Confusion in Calvinism

I have been studying Calvinism and there is one part that seems out of place. From reading your articles, you might be just the person that can give a straight answer by cutting through many Calvinists' compatibilist and "preacher" language.

Calvinists affirm divine determinism, holding to God as first cause and man as second cause. Man is free so long as he is not externally controlled. They say that Adam was "able not to sin" before the Fall, but he did sin. But if Adam was positively good, then how did he fall without God somehow willing his nature to do it? Is this not libertarian free will? How can you have determinism and libertarian free will?

Is this a case of some compatibilists confusing the matter by introducing some "self determining" concepts? Or is this somehow inexplicably explained by a Calvinist's definition of free will or free moral agency still as a second cause?

Thanks.

I received the above message some time ago from a person who was confused about these aspects of Calvinism, as it is commonly presented. I call this scheme popular Calvinism or inconsistent Calvinism. In my reply I could only take time to recommend The Author of Sin, in which I address all of these questions and more. Here I will make some additional comments.

This person is generally correct in his observations. He is able to see through the errors associated with first and second causes, and the incoherence of compatibilism. These do not come from biblical teaching, but human tradition. It is true that adherents to these doctrines attempt to offer further explanations for them, but these also fail miserably, and some finally appeal to "mystery." This is their way of ending the conversation by force without recanting their indefensible views.

From here this person could incorrectly conclude, as many have done, that all aspects of Calvinism are wrong, or he could correctly conclude that these particular details in popular Calvinism are unbiblical, although perhaps a consistent Calvinism is possible when these errors are eliminated. The truth is that these and several other distinctives in popular Calvinism are unbiblical, irrational, and outright ridiculous. And it is this false Calvinism that drives many people away from the true doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty over all things. Thus this scheme does tremendous disservice to Christ's cause and his kingdom. In asserting itself as proper Calvinism or the correct representation of the biblical doctrine, it has ironically become one of Arminianism's strongest allies, since it offers men an excuse to reject the biblical doctrine, and a strawman through which to attack it.

Against the opposition and revilement of many inconsistent Calvinists, some of us have been striving to present the doctrine as it is clearly and coherently taught in Scripture — that God is sovereign, and man is not free. Man is morally responsible precisely because this is the case, for moral responsibility can only be founded on God's decree to judge, and not on man's freedom to act. For even if man is free to act but God has not decreed to judge, man would still not be morally responsible, or held accountable, which is the definition of responsibility. But if God has decreed to judge, then man is responsible regardless of whether he is free to act in one way or another. The decree is just because God is just by definition, and not because his decree is in accord with the common unbiblical and arbitrary assumption that one must be free (in any sense) to be held accountable.

Here we have the most hated account of divine sovereignty, but it stands unassailable on its scriptural foundation and perfect coherence. And because it is totally theocentric, it also functions as the standard by which men's reverence or rebellion toward God is tested and revealed.

Recommended

From vincentcheung.com:

Compatibilist Freedom

Augustine and Compatibilism

"Soft" Determinism

Determinism vs. Fatalism

Determinism vs. Pantheism

"Forced to Believe" (1) , (2) , (3) , (4)

The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, (1) , (2)

Complex Motives in God

The Author of Sin

The Author of Confusion