arminianperspectives said...
“As far as Rom. 9:19, 20, I am interested in your interpretation. You faulted Brennon for robotic metaphor. Why exactly? Why is robotic metaphor not reprehensive of your view? You appeal to Rom. 9 as a reference to absolute determinism. Therefore, you have God forming the clay just as He wants down to every thought, motive, and decision the ‘clay’ makes. “
If Paul makes favorable use of a “deterministic metaphor” (i.e. the potter/clay metaphor), while an Arminian uses a deterministic metaphor (i.e. puppet/robot) as a pejorative metaphor, then the Arminian objection is impious. A robotic metaphor is just a hitech variation of the potter/clay metaphor. Likewise, a puppet/puppeteer metaphor is just a variation on the same theme.
If Scripture uses “deterministic metaphors” with positive connotations, while Arminians use deterministic metaphors with negative connotations, then that is sacrilegious.
“You then have God (through Paul) rebuking the clay for ‘answering back’ to the Potter when the Potter specifically formed the clay to answer back to God in such a way that the clay could no more avoid answering back than a robot can go against its programming. Why then the bristling against robotic metaphor?”
My disapproval is only inconsistent on the Arminian assumption that libertarian freedom is a necessary precondition of blame.
“Also, you compare our lives to scripted characters in a book. Can a scripted character do anything other that the Author who writes the script causes them to do? If not, then how is that any different than robots or puppets that can likewise do nothing other than what the puppet Master or Programmer irresistibly controls them to do?”
i) Metaphors are open-textured. They have a range of connotations. If an Arminian is going to use a robotic metaphor, he needs to demarcate the range of the intended comparison.
For example, one of the stock themes in science fiction is the point at which robots enjoy human rights. A mere machine does not enjoy human rights. If, however, the robot has an AI program, then does the cross a moral threshold? If the robot is a conscious machine, with adaptive programming, then the contrast between men and robots breaks down–at which point it becomes question-begging to keep using “robot” as a pejorative metaphor. Same thing with puppets.
ii) I’d also add that Arminians have a habit of using metaphors as a substitute for arguments. To assert that a predestined agent is equivalent to a puppet or robot, then brandish that metaphor as if it disproved predestination, is not a reasoned argument. Rather, it’s an intellectual shortcut on the part of Arminians who can’t turn their metaphors into arguments. Metaphors should illustrate arguments, not deputize for arguments.
Arminians simply trade on the invidious connotations of their chosen metaphor. But that’s hardly an intelligent objection to Calvinism.
“I'm not looking for a debate, I really haven't got the time. I'm just curious why Calvinists get hyped up about Arminians using puppet or robot ‘metaphors’ and yet Calvinists use metaphors (e.g. an Author scripting a character, a Potter forming clay) which boil down to the exact same thing? Why do Calvinists get hyped up about Arminians supposedly ‘answering back to God’ when we are doing just what the Potter formed us to do according to His good pleasure?”
i) The potter/clay metaphor is authorized by Scripture. Scripture also uses literary metaphors to describe God’s creative role. So that doesn’t require a separate justification.
At the same time, Biblical metaphors involved a controlled correspondence between one thing and another. The scope of a Biblical metaphor isn’t wide open. And it would be inappropriate to press a Biblical metaphor in unintended directions.
Moreover, if Scripture makes approving use of a metaphor, then it’s impious for an Arminian to make disapproving use of a comparable metaphor.
ii) In addition, something can be wrong in and of itself, but contribute to a larger good.
“Shouldn’t you rather feel sorry for us that God has caused us to do such things and formed us in such a way? But of course, you can just say that your indignation is likewise ‘scripted’, etc. Do you feel tremendously lucky, in contrast, that the Potter formed you to defend the truth rather than ‘answer back’ to God?”
“Luck” is hardly equivalent to predestination. Luck is random. Impersonal.
If I get lucky with a pair of dice, that’s not because the dice intended to do me any favors.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response. That is what I was looking for. I don't think your response is very helpful, but like I said before, I do not have time right now to debate this.
I do want to clarify something important. You seem to say that I am out of line to use a Biblical metaphor in a negative sense. Again, this gets back to the problem of question begging. Since I do not view Rom. 9:19, 20 as you do, then I am not being impious or any other such thing in saying that Calvinism essentially makes men into robots, puppets, etc. If your interpretation of Rom. 9:19, 20 were correct, then I would have a problem, but I maintain that your interpretation is far from correct, so I am not "answering back to God", nor am I being "sacrilegious."
I do realize you prefaced your statements with “if” and I just wanted to highlight that since it is very important to realize that such things would only true “if” your interpretation was correct; likewise, “if” the Bible truly teaches that Christ made a provision of atonement for all, or that true believers can and sometimes do fall away from faith and perish, and yet you deny these things, the “sacrilegious” shoe would fit just as well on your foot.
