by Mindtrap James LeBlanc
Introduction
All positions which hold to an exhaustive divine decree (EDD) are eventually confronted with the accusation that it makes us into puppets, or robots. Many are quick to dismiss it, and some are perplexed by the accusation. So I want to try and explain it.
Puppets
Taking a moment to step back and consider our experience with puppets. Something adults do is to “suspend disbelief”. Basically, it is to pretend along with theater. In the case of puppets, we pretend that they are individuals. This allows us to accept the back and forth of ventriloquists, or to enjoy a sock puppet show. A child may actually believe they are real. In pretending, we end up ascribing individual will and motivations, we get impressed with whit of the puppets jokes, we may even be moved to tears by its selfless sacrifice on stage. All from immersion into a good story.
In pretending, we are purposely ignoring some truths, and accepting the implausibility of some fictions. We treat the puppet as an individual, when the truth is that a performer is the real source of talent. We may weep at love or sacrifice, but they don’t actually exist. Like the Monty Python “It’s only a model” line. These higher truths falsify all that come before it, and in a moral context have significant implications.
Grounding of the objection
The thing about suspended disbelief, is that there is no obligation to play along. The man who says “it is only a model” destroys the fictitious premises which create a thing to be impressed with, and simply asserts the greater “truth” which is the reality of the situation.
Applied
So the accusation that EDD makes us all puppets, is to apply the greater truth of EDD and refuse to pretend along. EDD creates direct threads between all the objects, and God. Which in eternity past God through his divine decree dictates each and every action. Pointing out the strings is what defines the puppet. EDD asserts the string exists, and the puppet analogy is to point out the strings and how change the context from those pretending.
Objections
Most objections to the puppet analogy generally fall into the category of attempting to establish a difference. Sure we may pretend puppets have consciousness, but people have REAL consciousness. We may pretend that puppets are originating jokes, but we really do originate jokes. Ultimately, these all fail because they aren’t really pointing out a difference, so much as they are listing other things connected to God by the strings of EDD. Another objection is to attempt to constrain the conversation to within the story level context. This is insufficient, as it just ignores the greater truth, rather than even contradict it.
Was Jesus a puppet? As a man, He submitted to His Father’s will in going to the cross. Peter says in Acts 2:23 when speaking of Jesus’ death that He was “delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God”. Peter says again in Acts 4:27-28 that those who crucified Jesus were “gathered together…to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur”. Since the crucifixion was predetermined and predestined by God, wouldn’t that make the man Jesus simply a puppet on His Father’s strings?
Note: I was unable to leave a comment to the main article, so I am replying to Mark though this is not an interaction with his comments.
As a former Calvinist, this puppet/robot analogy never resonated with me and even now, 8 years after leaving Calvinism, I’m still hesitant to embrace it. It seems to oversimplify an incredibly complex dynamic. It is easy to dismiss it as gamesmanship rather than a genuine dialogue. So, even as one who now opposes Calvinism, I still shy away from the analogy in my arguments against EDD. Let me try to explain:
The force of the analogy is built upon a perspective outside the analogy. As living beings, we look at puppets as inferior entities. We perceive our superiority to puppets by comparison. They need strings we do not. But in EDD, there is no audience. If we are puppets, then so is the audience. There is no superiority to perceive. The term “puppet” is no longer a pejorative because it is just the reality of all things. It is normal, not abnormal. It is simply another word for human, not something inferior since there is nothing else superior to compare it (other than God). In EDD the word itself then loses any meaning because we are left with no frame of reference with which to compare it. We all agree we are different than God, so we have made no progress in understanding our differences.
Our perception of reality certainly seems categorically different than that of a puppet as we know and experience the term. Yet even though we don’t have visible strings, we all acknowledge that we depend upon God to sustain our every breath, movement and our very existence. The question is what is the nature of that dependency and how does it relate to our perception of free agency? I find the analogy of parental permission to be sufficient to explain this. A parent gives their child freedom to roam within limits and with oversight. They regulate their child’s environment to limit and even direct their child’s choices by limiting options. There is certainly a distinction between this and pure puppetry, but the distinction become blurred the more complex the parent’s manipulation of those environmental restrictions and guidance of choices. The key is that there are limits to that manipulation. A parent does allow their child to make choices without determining them. We can agree the line is somewhat blurry, but we insist there is at some point a clear distinction between parental determination and self-determination. And it is in this distinction we ground our understanding of accountability. A puppet in the sense we think of puppets, is not accountable for its actions. We are accountable; therefore, we are not puppets.
Then we have the added complexity of omniscience. God knows how we will respond to every circumstance and arranges those circumstances accordingly. There is certainly a lot of opportunity for manipulation of choice in this process. One of the key distinctions between EDD and our view is that God can know something without exhaustively determining it. Omniscience does not demand EDD.
EDD certainly presents a disturbingly close connection between God and evil. The strings are more glaring, but my view is not free of any strings. I just have (IMO) a more biblical separation between God and evil. It is not a categorical distinction but rather a distinction of degrees (and an important distinction to be sure). Therefore, I avoid declaring like Pinocchio that I am a real boy simply because I see no strings. I am a real boy because I am made in God’s image. Yet on this my Calvinists brothers and sisters agree. The debate should center on the character of God rather than the character of man. EDD does not provide sufficient separation between God and evil.
br.d
Hello Dana and welcome
.
I would be happy for you to review my response to Mark on the connection between the puppet analogy and how human functionality is different in Calvinism.
.
On the subject of divine foreknowledge – it is critical to understand – in Calvinism – divine foreknowledge is nothing more than “current” knowledge of what has (past-tense) been decreed.
.
Because of the doctrine of decrees – Calvin’s god cannot know what [X] will be – until *AFTER* he decrees what [X] will be.
This is because – prior to the decree – he has choice between ALTERNATIVES from which to choose in the matter of what he will decree [X] to be.
.
If he knows what [X] will be before he determines what [X] will be – then that knowledge eradicates ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS.
So in order for Calvin’s god to have CHOICE between ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS – would require a state of affairs in which those ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS are open (not yet determined)
.
And on the issue of evil – yes you are correct!
Calvinism incorporates DUALISM in which “Good” and “Evil” are Co-Equal, Co-Complimentary, and Co-Necessary
.
Augustine
-quote
And because this orderly arrangement maintains the *HARMONY OF THE UNIVERSE* by this very contrast, it comes about that evil things *MUST NEED BE*. In this way, the beauty of all things is in a manner configured, as it were, from *ANTITHESIS*, that is, from opposites: this is pleasing to us even in discourse”. (ord 1.7.19)
.
Calvin’s god creates the vast majority of the human population – specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
.
John Calvin
-quote
by the eternal *GOOD PLEASURE* of god though the reason does not appear, they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
.
