A Calvinist argument I don't understand...

[Guest]

When Calvinist argue that their particular system recognizes that man is guilty of his sins, and is truly a sinner, as opposed to Arminians who "seem to take the blame away from man".

This doesn't make sense to me,

1.) Calvinist argue that God ordained everything, therefore the evil that is in man, got there because God "predestined it before the foundation of the world.

2.) Arminians argue that God gave man a choice, therefore if man chooses to be evil, he has only himself to blame. If Calvinism were true, man could is some sense blame God for the evil in him.

Why do Calvinist often argue this way?

[Guest]

Good point!

[Guest]

If you ask a Calvinist this question, they will likely tell you it's a mystery in the same way that many of God's other attributes are mysterious. However, as a proponent of human free-will myself, this is not a mystery but a contradiction of the most grievous sort because it conflicts with logic is such a way as to leave God's character greatly marred.

The Trinity doctrine, for example, is mysterious but it doesn't contradict God's character. Calvinism makes a mockery of the word "love" and renders it meaningless. For example, the Bible teaches us that God is kind to even the wicked and the unjust and that God, himself, is the perfect expression of love. If Calvinism were true, we'd have to change the meaning of obvious words like "kind" and "loving." If we start down that road, where shall we end up? Calvinism is not only internally inconsistent but also defecates on the very rules of language and understanding. What Calvin did to Servetus can only work if your worldview changes the meaning of words like "love" and "kindness." For Calvin to order an innocent man's execution as a matter of principle only shows you how a logical outworking of his theories will look in the real world.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Calvinism always leads to such an extreme. But often extremes can make a point more vividly than an argument from subtlety. If Jim from CT is reading this, I would definitely count you as a brother. Don't take my tongue-lashing of Calvin as an indictment on someone such as yourself.

[Guest]

Exactly!

I can accept a mystery about God any day when it concerns ideas that have nothing to do with "morality" and "Justice".

I understand that man is dead in trespass and sins, and that God as creator has every right to destroy us. But what I do not understand is the notion that God predestines a man to be wicked, and then judges that man on account of his wickedness!

Its almost like if I designed a computer program that rips people off, then I place the blame on the program for doing what I programmed it to do.

[Guest]

When Calvinist argue that their particular system recognizes that man is guilty of his sins, and is truly a sinner, as opposed to Arminians who "seem to take the blame away from man".

This doesn't make sense to me,

1.) Calvinist argue that God ordained everything, therefore the evil that is in man, got there because God "predestined it before the foundation of the world.

2.) Arminians argue that God gave man a choice, therefore if man chooses to be evil, he has only himself to blame. If Calvinism were true, man could is some sense blame God for the evil in him.

While I agree that Calvinism puts the responsibility on God, I cannot see that Arminianism removes that responsibility. It seems that Arminians believe that God's ability to "look into the future" has no relation to freedom of choice.

Hoever, if God knows in advance every choice which evey person makes, then how could any person do otherwise? For the future would be settled --- not that God's foreknowledge caused anyone's choice, but that absolute knowledge of a future choice implies that statements about future choices have present truth value, and that, in turn, makes freedom of choice impossible. For example, if it had been true yesterday that I was going to write this post today, how could I have done otherwise.

I think there are no statements (in the philosophical/logical sense) about the future. All real statements have truth value (they are either true or false). What appear to be statements about the future are really pseudo-statements.

If I say, "I will go to town tomorrow", I am simply declaring that it is my intention to go to town tomorrow. If I fail to go to town tomorrow, I cannot be accused of having lied.

If I say, "It will rain tomorrow", I am making a prediction. If it doesn't rain tomorrow, I cannnot be accused of having lied.

No "statements" about the future are actually statements. All of them are either predictions or declarations of intention. This being the case, it can be safely affirmed that the future, logically, cannot be known. Events may not happen as predicted. Intentions may not be carried out; People change their minds. Even God (being a free-will agent) may change His mind about His intentions.

