Another Question for Calvinists

[Tom Butler]

John Piper, in a writing on Prayer and Predestination, imagines a conversation between Prayerful and Prayerless. Here's a part of it:

Prayerless: Then why do you pray?
Prayerful: I don't see the problem. Why shouldn't we pray?
Prayerless: Well, if God ordains and controls everything, then what he plans from of old will come to pass, right?
Prayerful: Yes.
Prayerless: So it's going to come to pass whether you pray or not, right.
Prayerful: That depends on whether God ordained for it to come to pass in answer to prayer. If God predestined that something happen in answer to prayer, it won't happen without prayer.
Prayerless: Wait a minute, this is confusing. Are you saying that every answer to prayer is predestined or not?
Prayerful: Yes, it is. It's predestined as an answer to prayer.
Prayerless: So if the prayer doesn't happen, the answer doesn't happen?
Prayerful: That's right.
Prayerless: So the event is contingent on our praying for it to happen?
Prayerful: Yes. I take it that by contingent you mean prayer is a real reason that the event happens, and without the prayer the event would not happen.
Prayerless: Yes that's what I mean. But how can an event be contingent on my prayer and still be eternally fixed and predestined by God?
Prayerful: Because your prayer is as fixed as the predestined answer.
Prayerless: Explain.
Prayerful: It's not complicated. God providentially ordains all events. God never ordains an event without a cause. The cause is also an event. Therefore, the cause is also foreordained. So you cannot say that the event will happen if the cause doesn't because God has ordained otherwise. The event will happen if the cause happens.
Prayerless: So what you are saying is that answers to prayer are always ordained as effects of prayer which is one of the causes, and that God predestined the answer only as an effect of the cause.
Prayerful: That's right. And since both the cause and the effect are ordained together you can't say that the effect will happen even if the cause doesn't because God doesn't ordain effects without causes.

Read the entire thing at http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/prayer/prayer_pred.html

 

[drfuss]

John Piper, in a writing on Prayer and Predestination, imagines a conversation between Prayerful and Prayerless. Here's a part of it:

Prayerless: Then why do you pray?
Prayerful: I don't see the problem. Why shouldn't we pray?
Prayerless: Well, if God ordains and controls everything, then what he plans from of old will come to pass, right?
Prayerful: Yes.
Prayerless: So it's going to come to pass whether you pray or not, right.
Prayerful: That depends on whether God ordained for it to come to pass in answer to prayer. If God predestined that something happen in answer to prayer, it won't happen without prayer.
Prayerless: Wait a minute, this is confusing. Are you saying that every answer to prayer is predestined or not?
Prayerful: Yes, it is. It's predestined as an answer to prayer.
Prayerless: So if the prayer doesn't happen, the answer doesn't happen?
Prayerful: That's right.
Prayerless: So the event is contingent on our praying for it to happen?
Prayerful: Yes. I take it that by contingent you mean prayer is a real reason that the event happens, and without the prayer the event would not happen.
Prayerless: Yes that's what I mean. But how can an event be contingent on my prayer and still be eternally fixed and predestined by God?
Prayerful: Because your prayer is as fixed as the predestined answer.
Prayerless: Explain.
Prayerful: It's not complicated. God providentially ordains all events. God never ordains an event without a cause. The cause is also an event. Therefore, the cause is also foreordained. So you cannot say that the event will happen if the cause doesn't because God has ordained otherwise. The event will happen if the cause happens.
Prayerless: So what you are saying is that answers to prayer are always ordained as effects of prayer which is one of the causes, and that God predestined the answer only as an effect of the cause.
Prayerful: That's right. And since both the cause and the effect are ordained together you can't say that the effect will happen even if the cause doesn't because God doesn't ordain effects without causes.


The question again: Are you saying that God considered the prayers of today in developing the election list in the beginning?

Wow! It sounds like John Piper's answer would be a yes. I was under the impression that he was a Calvinists. Apparently not. Since the causes of today effect God's election in the beginning, Piper's belief in election is conditional on what happens now. So Piper does not believe in unconditional election. Sounds like foreknowledge to me, only using Calvinist terms.

 

[J.D.]