.
John Piper
-quote
God looks at evil through his wide lens – and sees that evil brings glory to him and this gives him pleasure.
.
.
So in Calvinism – we have divine Evil for the sake of divine pleasure.
And this is why so many things within Calvinist enunciations appear in the form of “Good-Evil” pairs.
.
In Calvinism – a large percentage of believers are created as CHAFF believers who are divinely deceived – given a FALSE SENSE of salvation.
.
John Calvin
-quote
But the Lord….instills into their minds such *A SENSE* ..as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
-quote
He illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME* to partake of it; then he….strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
.
And the Calvinist cannot go by any promises within scripture – because these are classified as the ENUNCIATED will of god – which in many cases is the exact opposite of the SECRET will of god.
.
So when the Calvinist reads “You are beloved” within scripture – he has no way of knowing if the SECRET will (for himself) is the exact opposite.
.
So you can see how many things appear in both “Good” and “Evil” forms.
So we find the doctrine to be a doctrine of “Good-Evil”
.
Blessings!
br.d
br.d
Hello Mark and welcome
.
Mark: Was Jesus a puppet? As a man He submitted to his Father’s will
.
br.d
Well – you have a couple of LOGICAL problems here in your thinking Mark.
.
Firstly:
Jesus is said to be both fully man and fully God.
Since Jesus is not JUST a man – this disqualifies him for you to use as a proper example.
There are to many unknowns involved in the fact that Jesus is fully God – for you to use him as an example
.
Secondly:
You have a very critical LOGICAL problem in facing what is stipulated with Calvin’s doctrine of decrees
.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
Accordingly
1) Not one impulse can come to pass within your brain – unless that impulse is knowingly and willingly decreed.
2) This makes it the case that every impulse that comes to pass within your brain – comes to pass by antecedent factors (infallible decree) which are totally outside of your brain’s control.
3) Thus – your brain is granted NO SAY and NO CHOICE and NO CONTROL In the matter of any impulse that comes to pass within it
4) Every impulse also comes so pass within your brain infallibly. And that it is impossible for that which is fallible to RESIST that which is infallible.
.
CONCLUSION:
On Calvinism – per the doctrine – you have NO SAY, NO CHOICE, and NO CONTROL over any impulse that comes to pass within your brain.
And every impulse comes to pass within your brain – comes to pass IRRESISITBLY.
.
.
But you also have another LOGICAL problem to deal with.
1) An infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees
2) Therefore – there is no such thing as you being granted an ALTERNATIVE OPTION In the matter of anything.
3) If it is decreed that you will perform SIN_X at TIME_T then that decree does not grant you any ALTERNATIVE
.
CONCLUSION:
In Calvinism – per the doctrine – you are not granted CHOICE in the matter of anything.
.
For every human event – and every human impulse – the decree grants only *ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN OPTION*
And you are granted NO SAY and NO CHOICE in the matter of what that option will be
And you are granted NO ability to refrain.
.
For Adam in the garden – for example:
1) It was decreed Adam would infallibly [EAT] the forbidden fruit
2) The infallible decree does not grant Adam any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees
3) Therefore – NO ALTERNATIVE was granted to Adam
.
CONCLUSION:
Adam was not granted a CHOICE between [EAT] and [NOT EAT] because the option to [NOT EAT] did not exist for Adam to choose.
.
.
Those are some of the LOGICAL factors you are going to have to overcome – if you want to prove humans are not created to function like puppets in Calvinism.
.
Blessings!
br.d
br.d,
Thanks, I did read your response to Mark. Did you understand my objection to the puppet analogy? It seems to me that the puppet analogy is not the best because to presupposes a distinction between how things appear to the puppet and how things appear to the audience. But there is no audience in Calvinism. Everything is a puppet, so it is not an insult to call someone a puppet.
I think a better analogy is a tapestry. God is weaving all His creatures into a work of art both good and evil. When He steps back and looks at the big picture, it looks good, but when he looks closely at one particular thread, it is not appealing in itself. The thread has no say over how and when and where it is woven into the tapestry. God alone is acting. We are mere threads made to conform to the pattern the weaver desires. But this tapestry is more than a lifeless web of thread. It is a living tapestry with a complexity that surpasses our ability to comprehend or fully appreciate.
The problem with the tapestry view is that it does not properly account for freewill and the image of God. I believe it is our capacity to exercise dominion over the rest of creation that makes us in God’s image, who also exercises dominion over His creation. But freewill is part of that capacity to rule. We are governors under the authority of Christ the King. We are more than a tapestry, even an infinitely complex tapestry. We are a government, members of the body. We are indeed much more than puppets or tapestries.
Dana
br.d
Yes – the “puppet” analogy can only go so far – just as the “robot” analogy can only go so far.
.
One of the more serious problems with the “puppet” analogy is the issue of FORCE.
A puppet is moved by strings which apply FORCE to the limbs of the puppet.
.
Now John Calvin – in his day – had no problem declaring that his god applies FORCE to make the creature to do what it does.
.
John Calvin
-quote
The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly are……not only bound by His fetters but are even FORCED to do Him service.”(Institutes 1. 17. 11.)
.
However – Atheist Determinists in the 20th century came up with what is called the NO FORCE argument.
.
Since on Determinism – every impulse that comes to pass within the human brain is pre-determined.
And since those impulses themselves determine the actions of the human
This allows the Atheist Determinist to argue his actions are DETERMINED by his own internal desires.
This gives the Determinist the ability to have functionality which SIMULATES Libertarian Freedom.
.
At some point in the 20th century – Calvinists picked up on the Atheist argument and now apply it to themselves
.
But it is a mute point anyway because “Force” is actually a RED-HERRING.
.
Since Calvin’s god never grants humans any ALTERNATIVE from that which he decrees – he does not have to FORCE humans do be what he wants them to be – and do what he wants them to do.
.
All he has to do is not grant any ALTERNATIVE.
.
So in Calvinism – if it is decreed that Calvinist_A will perform SIN_X at TIME_T then that decree does not permit Calvinist_A to DO OTHERWISE. Calvinist_A does not have to be FORCED to perform that sin. He is simply not granted any ALTERNATIVE.
Prophesy of events are indeed predetermined. Your personal salvation is not.
Jesus, being God, knew what his mission was. Matthew 16, Jesus tells his apostles for the first time. But Peter got offended by that, and Jesus laid into Peter pretty hard.
However, people like Joseph is indeed a puppet… because Joseph was performing a Jesus skit, so to speak. Joseph is a type and shadow of Jesus. Study Joseph and see. Did Joseph know this? Absolutely not.
David, same. Jonah, same. Solomon, same. All puppets.
But prophesy of events have nothing to do with YOUR salvation.
