Calvinists, help a Determinist out!

Though there may be some minor differences, people like John Piper, Jonathan Edwards, Wayne Grudem, etc. agree with my position. Or, to put it in its proper direction--I agree with them. And, frankly, I'll take their company over yours any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Furthermore, you keep on spewing this garbage: "All Calvinists are exhaustive determinists." This, again, simply isn't true and it speaks volumes to your willful ignorance on the matter. What is more, your willful ignorance speaks volumes to (or against) your character.

It has already been explained to you what most (though not all) Calvinists believe regarding the things decreed and the things ordained by God. Now, of course you are free to disagree with our explanation. However, you are not free to misrepresent our position and make us out to be Islamic in our theology.

I have already explained these matters to you. If you persist in your ignorance you are demonstrating that you are, likely, not "ignorant," but intentionally unteachable. I guess what you got just can't be fixed.

The Archangel

 

In other words, you must agree with me and forget what words really mean as defined in the dictionary.

 

No, not really. Remember: The dictionary is not the final arbiter of meaning when it comes to words. Usage is. In what I have been writing I have defined the term as I am using it so a dictionary definition need not be sought.

In other postings I have used the word "Gerrymandering" to refer to someone botching the clear meaning of a verse--either by breaking context or grammar. Now, of course, gerrymandering is not a theological term. Gerrymandering refers to the redrawing of political districts to favor one party over another. The point of the word--as originally understood--is to intentionally move a boundary. I'm applying that meaning to context and grammar (i.e. to intentionally ignore context or grammar). So, the way I use the word is the final arbiter of its meaning and the meaning that I am intending is closely to its original meaning, used, however, in a completely different sphere.

In 1700s and 1800s hymnody, the word "ordained" is used on many occasions. The use of the word, while not uniform, leans strongly to the meaning I am using--which is why I define what I mean by the word. It is altogether likely the common meaning of "ordain" as I am using it has become arcane since it is usually found in previous centuries.

I could have just as easily talked in terms of God's decrees (Causing) and God's permitting (Ordaining). As I have used the term, God's ordaining that some things (even sinful things) be is the same as saying God permits sin to exist and even super-intends that existent sin and existent sinful deeds perpetrated by free human agents will serve His purposes and display His glory.

The Archangel

 

I think there is choice. Remember, though, we are not talking about a libertarian free will here. We are talking about making choices in line with one's nature.

I could not choose to sprout wings and fly to the moon. Why? Because it is not in my nature as a human being to have wings or to fly without the aid of a flying machine of some type.

At some point and at some level, Joseph's brothers had the choice to not sell him into slavery. In other words, they could have done otherwise. God clearly permits them to do evil to Joseph all the while super-intending that evil for His own good purposes.

Was the evil part of God's plan from the beginning? Absolutely. Was there any doubt that they would commit this evil? No. Could they have done otherwise? Sure. Did God cause them to do the evil? No.

There certainly is mystery and tension here. But this is what the Bible does tell us.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying a "determinist" or a "hard determinist" thinks that there is choice? If that is so, I think we have discovered a problem with our terms.

My understanding of one who is a "hard determinist" (or even a "determinist") is that he or she is almost--if not fully--fatalistic.

The Calvinistic position held by most--properly understood--is NOT fatalism. In other words, we do not believe that God causes people to sin to suit His purposes. Quite the contrary, He permits persons to sin and that sin is always part of His master plan, but in a way that He is not the causer or author of sin (specifically or generally).

So, we may have a difference in definition and some clarification on your part would be helpful to me.

I see here you are saying the determinist would argue against free will. As per the last paragraph (above), I'd agree with your definition of "determinist." However, and this is where I'm confused, it seems that you've said (above) that a determinist believes in choice. So, it appears to me that there is an incongruity between the above statement and this one. Again, some clarification on your part would be most helpful to me.

Here's how I'd answer: I would point him to Genesis 50:20 where evil is ascribed to the brothers. I'd couple that with the biblical teaching that God cannot be the author of evil or tempt people to sin. Therefore, it must be that the brothers' actions were of their own free will.

The Archangel

 

Does God predestine everything? The Bible says no and the Calvinists say yes.

