Reformedguy
Well-known member
Children must play
Calvin believed complete divine determinism
- Thread starter Simpletruther
- Start date
That does not decry all determinism it just denies a fate based on a continuous connection of natural events affirming rather it is God behind the natural events
That is theistic determination as opposed to natural determination
Josheb
Well-known member
Amen!
It's tough to get the whole picture on any of the great theologians, especially those who wrote prolifically. Can happen with modern writers, too. I remember how much more and better I understood after reading "Letters from Prison" having already read "Cost of Discipleship." Ya think you have a grasp on "cheap grace," and then after reading "Letters..." everything changes. Reading "Life Together" (which I found profoundly life changing) and realizing it was written between the two clues the reader in to Bonhoeffer's own progress, growth, maturity. The man literally changed, and it was enormous change over a brief period of time.
Maybe we should all sign up for persecution and a stay at the local concentration camp.
???No one can truly understand Bonhoeffer from reading just one book. Neither could he be understood from a few selective quotes of this paragraph or that. Sometimes it's helpful, maybe even necessary, to understand a writer's sources. Luther, Calvin, AND Arminius all drew from Augustine. They all subscribed to what we now call "total depravity". Turn out the "T" in TULIP is not actually Calvinist!!!!! It's near-universal!
Cognitively, logically, every single poster in this thread (with the possible except of one ?) knows what I have just posted is true, but we sometimes forget this truth when we become defensive or emotionally invested in a position. It leads to the three very substantial problems: misrepresenting our own soteriology, misrepresenting the other side's soteriology, and/or misrepresenting scripture.
Logically, we ALL know an incomplete argument is likely to be an incorrect argument simply because it does not represent the whole. In the case of this op, Calvin spoke quite diversely about both Divine providence and causation and the tyranny of sin and the nature it begets on the infected human. He wrote quite a bit on free will he stood farther on the conservative side of Luther against Erasmus' humanism, but decried the fatalistic deterministic causality of the Stoics.
And it should not surprise us because on every single occasion when God says, "If..." He is making a conditionally causal statement. He is asserting TWO determinisms NOT one!!! If you do A then B will happen, and if you do X then Y will happen. By design. God determined human volition would have real but limited agency. One of the limits He deterministically determined was its complete lack of salvific agency if and when it became corrupted by sin. In contrast, one of the liberties deterministically designed into the human will was its salvific agency once having been regenerated in Christ.
Last edited:
I thought there was a minimum age to join here.
I also would wonder how many critics of Calvin have actually read his works.
Sure just dismiss scriptural objections to your theology as mere play
then you don't have to deal with them
Some refer to it as play when others know it is actually Trolling.
Sure believe that so you can simply dismiss anything that challenges your theology
Simpletruther
Well-known member
Some do sure. However I consider that pretty unlikely in this case.
It seems from Google searches there is a pretty strong consensus (among Calvinist as well as non Calvinist theologians, past and present) that Calvin taught divine determinism even with regard to sinful acts.
Josheb
Well-known member
Argumentum ad populum and appeals to authority directed by research-history Google results. Determinists looking for determinism is gonna result in more determinism when Google is used. It is not evidence for or against anything.
Searching the synergist side of things will diversify search results (a little). "John Calvin free will quotes" "John Murray quote free will" "James White quote free will"
Even then it will take some time for Google to return fair and balanced results. It's better to read the original sources with a skeptic's eye.
Last edited:
Like Calvin's institutes of which we saw a number of quotes? Or his book the eternal predestination of God of which we saw additional quotes?Argumentum ad populum and appeals to authority directed by research-history Google results. Determinists looking for determinism is gonna result in more determinism when Google is used. It is not evidence for or against anything.
Searching the synergist side of things will diversify search results (a little). "John Calvin free will quotes" "John Murray quote free will" "James White quote free will"
Even then it will take some time for Google to return fair and balanced results. It's better to read the original sources with a skeptic's eye.
Simpletruther
Well-known member
I tried that and still got very little the other way. The big known names are saying Calvin taught divine determinism.Argumentum ad populum and appeals to authority directed by research-history Google results. Determinists looking for determinism is gonna result in more determinism when Google is used. It is not evidence for or against anything.
Searching the synergist side of things will diversify search results (a little). "John Calvin free will quotes" "John Murray quote free will" "James White quote free will"
Even then it will take some time for Google to return fair and balanced results. It's better to read the original sources with a skeptic's eye.
