Calvinism vs Scriptural Libertarian Free Will (LFW)

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Is it possible to summarize that article in a sentence or two?

I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.

The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative.

This distortion...clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.

In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the "hardening" of the sinners' already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, "work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us.
...
...
Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.

Another significant difference between the activity of God with respect to the elect and the reprobate concerns God's justice. The decree and fulfillment of election provide mercy for the elect while the efficacy of reprobation provides justice for the reprobate. God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly. God is under no obligation to grant mercy to all — in fact He is under no obligation to grant mercy to any. He says, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy" (Rom. 9). The divine prerogative to grant mercy voluntarily cannot be faulted. If God is required by some cosmic law apart from Himself to be merciful to all men, then we would have to conclude that justice demands mercy. If that is so, then mercy is no longer voluntary, but required. If mercy is required, it is no longer mercy, but justice. What God does not do is sin by visiting injustice upon the reprobate. Only by considering election and reprobation as being asymmetrical in terms of a positive-negative schema can God be exonerated from injustice.
​

AMR

 

[Robert Pate]

I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.

The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative.

This distortion...clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.

In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the "hardening" of the sinners' already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, "work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us.
...
...
Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.

Another significant difference between the activity of God with respect to the elect and the reprobate concerns God's justice. The decree and fulfillment of election provide mercy for the elect while the efficacy of reprobation provides justice for the reprobate. God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly. God is under no obligation to grant mercy to all — in fact He is under no obligation to grant mercy to any. He says, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy" (Rom. 9). The divine prerogative to grant mercy voluntarily cannot be faulted. If God is required by some cosmic law apart from Himself to be merciful to all men, then we would have to conclude that justice demands mercy. If that is so, then mercy is no longer voluntary, but required. If mercy is required, it is no longer mercy, but justice. What God does not do is sin by visiting injustice upon the reprobate. Only by considering election and reprobation as being asymmetrical in terms of a positive-negative schema can God be exonerated from injustice.
​

AMR

The fact that you have written that long rambling article with only one scripture reference tells me that your doctrine is not of God, but of man, mainly John Calvin.

God has shown mercy to the whole world by sending his Son into the world to atone for the sins of the world, 1 John 2:2. You are in denial of this wonderful Bible truth. If Jesus had not atoned for the sins of the whole world Jesus would still be in Joseph's new tomb and we would all still be in our sins, but thanks be unto God our sins have been dealt with, Hebrews 1:3.

Because of the doing and the dying of Jesus the unjust can be made just, Romans 4:5. Because of the doing and the dying of Jesus we have been reconciled unto God, 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19.

"God so loved everyone that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" John 3:16.

Your doctrine that God only loves some and not all is a disgusting lie. God so loves the crown of his creation so much that he refuses to force himself on us by forcing us to believe on him. Salvation is a gift from God that can be accepted or refused, but never imposed.

 

[MennoSota]

https://www.monergism.com/augustine-and-pelagius
"It is Augustine who gave us the Reformation." So wrote B. B. Warfield in his assessment of the influence of Augustine on church history. It is not only that Luther was an Augustinian monk, or that Calvin quoted Augustine more than any other theologian that provoked Warfield's remark. Rather, it was that the Reformation witnessed the ultimate triumph of Augustine's doctrine of grace over the legacy of the Pelagian view of man.

Humanism, in all its subtle forms, recapitulates the unvarnished Pelagianism against which Augustine struggled. Though Pelagius was condemned as a heretic by Rome, and its modified form, Semi-Pelagianism was likewise condemned by the Council of Orange in 529, the basic assumptions of this view persisted throughout church history to reappear in Medieval Catholicism, Renaissance Humanism, Socinianism, Arminianism, and modern Liberalism. The seminal thought of Pelagius survives today not as a trace or tangential influence but is pervasive in the modern church. Indeed, the modern church is held captive by it.

What was the core issue between Augustine and Pelagius? The heart of the debate centered on the doctrine of original sin, particularly with respect to the question of the extent to which the will of fallen man is "free." Adolph Harnack said:

There has never, perhaps, been another crisis of equal importance in church history in which the opponents have expressed the principles at issue so clearly and abstractly. The Arian dispute before the Nicene Council can alone be compared with it. (History of Agmer V/IV/3)



The controversy began when the British monk, Pelagius, opposed at Rome Augustine's famous prayer: "Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." Pelagius recoiled in horror at the idea that a divine gift (grace) is necessary to perform what God commands. For Pelagius and his followers responsibility always implies ability. If man has the moral responsibility to obey the law of God, he must also have the moral ability to do it.