The Calvinists redefine words to mean what they do not mean and sidetrack discussion into distinctions without a difference. Choice means choosing between alternative outcomes, and when only one outcome is possible, it is a non-choice. So Calvinism redefines the Biblical meaning of choice to include "non-choice." This makes scripture to no effect.

Ditto for ordain, which means predestine, it does not mean allow something not predestined. And to "allow" something predestined is twaddle, no other outcome was possible. And by these slick word games they try to confuse and befuddle, and hinder those seeking truth.

And to repeat what was said before, did God tempt the brothers to sin? No. But did He predestine their actions just as He predestined the actions of those who nailed Christ to the cross? Yes. He hardens hearts and that action results in behaviors those hardened mean for evil, but God means them for good in that they are according to His purpose.

There is no biblical support for Calvinism which rests on exhaustive determinism, presented in studied obscurity.

 

Thing is that far as I know, ONLY Hyper Cals would even say that God decreed and directly caused all things directly, so how does this apply to rest of the Calvinist here?

 

Hi Jesusfan, does God predestine everything? You say God "allows" predestined actions. But "predestined" does not "allow" anything else to happen but what is predestined to happen. Therefore it is a logical absurdity to say God allows predestined action. Calvinists are all exhaustive determinists, they just say they are not. So in addition to rewriting the meaning of ordain, they rewrite the meaning of choice to include non-choice, and as a consequence they rewrite the meaning of "allow" to mean compel by predestination.

 

Prehaps the follow up question to you should be, "Does God Predestine anything?" Please advise.

 

And the difference between some Calvinists and me is I answer questions directly and specifically. Yes, God predestines many things. All His prophecies were predestined, for He declares the end from the beginning. His predetermined redemption plan, which included Christ's death of the cross was predestined. Anyone placed in Christ by God is then predestined to be bodily resurrected in a glorified body at Christ's second coming.

Now please answer my question. Does God predestine everything? Still waiting for you to treat me as I treat you.

 

Do you even realize what you are writing?

I expect that it never occurred to you (oh, knower of all things!) that if a Calvinist says that he or she is not an exhaustive determinist then they are not.

You expect everyone else to deal with your own personal and invented nuances in theology, but you refuse to extend the same courtesy to others. Shame on you...

 

How would I help a determinist see the error of his or her theology? I would simply ask them to reconcile their determinism with the Scriptures. If they refuse, then they have made their stand and it is not scriptural.

That being said, there are two ways commonly used to reconcile a doctrine with Scripture. One is to decide a priori what one's doctrine IS, then search the Scriptures for proof-texts to confirm said doctrine while ignoring all other texts that cause difficulty. The other is to actually see what the Scriptures record in regards to the entire doctrine, taking into account all major pericope to begin the formulation of a doctrinal stance, then incorporate the minor (and implied) passages to nuance the final doctrine so that it can stand up under the weight of the Scriptures.

A great theologian will use the second means. And yes, that means that research on any particular doctrine will probably be a life-work sort of project. Most everyone else is in the proof-text camp, hence the constant arguments and debates that we see here and elsewhere.

My assumption is that neither God, nor God's Word is divided, though it is admittedly difficult for we humans to reconcile a doctrine, so TO US it may appear that there is indeed a division with God (even Martin Luther fell prey to that sort of faulty thinking!). We are, of course, wrong, but we argue our point nonetheless, often defaulting back to the proof-text option.

On the subject of determinism and libertarian free will, I find the lengthy exegesis by persons such as John Owen far exceed those by Jacob Arminius, who primarily proof texts a doctrine that he already holds. Owen researches the Word to the point that following him in reading is an exercise that is itself a life work. As has been discussed previously on this board, the level of scholarship between dedicated Calvinists of history and dedicated Arminians of history shows much disparity, with the scholarly nod pointing to the Calvinist camp. There are no theologians of the caliber of Owen, Edwards, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, and in a more modern sense, Piper, Mohler, Moore, Schreiner, Seifried, Ware, MacArthur, et al, in the other camp(s).

About the second part of your question, I assume that you are working an angle here, and trying to paint all Calvinists with a deterministic brush, so to answer that, let me simply say that words are used very precisely in theological work, and the words that are used in a Calvinistic sense to explain God's actions include the concepts of a totally sovereign God, who has differing levels of exercise of His will, from permissive to perfect. The God of the Bible is NOT deterministic. As has been said before in this thread, that is a description of Allah, the god of Islam.