Sketo
Well-known member
That is because Calvinism teaches determines either hard or soft but it is all determinism
Compatibilism is the belief that God's predetermination is "compatible" with voluntary choice. In light of Scripture, human choices are believed to be exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices that occur through divine determinism (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28).
What is Compatibilism? | CARM Forums
Simpletruther
Well-known member
I know that, but a certain someone does not.
Josheb
Well-known member
No, they are not.
I have already shown how Calvin himself did not teach strict determinism but believed in both divine sovereignty and human volitional agency. Here are linked to other noted Calvinists doing the same.
R. C. Sproul
R. C. Sproul (see also pt. 2)
R. C. Sproul
"Human freedom and divine sovereignty exist in a complex, mysterious relationship. Though God ordains all of our choices—even choices that end up being thwarted because they do not match the results that He has ordained—we can never blame Him for our sin. Neither can we escape responsibility for our actions. We have misunderstood Scripture if we think our choices are the final determiner of the course of our lives, but we have also misunderstood it if we deny human freedom." R. C. Sproul
Matthew Henry
John Frame
"These considerations lead to the conclusion that the Bible teaches theistic determinism, one that is “soft” in James’s sense. Scripture renounces chance in the first and third senses above, but not in the second. And it teaches that human beings sometimes have moral freedom, usually have compatibilist freedom, never have libertarian freedom. Scripture may imply that we have freedom from natural causation as well. Certainly it doesn’t deny that, but I don’t know of any passage that clearly affirms it." - John Frame
John Frame
John Frame
John Frame
"Reformed theology recognizes that all people have freedom in the compatibilist sense. Adam before the Fall acted according to his desires, which then were godly. After the fall, sinners still act according to their desires, but those desires are sinful. The redeemed are enabled by God’s grace, and progressively, to desire things which are excellent; and they are free to act according to those desires." - John Frame[/indent
J. I. Packer
John Piper
Charles Spurgeon
Charles Spurgeon
John Hendryx
I can probably do this for every single Calvinists any of us have ever read because Calvinism is not determinism. When the Calvinist speaks correctly of "divine determinism," or providence or foreknowledge, or any of the related terms s/he does so simultaneously asserting God's almighty sovereignty and real human agency. S/he does so in complete consistency with WCF's statement God ordained all at eternity without authoring son of doing violence against human will or causes ensuing from His First Cause of creation. The two are not mutual exclusives and all-or-nothing is not the correct way to understand monergism. Monergism isn't a doctrine that goes far beyond soteriology. It does not assert its truth over other doctrines; it relies on the truths of those doctrines. It relies on the truth of Theology (the nature of God), that of Christology, hamartiology, etc.
Now this post may be read with the thought, "That's what I have been saying all along," and I do not also doubt it might have been construed I was asserting something different. I'm sure I may have been read more Calminian or Armvinist to our synergist siblings even though I am neither.
J. I. Packer
John Piper
"Here again are the three definitions:
Definition 1: Our will is free if our preferences and our choices are really our own in such a way that we can justly be held responsible for whether they are good or bad. On that definition, free will exists both in fallen and redeemed human beings.
Definition 2: The human will is free when it is not in bondage to prefer and choose irrationally. It is free when it is liberated from preferring what is infinitely less preferable than God, and from choosing what will lead to destruction. Based on this definition, only those who are born again through Jesus Christ have free will.
Definition 3: We have free will if we are ultimately or decisively self-determining, and the only preferences and choices that we can be held accountable for are ones that are ultimately or decisively self-determined. On this definition, no human being has free will, at any time. Only God does." John Piper
Definition 1: Our will is free if our preferences and our choices are really our own in such a way that we can justly be held responsible for whether they are good or bad. On that definition, free will exists both in fallen and redeemed human beings.
Definition 2: The human will is free when it is not in bondage to prefer and choose irrationally. It is free when it is liberated from preferring what is infinitely less preferable than God, and from choosing what will lead to destruction. Based on this definition, only those who are born again through Jesus Christ have free will.
