Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Reformed Theology - Analytic ...
Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Reformed Theology - Analytic ...
Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Reformed Theology - Analytic ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
32<br />
Paul L. Manata © 2011<br />
tree. On this view, our nature determines the things we can choose. This nature<br />
does not always have to be essential to us. It could be something like our “sinful<br />
nature.” Act determinism means that our individual acts (going to the store,<br />
eating pizza for lunch, etc.) are determined, either by our characters, by laws of<br />
nature <strong>and</strong> our actual history, by fate, or God’s decrees, etc.).<br />
Now sometimes, <strong>Reformed</strong> thinkers have used nature determinism to show act<br />
determinism. They have said that given total depravity, we always choose to do<br />
what is sinful. The claim is, “we always choose according to our nature.” The idea<br />
here is often expressed by a popular analogy <strong>Reformed</strong> Christians have employed<br />
over the years. It goes like this: if you put a salad <strong>and</strong> a raw, bloody steak in front<br />
of a lion, he will always go for the steak. Now maybe this is true, I don’t know,<br />
but the point is easy enough to grasp. The conclusion is then drawn that because<br />
we are sinners by nature, we always choose to sin. It is then sometimes thought<br />
that this refutes Arminian objections to <strong>Reformed</strong> theology <strong>and</strong> refutes<br />
libertarian free will.<br />
The problem here is that the analogy is rigged. What do we say if a salad, a<br />
bloody steak, <strong>and</strong> a gazelle flank are placed before the lion? The lion’s nature<br />
may determine the kinds of food he will eat, but it doesn’t need to determine<br />
that he take the steak over the gazelle, for they are of the same kind (meat). If it<br />
did determine which meat the lion had to choose, this would be act determinism.<br />
But the Arminian or libertarian will object that while it may be true that we<br />
always choose or act sinfully, this doesn’t imply that what we specifically choose<br />
or how we specifically act is determined. There may be a range of sinful options<br />
to choose from. This is the same with God. It is sometimes said that because God<br />
is necessarily good, this proves God’s freedom is compatible with inability to do<br />
otherwise. But this is ambiguous, <strong>and</strong> overlooks that there need not be just one