Robots

[Hammster]

It’s been said over and over that Calvinism (Reformed Theology) makes people into robots. Or puppets. Your choice.

So here’s your chance. For those that believe this, please give some sort of specific Calvinistic teaching that supports this. This means that you have to have some basic level of understanding of Reformed Theology, and be able to communicate it. It cannot be a generic comment such as “Calvinism denies free will”. The online resources are plethora, so what is taught should be fairly simple to find. Canons of Dort. Westminster Confession of Faith, or The London Baptist Confession of Faith. These are readily accessible if you just google.

So here’s your chance. Don’t waste it.

 

[redleghunter]

 

[royal priest]

I was going to post the exact same thing!!

 

[Hammster]

As many times as I’ve seen it, I would think that this thread would blow up.

 

[Jonaitis]

As many times as I’ve seen it, I would think that this thread would blow up.

I don't think people here who deny Calvinism read Calvinistic material much, if they even care at all...

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
Please read the OP and submit relevant replies
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Rick Otto]

OK,

It’s been said over and over that Calvinism (Reformed Theology) makes people into robots. Or puppets. Your choice.

So here’s your chance. For those that believe this, please give some sort of specific Calvinistic teaching that supports this. This means that you have to have some basic level of understanding of Reformed Theology, and be able to communicate it. It cannot be a generic comment such as “Calvinism denies free will”. The online resources are plethora, so what is taught should be fairly simple to find. Canine of Dort. Westminster Confession of Faith, or The London Baptist Confession of Faith. These are readily accessible if you just google.

So here’s your chance. Don’t waste it.

LOL, OK, but first give me a typo correction, please.
'Canines of Dordt' has me chuckling too hard.

How about this...
Hard determinism inherently is counter-intuitive to the idea of autonomy, which is considered core to the definition of sentience itself. How can we even be said to be a "self" if our existence throughout time is something that can be foreknown?

Pretty good, huh.

 

[Hammster]

OK,

LOL, OK, but first give me a typo correction, please.
'Canines of Dordt' has me chuckling too hard.

How about this...
Hard determinism inherently is counter-intuitive to the idea of autonomy, which is considered core to the definition of sentience itself. How can we even be said to be a "self" if our existence throughout time is something that can be foreknown?

Pretty good, huh.

 

[royal priest]

OK,

LOL, OK, but first give me a typo correction, please.
'Canines of Dordt' has me chuckling too hard.

How about this...
Hard determinism inherently is counter-intuitive to the idea of autonomy, which is considered core to the definition of sentience itself. How can we even be said to be a "self" if our existence throughout time is something that can be foreknown?

Pretty good, huh.

Autonomy is a delusion. We are completely dependant for everything. Moreover, we are the product of our environment. To take this a step further, God is the One who determined our dwellings and fixed our boundaries. In Him we live and move and have our being.

As far as sentience goes, God's establishment of means and ends ensures that our desires are not limited to mere wishful thinking. He calls us to lay hold of eternal life and promises it to those who do.
We have the ability to take it or leave it. So much so that most people think we are actually autonomous.

 

[Rick Otto]

Autonomy is a delusion. We are completely dependant for everything. Moreover, we are the product of our environment. To take this a step further, God is the One who determined our dwellings and fixed our boundaries. In Him we live and move and have our being.

As far as sentience goes, God's establishment of means and ends ensures that our desires are not limited to mere wishful thinking. He calls us to lay hold of eternal life and promises it to those who do.
We have the ability to take it or leave it. So much so that most people think we are actually autonomous.

If our laying hold of eternal life is completely dependant, how can it hold value worthy of review and judgement.
Wasn't everything judged fit to create in foreknowledge of it?
Thus review & judgement sounds redundant, doesn't it?

 

[royal priest]

If our laying hold of eternal life is completely dependant, how can it hold value worthy of review and judgement.
Wasn't everything judged fit to create in foreknowledge of it?
Thus review & judgement sounds redundant, doesn't it?

This may be a significant reason why teachers will be held to a stricter judgement. James 3:1

 

[Rick Otto]

This may be a significant reason why teachers will be held to a stricter judgement. James 3:1

I don't think I understand.
What may be a significant reason?

 

[royal priest]

I don't think I understand.
What may be a significant reason?

Because of their influence in our culpability before God by shaping our understanding if the truth.

 

[Rick Otto]

Because of their influence in our culpability before God by shaping our understanding if the truth.

Oh, OK, yeah.
But back up a little.
I still want to know how is man's will his own if it was created to be what ever it is, good, bad, or indifferent.

How can an individual be held liable for what was decided (assumingly without his consent) before he was even created?

Never mind if it's "fair", I want to know how it is legitimate to do such a thing.
Thank you.

 

[Hammster]

Oh, OK, yeah.
But back up a little.
I still want to know how is man's will his own if it was created to be what ever it is, good, bad, or indifferent.

How can an individual be held liable for what was decided (assumingly without his consent) before he was even created?

Never mind if it's "fair", I want to know how it is legitimate to do such a thing.
Thank you.

Gritting back to the OP, how does man’s fate being decided make him a robot?

 

[Rick Otto]

Gritting back to the OP, how does man’s fate being decided make him a robot?

You're kidding me, right?
You don't see how lack of any input into one's own existence render's him a "robot"?
You don't see how this question is the same thing?:
"How can an individual be held liable for what was decided (assumingly without his consent) before he was even created?"
How am I not a robot if every thing I do is predetermined?
Get it?

