Calvinist (Bad Logic) Comment #8: Calvin Teaches "Free-Will"?
8. A 10-point Calvinist (Derek) tried to say that John Calvin affirms that we freely make our own choices. He said, "You may be surprised to learn that Calvin affirms our “innate liberty” and uses the term “voluntary” to describe the freedom of will that we exercise ... Calvin’s conceptions of human freedom cannot be flattened out into mere robotic determinism. His views are far more nuanced and complex than he is given credit for. Yes, Calvin believes that God determines all; yet he also clearly affirms that man’s will is genuinely free and voluntary (back to the two claims I outlined, which are attested over and over by all of the mainstream Calvinistic theologians). Thus, Calvin and his best proponents hold to a compatibilism that is more than mere “culpability despite having been forced,” as non-Calvinists consistently misrepresent."
My reply:
You keep using phrases like “You may be surprised to learn …” and “assuming you have never been told, or have perhaps forgotten” and “If you [do X,Y, or Z] … then Calvinism will begin to make more sense to you (assuming you are willing to consider it thoughtfully and charitably).”
With all due respect, this isn’t our first rodeo. And you’re not the only educated one here.
You also say: “You may be surprised to learn that Calvin affirms our “innate liberty” and uses the term “voluntary” to describe the freedom of will that we exercise, even after the fall.”
Well, you may be surprised to learn that just because someone says they affirm something doesn’t mean their theology does. I don’t care what Calvin says he affirms or what Calvinists say they affirm; I care what their theology fundamentally and undeniably teaches. And in Calvinism, we do nothing “freely,” because that would mean that there is something that God isn’t in active control of. And Calvinism’s faulty view of God’s sovereignty can’t allow that.
Calvin can claim whatever he wants to, but to claim that we are “free” in any real, genuine, meaningful way contradicts his theology.
Also from his Institutes, in Calvin's own words:
Man "cannot even give utterance except in so far as God pleases..." (Book 1, Chapter 16, section 6).
"... everything done in the world is according to His decree..." (Book 1, Chapter 16, section 6).
"... the devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are, in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how much soever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as [God] permits - nay, unless IN SO FAR AS HE COMMANDS ..." (Book 1, Chapter 17, section 11)
"The counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined" (Book 1, Chapter 16, section 8).
"... it is certain that not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God" (Book 1, Chapter 16, section 5). And "... no wind ever rises or rages without His special command" (section 7).
How someone doesn’t call that determinism, I can’t understand! How someone thinks this coincides with some sort of “freedom to act on our own,” is a “mystery”!
But Calvinists have to keep telling themselves that Calvi-god’s sovereign, deterministic control makes room for mankind’s free-will. Because if they didn’t, they know they would be saying that God is responsible for all evil and all sin. And then they might have to rethink their whole theology.
Calvinists can say it all they want, but it doesn’t make it true. Not with their definition of “sovereign control.”
And yet how does my Calvinist pastor explain it all? Like this: “I don’t know how it works, how it all fits together. But the Bible teaches it [his view of Calvinism, that is, which it doesn't], and so I have to believe it. Even if I can’t understand it. It’s a mystery. We don’t have to like it or understand it; we just have to accept it.” (Translation: “Look how humble I am to accept something that doesn’t make sense. You should be so humble too!”)
One thing I warn people about is to not put any faith in one quote from a Calvinist which sounds like they affirm free-will, because they will contradict it later (or add so many qualifiers that it changes what they originally said).
Here’s a little gem from Calvin, Book, 2, Chapter 2, section 8: In this section, Calvin is condemning the use of the term "free-will." And he says, "If any one, then, chooses to make use of this term ... but I am unwilling to use it myself; and others if they will take my advice, will do well to abstain from it."
Hmm!?! So let me see here: God controls and causes everything, even our utterances and counsels and wills, and so therefore there can be no free-will. BUT Calvin has the freedom to will himself to not use the term "free-will"!?!
Ha-ha-ha! What irony!
And he says that others could "choose to make use of this term," but that they would do well to take his advice and not use it. AS IF they had any control over themselves, or any ability to use their free-will to make decisions about their free-will! Something Calvin totally denies is possible.
You can't have it both ways, Calvin. Make up your mind!
How about this one: In his Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 4, Section 1, he also says that men who define God as they want to because of their vanity and pride are "deservedly blinded, because, not contented with sober inquiry, because, arrogating to themselves more than they have any title to do, they of their own accord court darkness, nay, bewitch themselves with perverse, empty show. Hence it is that their folly, the result of not only vain curiosity, but of licentious desire and overweaning confidence in the pursuit of forbidden knowledge, cannot be excused."
