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

[Guest]

Paul,

Yes, I do realize communication requires we both answer the questions the other asks. Sorry if I have been a poor communicator. I ask that you be patient with me when you feel this to be so, and don't hesitate to point out something that I need to clarify or elaborate on. 8)

I truly don’t understand your complaint. You asked a question, “Let me put it this way; assuming you understand the concept of contra-causal freedom [also known as libertarian freedom],” didn’t you?

Yes.

I had previously explained that what you suggested was your view of what autonomous meant was in compliance with what Calvin wrote about Adam’s free-will and then you followed this comment up with your question. Does your definition of “free-will” fall within what Calvin spelled out that Adam had when God created him?

No, my definition does not fall within what Calvin penned down about Adam's ability to make choices when God created Him; at least not entirely. The reason it does not, is because Adam, though unaffected by the fall, could still only freely choose that which God ordained Him to choose.

I’ve already defined what I believe is free-will by suggesting that what you believed autonomous meant was covered by Calvin’s definition. If after this you believe there is still a need to understand what it is I think God is capable of doing, then you need to explain what about your term does not fit into what it is I suggested is the Reformed view of “free-will” as defined by Calvin.

Ok, In Calvinism, all of the choices of man are already determined by God before the ages began. By determined, I mean foreordained. Thus, we can only choose to do that which is foreordained. True, that choice may be voluntary, but, we could not have chose anything other than what we did. Therefore, our choices aren't free because there was and is no way we could or ever could choose anything other than what we did or do.

BTW, I never saw your definition for what Pinnock meant in his quote, “significant beings with independent status alongside of himself,” What does Pinnock mean by alongside? Is Pinnock suggesting that man’s status is in some way or other equal to that of God?

I think what Pinnock meant by independent status alongside God, is that creatures who were made in the image and after the likeness of God have the freedom to determine what choices they make, and that these choices are not predetermined or ordained by God for them to make. Just as God alone determines His own choices, so does man determine His own choices.

So my question essentially is: Is God free to create a world where creatures have self-determining freedom, where He has not ordained what all of their choices shall be.

[Guest]

Paul,
Yes, I do realize communication requires we both answer the questions the other asks. Sorry if I have been a poor communicator. I ask that you be patient with me when you feel this to be so, and don't hesitate to point out something that I need to clarify or elaborate on. 8)

I truly don’t understand your complaint. You asked a question, “Let me put it this way; assuming you understand the concept of contra-causal freedom [also known as libertarian freedom],” didn’t you?

Yes.

I had previously explained that what you suggested was your view of what autonomous meant was in compliance with what Calvin wrote about Adam’s free-will and then you followed this comment up with your question. Does your definition of “free-will” fall within what Calvin spelled out that Adam had when God created him?

No, my definition does not fall within what Calvin penned down about Adam's ability to make choices when God created Him; at least not entirely. The reason it does not, is because Adam, though unaffected by the fall, could still only freely choose that which God ordained Him to choose.

So your definition of free-will precludes God from ordaining all that comes to pass? Would this then mean God was not in control? If He didn’t ordain it how was He assured it would come to pass? Are you suggesting God created Adam without a plan? Or did God have a plan but the plan was subject to change based upon the choice of a finite creature, a creature who didn’t have the depth, breadth and extent of knowledge He, Himself had?

How about Adam, was Adam’s choice limited by what he understood? Or did Adam have complete and perfect knowledge to the extent of God? If Adam didn’t posses the knowledge to the extent of God was his choice really free? What makes you assume Adam within creation didn’t have free choice unless God did not ordain what was to come to pass?

Paul,

I’ve already defined what I believe is free-will by suggesting that what you believed autonomous meant was covered by Calvin’s definition. If after this you believe there is still a need to understand what it is I think God is capable of doing, then you need to explain what about your term does not fit into what it is I suggested is the Reformed view of “free-will” as defined by Calvin.

Ok, In Calvinism, all of the choices of man are already determined by God before the ages began. By determined, I mean foreordained. Thus, we can only choose to do that which is foreordained. True, that choice may be voluntary, but, we could not have chose anything other than what we did. Therefore, our choices aren't free because there was and is no way we could or ever could choose anything other than what we did or do.

This is not an accurate representation. Adam had free choice because his nature only had the capacity to sin, he unlike David wasn’t wicked from Creation. Since the fall man is enslaved to sin. Therefore when man opposes God he is following the desires of his heart. His choice is enslaved to sin, the point is those who are outside of Christ only want to choose against God.

