Are we really just robots?

[kj7gs]

As a Calvinist, I've seen the "proof texts" that show God being intimately in control over both the believer and the unbeliever. But I would think that control of every facet of man's belief and actions, right down to the firing of the synapses that cause certain behavior and thoughts, would logically not require a relationship. If Philippians 2:13 is taken literally, then it is God who has a relationship with God...and the Arminians are correct in their accusation of Calvinism as God simply interacting with Man as robots.

Sproul, in my study Bible, makes mention of free will and the ability to make moral decisions, as opposed to free AGENCY and the ability to make day-to-day decisions. We have free agency. We do not have free will.

However, if I'm not mistaken, Calvin, the WCF, and many Reformed scholars will still assert that God controls His world to synapse-level, "ordering our steps" for both the elect and the reprobate. And at the same time we have a Bible that asserts a relationship with the Father through the Son.

So would our will, our decisions, our actions, our being...all be an illusion? If so we are not better off philosophically than the atheist's view of things, with synapses providing emotions that have no real purpose, just chemicals lying to us.

I do have a hypothesis, but I end up being a "free-will" Calvinist as a result. In the meantime I'd like to hear some other answers, hopefully better ones than what I've come up with.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi kj7gs, if God "orders our steps" at the "synapse-level", why do we sin .. ever ..

And on what basis then is the reprobate condemned?

Yours and His,
David

 

[kj7gs]

This is a dichotomy I don't understand, St_Worm2. Lots of verses to go to stating that God is in COMPLETE control of His creation. Therefore, when Jesus says, "depart from me, for I never knew you" -- oh yes you did, Jesus! Control is inversely proportional to relationship here.

Here's the breakdown, IMO. Free will = the ability to make moral choices. Righteousness = choices pleasing to God. Only the Elect can make righteous choices, powered by the Holy Spirit. Man's will is free, and we can perform moral acts. But they are not necessarily righteous. Righteous acts can also seem to Man to be immoral! Our acts and decisions can be moral to us, yet illegal. They can be moral to the world around us, and our government(s), but not moral to us. They can be completely moral to all, and yet not righteous. Beethoven's Fifth Symphony did not earn him Heaven, as many lives as it has affected.

And that's how I've reasoned through it. Thoughts?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

As a Calvinist, I've seen the "proof texts" that show God being intimately in control over both the believer and the unbeliever. But I would think that control of every facet of man's belief and actions, right down to the firing of the synapses that cause certain behavior and thoughts, would logically not require a relationship. If Philippians 2:13 is taken literally, then it is God who has a relationship with God...and the Arminians are correct in their accusation of Calvinism as God simply interacting with Man as robots.

Sproul, in my study Bible, makes mention of free will and the ability to make moral decisions, as opposed to free AGENCY and the ability to make day-to-day decisions. We have free agency. We do not have free will.

However, if I'm not mistaken, Calvin, the WCF, and many Reformed scholars will still assert that God controls His world to synapse-level, "ordering our steps" for both the elect and the reprobate. And at the same time we have a Bible that asserts a relationship with the Father through the Son.

So would our will, our decisions, our actions, our being...all be an illusion? If so we are not better off philosophically than the atheist's view of things, with synapses providing emotions that have no real purpose, just chemicals lying to us.

I do have a hypothesis, but I end up being a "free-will" Calvinist as a result. In the meantime I'd like to hear some other answers, hopefully better ones than what I've come up with.

The robot trope always has and will be a malicious strawman characterization of historical Calvinism. Read more of Calvin, Edwards, and a host of many others on the subject. There is a rich history behind the debate over "free will" and it is worth investigating. Also worth studying is the various positions and philosophical terminology between the different views concerning "free will". The historical position, is in philosophical terms called "compatibilism", the view and belief in BOTH the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, or the sovereignty of God and limited freedom granted to man. I am a compatibilist, but it is not an easy balance, there always seem to be tension to lean more one way or the other. Regardless of the difficulty, BOTH are asserted in Scripture, and as fallen creatures we must wallow with the tension and our own frailties in coming to terms with perplexing realities to be wrestled with.

 

[twin1954]

This is a dichotomy I don't understand, St_Worm2. Lots of verses to go to stating that God is in COMPLETE control of His creation. Therefore, when Jesus says, "depart from me, for I never knew you" -- oh yes you did, Jesus! Control is inversely proportional to relationship here.