Also, if you are correct that God determines our every thought, desire, and action, regardless of whether you think this is being expressed in Rom. 9:19, 20 (though I suspect you do), then such things as robots and puppets still seem to serve as pretty tight analogies. Your points about robots coming to consciousness doesn’t really solve anything IMO, but I enjoyed the appeal to Sci-Fi.
You wrote:
At the same time, Biblical metaphors involved a controlled correspondence between one thing and another. The scope of a Biblical metaphor isn’t wide open. And it would be inappropriate to press a Biblical metaphor in unintended directions.
Exactly right, and I maintain that the Calvinist is inappropriately pressing the Biblical metaphor of Potter/pot in unintended directions. One need only carefully examine Jer. 18 to see that, IMO.
Anyway, thanks again for the response and for sharing what you believe to be important distinctions (though I still fail to see how they are).
Oh, and when I said “lucky” I meant that you were fortunate, and truly you are. I wasn’t referring to chance. It may be that God has a purpose for making you right and me wrong, but you are still fortunate that God made you to be the right one. If someone gave me a great gift and denied it to you, we could certainly say that I was fortunate to receive the benefit, even if the giver had a reason for giving the benefit to me (and not you) that neither of us was aware of.
God Bless,
Ben
Upon re-reading your post, it seems that you were not really making any distinctions at all. Rather, you seem to concede the point that your view does indeed make robots and puppets of people. Am I wrong here?
ReplyDeleteYou object only to the idea that such a thing would make it wrong for God to hold us accountable for our programming, etc. Is that correct? So you do not object that in Calvinism we are essentially operating as preprogrammed robots and controlled puppets but do not see that this is a problem with regards to God holding us accountable for our preprogrammed or divinely controlled actions. I just want to be sure I am understanding you correctly as I think I misunderstood you the first time I read the post. I would appreciate conformation or clarification concerning what I have just said. Again, I do not want to misrepresent your position.
Thanks,
Ben
Should be "confirmation" above. Ugggh!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, very helpful discussion on both sides. I appreciate the forthrightness and desire to investigate the scriptures honestly and without unhelpful rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteThere is a misunderstanding by many Arminians where I have found it helpful to point out that our acts of will are not on par with God's. God's will is creative and our will as his creation is reactive. As much as the Triabloggers have covered this territory, it's likely you all have made this point before. But we cannot draw into a conclusion any spiritual, presuppositional, or observational factor to making a decision that has not been created by God. God makes no decisions based on anything he created for the simple reason that he created it as an act of his will. If we can use some determining factor that God has not created then it is untrue that god created everything for surely here is something he did not create.
Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to say that it was not God's will that I have faith, but my will. Of course, if I have faith then it is God's will. If I don't have faith, then it is not God's will but my will. If I sin against God it is therefore disingenuous to blame God. Such doesn't glorify God. If I do the will of God, it is a sin to accept the glory for myself and not give God the glory for the good he did through me. Therefore whether I do the will of God or not, God must receive the glory. And whence the desire in me for God's glory? I can't claim credit for that, but God be praised for it is his will. If that makes me a "robot" so be it.
I think part of the objection is that the metaphor is pressed into a use that it was not intended to make.
ReplyDeleteIf by the pot/robot/puppet metaphor you intend to convey the notion that God's sovereign will is inviolable, then I have no problem with it. If the intent is to convey that we are not volitional creatures and therefore not morally responsible (and in my experience that is normally the point Arminians wish to make) then I object to that. Calvinists have always maintained that man is a volitional creature who is responsible for his actions.
Jim writes: "If I don't have faith, then it is not God's will but my will."
ReplyDeleteNo, if you don't have faith, it's because He hasn't decreed you among His elect and to whom He would grant saving faith, right?
"If I sin against God it is therefore disingenuous to blame God."
If God decreed from before time that you were going to sin, how successful do you think you'd be in attempting to avoid that sin?
ARMINIANPERSPECTIVES SAID:
ReplyDelete“You seem to say that I am out of line to use a Biblical metaphor in a negative sense. Again, this gets back to the problem of question begging.”
It would only be question-begging if Calvinists merely quoted Rom 9:19-20 without bothering to exegete the text or field objections to their interpretation.
“‘If’ the Bible truly teaches that Christ made a provision of atonement for all, or that true believers can and sometimes do fall away from faith and perish, and yet you deny these things, the ‘sacrilegious’ shoe would fit just as well on your foot”
If you rip the verse out of context and apply it willy-nilly to whatever you think is right.
Which assumes that this verse doesn’t have a specific function in Paul’s train-of-thought at this stage of the argument.
“Also, if you are correct that God determines our every thought, desire, and action, regardless of whether you think this is being expressed in Rom. 9:19, 20 (though I suspect you do), then such things as robots and puppets still seem to serve as pretty tight analogies. Your points about robots coming to consciousness doesn’t really solve anything IMO, but I enjoyed the appeal to Sci-Fi.”
A robotic metaphor is an open-textured metaphor with a variety of connotations.
