This post is meant as a critique of the pagan idol, libertarian freedom. In many conversations between Calvinists and Arminians this issue comes up. The non-technical wording for libertarian freedom is "free will." Libertarian freedom entails two essential elements: (1) The ability to do/chose otherwise, (2) some form of human ontological ultimacy (either the will or the agent is ultimate). The second point speaks toward the assumption of the undetermined nature of the agent or the will. The first point speaks toward the idea that the person could potentially have chosen in a way other than what was chosen. If the definition provided in this paragraph is questioned, then I can easily provide several sources that give the same key features as described above. With the target clarified and stated, we can now move toward the critique.
I have often said that (1) libertarian freedom is logically incoherent, (2) biblically contradictory, and (3) practically unlivable. I hope to spell these points out in a little more detail. Some of you may not follow the argument, and on my end that is probably due to the fact that my aim is to give a summary. Many posts would be required to fully spell out the details. With all that stated, let's dive in!
Libertarian Freedom Is Logically Incoherent
Libertarian Freedom Is Practically Unlivable.
I have often said that (1) libertarian freedom is logically incoherent, (2) biblically contradictory, and (3) practically unlivable. I hope to spell these points out in a little more detail. Some of you may not follow the argument, and on my end that is probably due to the fact that my aim is to give a summary. Many posts would be required to fully spell out the details. With all that stated, let's dive in!
Libertarian Freedom Is Logically Incoherent
- It fails the test of the law of identity. The idea of the law of identity is that something is itself and not otherwise. The law of non-contradiction also follows. Something cannot be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same way. The two are inextricably connected, for the law of non-contradiction is actually built upon the law of identity. How is this? Well, let's consider a few simple examples.
- A man robs a bank, but if reality can be otherwise than what it is, then it can also be true that he did not rob a bank even though he did (at the same time, and in the same way).
- Sin entails a transgression; a person chooses to do wrong even though they knew the right thing to do. But if reality can be otherwise than itself, then the very idea of sin can be both true and false, for a person can sin, but the person can be otherwise than what they are, and thusly if reality can be otherwise than what it is, then sin can actually be good.
- The above two examples demonstrate that advocating a violation of the law of identity inextricably impacts the law of non-contradiction. In order to advocate the violation, then the ability to tell truth from error and sin from goodness is thrown under the buss. In short, a violation of the law of identity destroys the rationality of the issue it is tied to.
- Libertarian freedom is partly defined by its ability to do otherwise, but this ability, in order to be true, would also have to entail the ability to be otherwise than what was at a given moment. This is a violation of the law of identity, as such, libertarian freedom is incoherent.
- The two parts of the definition are at odds with one another.
- Sometimes the advocate says that the self causes the will. But then how can one do otherwise if there is only one self that causes.
- If the self does not cause the will, then we have a random chance event, where nothing causes the will. This is an ontologically arbitrary event, which means that it is completely indistinguishable from chance. How is a chance operation of the will the substance of responsibility? How can one be held accountable for something that just happened for no reason?
- Some like to say that the mind is involved, and the mind and knowledge presents a sphere in which the choice/will operates. But this scenario runs into the problems just mentioned. Does the mind cause the will to be thus and not otherwise, then the first part of the definition collapses. If the mind does not cause the will, then we still have a chance account of the will/choice, and responsibility is negated. Chance and responsibility are antithetical.
- The idea of an undetermined choice is built upon the temporal perspective of one before the choice is made. But this goes without saying, from a person's perspective, before the choice is made, it has yet to be determined. Everyone holds this. This issue is that whether or not the choice was determined by something or someone when the full process is considered. God's eternal mind and omniscience does not reduce down to man's perspective, for this would be to project from man's ignorance of the future into a metaphysical statement of reality as a whole. This is a grotesque argument from silence at best.
- The idea of the ability to do otherwise is often built off a conflation between two objects of choice, before the choice is made. Yes, a person may be considering the blue car or the red car, but this does not mean that either can be chosen given the preferences, deliberation, and thoughts of the person leading up to the decision. In fact, to speak of the ability to do otherwise is to ignore the internal process that leads to the choice made. This is to say that what one prefers is irrelevant with respect to the will/choice. Such an oversight is to deny the very nature of the decision making process itself.
- Deism is not true, for God did not just create He is also intimately involved with His creation. This involvement eliminates creation's autonomy. Creation needs God to begin to exist, and creation needs God to continue to exist. (Heb 1:3; Col 1:16-17; Acts 17:25, 28; 1 Cor 8:6; Rom 11:36) These verses point to God's continual sustaining activity, apart from which nothing would exist. Since, God sustains, then the second part of the libertarian freedom definition is false. It is false, for agent or will ultimacy would contradict a non-ultimate sustained will/agent.
- Scripture presents causal reasons for the choices people make. (Eph 2:2-3; John 8:43-45; Rom 8:5-9; John 10:1-28; etc.) This point contradicts both aspects of the definition. Human/choice/will ultimacy is denied for a causal reason is given for the choice. The ability to do otherwise is denied for there is a causal reason the choice/will was thus and not otherwise. Thus, because Scripture presents causal reasons for the choices people make, then scripture contradicts libertarian freedom.
- The absolute/certain knowledge knowledge of God cannot be otherwise than what it is. God is self-sufficient in His knowledge, which means that God's nature in no way is determined by His dependent creation. Thus, His perfect knowledge means that there is only one reality, and thusly a reality that can be otherwise is not possible. This presents a significant obstacle to the ability to do otherwise.
Libertarian Freedom Is Practically Unlivable.
- The unlivable nature is demonstrated by the opposition of those who despise Calvinism. They absolutely cannot choose to believe Calvinism as truth. This is in spite of the evidence given. They routinely give reasons why they think Calvinism is evil, or unbiblical, or a false interpretation. But these reasons only demonstrate that the choises to oppose Calvinism are in fact validating Calvinism, for their unalterable opposition destroys the naive idea of the ability to do otherwise, and it also demonstrates that there are causal, mental reasons for the choices people make. Their very opposition to Calvinism invalidates their cherished idea of human freedom and decision making.
Last edited:
