• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Help me, y'all!

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have the worst time explainin' to my unreformed friends why predestination does not make us robots and make us feel free to sin as we please.

I know, I know, it doesn't matter WHAT I say to some people, but I realy need at least for my own satisfaction, to be able to boil it down into bite sized finger food for these free willies.

Any thoughts or experience you can offer?:cool:
 

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟41,809.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Rick Otto said:
I have the worst time explainin' to my unreformed friends why predestination does not make us robots and make us feel free to sin as we please.

I know, I know, it doesn't matter WHAT I say to some people, but I realy need at least for my own satisfaction, to be able to boil it down into bite sized finger food for these free willies.

Any thoughts or experience you can offer?:cool:
A few things.

- Gordon Clark on the "robots" argument if you can find it in Biblical Predestination. Great explanation.

- Loraine Boettner's "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" on fatalism.

- The accusation is the same as Rom 9:19's question. The question at 9:19 wouldn't have come up & answered as Paul did, unless Paul were a predestinarian.

- If you were "free", that is your will chose completely at random what it wanted uncontrolled and unconditioned by experience or anything else, how would that make you "better"? You'd be at the mercy of an uncontrollable and uncontrolled will. "Self-control" is something of an oxymoron in this context. In any realistic context, to be good your will is actually under the control of higher purposes. Would that make any good person a robot? Of course not. Ultimately your will can be changed by outside influences, even controls. Does that make you into a robot? Um, no. A robot unthinkingly accepts new commands. Human beings thinkingly attempt to defy God's just and right commands, even in Calvinism. They aren't robots. If robots did what humans did they'd deserve to be melted down for scrap. God's not treating humans as robots, and humans aren't acting as robots in a Calvinistic system.

- Predestination does not say you're fatalistically doomed despite your willing otherwise. Predestination says God recreates your will to desire the good. A person continues to be free to do as he wills. But that person's will is created and changed by outside causes -- all of which God has control of. Were it not God's work a person wouldn't even come into being. And all human beings know what's good; and they don't do what's good, and are thus undeserving of God's eternal approval. These are rather simple assumptions; which would the "robot" accuser like to toss?

- http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/Total Depravity revised.htm

- Ultimately most people attacking the position as "robots" are attacking from an emotional viewpoint. What's a robot? Someone who thinks consistently? Or someone who doesn't think? What's personhood? Does a robot have any personhood? Don't people continue to have personhood in Calvinism? They sure do.
 
Upvote 0

CCWoody

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
Mar 23, 2003
6,684
249
56
Texas
Visit site
✟8,255.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Rick Otto said:
I have the worst time explainin' to my unreformed friends why predestination does not make us robots and make us feel free to sin as we please.

I know, I know, it doesn't matter WHAT I say to some people, but I realy need at least for my own satisfaction, to be able to boil it down into bite sized finger food for these free willies.

Any thoughts or experience you can offer?:cool:

Predestination in 8 easy verses:

Matthew 11: 20 - 27 -- Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
  • God foreknew Tyre and Sidon's free choice NOT TO REPENT in the case of His non-performance of such Miracles; AND
  • God foreknew Tyre and Sidon's free choice TO REPENT in the case of His performance of such Miracles; AND
  • God CHOSE not to perform these Miracles in Tyre and Sidon, a choice which had as its perfectly foreknown result the NON-Repentance of Tyre and Sidon, just as He foreknew.
True, or False?
 
Upvote 0

inchristalone221

Californian Theology Student
Dec 8, 2005
458
27
37
Southern California
✟23,245.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Explain the philosophical concept of ultimate and personal cause. While you yourself are the personal cause of your decision, God is the ultimate cause. Responsibility lies on you as the personal cause to do what you will.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟41,809.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Good point, ica. I read awhile ago something by Jeremy Bentham (an Enlightenment atheist philosopher) who pointed out that "responsibility" was not a singular thing. There are myriad different causes and triggers to every event or desire in the world. If someone has a problem with God causing such things, what would they say to their parents causing it, or something even more mundane, accident or chance?
 
