Motive Is Determined By Character
Not Condition
The following was a comment on a blog post at Allkirk Network.
The comment made two interesting points which I wanted to explore a bit. One involves what the commenter referred to as a misunderstanding about a sinner’s motive for doing good works. The other involves his use of the word “Holy” which is a bit misleading.
Lutherans believe in Man’s freedom of will. As I understand it, as a Lutheran, man has freedom of will and can choose to do good works; but in our sinful condition our choices to do good are based on selfish reasons, not godly reasons. In this, humans always choose selfishly (sinfully), even though the work may outwardly appear good, they are not pleasing to God. Herein the Work of the Holy Spirit is paramount in changing our nature from sinful to holy. When the Holy Spirit works through us and guides our decisions, only then can we make good choices for God pleasing reasons, and do truly good and holy works. How does Cavlinism/Reformed view this?
To be clear, the post was aimed at settling the record regarding four myths about Lutheranism, apparently perpetrated by Calvinists. The four myths centered on free will, the Lord’s Supper, the use of the law and engaging the surrounding culture.
Those issues are not the focus in my response.
The post was on a Presbyterian website so it is was offered from a Calvinistic perspective. The topics being discussed were interesting but, again, that’s not the focus here.
I’m assuming the commenters understanding of Lutheran theology is correct. If it isn’t, the same idea is floated by other theological systems so addressing it has purpose.
The important thing is, even if he was wrong about Lutheran theology, he made a judgment call on the motives of sinners which can’t be justified. He was wrong and his comment serves as another example of Calvinist’s tendency to argue from the presumed rightness of their position. It’s circular. Calvinism is right so you must be wrong because what you say disagrees with Calvinism. No discussion engaged. No arguments offered.
Motives
If Calvinism were right, if the unconverted act only selfishly, our court systems would be thrown into complete disarray. No unbeliever would be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Motive is one of the most important issues at the heart of every judgment in every court room.
Was the crime premeditated or was it accidental? Did it happen in the heat of the moment? If intent was there beforehand, were there justifying reasons?
These are questions every prosecutor grapples with.
And prosecutors and advocates both attempt to shine a light on motive, one favorably, the other unfavorably.
All of that effort is focused on analyzing only one incident and in some cases they never really prove motive either way. Judgments are handed down based on what the jury is convinced is true.
And juries have gotten it wrong on some occasions.
Yet, Calvinists are confident in confirming that every good deed done by the unconverted is motivated by selfish motives not occasionally, not in only one instance but every time he or she does something good. The unconverted individual can never have a right motive.
Even with clear evidence, motive is not an easy thing to prove but if Calvinism were true, if the unconverted do good things only for selfish reasons, every court case involving an unbeliever would be settled without litigation.
They are sinners. They can only act selfishly (meaning sinfully) and are therefore guilty. The only question is how much penalty can be assigned?
If that’s true, would it also follow that believers never act selfishly?
Actions Not Preempted By Motives
The Apostle Paul made a very interesting statement about the disconnect between actions and motives. It’s relevant to this particular conversation.
The good that I would, I do not, but the evil I would not, that I do. (Romans 7:19)
Interesting! He said the good thing he wanted to do (that’s motive), he did not do. Instead, he did the wrong thing, the evil thing as he called it. His motives were clearly right but in spite of that, his actions were wrong making it even more difficult to qualify a person’s motive.
If we can’t say a person’s motive is wrong when they do bad things, we surely can’t say they wrong when they do good things.
That, of course, doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions but it does mean it’s very difficult to qualify motive based on actions. Even when a person clearly does the wrong thing, we can’t assume an evil motive.
If that’s true when a person does wrong (which was Paul’s point) then it is particularly true when they do something good, in spite of what Calvinists may assert.
Holy Doesn’t Mean That
The commenter also associated God pleasing actions with good works and referred to both as something that is Holy. He didn’t say it in so many words but his comment, like so many others, implies that Holy refers to something untainted or completely sanitized or without blemish.
The word Holy carries none of those meanings.
The meaning of the word is simply “set apart.” A holy person or thing has been set apart, isolated, for a specific purpose. This has nothing to do with being sanitized. It has everything to do with being dedicated. Commitment is the important issue, not purification.
It’s like the brush you use to clean your toilet. It’s not sanitized or purified but it is set apart. Its only purpose is cleaning the toilet. It will never be germ free but it is holy as long as you don’t use it to brush your hair or clean your teeth.
THINK!AboutIt
These are some very good thoughts!
There are a few separate considerations here.
1) In regard to human inclinations – we want to avoid a logically fallacy – called “Black & White” fallacy
In response to being called “Good Master” Jesus said “There is no one good but God”
But on the other hand – Jesus said: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
We understand the scripture tells us that all humanity is under the “bondage of corruption”
But corruption comes in degrees
We do not call it “corruption” when a fireman or a police officer gives up his life to save someone knowing that doing so means his death.
To not fall into the fallacy of “Black & White” thinking – we can conclude that *IN
COMPARISON* to God – man is certainly “corrupt”.
Even the Calvinist – with his concept of “Total Depravity” will acknowledge the term “Total” is misleading.
Where the Calvinist lacks honesty with his concept of “Total Depravity” is where he uses it as a “Lie of omission” in which he omits the critical fact that in Calvinism- the state of man’s nature – (including every impulse that will come to pass within man’s brain) is 100% meticulously predestined – and at every nano-second in time – cannot be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be – and man is granted NO SAY and NO CHOICE in the matter.
2) Another separate consideration here is the concept of creaturely “Freedom”
The difference between Calvinism and Lutheranism – is Calvinism is predicated on EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) in which every moment in time represents a *PREDETERMINED* state of affairs – in which *NO ALTERNATIVE* is granted to the creature.
Thus in Calvinism – Adam was “Free” to eat the fruit – because eating the fruit was that *ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN* option granted to Adam.
Adam was “NOT Free” to NOT eat the fruit – because NOT eating the fruit was NOT determined – and thus not granted to Adam.
Lutherans do not go to the extremes in the adaptation of (EDD)
Thus in the Lutheran system – ALTERNATIVES exist for man to choose between
Whereas in Calvinism – the infallible decree does not grant thee existence of any ALTERNATIVE
Thus in Calvinism – ALTERNATIVES do not exist for man to choose between
Thus man is granted NO CHOICE in the matter of anything.
Calvinists will claim they are granted CHOICE but that is logically impossible – simply because it is impossible to choose something which does not exist for one to choose.
If it is decreed that Calvinist_A will perform SIN_X at TIME-T – then that is fixed by infallible decree which does not grant Calvinist_A any ALTERNATIVE.
Calvinist_A does not have a CHOICE in the matter simply because there is no ALTERNATIVE available to chose.