Does God receive any glory at all in the Calvinist system?

[Guest]

Hi Bshow!

I find the Calvinist's 'compatiblist' concept interesting. Can you please site a real-life/physical illustration of that so I can better understand?

In Christ,
Richard

Hi Richard,

Compatibilism has been explained by far abler folks than me, but a couple of the classic biblical illustrations are Gen. 50:20 and Acts 2:23:

• 
  As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. (Gen 50:20, NASB)
  
  
  this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. (Acts 2:23, NASB)

In each case we have a single act (the selling of Joseph into slavery, and the handing over of Jesus to the Romans) with two simultaneous, but different causes or intentions. The intent of man in each case was evil, but the intent of God was good.

So the fact that a man can be the cause of an action (even a sinful action) is compatible with God also being the cause of the same action (without God's intention being evil), which is what we mean by compatiblism. We say that in each case, the men acted freely, because there actions were not compelled by any external force making them do what they did. They did it because the intentions of their hearts were evil.

Incompatibilists reject this interpretation, but they do so not on biblical grounds, but on the basis of an a priori assumption that libertarian freedom is the only possible kind of freedom. (You'll see that in the reponses to this post.)

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Incompatibilists reject this interpretation, but they do so not on biblical grounds, but on the basis of an a priori assumption that libertarian freedom is the only possible kind of freedom. (You'll see that in the reponses to this post.)

No use trying to convince us incompatibilists. We're destined to think the way we do.

[Guest]

Incompatibilists reject this interpretation, but they do so not on biblical grounds, but on the basis of an a priori assumption that libertarian freedom is the only possible kind of freedom. (You'll see that in the reponses to this post.)

No use trying to convince us incompatibilists. We're destined to think the way we do.

Don't be so sure, we may get you over to the dark side some day Paidion!

(P.S. Your sig line makes no sense to me, have you discussed it elsewhere?)

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. (Gen 50:20, NASB)

Just curious, but did God put it in their hearts, or did he exploit what was already there?

[Guest]

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. (Gen 50:20, NASB)

Just curious, but did God put it in their hearts, or did he exploit what was already there?

Well, the verse doesn't say. But I see no reason to suspect that God needed to create fresh evil in their hearts. How do you see it?

Cheers,
Bob

[_Sean]

• 
  As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. (Gen 50:20, NASB)
  
  
  this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. (Acts 2:23, NASB)

In each case we have a single act (the selling of Joseph into slavery, and the handing over of Jesus to the Romans) with two simultaneous, but different causes or intentions. The intent of man in each case was evil, but the intent of God was good.

So the fact that a man can be the cause of an action (even a sinful action) is compatible with God also being the cause of the same action (without God's intention being evil), which is what we mean by compatiblism. We say that in each case, the men acted freely, because there actions were not compelled by any external force making them do what they did. They did it because the intentions of their hearts were evil.

Incompatibilists reject this interpretation, but they do so not on biblical grounds, but on the basis of an a priori assumption that libertarian freedom is the only possible kind of freedom. (You'll see that in the reponses to this post.)

Cheers,
Bob

I would like to focus on this point and ask a question:

We say that in each case, the men acted freely, because there actions were not compelled by any external force making them do what they did.

Bob, in our other discussions you were arguing for determinism and against free will. If God foreknew something (like the events of Acts 2:23 for example) it must be a "true" condition. If it does not come to pass then God "would have held a false belief" and this cannot be the case. So whatever God "knows" or foreknows must be true and come to pass as long as some form of determinism is true.

So, if God knew in advance the events of the men who turned over and crucified Christ then how can you say these men acted freely? And that their actions were not compelled by any external force as to make them do what they did. If God knows "X" as a true condition then it must take place, correct? How can one (in the Calvinist system) freely choose if they don't have a choice?

How would my saying that although God knows who are His yet I believed the gospel freely, without being compelled to by an outside force be any different that what you just said?

I don't understand.

[Guest]

Hi Sean,

I would like to focus on this point and ask a question:

We say that in each case, the men acted freely, because there actions were not compelled by any external force making them do what they did.

Bob, in our other discussions you were arguing for determinism and against free will.

Against libertarian free will. I believe that we have compatibilistic free will (although most who hold to libertarianism do not accept that there can be any other kind of free will).

If God foreknew something (like the events of Acts 2:23 for example) it must be a "true" condition. If it does not come to pass then God "would have held a false belief" and this cannot be the case.