John Piper, in a writing on Prayer and Predestination, imagines a conversation between Prayerful and Prayerless. Here's a part of it:

Prayerless: Then why do you pray?
Prayerful: I don't see the problem. Why shouldn't we pray?
Prayerless: Well, if God ordains and controls everything, then what he plans from of old will come to pass, right?
Prayerful: Yes.
Prayerless: So it's going to come to pass whether you pray or not, right.
Prayerful: That depends on whether God ordained for it to come to pass in answer to prayer. If God predestined that something happen in answer to prayer, it won't happen without prayer.
Prayerless: Wait a minute, this is confusing. Are you saying that every answer to prayer is predestined or not?
Prayerful: Yes, it is. It's predestined as an answer to prayer.
Prayerless: So if the prayer doesn't happen, the answer doesn't happen?
Prayerful: That's right.
Prayerless: So the event is contingent on our praying for it to happen?
Prayerful: Yes. I take it that by contingent you mean prayer is a real reason that the event happens, and without the prayer the event would not happen.
Prayerless: Yes that's what I mean. But how can an event be contingent on my prayer and still be eternally fixed and predestined by God?
Prayerful: Because your prayer is as fixed as the predestined answer.
Prayerless: Explain.
Prayerful: It's not complicated. God providentially ordains all events. God never ordains an event without a cause. The cause is also an event. Therefore, the cause is also foreordained. So you cannot say that the event will happen if the cause doesn't because God has ordained otherwise. The event will happen if the cause happens.
Prayerless: So what you are saying is that answers to prayer are always ordained as effects of prayer which is one of the causes, and that God predestined the answer only as an effect of the cause.
Prayerful: That's right. And since both the cause and the effect are ordained together you can't say that the effect will happen even if the cause doesn't because God doesn't ordain effects without causes.


The question again: Are you saying that God considered the prayers of today in developing the election list in the beginning?

Wow! It sounds like John Piper's answer would be a yes. I was under the impression that he was a Calvinists. Apparently not. Since the causes of today effect God's election in the beginning, Piper's belief in election is conditional on what happens now. So Piper does not believe in unconditional election. Sounds like foreknowledge to me, only using Calvinist terms.

You're attempting to isolate Piper's words to accuse him of saying something that I think you know he doesn't believe. He's not saying what you imply anyway. He's simply trying to illustrate the fact that God predetermines BOTH the end AND the means to that end. In time, means preceeds ends. In eternity, God declares the end from the beginning, and every thing between is the means, which he also declares from the beginning.

 

[drfuss]

The question again: Are you saying that God considered the prayers of today in developing the election list in the beginning?

drfuss writes:
"Wow! It sounds like John Piper's answer would be a yes. I was under the impression that he was a Calvinists. Apparently not. Since the causes of today effect God's election in the beginning, Piper's belief in election is conditional on what happens now. So Piper does not believe in unconditional election. Sounds like foreknowledge to me, only using Calvinist terms."

J.D. writes:
:You're attempting to isolate Piper's words to accuse him of saying something that I think you know he doesn't believe. He's not saying what you imply anyway. He's simply trying to illustrate the fact that God predetermines BOTH the end AND the means to that end. In time, means preceeds ends. In eternity, God declares the end from the beginning, and every thing between is the means, which he also declares from the beginning."

Actually, I am just trying to understand Calvinism and how it all fits together. Based on the above question, what Piper said doesn't agree with what I thought calvinism was.


Having thought this over for a day, I believe John Piper is a Calvinist. Based on Piper's explanantion and other posts on this thread, it appears that Calvinists do not believe in pure unconditional election. Rather Calvinist believe in a psuedo unconditional election. (For those not familiar with the word psuedo, it means: being apparently rather than actually as stated.)

My knowledge of Calvinism was obtained primarily from what I have learned on BB. Up until this thread, the explanations of Calvinism was only that of the pure unconditional election. This psuedo unconditional election allows christians to believe in pure unconditional election while praying for their loved ones salvation as though their prayers may change the election at the beginning (conditional election).

Up until now, I thought I understood how the 5 points of calvinistism all tied together. I considered unconditional election as the basic point with the others naturally following from it. With this pseudo unconditional election, the connections to the other points are weakened, if not severed. I suppose that is why I am dissapointed in this pseudo unconditional election.

Just my thoughts on this as of now.

 

[reformedbeliever]

The question again: Are you saying that God considered the prayers of today in developing the election list in the beginning?

drfuss writes:
"Wow! It sounds like John Piper's answer would be a yes. I was under the impression that he was a Calvinists. Apparently not. Since the causes of today effect God's election in the beginning, Piper's belief in election is conditional on what happens now. So Piper does not believe in unconditional election. Sounds like foreknowledge to me, only using Calvinist terms."