If you’re using “robot” as a synonym for a predestined agent, then that does nothing to advance your argument. By your own definition, it’s just a tautology: if a predestined agent is a robot, then a robot is a predestined agent–which is just a roundabout way of saying that a predestined agent is a predestined agent.
“Exactly right, and I maintain that the Calvinist is inappropriately pressing the Biblical metaphor of Potter/pot in unintended directions. One need only carefully examine Jer. 18 to see that, IMO.”
i) That assumes you’re Arminian interpretation of Jer 18.
ii) Moreover, what is pertinent in construing Paul’s usage is not what Jeremiah may or may not have meant by that metaphor, but the use to which Paul puts that metaphor in the course of his argument.
Cont. “Upon re-reading your post, it seems that you were not really making any distinctions at all. Rather, you seem to concede the point that your view does indeed make robots and puppets of people. Am I wrong here?”
ReplyDeleteYou could apply the term “robot” to both an automated vacuum cleaner and Lt. Commander Data. But, of course, the comparison is equivocal since the android has humanoid psychological properties. The more the robot is like a human being, the less the metaphor illuminates the issue–for the point of the Arminian metaphor is to provide a reductive illustration (i.e. Calvinism reduces men to robots). If, however, the robot is equivalent to Data, then it gets you nowhere to say a predestined agent is reducible to a robot. For Data has consciousness. Feelings. Volition.
Once a robot can pass the Turning test, the Arminian comparison loses its contrastive value.
“You object only to the idea that such a thing would make it wrong for God to hold us accountable for our programming, etc. Is that correct? So you do not object that in Calvinism we are essentially operating as preprogrammed robots and controlled puppets but do not see that this is a problem with regards to God holding us accountable for our preprogrammed or divinely controlled actions.”
There’s a point beyond which debating an extrabiblical metaphor is a massive distraction. For the metaphor is not an argument. And the metaphor is not the actual position. At best, it was only meant to illustrate the argument or illustrate the position. I don’t see the value of getting sidetracked on extrabiblical metaphors. Indeed, if an Arminian has to spend so much time explaining and qualifying his illustration, then it’s a poor illustration.
Rob said:
ReplyDelete---
If God decreed from before time that you were going to sin, how successful do you think you'd be in attempting to avoid that sin?
---
If God created you knowing from before time that you were going to sin, how successful do you think you'd be in attempting to avoid that sin?
"Moreover, what is pertinent in construing Paul’s usage is not what Jeremiah may or may not have meant by that metaphor, but the use to which Paul puts that metaphor in the course of his argument."
ReplyDeleteWhich is something that I think a lot of people miss when raising objections to the Reformed understanding of potter/clay metaphor in Romans 9:19-24. Jeremiah can use the metaphor one way and Paul can make a different application of that metaphor to illustrate a point. Also, it's not like Jeremiah 18 is the sole place in the OT where the potter/clay metaphor is used (e.g. Isaiah 29, 45, 64), not to mention how חֹמֶר/πηλός is used in Job (e.g. 4:19, 33:6).
I thought TurretinFan's post some months ago on this subject was as sharp as it was concise:
ReplyDeletehttp://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/01/axe-saw-and-staff-theology.html
Peter asks: "If God created you knowing from before time that you were going to sin, how successful do you think you'd be in attempting to avoid that sin?"
ReplyDeleteAn interesting question.
Here's an analogy that might help.
Say a man was looking over a cliff at another man in a canoe. Ahead about one mile ahead in the waters was a massive waterfall, and those waters were rushing straight towards it, unbeknownst to the man in the boat.
The man above the cliff sees what appears to be the inevitable, so he could do one of two things:
a) yell at the man below and warn him of the impending danger, perhaps throw him a rope or some other means of escaping certain doom which the man could reach out for
.. or
b) yell at the man below and tell him of the impending danger but refraining from offering any means of escape and also withholding the fact that he had somehow rigged the canoe by attaching propellers that would send the man hurtling head first over the falls at top speed
In case a), the man atop the cliff actually has an interest in saving the man in the canoe, and all the man in the canoe has to do is reach out for the lifeline. Whether he does or not is up to him. In case b), the man in the canoe's fate was sealed as soon as he got in the boat.
I don't know about you, but I'd choose situation a.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteAside from the fact that your analogy is just plain odd, your distinction makes absolutely no difference to the dead guy in the canoe.
First problem with you analogy: you have a guy who "sees what appears to be the inevitable." God doesn't see what appears to be inevitable. He knows what will happen. Therefore, let me correct your analogy.
A guy is watching a video of someone who ran his canoe over a cliff and died. The man has already seen this video. He has options:
1) He can yell and scream and throw a rope at his TV and urge the guy in the canoe to STOP BEFORE DOOM!!!
2) He can stand by and do nothing.
Which one of these individuals would be in Bellevue?
Rob,
ReplyDeleteAs Peter pointed out, God doesn't see what "appears to be inevitable."