Harnack summarizes Pelagian thought:

Nature, free-will, virtue and law, these strictly defined and made independent of the notion of God - were the catch-words of Pelagianism: self-acquired virtue is the supreme good which is followed by reward. Religion and morality lie in the sphere of the free spirit; they are at any moment by man's own effort.

The difference between Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism is more a difference of degree than of kind. To be sure, on the surface there seems like there is a huge difference between the two, particularly with respect to original sin and to the sinner's dependence upon grace. Pelagius categorically denied the doctrine of original sin, arguing that Adam's sin affected Adam alone and that infants at birth are in the same state as Adam was before the Fall. Pelagius also argued that though grace may facilitate the achieving of righteousness, it is not necessary to that end. Also, he insisted that the constituent nature of humanity is not convertible; it is indestructively good.

Over against Pelagius, Semi-Pelagianism does have a doctrine of original sin whereby mankind is considered fallen. Consequently grace not only facilitates virtue, it is necessary for virtue to ensue. Man's nature can be changed and has been changed by the Fall.

However, in Semi-Pelagianism there remains a moral ability within man that is unaffected by the Fall. We call this an "island of righteousness" by which the fallen sinner still has the inherent ability to incline or move himself to cooperate with God's grace. Grace is necessary but not necessarily effective. Its effect always depends upon the sinner's cooperation with it by virtue of the exercise of the will.

It is not by accident that Martin Luther considered The Bondage of the Will to be his most important book. He saw in Erasmus a man who, despite his protests to the contrary, was a Pelagian in Catholic clothing. Luther saw that lurking beneath the controversy of merit and grace, and faith and works was the issue of to what degree the human will is enslaved by sin and to what degree we are dependent upon grace for our liberation. Luther argued from the Bible that the flesh profits nothing and that this "nothing" is not a little "something."

Augustine's view of the Fall was opposed to both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. He said that mankind is a massa peccati, a "mess of sin," incapable of raising itself from spiritual death. For Augustine man can no more move or incline himself to God than an empty glass can fill itself. For Augustine the initial work of divine grace by which the soul is liberated from the bondage of sin is sovereign and operative. To be sure we cooperate with this grace, but only after the initial divine work of liberation.

 

[MennoSota]

Augustine did not deny that fallen man still has a will and that the will is capable of making choices. He argued that fallen man still has a free will (liberium arbitrium) but has lost his moral liberty (libertas). The state of original sin leaves us in the wretched condition of being unable to refrain from sinning. We still are able to choose what we desire, but our desires remain chained by our evil impulses. He argued that the freedom that remains in the will always leads to sin. Thus in the flesh we are free only to sin, a hollow freedom indeed. It is freedom without liberty, a real moral bondage. True liberty can only come from without, from the work of God on the soul. Therefore we are not only partly dependent upon grace for our conversion but totally dependent upon grace.

Modern Evangelicalism sprung from the Reformation whose roots were planted by Augustine. But today the Reformational and Augustinian view of grace is all but eclipsed in Evangelicalism. Where Luther triumphed in the sixteenth century, subsequent generations gave the nod to Erasmus.

Modern evangelicals repudiate unvarnished Pelagianism and frequently Semi-Pelagianism as well. It is insisted that grace is necessary for salvation and that man is fallen. The will is acknowledged to be severely weakened even to the point of being "99 percent" dependent upon grace for its liberation. But that one percent of unaffected moral ability or spiritual power which becomes the decisive difference between salvation and perdition is the link that preserves the chain to Pelagius. We have not broken free from the Pelagian captivity of the church.

That one percent is the "little something" Luther sought to demolish because it removes the sola from sola gratia and ultimately the sola from sola fide. The irony may be that though modern Evangelicalism loudly and repeatedly denounces Humanism as the mortal enemy of Christianity, it entertains a Humanistic view of man and of the will at its deepest core.

We need an Augustine or a Luther to speak to us anew lest the light of God's grace be not only over-shadowed but be obliterated in our time.

 

[GregoryN]

"Hell, for example, is terrifying either way. But if Calvinism is false, people who go to hell deserve it for freely rejecting the free gift of God that was offered to justify them from their free choices to sin rather than humble themselves and repent (as opposed to Calvinist "free will" where you are like a robot designed with a program that has the variables of being able to slap with your right hand or your left, and then being charged guilty because either way you slap). If Calvinism is true, then the Bible is a charade from beginning to end, with God literally pleading for sinners to repent because He does not desire their death (Ezekiel 33:11), to humble themselves, His "regret" for man's sinfulness before the flood, His looking into men's hearts (1 Samuel 16:7), etc. To compound the problem, not only is life an elaborate charade, but hell is a place where people who were created to sin with no possibility of repentance will consciously endure torment for no authentic decision of their own (again, like the aforementioned robot)."

