Do Calvinists Believe in Free Will?

 

The above is eighth in the series of 16 short video clips by the late theologian RC Sproul that I found on the jcr4runner channel, that I have been commenting on in my blog. It is titled: “Do Calvinists believe in free will?” In this clip he tries to defend the Calvinist and Reformed doctrine of the bondage of the will, in contrast with the Arminian point of view, and tries to justify it theologically as follows:

“I really think that at the heart of the historic debate between Calvinism and Arminianism is the difference in understanding of the concept of free will. I mean when I talk to my Armenian friends, they hear Calvinists talking about people who aren’t really people, they are robots, or they are sticks and they are stones. They don’t have a will, you know, they are just manipulated by divine sovereignty, and therefore they wouldn’t be responsible for their sin, and all the rest. And in a very real sense, Arminianism is trying to rescue God from being an uncaring, dispassionate manipulator that reduces human beings to robots. And I think again it comes down to our understanding of free will. Now every person who has ever been a Calvinist that I know of in history, has affirmed without reservation that we are moral agents, we are volitional creatures, that God has made each one of us with a mind, with a heart, with affections, and with a will; that we have the will which is a faculty of choosing. And in the Fall, as desperate as the Fall is, and as corrupt as we became, we don’t stop willing, we sin because we want to sin, and that is why we are exposed to the punishment of God, because we are willful in our sin, and we are willful in our rejection of God.”

That is a somewhat deceptive presentation of the Calvinist theological position. Calvinism teaches the absolute predestination of all things by God before creation, including all the supposed “freewill” choices and decisions of man, including all of man’s sinful choices, desires, and actions. All have been predestined and predetermined by God in advance—which ultimately means that man is not “free”. Calvinism is deceptive in its presentation of its doctrines and teachings. It teaches that although man is “free” to do what he “wants,” his desires and “wants” have been predetermined by God—which means that in reality, he is not “free” at all, according to Calvinism. It is a fake freedom, a false pretense, and a deception. Therefore on that theological basis, it is perfectly correct to say that Calvinism turns men into “robots,” and into “sticks” and “stones”.

Calvinists like to call it “compatibilist” freewill, by which they mean that man’s freewill is “compatible” with “divine sovereignty,” which they define as the absolute predestination and predetermination of all things, including all future supposedly “freewill” choices and decisions of man. They say that man’s choices and decisions are “freely made”. We “freely choose” what we “want”. But our “wants” and desires are predestined and predetermined by God; which makes it a false pretense and a fake “freedom”. If our desires and “wants,” on the basis of which our choices and decisions are made, have been predetermined, then we have no freedom at all. If we are not able to “want” what we want, but what somebody else wants us to “want;” and our choices and decisions are made on the basis of those “wants;” then our “freewill” is non-existent. We are just robots, sticks and stones, not free creatures.

Calvinism is based on the false premise that, for God to be able to foresee and foreknow future events in detail as he does, that “future” must have been predetermined, which is not a logical requirement. He then continues:

“Now where historic Reformed theology comes in, following after Augustine in antiquity, is here: that even though the will is free from external coercion, from being forced to do something it doesn’t want to do by outside agencies, or by somebody coming and sticking a gun to our head; now what we say is that the will, though it is free to do what it wants, is in bondage at the same time; that the Bible tells us that our wills, which are free to do what they want, are in chains; they are enslaved to sinful passions, sinful desires, sinful dispositions; …”

Two issues with that one. Firstly, that is not a correct description of the Calvinist theological position. Calvinism teaches that man’s “wants” and desires (including sinful ones) are predetermined by God, over which man has no control. Secondly, it is not biblically correct to say that man’s will is so enslaved to sinful passions, desires, and dispositions etc., that unless God “changes” those [unconditionally], no one can do any good that can please God. The Bible teaches otherwise:

Acts 10:

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation [and religion] he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Romans 2:

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

See previous comments. Then he continues:

“… and until God the Holy Spirit changes the disposition of our hearts [unconditionally], and liberates us from that prison of bondage to evil impulses, such as Paul speaks of in Ephesians 2, where we by nature walk according to this world, walk according to the prince of the power of the air, and by nature fulfill the lusts of the flesh, we are doing that willingly and joyfully. But we have to be redeemed from that prison house of sinful passions [unconditionally]. And that cannot be done by the flesh only; God has the power to change my heart, and to change your heart; and that is what we mean when we say that to have a free will, is to have a liberated will from that bondage to sin.”

