Does Calvinism ever really answer the major objection?

From my observations of late is that many Determinist are dropping the claim of “Compatibilism” because of the recognition that it is logically inconsistent. A simple formula which discounts the Calvinist view on sovereignty as it relates to determinism is:

1) Necessarily God has fore determined everything that will happen
2) God has determined X
3) Therefore it is necessary that X will happen

Free will should be defined as volition and this sustains the meaning that a creature has the ability to consciously choose; one can not do both, have this ability and not have this ability in any logical sense. If creaturely response is determined by causal means to have an irresistible effect on the creature then creaturely volition and thereby responsility logically becomes void.

That said, I generally don’t take as much objection to the view of compatibility because at least it is practical in that at a minimum it attempts to avoid the fatalistic view of the Hard Determinist.

 

The claim that being made on this tread that non-Calvinist believe that “God is unjust” is merely an inflammatory accusation that is not only begging the question in terms of the Calvinist view of Sovereignty, but also amounts to a strawman through use of a dysphemism . The non-Calvinist view is that God is just, righteous, good and all His ways are judgment… in TRUTH!, Deut 32:4; a far cry from hyperbolic and intentionally offensive claim being made that we believe God is “unjust”.

 

Unjust or unfair? Or, the same thing?

Shucks, you mean the same claim that skandelon made that all think it's (He's) unfair?

In this quote (and as implied in his OP)?

I think that is what you are referring to. skandelon said these things to which I believe you refer.

Keep in mind I don't think Sovereign God unfair, as skandelon erroneously suggests. Also note that I agree with Scripture that God is just, good, righteous, and Holy, even when at His hand we receive evil, even as Job stated, and according to the Scriptures which you allude to.

- Peace

 

No.

I hold the compatibilistic view which states "God foreordains the free and sometimes sinful actions of human beings to serve His purposes and display His glory." That is what I mean by compatiblism. I further mean these things:

1. Man is not acted upon by God in order that man sins. Man sins because it is his desire to do so.

2. Man is absolutely responsible for his sin

3. God super-intends even gravely sinful things to suit His purposes.

Now, you acknowledge your understanding of the "compatibilistic view of 'control'" yet you do not acknowledge our understanding of compatiblism. This is evidenced by the statement in your first response:

If you'd like to replace that with "compatiblistic control," then fine. It all amounts to the same thing. You have God in ultimate control (i.e. the determining factor) of your choices. However you want to nuance that doesn't change that simple fact.
​

You are assuming that compatibilistic control means that God is the determining factor of our choices. We do not agree. You go further to state, pretty much unequivocally, that how we define what we mean does not matter.

You are reading your understanding of compatibilism into what we mean by it. Again, you are seeking to define what we mean according to your own definitions rather than accepting at face value what we mean and allowing us to define our own terms.

No.

You said I believe that God is the determining factor in all my choices and no matter what I say it is the case.

Further more, I never stated what I think you believe. I think you can define for us what you believe. I see no need to define your belief for you--a favor you seem unwilling or unable to return.

Sure you use "ultimate" but you don't use it in the same way I did. You state, quite plainly, that you think our understanding of compatibilism means that "God controls people" when we mean "ultimate control" to mean that God controls every circumstance.

No.

You have yet to demonstrate an accurate understanding and I will not grant this when it is itself the issue. Your OP is based on a faulty understanding of our position--that is the issue.

Do I deny that "God decrees whatsoever comes to pass?" In the way you mean it absolutely. The Westminster Confession never says nor implies that this includes my desire.

What the Westminster Confession does say and what I do affirm is this:

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.
​

Your understanding disallows everything after "...comes to pass." The Westminster Divines specifically ruled out your understanding. Your understanding requires God to author sin and to do violence to the will of the creature and to remove liberty or contingency of second causes.

So, again, we see you wanting to define things according to your understanding and your desires rather than defining things as they have been defined by others.

No, you sought to affirm (and by doing so put words into my mouth) that I believed in compatibilistic control. I believe in compatiblism. I believe in compatibilism according to how I, not you, define it. I have explained what I believe and you have continually sought to say "you don't believe that."

No, I do not affirm that Satan can act independently of God.

You are looking for a needle in a haystack when the needle has never been defined. Where did Satan's evil desire come from? We're not told. It isn't the issue to the biblical writers. They concern themselves with facts, not speculation. Satan is real. He used to be an angel. Where the evil came from is a mystery and I don't know of one biblical writer that makes the "where" an issue.

The Archangel

 

It is clear to me Skandelon is speaking from the Calvinist view on sovereignty that it would seem that way, or as it relates to that Calvinist claim. By my perspective the issue is null because the Calvinist view of sovereignty is null as it denies the righteous judgment of God to hold on to a boxed in view of Hard Determinsm. A fatalistic view BTW.