Prophesy is a revelation.
But Jesus being a puppet? He’s God, so how can he be his own puppet?
You are not a puppet, either. You are not a blind Jew.
The Jews, blind Jews, that is, are the puppets. It is thru the Jews that we know God, by reading the spiritual aspects of their lives in the Bible, by interpreting their carnal life, to the spiritual interpretation.
That’s my take.
Now, there is the occasional Pharoah involved, used as a puppet. But can you determine what character he is on the play?
Ed Chapman
As soon as one appeals t ando the idea of “submission” you are outside an EDD context and using the language of LFW. It is then an inconsistent launchpad for a defense of EDD.
Strictly from within the analogy
Christ is more like Shari Louis than Lamb Chops. but that isn’t the point of the analogy IMO.
Hello James and welcome
.
And wonderfully said!
Yes – the term “submission” strongly infers choice – which does not exist for humans in Calvinism simply because a necessary condition of choice is more than one option.
And a state of affairs in which more than one option was granted to a human would falsify the doctrine of decrees.
.
Notice how many of the standard dictionaries include MULTIPLE OPTIONS in the definition of the word “Choice”
.
Collins Dictionary (choice)
If there is a choice of THINGS, there are SEVERAL OF THEM and you can choose the one you want.
Your choice is someone or something that you choose from A RANGE OF THINGS.
.
Dictionary.com (choice)
An act or instance of choosing; selection: an ALTERNATIVE
.
The Free Dictionary (choice)
1. The act of choosing; selection – a NUMBER OR VARIETY from which to choose
.
Oxford Learners Dictionary (choice)
An act of choosing between TWO OR MORE possibilities;
.
Longman Dictionary (choice)
if you have a choice, you can choose BETWEEN SEVERAL THINGS
.
KJV Dictionary (choice)
The act of choosing; the voluntary act of selecting or separating from TWO OR MORE things
.
.
Within LFW – we have 3 things:
1) Multiple options which exist and are available
2) Choice between those options
3) That choice is *UP TO* you
.
In Calvinism – the existence of any of those 3 things would falsify the doctrine of decrees.
.
However – Calvinists live from moment to moment *AS-IF* those 3 things exist for them.
Which means – the Calvinist is forced to live *AS-IF* his doctrine is FALSE
He asserts the doctrine is what scripture teaches
But he lives *AS-IF* what the doctrine stipulates is FALSE
And thereby treats scripture *AS-IF* what it teaches is FALSE
.
That is a very bad consequence of his doctrine!
.
Blessings!
br.d
Mark,
God determined beforehand to send His Son to earth in the first century Jerusalem, foreknowing that there would be men desiring to crucify Him. Thus, in sending His Son into that time and place, he determined that Jesus would be crucified by sinful men. Everything they did to dishonor Christ was permitted by God and thus part of God’s predetermined plan and purpose for the redemption of mankind. There is a difference between God knowing what someone will do and causing them to do it. God did not need to make them that way, He simply knew their hearts and intentions and permitted them to act accordingly. We don’t need EDD to explain God’s predetermined plan. So why take that extra step and assume what is not explicitly stated in the text?
Dana
br.d
Nice post Dana!
.
I noticed that you pointed to PERMISSION language a couple times in that post.
.
The use of PERMISSION language has been a perennial problem for Calvinists – because it strongly infers concepts which are in contradiction to Determinism.
.
Take for example the following two statements:
.
STATEMENT_A:
At the John D. Rockerfeller preparatory school – female students *WILL* wear dresses within the classroom within class times.
.
STATEMENT_B:
At the John D. Rockerfeller preparatory school – female students *ARE PERMITTED TO* wear dresses within the classroom within class times.
.
Notice the difference in the inferences within these two statements.
.
STATEMENT_B strongly infers:
– Female students are permitted to DO OTHERWISE than wear dresses within the classroom
– Female students are granted an ALTERNATIVE OPTION from wearing dresses within the classroom
– Female students are granted CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
.
STATEMENT_A entails language which is congruent with Determinism
STATEMENT_B entails language which is IN-CONGRUENT with Determinism
.
So PERMISSION language is in-congruent with EDD
So every time Calvinists defer to PERMISSION language they are using language which is in contradiction to their belief system.
.
Why then do Calvinists use PERMISSION language?
Because they are internally uncomfortable with the implications (puppet implication for example) which come with EDD.
.
Calvinists IMHO have a LOVE-HATE relationship with their doctrine.
They enjoy the doctrine if it produces some kind of bragging rights – such as boasting about having a higher emphasis on divine sovereignty.
.
But internally – and quietly to themselves – they do not find the “puppet” implications of the doctrine palatable.
.
They use PERMISSION language in order to *MAKE-BELIEVE* the same options exist for them that exist for the NON-Calvinist who does not embrace EDD.
A couple of verses for Dana Steele:
1 Corinthians 2:8
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
And
Deu 29:4/Romans 11:8
4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
NOTE THE WORD, “HID” in the following 3 references:
Reference #1:
Luke 9:44-45 (Jesus speaking to his Apostles)
44 Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.
45 But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.
Reference #2:
Luke 18:31-34
31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.
Reference #3:
Luke 19:41-42
41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
And finally, let’s not forget the famous, “Father, forgive them, for they know NOT NOT NOT what they do”, which circles back to 1 Corinthians 2:8, again.
So, all this “hardness of their heart” thing is missing a lot of context!
Ed Chapman
Sorry Ed, I’m not following how these verses relate to my response to Mark regarding Act 2:23 & 4:27-28. Neither of us mentioned “hardness of their heart”. It seems like you are responding to someone else’s comment.
Dana,
Your words:
“He simply knew their hearts and intentions and permitted them to act accordingly.”
So, I responded accordingly.
My point is that there is indeed some manipulation on God’s part to make prophesy come true. First, prophesy isn’t usually explicit. Prophesy is usually told by spiritually dissecting the life of the prophet. I use both Jonah (3 days/3 nights), Joseph (From the pit to the Palace) as perfect examples. God made both of those to happen, in order to tell a story of what will happen to Jesus during his life. It’s all about Jesus.
So Jesus comes on the scene, and the Jews missed their messiah. They rejected Jesus.
Why? Because that’s what God wanted.
John 9:39-41
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
So…Jesus allows some to see and understand.
There is still unfulfilled prophesy that involve blind Jews, so Jesus… God… can’t allow all Jews to see… yet.
But notice that my conversation is about prophesy, and the manipulation that takes place.
But that has nothing to do with man’s desires for sin, therefore has nothing to do with salvation in the generic sense. We still have free will, except in the case of prophesy establishment, and fulfillment. In those cases, they are puppets.
Ed Chapman
Dana,
By the way, my last comment is the essence of Romans 9-11. Chapter 9, specifically.
Thanks, Ed, for clarifying. I don’t deny that God has the power and prerogative to manipulate circumstances to produce a desired outcome. I don’t think that puppetry is the best analogy for that phenomenon. Furthermore, the fact that God CAN do this does not mean that God ALWAYS does this. You seem to agree but you insist that prophesy is an example of this type of puppet like manipulation. Perhaps that is true but not necessarily. Prophesy is God foretelling what free agents will choose to do, not necessarily a promise to make sure that He will override free agency to do something. And even if God is promising to make sure something specific happens, that does not necessitate a puppet like control. It could be done that way, but it doesn’t have to be done that way.
I don’t think we are arguing from opposite sides here. I think we are mostly in agreement. I don’t agree with some of your phrasing though. For example, you say that God wanted the Jews to reject Jesus and you cite Jesus’ quotation of Isaiah’s prophesy concerning God’s blinding of His people in judgement of their sin. It is not that God preferred the Jews to sin and reject Jesus. Rather this was their punishment for Israel’s prior disobedience in Isaiah’s day. And even still, not all Jews of Jesus’ day were blinded, only those who followed in the rebellious steps of their forefathers. So even when God is fulfilling prophesy and preventing some from believing, it is not done in a vacuum. There was an antecedent sin which led to God’s decision to judge. God is responding to man’s sinfulness, not orchestrating it for some good end.
Dana,
Ok, so, first I must, I insist on confronting your statement that said…
“For example, you say that God wanted the Jews to reject Jesus and you cite Jesus’ quotation of Isaiah’s prophesy concerning God’s blinding of His people in judgement of their sin. It is not that God preferred the Jews to sin and reject Jesus.”
Dana, I never quoted Isaiah…I quoted John 9:39-41.
John 9:39-41
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth
Notice what verse 41 states about sin?
Their blindness isn’t due to judgment of their sins at all. That’s a huge fallacy.
Deu 29:4
4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
Note: “UNTO THIS DAY” is…”NEVER”
Next…you stated:
Prophesy is God foretelling what free agents will choose to do, not necessarily a promise to make sure that He will override free agency to do something. And even if God is promising to make sure something specific happens, that does not necessitate a puppet like control.
I completely disagree. Prophesy is about Jesus, not about God foretelling what free agents will choose to do.
Again, Joseph… from the pit to the PALACE. That’s about Jesus, not Joseph. But Joseph lived the prophesy, because it has to match Jesus. You have to spiritually interpret Joseph’s life, beginning with Joseph’s dreams, to Joseph forgiving his brothers.
The same goes with Jonah in the fish for 3 days and 3 nights. God manipulated that to happen, because it’s about Jesus, nor jonah.
I could elaborate a lot more with other prophets, but I’ll leave it at this, because it’s the most obvious.
Compare Romans 9 now. The Potter and the clay.
But I emphasize that this has nothing to do with sin and salvation. We all have free will regarding that.
But those who participate in Romans 9… puppets.
Look at the following…
Moses represented Jesus
Pharoah represented Satan
Egypt represented BONDAGE TO SIN
Wandering the desert represented a Christian Walk.
The Jordan River represented natural death
The Promised Land represents HEAVEN.
THERE’S A SPIRITUAL STORY told in the real lives of many… the Pharoah being one of them. And remember, the Pharoah was going to let the people go… but God hardened his heart in order for him to refuse to let the people go.
The Pharoah didn’t have a choice in the matter. Why? Because God is telling a spiritual story about himself and Satan through Moses and the Pharoah.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
I apologize. I was thinking of John 12:40 where Jesus quotes Isaiah 6. The text you referenced does suggest a judgment because of blindness rather than a blindness which is a judgment. But your text actually supports my position that blindness is avoidable if we just humbly admit we are blind. That doesn’t sound like a puppet to me.
But Isaiah’s prophesy concerning blindness does look like a judgement to me. While at first blush this too seems to fit with your assertion that “God wanted the Jews to reject Jesus”, I was arguing in spite of that apparent puppet like determination, that it is actually a response to sin, not a predetermined rejection to tell a story or accomplish some greater good.
In Deut. 29:4, God is again responding to Israel’s unwillingness to submit in not giving them a heart, eyes and ears to respond. If they would yield to God, He would grant them a heart, eyes and ears to understand and respond to God and be blessed rather than cursed.
I can see you have a very strongly developed opinion regarding the purpose of OT history. May I suggest to you that it doesn’t have to be one or the other (history is to tell a spiritual story about Jesus or history is to tell what happened so we can learn from it more generally). Pointing us to Jesus is certainly one of the central purposes of the OT but you seem to be narrowing it to this singular purpose. That seems unnecessary. God is certainly smart enough to use His foreknowledge of freewill choices to tell a spiritual story as well as other applications. I agree God chose to keep Jonah in the fish for 3 days and nights to foreshadow Christ in the grave. Jesus confirms this. But did God force Jonah to run from him in order to tell this story? That goes too far in my opinion. That sounds like EDD.
I realize you are drawing a distinction between particular prophesies intended to be foreshadowing of Christ on one hand and salvation which you affirm is conditioned upon a freewill choice to believe on the other. But if God is controlling the Jews like puppets to reject the Messiah, then God is also keeping them from salvation, because salvation requires acceptance of Jesus as Christ.
Dana
Dana,
Please slow down when reading what I wrote! LOL.
You had said:
“But your text actually supports my position that blindness is avoidable if we just humbly admit we are blind.”
My response:
WHO IS WE? I’m discussing JEWS, not Gentiles. There is NO WE here. There is JEWS ONLY.
So, again:
Deuteronomy 29:4 is FOR THE JEWS ONLY
4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
That was Moses talking to the Children of Israel. He wasn’t talking to YOU.
That verse is REPEATED in Romans 11:8
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
The pronouns “THEM”, and “THEY” are JEWS ONLY.
Now, to CONTRAST Jew from Gentile here:
Romans 15:21
21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
That’s YOU, not WE.
Now, for those who CLING TO “for there is no difference”, they miss the “IN CHRIST” part of that, meaning, if both Jew and Gentile are Christians, then there is no difference.
But for some denominations, they IGNORE that there is NO DIFFERENCE between MALE AND FEMALE. Those denominations want to make perfectly clear that there is a difference between male and female! Something about headship, and barefeet.
In any case, there is no “WE” here. God blinded the Jews, Satan blinds Gentile philosophers.
And, I REJECT, flat out, your explanation of Deuteronomy 29:4, as being that God blinded them DUE TO WHATEVER THEY DID WRONG.
No, that’s NOT the reason for the blindness. Unwillingness to submit? NOPE, I’m not buying it at all, especially with the last words of the verse, “UNTO THIS DAY”. You do know what that means, right?