The word "know" here has a much deeper meaning than just knowledge of but one of intimate union, as Adam "knew" his wife Eve. It was a union that made the two one.

Of course, being omniscient, He knew all about them and knew their motives and hearts. But He is telling them that He was never united to them in an intimate way, or they were not a part of His Bride or His body.

He was in absolute control of what they thought and did but that doesn't mean that He was united to them. Make sense?

Here's the breakdown, IMO. Free will = the ability to make moral choices. Righteousness = choices pleasing to God. Only the Elect can make righteous choices, powered by the Holy Spirit. Man's will is free, and we can perform moral acts. But they are not necessarily righteous. Righteous acts can also seem to Man to be immoral! Our acts and decisions can be moral to us, yet illegal. They can be moral to the world around us, and our government(s), but not moral to us. They can be completely moral to all, and yet not righteous. Beethoven's Fifth Symphony did not earn him Heaven, as many lives as it has affected.

And that's how I've reasoned through it. Thoughts?

I would caution you to base and build you doctrine and understanding on the foundation of the Scriptures as a whole and not on philosophy. Philosophy itself is not evil but our natural understanding and use of philosophy is.

Now to your comments:
The one thing that separates us from the brute beasts is the fact that we are moral creatures, created in the image of God, with a moral conscience that the beasts do not have. When a man, be he believer or unbeliever, commits wrong he knows it to be so because his conscience will not let him rest. His guilt will plague him because he knows that he has done wrong. Conversely, a cat can eat her young and never feel a pang of guilt about it. Paul speaks directly to this in Rom. 2:14 where he says that the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law... There is no group of people in the world, no matter how remote, who do not know that it is wrong to murder and steal.

Our responsibility does not derive from our ability nor from our inability. It derives from the fact that God made us upright and we, in our representative head Adam, fell and destroyed our very goodness and uprightness. We are responsible to God because He is our Creator and ruler not because He controls us or not.

Man's moral or righteous acts done in the natural state is sin because his motives are not pure and righteous. The very best person you know or can think of does what they do because it serves them in some way. They may do it to make others see them as "good people", or because they love the praise of men and not the praise of God, or because they get a "good feeling" about themselves when they do it. It can all be traced back to self serving in some way.

Now consider that God's control over all His creation is absolute and necessary. If He were not in absolute control He would be capable of being thwarted or would have to respond to whatever happens and that would make Him mutable just like us. He is the Lord who changes not. Moreover what ever God does not control must control Him and whatever that is must be His God. A god who is not in absolute control is a pygmy god of the imaginations of evil men.

Again, how is it that God controls without us being robots? He controls where and when you are born, who you are born to, what influences you have in your life and how you learn to make decisions. He brings people into your life and directs every circumstance you find yourself in in order to shape you into who you are. He is still working in that way with you. Prov. 16:1,4,9,33 are probably the most clear passages that teach this truth.

Yet you still have a will and you do make decisions based on your understanding, motives and heart. You do exactly as you desire to do and exactly as God has determined for you to do. Gen. 50:20 and Acts 2:23 are very clear as to this.

I hope that helps. I am your servant in Christ, twin.

 

[Don Maurer]

My thoughts in red.

As a Calvinist, I've seen the "proof texts" that show God being intimately in control over both the believer and the unbeliever. But I would think that control of every facet of man's belief and actions, right down to the firing of the synapses that cause certain behavior and thoughts, would logically not require a relationship.

A LITTLE DISCOURSE OVER YOUR USE OF THE TERM NEURON
I would agree that God is in control of every neuron, every synapse, and every neurotransmitter in everyones brain. There is not one renegade atom in the universe outside his sovereign control. However, God is not the creator of psychiatric disorders, that is the result of sin. But even sin is not outside Gods control. God at times removes his restraint of sin knowing exactly what will happen (see Roman 1). While sin is not outside Gods control, he does not cause sin in any way.

Its interesting to me that in our current western culture we have psychiatrists who treat psychiatric disorders. Yet, while some schizophrenic person might believe he is Jesus, or the mother of Jesus, such delusions are not only the result of the disease, but also the word view of the person. Many psychiatric patients hear voices, but then interpret the voices according to their own world view.

Of course a person's worldview is shaped by the heart. God chooses to regenerate or reprobate the heart. A reprobate like Pharaoh might complain in Romans 9, "Why did you make me this way." The only answer, God is the potter. What pot can complain to the potter?