 

[Hammster]

You're kidding me, right?
You don't see how lack of any input into one's own existence render's him a "robot"?
You don't see how this question is the same thing?:
"How can an individual be held liable for what was decided (assumingly without his consent) before he was even created?"
How am I not a robot if every thing I do is predetermined?
Get it?

You didn’t answer my question. You gave the type of response that led to this thread.

 

[bling]

It’s been said over and over that Calvinism (Reformed Theology) makes people into robots. Or puppets. Your choice.

So here’s your chance. For those that believe this, please give some sort of specific Calvinistic teaching that supports this. This means that you have to have some basic level of understanding of Reformed Theology, and be able to communicate it. It cannot be a generic comment such as “Calvinism denies free will”. The online resources are plethora, so what is taught should be fairly simple to find. Canons of Dort. Westminster Confession of Faith, or The London Baptist Confession of Faith. These are readily accessible if you just google.

So here’s your chance. Don’t waste it.

For most part man does seem to be controlled by his genes and his environment which is set by God. Babies, mentally challenged individuals and small children at lease seem make decisions totally as the result of genes and their environment. (This could be described as being robotic like, programmed responses).

All these, God given attributes (programmed), make no difference when it comes to salvation, like Paul talks about in Romans to the Jewish and Gentile Christians, although these groups will come to Christ from different directions.

The huge issue is with Love (Godly type Love to be more specific) and how that Love is defined, which the Bible goes to great lengths to define for us like with 1 John, 1 Cor. 13, all of Jesus’ words and life, God Himself being “Love”.

Can Godly type Love be programmed into a person and/or did they instinctively possess this Love (either way is a robotic type love) and/or was this Love forced upon them (even against their will), can the person learn, develop over time, or earn Love like God OR must they obtain this Love as a result of an autonomous free will choice?

1 Cor.13: If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.


4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Godly type Love is:

Illogical (there is no personal gain or need for gain by Loving others “it is not self-seeking,”

The only right motivation for doing anything of value, worthy, righteous, honorable (1 Cor. 13:1-3)

Unselfish

Unconditional

Seeking the best for everyone else including enemies.

Results in obedience : John 14:23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

Man’s mission statement, given as the greatest command, is: “Love God (and secondly others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy.”

Since God is Love, if man obtains this Love he becomes like God Himself and if we are truly going to be happy in heaven we must have Godly type Love, since there would be only Godly type Love in heaven.

A person then who refuses Godly type Love seeking carnal type love (being loved for the way they want others to perceive them to be) would not be happy in heaven.

Children can start out with a very strong child for parent love which is great (but some animals instinctively have this type of love) and other instinctive loves, but not unconditional, unselfish, and thought-out decision type love.

God Loves humans while they count God as their enemy (keeping them from doing what they personally want), His Love is for no apparent reason on man’s part, but because of who, God is.

The accusation against some Calvinistic Theology as being “robotic” has to do with the obtaining of Godly type Love, since some Calvinist do not like man making an autonomous free will choice which could result in them obtaining such a Love (plus all other Godly gifts).

Adam and Eve were made “very good” by God’s standard of very good, but were they perfect like Christ?

Christ was not a God created being (He is Deity), so Christ like God always possessed Godly type Love and did not have to obtain it, so did Adam and Eve have Godly type Love programmed into them from creation?

Is Godly type Love (which is God Himself) programmable into humans? (That sounds robotic)

“If you Godly type Love me you will obey me…”, but Adam and Eve did not go on obeying God and disobeyed God, so does that mean they did not have Godly type Love at that time?

What caused God not to provide Adam and Eve with Godly type Love to begin with?

We can go through all scripture looking at all the God Loving decisions made by God and Christ to see why it could not just be an instinctive type love?

Would God value a non-programmed type Love made as the result of a choice over a programmed robotic type Love?

“Every knee will bow”, but not everyone one who bows in the end will go to heaven, that is a forced obedience and not a Loving obedience.

More can be said but finally:


The only way I see to obtain Godly type Love is from Jesus’ teaching: Luke 7:36-50 “…he who is forgiven much Loves much…” If the hurting burden nonbelieving sinner finally give up on trying to solve or live with his problem on his own, wimps out, gives up and surrenders to God humbly willing to accept God’s charitable gift of Love in the form of forgiveness and realize his war crime against his enemy God are deserving of a torturous death than he realizes he has been forgiven of an unbelievable huge debt and thus will automatically receive an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love).

This is the only way to initially obtain Godly type Love, but through use it will grow.

Some Calvinist believers will say: “the nonbeliever cannot humbly accept forgiveness nor seek it, since he is doing something (even though his surrendering would earn him nothing)”, so the nonbeliever is somehow automatically (arbitrarily) forgive of stuff he could not keep from doing. The Love he gets is not the result of his acceptance of forgiveness, but programmed into him.

 

[redleghunter]

Some Calvinist believers will say: “the nonbeliever cannot humbly accept forgiveness nor seek it, since he is doing something (even though his surrendering would earn him nothing)”, so the nonbeliever is somehow automatically (arbitrarily) forgive of stuff he could not keep from doing. The Love he gets is not the result of his acceptance of forgiveness, but programmed into him.

Just need some clarification. In the above are you presenting a non-believer who surrenders himself to God's will is then rejected?

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

How can an individual be held liable for what was decided (assumingly without his consent) before he was even created?

If a person could consent to what would become his nature, then wouldn't that consent arise from his nature? The argument is circular. A man does not make himself. A man consents to everything he is and does simply by being and doing it.