Besides that, If God belives at time t1 that you will sin at t3, and since God is infallible then it follows that his belief that you will sin at t3 entails that you will sin at t3, then how successful will you be at t2 to avoid the sin at t3? Can you act such that God would have held a false belief? Can you act such that you will change the past and make it that God held a different belief at t1? No. SO how successful are you in doing other than God knows you will do? The smart money is on, "not very."
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response. I will take it as a concession that the rebotic metaphor serves as a tight enough analogy to Calvinistic determinism, in accordance with your statement:
A robotic metaphor is just a hitech variation of the potter/clay metaphor. Likewise, a puppet/puppeteer metaphor is just a variation on the same theme.
That is really all I was after. The analogy doesn't seem so complicated as you insist. It doesn't need extensive qualifiers. The point is generally well understood. Just as a robot operates according to its programming, so do people operate according to the way that God programmed them in Calvinism.
Just as a character in a script can only think, desire, and act in accordance with the way the author scripted him or her to think, desire and act, so do people think, desire and act just as God has scripted them in Calvinism.
Just as a puppet is entirely passive under the control of the puppeteer, so are people entirely passive under the control of God in every detail of their life, including their every thought, desire, volition, and act. People can no more resist God’s absolute control over their thoughts, desires, volitions, and acts, than a puppet can resist the pull of its strings.
Now, you and other Calvinists can try to explain how creatures controlled in such ways are still meaningfully “volitional” or “responsible” for their irresistibly controlled thoughts, desires, "choices", and actions, but that would require far more “qualifications” and “explanations” than any Arminian needs to make his point (just as I rather easily made the point above).
In the end, despite word games and deflections, it all boils down to the same thing, as you freely admitted above. In Calvinism people have no more control of themselves than puppets or robots have control of themselves. Consciousness hardly changes that for the “person.”
If you’re using “robot” as a synonym for a predestined agent, then that does nothing to advance your argument. By your own definition, it’s just a tautology: if a predestined agent is a robot, then a robot is a predestined agent–which is just a roundabout way of saying that a predestined agent is a predestined agent.
No I am suggesting that a robot (as it is generally defined) serves as solid comparison to a predetermined “agent”. It serves as a very good analogy. It is not perfectly synonymous, but close enough as illustrated above and as you conceded in your post (quoted above). But even if it was a perfect analogy and an essential synonym, it would still serve the intended purpose of showing that a Calvinist “agent” is nothing more than a robot, without needing to redefine “robot” to make it a synonym.
However, I do not maintain that a robot is a perfect synonym for a predetermined agent (since a robot is not flesh and blood, etc.), but with regards to how a robot operates, in perfect conformity to its program without any ability to resist that programming, it serves as a tight analogy, one that I think is easily understood by most people (and no, I don’t have any “polling data”, but I have never come across someone who has had any difficulty in understanding the analogy and what is meant by it. Indeed, even Calvinists, like you, concede that you know what is meant by it).
Like I said before, I don’t have time for debate right now, but this has been very helpful to me. I appreciate your feedback and concessions.
God Bless,
Ben
Ryan wrote,
ReplyDeleteWhich is something that I think a lot of people miss when raising objections to the Reformed understanding of potter/clay metaphor in Romans 9:19-24. Jeremiah can use the metaphor one way and Paul can make a different application of that metaphor to illustrate a point. Also, it's not like Jeremiah 18 is the sole place in the OT where the potter/clay metaphor is used (e.g. Isaiah 29, 45, 64), not to mention how חֹמֶר/πηλός is used in Job (e.g. 4:19, 33:6).
Paul could have been using the metaphor differently, but we should not assume such, especially since the metaphor has been used so much in the OT and Paul has been heavily drawing from the OT in his arguments in Rom. 9. It also just so happens that the way it is used in Jer. 18 makes a great deal of sense given Paul’s discourse in Rom. 9 (i.e. it fits the context of Rom. 9-11, and the main thrust of the epistle as a whole, very well).
Furthermore, the other places in Isaiah where it is used (that you cite) carry the same basic meaning as in Jer. 18 (that of those objecting to God’s response of judgment for their rebellion, or God’s right to alter His plans for His people based on that rebellion, etc.). The Job references are basically irrelevant, but the point that is very relevant is that nowhere in the OT is the metaphor used to describe God’s irresistible and exhaustive control over people’s wills. As mentioned before, such a view makes nonsense of the rebuke in Rom. 9:19, 20 in that it has God rebuking his pots for doing the very things he irresistibly formed them to do. Such are the absurdities of Calvinistic determinism. You can embrace such things if you like, but I think you must at least admit that those of us who do not embrace them are not being unreasonable, nor are we doing so without justification.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben said:
ReplyDelete---
Just as a puppet is entirely passive under the control of the puppeteer, so are people entirely passive under the control of God in every detail of their life, including their every thought, desire, volition, and act. People can no more resist God’s absolute control over their thoughts, desires, volitions, and acts, than a puppet can resist the pull of its strings.
