Does God receive any glory at all in the Calvinist system?

[Guest]

If a Robot glorifies God in the middle of the forest, and no one is there to hear it...has God recieved any glory?

Calvinists seem to think that their system gives God the most glory, but I am wondering if he receives any glory in it at all.

According the them, those who give him glory could not have done otherwise. God programs these people to glorify himself. They don't choose to do it. It is God's choice alone. This "glory" ultimately comes not from the "believer", but from God himself because (as they say) man could never choose to glorify God. Somthing "good" like the glorification of God could never find its origins in man, if it did, that man could have something to boast about (even after being saved).

Someone could say "but after man is saved, God helps him to do good". (I don't know if they would say this next sentence but I think that it would apply in their system)But even then, you would have man doing part of the work! He would have something to boast about. No, no! We cannot have man doing any of the work, even 1%. It must all be from God. We can't have anything good coming from man! We don't want ANY focus on man!

God has made the choice for them. I'm not going to get too far into it right now but I can't see a difference between these "believers" and robots. I know they hate it when we make this comparison, but maybe there is a logical reason why this comparison is made so much (the reason I just gave).

The non-believers never notice that the "believers" are "giving God glory" because they are spiritually blind and don't notice anything about God. So, God can't receive glory by having non-believers see that he has a bunch of robots following him.

It seems to me that in this system God is really the only one glorifing himself!

I have no problem with God glorifing himself, but this raises a question: what in the world did God make man for!? It would seem that in this system man serves no REAL purpose at all.

I could make all my G.I Joes bow down before me in my room and give me glory, but would that impress you? Or, what if I made them do that in a universe where no one would know that it ever happened? In that case, you couldnt be impressed by it if you wanted to be! How impressive is that?What glory! I'M THE KING!!!!

This is why I would ask:

If a Robot glorifies God in the middle of the forest, and no one is there to hear it...has God recieved any glory all?

[Guest]

If a Robot glorifies God in the middle of the forest, and no one is there to hear it...has God recieved any glory?

You seem to be reasoning along these lines:

• a) God cannot receive true glory from robots
  
  b) Under Calvinism, men are robots
  
  c) Therefore, under Calvinism, God cannot receive true glory

The conclusion follows if you grant the premises. But Calvinists don't hold to (b). The term "robot" is a loaded term anyway.

What if the syllogism were rephrased like this:

• aa) Good cannot receive true glory from men without incompatibalist freedom
  
  bb) Under Calvinism, men do not have incompatibalist freedom
  
  c) Therefore, under Calvinism, God cannot receive true glory

Calvinists teach (bb), but don't accept (aa).

So how do you establish (aa)? Maybe we should consider what it means for God to receive glory at all.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Fist of all, for the sake of my friend Jason (Jason down with the King) I shoud let people know that I am not Jason, I am Aaron Toews. I have been using his account to post due to problems with mine for the last month.

What you say, souds good to me (assuming that I am understanding incompatibalism, which I think I am).

[Guest]

Fist of all, for the sake of my friend Jason (Jason down with the King) I shoud let people know that I am not Jason, I am Aaron Toews. I have been using his account to post due to problems with mine for the last month.

What you say, souds good to me (assuming that I am understanding incompatibalism, which I think I am).

Hi Aaron,

So do you agree or disagree with (aa):

God cannot receive true glory from men without incompatibilistic freedom?

(I mistyped "God" as "Good" in the original post, sorry).

Incompatibilism says that our being the cause of (and morally responsible for) our own choices and actions is incompatible with there being another cause (like God) for those actions. Non-Calvinists are incompatibilsts. Most incompatibilists believe that no other account of freedom is "real" freedom.

On the other hand, compatibilism holds that God can decree that we act in a certain way, and yet we are still properly regarded as the cause of and morallly responsible for our actions, because we act willfully and deliberately. Calvinists are compatibilists, and believe that the scripture teaches compatibilism in several places (e.g. Gen 50:20, Acts 2:23, etc.)

I assume you agree with the statement (aa) (given all the stuff about robots, etc.), but why should we believe that it is true?

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

because we act willfully and deliberately. Calvinists are compatibilists

Well, this does not sound compatible because Calvinists does not believe in willingly, willfully or free will.

[Guest]

Aaron here again. Yeah, I agree with aa

[Guest]

Aaron here again. Yeah, I agree with aa

Hi Aaron,

OK, but why should I believe (aa)? If (aa) is false, Calvinism is safe from your argument.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

I'd like to jump in if I may. After thinking on this subject a bit, here are some thoughts of mine, which are as follows.

There will only be one story of history from creation to eschaton.

