To listen to the podcast on this topic CLICK HERE!
- NOTE ADDED: Dr. James White replied (SEE HERE) to this article but failed to notice that I copied and pasted a compatibilistic scholar’s article below (John Hendryx) and simply changed his references of “human desire/choice” to “homosexual desire/choice” in order to avoid the all too common accusation of misrepresentation. I gave notice of this at the bottom of the article, but apparently Dr. White failed to see this and thus he responded to Hendryx’s representation of how men come to desire and choose sinfully within the compatibilistic system as if he was responding to me. I pointed this out to Dr. White and he subsequently “blocked me” and refused to respond further. It can be embarrassing when you make this kind of error, I know because I’ve made similar mistakes, and I did not mean to offend Dr. White by pointing out his oversight, but what else can I do except explain that he is responding to someone else’s representation of compatibilism?
- Every thing below this line is from John Hendryx with the substitution made only for application of homosexuality, so this is NOT my representation of Compatibilistic choices, it is their own scholar’s explanation.
Calvinists (compatibilists) deny that the Bible teaches that man has a free will. They believe, rather, that God ordains all things that come to pass, including the homosexual’s choices, yet the homosexual is still culpable for his choices.
Compatibilism, held to by most Calvinistic scholars, is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism (according to John Hendryx of monergism.com, Phil Johnson, and James White, to name a few).
This simply means that God’s predetermination and meticulous providence is “compatible” with voluntary choice. They do not believe homosexual’s choices are coerced …i.e. the gay man does not choose against what he wants or desires, yet no gay man ever makes choices contrary to God’s sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass according to this system, which would include the homosexual’s same sex desire and choice to act upon that desire.
According to compatibilism, a homosexual’s choices are exercised voluntarily but his desires, temptations and circumstances that bring about these sexual choices occur through divine determinism.
So, according to Calvinism (compatibilism) God determined and ordained that every homosexual activity will take place. Yet, homosexuals act voluntarily making the evil choice that brings it to pass, which means the sin is imputed to homosexuals for their wicked activities, and God remains blameless. In both of these cases, according to this view, it could be said that God ordains homosexual sin, sinlessly. No homosexual desire or act occurs apart from His sovereign good pleasure, according to the claims of this system.
Please understand that NEITHER compatibilism nor hard determinism affirms that any homosexual has a free will. Those who believe homosexuals have a free will are not compatibilists, but should, rather, be called “inconsistent.” The homosexual choices are their choices because they are voluntary, not coerced. Homosexuals do not choose sodomy contrary to their desires or natures, nor seperately from God’s meticulous providence.
Furthermore, compatibilism is directly contrary to contra-causal free will. Therefore, a voluntary choice does not mean the homosexual had the ability to choose otherwise. Voluntary does mean, however, the ability of the gay man to choose what he most wants or desires according to his inborn disposition or inclination (which are likewise ordained by God).
According to compatibilism, the homosexual’s will is never free, in any sense, from God’s eternal decree. When compatibilists use such phrases as “compatibilistic freedom,” they are, more often than not, using it to mean ‘voluntary’ choice, but are not referring to freedom FROM God’s decree or absolute sovereignty.
- NOTE ADDED: Everything above this line is from John Hendryx, not me. But if you watch The Dividing Line Program you will notice that he belittles this representation as if it is from me rather than the compatiblistic scholar. I hope Dr. White will take the time to correct this misunderstanding because he titled the show with the phrase “Leighton Flowers reduces compatibilism to a shawdow of itself,” when this is NOT my representation above.
James White claims to be compatibilistic, yet in this podcast exchange he affirms contra-causal (libertarian) choice. He states,
“If I have a desire toward arrogance, if I have a desire toward boasting and I act upon those desires then I’m acting upon the desires of my heart and that is what I’m judged for! Since I am made in the image of God I do not have to act upon those things, that is what makes us human beings, over against just animals.” – James White
Thus, he fails to reply to Dr. Steven Gaines argument in consistent manner. Dr. White affirms compatiblistic choice, as defined above, but then he makes a statement that affirms contra-causal choice (the ability to refrain or not refrain from any given moral action). He must explain his inconsistency here.
To listen to the podcast on this topic CLICK HERE!
(Attention Calvinists: before making accusations of misrepresentation please read the article that this report is directly modeled after.)
We do not affirm this view. We believe mankind is response-able (able to respond) and thus able to refrain from sinful desires in response to God’s gracious truth.