I should mention that not always is psychiatry the answer, there are many behavioral specialists in my state. How can a behavioral specialists change behavior if it is all about the neurons and chemistry?

If Philippians 2:13 is taken literally, then it is God who has a relationship with God...and the Arminians are correct in their accusation of Calvinism as God simply interacting with Man as robots.
Php 2:13 for it is God who is working in you, both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

Certainly the work in us is the work of God. How can the one who claims that personal righteousness it is the work of man sees God's grace?



Sproul, in my study Bible, makes mention of free will and the ability to make moral decisions, as opposed to free AGENCY and the ability to make day-to-day decisions. We have free agency. We do not have free will.
Unfortunately, the term "free will" has been defined and redefined way too many times. I always thought Johnny Mac's quip that we the unregenerate have the "free will to choose any path of sin they prefer" was a good quote. The nature of the unregenerate in their original sin or adamic nature s to choose sin, but that does not men that all men choose the same sins. There is an element of free will, or if RC wishes to call it free agency, OK.

However, if I'm not mistaken, Calvin, the WCF, and many Reformed scholars will still assert that God controls His world to synapse-level, "ordering our steps" for both the elect and the reprobate. And at the same time we have a Bible that asserts a relationship with the Father through the Son.
I somehow get the feeling that you view psychiatry as some magical thing of supernatural control of behavior. They have no such power. Yes, the physical plays a part, but the spiritual aspect of our nature goes for deeper than atoms and molecules. God is also in control of the spiritual aspect, the nature of man, the soul.


So would our will, our decisions, our actions, our being...all be an illusion? If so we are not better off philosophically than the atheist's view of things, with synapses providing emotions that have no real purpose, just chemicals lying to us.
That is a very good picture of atheism. In their naturalistic/materialistic worldview, behavior could be the result of nothing more than a chemical interaction. Reformed Theology does not take any such view. We see a great immaterial part to mankind that I briefly mentioned above. I do agree that the atheist could be seen as philosophically mechanical in a behavioral fashion.

I do have a hypothesis, but I end up being a "free-will" Calvinist as a result. In the meantime I'd like to hear some other answers, hopefully better ones than what I've come up with.

Many reformed are monergistic when it comes to faith and justification. On the other hand, many reformed are synergistic when it comes to progressive sanctification.

In any case, the arminian rant of the reformed having a "robot" view of man is a mere ad-hominem. It is usually easier for them to say something like that than actually understand the issue.

 

[Skala]

Hi kj7gs, if God "orders our steps" at the "synapse-level", why do we sin .. ever ..

And on what basis then is the reprobate condemned?

Yours and His,
David

I don't know what "synapse level" means, but I believe God controls and decrees all things, even sin.

Sin has a purpose in His grand plan. Read "Overcoming Sin and Temptation" (the modern re-working of John Owen's famous works on sin) and you will learn that Owen believed God uses sin even for the believer's benefit.

The short of it is: sin results in repentance which results in growth and a stronger relationship with God and trust in Jesus

 

[kj7gs]

I think it was Clark who advocated a "will within a will" for both the elect and the reprobate. The problem for either side is that God's control of synapses and neurons to push one into behavior that is either righteous or sinful, makes God an accomplice in both. For the elect, Arminians would have God pushing non-totally-depraved Man to the point of belief (sovereignty...if you let Him), with the final (known) decision belonging to Man. Man therefore has free will. For the Calvinist, no. God does the saving in its entirety. Arminians pull their punch so that the synapses don't fire at the critical moment of decision, Calvinists give the entire credit to God for salvation. But, if God orders the steps of the elect, there is no reason for a relationship. Just order the steps and you have the equivalent of a Furby I suppose.

On the reprobate side, Arminianism still has God wishing, hoping, scratching at the window, won't you please come to me...with refusal also known, and yet creation happened in spite of that knowledge, which logically leads to double predestination. Calvinism though, seems to have a quandary, God ordering the steps of the reprobate in his providence over His creation, but we have to find a way to NOT make God an accomplice when we gave Him the entire credit for salvation!

Either way, ultimate control and infinite knowledge would align with providence and everyone doing God's will, but no relationship can happen, and God must take ultimate responsibility for causing the sin unless there is some freedom of the will. A perp can rob a bank, but when the weapons and transportation and timing and blueprints and opportunity are given...then the perp must answer "God" when asked, "who sent you?"