And then you attempt to BLAME JONAH for his actions, by saying, “But did God force Jonah to run from him in order to tell this story?”
My response: YES!
Dude, I’m NOT A CALVINIST…but what the Calvinists think is for ALL MANKIND, is ONLY directed to the JEWS.
And, if I’m not mistaken, Romans 9 discusses:
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Read the verses ABOVE AND BELOW in conjunction with. God is the PUPPETEER in the case of PROPHETS lives who prophesy.
The PASSOVER…was that MAN MADE, or GOD MADE? What is PASSOVER? The Angel of Death…passing over? Jesus IS the Passover. Passover is PROPHESY of Jesus, every bit of Passover is, all the way down to the FOOD and DRINK.
Do you actually think that Joseph wound up in a DRY WELL by the WILL OF his brothers, or by the WILL OF GOD?
What did that DRY WELL represent as far as prophesy is concerned? ANSWER: THE DEATH OF JESUS WHO WENT TO HELL TO PAY FOR OUR SINS.
But you want to blame the brothers of Joseph, huh? You want to blame Potifers wife for Joseph being locked up? I don’t. That got him in jail, yes, but it also got him to interpret a dream for the Pharaoh, and the Pharaoh put him in charge!
Dude, that’s JESUS’ life, RIGHT THERE. Prophesy.
Ed Chapman
Ed
I will try to slow down but life moves fast!
You draw a distinction between JEWS and Jews who are IN CHRIST. But any Jew can receive Christ by faith and move from one category to the other. So these categories are not fixed. What keeps Jews from believing is not God’s puppeteering but their own willful refusal to humble themselves before God. They do not “learn from the Father” thus they are not given to the Son. (John 6:45) But it need not be this way. That is why Jesus took the time to speak to unbelieving Jews because they too can be saved (John 5:34). They are not puppets.
Dana
Willful refusal? No. I’m arguing against that. I’m flat out saying that they can’t come to Jesus until Jesus first heals them of their blindness. Like I noted before, the remnant is chosen from the law of Moses to the law of Christ.
The Law is not of faith, so they can’t come to Christ by faith. The law is by works.
But I’m gonna show you that the law was a setup for FAIL.
Romans 5:20
THE LAW WAS GIVEN TO INCREASE SIN…
NOT to decrease sin.
Abraham was imputed RIGHTEOUSNESS because he believed God’s promise.
But Abraham was not under the law, either.
But to the Jews, righteousness is obtained under the law.
The problem is, no one can achieve that.
Deuteronomy 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.
So, Jesus took away the law for believers.
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Galatians 3:12
And the law is not of faith…
The Jews are puppets, and I’ve been giving example after example after example of it.
When Jesus heals them of their blindness, then they can come to Jesus. That’s why God had to open the heart of Lydia.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You say the “Jews can’t come to Jesus until Jesus first heals them of their blindness.” So why do some Jews come to Jesus and others do not? On what basis are some healed and others not healed? Is it arbitrary or is there a distinguishing feature of one that makes one a part of the remnant and another not a part? I realize you are limiting this to Jews and not Gentiles but it sounds like unconditional election of the Jewish remnant. Is that your position?
Dana
Dana,
John 6:44
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:
And again, John 9:39-41
And Romans 11, all.
Just to name a few.
Dana,
You had said:
“I realize you are limiting this to Jews and not Gentiles but it sounds like unconditional election of the Jewish remnant. Is that your position?”
My response:
Before I answer, I don’t agree with your use of the word “election”, or who you may identify as “elect”. I see Jews as being the ONLY elect. And that election is ONLY about the Jews. Not you, as a Gentile. Having said that…
YES, all because of ONE VERSE…Deuteronomy 29:4. I don’t know why you keep talking Isaiah, when that is irrelevant as far as Deuteronomy 29:4 is concerned.
The Jews are the ONLY elect. Saved Gentiles are NOT elect. Elect is NOT a synonym of the word SAVED. Elect is a word to describe Jews who had NO CHOICE in the matter of being blind. And NO, it is NOT DUE to anything that they did, or didn’t do. They are NOT BLIND due to sin.
There is a SPIRITUAL PURPOSE that they are blind. They are the only ones needing regeneration. NOT YOU. They didn’t ask to be made blind. AND THIS IS ROMANS 9.
But because they are PUPPETS, they will all be saved, because of their blindness. AND THIS IS ROMANS 11.
The Bible…it’s a JEWISH BOOK, ABOUT JEWS. Very LITTLE of it is about Gentiles.
Ed Chapman
Ed, you wrote “Jews are the only elect.”
I did a quick word search and found these references which use the noun eklekton to refer to both Jewish and Gentile believers (Rom. 8:33; Titus 1:1) as well as elect angels in 1 Tim. 5:21. Additionally, the verb eklektos is used to refer to both Jewish and Gentile believers in Col. 3:12 and 1 Peter 2:9.
But setting that word aside for a moment, my point is that you seem to believe God unconditionally chooses Jews to be saved (some now and the rest later) while he conditionally chooses gentiles to be saved by faith in Christ. So do you believe that all Jews are saved (both past and present) while only some Gentiles will be saved? I don’t think I have ever heard your position stated elsewhere. Are there others who think like you?
Dana,
Sorry, but I don’t buy off on those “elect” references as both Jew and Gentile.
Paul discusses both Jew and Gentile within his epistles. Paul goes to the Jew first, before going to the Gentile.
In Galatians, Paul makes it clear that he is the apostle to the Gentiles, whereas Peter, James, and John are apostles to the Jews. But again, Paul goes to the Jew first, before the Gentile. So, when Peter mentions the elect, he’s discussing Jews, because his epistles are for the Jews.
Some of his epistles are directed to Jews. 1 and 2 Thessalonians are his epistles to Jews, for example. Those are the Jews from Acts 17.
Isaiah 45:4
For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
Now, as far as your Colossians 3:12…”AS THE ELECT”, not “ELECT”.
Israel is God’s elect, as far as HUMANS are concerened. Isaiah 45:4.
Ed Chapman
Dana,
GENTILES ARE NOT BLIND.
You had said:
“But setting that word aside for a moment, my point is that you seem to believe God unconditionally chooses Jews to be saved (some now and the rest later) while he conditionally chooses gentiles to be saved by faith in Christ. ”
My response:
Yes, I am. And why? Because God blinded the Jews…for a purpose. He never blinded the Gentiles.
DIFFERENCE:
Deuteronomy 29:4
4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
and
Romans 11:8
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
CONTRASTED WITH:
Romans 15:21
21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
AND THE SLAM DUNK:
Romans 11:26
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Ed Chapman
Dana,
And finally,
You had said:
” I don’t think I have ever heard your position stated elsewhere. Are there others who think like you?”