When God saw what [the Ninevites] did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it. Johah 3:10 NRSV

Conclusion:

1. Arminians believe that God knows the future.
2.This implies that there are genuine statements about the future (which are either true or false).
3. And this implies that the future is settled.
4. And this implies that free will choices cannot be made, for any choice made contrary to the known future would imply that the future was not known after all (a contradiction).
5. Thus there is no freedom of choice, only apparent freedom of choice at best.
6.God having created a universe like this, would be responsible for the evil within it. In that respect, Arminianism is not significantly different from Calvinism.

[Guest]

Paidion, we've talked about this before, but I am still somewhat baffled by how you reach conclusion 4. Why can't the future be settled by free will choices? Personally, I see no reason whatsover to follow you beyond point 3.

[Guest]

While I agree that Calvinism puts the responsibility on God, I cannot see that Arminianism removes that responsibility.

Sure it does. Arminians say that God gave man a choice, and it is man who makes the call on whether or not he will obey or disobey.

It seems that Arminians believe that God's ability to "look into the future" has no relation to freedom of choice.

This isn't true, nor is it an accurate statement. God plans many things, and prevents many things from happening. God allows certain evil men to exercise their free choice, and He prevents others from doing so. So God indeed does know the future, but that does not meant that He can't bend some things in the here and now, for He is not bound by the time constraints that we are bound by. He is the "Alpha and Omega".

however, if God knows in advance every choice which every person makes, then how could any person do otherwise?

The question isn't how, but "why"? People make their choices here, and God knows how it will turn out, but that in and of itself doesn't negate any kind of freewill on the part of humans.

For the future would be settled --- not that God's foreknowledge caused anyone's choice, but that absolute knowledge of a future choice implies that statements about future choices have present truth value, and that, in turn, makes freedom of choice impossible.

How so? Because God knows what his creation will do? I know my wife well enough to know that if we watch a love story together, she will cry every time...Was she void of the choice to cry simply because I knew it in advance?... I think that your logic would lead us to believe that God is out there wondering what will happen next, and the universe is just sorta spinning chaotically in its boundaries with no clear direction. What do you do with passages where Christ makes specific prophecies regarding certain future events?

For example, if it had been true yesterday that I was going to write this post today, how could I have done otherwise.

Again, the question is not "how", but "why"? Why would you do anything else? Does God's knowledge of what you were going to do today, negate any free-will on your part?

I think there are no statements (in the philosophical/logical sense) about the future. All real statements have truth value (they are either true or false). What appear to be statements about the future are really pseudo-statements.

Not according to scripture. God has prophesied many things that came to pass, and will come to pass. He made many specific prophecies that came to pass just as he said them, and he used the free wills of certain men to bring it to pass. He did not have to twist the rulers of Israels arm to do the wicked things they did, they did it according to their evil desires, but God used it and had knew a thousand years in advance that they would. Acts 4.

If I say, "I will go to town tomorrow", I am simply declaring that it is my intention to go to town tomorrow. If I fail to go to town tomorrow, I cannot be accused of having lied.

Its funny you mention this example. James tells us this: Jam 4:13 ¶ Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:Jam 4:14 Whereas ye know not what [shall be] on the morrow. For what [is] your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.Jam 4:15 For that ye [ought] to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.
It seems that James thinks that the Lord's will includes all of our present decisions, and decides which ones will come to pass. So in one sense our will is completely free to choose, but it is God who decides which plans will materialize. For I believe God has an over arching plan for mankind, yet he does not set justice aside. For example, God does not meticulously ordain the killing of innocent children, but often allows it for the punishment of the killer, and the intents of his(killers)evil heart.

No "statements" about the future are actually statements. All of them are either predictions or declarations of intention. This being the case, it can be safely affirmed that the future, logically, cannot be known. Events may not happen as predicted. Intentions may not be carried out; People change their minds. Even God (being a free-will agent) may change His mind about His intentions.