J.D. writes:
:You're attempting to isolate Piper's words to accuse him of saying something that I think you know he doesn't believe. He's not saying what you imply anyway. He's simply trying to illustrate the fact that God predetermines BOTH the end AND the means to that end. In time, means preceeds ends. In eternity, God declares the end from the beginning, and every thing between is the means, which he also declares from the beginning."

Actually, I am just trying to understand Calvinism and how it all fits together. Based on the above question, what Piper said doesn't agree with what I thought calvinism was.


Having thought this over for a day, I believe John Piper is a Calvinist. Based on Piper's explanantion and other posts on this thread, it appears that Calvinists do not believe in pure unconditional election. Rather Calvinist believe in a psuedo unconditional election. (For those not familiar with the word psuedo, it means: being apparently rather than actually as stated.)

My knowledge of Calvinism was obtained primarily from what I have learned on BB. Up until this thread, the explanations of Calvinism was only that of the pure unconditional election. This psuedo unconditional election allows christians to believe in pure unconditional election while praying for their loved ones salvation as though their prayers may change the election at the beginning (conditional election).

Up until now, I thought I understood how the 5 points of calvinistism all tied together. I considered unconditional election as the basic point with the others naturally following from it. With this pseudo unconditional election, the connections to the other points are weakened, if not severed. I suppose that is why I am dissapointed in this pseudo unconditional election.

Just my thoughts on this as of now.

Actually its all tied together by the depravity of man. Once one understands that men are spiritually dead and unable to respond without first being born again of God, then the other points come together. The prayers we pray are a result of what God did in eternity past. God did not act because of what He foresaw we would do. We do what we do because God ordains it. He is sovereign.

 

[whatever]

No, drfuss, you haven't quite got the picture. The point Piper is making is not that our prayers change what God has decided to do, but that our prayers are part of what God has determined that He will use to bring about the future. Our prayers for people are every bit as determined beforehand as the salvation of the elect is.

The question again: Are you saying that God considered the prayers of today in developing the election list in the beginning?

No. God determined the prayers of today as well as the "election list" in the beginning.

 

[J.D.]

The question again: Are you saying that God considered the prayers of today in developing the election list in the beginning?

drfuss writes:
"Wow! It sounds like John Piper's answer would be a yes. I was under the impression that he was a Calvinists. Apparently not. Since the causes of today effect God's election in the beginning, Piper's belief in election is conditional on what happens now. So Piper does not believe in unconditional election. Sounds like foreknowledge to me, only using Calvinist terms."

J.D. writes:
:You're attempting to isolate Piper's words to accuse him of saying something that I think you know he doesn't believe. He's not saying what you imply anyway. He's simply trying to illustrate the fact that God predetermines BOTH the end AND the means to that end. In time, means preceeds ends. In eternity, God declares the end from the beginning, and every thing between is the means, which he also declares from the beginning."

Actually, I am just trying to understand Calvinism and how it all fits together. Based on the above question, what Piper said doesn't agree with what I thought calvinism was.


Having thought this over for a day, I believe John Piper is a Calvinist. Based on Piper's explanantion and other posts on this thread, it appears that Calvinists do not believe in pure unconditional election. Rather Calvinist believe in a psuedo unconditional election. (For those not familiar with the word psuedo, it means: being apparently rather than actually as stated.)

My knowledge of Calvinism was obtained primarily from what I have learned on BB. Up until this thread, the explanations of Calvinism was only that of the pure unconditional election. This psuedo unconditional election allows christians to believe in pure unconditional election while praying for their loved ones salvation as though their prayers may change the election at the beginning (conditional election).

Up until now, I thought I understood how the 5 points of calvinistism all tied together. I considered unconditional election as the basic point with the others naturally following from it. With this pseudo unconditional election, the connections to the other points are weakened, if not severed. I suppose that is why I am dissapointed in this pseudo unconditional election.

Just my thoughts on this as of now.

If I misjudged the motive behind your comments, I apologize. I thought you were using sophistry, pretending to not know the answer to your question.

 

[drfuss]

J.D. writes:
"If I misjudged the motive behind your comments, I apologize. I thought you were using sophistry, pretending to not know the answer to your question."

No problem, J.D. With all the ongoing debates, that would be a reasonable assumption. I am not a calvinist, but I am trying to understand just what calvinists believe and why. I ask these question as I think of them. I thank those on this thread who have been so helpful.