So ... let me get this straight ... "The counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined" ... but now ... men "of their own accord court darkness"!?! And because of their vain curiosity and licentious desire (the sinful desire that came with their Calvi-god-given "sinner nature"!) and overweaning confidence in pursuing forbidden knowledge, they deserve the blindness they get!?!
So which is it? Is it or is it not that God chooses whom to blind all on His own, with no influence from people? Is it or is it not that men are ultimately responsible for their own blindness and hardness of heart?
Also in Chapter 4, Section 3, he says that men "choosing rather to indulge their carnal propensities than to curb them ..."
Once again, "choose"!?! Hey Calvin, I thought you later said that God was the cause of all things, even wickedness, even sin? Let me see, where was it again? Oh, yes, here it is:
"... the devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are, in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how much soever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as [God] permits - nay, unless in so far as he commands ..."
And ... "... everything done in the world is according to His decree..."
And man "cannot even give utterance except in so far as God pleases..."
And yet now, here in Book 1 Chapter 4, men "choose" to indulge their carnal desires? As opposed to his later idea that God causes all we do?
How, Calvin, can you say both things as if they are both true? They are opposite ideas: God causes vs. man causes. How can you say they are both true? I don't get it. And from the sound of it, you don't either!
Calvin says that "Obedience is when we are instructed in his will and hasten in the direction he calls" (Chapter 17, Section 5). But that if we act wickedly, God didn't command it.
First of all, doesn't needing to be "instructed in his will" imply that there are things that happen outside of His Will? Hmm, let's see what Calvin says about this elsewhere ...
My reply:
You keep using phrases like “You may be surprised to learn …” and “assuming you have never been told, or have perhaps forgotten” and “If you [do X,Y, or Z] … then Calvinism will begin to make more sense to you (assuming you are willing to consider it thoughtfully and charitably).”
With all due respect, this isn’t our first rodeo. And you’re not the only educated one here.
You also say: “You may be surprised to learn that Calvin affirms our “innate liberty” and uses the term “voluntary” to describe the freedom of will that we exercise, even after the fall.”
Well, you may be surprised to learn that just because someone says they affirm something doesn’t mean their theology does. I don’t care what Calvin says he affirms or what Calvinists say they affirm; I care what their theology fundamentally and undeniably teaches. And in Calvinism, we do nothing “freely,” because that would mean that there is something that God isn’t in active control of. And Calvinism’s faulty view of God’s sovereignty can’t allow that.
Calvin can claim whatever he wants to, but to claim that we are “free” in any real, genuine, meaningful way contradicts his theology.
Also from his Institutes, in Calvin's own words:
Man "cannot even give utterance except in so far as God pleases..." (Book 1, Chapter 16, section 6).
"... everything done in the world is according to His decree..." (Book 1, Chapter 16, section 6).
"... the devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are, in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how much soever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as [God] permits - nay, unless IN SO FAR AS HE COMMANDS ..." (Book 1, Chapter 17, section 11)
"The counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined" (Book 1, Chapter 16, section 8).
"... it is certain that not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God" (Book 1, Chapter 16, section 5). And "... no wind ever rises or rages without His special command" (section 7).
How someone doesn’t call that determinism, I can’t understand! How someone thinks this coincides with some sort of “freedom to act on our own,” is a “mystery”!
But Calvinists have to keep telling themselves that Calvi-god’s sovereign, deterministic control makes room for mankind’s free-will. Because if they didn’t, they know they would be saying that God is responsible for all evil and all sin. And then they might have to rethink their whole theology.
Calvinists can say it all they want, but it doesn’t make it true. Not with their definition of “sovereign control.”
And yet how does my Calvinist pastor explain it all? Like this: “I don’t know how it works, how it all fits together. But the Bible teaches it [his view of Calvinism, that is, which it doesn't], and so I have to believe it. Even if I can’t understand it. It’s a mystery. We don’t have to like it or understand it; we just have to accept it.” (Translation: “Look how humble I am to accept something that doesn’t make sense. You should be so humble too!”)
One thing I warn people about is to not put any faith in one quote from a Calvinist which sounds like they affirm free-will, because they will contradict it later (or add so many qualifiers that it changes what they originally said).
Here’s a little gem from Calvin, Book, 2, Chapter 2, section 8: In this section, Calvin is condemning the use of the term "free-will." And he says, "If any one, then, chooses to make use of this term ... but I am unwilling to use it myself; and others if they will take my advice, will do well to abstain from it."
