When the Reformed/Calvinist is asked about human freedom…
Theologian: I want you to mow my lawn.
Teenager: How much money are you going to pay me?
Theologian: Listen, kid, real wealth is not about money, but it is about holiness, friendship, love, and such things.
Teenager: In other words, you are just trying to scam me by sounding pious, and to avoid the question and make it sound like it’s my fault.
Teenager: You listen, old man. I did not ask you about “real wealth” or whatever you want to lecture me about. I asked you about money — dirty, filthy, cash money. How much of THAT are you going to pay me to mow your lawn? Don’t change it to something else and think that I wouldn’t notice. How much MONEY will you pay me?
Theologian: Oh, in that case, I will pay you nothing. I will pay you no money.
Teenager: There you go. Finally, a “real” answer from a religious cheat. Stop talking like a moron and answer people’s question next time. That’s why people have been walking away from useless garbage like you.
Theologian: Hey, you’re rude. I’m telling your mother.
Teenager: Listen, you quack, “real” courtesy is about telling the truth, and this is something you needed to hear.
++
From: “But What About the Thingamajig?”
Now consider something that we read from Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology. He writes, “It is said that the doctrine of perseverance is inconsistent with human freedom. But this objection proceeds on the false assumption that real freedom consists in the liberty of indifference, or the power of contrary choice in moral and spiritual matters. This is erroneous, however. True liberty consists exactly in self-determination in the direction of holiness. Man is never more free than when he moves consciously in the direction of God. And the Christian stands in that liberty through the grace of God.”
Can you see that he appears to say something valuable, but avoids the objection? This is a typical Reformed way of thinking. I have chosen this example because it happens to be on my desk, but there are thousands like this in Reformed writings, and it would be easy to find your own example and make your own analysis. In any case, Berkhof’s answer is, “What you call X, I do not mean Y, but I mean Z.” Fine, but what about Y? The objection is that X is inconsistent with Y, and Berkhof ignores this. And if the opponent claims that Y is essential, without which a system of theology cannot stand, then Berkhof’s defense is a complete failure. The opponent says, “If God is sovereign, then man has no thingamajig.” The Reformed answer is, “True freedom is self-determination.” But the objection refers to thingamajig. Just as I tried to trick you into working for me without pay, the Reformed answer is a scam.