Yet God Himself has made many statements regarding the future. Sure, God has His own mind, and can do whatever pleases Himself, but that is far from saying that He can't know the future, for He says in his word "I am the "beginning and the end".

When God saw what [the Ninevites] did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it. Johah 3:10 NRSV

Jonah wrote this story to men. Therefore He spoke in terms that men use. God could have very well knew what the Ninevites were going to do, but needed to teach Jonah a lesson. We simply can't say that God did not know what the Ninevites were going to do, we assume such because Jonah wrote the story from his own perspective. Again, here is an example. I know my little girl well enough to know that if I tell her(rather sternly)to get dressed, she will struggle at first, and I will appear to her to be in the process of taking off my belt to discipline her, then she gets in gear and does as shes told. Now if my wife was telling her friend this story, she would say "My husband was fixin to wear her but out, but he changed his mind when she complied", not knowing that I knew what the outcome was all along, because I know my child.

[Guest]

But Brody- you have to admit- if God knows(right now) for sure what I am going to do tomorrow, then by gum that is what I am going to do, whether I feel like i am making a free choice, or not.

This logic seems fairly clear, although I too have discussed this at length with Paidion elsewhere, because while I can see his logic, it just doesnt sit right.

TK

[Guest]

But Brody- you have to admit- if God knows(right now) for sure what I am going to do tomorrow,then by gum that is what I am going to do, whether I feel like i am making a free choice, or not[/i].
This logic seems fairly clear, although I too have discussed this at length with Paidion elsewhere, because while I can see his logic, it just doesnt sit right.

TK

I don't think you are seeing this clearly enough(or maybe I ain't), but just because God knows what you are going to do, doesn't mean you didn't have a choice in the matter!


You said in the above "then by gum that is what I am going to do, whether I feel like i am making a free choice, or not.

But the fact that you did it means it was a free choice on your part!

[Guest]

For the future would be settled --- not that God's foreknowledge caused anyone's choice, but that absolute knowledge of a future choice implies that statements about future choices have present truth value, and that, in turn, makes freedom of choice impossible.

How so? Because God knows what his creation will do? I know my wife well enough to know that if we watch a love story together, she will cry every time...Was she void of the choice to cry simply because I knew it in advance?...

Do you know that she will cry every time? If you actually know that she will, then it will be impossible for her not to cry when you watch a love story together --- and she would not have the power of choice not to cry. For is she does choose not to cry, that would be prove that you did not know that she would cry. You merely thought you knew! In other words you made a prediction.

I think that your logic would lead us to believe that God is out there wondering what will happen next, and the universe is just sorta spinning chaotically in its boundaries with no clear direction.

You have no reason at all to think that. For God, being omniscient, knows all realities (the future is not yet a reality). Thus God is in a MUCH better position to predict people's choices than you are in predicting that your wife will cry when you watch a love story. Events which God predicts are MUCH more likely to turn out according to His prediction. But there are several records in the Scripture where they didn't. That is to be expected due to the free will which God has given man.

What do you do with passages where Christ makes specific prophecies regarding certain future events?

Even though Christ had emptied Himself of all His divine attributes except His identity as the Son of God, He was able to make sound predictions through His intimate daily walk and communication with his Father. It is not surprising that such predictions usually turned out to be true.

For example, if it had been true yesterday that I was going to write this post today, how could I have done otherwise.

Again the question is not how but why. Why would you do anything else?

Because I have a free will, and may decide to do so.

Does God's knowledge of what you were going to do today, negate any free-will on your part?

It contradicts it.

I think there are no statements (in the philosophical/logical sense) about the future. All real statements have truth value (they are either true or false). What appear to be statements about the future are really pseudo-statements.

Not according to scripture. God has prophesied many things that came to pass, and will come to pass. He made many specific prophecies that came to pass just as he said them, and he used the free wills of certain men to bring it to pass.

