Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Reformed Theology - Analytic ...

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