My response:
I’m a DISPENSATIONAL ZIONIST as far as eschatology goes. And that is about the ultimate salvation of the Jews, which is what the book of Revelation is really all about. Zechariah 14:1-5 also. But there is also verses all over the place in the OT about the ultimate salvation of the Jews.
Verses 2-3
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST ISRAEL AND THE JEWS ARE DOOMED!
Ed Chapman
Dana, one small correction. You had said:
“I realize you are limiting this to Jews and not Gentiles but it sounds like unconditional election of the Jewish remnant.”
Not Jewish “remnant”, but ALL BLIND JEWS. Remnant are NOT BLIND ANYMORE. They have been healed. But the TOTALITY of the Jews is what I’m discussing. Not just a small portion of saved Jews, called remnant.
Dana,
Round Two:
As far as the SALVATION OF THE JEWS…All Israel shall be saved! Romans 11 so states.
So does Jeremiah.
But there is an order to it. As I stated, there is STILL unfulfilled PROPHESY that involve blind Jews. The book of Revelation.
Go to Ezekiel 36, and it shows that God intends to bring ALL TWELVE TRIBES back to Israel, and he makes it clear that it’s NOT FOR THEIR PURPOSE, but for his! But now we are getting into eschatology stuff.
But I will say this…we know that God is NOT a respecter of persons…am I right? If so, I present you with…drum roll please…THE APOSTLE PAUL…
1 Timothy 1:13
Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
THREE WORDS
1. IGNORANTLY
2. UNBELIEF
3. MERCY
Did Paul seek out Jesus, or did Jesus seek out Paul?
How is Paul different than ANY OTHER JEW? If God is NOT a respector of persons, then God has no choice but to treat all Jews in like manner, as he did for Paul.
Romans 11:30
For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
Romans 11:31
Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
Romans 11:32
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
All JEWS, that is. Blind Jews, that is.
Ed Chapman
Dana,
Oh, one last thing.
You had said:
” But if God is controlling the Jews like puppets to reject the Messiah, then God is also keeping them from salvation, because salvation requires acceptance of Jesus as Christ.”
My response:
Yes, you are correct.
Romans 11:5
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
That’s why they are called, “remnant”. That’s why John 6:44 is for JEWS ONLY, not Gentiles.
Here we have God followers under the Law of Moses, being TRANSITIONED to being God followers under the LAW OF CHRIST. Works, vs. Grace/Faith. The Jews that didn’t get CHOSEN are under WORKS still, but a SMALL portion, called REMNANT were CHOSEN to grace.
You do realize, also, that Lydia was a Jewish woman, whom God had to open her heart? She is a part of the CHOSEN remnant.
I’m going to show something else that shows a HUGE DIFFERENCE between Jew and Gentile:
Paul discussing Jesus:
Romans 15:8 (JEWS)
8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
Supporting verse:
Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Paul discussing himself:
Romans 15:16 (GENTILES)
That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
So, John 6:44 is for the Jews, NOT YOU. Transitioning from the Law of Moses to the Law of Christ. The “NO MAN” has a context for the Jews only. But it is interesting listening to former Calvinists explanations of John 6:44, as well as current Calvinists.
Ed Chapman
Your argument is weak, you lack some philosophical knowledge, you should read Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke, to better understand moral responsibility, here we have some insights from “A Treatise of Human Nature” Part III, section I/II, Of Freedom and Necessity: David Hume argues that the causal necessity of human actions is compatible with and a prerequisite for moral responsibility. An agent is not morally responsible for his bad or good action, if the badness or the goodness of the action is not attributed to the character of the agent. Your comparison is absurd, man has freedom as long as he is not forced or constrained to act, and to act at his own will. God uses the character of the agent to fulfill His will and decrees. Please tell me which of the actions of the Bible could have been done otherwise? Could Judas have not betrayed Jesus? Could Pilate have freed Jesus? Could Pharaoh have done differently? They had to obey the Decrees of God and at the same time act at their own will and responsibility.
br.d
Hello Filemon and welcome
.
Filemon:
David Hume argues that the causal necessity of human actions is compatible with and a prerequisite for moral responsibility.
.
br.d
That of course would be consistent as an argument for Determinism – which since Hume’s is reformed would be the case.
.
1) In Calvinism (aka EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM) that which is decreed – is always going be “compatible” with Determinism for obvious reasons.
.
2) And in Calvinism EVERYTHING WITHOUT EXCEPTION (including human responsibility) is established by the decree
.
3) Therefore it follows – human responsibility (along with everything else decreed) is going to be “compatible” with Determinism.
.
4) Additionally – the decree (per the confession) is not based upon the creature or the condition thereof – because that would make the creature the DETERMINER of the decree.
.
5) The decree which establishes human responsibility is (per the confession) solely and exclusivly determined within himself according to his good pleasure.
.
As John Calvin states it:
-quote
By the eternal *GOOD PLEASURE* of god though the reason does not appear, they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
.
.
CONSEQUENTLY:
In Calvinism – new-born babies are created “Worthy” of being thrown alive into the fire of Moloch – and then “worthy” of eternal torment in a lake of fire – for no other reason than it serves Calvin’s god’s good pleasure.
.
So yes – in Calvinism – human responsibility – just as every sinful/evil impulse that is decreed to infallibly come to pass – is going to be “Compatible” with Determinism – simply because it is that which has been decreed.
.
Blessings
br.d
Filemon,
You wrote, “God uses the character of the agent to fulfill His will and decrees.” I agree, but how did the agent come to possess this character? According to EDD God determined what character each agent would possess. So, it seems trivial to suggest that character determines responsibility when God’s decree is the antecedent cause of the agent’s character.
You also asked, “which of the actions of the Bible could have been done otherwise?” You then suggest candidates like Judas, Pilate, and Pharaoh. Your question seems to assume that events which are prophesied are necessary and thus cannot happen otherwise. Have you considered the distinction between necessity and certainty? If God knows a free agent will make a freewill choice, then that choice is certain before it is made. But was the choice necessary? It can be argued that while foreknowledge makes the future certain, it does not make the choice itself necessary. It could have been otherwise, and if it was, then God would have foreknown that reality and prophesy would have been adjusted accordingly. Prophesy doesn’t compel God to determine our character and our subsequent choices. It is the other way around. First, God knows our choice, then we make our choice, then God reveals His plan which anticipated that choice and exploits it or maneuvers around it. But an alternative choice does not become an impossibility simply because it was not actualized by our will. It was possible, just not actualized. And God is able to work around whatever choices we make “to fulfill His will and decrees”.