Hmm!?! So let me see here: God controls and causes everything, even our utterances and counsels and wills, and so therefore there can be no free-will. BUT Calvin has the freedom to will himself to not use the term "free-will"!?!
Ha-ha-ha! What irony!
And he says that others could "choose to make use of this term," but that they would do well to take his advice and not use it. AS IF they had any control over themselves, or any ability to use their free-will to make decisions about their free-will! Something Calvin totally denies is possible.
You can't have it both ways, Calvin. Make up your mind!
How about this one: In his Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 4, Section 1, he also says that men who define God as they want to because of their vanity and pride are "deservedly blinded, because, not contented with sober inquiry, because, arrogating to themselves more than they have any title to do, they of their own accord court darkness, nay, bewitch themselves with perverse, empty show. Hence it is that their folly, the result of not only vain curiosity, but of licentious desire and overweaning confidence in the pursuit of forbidden knowledge, cannot be excused."
So ... let me get this straight ... "The counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined" ... but now ... men "of their own accord court darkness"!?! And because of their vain curiosity and licentious desire (the sinful desire that came with their Calvi-god-given "sinner nature"!) and overweaning confidence in pursuing forbidden knowledge, they deserve the blindness they get!?!
So which is it? Is it or is it not that God chooses whom to blind all on His own, with no influence from people? Is it or is it not that men are ultimately responsible for their own blindness and hardness of heart?
Also in Chapter 4, Section 3, he says that men "choosing rather to indulge their carnal propensities than to curb them ..."
Once again, "choose"!?! Hey Calvin, I thought you later said that God was the cause of all things, even wickedness, even sin? Let me see, where was it again? Oh, yes, here it is:
"... the devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are, in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how much soever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as [God] permits - nay, unless in so far as he commands ..."
And ... "... everything done in the world is according to His decree..."
And man "cannot even give utterance except in so far as God pleases..."
And yet now, here in Book 1 Chapter 4, men "choose" to indulge their carnal desires? As opposed to his later idea that God causes all we do?
How, Calvin, can you say both things as if they are both true? They are opposite ideas: God causes vs. man causes. How can you say they are both true? I don't get it. And from the sound of it, you don't either!
I love this one: In Book 1, Chapter 17 and Chapter 18 are about Calvin trying to make sense out of how God can be the "cause" of evil yet not be held accountable for evil, how we are "controlled" by God yet can be held accountable for what we do.
And about the actions of wicked people, Calvin says (Chapter 17, Section 5) "I deny that they serve the will of God." He says that we cannot say that "he who has been carried away by a wicked mind are performing service on the order of God" because the evil person is "only following his own malignant desires," not acting in obedience.
Wait just a second, Calvin! You say that everything - even our utterances, every bad natural disaster, all evil, everything we do - is controlled by and ordained by God, according to His Will and purposes and pleasure. You even say in section 4 that "prudence and folly are instruments of divine dispensation," that God either causes us to be prudent and safe or to be foolish and to bring disaster on ourselves.
But now you are going to say that wicked men doing wicked things are not controlled by God!?!
Basically, Calvin's theology is "Everything that happens is done by the Will of God, by the hand of God. We can't do anything, even evil things, unless God wills it to happen. But if we do evil, it's not God's Will because only obedience to the Word is God's Will, even though God controls all we do and we can't do any evil unless God wills it. And if you don't agree with me then you are a bad, unhumble Christian who dishonors God, and I will burn you at the stake with green wood that takes longer to burn."
And about the actions of wicked people, Calvin says (Chapter 17, Section 5) "I deny that they serve the will of God." He says that we cannot say that "he who has been carried away by a wicked mind are performing service on the order of God" because the evil person is "only following his own malignant desires," not acting in obedience.
Wait just a second, Calvin! You say that everything - even our utterances, every bad natural disaster, all evil, everything we do - is controlled by and ordained by God, according to His Will and purposes and pleasure. You even say in section 4 that "prudence and folly are instruments of divine dispensation," that God either causes us to be prudent and safe or to be foolish and to bring disaster on ourselves.
But now you are going to say that wicked men doing wicked things are not controlled by God!?!
Basically, Calvin's theology is "Everything that happens is done by the Will of God, by the hand of God. We can't do anything, even evil things, unless God wills it to happen. But if we do evil, it's not God's Will because only obedience to the Word is God's Will, even though God controls all we do and we can't do any evil unless God wills it. And if you don't agree with me then you are a bad, unhumble Christian who dishonors God, and I will burn you at the stake with green wood that takes longer to burn."