Rational choice is based upon a weighing of the evidence and coupled with ones knowledge the desired selection is made. Your suggestion that, “our choices aren't free because there was and is no way we could or ever could choose anything other than what we did or do”, as it applies to Adam isn’t accurate in that for Adam to choose something different than what he did he would have had to complete and perfect knowledge to the extent of God. The only way for Adam to have had “free” choice based upon what I understand your position to be would have been for God to impart His full knowledge to him which would not be possible because Adam was finite.

Paul,

BTW, I never saw your definition for what Pinnock meant in his quote, “significant beings with independent status alongside of himself,” What does Pinnock mean by alongside? Is Pinnock suggesting that man’s status is in some way or other equal to that of God?

I think what Pinnock meant by independent status alongside God, is that creatures who were made in the image and after the likeness of God have the freedom to determine what choices they make, and that these choices are not predetermined or ordained by God for them to make. Just as God alone determines His own choices, so does man determine His own choices.

So my question essentially is: Is God free to create a world where creatures have self-determining freedom, where He has not ordained what all of their choices shall be.

If God doesn’t ordain what is to come to pass how does He maintain order? Is God left to herding cats in your view? God is not the author of confusion so if He can’t maintain order which means He is not ultimately in control but is left to deal with the after math of choices made by finite creatures, creatures who don’t have the same level of knowledge as His, then no I don’t think God can create something like that because it would go against His nature to do so.

PaulT

[Guest]

Paul,

I will get to your last post soon. Be looking for it in this space, or I'll send you a private message informing you of it.

Blessings...

[Guest]

Off-topic to Troy,

I replied to your PM. Did you fix the problem? PM me again, thanks.

[Guest]

Hi Paul,

Though you did not direct the following question to me, I think you would have asked the same if I were the one arguing Troy's position, so I thought I would make a comment.

You wrote:

"So your definition of free-will precludes God from ordaining all that comes to pass? Would this then mean God was not in control? If He didn’t ordain it how was He assured it would come to pass? Are you suggesting God created Adam without a plan?"

I think we all believe that God has a plan and is purposeful in all that He does. He also maintains control over events to the degree that He must, in order to fulfill His plan.

Where we differ is in understanding the nature of that plan. It seems to many of us that Calvinism sees God as having planned every move of every man and every creature (even every atom), and that this meticulous control is the only way that God can bring about His ultimate goals.

There is an alternative, which seems to have been the view of all Christians prior to Augustine, and remains a well-represented viewpoint today. According to this view, God planned to create a race of beings who would be more like children in a family than like characters in a videogame (whose movements are strictly controlled by the player). This means He created a world full of responsible, and potentially disappointing, beings, through whom He will bring about His ultimate purpose—that Christ may be all and in all.

Such a purpose does not require that every move of every creature be orchestrated and meticulously controlled. God's superior wisdom and power allow Him to win His goals in the macro, even if some of the micro events are decided by others. That is, God does not choose to micro-manage every person's every decision—though He is quite capable and free to thwart any decision that would in any sense preclude the success of His plan.

It has been compared with a chess master, playing several games simultaneously against a number of chess novices. He does not have to determine the moves that His opponents will make in order to win every game. His superior mastery of the game guarantees that his triumph is guaranteed, regardless what unpredictable moves individual opponents may make in the process.

It seems to me that the Calvinist God is less powerful, less intelligent and less secure than the God of the Bible. The latter knows that He is infinitely superior to all who oppose Him, and has no insecurity about the final outcome, even in a world of freely acting individuals. The Calvinist conception of God seems to be that of a being incapable of winning the chess tournament unless He first pre-programs the computerized game in such a way as to guarantee that His artificial opponent only makes such moves as God can easily counter. This view seems to be implied in the oft-asked Calvinist canard, "If God does not ordain all our choices, how can He maintain control of the situation?"

Our God is much bigger than this question implies. He can do everything you think He can do—and much more than you have imagined. Of course, He could beat the game by pre-programming the computer, but He can also play against real opponents, and still win.

[Guest]

Hi Paul,

Though you did not direct the following question to me, I think you would have asked the same if I were the one arguing Troy's position, so I thought I would make a comment.

You wrote:

"So your definition of free-will precludes God from ordaining all that comes to pass? Would this then mean God was not in control? If He didn’t ordain it how was He assured it would come to pass? Are you suggesting God created Adam without a plan?"

I think we all believe that God has a plan and is purposeful in all that He does. He also maintains control over events to the degree that He must, in order to fulfill His plan.

Where we differ is in understanding the nature of that plan. It seems to many of us that Calvinism sees God as having planned every move of every man and every creature (even every atom), and that this meticulous control is the only way that God can bring about His ultimate goals.