"If Calvinism is true, then Ezekiel 33:11 presents a man who embraces a child by the arms, faces him away from himself and says, "Turn back! Turn back and live, for why will you die?", while the child tries with all his might to turn, complaining that he can't because his father holds back and is too strong. The man acknowledges that the child is weaker and unable with any might to turn, but continues to scream "Turn and live!" while he holds him firmly away until he eventually punishes the child for not overpowering him. The calvinist may try to dispute this, saying the child is instead one who doesn't try to turn at all, like the wicked who do not seek God in Psalms 14. The problem is in the world of Calvinism, analogously this man created the child to not turn, and so divinely holds him away while pretentiously pleading his repentant response."

 

[MennoSota]

"Hell, for example, is terrifying either way. But if Calvinism is false, people who go to hell deserve it for freely rejecting the free gift of God that was offered to justify them from their free choices to sin rather than humble themselves and repent (as opposed to Calvinist "free will" where you are like a robot designed with a program that has the variables of being able to slap with your right hand or your left, and then being charged guilty because either way you slap). If Calvinism is true, then the Bible is a charade from beginning to end, with God literally pleading for sinners to repent because He does not desire their death (Ezekiel 33:11), to humble themselves, His "regret" for man's sinfulness before the flood, His looking into men's hearts (1 Samuel 16:7), etc. To compound the problem, not only is life an elaborate charade, but hell is a place where people who were created to sin with no possibility of repentance will consciously endure torment for no authentic decision of their own (again, like the aforementioned robot)."

"If Calvinism is true, then Ezekiel 33:11 presents a man who embraces a child by the arms, faces him away from himself and says, "Turn back! Turn back and live, for why will you die?", while the child tries with all his might to turn, complaining that he can't because his father holds back and is too strong. The man acknowledges that the child is weaker and unable with any might to turn, but continues to scream "Turn and live!" while he holds him firmly away until he eventually punishes the child for not overpowering him. The calvinist may try to dispute this, saying the child is instead one who doesn't try to turn at all, like the wicked who do not seek God in Psalms 14. The problem is in the world of Calvinism, analogously this man created the child to not turn, and so divinely holds him away while pretentiously pleading his repentant response."

You should really switch the word "Calvinism" with "the Bible" so you can see your falsehood.

 

[GregoryN]

You should really switch the word "Calvinism" with "the Bible" so you can see your falsehood.

Let's do that to see how ridiculous your comment is & get a great big LOL at the same time:

"But if ["the Bible"] is false, people who go to hell deserve it..."

"If ["the Bible"] is true, then the Bible is a charade from beginning to end,..."

 

[MennoSota]

Let's do that to see how ridiculous your comment is & get a great big LOL at the same time:

"But if ["the Bible"] is false, people who go to hell deserve it..."

"If ["the Bible"] is true, then the Bible is a charade from beginning to end,..."

I can see your falsehood oozing when you do this. Notice how ridiculous it looks...just like your claims are ridiculous. Thanks for sharing with us, Greg. You prove my point.

 

[GregoryN]

I can see your falsehood oozing when you do this. Notice how ridiculous it looks...just like your claims are ridiculous. Thanks for sharing with us, Greg. You prove my point.

1 Cor.4:[ **3** ](https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/4-3.htm)But to me, it is the smallest matter that I be examined by you or by a human court. In fact, neither do I examine myself. [ **4** ](https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/4-4.htm)For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I have not been justified by this; but the *One* judging me is *the* Lord.

5 Therefore do not judge anything before the time, until the Lord shall have come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the motives of the hearts; and then the praise will come to each from God.

Mt.7:1Do not judge, lest you should be judged. 2For with that verdict you pronounce, you will be judged; and with that measure you measure, it will be measured to you.

3And why do you look at the splinter in your brother’s eye, but not notice the beam in your own eye? 4Or how shall you say to your brother, ‘Permit that I might cast out the splinter from your eye,’ and behold, the beam is in your eye? 5Hypocrite! First cast out the beam from your eye, and then you will see clearly to cast out the splinter from the eye of your brother.

 

[GregoryN]

He who sins is responsible for his own sin.

Only if sinners have libertarian freewill (LFW). Any Christian theology (e.g. Calvinism) that rejects LFW leads to these conclusions:

1. We are all puppets in God's puppet show.
2. God is the first cause of all evil & sin.
3. God alone is responsible for all sin.
4. If God sends anyone to an endless hell for sins he alone is responsible for, he is unjust and a monstrous sadist.