---
What's the difference between this and saying "God created people to be people"? I mean, it's not like we can become horses or bison or caterpillars. We are forced to be what we were created to be.
Even granting the Arminian view of free will, it's not like you can choose not to have been born, or to have been born in a different location or time, or to have been born a difference species. If someone who believed you COULD be born differently then said, "Your view makes everyone a spark plug for the engine of a car, nothing more than a mechanical part" would you disagree with such a metaphor?
What's the difference between this and saying "God created people to be people"?
ReplyDeleteNothing, if Calvinism is true. That's the point. In Calvinism people are no more than puppets or robots with regards to their actions. Since you don't seem to have a problem with this, then I guess you will not object to non-Calvinists saying such things.
As for the rest, no one is denying that God decides certain things for us that we have no say in. But that is not the same as saying that God controls our every thought, desire, "choice", and action. People can readily admit that they did not have control over where they were born (whether they believe in God or not) and still believe that they have free will in many areas of their life. But if someone tells them that their every thought, desire, and action is irresistibly controlled by God, they will have no problem seeing the analogy to a robot or puppet, as you yourself admit.
So I am not sure why you even brought it up.
I have really devoted way too much time to this already, so I am going to leave you and Steve with the last word. I got the information I needed. I am not trying to debate every little detail, nor am I trying to defend my view. I am only trying to accurately understand your view. I was afraid I was misrepresenting the standard Calvinist view. It turns out I wasn't.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben said:
ReplyDelete---
So I am not sure why you even brought it up.
---
If you read the last part of what I wrote, you should have seen why I brought it up. Namely, that anyone who objects to your position can make up a metaphor and try to pin it on you, and then use the metaphor to "refute" your position. This is obvious.
So you want to frame Calvinism in terms of robots and puppets and making people passive, when in fact people are not at all passive and no Calvinist would ever say they are. But your intention is not to debate honestly, your intention is to debate by proxy. But pretending a metaphor is the position is nothing but a strawman, and isn't worth a man of your caliber.
"Nothing, if Calvinism is true. That's the point. In Calvinism people are no more than puppets or robots with regards to their actions. Since you don't seem to have a problem with this, then I guess you will not object to non-Calvinists saying such things."
ReplyDeleteThis was already addressed upthread, but it bears repeating: Arminians usually employ the robot analogy in order to accuse Calvinists of denying man's responsibility or the fact that men make choices (ie, have volitional capability). Given that, it's not surprising Calvinists cringe at the analogy. Calvinists believe men have will, so a closer analogy would be a robot with sentience and volitional capability - a Data-figure, as Peter said - which rather negates the point of using robots as an analogy to begin with. Puppets are an even less accurate analogy. A puppet whose hand is raised by the puppeteer didn't want to raise his hand - he has no consciousness, reasoning faculties or will. A more Calvinist analogy would be a puppet who employed those faculties to raise his hand, while those faculties were ultimately caused by the puppeteer whether the puppet knew it or not. But at that point the puppet isn't a puppet in any currently-existing form, so why use the analogy?
So you want to frame Calvinism in terms of robots and puppets and making people passive, when in fact people are not at all passive and no Calvinist would ever say they are. But your intention is not to debate honestly, your intention is to debate by proxy. But pretending a metaphor is the position is nothing but a strawman, and isn't worth a man of your caliber.
ReplyDeletePeter,
I am sorry you feel that way. I am honestly trying to understand you here, and I admit that I am struggling. I spelled out above why I think the metaphor fits. You seemed to agree. Maybe I misunderstood. Maybe it would help if you explained to me the significant difference in your mind between the way I described things above (with regards to the proper analogy of puppets and robots) and how you see things. That would be helpful to me.
But if there really is no difference, then I do not understand your reaction here.
As far as passive, if God controls all of our thoughts, desires, "choices", and actions in such a way that we cannot resist that control, then how is that not passive? Think of an instrument. The musician blows into it and manipulates it to produce certain notes. Does the instrument have a part in the sound being produced? Yes, but its part is passive. It is simply the result of the one blowing into it and manipulating it to produce sound. It is passive to the laws of nature which make the instrument vibrate in accordance with the way the musician is manipulating it. The instrument cannot resist the manipulation. It cannot rebel against the musician and prevent him from manipulating it to produce a certain sound. In that way it is entirely passive, even if we want to emphasize the idea that the instrument produces the sound.
Likewise, we cannot do anything to resist the way that God "plays us" or "scripts us" (to borrow Hays’ metaphor) or "controls us". So I do not see why you find it so inappropriate for me to speak of it in terms of being passive. Calvinists might not say such things (though I think that point could be easily debated), but do they have good reason not to? That is what I am getting at. I understand that Calvinists typically do not like the use of robots or puppets to describe their position (though Hays apparently thinks it is quite suitable), and I am trying to understand why. As far as I can tell there is no reason to be bothered by it, except, perhaps, because it brings out the reality of determinism in a way that makes Calvinists uncomfortable (i.e. it exposes things they would prefer to keep hidden or shrouded in “mystery”). I may be wrong. That is why I am asking these questions. Feel free to offer more feedback.
