Determinism

[larryjf]

Determinism is a perversion of God's sovereignty.
Determinism teaches that all things happen based on impersonal forces. Scripture teaches they happen because of a personal God and His foreordained plan.

 

[bradfordl]

Determinism is a perversion of God's sovereignty.
Determinism teaches that all things happen based on impersonal forces. Scripture teaches they happen because of a personal God and His foreordained plan.

But the following was the definition of determinism that the OP was addressing:

that God's sovereignty determines all things.

Would you say this is not true?

 

[larryjf]

But the following was the definition of determinism that the OP was addressing:
Would you say this is not true?

First, the OP did not define determinism, it simply said...

What is your views on determinism in conjunction with a sovereign God? Is it just for salvation, or does it go to other aspects of life? Can you argue for determinism?

So it actually sets it up as something to take in conjunction with God's sovereignty.

Webster's defines it as:
a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws

 

[bradfordl]

Yes, Larry, but in the following posts I asked the poster what he was meaning by determinism, and that was the definition he gave. I addressed that definition in my replies.

Do you believe that definition, that God's sovereignty determines all things, to be a perversion of God's sovereignty?

 

[larryjf]

Yes, Larry, but in the following posts I asked the poster what he was meaning by determinism, and that was the definition he gave. I addressed that definition in my replies.

Do you believe that definition, that God's sovereignty determines all things, to be a perversion of God's sovereignty?

Got ya.
No, that wouldn't be a perversion. But i still question if it's accurate.

God's sovereignty gives Him power over all things, but it doesn't determine all things. For instance, I have power over my son...but that doesn't mean that i determine those things that i have power over.

I would think that it's God's decree that determines all things, while His sovereignty gives Him power to see His decree through.

 

[bradfordl]

Got ya.
No, that wouldn't be a perversion. But i still question if it's accurate.

God's sovereignty gives Him power over all things, but it doesn't determine all things. For instance, I have power over my son...but that doesn't mean that i determine those things that i have power over.

I would think that it's God's decree that determines all things, while His sovereignty gives Him power to see His decree through.

I would agree with that, brother.

And all to His glory!

 

[heymikey80]

What if God determined that I have free will to make moral choices?

The problem, as Calvin puts it, is a fusion (and thus confusion) of voluntary action and freedom.

In this way, then, man is said to have free will, not because he has a free choice of good and evil, but because he acts voluntarily, and not by compulsion. This is perfectly true: but why should so small a matter have been dignified with so proud a title? An admirable freedom! that man is not forced to be the servant of sin, while he is, however, "ethelodoulos", (a voluntary slave his will being bound by the fetters of sin. I abominate mere verbal disputes, by which the Church is harassed to no purpose; but I think we ought religiously to eschew terms which imply some absurdity, especially in subjects where error is of pernicious consequence. How few are there who, when they hear free will attributed to man, do not immediately imagine that he is the master of his mind and will in such a sense, that he can of himself incline himself either to good or evil? It may be said that such dangers are removed by carefully expounding the meaning to the people. But such is the proneness of the human mind to go astray, that it will more quickly draw error from one little word, than truth from a lengthened discourse. Of this, the very term in question furnishes too strong a proof. For the explanation given by ancient Christian writers having been lost sight of, almost all who have come after them, by attending only to the etymology of the term, have been led to indulge a fatal confidence.

Institutes, 2.2.7 -- John Calvin
​

In short: your will ... wills. It chooses. It does not choose without controls. It is not uncontrolled. Therefore it's not free.

Determinism comes to this same conclusion. Some have attempted a non-deterministic Calvinism. I can't say much about it, because I'm a determinist, and some of it baffles me. God creates. God is omniscient. Can God create an independent, autonomic power outside of Himself? I really don't think so. And I don't think God has said He's done so. Got a Scripture that says so?

 

[Hammster]

Then I ask you...should I hold to determinism?

 

[heymikey80]

Then I ask you...should I hold to determinism?

I'd say you should use the information at your disposal to help you decide whether God is deterministic. I've found determinism hard to refute.

But there's a basic problem in human linguistics. Words don't hold a single meaning. If your primary meaning in a word is not stripped down to the denotation, then you'll probably have mixed feelings about it based on the connotation that the word holds for you.