Yes, given the definition of what it means for God to know something. God holds no false beliefs, and does hold all true beliefs (omniscience). This is what I was trying to get to in our discussion over the passage about Saul and David.

So whatever God "knows" or foreknows must be true and come to pass as long as some form of determinism is true.

I would say must come to pass, period. Determinism provides the only coherent basis for God's foreknowledge of future events.

So, if God knew in advance the events of the men who turned over and crucified Christ then how can you say these men acted freely? And that their actions were not compelled by any external force as to make them do what they did.

By external force, I mean some force acting outside of the realm of the men's wills or against their wills. No external force was compelling them to do what they didn't want to do. The men did what they did freely because they acted willfully and deliberately out of their own desires. That is compatibilism, which is what I was seeking to explain in the citation of this passage.

If God knows "X" as a true condition then it must take place, correct? How can one (in the Calvinist system) freely choose if they don't have a choice?

Well again, you presuppose that libertarian freedom is the only possible freedom. I say that one chooses freely if one can choose according to one's desires. The fact that the alternate choice is excluded by God's decree does not affect this.

Here's an illustration: Suppose that you strawberry ice cream. It's your favorite. Now suppose that I set before you two dishes: one containing strawberry ice cream, and one containing spinach, which you detest. I mean, you really hate it don't want anything to do with it. I then ask you to choose one.

How will you make your choice? According to your desire. You will choose the ice cream and reject the spinach. Now, suppose that God has decreed that you will choose the ice cream and not the spinach. The alternate choice has been removed (although the bowls are sitting there and I still ask you to choose one and you still need to choose one). Will the basis for your choice be changed? Not at all; you will still pick the ice cream, and for the same reason. Will there be some invisible force moving your hand to the bowl of ice cream, compelling you to take it? No; no such force is necessary, because you want to take the ice cream. So if you take it because you want to take it and nothing forces you to take it, then I am saying you take it freely.

Well, you say, suppose that God had decreed that you choose the spinach instead of the ice cream? Before we consider that, let's consider the case that I (not God) wanted you to choose the spinach. How could I do it? I could pull out a gun and threaten to shoot you unless you pick the spinach. That's the external force of compulsion. In a sense, you still choose according to your desire; it's just that your desire to live is greater than your desire to avoid spinach.

Or, I could make an appeal to some other desire you have. I might argue that the spinach is lower in fat and higher in vitamins and is better for your health. Again, you choose according to your desires; perhaps your desire to be healthy overcomes your dislike of spinach and you take the spinach anyway.

But let's return to God's decree. God could use the methods I might use. But God is your creator, and He has another way He can work: He can change your heart. He can turn you from a spinach hater into a spinach lover. If he were to do that, you would choose the spinach freely because your desire would be for the spinach. In this way, God's decree again is compatible with your free, unforced choice.

How does this illustration relate to salvation? The ice cream represents sin, and the spinach represents the gospel. By nature, we all love sin and always freely choose sin over loving God. The Arminian sees God as working like my appeal to health. He woos you and tries to show you how choosing Him is better than the alternative. Those who agree choose Him. The Calvinist, on the other hand, believes that such appeals won't work, given our deadness in sin. We don't need wooing, we need resurrection. We need God to change us from sin lovers to God lovers, so that we freely run to Him instead of toward the sin we used to love. Those that are so changed by Him will freely embrace the gospel, because He has changed them at the level of their desires, so that they want to come to Him. No external force is needed to compel them, because they have no desire to resist coming to Him.

How would my saying that although God knows who are His yet I believed the gospel freely, without being compelled to by an outside force be any different that what you just said?

If that was all you said, there wouldn't be any difference. I believe that I freely chose to follow Christ, but that God's choice preceded and determined my choice. There was no outside force compelling my choice, I wanted to choose Him.

Just as those who betrayed and crucified Christ freely chose to do so according to their evil desires, and yet God's choice preceded and determined their choice, as the passage explains.

But of course, that's not all you've said...

Cheers,
Bob

[_Sean]

Hello Bob, I'd like to comment more on some of what you posted but would rather further the discussion along. About compatibilistic free will, I still don't see how a Calvinist can be consistent about this since God knows all things and since man then must perform what God knows man will do then man is determined, not by his own will but by God. Since God would certainly know even the number of sins a man will commit. Either these actions were known by God ahead of time or they happened because God knew they would. In other words, what is the cause of the future events. God, the events themselves or a combination of both. Since all sides see these things differently, perhaps it's fruitless to go further on this point.