"Hi, my name's John Calvin. And I'm a schizophrenic megalomaniac with irrational thinking, delusions of grandeur, and a messianic complex. Would you be my disciples?"
Calvin says that "Obedience is when we are instructed in his will and hasten in the direction he calls" (Chapter 17, Section 5). But that if we act wickedly, God didn't command it.
First of all, doesn't needing to be "instructed in his will" imply that there are things that happen outside of His Will? Hmm, let's see what Calvin says about this elsewhere ...
-- God completely controls and causes every little thing that happens, "down to the minutest detail, down even to a sparrow." (Book 1, Chapter 16, Section 5)
-- "it is certain that not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God" (Book 1, Chapter 16, Section 5)
-- "Therefore, since God claims for himself the right of governing the world, a right unknown to us, let it be our law of modesty and soberness to acquiesce in his supreme authority regarding his will as our only rule of justice, and the most perfect CAUSE OF ALL THINGS..." (Book 1, Chapter 17, Section 2. Hmm ... if God is the "cause of all things," then we don't have to worry about if we "acquiesce in his supreme authority" or not. Because He should be the one to "cause" it.)
-- And according to Calvin, Solomon "derides the stupidity of those who presume to undertake anything without God, as if they were not ruled by his hand..." (Book 1, Chapter 17, Section 4. If we are truly "ruled hy his hand," then isn't God the one causing us to be stupid, causing us to "presume to undertake anything without [Him]"? How can doing what God caused us to do be considered "stupid"? Isn't it simply being obedient and bringing God glory in the way He planned for us to bring Him glory? If Calvinism is true, then Solomon and Calvin would be the stupid ones for blaming people for what God caused for His glory and for suggesting that people can do anything without God, when God Himself - according to Calvin's theology - is controlling people, causing them to act like they can do anything without Him.)
-- And we commit blasphemy if we "refuse to admit that every event which happens in the world is governed by the incomprehensible counsel of God." (Book 1, Chapter 17, Section 2. Umm ... how can we "refuse" to admit that God controls everything if our refusal itself is controlled by God? Isn't "refusing" because God caused us to refuse simply doing what He "ordained" for us to do, what He caused us to do? Isn't "refusing Him" actually then being obedient to Him? What a conundrum!)
-- And it is "insipid" to say God is just the originator of all things, but not the controller of all things. (Book 1, Chapter 16, Section 3. Once again, Calvi-god would be the reason for that insipidness, if he is controlling us. So ... I guess Calvi-god likes to cause people to deny that he controls all things, huh? Must give him some sort of sick, twisted pleasure to cause people to deny his "sovereign" control. And then to punish them for their denial. Yep, definitely a god worth trusting!)
-- "The counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined" (Book 1, Chapter 16, Section 8)
-- and "the devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are, in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how much soever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetuate, unless in so far as he permits - nay, unless in so far as he commands" (Book 1, Chapter 17, Section 11)
So ... everything that happens in this world is "by His Will," yet there is still some need to be "instructed in his will," as if anything can happen outside His Will!
Ha-ha-ha! Oh, that's rich! Calvin (Calvinists) constantly contradicts himself and expects us not to notice.
And how exactly can we "hasten in the direction" of anything if God controls the direction we take? How can we choose obedience if, as Calvin says, God controls everything we do? How can Calvin say that everything happens by God's command except wickedness, after already stating that God controls all evil?
In Chapter 18, section 2, Calvin says, "The sum of the whole is this, - since the will of God is said to be the cause of all things, all the counsels and actions of men must be held to be governed by his providence; so that he not only exerts his power in the elect, who are guided by the Holy Spirit, but also forces the reprobate to do him service."
Hold your horses there, mister ...
"I deny that [wicked men] serve the will of God. For we cannot say that he who is carried away by a wicked mind performs service on the order of God ..."
But now you say "the reprobate do him service"!?!
Hmm? Which one is it?
Calvin (Calvinists) says God controls all evil when he's trying to uphold God's "sovereignty" (by that, he means "micromanaging control"), but he denies that God controls all evil when he's trying to figure out who to "blame" for it.
"Confused, inconsistent theologian, table of one!"
I could go on. But you get the idea!
Just because someone claims they affirm something doesn’t mean their theology does. It just means they are being inconsistent and contradictory and deceptive.
And the other non/anti-Calvinists weren’t falling for it either:
TS00 says:
It is not that we are ignorant of, nor that we ‘misrepresent’ what Calvin taught – we simply view it as inconsistent, illogical doublespeak. And yes, many who were suckered into going along with Calvinism based on that inconsistent, illogical doublespeak called Compatibilism seek to spare others from falling victim to the same trap.
