Are we really just robots?

[Reformed]

Exchange the word "robot" for "slave" and I have no problem with it. But the robot trope is insulting, robots are not human, have no will, no emotions, etc. It is difficult to perceive a Calvinist giving into the insults to accept the robot trope and claim it as their own. At best, the robot trope is a "bad analogy", but it is used to insult, and mock.

I know it is a bad analogy, but I am just using it as a trampoline to make the point that the alternative is not the so called "free will," but an even worse slavery, and that even if God had wanted us to be robots, his will would have been sufficient reason and justification for it.

So that is the defining characteristic of whether one is a Calvinist or not eh? It all boils down to whether one embraces an all active will of God. No sir, that is not a key distinctive of Calvinism. I would be willing to bet, that there is a long theological history of Calvinists who embraced a permissive aspect in the will of God.

Job 1:6-12 must be ripped out of your Bible, along with many other passages of Scripture like Genesis 50:20, Luke 8:32. Which Bible do you read?

Well, yes, these are anthropomorphic tropes that God uses in order to make us understand his sovereignty without overheating our brains, but I am not sure that they can be used to contradict all the other verses that teach an absolute sovereignty of God.

Charitable Calvinists accept differences between other Calvinists, and have love for all brothers and sisters in Christ, even those Christians outside of the Calvinist "camp".

I am very charitable when I am talking face to face with a brother in Christ, even with one who is not a Calvinist, to such a point that irks my Calvinist friends, but this is a debate forum, and this kind of give-and-take is expected.

There is no such thing as a "4 point Calvinist", one is either a "5 pointer" or not a Calvinist. I am not a fan of the "moderate" label, folks like Norman Geisler have claimed to be moderate Calvinists, but he is no such thing, no matter the sympathies he may have for the Reformed faith. What exactly makes a Calvinist "moderate" anyway?

Interesting that you mention Norman Geisler: his writings show him as probably one of the most anti-Calvinist apologists that exist!

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

By post #58's standard, John Calvin was no Calvinist either. Why do I say that? In the words of Rev. Calvin in response to Pighius in the work titled "Bondage and Liberation of the Will" (pg. 197, 198-199) and in response to the following verse...

"As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?" Ezekiel 33:11

"But what necessity constrains him [Pighius, Calvin's Roman Catholic opponent] to make the dispensation of grace equal [for all]? It is on the pretext that God declares that he does not will the death of one who dies, but that he should return and live. But if we interpret this according to [Pighius's] view, then why does he die whom God wills not to die? For it is written: But God is in heaven, he has done whatever he willed (Ps 115:3). Here certainly is the Gordian Knot, if you take that saying of Ezekiel, that God does not will the death of him who dies, to refer to his secret plan. For that reason it must be understood in the way that Augustine also explained it in many places: God leaves nothing undone which would lead to people being led back into the way of salvation if only they were in a healthy condition. As for the fact that they do not return when they are called, it is only the disease of their own wickedness which stands in their way. So God wills [preceptively] that the dying should should live (so far as it is right for us to judge his will) in that he helps man by all [kinds of] support, lest he should be able to complain that anything other than his own guilt stood in his way. But meanwhile God's secret plan, by which he passes over one and chooses another, remains his own, and one should not inquire too curiously into it if one does not want to be overwhelmed by [God's] glory. If Pighius grasped this, he would not hold so tenaciously to that false axiom about the equal distribution of grace..."

Source: http://www.monergism.com/god-does-not-take-pleasure-death-one-who-dies

 

[Reformed]

You need to define what you mean by Calvinist. Are you talking about being a full fledged follower of Calvin or just the doctrines of grace? If you are a Baptist can you be a Calvinist? See why I am asking? Calvinist has become a very broad umbrella that covers quite a bit of theological views.

Or are you just talking about being an ultra high Calvinist?

Of course a Baptist can be a Calvinist! I am not excluding Baptists. I learned a lot from Baptists. Actually, I know quite a few Baptists that hold a higher view of Calvinism than my own fellow members in the Reformed Church. And yes, I am talking mainly of the doctrines of grace and the sovereignty of God.

 

[twin1954]

Of course a Baptist can be a Calvinist! I am not excluding Baptists. I learned a lot from Baptists. Actually, I know quite a few Baptists that hold a higher view of Calvinism than my own fellow members in the Reformed Church. And yes, I am talking mainly of the doctrines of grace and the sovereignty of God.

I wasn't disagreeing with you I was only asking for clarification. I am an ultra-high Calvinist who is a Baptist. While I would have no problem with being God's robot it simply isn't the fact. We do have wills and we do what our wills influence us to do all the while doing exactly as God has determined for us.

 

[Marvin Knox]

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.

I rather like being the creation and letting God be the creator. That's just the nature of things.

It isn't really like being a "robot" IMO. It's a little more like being like Jesus.

The eternal Word of God has always done and always will do only what His Father is doing.

At the same time He has been and always will be an individual person of worth.

That was true in eternity past, will be in eternity future, and (most applicable to this discussion IMO) was during His time in the flesh on earth.

He made choices of His own free will.

At the same time He only did what the Father was doing.

It didn't bother Him one bit. In fact He positively reveled in it - as do I.

Granted - - these things are really a little beyond us to understand fully. But I think that something along those lines will help us to get past the "robot" concept. At least they do for me.