I think it's Molinism that gives God "middle knowledge." There is also the "will within a will" view. We can also just throw our hands in the air and say "it's a mystery," but if there's other good theories out there, I'd like to hear them.

 

[Skala]

In any case, the arminian rant of the reformed having a "robot" view of man is a mere ad-hominem. It is usually easier for them to say something like that than actually understand the issue.

I prefer the Apostle Paul's (And thus, the Holy Spirit's) analogy of Pottery, over robotics

The irony is, being a mere pot is much worse than being a robot!

 

[kj7gs]

The way I see it, these are the options:

- A will within a will (Clark)
- Middle knowledge (Molinism)
- Active election with passive and sometimes active reprobation (kind of my own theory)
- No free will but free agency (Sproul)
- God exists outside of time (Lutheran I think)
- And "it's a mystery."

A will within a will makes God at the very least an accomplice.

Middle knowledge is a logical impossibility, God knowing and not knowing at the same time.

Active election that is too active, is control with a perceived relationship that is basically a lie.

No free will but free agency introduces a God who doesn't care about some things even if he knows about them.

God existing outside of time is the science-fiction God that asserts double predestination.

"It's a mystery" does not address the issue.

More thoughts on this? I'm leaning toward free will vs. free agency at the moment.

 

[St_Worm2]

I don't know what "synapse level" means, but I believe God controls and decrees all things, even sin.

Sin has a purpose in His grand plan. Read "Overcoming Sin and Temptation" (the modern re-working of John Owen's famous works on sin) and you will learn that Owen believed God uses sin even for the believer's benefit.

The short of it is: sin results in repentance which results in growth and a stronger relationship with God and trust in Jesus

Hi Skala, I took "synapse level" to mean absolute control, IOW, if we do anything, including sinning, it's because God causes us to.

kj7gs, yes? No?

Thanks!

--David

 

[Skala]

The way I see it, these are the options:

- A will within a will (Clark)
- Middle knowledge (Molinism)
- Active election with passive and sometimes active reprobation (kind of my own theory)
- No free will but free agency (Sproul)
- God exists outside of time (Lutheran I think)
- And "it's a mystery."

A will within a will makes God at the very least an accomplice.

Middle knowledge is a logical impossibility, God knowing and not knowing at the same time.

Active election that is too active, is control with a perceived relationship that is basically a lie.

No free will but free agency introduces a God who doesn't care about some things even if he knows about them.

God existing outside of time is the science-fiction God that asserts double predestination.

"It's a mystery" does not address the issue.

More thoughts on this? I'm leaning toward free will vs. free agency at the moment.

I'm not sure there's a dilemma. Trying to understand how God works (ie, How God is God) is a bit like a 2 dimensional person trying to understand 3 dimensions:

There's a land of 2 dimensional people, let's say they exist on a plane similar to a piece of paper. There is only 2 dimensions, so: width and length, but no height.

A 3 dimensional person comes along and he wants to show the 2 dimensional people a sphere, so that they can understand the 3rd dimension (height). He passes the sphere through the 2 dimensional plane, but the 2 dimensional people, being 2 dimensional, only see a line. No matter how hard they try, they don't see a sphere, they only see a circle.

The moral of this story is, you are a grasshopper, and the infinite God is the infinite God.

Trying to figure out this stuff might tickle your intellect, but it's about like a human trying to explain himself to a grasshopper. No matter what you try, the grasshopper can't understand how your mind works.

It is much easier to simply affirm everything the Bible affirms, and not try to reconcile it. (You already do this with the doctrine of the Trinity and the Hypostatic union).

Does it say God controls everything? Yes
Does it say God has loving relationships with people? Yes
Does it say God holds people accountable for their actions? Yes
Does it say humans make real choices? Yes

The litmus test of truth is not "Can I reconcile this stuff?" (otherwise we'd have to deny the Trinity), but rather "Does the Bible teach it?"

Sorry, I got preachy for a second there

 

[Skala]

Hi Skala, I took "synapse level" to mean absolute control, IOW, if we do anything, including sinning, it's because God causes us to.

kj7gs, yes? No?

Thanks!

--David

The word "cause" is tricky there, which is why I like to refer back to the confessions:

God's Decree
-God has decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things which shall ever come to pass.
- Yet in such a way that God is neither the author of sin nor does He have fellowship with any in the committing of sins, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature , nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

(bold part is important!)