 

Calvinists fail to incorporate all biblical teaching into their limited 5 point theory. Christians who understand that the sovereign God bases His election of men on His foreknowledge of their loving reception of His word are not "deficient" in understanding at all.

 

And persons of your theological persuasion fail to incorporate a proper understanding of the word "foreknowledge."

In the text most often referenced, Romans 8, "loving reception" is not what is foreknown; people are foreknown.

Paul's usage of the word "foreknew" occurs in only two places, Romans 8 and Romans 11, and it means "chose."

The Archangel

 

So what you are saying is if this were true, then you are calling that God unfair, right?

It doesn't seem to me God is unfair in the Biblical view/Calvinist view of Sovereignty. Calvinism doesn't deny the righteous judgment of God. Since God is Sovereign bringing all things to pass, either one simply trusts Him in this, or one calls it unfair and doesn't.

Job trusted Him. He never brought any objection to God in all that He did. Non-cals do, in fact, object to this. They just simply cannot see it, and to them, everything has to be fair, or it just cannot be of God. This, the non-cal view of Sovereignty turns a blind eye to the whole truth of the matter, and the remainder is a deficient theology.

This error then bleeds off into their other theological stances, resulting in the glaring deficiencies they hold to concerning the omnis, and the sinful state of lost man. These are foundational truths, and misunderstanding them brings grave error.

See how ones faulty non-cal view of Sovereignty leavens the rest of their theology? The foundation of their theology is crumbling, and everything built thereupon is showing cracks and defects.

There is grave danger for the non-cal here in calling the God here of Scriptures, in this true Biblical Sovereignty, unfair. Paul addressed such in Romans 9, and thus it is true that this does take place.

Non-cals falsely accuse Cals of making God a monster, and other nonsense, and this is their only recourse. I'd dare say that if Job were living today, the same accusations would be cast upon him. Job never sinned against God in what he stated. Neither do we. Is there a fine line? Certainly. But you won't find me crossing that line and calling God the Potter unfair.

- Peace

 

I might be persuaded to agree to the possibility of such an interpretation if I didn't know the character and nature of God is that he is not willing that anyone should die and go to hell, if only they would be willing to turn from their sin to seek His face.

 

Wrong, and you continue to miss the point that we do not make that claim of God being unjust/unfair while continuing in the same fallacy of repeating it...you are the one making that claim that we believe such from within your view of Divine sovereignty and personally, I don't except the Calvinist view of Divine sovereignty so your "accusation" is void and becomes a baseless rhetorical remark to make.

I said:

 

There is also a grave danger in a view that leads to fatalism. I would suggest you weigh your logic concerning freewill and determism and see where it adds up to while considering post #41.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1771017&postcount=41

 

Just for records sake, I often, but not always "feel" this way, but prefer the use of "unjust" rather than "unfair", the use of unfair so often comes tied with a tinge of being pejorative.

 

Mine isn't logic, it's Scripture, and I referred to them. Non-cals on the other hand run to reason, theirs, and cry unfair, because to them, this God cannot be, because he doesn't succomb to what they deem fair, nor fit into what they deem logical. Thus they are in fact weighing the God of Scripture with their logic. If it doesn't fit their logic, then it is cast aside. This is unfortunate, yet it is factual.

Now, answer my questions.

So what you are saying is if this were true, then you are calling that God unfair, right?

That among others.

Thanks.

 

:smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin:

 

The above is untrue. I missed this post according to my last response, as I didn't see it, but it is nonetheless untruthful.

Others admit to calling this God, if this is the truth concerning Him, unfair. I won't go round and round on false claims as above.

Either you call this God we represent based upon Scripture unfair, or you don't.

If I were you, I'd not answer and maybe go do some studying and soul-searching, as you are on shaky ground and the what is at stake is of severe importance. It might be the wisest choice you've made all day, and a prudent decision on your part to bow out and say "I don't know."

Thanks.

 

The Calvinist position is wholely based on scripture, it just isn't based on the whole of the scriptures.

 

Let me put it another way, if your view of deterministic Divine sovereignty were true it would logically/truthfully leave no room for justice. A Hard Determinist view can only lead to fatalism; that is why many discerning Calvinist turn to a theological view of “Compatibilism”. But to say the non-Calvinist believes that God would have to be unfair has to rely on YOUR view of Divine sovereignty which we don’t have; the issue that you are missing is that we don’t believe God is unfair, but quite the contrary, and again, we don’t believe the Hard Determinist view (and neither do any discerning Calvinist) because of where that logically leads.

Frankly, I know God is Just and believe any view that points otherwise is one that is a gravely mistaken and dangerous view because such reasoning denies His Holy Character for the sake of holding to a particular theological system. To me to do such is to do it in pride of a system and to deny an all-important truth in the process.

You have to look beyond your nose, which has those Calvinistic glasses sitting on it, before you can see the logical errors in your reasoning.

 

You rather describe the deficient non-cal theologies here.