flowers went on to say that Adam’s choice to sin was libertarian
free-will. On the one hand, Adam possessed a freedom we do not possess. But on
the other hand, Adam’s choice to sin was not autonomous, independent from God’s
decree. Remember, God had already determined that Christ would die for the sins
of the world before Adam was even created, let alone before he fell. Was God’s
decree contingent on Adam’s choice? There is nothing contingent in the divine
decree. What God has purposed, he will bring to past. Moreover, nothing comes
to past that God has not purposed. Everything serves to glorify God even though
we may have trouble understanding that truth. Our failure to understand divine
truth is not legitimate ground to reject it.
Flowers then uses one of the worse analogies I have ever heard to
denigrate the doctrine of absolute sovereignty, a doctrine which his debate
partner, Pritchett has already affirmed in his opening statement. He compares a
police department’s sting operation with God’s decree to permit evil or sin in
the world. Flowers wants to allow for God’s bringing about Calvary but does not
want to allow for God’s bringing about sin. The problem is that without sin,
there is no reason to bring about Calvary. Flowers wants God to predestine
Christ, but not the sin that occasioned Christ. He wants to have his cake and
eat it too. Flowers wants the predestination of the cross, but wants to reject
the sinful betrayal of Judas that was needed to set the wheels in motion.
Sorry, Leighton, if you want the cake, you will need to take the icing that
comes with it.
Libertarian free-will is really the view that the human will is
autonomous. It is the view that the human will is an island unto itself. But as
we know, there is no part of the human person that is not affected by sin. If
the human mind is blinded by the god of this world, then we must also admit
that the human will, what we call the seat of affections, is held captive by
the god of this world so that we hate what we are supposed to love, and we love
what we should hate. Our affects are not neutral. We are in bondage to sin. We
cannot choose NOT to be in bondage to sin. We are blind and ignorant of the truth
for one thing. 2 Cor. 4:4 is clear that our minds are blind to the light of the
gospel. This makes it impossible for our cognitive faculties to deliver a fair
evaluation of Christ and therefore a favorable opinion of the gospel. 2 Tim.
2:26 describes unbelievers as being captured by the devil to do his will. Jesus
said to the unregenerate of his day, “You are of your father the devil, and
your will is to do your father’s desires.” (John 8:44)
Tone matters because Scripture says tone matters! Put on then, as God’s
chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility,
meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint
against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you
also must forgive. (Col. 3:12-13) I was disappointed in the tone the debate
took on and mostly from the reformed side. I was also confused by the position
of the reformed side. I do not know if they were compatibilists (it seems not
given one remark about it) or if they were determinists, or if they had even
bothered to discuss it before the debate. The goal of such a debate is to do
all you can to make sure your argument, your position is what people walk away
with, thinking about, grappling with it. Sad as it was, people walked away from
this debate talking about the tone, the chaos, and the confusion. It was, in my
opinion, a wasted opportunity.
Mr.
Ed
[1]
Francis X. Glimm, “The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” in The Apostolic Fathers, trans. Francis X.
Glimm, Joseph M.-F. Marique, and Gerald G. Walsh, vol. 1, The Fathers of the
Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1947), 174.
[2]
Francis X. Glimm, “The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp,” in The Apostolic Fathers, trans. Francis X. Glimm, Joseph M.-F.
Marique, and Gerald G. Walsh, vol. 1, The Fathers of the Church (Washington,
DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1947), 151.
[3] Shedd,
William Greenough Thayer. Dogmatic Theology. Edited by Alan W. Gomes.
3rd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003, Vol I, 396-397.
[4] Jonathan Edwards, The
Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 1 (Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 4.
[5] Rodney Holder, “Libertarian Free
Will,” ed. Paul Copan et al., Dictionary
of Christianity and Science: The Definitive Reference for the Intersection of
Christian Faith and Contemporary Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
2017), 414.
[6] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene
Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies,
1996), 359.
No comments:
Post a Comment