Free Will
God has indued the will of man, by nature, with liberty and the power to choose and to act upon his choice. This free will is neither forced, nor destined by any necessity of nature to do good or evil.

Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but he was unstable, so that he might fall from this condition.

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has completely lost all ability of will to perform any of the spiritual good which accompanies salvation. As a natural man, he is altogether averse to spiritual good, and dead in sin. He is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself for conversion.
When God converts a sinner, and translates him into a state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage to sin, and by grace alone He enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good. But because of his remaining corruptions he does not only (or perfectly) will that which is good, but also wills that which is evil.

The will of man will only be made perfectly and immutably free to will good alone in the state of glory.

 

[kj7gs]

Skala,

Trying to understand how God works (ie, How God is God) is a bit like a 2 dimensional person trying to understand 3 dimensions:
-- "It's a mystery," in other words.

-God has decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things which shall ever come to pass.
- Yet in such a way that God is neither the author of sin
-- Unfortunately these are conflicting statements. If God has decreed all things which shall ever come to pass, then the denial of authorship is an internal contradiction, or at the very least we have a quandary of God getting total credit for election yet no reason for a relationship (the two are inversely proportional), and if God is an accomplice in reprobation, would have to be an accomplice in salvation too, which lends itself to Arminianism. And we can't just say "there's no contradiction" and move on. We must take one of the positions I've mentioned above, or maybe there's something else I haven't thought of.

Where the boundaries lie may well be a matter of mystery, Skala. But if "God doesn't want robots" is a straw man, then we Calvinists should be able to easily say how it's false. Without saying "it's a mystery."

 

[Skala]

Skala,

Trying to understand how God works (ie, How God is God) is a bit like a 2 dimensional person trying to understand 3 dimensions:
-- "It's a mystery," in other words.

Aren't the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union mysteries too? Yet you have no problem affirming them.

-God has decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things which shall ever come to pass.
- Yet in such a way that God is neither the author of sin

-- Unfortunately these are conflicting statements. If God has decreed all things which shall ever come to pass, then the denial of authorship is an internal contradiction, or at the very least we have a quandary of God getting total credit for election yet no reason for a relationship (the two are inversely proportional), and if God is an accomplice in reprobation, would have to be an accomplice in salvation too, which lends itself to Arminianism. And we can't just say "there's no contradiction" and move on. We must take one of the positions I've mentioned above, or maybe there's something else I haven't thought of.

I guess you'd have to define "author of sin" first, before you can say that.

Where the boundaries lie may well be a matter of mystery, Skala. But if "God doesn't want robots" is a straw man, then we Calvinists should be able to easily say how it's false. Without saying "it's a mystery."

I'm not a robot. I'm worse - a piece of clay.

It's false because robots do as they are programmed to do. They never make an actual free, willing choice.

God may decree a sin, but the person who commits the sin does so freely and willingly. Ie he sinned because he wanted to. A robot never 'wants' to do anything. A robot doesn't have a corrupt heart and is thus not inclined towards (and thus held accountable for) evil.

You aren't satisfied with the mystery (even though the Trinity and Hypostatic union are mysteries, too), but please at least affirm that the Bible teaches these things:

In Acts 4:27-28 we hear that wicked men (note: they are wicked) murdered Christ. But we are also told that they were simply doing whatever God's hand had predestined to occur.

So there are two truths here: 1) God decreed sin to happen, and 2) the men willingly carried out that sin.

In Isaiah 10 we are told that God sent Assyria to attack Israel, as punishment for Israel.

There are two truths here: 1) God decreed that Assyria attacked Israel, but also 2) Assyria willingly went and attacked and plundered Israel

In fact, that same passage tells us that Assyria had no clue they were being used by God! They thought they did it of their own accord, and thus God punished them for their pride.

So in other words, you could argue that God punished Assyria for not affirming the concept of compatibilism.

In Genesis we read that Joseph's brothers sinned against him and sold him. But we have Joseph's own admission that it was God's plan all along, so he could go to Egypt and rise the ranks and save many lives.

But there's two truths in this story: 1) God decreed that Josephs' brothers sinfully sold their own brother into slavery 2) The brothers were literally and actually selfish, evil, jealous, and sinful, and they made very real, free, willing choices to do what they did to Joseph.