Definition 3: We have free will if we are ultimately or decisively self-determining, and the only preferences and choices that we can be held accountable for are ones that are ultimately or decisively self-determined. On this definition, no human being has free will, at any time. Only God does." John Piper
Charles Spurgeon
"But we do hold and teach that though the will of man is not ignored, and men are not saved against their wills, that the work of the Spirit, which is the effect of the will of God, is to change the human will, and so make men willing in the day of God's power, working in them to will to do his own good pleasure." Charles Spurgeon
Charles Spurgeon
"And oh! my hearers, my last thought is a solemn one. I have preached that you will not come. But some will say that, "it is their sin, that they do not come." YES IT IS! You will not come — but then your will is a sinful will. We do not set man's inability to come to Christ down as being part of man's original nature — but as belonging to his fallen nature. It is sin that has brought you into this condition that you will not come. If you had not fallen — then you would come to Christ the moment he was preached to you. But you do not come — because of your sinfulness and crime." - Charles Spurgeon
John Hendryx
"As for discussion about this issue, " I sometimes get the question: "God is sovereign, on that I have no doubt. But God's sovereignty doesn't rule out the fact that we make choices, right?" My answer to this kind of question usually goes something like this: "The choices a fallen man makes are voluntary and self-determined, not coerced, but are in bondage and taken captive by sin, so they make evil choices of necessity, so they are not free. Free from coercion yes, but not free from necessity, due to a corruption of nature. Calvin said, "We do not say that fallen man is forced unwillingly into sinning, but rather that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin (Rom 7:6; 2 Tim 2:26) and therefore sins of necessity.... As for God's sovereignty, we wholeheartedly affirm that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. In light of Scripture, human choices are believed to be exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28)."
I can probably do this for every single Calvinists any of us have ever read because Calvinism is not determinism. When the Calvinist speaks correctly of "divine determinism," or providence or foreknowledge, or any of the related terms s/he does so simultaneously asserting God's almighty sovereignty and real human agency. S/he does so in complete consistency with WCF's statement God ordained all at eternity without authoring son of doing violence against human will or causes ensuing from His First Cause of creation. The two are not mutual exclusives and all-or-nothing is not the correct way to understand monergism. Monergism isn't a doctrine that goes far beyond soteriology. It does not assert its truth over other doctrines; it relies on the truths of those doctrines. It relies on the truth of Theology (the nature of God), that of Christology, hamartiology, etc.
Now this post may be read with the thought, "That's what I have been saying all along," and I do not also doubt it might have been construed I was asserting something different. I'm sure I may have been read more Calminian or Armvinist to our synergist siblings even though I am neither.
Josheb
Well-known member
Three responses:
- I liked the video. Are you that young man?
- However, anyone who knows how to point and click can post a video. There's nothing remarkable about doing so. Absent additional comment or inquiry doing so does not further a discussion one iota because know knows what the poster means by its use.
- Most, if not all, monergists find the question, "Can man be free from God" prima facie idiocy; utter nonsense that doesn't deserve the breath it takes to ask the question with any significance beyond its possible usefulness as rhetoric and nothing I have posted or will ever post should in any way, shape, or form be construed to remotely imply humans can do anything free from God. We do the same with the noting of "robot theology." Those that think otherwise about the monergist do not properly know or understand us.
I was walking along minding my own business.
rotflmbo!
Loved it. That guy could have said that one sentence and stared at the audience and gotten his point across! I was walking along minding my own business in God's creation! We are all self-centered fools oblivious to the magnitude of grace it takes not to speak our sin-ridden presence out of existence.
Josheb
Well-known member
Let me say, by way of sincere fellowship, respect and appreciation that I can find something with which I disagree in every one of the sources I just selected. I read, read a lot, and I read a lot with a big bowl of skepticism to nibble on as I read. I don't trust anyone but God (and I have a challenging time with that on occasion
). The same goes for every single one of you fellow CARM members. All of us Cals do not and will not agree on all things monergistic. Monergism is not monolithic. Neither is synergism. These are both spectrums of thought contained within a larger paradigm. They are not fixed points existing in isolation of one another. I've always thought of Frame as a radical Calvinist but as I was reading through Spurgeon in preparation of the post above I thought, "Yikes! I thought Frame was hard-Cal." Anyone ever read the Wiki article on Matthew Henry? Wiki calls him "Nonconformist." They mean that in the theological sense of the term but I'll bet Henry thought he was just the right amount of conformist - conformist to God. Frame, MacArthur, Sproul, Spurgeon, et all..... they all have differences among each other and with us. God will fix us all in the end
.Yup--He sure will. Especially that Josh fella.Let me say, by way of sincere fellowship, respect and appreciation that I can find something with which I disagree in every one of the sources I just selected. I read, read a lot, and I read a lot with a big bowl of skepticism to nibble on as I read. I don't trust anyone but God (and I have a challenging time with that on occasion
God will fix us all in the end
LOL