(Opening Post 4 of 4)
In post #1, the fourth main point was stated in the following way. “
Fourth, we will look into the assumptions of the objector. (1) One assumption is that people do not have a choice when unconditionality is present in election. (2) The other assumption is that if the person is removed from a criteria for election, then God doesn't have a reason for His choice.” These assumptions can be observed by the following quotations.
“
Since those who go to hell, in Calvinism, don't have a choice in the matter, how is God's decision to cast them into hell not arbitrary.” (original quote in post #1)
“
As for the arbitrary objection, I find that God's decision to save or condemn is arbitrary if it is not based specifically on the faith of the individual (or lack thereof).” (taken from post #128)
The Interpretive Grid of False Assumptions
Introduction: When one learns from books dealing with interpretation, he finds a crucial concept. It is called distanciation. The concept is not difficult to comprehend; the main problem is actually practicing it. The concept refers to a modern reader’s ideas and assumptions, which are often read into various passages of scripture. The main idea is for the modern reader to “distance” himself from those assumptions in the interpretation of scripture. However, the most dangerous assumptions are those assumptions the interpreter does not realize he brings to the text.
A critical element of interpretation concerns “authorial intent.” This means that the original author intended a meaning during his time, culture, and audience. This means that the authorial intent of a biblical text (written before AD 100 and earlier) does not possess the assumptions that often modern interpreters impose upon it.
This small introduction of hermeneutics leads to a simple application of the same principle to discussions between Calvinists and those who employ the “arbitrary” objection. Those who utilize the objection often give away key assumptions that are being used to argue. Arguments are built upon certain foundations; but if those foundations are faulty, then it follows that the argument collapses with the faulty foundation.
As stated previously, the two key assumptions involve (1) the nature of choice-making, and (2) being overly focused upon human element in salvation.
Assumptions Regarding the Nature of Choice-making: I’ll be very candid and straightforward. I reject libertarian freedom and thusly the conception of choice-making that goes along with it. Often, this is informally called “free will.” Such a statement (free will) suffers from an extreme oversimplification of the real issue.
Two critical elements will be addressed in light of their biblical contradiction. One assumption is that human choice-making is autonomous from God. The other is that human choice-making involves the ability to do otherwise.
The assumption that human choice-making is autonomous from God comes from the idea that if God causes a choice to be a certain way, then it isn’t really a choice. This is evidence by the fact that the objection says, “
Since those who go to hell, in Calvinism, don't have a choice in the matter”. The only way this statement could be true or make sense, is if one assumes that libertarian choice is the only possible way of viewing choice. In particular, if God makes a person’s destiny certain, then the person had no choice.
Let’s explore the issue a bit more. In Calvinism, the person who goes to hell makes accountable decisions based upon an enslaved, corrupt will. The nature of choice-making is such that a person always chooses in accord with their highest motive or preference. This doesn’t mean that choices are simple, since there are often various motives in competition within the individual. It just means that at the end of the day, regardless of the competition of various motivations, the person ultimately chooses based upon whatever option is most preferred. As Jonathan Edwards stated, “to choose is to prefer.” One option seems best to the individual. That is why it was chosen. What this means is that choices aren’t made in a causal vacuum. Choices have causal reasons.
“A person chooses because . . .” is a reality that describes everyday life and the reality present in the heart of sinful men in Scripture. Jesus tells people who cannot bear to hear Him, “
But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.” (John 8:45 ESV) Earlier Jesus tells them, “
Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.” (John 8:43 ESV) Here Jesus, the God-man, tells his opponents why they are having problems with His words. They cannot understand Him because they cannot bear to hear His word. The next verse points out their negative moral character, from a morally corrupt lineage (your will is to do your father's desires), which brings about their opposition toward the truth Jesus is presenting before them. Hence, precisely because Jesus tells them the truth, they do not believe. Note that their choice to reject is given a causal reason, their motivation and character is opposed to the truth.
Earlier in the book of John we see that another causal reason is given by Jesus for people’s choices. “
And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.” (John 3:19-20 ESV) Once again, one can see that people love darkness rather than light; and people hate the light because it exposes their evil deeds (evil choices).
We can ask the obvious now. Why would a person choose to follow Jesus if he hates the exposure of the light, and he hates the truth while preferring a lie? The obvious answer is that a person will not choose to believe what they believe to be a lie and hate.
We see the causal impact of preferences upon choice-making evidenced practically every single day by those who oppose Calvinism. They absolutely cannot choose otherwise than what they believe to be true. Their persistence against Calvinism demonstrates the fact that the libertarian view of human choice-making is false.
But there is yet another reason in Scripture that argues against the idea of autonomy from God. By “autonomy from God” is meant that people view their choices as uncaused with reference to God. They are their own ultimate cause of the choice that they make. Scripture simply demonstrates that this assumption is catastrophically mistaken.
[1] We are told that God “
upholds all things by the word of His power” (Heb. 1:3). We are told that “
God gives to all men, life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:24-25). We are told that “
in Him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17). We are told “
from him and through him and to him are all things.” (Rom. 11:36 ESV) We are told something rather similar in 1 Corinthians 8. “
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (1Cor. 8:6 ESV) The idea of human ultimacy, with reference to God, is simply mistaken. Autonomy from God does not exist in God’s universe. Consequently, the idea that choices can be ultimate or autonomous from God is simply mistaken. Hence, it is proven that the view of choice-making, where the choice could be otherwise and/or ultimate is simply mistaken.
In conclusion, choices do not take place in a causal vacuum. They are caused by a person’s highest preference. For sinful human beings, this means that their moral corruption precludes their choice to believe in Christ. They prefer their sin, unless God acts graciously upon them to given them a preference for Christ and His work on the cross. Those whom God has not chosen to save do make choices. They are responsible for their choices, and their choices are sinfully precluded from choosing Christ because of their corrupt nature and corrupt preferences. Therefore, we must conclude that the statement, “Since those who go to hell, in Calvinism, don't have a choice in the matter,” is simply false and mistaken. The statement only evidences false assumptions about choice-making and thusly misreads Calvinism.
(cont in next post)