So you might not be satisfied with the mystery of it all, but will you join me in affirming that these two (seemingly irreconcilable) truths are implied and taught in the Bible?

 

[kj7gs]

Aren't the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union mysteries too? Yet you have no problem affirming them.

-- But "I don't know" is rather weak when I've offered several other "theories" on this. We can throw our hands in the air after a thorough discussion, yes?

I guess you'd have to define "author of sin" first, before you can say that.

-- Responsible for, guilty of, I suppose. Is that how you would define it?

I'm not a robot. I'm worse - a piece of clay.

It's false because robots do as they are programmed to do. They never make an actual free, willing choice.

-- Calvinism asserts that we do not have free will. We are looking at sovereignty and just how far that sovereignty goes as opposed to a relationship with the Elect, and concomitance with the reprobate.

God may decree a sin, but the person who commits the sin does so freely and willingly. Ie he sinned because he wanted to. A robot never 'wants' to do anything. A robot doesn't have a corrupt heart and is thus not inclined towards (and thus held accountable for) evil.

-- But God is sovereign and not only knows, but decrees and governs reprobation, does He not? Robots. Or else God is not fully in control of His creation.

You aren't satisfied with the mystery (even though the Trinity and Hypostatic union are mysteries, too), but please at least affirm that the Bible teaches these things:

-- The Bible does assert both, Skala. Is it really a mystery, or are there other, better answers available? Clark, Molin, Aquinas, Sproul, et. al all have their own positions on this. But is that all there is?

In Acts 4:27-28 we hear that wicked men (note: they are wicked) murdered Christ. But we are also told that they were simply doing whatever God's hand had predestined to occur.

So there are two truths here: 1) God decreed sin to happen, and 2) the men willingly carried out that sin.

-- Right, and God is an accomplice here, giving the order, totally sovereign in the reprobate heart and actions, but not to be blamed, yet God is more than an accomplice for the Elect, and retains full responsibility and credit for salvation. Can you see how easy it is for the Arminian to take this ball and run with it?

In Isaiah 10 we are told that God sent Assyria to attack Israel, as punishment for Israel.

There are two truths here: 1) God decreed that Assyria attacked Israel, but also 2) Assyria willingly went and attacked and plundered Israel

-- Same thing, God as the accomplice, causing the attack, yet no responsibility. So far I think Sproul's account of free will vs. free agency works, as well as passive vs. active reprobation/election.

In fact, that same passage tells us that Assyria had no clue they were being used by God! They thought they did it of their own accord, and thus God punished them for their pride.

-- Aha! Deception by God! And not only deception, punishment when God himself set the whole thing up and implemented it!

So in other words, you could argue that God punished Assyria for not affirming the concept of compatibilism.

-- This most definitely fits the potter/clay model, but are the reprobate "robot sinners," or do they have free agency with God not caring at all?

In Genesis we read that Joseph's brothers sinned against him and sold him. But we have Joseph's own admission that it was God's plan all along, so he could go to Egypt and rise the ranks and save many lives.

But there's two truths in this story: 1) God decreed that Josephs' brothers sinfully sold their own brother into slavery 2) The brothers were literally and actually selfish, evil, jealous, and sinful, and they made very real, free, willing choices to do what they did to Joseph.

So you might not be satisfied with the mystery of it all, but will you join me in affirming that these two (seemingly irreconcilable) truths are implied and taught in the Bible?

-- Skala, asserting "seemingly irreconcilable" truths" and then saying "I don't know" when called to task on them, allow the atheist to laugh at Christianity's lack of logic, and the Arminian to scorn Calvinism as a theology for fools. That's why I'm pressing this issue as hard as I am. We should have a ready answer when faced with questions like this, no?

This weekend I'll be visiting a PRCA church and hopefully taking some time with the minister or other representative to discuss this. Hopefully they will be open-minded enough to address the issue, and I'll post back here if they give me any additional insight.

 

[StephanieSomer]

As a Calvinist, I've seen the "proof texts" that show God being intimately in control over both the believer and the unbeliever. But I would think that control of every facet of man's belief and actions, right down to the firing of the synapses that cause certain behavior and thoughts, would logically not require a relationship. If Philippians 2:13 is taken literally, then it is God who has a relationship with God...and the Arminians are correct in their accusation of Calvinism as God simply interacting with Man as robots.

Sproul, in my study Bible, makes mention of free will and the ability to make moral decisions, as opposed to free AGENCY and the ability to make day-to-day decisions. We have free agency. We do not have free will.