 

[AMR]

God cooperates with all His creatures and causes them to act precisely as they do. There are real secondary causes in the world, such as the powers of nature and the will of man, and these do not work independently of God. God works in every act of His creatures, not only in their good but also in their evil acts. He stimulates them to action, accompanies their action at every moment, and makes this action effective. However, we should never think of God and man as equal causes; the former is the primary, and the latter only a secondary cause. Neither should we conceive of them as each doing a part of the work like a team of horses. The same deed is in its entirety both a deed of God and a deed of man. Moreover, we should guard against the idea that this cooperation makes God responsible for man's sinful deeds. This doctrine is based on Scripture, e.g., Deut. 8:18; Ps. 104:20, 21, 30; Amos 3:6; Matt. 6:45; 10:29; Acts 14:17; Phil. 2:13.

Just as the architect of a building, who devises the plans, and then employs the workmen to construct the building, we can see that these workmen are not forced or compelled. Yes, they are induced by money, benefits, etc., but the workmen work freely and happily carrying out the detailed plans of the architect. Thus the architect is the primary cause or will, while the workmen are the secondary cause or will. To a much greater degree God directs, induces, permits, etc., all our actions as the first cause. God wills righteously those things which men choose to do wickedly. We act according to our free agency as the second cause.

That the bad acts of moral agents can somehow be linked back to God is no more plausible than the limp arising from a deformity of our legs can be linked back to the power to move our legs, even though no limping would exist without that power.

 

[tulipbee]

My favorite scene in Bruce Lee's "Enter the Dragon" movie is the boat scene. A karate bully was aggravating others on the boat about thier style of martial art. This bully approached Bruce Lee asking him what his style was. He said, 'fighting without fighting'. This reminds me that we could tell the semi pelagians arminian boasters that we're robots without being robots. To save the hassle of typing proof texts, we ought to tell them to get on the boat and hand them over to the calvinist children.

 

[Patmos]

My favorite scene in Bruce Lee's "Enter the Dragon" movie is the boat scene. A karate bully was aggravating others on the boat about thier style of martial art. This bully approached Bruce Lee asking him what his style was. He said, 'fighting without fighting'. This reminds me that we could tell the semi pelagians arminian boasters that we're robots without being robots. To save the hassle of typing proof texts, we ought to tell them to get on the boat and hand them over to the calvinist children.

Maybe you could explain your robot theories ? If it is not too much hassle!

 

[Don Maurer]

Tulipbee

I am a black belt in Ju Jitsu. I love Ju Jitsu as it is totally defensive. NOT offensive. If some one throws a punch at me I wait until it is 8/10th in my face before I take the offender down. There is no punching or kicking in Ju Jitsu as the opponent hitting the deck is most effective. Maybe Google Bruce Lee, Wally Jay and Ju jitsu. It would be an education for you.

i am also an Arminian so it rankles me doubly when you miss apply Bruce Lee and also call me a boaster.
You are very offensive in what you post.

Maybe you could explain your robot theories ? If it is not too much hassle!

I do not see that anyone needs to explain anything. This is an internal discussion among reformed people and not a thread for debate where outsiders can come in and demand explaination.

 

[HollyTranquil]

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!

there is a song and it goes " you are the potter and I am the clay, mold and make me this I pray" what I find interesting is what goes into the pot, it could be human secretion, it could be a plant, or the pot could store liquid or whatever you decide to put in it. either way as a pot you are a lifeless POS that if knocked around will crack and crumble and whatever fills your mind up is just info for you to spew back out. I want to be a human, not a pot, not a sheep, and definitely not a robot or a puppet of someone else regardless of who they are or what station they hold in the realm

 

[twin1954]

there is a song and it goes " you are the potter and I am the clay, mold and make me this I pray" what I find interesting is what goes into the pot, it could be human secretion, it could be a plant, or the pot could store liquid or whatever you decide to put in it. either way as a pot you are a lifeless POS that if knocked around will crack and crumble and whatever fills your mind up is just info for you to spew back out. I want to be a human, not a pot, not a sheep, and definitely not a robot or a puppet of someone else regardless of who they are or what station they hold in the realm

And there is the whole subject of the sovereignty of God explained. We don't want to be subject to anyone, especially God. We want to have our own way and control of our own destinies. That is what free will is all about.

 

[ScottA]

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.

Most people born into time, consider time to be something it is not.

History, is His story. Thus, time is rather a form of media...and not a chronology of events, but rather the story of those things which happened by decree in the twinkling of an eye.

The difficulty for us is, we have yet to hear the end of the story...our consciousness yet exists within the pages of a [timeless] tale.

Just as God "is" the "I am"...we "are" what we "are", but have not arrived at ourselves as yet. When we do, we will see Him as He is, for we shall be like Him.

 

[Patmos]

I do not see that anyone needs to explain anything. This is an internal discussion among reformed people and not a thread for debate where outsiders can come in and demand explaination.

Beg your pardon. I thought this was 'Ask a Calvinist' sub forum.

 

[AMR]

Beg your pardon. I thought this was 'Ask a Calvinist' sub forum.

Ask a Calvinist is just that: Ask.

Availing oneself of the invitation to ask does not imply one now has the warrant to cavil about the answer, nor engage in argumentation that implies the one so answering is in need of repentance for presumed "non-Biblical" responses.

If you want to debate a Calvinist, there is this: http://www.christianforums.com/forums/debate-with-a-calvinist.789/

 

[Patmos]

Ask a Calvinist is just that: Ask.

Availing oneself of the invitation to ask does not imply one now has the warrant to cavil about the answer, nor engage in argumentation that implies the one so answering is in need of repentance for presumed "non-Biblical" responses.

Yes, thats right. Which is why I assumed no warrant or implication.

If you want to debate a Calvinist, there is this: http://www.christianforums.com/forums/debate-with-a-calvinist.789/

Thanks