Calvinism proposes that God ordained all things, and all things follows from His counsel. This includes some to hell, some to heaven, and includes a world where creatures freely choose that which God has ordained. All of this is for His glory, as Calvinism particularly emphasizes. In this philosophical view, God's will is always accomplished, and nothing can happen other than what God purposes to bring to pass.

Those who are not Calvinists (I speak in reference to both Arminians and Open Theists) propose that God has created a world where creatures have self-determined freedom. This flows from God's heart in that God is more interested in relationships with his creatures than controlling all things (after all, orthodox Christians acknowledge that the Persons of the Trinity have always been in relationships with each other). This includes the possibility that the destiny of some will/may be hell, though this is against God's wishes as He is said to One who loves the world. Some reverently believe and enter into relationship with him thus being reconciled to Him, but some disbelieve and enter a state of grief called hell.

The first view exalts His power and control while affirming that God chose to limit His love.

The second view exalts His love and relationality while affirming that God sovereignly chose to limit His power.

Yet since there will only be one story of history, the non-calvinist view seems to give God more glory than the Calvinist system because God allowed men to have this type of freedom yet still accomplished everything that He accomplished in the Calvinist view, reconciling people from every nation and starting a kingdom of people to forever reign with Him where He is Lord. In this view, God was secure in Himself even to the point of creating creatures who might never be united with Him by their choice. The Calvinist view does bring glory to God. However, in Calvinism God chose to control all things to bring about his purposes.

[Guest]

Calvinism proposes that God ordained all things, and all things follows from His counsel. This includes some to hell, some to heaven, and includes a world where creatures freely choose that which God has ordained. All of this is for His glory, as Calvinism particularly emphasizes. In this philosophical view, God's will is always accomplished, and nothing can happen other than what God purposes to bring to pas

Those who are not Calvinists (I speak in reference to both Arminians and Open Theists) propose that God has created a world where creatures have self-determined freedom. This flows from God's heart in that God is more interested in relationships with his creatures than controlling all things (after all, orthodox Christians acknowledge that the Persons of the Trinity have always been in relationships with each other). This includes the possibility that the destiny of some will/may be hell, though this is against God's wishes as He is said to One who loves the world. Some reverently believe and enter into relationship with him thus being reconciled to Him, but some disbelieve and enter a state of grief called hell.

The first view exalts His power and control while affirming that God chose to limit His love.

The second view exalts His love and relationality while affirming that God sovereignly chose to limit His power.

This seems to me to be a false dilemma. Do not parents control all things for their children yet still have a loving relationship with those children? Nor do I think the concept that the later 2 views suggest “God sovereignly chose to limit His power.”, is accurate. The issue seems to me in the later 2 views is the blurring of the distinction between the Creator and the creature. The later 2 views elevate man’s status at one point or other to be on equal footing with the Creator.

PaulT

[Guest]

Paul,

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. This is not some sort of a bifurcation. Parent's govern all things for their children, not control. In fact, it is the parents desire for their children to grow and mature and get to the place where they do not need to govern all things. If parents meticulously controlled all things for their children from birth to adulthood, then there would not be much of a relationship, at least not a reciprocal give-and-take one. If a father made all of the choices for the children, what kind of a relationship would that be?

Moving on, it seems to me that no one really understands things like you do. You have constantly played the "you don't understand" card among other cards like this. In this case, you accuse me of presenting the 2nd view inaccurately. So, I direct you to Pinnock:

By willing the existence of significant beings with independent status alongside of himself, God accepts limitations not imposed from without. In other words, in ruling over the world God is not all-determining but may will to achieve his goals through other agents, accepting the limitations of this decision. Yet this does not make God 'weak,' for it requires more power to rule over an undetermined world than it would over a determined one. Creating free creatures and working with them does not contradict God's omnipotence but requires it. Only omnipotence has the requisite degree and quality of power to undertake such a project" (Clark Pinnock, "Systematic Theology," in Pinnock et. al. (Eds.), The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1994, p. 113).

In light of this, please tell me what I have presented that is not accurate?

You said that the later 2 views elevate man’s status at one point or other to be on equal footing with the Creator. Well, when God made man in His image and after His likeness, human freedom, which is a form of delegated sovereignty, was part of this package. So, when God's creatures make a choice of obedient self sacrifice and humilty this reflects glory back upon God from whence this freedom came from. This essentially gives more glory unto God than the view that God ordained this obedience, because this obedience could not have failed to arise, whereas the obedience that arose from creatures that could have disobeyed, yet lovingly submitted to their Creator. This is what Non-Calvinists are trying to point out. We are not trying to idolize our will and worship humanism. No, instead, we are acknowledging God's design, security, and love in giving us this type of freedom, which is necessary to bring relationships to it's full potential. It is Calvinism that limits God's relationality.