The fact that many things prophesied came to pass including specific prophecies in no way contradicts what I have said about pseudo-statements concerning the future. This shows only that God is a great predictor, not that pseudo-statements about the future have truth value.

He did not have to twist the rulers of Israels arm to do the wicked things they did, they did it according to their evil desires, but God used it and had knew a thousand years in advance that they would. Acts 4.

You must be referring to the following passage:

When they heard it, they raised their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and everything in them, it is you who said by the Holy Spirit through our ancestor David, your servant: ‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain things? The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers have gathered together against the Lord and against his Messiah.’ For in this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. And now, Lord, look at their threats, and grant to your servants to speak your word with all boldness, while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus. Acts 4:24-30 NRSV

The word "predestined", for most people, is a sort of fatalistic concept. When the passage is read with that in mind, then God planned every detail and made sure it would happen. That interpretation sounds like Calvinism to me.

The Greek word "prohorizō" does not have that connotation. The English word "horizon" comes from "horizō". The Greek word means "mark out boundaries". God had limited what could take place within boundaries, but he neither "predestined" what would take place, nor does this passage indicate that He knew exactly what would take place. Rather He had a hand in it and limited in certain ways what people could do. God also knows chains of causation from beginning to end. With His complete knowledge He made a sensible prediction through David and it came to pass. Does that mean that the players in this scenario had to do what they did? I don't think so. If they had chosen not to, others were likely to fulfill the role. Yet it would have been possible for things to have turned out differently if God had changed his mind (as is recorded that He sometimes did). It is also possible that none of the Gentiles would rage and none of the rulers would gather against the Messiah. After all, several prophecies recorded in the Old Testament are stated as not having taken place. Prophecies are predictions, albeit very good ones.

If I say, "I will go to town tomorrow", I am simply declaring that it is my intention to go to town tomorrow. If I fail to go to town tomorrow, I cannot be accused of having lied.

Its funny you mention this example. James tells us this: Jam 4:13 ¶ Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:Jam 4:14 Whereas ye know not what [shall be] on the morrow. For what [is] your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.Jam 4:15 For that ye [ought] to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.
It seems that James thinks that the Lord's will includes all of our present decisions, and decides which ones will come to pass. So in one sense our will is completely free to choose, but it is God who decides which plans will materialize. For I believe God has an over arching plan for mankind, yet he does not set justice aside. For example, God does not meticulously ordain the killing of innocent children, but often allows it for the punishment of the killer, and the intents of his(killers)evil heart.

Notice James said, "You do not know what tomorrow brings". Yes, the future is unknown. It seems to me that your suggestion that James thought "the Lord's will includes all our present decisions, and decides which ones will come to pass" differs in no respect from Calvinism. I think James is here referring to God's "permissive will". In other words, "Don't make detailed plans for tomorrow since God may not permit it, due to other actions God may perform."

No "statements" about the future are actually statements. All of them are either predictions or declarations of intention. This being the case, it can be safely affirmed that the future, logically, cannot be known. Events may not happen as predicted. Intentions may not be carried out; People change their minds. Even God (being a free-will agent) may change His mind about His intentions.

Yet God Himself has made many statements regarding the future. Sure, God has His own mind, and can do whatever pleases Himself, but that is far from saying that He can't know the future, for He says in his word "I am the "beginning and the end".

Perhaps you are referring to "God knows the end from the beginning". In context, we see that this refers to the end from the beginning of His plans. He has intentions concerning what He wishes to do and has the power to bring them to pass.

When God saw what [the Ninevites] did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it. Johah 3:10 NRSV

Jonah wrote this story to men. Therefore He spoke in terms that men use. God could have very well knew what the Ninevites were going to do, but needed to teach Jonah a lesson.

I am familiar with this kind of explanation, and I don't buy it. It makes God a liar. If God knew that He would not destroy the Ninevites if they repented, and if He knew the Ninevites would repent, then He lied when He said that He would destroy them in 40 days.