Another question related to my previous post.
Is the difference between a hyper-calvinist and a 5 point calvinist related to differences between the pure unconditional election and the psuedo unconditional election described in my previous post? If so, then I understand where the hyper-calvinists are coming from.

 

[drfuss]

Actually its all tied together by the depravity of man. Once one understands that men are spiritually dead and unable to respond without first being born again of God, then the other points come together. The prayers we pray are a result of what God did in eternity past. God did not act because of what He foresaw we would do. We do what we do because God ordains it. He is sovereign.

So Calvinists believe we do things now because God ordained it from the beginning. I plan to go to church tomorrow, is that because God ordained it from the beginning? If that is so, then I can understand why some say calvinist believe we are robots.

I'll have to think awhile about the depravity of man being the point that ties the others together. I don't see it now.

 

[drfuss]

whatever writes:
"No, drfuss, you haven't quite got the picture. The point Piper is making is not that our prayers change what God has decided to do, but that our prayers are part of what God has determined that He will use to bring about the future. Our prayers for people are every bit as determined beforehand as the salvation of the elect is.
Quote:
The question again: Are you saying that God considered the prayers of today in developing the election list in the beginning?
No. God determined the prayers of today as well as the "election list" in the beginning."

So if we all decided not to pray, that also would be what God has determined beforehand or has decided to do. Then why bother praying since God has already decided the future?

Obviously, I am not getting the picture. You say God determined prayers as well as the election list in the beginning. Do you believe God determined everything we do in the beginning?

 

[reformedbeliever]

whatever writes:
"No, drfuss, you haven't quite got the picture. The point Piper is making is not that our prayers change what God has decided to do, but that our prayers are part of what God has determined that He will use to bring about the future. Our prayers for people are every bit as determined beforehand as the salvation of the elect is.
Quote:
The question again: Are you saying that God considered the prayers of today in developing the election list in the beginning?
No. God determined the prayers of today as well as the "election list" in the beginning."

So if we all decided not to pray, that also would be what God has determined beforehand or has decided to do. Then why bother praying since God has already decided the future?

Obviously, I am not getting the picture. You say God determined prayers as well as the election list in the beginning. Do you believe God determined everything we do in the beginning?

That would be called determinism and yes I do believe that drfuss. What we have to be careful to *try* to understand is that there are two creative tensions in the Bible... maybe even more... I'll have to think on that. While God determines all things (He has to if He is truly sovereign) Men are still responsible for themselves. I don't quite know how that works out. In God's providence He causes all things to happen for the good of those who love Him. Not all things that happen will be good. We have to get into theodicy here. Many would say; "You mean to tell me that God allowed a child to die in that car accident"? I'd have to reply; is God powerful enough to have stopped it? There are many examples of theodicy in the Bible. Thank you for the truly enjoyable dialogue.:thumbs: Grace and peace

 

[J.D.]

J.D. writes:
"If I misjudged the motive behind your comments, I apologize. I thought you were using sophistry, pretending to not know the answer to your question."

No problem, J.D. With all the ongoing debates, that would be a reasonable assumption. I am not a calvinist, but I am trying to understand just what calvinists believe and why. I ask these question as I think of them. I thank those on this thread who have been so helpful.

Another question related to my previous post.
Is the difference between a hyper-calvinist and a 5 point calvinist related to differences between the pure unconditional election and the psuedo unconditional election described in my previous post? If so, then I understand where the hyper-calvinists are coming from.

I've looked at your post on "psuedo unconditional election" and am struggling to understand it. It seems to me that you've constructed a strawman of circular reasoning. In other words, you're saying that if God has determined to save someone in answer to prayer, then He has conditioned the salvation of that person on the effect of that prayer. Is that right?

If so, then the fallacy here is that FIRST of all, logically speaking, God elected the ends, THEN the means, and the means he determined to use he did not determine CONTINGENTLY. It's not that He "foresaw" the prayer, and then elected to use it. Rather, he "foreknew" that which he had determined to do, and he foreknew the means by which he would do it.

Maybe a review of the definition of unconditional election would be helpful. Election of certain of men to salvation is not conditioned on any thing in men, but there is a condition, and that condition, as the bible says, is IN GOD, NOT MAN. "According to His own Purpose and Will".

You have to keep election and salvation separate in your mind. Election is not conditioned on any thing in man whatsoever, including his prayers. But it may be said, if correctly understood, that "salvation" is conditioned upon faith. But, even with this condition, this requirement, we must keep in mind that God is the supplier of the requirement, and he delivers the requirement through the works of the Holy Spirit in regeneration which bears the fruit of conversion (conversion consisting of repentance and faith), and altogether it is "the gift of God", "all that the Father giveth me shall come to me", "he that is of God heareth my words", "faith cometh by hearing" etc.