Steve,

Thank you for jumping in, although I don’t see an answer to my question, “If He didn’t ordain it how was He assured it would come to pass?” I’ve read through your response and while your response is a deft attempt at deflecting the issue the answer to the question is still out there. In your view how can God be “assured” His plan will come together. Setting aside the red herring of “meticulous” control, I think the issue isn’t a difference in the view of God’s plan and purpose, I think the issue spawns from a difference in view on the who and what of God, the who and what of man and His plan of redemption.

Hi Paul,
There is an alternative, which seems to have been the view of all Christians prior to Augustine, and remains a well-represented viewpoint today. According to this view, God planned to create a race of beings who would be more like children in a family than like characters in a videogame (whose movements are strictly controlled by the player). This means He created a world full of responsible, and potentially disappointing, beings, through whom He will bring about His ultimate purpose—that Christ may be all and in all.

I understand, there were several alternative approaches that crept up immediately during the Post Apostolic period, not only in the area of the who and what of God the who and what of man and God’s plan of redemption. Your argument based on the patristic fathers isn’t very strong, assuming that you are correct. The fact that a large percentage of them were premillennial doesn’t mean that they were correct in their theological presuppositions or that they had understood what they had been taught. One wonders how much of the Greek philosophy from Aristotle the fathers carried along with them into their apologetics. It seems to me that Troy’s, “autonomous” is very similar to Aquinas who posited that man at some level is independent, (Troy’s autonomous) from God.

Are you suggesting the Reformed point of view precludes man being responsible? Your characterization of the Reformed point of view as a video game is surely meant in jest, the characters in a video game don’t have a choice, which Reformer suggested man does not have a choice in the matter?

Hi Paul,
Such a purpose does not require that every move of every creature be orchestrated and meticulously controlled. God's superior wisdom and power allow Him to win His goals in the macro, even if some of the micro events are decided by others. That is, God does not choose to micro-manage every person's every decision—though He is quite capable and free to thwart any decision that would in any sense preclude the success of His plan.

Which author of a Reformed point of view has suggested God “meticulously” control’s every person’s decision? Interesting in your view God is “allowed” to win, yet in the Reformed point of view, God wins without question.

Hi Paul,
It has been compared with a chess master, playing several games simultaneously against a number of chess novices. He does not have to determine the moves that His opponents will make in order to win every game. His superior mastery of the game guarantees that his triumph is guaranteed, regardless what unpredictable moves individual opponents may make in the process.

Interesting your illustration places God in the game with an opponent of the same level, granted the opponent is not as skilled as God but nevertheless the opponent is on the same level. Was this intentional? Did God set the rules of the game or was some neutral party or thing involved in setting the rules of the game?

Hi Paul,
It seems to me that the Calvinist God is less powerful, less intelligent and less secure than the God of the Bible. The latter knows that He is infinitely superior to all who oppose Him, and has no insecurity about the final outcome, even in a world of freely acting individuals. The Calvinist conception of God seems to be that of a being incapable of winning the chess tournament unless He first pre-programs the computerized game in such a way as to guarantee that His artificial opponent only makes such moves as God can easily counter. This view seems to be implied in the oft-asked Calvinist canard, "If God does not ordain all our choices, how can He maintain control of the situation?"

Our God is much bigger than this question implies. He can do everything you think He can do—and much more than you have imagined. Of course, He could beat the game by pre-programming the computer, but He can also play against real opponents, and still win.

I doubt you would ever find a Calvinist suggesting God was a member of a game pitted against an opponent, so your illustration isn’t accurate or realistic. Assuming you can provide a quote that demonstrates the historic Calvinist position is that God meticulously controls every decision man makes, I don’t follow, for God to have to deal with unexpected events doesn’t seem like a very powerful God, if they are unexpected then that means God didn’t know about them, if God didn’t know about them then that means He isn’t Omniscient. Frankly I find your illustration demeaning to God, seemingly placing God on the same level of man such that His witts are pitted against man and the only assurance of His winning is due to His superior playing skills, which “allows” Him to win. If God is God and there is no other beside Him, why do you presuppose the Calvinist position suggests He has an opponent? Upon reflection a god who has an opponent isn’t much of a god. I’m not sure I agree with your final analysis, because my God doesn’t have any opponents nor is He left reacting to pick-up the pieces. In your chess game did your God ordain the opponent or did the opponent always exist alongside Him? In your chess game although the opponent is a novice, the status of novice presupposes some level of knowledge, where did he derive his knowledge from? Also, if as you say, “He also maintains control over events to the degree that He must, in order to fulfill His plan.”, does His plan include the redemption of specific individuals? If His plan includes the redemption of specific individuals what steps does He take to ensure His plan is fulfilled, as you say He must do? If His plan doesn’t include the redemption of specific individuals how personal is your God?

