Our choices and their immediate causes
This brings us to the discussion of how we make choices and why. I have made the assertion that, regarding the choices we make, we necessarily could not have chosen otherwise but I would like to bring the words of other men to bear on the topic. This is what John Hendrix has to say regarding our choosing Christ.
“So if there is not of necessity any moral reason or motive that ultimately compels one to believe or not then how could God blame someone for rejecting Him? To believe the gospel is a moral choice, from the heart. If not then God could not call the rejection of the gospel a sin. If our affections do not cause us to believe then belief and unbelief is ultimately non-affectional, not from the heart and rejection could not be considered a sin. But if it is a moral choice then how did one person get a more moral disposition than the other? One remained proud and the other humble? Was this by nature or by grace? If by grace then why don’t all men have it? If by nature then some people are more virtuous than others apart from grace. This dilemma is really fatal to libertarian free will and none of them have been able to answer these basic questions. The answer ‘just because’ is not enough. [i]”
Hendrix’s words assert that our choices are made because of our affections, not in spite of them. Clearly not all non-Calvinist/non-Reformed persons espouse an anthropology of libertarian free-will nor do they all claim to adhere to philosophical systems that promote a variation on the theory of middle knowledge. Though I must that I don’t know where else thinking individuals would likely rest on the issue of God’s foreknowledge, providence and His ability to carry out His plans in time as He wishes except that they claim either of the three main views: Open Theism (Process Theology), Molinism (Middle Knowledge) or Compatibilism.
When a worldview claims libertarian free will as one of its foundational tenets, one of two things result: either it makes a belief in original sin (at least the historic, biblical understanding of the term) a contradiction within their system, or it must be denied all together. Listen to what they say about their own system.
“Libertarians take very seriously the widespread judgment that we are morally responsible for our actions and that moral responsibility requires freedom” That is, a person cannot be held morally responsible for an act unless he or she was free to perform that act and free to refrain from it. This is basic moral intuition.[ii]”
If responsibility, as such a one would claim, is grounded in one’s ability to have chosen “X” or non-X without any compelling influences, then we don’t inherit guilt and condemnation from Adam (as the historical, biblical understanding promotes) but instead we inherit only the capacity to sin, thus denying the doctrine of original sin. The other result is that such a one may accept the doctrine of original sin in some superficial sense but also claim that Christ died to make all men savable in order to give everyone the capacity for choosing God, thus leading to the contradiction in their system where men both, inherit Adam’s sin and maintain the ability to choose not to sin while still “counted in Adam”. I personally like what John Owen has to say regarding this man-made philosophy, and find it difficult to state it any better.
“To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect.[iii]”
He goes on to assess the libertarian view of creaturely freedom and his responsibility in a way with which I must agree.
“The essence of this view is that a free action is one that does not have a sufficient condition or cause prior to its occurrence…the common experience of deliberation assumes that our choices are undetermined. [iv]”
I have heard it stated very often that men only go to Hell because of their personal unbelief. If this unbelief is a sin that finds its origin in the fallen affections of the human heart, a heart whose condition was inherited from Adam, then it is biblical to say that ultimately we are guilty and go to Hell because we are inherently sinners; unbelief being one of those sins for which the unregenerate man will be punished in Hell. As a result it would be more accurate, yes even more biblical, to say that one goes to Hell because they are a sinner unredeemed, and that their unbelief is one sin among many for which they will continue to render payment in Hell as they abide God’s wrath for an eternity. So if it is not simply my unbelief that causes my damnation, then on what foundation is human responsibility based? This forces us to answer a more telling question, why do we make the choices we do? According to the Libertarian, if our choices are to be considered free (and they must be in order for God to hold us responsible for them, according to the Libertarian) then they can have no determining factor, no sufficient condition or cause at all—not even our affections or desires are allowed to cause our choices, not even they are the antecedent cause for what we choose. But Libertarianism and Dynamic Pre-Temporalism do not establish culpability for our choices instead they absolve us of being responsible for the things we do. Rationality leads us to believe that the contrary is true, that only if our choices are born out of our desires can we be held responsible for those choices. As Hendrix stated before, if our choices are not born out of our desires and affections then it would be unfair for God to judge us by them. Here is Hendrix again on this topic.
“The Belief in Libertarian Free Will Destroys Moral Responsibility – Walls and Dongell make a strong case that our judicial system is based on the commonsense view of libertarian freedom since the lawyers often defend the degree of guilt of clients based on whether they were coerced, their upbringing, emotional state and the like. These kind of conditions indeed often make people less culpable if their inability made them so they could not have done otherwise. If criminals could have made different choices than they did, i.e. if they were coerced into making a bad choice, then we all agree they would not be as legally responsible for their crime. While it is true that coercion often plays a role in the legal degree of punishment, but this only scratches the surface of the matter. Consider the opposite that if criminals just chose to commit a crime but had no intent or motives for it at all then the lawyer would be forced to plead insanity for his client before the court. If the choice to commit a crime were not based and caused ultimately on a reason, desire or motive then he would have to be absolved from guilt because he would not be responsible for it. If one chose to murder someone simply because he chose to it would be a sign of sickness not responsibility. Libertarian free will, therefore, destroys responsibility. Moral responsibility exists, not in spite of, but because our choices have reasons, motives, intent. Only the determinist, therefore, upholds moral responsibility. Can we be held responsible for doing something we do not want to do? [v]”
So we conclude that if our choices are not rooted in our natural affections, then God cannot hold us responsible for them because those choices would be arbitrary, thus making God’s judgment of them capricious. The only other option is that the choices we make are in fact rooted in our desires just as the proverb suggests (4:23).
[i] Hendryx, J. W. 'Just Because': Eleven (11) Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free Will. Same source as endnote number 3.
[v] Hendryx, J. W. 'Just Because': Eleven (11) Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free Will. Same source as endnote number 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment