Steve wrote: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.
Steve wrote: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?
Steve wrote: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.
Steve wrote: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?
Steve wrote: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