Pride in receiving?

[The Archangel]

All Calvinists are hard core determinists, God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. But since they say God is not the author of sin, they try to have it both ways. So they say they are not hard core, because God is not the author of sin. Calvinism presents a logical absurdity as if it should be accepted because God is beyond our understanding.

All Calvinists are NOT "hard core determinists." This is a blatantly false statement and displays an ignorance of the first-order.

Some (notice: not all) Calvinists do degenerate into "determinism" in the sense you are railing against. However, it is the minority of evangelical Calvinists that do.

Mainstream Calvinism simply states "God ordains the free (and sometimes sinful) actions of human beings to serve His purposes and display His glory." We get this idea from Scripture. One such verse is Genesis 50:20

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.
​

Notice the brothers of Joseph meant evil against him and, at the same time, through the same event, God meant good for him and many others.

Now, this does not say "God used it for good." No. It says God meant (as in intended the free and sinful actions of Joseph's brothers) it for good.

This means nothing less than this: It was God's holy and perfect will to have Joseph sold into slavery. But, God did not cause him to be thrown into slavery. God is not the actor here; the brothers are the actors. God did, most definitively, ordain (which is to say that He did not prevent the free and sinful actions of the brothers) the brothers to do what they did--evil though it may be. The evil here didn't come from God. It came from the brothers. God planned that the evil of the brothers would suit His purpose and bring Him glory.

This is not "hard core determinism." This is biblical theology. Many more examples could be given.

Unfortunately, Van, you like so many others before you and, doubtless, those who come after you are kicking against the goads of the caricature of Calvinism, not the actual portrait.

In this case, your ignorance should now be lifted (at least concerning this area of error) and you would be wise to understand the difference between what the portrait of Calvinism is and what the caricature is.

The Archangel

 

[humblethinker]

Archangel,
Would you mind providing scriptures that challenge hard determinism? In what way would you argue that hard determinism is not scriptural?

 

[The Archangel]

Archangel,
Would you mind providing scriptures that challenge hard determinism? In what way would you argue that hard determinism is not scriptural?

I'm not sure I understand your question and I fear you may have misunderstood my interaction with Van.

I was merely pointing out that Calvinists are not hard determinists. I was not intending to say that hard determinism is not scriptural (I have not offered an opinion, for or against, the scriptural nature of hard determinism).

In essence, I'm arguing that God has absolute sovereignty and man has free will.

At some level, I suppose, God's is "hard." But not in the way that makes (as in causes) man commit sin.

So, clarify for me what you are asking, if you would.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Van]

As I said, all Calvinists are actually hard core determinists, they just deny it. But when asked to argue against hard core determinism, they, uh .... see post 23. LOL

It is like someone saying they are not a Calvinist, but when asked what doctrine of the TULIP do they say is false, they are silent.

 

[humblethinker]

I'm not sure I understand your question...

Thank you for being so kind. Regarding people that claim to be Calvinist but reject hard determinism: I am really curious as to whether this person would be interested in trying to reach out to the hard determinist and help him see that hard determinism is unscriptural. If there is such a concern, then what scriptures would the Calvinist offer as proof texts that hard determinism is not scriptural? Or would you think hard determinism is compatible with Calvinism?

I'm not trying to bait anyone, just trying to understand.

 

[Tom Butler]

Agreed, but do you believe something must be effectually applied in order to still credit it as being "from God?"

I lost you there. Wanna rephrase? If you have something, isn't it by definition effectually applied?

I want to make sure I understand the question.

 

[Tom Butler]

When Paul asked "Who makes you different?, it's important to not that he didn't ask "What" makes you different, but "who."

So it's not that we have what we have because we're smarter, wiser, more ambitious, work harder than someone else. And even if we are those things, the intelligence, wisdom, drive and work ethic were given to us.

The basic thrust of the verse is to knock any pride out of us.

 

[Skandelon]

I lost you there. Wanna rephrase? If you have something, isn't it by definition effectually applied?

I want to make sure I understand the question.

"Effectual" means that it could not have been resisted. It's another word for "irresistible" (the "I" in TULIP). So, I was asking if a gift must be irresistibly given in order for the giver to receive full credit for giving it?

If I offer 10 of my friends Super Bowl tickets and only 9 of them accept thus leading me to give my last ticket to another friend, does that make any of the friends who did receive the gift less grateful? Does it make me, the giver, less giving? Do I still get the credit for their getting to go to the Super Bowl?

OR, did that gift have to be irresistibly given in such a way that all 10 friends had to by some inward force be made to willingly accept the gift in order for them to be truly grateful and for me, the giver, to really get all the credit?

 

[kyredneck]

[for some reason the quote function is not functioning for me on this thread]

HT said:
“What I don't understand is that if Paul believed that everything was predetermined and that man did not have any ability of contrary choice, then why wouldn't he have used that point to motivate them to be humble? “

KYR said:
“Paul believed in providence for certain, but I think not the hard core determinism you're referring to.”

HT said:
“Can you describe the difference between your view of the two? “


First off, I wish to rephrase my statement to read:
“Paul believed in the absolute sovereignty of God for certain, but I think not the hard core determinism you're referring to.”