But let's return to God's decree. God could use the methods I might use. But God is your creator, and He has another way He can work: He can change your heart. He can turn you from a spinach hater into a spinach lover. If he were to do that, you would choose the spinach freely because your desire would be for the spinach. In this way, God's decree again is compatible with your free, unforced choice.

He can work the way you suggest, I agree. I just don't see biblical support for regeneration before faith, causing you to want to do his will.

The first problem is that technically, God is still doing something against this persons will. If the person hates God and does not want to please God or be regenerated, God is still forcing a decision and a lifestyle on them against their will. So it would seem that your analogy fails from the start. If God is changing their will against their will, it still holds that this (regeneration) would be a forced choice.

The other problem is that the bible seems to state that in order to please God and be considered a son one must have the Spirit of God dwelling within them. (Rom 8:14, 16)

The bible also seems to state that the Holy Spirit is given after faith:
Acts 2:38, Acts 10:43-44, Ephesians 1:13.

Calvinist usually say that the Holy Spirit is given after faith but God first regenerates the heart so man can believe because man is dead in tresspasses and sin. The problem is that this still would not meet the biblical requirement of pleasing God:


Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

This is the passage Calvinist bring up to show the depravity of man, but it proves too much. verse 8-9 state the being in the flesh one cannot please God, but you are not in the flesh if the Spirit of God dwells in you. A regenerated heart would not please God nor could it produce a faith sufficient to please God because the one and only thing that pleases God is being led by the Spirit that already dwells in you. This seems to be a problem since the passages that mention the order of belief and the indwelling of the Spirit place belief prior to the indwelling of the Spirit.

Also, since you mentioned the depravity of man who is "dead in trespasses and sin" on this forum I just like to state that to me this means that man is dead in sin because the wages of sin is death. If you sin you die. You've earned it. Since all men sin they all are on "death row" as it were. It does not speak to total inability to do anything else but sin. Since some people do some good, even for selfish motives proves that they can curb their desires if another desire is greater. But I'll give a biblical example:

Rom 6:11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rom 6:18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

Rom 6:22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.

As a Christian, I am now dead to sin and a slave to righteousness. So does that mean that since dead men don't do anything I never sin, nor am I even tempted to do so? If you were consistent with your use of the phrase "dead" and "slave" then you would also hold the doctrine of sinless perfection. Do you hold this view?

Also, Paul in Romans 7 said:

Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.

So even someone in the flesh, where "no good thing dwells", one can desire to do good, they only lack the ability to do so. So one can hear the gospel and believe, even though they are in bondage to sin. They can desire to be set free from the law of sin and death. Simply believing God can set them free is faith, God then gives the Spirit to enable them to actually please God.

Anyway, that's my two cents.
Peace.

[Guest]

Hello Bob, I'd like to comment more on some of what you posted but would rather further the discussion along. About compatibilistic free will, I still don't see how a Calvinist can be consistent about this since God knows all things and since man then must perform what God knows man will do then man is determined, not by his own will but by God. Since God would certainly know even the number of sins a man will commit. Either these actions were known by God ahead of time or they happened because God knew they would. In other words, what is the cause of the future events. God, the events themselves or a combination of both.

Hi Sean,

God's decree is the ultimate explanation for all events. Compatibilism says that this is compatible with humans being morally responsible for their own actions, because they are free to act according to their desires. I understand that you don't accept that.

Since all sides see these things differently, perhaps it's fruitless to go further on this point.

But let's return to God's decree. God could use the methods I might use. But God is your creator, and He has another way He can work: He can change your heart. He can turn you from a spinach hater into a spinach lover. If he were to do that, you would choose the spinach freely because your desire would be for the spinach. In this way, God's decree again is compatible with your free, unforced choice.

He can work the way you suggest, I agree. I just don't see biblical support for regeneration before faith, causing you to want to do his will.

The first problem is that technically, God is still doing something against this persons will. If the person hates God and does not want to please God or be regenerated, God is still forcing a decision and a lifestyle on them against their will. So it would seem that your analogy fails from the start. If God is changing their will against their will, it still holds that this (regeneration) would be a forced choice.

Yes, and thank God he does so! Or nobody would be saved. To describe the operation of the grace of regeneration as "force" is a pejorative.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Yes, and thank God he does so! Or nobody would be saved. To describe the operation of the grace of regeneration as "force" is a pejorative.

Maybe you like "dictate" better ?