As for the hyper vs non-hyper view of election, there is no difference in the views that I know of. Maybe what you are talking about is the dispute that some have over whether God ALWAYS uses the Gospel, or other means, or any means, to bring men to eternal salvation. Again, the dispute there would not over unconditional election, but rather the use of means. By the way both calvinists and arminians are split over that issue. There's a thread that deals with that issue recently on BB.

 

[whatever]

. . . You say God determined prayers as well as the election list in the beginning. Do you believe God determined everything we do in the beginning?

Yes, I do believe that. reformedbeliever offered a good response as well.

I believe that every free act of man is determined beforehand by God. The usual response is that those acts cannot be free if they are determined. I would point you to Acts 4:27-28 for the best example of an act that is both free and determined beforehand.

 

[thjplgvp]

How can God take prayers into account when he did not use his foreknowledge in determining the elect?

 

[whatever]

Again, it is not that God took prayers into account, it is that He determined the prayers, and He determined to use those prayers to save those whom He chose.

 

[Jarthur001]

Justice makes no difference? The "just" God mentioned throughout the Bible makes no difference? How can man's justice system be more just than God's?

As a calvinist, you have to look at everything within man's time. You stated that when He created man...He knew people were going to Hell. You are correct...to a certain degree. He knew because He is omnipresent / omnitemporal, not because He looked into the future, or outright declaring Joe Shmo goes to Hell while Jane Schmo goes to Heaven. 2Pet. 3:9 shows He desires that NOBODY goes to hell.

I don't mind saying it...

Election is not about justice.

 

[webdog]

I don't mind saying it...

Election is not about justice.

Has everything to do with justice. The calvinist just brushes it under the rug.

 

[J.D.]

Has everything to do with justice. The calvinist just brushes it under the rug.

Actually, I thought election was about mercy, not justice. If it was about justice, wouldn't we all be condemned?

 

[Jarthur001]

Has everything to do with justice. The calvinist just brushes it under the rug.

Not so. Election is Gods mercy. He elects for He loves the church...His bride. If God were only just, we would all go to hell, for this is what is just.

 

[drfuss]

J.D. writes:
"You have to keep election and salvation separate in your mind."

This I don't understand. Isn't election about God choosing who will recieve salvation?

J.D. writes:
"I've looked at your post on "psuedo unconditional election" and am struggling to understand it. It seems to me that you've constructed a strawman of circular reasoning. In other words, you're saying that if God has determined to save someone in answer to prayer, then He has conditioned the salvation of that person on the effect of that prayer. Is that right?"

For election to be unconditional, it cannot be affected by anything else including prayers. Otherwise it would not be unconditional. So pure unconditional election is not affected by our prayers now.

However, I have read on this thread that we should pray for our loved ones now hoping to influence God's election in the beginning. This is not pure unconditional election, but a psuedo unconditional election since our prayers may affect God's election in the beginning.

J.D. writes:
"If so, then the fallacy here is that FIRST of all, logically speaking, God elected the ends, THEN the means, and the means he determined to use he did not determine CONTINGENTLY. It's not that He "foresaw" the prayer, and then elected to use it. Rather, he "foreknew" that which he had determined to do, and he foreknew the means by which he would do it."

Foreknew the means (our prayers, etc. now) by which he would do it??? That is what sounds like circular reasoning to me. My psuedo unconditional election describes it best for me. God does not need our prayers now to make an election then?

IMO, unconditional election may have been massaged to included praying for our loved ones because we want to have reason to pray for them.

Reformbeliever refers to unconditional election and the need to pray now as a creative tension of scripture. There are other tensions in scripture which we must take by faith. I can handle that explanation better.

J.D. writes:
"As for the hyper vs non-hyper view of election, there is no difference in the views that I know of. Maybe what you are talking about is the dispute that some have over whether God ALWAYS uses the Gospel, or other means, or any means, to bring men to eternal salvation. Again, the dispute there would not over unconditional election, but rather the use of means."

I suspect hyper-calvinists believe my above definition of pure unconditional election rather than the psuedo unconditional election which may be affected by our praying now. That would not encourage them to pursue evangelism as a means to bring men to eternal salvation.

Thank you for being patient and helping me in trying to understand calvinism.