God Bless,
Ben
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI just noticed in another thread that you responded to Steven who said:
"Well, like I said above, an agent is not analogous to a computer. There's no "coding" involved with agents."
with,
I think this is just semantics. You can call it "coding" or "instinct" or "reasoning ability" or whatever. It doesn't matter because the only thing that matters is A) it's the way that decisions are made and B) it is created.
This highlights why I am finding this discussion frustrating. You say that to distinguish between coding a computer and coding a person is just "semantics". I submit that your attempt to distinguish between robots, puppets, passivity, and determined persons is likewise just "semantics". Do you see what I am getting at?
A puppet whose hand is raised by the puppeteer didn't want to raise his hand - he has no consciousness, reasoning faculties or will.
ReplyDeleteBut this is a distinction without a difference in my opinion. It doesn't matter if the puppet "wanted" to raise its hand. The point is that it had no power to resist. In the Calvinist scheme, a person may "want" to do what he is doing, but God determines and controls the persons "wants" just like a puppeteer controls a puppet. We could just call the "wants" the strings. Again, the point is that the person has no ability to resist God's control over every detail of his life, including his wants/desires. So the analogy still holds.
God Bless,
Ben
Ben,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, what I said to Steven is in a completely different context to what went on in this thread, as anyone who reads it will see. This is part of the problem I have with your approach. An honest person ought to deal with the context.
What's "semantics" to the conversation with Steven is that I maintained in that thread that the act of creation itself makes non-determined choice impossible, and used the example of a man trying to program a machine. Steven said it was disanalogous since men don't have coding. I said that it was semantics, because men still had something that is created that makes a choice, whether you call that "coding" or whatever. It doesn't matter for the argument, for the reasons I stated.
Here, however, we are dealing with a completely different issue, which is your attempt to shoe-horn the "robot" and "puppet" metaphor into the debate and then browbeat the Calvinist with it. Since you haven't followed the logic of the rebuttal, I gave you an illustration to help you see the problem. And I shall do so again:
Spark plugs can't choose to be other than spark plugs; Ben believes humans can't choose to be other than humans. Aha! Therefore, Ben believes that humans are nothing more than spark plugs in God's engine! And if you disgree, that's proof that you don't really believe that humans cannot choose to be other than human, and you really believe that humans can choose to be squirrels if they want to be.
If you really, honestly cannot see how fallacious that argument is then you've got some serious studying to do. If you can see how fallacious that argument is, then you ought to look in the mirror and say, "Hmm, that sounds like my robot analogy" and, you know, stop using it and all.
I said that it was semantics, because men still had something that is created that makes a choice, whether you call that "coding" or whatever. It doesn't matter for the argument, for the reasons I stated.
ReplyDeleteI don't see any significant difference. Sorry. I will revisit the conversation and the context and see if I made a mistake. If so, then it was a poor job of reading context on my part and I apologize in advance. I was not trying to be dishonest, and I don't know why you would just assume such things. Do you have good reason to believe that I am a dishonest person? Have I ever accused you of being dishonest?
which is your attempt to shoe-horn the "robot" and "puppet" metaphor into the debate and then browbeat the Calvinist with it.
Again, I am not sure why you assume such things. I am trying to understand why Calvinists object to the metaphor (really "analogy" would be better). I described above how I think it relates, more than once. Do you disagree with the ways I have said it relates?
Spark plugs can't choose to be other than spark plugs; Ben believes humans can't choose to be other than humans.
I don't really have a problem with this at all. If you want to say that humans are like spark plugs in that just like a spark plugs they have can't choose to be other than what they were created to be. Why should I have a problem with that? But if you said that humans are like spark plugs because they are entirely passive (as I illustrated above), then that would not be analogous in my opinion (though I think it would be analogous to Calvinism).
That is why I defined the ways that I think Calvinism makes men into robots and puppets. I explained it carefully. So do you object to such analogies as puppets and robots for Calvinistic determinism as long as the analogous components are carefully explained? As I said before, when people hear one communicating that a necessitated being is like a robot or puppet, I think they immediately know which aspects of the comparison are relevant and which are not. They don’t say things like, “Wait a minute, are you saying that I am not conscious?” or “Your not suggesting that I have metal wires inside of me, are you?” or “Are you saying that I’m made of wood and have strings attached to my limbs?” But if you said that Christians believe that men are like spark plugs, you would probably have to do some explaining.
God Bless,
Ben
Here is how I explained it above, for easy reference:
ReplyDeleteThat is really all I was after. The analogy doesn't seem so complicated as you insist. It doesn't need extensive qualifiers. The point is generally well understood. Just as a robot operates according to its programming, so do people operate according to the way that God programmed them in Calvinism.
