Calvinism and Choice

The Calvinist system defines “choice,” “freedom” and “will” in such a way that it is impossible for anyone to cite a passage from the Bible that a Calvinist cannot interpret to fit his framework.

This framework is based on what I consider some philosophical sleight of hand. Here is a passage from Jonathan Edwards:

The plain and obvious meaning of the words freedom and liberty, in common speech, is power, opportunity, or advantage, that any one has to do as he pleases. Or in other words, his being free from hindrance or impediment in the way of doing, or conducting, in any respect, as he ‘wills.’ And the contrary to liberty, whatever name we call that by, is a person’s being hindered or unable to conduct as he will, or being necessitated to do otherwise (Edwards, Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2, sec. 5).

The first sentence sounds reasonable enough. Freedom means the power to do as one pleases. But Edwards means something very different from what a non-Calvinist thinks he is saying. Edwards means that a person is “free” to do what his “will” determines that he do. The “will,” in Edward’s view is entirely determined. But as long as a person acts according to his “will,” he is “free.”

This does not mean that a person is free to choose between several different options. This does not mean that a person has the power to determine what his will is.

Edwards explains this:

What has been said may be sufficient to show what is meant by liberty, according to the common notions of mankind, and in the usual and primary acceptation of the word: but the word, as used by Arminians, Pelagians, and others, who oppose the Calvinists, has an entirely different signification. These several things belong to their notion of liberty. That it consists in self-determining power in the will, or a certain sovereignty the will has over itself, and its own acts, whereby it determines its own volition’s; so as not to be dependent in its determinations on any cause without itself, nor determined by any thing prior to its own acts (Edwards, Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2, sec. 5).

If one accepts these definitions that Edwards uses and the relationship of choice and will that he affirms, then any Bible passage calling for a choice can be accommodated quite nicely in the Calvinist system. (There are only a few minor exceptions.)

In other words, it is a waste of time to try to convince a Calvinist that the Bible teaches that humans have choice. They say, “Of course they do.” They mean something very different, however, than what the non-Calvinist means. They mean that a person is free to choose his greatest desire as determined by his will. This is always a single thing.

The non-Calvinist might protest that this is not fair. “How can people be responsible for their choices when they can only choose one thing? This sounds like a Soviet election.”

The Calvinist responds that a person chooses what he wants to choose; therefore, he is responsible.

The non-Calvinist again protests, “But those who receive God’s grace do not choose it freely. They are forced to make that choice by God.”

The Calvinist smiles and shakes his head as if talking to a small child, “God doesn’t force anyone against his will. God changes the person’s will so that he chooses faith in Christ willingly.”

The non-Calvinist becomes frustrated and accuses the Calvinist of ignoring the plain teaching of the Bible. The Calvinist simply replies, “If you want to prove that Calvinism is not biblical, then you should at least do your research and know what you are talking about.”

Once this fortress of “choice,” “freedom” and “will” has been erected, it is impregnable. Once you grant Calvinism its definitions and philosophical framework, it can withstand any attack on the issue of free will.

The non-Calvinist “feels” that Calvinism is not right. But he doesn’t seem to be able to make any headway in establishing a case against it. This is because the battle is over before it begins. It’s a little bit like playing a game with a die:

Calvinist: “Wanna play a game?”
Non-Calvinist: “Sure, what is it?”
C: “It’s called Everyone Has an Equal Chance”
N: “OK, that sounds like a fair game. How do you play.”
C: “You roll a die, and number that comes up determines who wins.”
N: “Are the numbers divided equally?”
C: “Of course, they are divided into the even numbers and the odd numbers.”
N: “That’s equal. One, three and five are odd. Two, four and six are even.”
C: “OK, here’s how it works. If I roll an odd number, I win.”
N: “What happens if I roll an odd number?”
C: “If you roll an odd number, then I also win.”
N: “OK, I think I see how this works. The odd numbers belong to you, and the even numbers belong to me, right?”
C: “That’s right. If I roll an even number you lose.”
N: “Wait a minute. What happens if I roll an even number?”
C: “Then you also lose.”
N: “This doesn’t seem right.”
C: “But you already agreed that it was fair because the numbers were divided evenly.”
N: “But I can’t win.”
C: “Who said anything about that?”

This is the game you play if you try to prove libertarian free will by citing Bible verses. Unless you renegotiate the rules of the game, you cannot win.