Grab hold of the connotation and see if it's truly valid. Discuss it, open it up, plow through it, learn why it's occurring.

That journey has sent me -- a determinist -- into more insights about the Personhood of God than any textbook ever could. You, coming from non-determinism who may be starting with a better recognition of God as Personal but I would guess not so much his omnipotence, may discover the amount of Personal intensity with which He works in the universe, applying His power towards His Personal sensibility.

There are struggles over the evil we see, and the God who is the first cause of everything. But if we see God as Personally involved in everything, many aspects of our thinking changes. I for instance see saw with growing certainty that God will not leave these evils alone or ignored or unjudged, based on Who God Is. It was actually as much a shock to me as anyone else that I found the Final Judgment not simply Biblically predicted, but a reasonable conclusion.

So ... things happen when you pursue things that might be true, and think through even what might make you skeptical. So I would say, Look at it. I don't consider it an absolute necessity to be a determinist. I just find it very convincing.

 

[heymikey80]

Determinism is a perversion of God's sovereignty.
Determinism teaches that all things happen based on impersonal forces. Scripture teaches they happen because of a personal God and His foreordained plan.

Um, actually determinism doesn't teach this. Materialistic determinism -- modern science-fatalism and communism -- teach this.

Determinism did not actually come from this direction. Spinoza for instance is a spiritual determinist. Some of the Stoics were considered spiritual determinists. And of course, Augustine and Calvin and Luther.

 

[Hammster]

I know this will sound like I am being argumentative, but I just want to clear things up. Let's say that I think that you have a reasonable argument and say, Hey Mikey has it right, and change my mind. Did I do that in a determined way, or not? Or let's say that I don't change my mind, and that is, from your view, determined. What does that say about God that He has given two people ideas that are contradictory?

And I guess there is one more thing, and let me preface it with a statement. One thing that I do appreciate about Calvinist is your absolute fervency in which you defend God's sovereignty. That is awesome. And on that point I whole-heartedly agree (contrary to what you may think). The question is why do you think that God's omniscience is contrary to man's God given ability to make a choice to do, or not do, something, especially when God gives us instructions to which we can decide to follow, or not follow? Thanks for your time.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I know this will sound like I am being argumentative, but I just want to clear things up. Let's say that I think that you have a reasonable argument and say, Hey Mikey has it right, and change my mind. Did I do that in a determined way, or not? Or let's say that I don't change my mind, and that is, from your view, determined. What does that say about God that He has given two people ideas that are contradictory?

That means that those who have proper knowledge of God is done so because of his grace not our wisdom.

And I guess there is one more thing, and let me preface it with a statement. One thing that I do appreciate about Calvinist is your absolute fervency in which you defend God's sovereignty. That is awesome. And on that point I whole-heartedly agree (contrary to what you may think). The question is why do you think that God's omniscience is contrary to man's God given ability to make a choice to do, or not do, something, especially when God gives us instructions to which we can decide to follow, or not follow? Thanks for your time.

You cannot consistantly say that man has absoute free will and that God is soverign. Either God is soverign and controls every aspect of the universe or man has free will and defies God's soverignty. I cannot logically accept that God is omincient if there is a variable such as Mans free will that is out of his control. I don't see how its logically possible. And even if it was, how can God manipulate the outcome if he only knows what the outcome will be?

 

[Hammster]

let's not talk about salvation at this moment so not to get off track.

God's omiscience means that He know everything, including the decisions we will make. And also, because He transcends time, in His economy all things have already happened. Thus, they are predestined because they cannot change, otherwise God cannot be omniscient.

I have never said that man has absolute free will. That would make us God. We have freedom to make moral decisions , to either do or not do.

You say that you don't know how God can manipulate the outcome if we have free will. Well, I don't know how He created out of nothing, but He did.

But let's look at the opposite and say that God controls every aspect of the universe in the way you say. What, then, is the basis for rewards and punishment? Why be rewarded or punished for something you have no controll over?

 

[ReformedChapin]

let's not talk about salvation at this moment so not to get off track.

I wasn't planning to.

God's omiscience means that He know everything, including the decisions we will make. And also, because He transcends time, in His economy all things have already happened. Thus, they are predestined because they cannot change, otherwise God cannot be omniscient.