What that is saying is that everybody in the world is wicked, evil, and sinful unless they are converted (unconditionally) to Christ, which is not biblical. Two problems with that. Firstly, according to the Bible, everybody in the world isn’t wicked, evil, and sinful. “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), that is true; but God is also merciful, and forgives those who repent of their sins, and try to do what is good and right in their lives. There are lots of people in the world (non-Christians) who are good and virtuous people, and try to do what is good and right in their lives; and the Bible teaches that on judgement day, they will be judged according to their works, “they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation” (John 5:28–29).  Lots more references were given in my earlier posts, therefore no need to repeat them here. The second problem with it is that, according to the Bible, conversion is not unconditional. People have a choice to believe and be converted, or not to be—which is why they can also be condemned for not believing. Faith comes by “hearing the word of God” (Rom. 10:17)—when preached by those sent from God. When the gospel is preached by those sent from God, the Holy Ghost bears witness to those that hear that the gospel message is true, and came from God. Those who hear then have the choice to receive the witness and be converted, or else to “harden their hearts” against it (Heb. 3:7-8,1; 4:7). And nobody is converted “unconditionally,” as Calvinism teaches. They have a choice in the matter. He then continues:

“Now I say this, you know, with a smile on my face to my closest Arminian friends. I say dear brothers, I honestly believe that you are operating with a view of the human will that is not biblical. I think you are operating with the view of the human will that in the final analysis is humanistic or pagan. You don’t mean that, but from the day you could hear words and they could understand language in this country, you have been bombarded from the television, from all the media, about a view of human freedom that rejects the idea that the human will is in bondage to sin.”

I think it is the other way round. It is his idea of human will that is unbiblical, and derived from the heresy of Calvinism rather than from the Bible. Everybody in the world knows that we have the freedom to do right or wrong, to break the law and be punished, or to stay within the law and be safe. It is his heretical theology that tells him otherwise. Try telling the judge in court that it wasn’t your fault that you broke the speed limit, you were predestined by God to do so, and see what he will say. He continues:

“I have heard the definition even from Christian preachers and teachers, saying that unless the will is indifferent, that it has no leaning to the left or to the right, no inclination to evil or inclination to righteousness; unless it has no bias to either side, it is not truly free.”

I have never heard anybody argue like that. It is probably something that Calvinists have invented themselves. The “will” is not something that exists independent of the person who possesses it, or exercises it. There is no such thing as the “will” leaning one way or another by itself. The “will” is an integral part of the person who possesses or exercises it. It is man’s faculty of choosing. It is the person himself who exercises it, that can be “inclined” one way or another. He continues:

“And then Calvinism teaches that your desires are only wicked continuously in your fallen condition.”

Calvinism teaches that, but not the Bible. The Bible teaches that “God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34–35). He then continues:

“They would say, well then your will isn’t free …”

Wrong! Nobody would say that (except Calvinists). Having a sinful “inclination” or “disposition” does not make anyone’s will “not free”. Everyone also has a moral compass, a conscience, a sense of “right and wrong,” that tells him whether a given course of action is morally right or morally wrong; and has the freedom to choose which way he wants to go. He has the freedom to choose between what his “inclination” tells him to do, and what his moral judgement, his sense of right and wrong, tells him to do. Having an “inclination” one way or another does not make anyone’s “will” not free. He then continues:

“… I say well, it is free from coercion; but what it is not free from is you; because when I choose something, I choose what I want; and if what I want is corrupt, then my choice will be corrupt. That is why I have to be changed inside of me [unconditionally], for my will to choose the things of God.”

Too many errors combined together. Having a sinful inclination or disposition does not make anyone’s “will” not free, because we still have a conscience, a moral compass, that tells us that a given course action is morally wrong; and we have the freedom to do otherwise. He has got all of that bad theology from Johnathan Edwards, which I have previously discussed in an earlier blog post. The second problem with that is that he is trying to hide his real Calvinistic theology, which is that man’s choices and decisions (including evil ones) are predestined and predetermined by God, and thus not “free” at all, from his Calvinistic point of view. That is what he really believes in, but doesn’t want to come out openly and say it, because to do so would expose him (rightly) to the criticism that his theology reduces mankind to robots, and therefore he tries to hide or obscure it with that kind of convoluted and illogical reasoning. 

I think that R.C. Sproul was a good theologian, and sincere in his beliefs; but he was not justified in succumbing to Calvinism’s inherently deceptive reasonings and tactics. Calvinism is inherently a deceptive theology; it cannot survive otherwise. It is impossible to be a Calvinist and maintain your integrity at the same time.