Claiming something is a “canard” doesn’t make it so, although it may very well be, but you have to demonstrate why it is a canard. For my question to be false you would have to demonstrate that it is indeed fallacious, however in response you have utilized a red herring to misrepresenting the Reformed point of view suggesting the Reformed point of view doesn’t hold man accountable and programs their every move. I’ve provided Calvin’s position on Adam that directly refutes your claim and shows you’ve indeed created a red herring. Additionally to buttress your case you used an illustration of God in a chess game, which necessarily means we aren’t dealing with the God of the Bible who indeed is Omniscient and has no opponents but does whatever He wills therefore you’ve created a straw-man. Let me suggest, claiming a question is a canard yet utilizing a red herring and straw-man, both logical fallacies, to prove your case isn’t a very effective method in proving a falsehood exists in the form of my question. This would also seem to be borne out in the fact that I asked about “assurance” and you followed up with “allowance”.


PaulT

[Guest]

In your view how can God be “assured” His plan will come together.

Steve will no doubt have a better response, but I think it relates to our view that God is infinitely capable of exerting the necessary influence (directly or indirectly as He may deem necessary or beneficial). The difference may be one of degree -- we don't believe it is His normative practice to interfere with "everything," just what is absolutely necessary. His Will will not be thwarted to the extent He decides to enforce it -- it's just that we don't believe His enforcement extends to every decision man might make (even the most important one).

[Guest]

Which author of a Reformed point of view has suggested God “meticulously” control’s every person’s decision?

Bruce Ware, Systematic Theology teacher at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and author of the two twin books: God's Lessor Glory and God's Greater Glory. Therefore, your accusation of "red herring" against Steve is inaccurate. By the way, for what it's worth, one of my best friends is a one of Ware's students, and I sat in a class when Ware just happened to be teaching on one of the communcable attributes of God referred to as omniscience. He used the term "Meticulous Sovereignty" and "Exhaustive Sovereignty" a little more than a few times.

[Guest]

Which author of a Reformed point of view has suggested God “meticulously” control’s every person’s decision?

Bruce Ware, Systematic Theology teacher at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and author of the two twin books: God's Lessor Glory and God's Greater Glory. Therefore, your accusation of "red herring" against Steve is inaccurate. By the way, for what it's worth, one of my best friends is a one of Ware's students, and I sat in a class when Ware just happened to be teaching on one of the communcable attributes of God referred to as omniscience. He used the term "Meticulous Sovereignty" and "Exhaustive Sovereignty" a little more than a few times.

This reminds me of another caller from the last James White broadcast (the day after the debate). A caller was asking about the free offer of the gospel, and White seemed more than a bit confused as he was explaining how he just wasn't willing to "go there" in connection with adding a mystery of "two desires" on top of the Reformed "two wills." I don't think he realized his reluctance could equally be applied to his own position.

[Guest]

Actually, the caller was another reformed gentlemen, and it was a discussion on more of an "intramural" basis. The "two desires" issue was in reference to the "partially salvific" desire advanced, by the caller - which basically confused the means of grace with the offered grace itself. This is a common theme in objections to reformed theology - even in reformed circles.

I quote: "I feel like we're being forced, to somehow attribute to God some kind, for some reason, some attitude of desire that not only do I never see expressed - but that God has some sort of unfulfilled desire - but it's not really the same desire that He chooses to fulfill with other people. You're not only left with the two wills conundrum, but multiple desires conundrums. I just don't see a reason for it".

"I know where this comes from in liberal/European theology - I went to Fuller seminary, for crying out loud! ... But within the Reformed realm of folks, I understand, and have stood against hypercalvinism for a long long time, where people think they can somehow know where the elect are, but on the other side, I wanna go "all right, I fully understand what the means are that God uses to draw His elect unto Himself, that there is a free offer of the Gospel, that I do not have the right to reprobate anyone, I cannot do that. I have to proclaim to everybody." But I have a problem then saying, in my proclamation of the gospel, I then have to affirm some kind of a "partially salvific desire", because it can only be partially salvific. If it's truly a salvific desire - if it's truly a desire of God - does not He do whatever He pleases, in the heavens and the earth?"

Does that sound confused? He stated, during the earlier part of this exchange, that he'd never heard a satisfying reason for this topic of "desires" to be brought up, as if God could have an unfulfilled desire. That's the only confusion I heard. I just transcribed the above for you - if you understand that these were two reformed folks discussing minutae, it makes more sense in that context. It's a common thing for those who have read Murray, as it is also stated at one point, for this issue to come up. Dunno where you're getting "confused" from.

Summary: In reformed theology - discussion about "unfulfilled desires of God" is not only out of place, but absurd. That was the basic premise of what Dr. White had to say.