 

[MennoSota]

1 Cor.4:[ **3** ](https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/4-3.htm)But to me, it is the smallest matter that I be examined by you or by a human court. In fact, neither do I examine myself. [ **4** ](https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/4-4.htm)For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I have not been justified by this; but the *One* judging me is *the* Lord.

5 Therefore do not judge anything before the time, until the Lord shall have come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the motives of the hearts; and then the praise will come to each from God.

Mt.7:1Do not judge, lest you should be judged. 2For with that verdict you pronounce, you will be judged; and with that measure you measure, it will be measured to you.

3And why do you look at the splinter in your brother’s eye, but not notice the beam in your own eye? 4Or how shall you say to your brother, ‘Permit that I might cast out the splinter from your eye,’ and behold, the beam is in your eye? 5Hypocrite! First cast out the beam from your eye, and then you will see clearly to cast out the splinter from the eye of your brother.

A great example of your prooftexting scripture to manipulate, Greg. It's a not so subtle pride you are displaying.

 

[GregoryN]

If humans have no choice but to sin, since they do not have libertarian free will (LFW) or the power to resist or the power of contrary choice, then they are the puppets of sin. They are not responsible for that sin, since they could do nothing but sin. If no created beings have LFW, then their creator would be responsible for all sin, not the created beings. For such a "god", then, to send any to endless tortures for sins caused by that "god" would be unjust & make that "god" a monstrous sadist, infinitely worse than all sadists' actions of history combined, including Satan. Such a "god" would be the most unrighteous being there ever was & one of the worst conceivably imaginable. Who would dream up, inspire & propagandize such a fantasy "god" except Satan, the accuser & slanderer of the good & righteous true God, Love Omnipotent?

 

[MennoSota]

If humans have no choice but to sin, since they do not have libertarian free will (LFW) or the power to resist or the power of contrary choice, then they are the puppets of sin. They are not responsible for that sin, since they could do nothing but sin. If no created beings have LFW, then their creator would be responsible for all sin, not the created beings. For such a "god", then, to send any to endless tortures for sins caused by that "god" would be unjust & make that "god" a monstrous sadist, infinitely worse than all sadists' actions of history combined, including Satan. Such a "god" would be the most unrighteous being there ever was & one of the worst conceivably imaginable. Who would dream up, inspire & propagandize such a fantasy "god" except Satan, the accuser & slanderer of the good & righteous true God, Love Omnipotent?

The Bible says they are slaves to sin.

 

[GregoryN]

The Bible says they are slaves to sin.

What makes you think that is relevant to my post? Or that your interpretation of it is infallible? Or that freedom from slavery comes without libertarian free will (LFW) cooperation? John 7:17:

New International Version
Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

Berean Literal Bible
If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching, whether it is from God, or I speak from Myself.

New American Standard Bible
"If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.

King James Bible
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

 

[MennoSota]

What makes you think that is relevant to my post? Or that your interpretation of it is infallible? Or that freedom from slavery comes without libertarian free will (LFW) cooperation? John 7:17:

New International Version
Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

Berean Literal Bible
If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching, whether it is from God, or I speak from Myself.

New American Standard Bible
"If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.

King James Bible
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Greg, please cease with the prooftexting out of context. You twist the Bible to create a false narrative. It is disappointing to say the least.

 

[GregoryN]

If humans have no choice but to sin, since they do not have libertarian free will (LFW) or the power to resist or the power of contrary choice, then they are the puppets of sin.

 

[MennoSota]

If humans have no choice but to sin, since they do not have libertarian free will (LFW) or the power to resist or the power of contrary choice, then they are the puppets of sin.

Slaves to sin.

17But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

 

[glorydaz]

Slaves to sin.

17But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

Ah, so your claim, according to your understanding of that verse, is that we are now "slaves of righteousness"? You're willing to stretch that verse that far, are you? opcorn:

 

[glorydaz]

Greg, please cease with the prooftexting out of context. You twist the Bible to create a false narrative. It is disappointing to say the least.

You just did.....

 

[BoyStan]

It is undeniable that humans make choices. The Old Testament has multitudes of texts that show humans making choices.

"But the ability to freely make decisions commensurate with the limits of one’s nature and with the opportunities provided for such decision making is logically part of God’s and man’s nature and experience."

Choices are 'freely made decisions'.

Choices are made exclusively 'commensurate with the limits of one’s nature'

Both God and humans have opportunities to make such choices.

What are the limits of God's nature?

What are the limits of human nature?

The LFW controversy stands or falls on the answers given to these two questions.

Fallen, that is sinful, human nature is limited to making sinful choices.

Fallen human nature is 'unspiritual' and 'a slave to sin'(Rom7:14;8:5-8).

Human choices are limited to sinful decisions!

LFW is in opposition to the truth of scripture.