Just as a character in a script can only think, desire, and act in accordance with the way the author scripted him or her to think, desire and act, so do people think, desire and act just as God has scripted them in Calvinism.
Just as a puppet is entirely passive under the control of the puppeteer, so are people entirely passive under the control of God in every detail of their life, including their every thought, desire, volition, and act. People can no more resist God’s absolute control over their thoughts, desires, volitions, and acts, than a puppet can resist the pull of its strings.
And here is a further explanation:
As far as passive, if God controls all of our thoughts, desires, "choices", and actions in such a way that we cannot resist that control, then how is that not passive? Think of an instrument. The musician blows into it and manipulates it to produce certain notes. Does the instrument have a part in the sound being produced? Yes, but its part is passive. It is simply the result of the one blowing into it and manipulating it to produce sound. It is passive to the laws of nature which make the instrument vibrate in accordance with the way the musician is manipulating it. The instrument cannot resist the manipulation. It cannot rebel against the musician and prevent him from manipulating it to produce a certain sound. In that way it is entirely passive, even if we want to emphasize the idea that the instrument produces the sound.
Likewise, we cannot do anything to resist the way that God "plays us" or "scripts us" (to borrow Hays’ metaphor) or "controls us". So I do not see why you find it so inappropriate for me to speak of it in terms of being passive. Calvinists might not say such things (though I think that point could be easily debated), but do they have good reason not to?
Do you find these descriptions unfair?
Ben said:
ReplyDelete---
I was not trying to be dishonest, and I don't know why you would just assume such things.
---
But I originally said:
---
An honest person ought to deal with the context.
---
So is this Ben admitting that he doesn't bother to deal with the context of other people's statements?
In any case, Ben also said:
---
I am trying to understand why Calvinists object to the metaphor
---
Since we've discussed this time and again, I really don't think you're that dense that you don't already know exactly why Calvinists object to the robot meme. And even if we restrict ourselves to just this thread, Steve's already demonstrated why repeatedly. This intentional obtuseness wears thin mighty fast. You're better than that, aren't you?
Ben said:
---
I don't really have a problem with this at all. If you want to say that humans are like spark plugs in that just like a spark plugs they have can't choose to be other than what they were created to be. Why should I have a problem with that? But if you said that humans are like spark plugs because they are entirely passive (as I illustrated above), then that would not be analogous in my opinion (though I think it would be analogous to Calvinism).
---
Spark plugs aren't passive--they move and blow up gasoline, after all. But since you agree that people are just a part of God's over all plan and can only do what they were designed to do. They are completely determined. And therefore, Arminianism is false.
Boy isn't that fun.
Ben said:
---
So do you object to such analogies as puppets and robots for Calvinistic determinism as long as the analogous components are carefully explained?
---
Hmm, well I suppose I could ask if you would object to me comparing Arminius to Heinrich Himmler as long as the analogous components are carefully explained. Because there's absolutely no way that the negative connotations that go along with the comparison could POSSIBLY ever get in there anyway, right?
Why not stick with the metaphor Reforms got from Scripture? You know: a potter and his pots.
Ben said:
---
As I said before, when people hear one communicating that a necessitated being is like a robot or puppet, I think they immediately know which aspects of the comparison are relevant and which are not.
---
And yet when you hear the opposition consistently point out where it's wrong, then at some point you have to realize that what you think others "immediately know" is flawed.
As to the "passive" aspect, how many times have we defended compatibalism on this site, Ben? You know full well that no Calvinist believes we are passive, yet you are trying to use the robot imagery TO PROVE EXACTLY THAT and then wonder why we would object to your robot analogy.
ReplyDelete"But this is a distinction without a difference in my opinion. It doesn't matter if the puppet "wanted" to raise its hand. The point is that it had no power to resist. In the Calvinist scheme, a person may "want" to do what he is doing, but God determines and controls the persons "wants" just like a puppeteer controls a puppet. We could just call the "wants" the strings."
ReplyDeleteAgreed. But why not use a more accurate analogy, such as the character in a book analogy? The fact that humans want to act as they act is an important one in Calvinist theology, and the robot/puppet analogy can obscure it. I think the fictional character analogy is therefore more helpful and less open to misuse. Insofar as Aragorn exists, he wants to marry Arwen; he is not unconsciously going through the motions of wooing her/saving Gondor in order to become king, nor is he trapped inside his head screaming "I don't really want to marry her - Tolkien is making me do this!" His actions were caused, but (fictionally) conscious, and if he actually existed and were asked to account for his love, he wouldn't look blank or explode in a puff of epistemological angst.
So why not go with the analogy that better reflects the Calvinist teachings and doesn't have vague pejorative associations with Cylons, Agent Smith and HAL? (That's not a rhetorical question: I'm really interested as to why you're so attached to this analogy when it's not the most accurate one out there and is frequently misused.)
Why not stick with the metaphor Reforms got from Scripture? You know: a potter and his pots.