However, if I'm not mistaken, Calvin, the WCF, and many Reformed scholars will still assert that God controls His world to synapse-level, "ordering our steps" for both the elect and the reprobate. And at the same time we have a Bible that asserts a relationship with the Father through the Son.

So would our will, our decisions, our actions, our being...all be an illusion? If so we are not better off philosophically than the atheist's view of things, with synapses providing emotions that have no real purpose, just chemicals lying to us.

I do have a hypothesis, but I end up being a "free-will" Calvinist as a result. In the meantime I'd like to hear some other answers, hopefully better ones than what I've come up with.

The problem with arguments of Arminian vs Calvin is the insistence that only one or the other is correct. It is assumed that they are mutually exclusive and that only one can be correct. Well, 1 does NOT equal 3. Yet, we DO believe that God is one, and yet three. Does it make sense? No. But, it IS truth from Scripture.

Making the assumption that God's ways are ALWAYS understandable to us is actually quite arrogant, if you think about it. It would be dishonest of anyone to fail to admit that each position does have potentially convincing Scriptures in it's support. And, we know that God's Word can NEVER contradict itself. Any theological system that fails to incorporate ALL Scriptures concerning a specific issue can NOT be held as completely accurate.

So, I have come to the position that BOTH have merit. I confess freely that I cannot fully make sense of that. But, much of God's ways don't make sense. Nor should they. His ways are far above our ways.

So, I fully subscribe to the complete sovereignty of God. I also fully admit to free will. If we think too hard on that apparent discord, we end up cutting out parts of the Truth in order to find our own mental peace. I'm not sure that that is a good idea.

 

[twin1954]

God's "relationship" with His elect is one of intimate union and love. He does all things for their sakes and has ordained everything for the glory of His great name and the good of His people.

His relationship with the reprobate is one of use. He has ordained all that they do in order to ensure that His elect will be blessed by it.

The simple fact is that if He doesn't control all things, even the synapsis and thoughts of men then He is controlled by what He doesn't control. If His sovereignty doesn't extend to every atom and chemical reaction then He can't really be trusted. If that were true then something may happen that is beyond His control and He would have to react to it. That would mean that He must learn and change which means He is mutable.

Yet in all this truth we find that He has made man with a will. I honestly have no problem if I am a robot of His. But that just isn't the truth. I do exactly as I desire and exercise my will all the while doing exactly as God has ordained.

It isn't a mystery, nor a will within a will. It is a matter of God making my want to conform to His purpose so that we are not puppets on a string nor robots who have no will but moral creatures whom God has made in His image with a will which He is in charge of.

 

[kj7gs]

StephanieSomer...twin1954...show me how control is not inversely proportional to a relationship. Show me how total responsibility for election would not by the same logic apply to total responsibility for reprobation.

I have seen no other theories advanced than what I have noted above. Skala and StephanieSomer assert that "it's a mystery" is a viable answer. Twin1954 denies that it's a mystery, denies will within a will, yet asserts both sovereignty and man's will at the same time without an explanation.

I'm not trying to foment anger here. I'm just seeing a huge gap between where God's sovereignty is claimed to be at synapse-level, total control for both the elect and reprobate, and where total responsibility in man is claimed despite that level of control. StephanieSomer, you CANNOT say that it is arrogant to want to understand God's ways. Theology is the stuff of councils and catechisms and synods and creeds and confessions and books and articles and white papers throughout the history of the church, that defines who we are as Christians today. It's the reason we are here on this forum.

 

[Skala]

Skala, asserting "seemingly irreconcilable" truths" and then saying "I don't know" when called to task on them, allow the atheist to laugh at Christianity's lack of logic, and the Arminian to scorn Calvinism as a theology for fools. That's why I'm pressing this issue as hard as I am. We should have a ready answer when faced with questions like this, no?

Deut 29:29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Only the things that are revealed to us belong to us.

If it's not revealed to us, it doesn't belong to us - it belongs to the Lord.

So, is the reconciliation between God's sovereignty and man's accountability revealed to us?

It might not be.

But the truth of them are revealed to us (ie, the fact that both exist simultaneous)

If you find (In the Bible) a satisfactory answer, by all means share it But if something is not revealed to us, that means it doesn't belong to us, it belongs to the Lord, and to try to make it belong to us is nothing short of stealing what isn't ours.