So, Judas could have chosen not to betray Jesus. If God foreknew this, then the prophesies concerning his betray would have been different. Pilate could have freed Jesus. If so, Pilate might have been removed from power and another in his place could carry out the crucifixion. Pharaoh is a different story. God hardened (or strengthened) Pharaoh’s heart to follow through with his desire despite the powerful influence of the plagues which might motivate him otherwise. Like Isaiah’s prophecy concerning blinding of Israel, this is a judgment in RESPONSE to prior sin. God punished Pharaoh and Israel by giving them what they wanted, the strength to follow through on their sinful desires.
Again, I agree with you, “God uses the character of the agent to fulfill His will and decrees.” But you make it sound like God FINDS the agent with this character and then EXPLOITS it for His purposes. But that is the non-Calvinist/non-determinist position. I assume you are defending EDD. In EDD God does not FIND the agent with a bad character, God CAUSES the agent to have a bad character, because he causes EVERYTHING!
Dana
You wrote, “God uses the character of the agent to fulfill His will and decrees.” I agree, but how did the agent come to possess this character?
.
br.d
Yes!
This is a strategy which is very typical of Calvinists – attributing that which is Determined to Nature – rather than attributing it to a THEOS.
There are those who would say this strategy reveals a lack of honesty on the Calvinists part.
.
For “Good” events – the Calvinist is guaranteed to attribute these events to Theological Determinism (which is an honest representation of his doctrine)
For “Evil” events however – the Calvinist is likely to attribute these events to NATURE (which is sometimes seen as a strategy of obfuscation and a compromise with honesty)
.
blessings
br.d
Dana: But you make it sound like God *FINDS* the agent with this character and then…..
.
Br.d
Yes!
This is another perennial problem with Calvinism – which is typically identified as DOUBLE-SPEAK.
Notice how the language in this case lacks TRUTH-TELLING – and is instead *COSMETIC* in nature.
.
Cosmetics are designed to
1) Hide what we don’t want people to see
2) Create an *APPEARANCE* we calculate people will accept
.
The Calvinist – out of a high urgency to get people to find Calvinism acceptable – will compromise TRUTH-TELLING in their language
They will defer to language designed to created the *APPEARANCE* of that which they calculate their audience will accept.
.
In this case – using language which infers Calvin’s god knows what the creature is and does by *OBSERVATION* and judges the creature accordingly.
SO the language is designed to infer concepts which are anathema to the belief system – for the sake of making Calvinism *APPEAR* acceptable.
.
The same way a woman applies COSMETICS on her face in order to make it more acceptable
The Calvinist uses *COSMETIC* language for the same purpose.
.
.
Here are some quotes from authors on the subject of Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK tactics:
.
Dr. William Lane Craig, in his interactions with Calvinist Paul Kjoss Helseth, in the authoring of the book Four Views on Divine Providence writes:
“A A. Hodge’s six-point summary of the classical Reformed view of divine providence, quoted by Paul Kjoss Helseth under ‘The True View of Providence Summarized’ falls short of expressing the radical distinctives of the Reformed position that Helseth defends.”
Dr. Jerry Walls, in his presentation What’s wrong with Calvinism states:
“If Calvinists didn’t rely so heavily on misleading rhetoric, their theology would lose all credibility within two years.”
Norman Geisler in his book Chosen but Free writes:
“Some Calvinists use smoke-and-mirror tactics to avoid the harsh implications of their view” (pg 104)
“This is done by redefining terms and Theological Doublespeak” (pg 261)
Laurence M. Vance in The Other Side of Calvinism writes about:
“The confusing labyrinth of Calvinist terminology” (pg 556)
Micah Coate in his book The Cultish side of Calvinism writes:
“Calvinists arguments are buried in theological and grammatical doublespeak.”
Ronnie W. Rogers, in his book Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist writes:
As mentioned in several places throughout this book, within Calvinism there is a problem of what I call doubletalk. But I am not implying immoral or clandestine trickery. Nor am I suggesting conspiratorial deceit. I must admit that upon reflection on my time being a Calvinist, I did the same thing. I did not do this out ill motive or intent to deceive, or because of a lack of desire to be faithful to the scripture. Nor do I ascribe this to my Calvinist brothers. As a matter of fact, I did it because I believed Calvinism and the Scripture; and this brought about conflicts, or at least unconscious responses to the conflicts, which I now see as doubletalk. This doubletalk obscured the harsh realities of Calvinism and the inconsistencies between Scripture and Calvinism. ”
Authors David L. Allen, Eric Hankins, and Adam Harwood in their book Anyone Can Be Saved: A Defense of “Traditional” Southern Baptist Soteriology write:
“This is a clear example of what I call Calvinism’s double-talk. By double-talk, I specifically and only mean thinking….speaking in such a way that obscures the disquieting realities of Calvinism. If a person accepts these realities, then he can be a knowledgeable and consistent Calvinist. But if one is unwilling to face them and accept them, he cannot be a consistent Calvinist. Additionally, I am not calling anyone a double-talker nor is my use of this term intended in any sense to be a pejorative.”
Gilbert VanOrder Jr in his book Calvinism’s Conflicts: An Examination of the Problems in Reformed Theology writes:
“Calvinists then have to resort to double-talk in order to explain how human responsibility is still involved even though it isn’t. If a man can do nothing to change his condition, then he cannot be held responsible for changing his condition”.
Ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely in his book Calvinism a closer look writes:
“Calvinist and Non-Calvinist do not share the same meaning of words….. Remember, Calvinism is merely the invoking of associative meaning, not real meaning. By ‘not real’ I mean that the meaning is destroyed in the overall thought of the clause or sentence. For, of course, at one level the Calvinist understands the general meaning of words. But when he strings them together in such a way that it forms an idea that is false…
This is what I used to do as a Calvinist. I liken these non-sense statements, or propositions, to the riding of a rocking horse….. Thus, I would go back and forth in seesaw motion, lest on the one hand I find myself accusing God of insufficient sovereignty, or on the other hand find myself accusing God of authoring sin. All the while, there remained an illusion of movement towards truth, when in fact there was no real movement at all. At length I would allow the springs of dialectical tension to rest the rocking horse in the center, and then I would declare as harmonious propositions, which in fact, were totally contradictory to each other. Calvinist riders still ride out this scenario.”
Francis Hodgson in his book The Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination Examined and Refuted, 1855 writes:
“The apology for this gross misapplication of language…..is found in their distressing emergency.
In no other way can they, with any plausibility, meet their opponents.”
Filemon:
Man has freedom as long as he is not forced .
.
br.d
This – of course – is only half of the picture
In Calvinism – creation is never granted “Freedom” to falsify or countervail an infallible decree.
.
For any decree to successfully come to pass – that which is decreed must be granted “Freedom” to come to pass.
.
If Calvin’s god does not grant “Freedom” for that which he decrees – he is a house divided against himself.