Again, if everything is defined, how does a believer have any free will? The choices that he makes, are made already, he cannot make another choice.

I have never said that man has absolute free will. That would make us God. We have freedom to make moral decisions , to either do or not do.

How much freedom? And this contradicts your above statement. Their choices are made already for them they cannot make any other choice which God defined for them in the future.

You say that you don't know how God can manipulate the outcome if we have free will. Well, I don't know how He created out of nothing, but He did.

Creation ex nihilo or out of nothing can be explained with the fact that matter is created by God. I don't see the problem with that as with the contradictions which free will and God's soverignty bring with semi-palegian theology which most evagelical circles now promote.

But let's look at the opposite and say that God controls every aspect of the universe in the way you say. What, then, is the basis for rewards and punishment? Why be rewarded or punished for something you have no controll over?

Our rewards are based on GRACE not on Works! Everything that God provides isn't because we earn it, we cannot. The Gospel makes that more than clear.

Finally there isn't a single verse in scripture which advocates free will or any concept remote to free will. Scripture totally declares that we are enslaved by our sin, that there is a veil in our eyes until we are regenerated by God.

 

[bradfordl]

Hammster, you are struggling with the age old problem of man's responsibility in light of God's sovereignty. I would make no pretense that it is an easy thing to understand, but I believe it is understandable. Paul answered the exact question you are wrestling with in Romans 9; "Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?". You are perhaps not satisfied with the answer given:

Rom 9:20-24 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? (22) What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: (23) And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, (24) Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

The self-importance that is common to man finds this absurd. That he is only a clay figurine formed for the express purpose of glorifying God, only one among many billions, is loathesome to him, and yet even that is a thing determined of God. Even man's rejection of God's sovereignty will redound to His glory.

Now you may have the idea that this makes us puppets without real culpability for our actions, but you know this is not true. You have never committed a sin that you were not perfectly willing to commit. The confusion arises when men want to lift themselves to a higher estate than that to which they belong and view events from God's perspective, which is impossible. Many assume that since Adam was created in God's image, it must then follow that men ought to be equal, or near equal, with God. But this is not so. We are dust and water, mere figures of clay, created to glorify God, period. Anything beyond that is entirely a product of God's mercy.

God in His limitless wisdom has ordained that men would sin. He has also ordained that when they sin, they would do so completely willingly, and would therefore be culpable for that sin. And His creatures, His clay figurines, have no business (as Paul says) replying against Him for that. He finds fault because you are at fault, period, and He owes you no explanation for that.

Do you understand?

 

[Hammster]

What I understand is that I keep getting politician answers...ignore the question so they can get to the talking points.

Concerning rewards, I agree it is by grace, but God has set guidelines. 1 Corinthians 3:10-14 is a good example.

I guess what bothers me is either the blindness, willing or unwilling, of those who say that God cannot be sovereign if He gives us freedom to choose to do something or not to do something. It is all over Scripture. The only way I can see a problem with it is if some hold to an Open Theism view., to where God has to control everything to get it to come out right.

God is sovereign. I can't save myself. Never claimed to be able to. But I did have the freedom to write this or not write this.

 

[bradfordl]

What I understand is that I keep getting politician answers...ignore the question so they can get to the talking points.

What politician answer could you possibly be referring to? I don't believe I ignored the question at all, it refers to the giving of rewards and punishment, which necessarily is bound up in the perceived tension between God's sovereignty and man's culpability. You said, "Why be rewarded or punished for something you have no controll over?". This is an equivalent to the question "Why does He yet find fault?". I gave you the biblical answer to that question. Why does that irritate you to the point of insult?

I guess what bothers me is either the blindness, willing or unwilling, of those who say that God cannot be sovereign if He gives us freedom to choose to do something or not to do something. It is all over Scripture. The only way I can see a problem with it is if some hold to an Open Theism view., to where God has to control everything to get it to come out right.

There is no blindness involved, neighbor. Everyone here has stated that we all have complete freedom to choose anything we so desire. The distinctions we make is that while we make those choices of our own volition in the course of time, all of them were ordained by God before time was; and that the desire of all men is to choose against God unless and until God works a change in those desires.

God is sovereign. I can't save myself. Never claimed to be able to. But I did have the freedom to write this or not write this.

Yes you did. And you freely chose to write it, and God ordained before time that you would freely choose to do so. Why is that difficult for you?