Upvote 0

CCWoody

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
Mar 23, 2003
6,684
249
56
Texas
Visit site
✟8,255.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
inchristalone221 said:
Explain the philosophical concept of ultimate and personal cause. While you yourself are the personal cause of your decision, God is the ultimate cause. Responsibility lies on you as the personal cause to do what you will.


You mean this:
CHAPTER III.

Of God's Eternal Decree.

I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

CHAPTER V.

Of Providence.

I. God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
II. Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.


I believe if you notice the verses I have given, it demonstrates that the freedom of the creature is not destroyed while at the same time demonstrating the first cause in relation to secondary causes.

Oops! I just noticed you are Baptist. I would have cited it from the LBC instead of the WCF since they are almost identical.
 
Upvote 0

inchristalone221

Californian Theology Student
Dec 8, 2005
458
27
37
Southern California
✟23,245.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Oops! I just noticed you are Baptist. I would have cited it from the LBC instead of the WCF since they are almost identical.

I'm a baptist for now, I'm still not entirely sure about that. Just more study I suppose :)
 
Upvote 0

CCWoody

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
Mar 23, 2003
6,684
249
56
Texas
Visit site
✟8,255.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Imblessed said:
I've never noticed that verse in that light before! Thanks Woody! :thumbsup:


We can thank Augustine. I stole it from a friend and then didn't feel too bad when I found that he had stolen it from Augustine's interpretation of 1 Tim 2:1-4:
THE LIMITS OF GOD'S PLAN FOR HUMAN SALVATION -- Accordingly, when we hear and read in Scripture that He "will have all men to be saved," although we know well that all men are not saved, we are not on that account to restrict the omnipotence of God, but are rather to understand the Scripture, "Who will have all men to be saved," as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will, but that no man is saved apart from His will; and that, therefore, we should pray Him to will our salvation, because if He will it, it must necessarily be accomplished. And it was of prayer to God that the apostle was speaking when he used this expression. And on the same principle we interpret the expression in the Gospel: "The true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world:" not that there is no man who is not enlightened, but that no man is enlightened except by Him. Or, it is said, "Who will have all men to be saved;" not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will (for how, then, explain the fact that He was unwilling to work miracles in the presence of some who, He said, would have repented if He had worked them?), but that we are to understand by "all men," the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances, -- kings, subjects; noble, plebeian, high, low, learned, and unlearned; the sound in body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the poor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants, boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of every fashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerable differences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men. For which of all these classes is there out of which God does not will that men should be saved in all nations through His only-begotten Son, our Lord, and therefore does save them; for the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever He may will? Now the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be made for all men, and had especially added, "For kings, and for all that are in authority," who might be supposed, in the pride and pomp of worldly station, to shrink from the humility of the Christian faith. Then saying, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour," that is, that prayers should be made for such as these, he immediately adds, as if to remove any ground of despair, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." God, then, in His great condescension has judged it good to grant to the prayers of the humble the salvation of the exalted; and assuredly we have many examples of this. Our Lord, too, makes use of the same mode of speech in the Gospel, when He says to the Pharisees: "Ye tithe mint, and rue, and every herb." For the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the inhabitants of other lands. As, then, in this place we must understand by "every herb," every kind of herbs, so in the former passage we may understand by "all men," every sort of men. And we may interpret it in any other way we please, so long as we are not compelled to believe that the omnipotent God has willed anything to be done which was not done: for setting aside all ambiguities, if "He hath done all that He pleased in heaven and in earth," as the psalmist sings of Him, He certainly did not will to do anything that He hath not done.​
Notice that Augustine has caught the Predestination & Election implications in Matthew's verses and used them to demonstrate the absurdity of claiming that 1 Tim 2 teaches that it is God's expressed will that all men everywhere without any exception be saved.

Otherwise, how do we explain that not all men are saved when we are promised that any prayer according to the expressed will of God is granted? (1 Jn 5:14-15)
 
Upvote 0