Calvinism and Determinism 2 (Response to Theojunkie)

Theojunkie responded to my recent post on Calvinism and Determinism. He provided 4 corrections, but I don’t think I misrepresented Calvinism. I explained Calvinism as I understand it; but perhaps I have some things to learn about Calvinism. Still, I can’t help but think it’s likely I simply highlighted aspects of Calvinism, which, although they are not often discussed, they are non-the-less true of Calvinism.

Limited Atonement

Me: Christ's death was sufficient for all meaning if He had died for the
reprobate, He could have been able to save them. The "possibility" of salvation
is based on a different past then the actual past - a hallmark of
determinism.

TJ: Correction: If Christ had died for the reprobate, then 1) they would
with certainty be saved, and 2) they would not be reprobate.

Salvation is not "possible" for anybody-- it is certain. No where does
the bible speak of the "possibility of being saved". No where does anyone in the
bible present the Gospel as a "possibility" for a person. Therefore, nothing
here is based on a false history.


I was addressing the sufficient for all aspect of limited atonement. The cannons of Dort describe Christ’s death as “more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world”. (link) If your correction was intended to substitute in the correct sense in which Christ’s death is sufficient for all, I don’t think it answers the mail. 5 point Calvinists hold that Christ didn’t die for the reprobate. How could Christ’s not dying for someone be the basis of His death’s being sufficient for them? Further, you deny that salvation is possible for anyone, but rather that it is certain (presumably for the elect and them alone). This implies that Christ is unable to save the non-elect. If Christ is unable to save them, how then is His death sufficient for them?

One way to explain it would be that given the hypothetical that they were elected, Christ wouldn’t have had to suffer any more? (i.e. an alternative past to correspond to the alternative future). There’s a power or possibility in Christ’s death that’s accessed with an alternative past. I think that’s the only way Calvinists can explain “sufficiency”, but perhaps I am wrong.

Irresistible grace

Me: Those under grace cannot choose to reject. Denying contrary choice is
another sign of determinism.
TJ: Correction: Those under grace willingly choose to accept and therefore do not reject. Again, the absence of observed decision to the contrary does not mean a choice has not been made. And, presuming that a person "could have made" the choice that they did not make, is an assumption "based on a different past then the actual past." Note the irony.

I was talking about rejecting; you are talking about accepting, so I
am not sure if you agreed with what I said or not. I did notice you
switched “cannot” with “do not”, but if determinism is true, cannot is
correct.

I do understand Calvinists say we make choices. Whether or not they can consistently do so is another issue. But they do deny that LFW is true (or sometimes that it’s even possible). So given irresistible grace, we cannot choose to reject.

This address perseverance of the saints as well.


Me: God withholds the only thing that can help, irresistible grace, yet asks
what more He could have done.
TJ: Correction: God does not "withhold" irresistable grace. He doesn't provide it. "Not providing" and "withholding" are different things. To "withhold" something sounds like the person deserves it. No one deserves grace. And God is not obligated to provide grace to anyone.
I didn’t mean that God had to give grace, only that He could.

TJ: Dan, agreeing with the doctrines of grace is not like experimenting with
drugs on the school playground. Nobody "gets into" Calvinism because they think
it's cool. Rather, they finally accept the truth of it after struggling with and
accepting the bible for what it says. "Being a Calvinist" is a reflection on
one's acceptance of the scripture.... not something people find themselves
accidentally ensared in.But if anyone is "new to Calvinism"... I would recommend
they learn the doctrines from Calvinists, and let the Bible bear out or deny the
doctrines.

If someone thinks Calvinism is biblical, they should accept it. And if Calvinism is true, what I am saying about it couldn’t hurt. But the determinism/LFW issue impacts the way terms are defined and therefore impacts interpretation and ultimately what we conclude is biblical. In any case, all I am advocating is that people see the whole picture and that people be aware rather than unaware of their philosophical commitments. People should check their philosophies against scripture; not just the soteriological outputs. But if they do, and still see Calvinism as biblical, go for it.

Comments

John Lofton, Recovering Republican said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
October 28, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Sorry John, but you are wrong on so many levels. I am going to delete your post.

God be with you,
Dan
October 30, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more