And after thinking about it, no, I'm unable to adequately describe it. I defer to the words of the Psalmist:
“Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is high, I cannot attain unto it.”

FYI, that word predestinate is used only four times in the NT, and every time it pertains to God choosing a people for His own possesion, and not to events in general.

 

[Tom Butler]

"Effectual" means that it could not have been resisted. It's another word for "irresistible" (the "I" in TULIP). So, I was asking if a gift must be irresistibly given in order for the giver to receive full credit for giving it?

If I offer 10 of my friends Super Bowl tickets and only 9 of them accept thus leading me to give my last ticket to another friend, does that make any of the friends who did receive the gift less grateful? Does it make me, the giver, less giving? Do I still get the credit for their getting to go to the Super Bowl?

OR, did that gift have to be irresistibly given in such a way that all 10 friends had to by some inward force be made to willingly accept the gift in order for them to be truly grateful and for me, the giver, to really get all the credit?

The point is not whether we could or could not resist what was offered to us. The point is that we already have it, and that it was given to us.

Paul is chiding the Corinthians here. They have a lot, and are bragging about it as if it was all their doing. They're also bragging about their association with Paul and Apollos. Some are saying, I'm a Paulist; others are saying I'm an Apollos man, as if this makes them hot stuff. They're different from the hoi polloi, ordinary believers, thus better. So Paul is saying, who makes you different. Why do you think you're better than other people? What do you have that wasn't given to you? And why are you bragging about what you have as if it wasn't given to you?

I suppose we could stretch it and make this into a Cal/Non-Cal/TULIP argument. I can see God's sovereignty in there, but I'm not inclined to go further than that. If we're going to ask if they could have resisted the gifts, my answer is, not one of them did.

 

[Skandelon]

The point is not whether we could or could not resist what was offered to us.

Well, it may not be your point, but it was my point in response to the concept that God only get's the credit for gifts that are effectually applied.

The point is that we already have it, and that it was given to us

Yes, I understand. And though we could have rejected it we can still give God credit for being the giver.

Paul is chiding the Corinthians here. They have a lot, and are bragging about it as if it was all their doing. They're also bragging about their association with Paul and Apollos. Some are saying, I'm a Paulist; others are saying I'm an Apollos man, as if this makes them hot stuff. They're different from the hoi polloi, ordinary believers, thus better. So Paul is saying, who makes you different. Why do you think you're better than other people? What do you have that wasn't given to you? And why are you bragging about what you have as if it wasn't given to you?

I agree. Good summary!

I suppose we could stretch it and make this into a Cal/Non-Cal/TULIP argument. I can see God's sovereignty in there, but I'm not inclined to go further than that. If we're going to ask if they could have resisted the gifts, my answer is, not one of them did.

Well, obviously not one of the believers he is addressing resisted them, otherwise they wouldn't be believers and thus receiving this message. But how many non-believers were out there who were also preached to by Paul (like those in Acts 28 who he worked to "persuade") who refused the appeal to be reconciled and thus the gift of God?

 

[humblethinker]

[for some reason the quote function is not functioning for me on this thread]

HT said:
“What I don't understand is that if Paul believed that everything was predetermined and that man did not have any ability of contrary choice, then why wouldn't he have used that point to motivate them to be humble? “

KYR said:
“Paul believed in providence for certain, but I think not the hard core determinism you're referring to.”

HT said:
“Can you describe the difference between your view of the two? “


First off, I wish to rephrase my statement to read:
“Paul believed in the absolute sovereignty of God for certain, but I think not the hard core determinism you're referring to.”

And after thinking about it, no, I'm unable to adequately describe it. I defer to the words of the Psalmist:
“Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is high, I cannot attain unto it.”

FYI, that word predestinate is used only four times in the NT, and every time it pertains to God choosing a people for His own possesion, and not to events in general.

I think that is a fair enough answer. I'm just concerned that we Christians don't have an answer for those that struggle with hard determinism... I think all humans, believers or unbelievers, at some point come to an expanse for which their logic and understanding cannot reach the other side. I think you would agree we should at least be able to admit such, be patient with others and not be abusive or illogically obstinate.

 

[Skandelon]

When Paul asked "Who makes you different?, it's important to not that he didn't ask "What" makes you different, but "who."

So it's not that we have what we have because we're smarter, wiser, more ambitious, work harder than someone else. And even if we are those things, the intelligence, wisdom, drive and work ethic were given to us.

The basic thrust of the verse is to knock any pride out of us.

I agree. As a parent of four kids my wife and I have employed much of the exact same parenting techniques and teachings for my two oldest boys. You could say we gave them BOTH the teaching and instruction they needed, so in that respect there is nothing boast worthy, but that doesn't negate the fact that each of them choose what to do with that instruction.

If all of them follow the instruction, then what do any of them have to boast about, they are just doing what we told them to do. It's not as if they came up with the instruction themselves. We gave it to them. They are reaping the reward of following our instruction. If one of them chooses not to follow the instructions it is only there fault, not ours for not granting it to them.

So, to presume that the unbeliever wasn't granted the same opportunity to receive God's appeal for reconciliation simply because those who accept it have no room to boast is unfounded.