 

[Hammster]

I apologize for my earlier grumpiness. My response was directed towards newguy, but it is hard to do quotes on this cellphone.

Actually, your last response lined up with what I said earlier. Since God already knows what will happen, even the free choices we make, then in His economy they have already happened. And if God knows what will happen, then it is predestined to happen, otherwise God isn't omniscient.

And I do agree that unless God acts, we cannot be saved, because none search after God. And if He acts, and we either freely accept Him, or freely reject Him, God knows that, too. Then we come back to the fact that if He knows something will or will not happen, then it is predestined to happen from His view, because of His omniscience.

 

[bradfordl]

I apologize for my earlier grumpiness. My response was directed towards newguy, but it is hard to do quotes on this cellphone.

Actually, your last response lined up with what I said earlier. Since God already knows what will happen, even the free choices we make, then in His economy they have already happened. And if God knows what will happen, then it is predestined to happen, otherwise God isn't omniscient.

And I do agree that unless God acts, we cannot be saved, because none search after God. And if He acts, and we either freely accept Him, or freely reject Him, God knows that, too. Then we come back to the fact that if He knows something will or will not happen, then it is predestined to happen from His view, because of His omniscience.

Sounds like you already understand this, Hamms. I'm beginning to think that the reason it sounds so outlandish to Americans in particular, is that it is one piece of the whole pie that stands out in stark contrast to our national psyche of admiring bootstrap independence. It's not the whole pie, but I suppose that it does in some way flavor all of theology. We tend to see it as detracting from other attributes of the gospel that we hold dear.

Missions is one; the motivation for missions is many times one of, "If we don't, they might be lost because of our failure!". Now that's commendable, but not accurate. None of God's people will be lost, for as you said, His omniscience would not allow that. We are culpable for not engaging in missions because Christ commanded us to do so, not because doing or not doing would change an outcome.

Another is the problem of a decision, which is much engrained in our culture. A decision is always made in the mind of a Christian to follow his Shepherd, because He told us we would know His voice, and He made us to know it. But we see the decision, or free-will choice, on our part to be the determining factor above all others, and it is not. It is the byproduct of an act of God upon the heart.

Yet another is the pursuit of holiness. The kneejerk response is, "That would mean you could do anything you want, and still be saved.", which on some level is true, but the emphasis should be on the "anything you want" part. Jesus has not left us as orphans. Changing what "we want" is a major part of what He does in redeeming and gathering to Himself His sheep. I would guess that many arminian Christians pursue holiness not because the think if they didn't they'd lose their salvation or are gaining rewards, but rather because they love their Redeemer, just as calvinist Christians do. The threats and thunderings of Mt Sinai are not needed anymore, and have faded away in the shadow of this place:

Heb 12:22-24 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, (23) To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, (24) And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Our consciousnesses exist in linear time. Knowing that God has determined all things does not absolve us of the responsibility to make right choices. That is the keeping of His commandments that Jesus said we'd do if we loved Him. Not because we were afraid of Him. That knowledge should rather give us comfort, not excuse, because we know that He is working all things together for our good.

 

[heymikey80]

I know this will sound like I am being argumentative, but I just want to clear things up. Let's say that I think that you have a reasonable argument and say, Hey Mikey has it right, and change my mind. Did I do that in a determined way, or not? Or let's say that I don't change my mind, and that is, from your view, determined. What does that say about God that He has given two people ideas that are contradictory?

It says that God can be gracious over error. It says that God is allowed to create things that aren't as comprehensive as He is. It says that God is God, and His creatures are not.

And I guess there is one more thing, and let me preface it with a statement. One thing that I do appreciate about Calvinist is your absolute fervency in which you defend God's sovereignty. That is awesome. And on that point I whole-heartedly agree (contrary to what you may think). The question is why do you think that God's omniscience is contrary to man's God given ability to make a choice to do, or not do, something, especially when God gives us instructions to which we can decide to follow, or not follow? Thanks for your time.

Well, it's simple. I don't.

Choices and abilities are given by God. So I don't comprehend what you mean, some ability to be something God doesn't initiate.

The basic question is whether God really is the First Cause of everything. If He's not, then people can make independent choices (as philosophy defines "independent"). If He is, then people can't.