.
But creation is never granted “Freedom” to BE/DO OTHER than that which is decreed.
.
Thus in Calvinism:
Adam was granted “Freedom” to [EAT] the forbidden fruit – because [EATING] was decreed and must be granted “Freedom”
But Adam was NOT granted “Freedom” to [NOT EAT] because [NOT EAT] was CONTRARY to the decree
And creation is NOT granted “Freedom” to BE/DO that which is CONTRARY to the decree.
.
On the NO FORCE argument – Calvin himself did not hesitate to declare created beings are “Forced” to do him service
So this argument would be denied by Calvin himself.
.
However – even though that is the case – the NO FORCE argument is a red-herring argument anyway.
Calvin’s god does not have to FORCE you to perform the sins and evils he wants you to perform
His infallible decree simply does not grant you any ALTERNATIVE
.
Where he decrees you will perform SIN_X at TIME_T – that decree does not grant you any ALTERNATIVE OPTION.
You are not granted a CHOICE in the matter – simply because NO ALTERNATIVE exists for you to choose.
And even if ALTERNATIVES did exist (which is logically impossible) you would still not have any CHOICE – because every impulse that comes to pass within your brain – comes to pass by antecedent factors (infallible decree) totally outside of your brain’s control.
.
Blessings
br.d
Response to Dana Steele’s July 29th post
The instinct that it oversimplifies a complex dynamic, is only valid if the foundation allows for the complex and dynamic. LFW views do allow for the complex and dynamic. EDD as a foundational claim, does not allow for a complex and dynamic reality, it is no more complex or dynamic than a puppet show. One can not simply assume away the central point of the analogy. It must be reasoned out. Which leads to your argument, I will address.
You claim that the force of the analogy is built upon a perspective outside the analogy, but it seems to me that the analogy encompass all the relevant realities perfectly. The world of the puppets, their emotions their good deeds and evil actions. these are the “story level” Calvinists so often appeal to. The analogy here does not include an audience, because none is required for the example to make sense. All that is required is the puppet and the one pulling the strings. Those string founded on EDD, and the puppeteer is God. If one demands on perfect analogies to convey points, that is an unreasonable position that seeks to cut off communication IMO.
When you speak of a pejorative, or this just being the way of things. If it is the way of things, it is only a pejorative in that it destroys other concepts that we hold as true. The power and force of the analogy and the reason it is rejected, is because we know there is no possibility of true love between puppet and master. Also, the validity of the analogy makes clear what most would consider the opposite of freedom. The Calvinist defense of defining Freedom as “doing what we want”, then becomes trivial.
As long as that freedom is in the context of EDD, it is in the context addressed by the puppet analogy.
You say “Our perception of reality certainly seems categorically different than that of a puppet as we know and experience the term.”
Then we are forced to reject EDD. We can’t simply deny the consequence, that would be a logical fallacy. So far the point of the analogy stands firm.
I agree with you that the idea of parent and child analogy makes a lot of sense of our existence and interaction with God. This does not cast doubt of the accuracy of the Analogy in relation to EDD.
Concluding that we are not puppets, is not a refutation of the analogy, it is a refutation of EDD. Because the strings remain.
I agree with your conclusion, but don’t find it a sufficient reason to not appeal to the puppet analogy when responding to EDD.
I hope I haven’t ignored anything, I don’t want to chase rabbits. My task is to sustain the explanation offered (in the OP) as valid.
—- An observation about other objections.
Many objections seem to be based on pointing to a scripture that would contradict the puppet analogy, or disallow it. “We are free”. “Was Jesus a Puppet!?” etc. Proving the Bible is incompatible with the Puppet Analogy, is not a defense of EDD. Nor does it support that EDD is not accurately described. The claim is not that the bible makes us puppets. It is that EDD necessarily entails the implications of the Puppet analogy. Again, one can not simply assume away the argument, but must show it flawed.
Thanks again for reading.
James LeBlanc (MindTrap)
James,
I don’t follow why LFW allows for a complex dynamic but EDD does not. When EDD says that God determines all things, they do not insist that God determines all things by a simple dynamic. Your argument sounds circular because the thing that proves that it is simple is that it is puppet-like. But that is begging the question. Are you suggesting that it is impossible for God to determine an action in a non-puppet-like manner? When God uses His foreknowledge about a person to non-forcefully persuade them to make a certain choice, and knows what choice they will make, has not God in a sense “caused” the action without infringing on the person’s freewill? This is a complex dynamic that I affirm, and I think a Calvinist could affirm as well. Where I differ from Calvinists is that I believe God gives sufficient persuasion but not irresistible persuasion. And in my opinion, an irresistible persuasion does violate freewill. But both dynamics are rather complex. Any dynamic which involves omniscience is necessarily complex because it is a concept that defies simple explanations.
Dana
More Deliberations on the concept of FORCE within the puppet analogy
.
The typical Calvinist argument against the puppet analogy – is that man is granted “Freedom” as long as he is not FORCED to do what he does.
.
This argument is additionally problematic for the Calvinist – because it presupposes a degree of HUMAN AUTONOMY
which does not exist in Calvinism.
.
Take for example – the scenario of two strong men arm wrestling.
Each man is applying FORCE against the other man.
.
One man will win the arm wrestling by applying FORCE against the other man.
.
But what is critical in this scenario is the fact that these two men have AUTONOMY from each other.
And a critical component of the AUTONOMY which each man has – is MENTAL AUTONOMY
.
One man is not controlling the other man’s brain.
One man is not determining the impulses which come to pass within the other man’s brain.
.
.
If it were the case – that one man controlled the impulses within the brain of the other man – then that other man would lack AUTONOMY – and in such case – we don’t really have two men arm wrestling each other.
.
Where one man controls the brain of the other man – what we have is that one man creating a *SIMULATION* of two men arm wrestling.
.
In reality – it is not two men arm wrestling.
In reality – it is one man controlling the brain and body of another man – in order to *SIMULATE* two men arm wrestling.
.
This is where the Calvinists NO FORCE argument collapses.
It presupposes a degree of MENTAL AUTONOMY granted to humans which does not exist in Calvinism.
.
The Calvinist – per the doctrine – cannot have an impulse in his brain that he can call his own.
Every impulse that comes to pass within his brain – was FIRST CONCEIVED in Calvin’s god mind – and then *MADE* to IRRESISTIBLY come to pass within his brain.
He is granted NO SAY and NO CONTROL over that which is decreed to infallibly come to pass anywhere – including within his brain.
.
The Calvinist brain is granted *ZERO* AUTONOMY.
.
CONCLUSION:
No MENTAL AUTONOMY is granted to the Calvinist’s brain – necessary for the NO FORCE argument to be logically coherent.