ReplyDeleteIs the clay passive in the hand of the Potter? I think so, and generally, that seems to be the point that Calvinists want to draw out. We do not have free will since we are just clay in the Potter's hands being formed as He chooses with no power to resist. There are other ways to understand this, but this is generally how Calvinists tend to understand it and teach it in line with their doctrine of exhaustive determinism.
Again, if God controls our every thought, desire, motive, choice, action, etc., then we are certainly passive just as I expressed it in the illustration of the instrument. You keep insisting that you do not believe this, but I just don't see how that is so, and I am being completely honest about that. Man is incapable of resisting God's control over every aspect of his or her life. Yes, we still "do" things, but how is that different from how a pool ball rolls across the table after being struck by the cue? It is actively rolling, but entirely passive under the control of the laws of physics. A stream actively moves down hill, but it likewise moves only as it is irresistibly moved by laws it has no control over.
Likewise, we may actively "choose" and do things. We may think and feel, but all such things are no less passive under the exhaustive control of God. We can only move as we are irresistibly moved. So I still do not see how you have absolved your view of the charge in the least, and I am being very honest about that. Guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
Spark plugs aren't passive--they move and blow up gasoline, after all.
But only passively as the laws of nature act upon them. A spark plug can do nothing at all otherwise. They do not just spark on their own without a source of power running into them that they cannot resist in any way. In other words, they can only move as they are moved, just like a puppet, and just like a person according to your theology.
But since you agree that people are just a part of God's over all plan and can only do what they were designed to do. They are completely determined. And therefore, Arminianism is false.
Boy isn't that fun.
But the meaningful distinction is easily made. God has designed us with self-moving power. Arminians call that free will. No such meaningful distinction can be made in your view. It all reduces to passivity and the inability to move unless irresistibly moved. So a spark plug actually does serve as another good analogy for people in Calvinism, but not in Arminianism.
God Bless,
Ben
Agreed. But why not use a more accurate analogy, such as the character in a book analogy? The fact that humans want to act as they act is an important one in Calvinist theology, and the robot/puppet analogy can obscure it.
ReplyDeleteBut they only “want” to act as they act because God controls them to want to act as they act in such a way that they have no power to resist those "wants". In other words, they are entirely passive. Therefore, any analogy to something which operates passively, like a puppet, or character scripted by an author, or even a spark plug (thank you Pike), serves as a fair analogy as far as I can tell.
Insofar as Aragorn exists, he wants to marry Arwen; he is not unconsciously going through the motions of wooing her/saving Gondor in order to become king, nor is he trapped inside his head screaming "I don't really want to marry her - Tolkien is making me do this!" His actions were caused, but (fictionally) conscious, and if he actually existed and were asked to account for his love, he wouldn't look blank or explode in a puff of epistemological angst.
He might if the author so scripted him. Whatever he does or thinks or feels is in accordance with how he has been scripted and he has no power to resist or rebel against that scripting force. He is entirely passive, just like a puppet.
So why not go with the analogy that better reflects the Calvinist teachings and doesn't have vague pejorative associations with Cylons, Agent Smith and HAL? (That's not a rhetorical question: I'm really interested as to why you're so attached to this analogy when it's not the most accurate one out there and is frequently misused.)
I don't have a problem with the scripted character analogy because it likewise demonstrates total passivity to the script writer, but for some reason when Arminians point out that such things make God the author of all sin and evil, Calvinist don't like the scripted person analogy anymore.
I really need to bow out at this point as we are not getting anywhere and it seems that neither of us is going to come to understand the other side differently. Thanks for the conversation.
God Bless,
Ben
"...Arminians point out that such things make God the author of all sin and evil..."
ReplyDeleteI think this is the problem. Arminians don't understand the nature of evil. I think the account of Joseph is instructive. He reveals to his brothers that when they sold him into slavery they intended it for evil but God intended it for good. A couple of questions need answering:
1) Was selling Joseph into slavery intrinsically wrong?
2) Who caused Joseph to be sold into slavery?
Answer to #1: No
Answer to #2: First cause, God; Second cause, Joseph's brothers.
The very same event, selling Joseph into slavery, was wrong for his brothers to do and not wrong for God to do. What made it good or evil was intent, not result. God's not Machiavellian. If Joseph died in prison in Egypt having never accomplished anything good for Egypt and his brothers, God would still not have sinned. Some other good would have come of it, I'm sure.
But there's one other factor we can't miss. By definition God can't sin. But people can and do sin. Sin is a great paradox in this world that is solved only by immediate annihilation from the just judgment of God. But God is also gracious. Sin and grace don't mix logically. Theoretically, grace begs the question of sin, but practically it sets up all manner of paradox that clouds our ability to receive the revelation of God. Were it not for the Holy Spirit we would be unable to apprehend the things of God at all because of it. So the Arminian logic appears to make sense on the surface, but taking the counsel of scripture and a desire for God we see that God is absolutely sovereign and has created us according to his will for his pleasure and we bear the responsibility for our sin against God.