We are fully aware that Calvin, and many other Calvinists, try to have their cake and eat it too. But just because someone states ‘Both A and non-A are equally true’ does not make it so, no matter how many multi-syllable words they string together in its defense.
If all things were predetermined before we were even conceived, then we do not have any degree of meaningful freedom or choice. Period. We know all of your arguments, and all of your word-thuggery, but we simply refuse to be intimidated by it anymore. ‘Irresistibly predetermined by God’ and ‘freely chosen’ are directly opposite and contradictory, however you wish to disguise it. I’ll grant you ‘pre-known’ and ‘freely chosen’, but foreknowledge is an entirely different matter from predetermination.
I will never again be bullied, shamed or conned into rejecting common sense and logic and embracing a man-made, illogical and unbiblical system. And I will do everything I can to protect others from the same.
Graceadict says:
Affirming contradictory points is illogical and is unbiblical. "The Car is Red" and "The Car is NOT Red." If spoken about the same car and in the same way… is bad logic, and the Bible never does that kind of illogical teaching.
“Man is Free, however God has predetermined his every move before time began, so that there is 0 left over for him to ‘adlib’.” These two statements are what Calvinism tries to prove as both true. But only those people who are drinking the Kool-aid of John Piper, John MacArthur, and John Calvin are going to believe it. A careful study of the Word shows that one of those statements is FALSE.
TS00 you stated: “foreknowledge is an entirely different matter from predetermination. I will never again be bullied, shamed or conned into rejecting common sense and logic and embracing a man-made, illogical and unbiblical system. And I will do everything I can to protect others from the same.”
Agreed! We have been there. And the likes of James White are great examples of what you are talking about… and then they cover it with “mystery” to make people unsuspecting, even while they smuggle error into the church. They have done more to bring in error into the church through their systematic than any other systematic. And it starts with this faulty understanding of Sovereign.
Br.d. says (snippets of his comments):
I don’t think Derek realizes how dangerously close he is to a form of idolatry – when he raises the word of John Calvin up and makes it infallible.
The Catholic church teaches Mary was born without sin and the Catholic takes that as the infallible word of god.
Not much difference between that and holding John Calvin’s word as infallible.
Just because someone claims something doesn’t make it TRUE and doesn’t make it LOGICALLY valid. Therefore just because John Calvin calls something “voluntary” doesn’t make it TRUE.
Everyone who understands compatiblistic freedom knows it is the exact same freedom that robots have. A robot engineer can claim his robots do what they do “voluntarily,” exactly the same as Calvin claims. But using that term to describe compatibilistic freedom is dishonest.
Derek says that “Calvin’s conceptions of human freedom cannot be flattened out into mere robotic determinism.”
Sorry – but that is LOGICALLY fallacious – either something is TRUE or it is FALSE. Christian Philosophers simply understand the LOGICAL consequences of Compatiblisitic freedom.
It is exactly as I have stated:
1. The THEOS does NOT PERMIT the creature to falsify or negate the divine decree
2. The THEOS does NOT PERMIT the creature to be/do otherwise than what the THEOS determines
3. The creature has no say in the matter of what is determined.
All of the above = Compatiblistic freedom. And Compatiblistic freedom is the exact same freedom found with robots.
Again we are not saying in Calvinism people are robots ONTOLOGICALLY – but it LOGICALLY follows that in Calvinism, humans FUNCTION ROBOTICALLY.
Additionally we understand that most Calvinists embrace a form of DOUBLE-THINK in this regard.
TS00 says:
It is not that we are ignorant of, nor that we ‘misrepresent’ what Calvin taught – we simply view it as inconsistent, illogical doublespeak. And yes, many who were suckered into going along with Calvinism based on that inconsistent, illogical doublespeak called Compatibilism seek to spare others from falling victim to the same trap.
We are fully aware that Calvin, and many other Calvinists, try to have their cake and eat it too. But just because someone states ‘Both A and non-A are equally true’ does not make it so, no matter how many multi-syllable words they string together in its defense.
If all things were predetermined before we were even conceived, then we do not have any degree of meaningful freedom or choice. Period. We know all of your arguments, and all of your word-thuggery, but we simply refuse to be intimidated by it anymore. ‘Irresistibly predetermined by God’ and ‘freely chosen’ are directly opposite and contradictory, however you wish to disguise it. I’ll grant you ‘pre-known’ and ‘freely chosen’, but foreknowledge is an entirely different matter from predetermination.
I will never again be bullied, shamed or conned into rejecting common sense and logic and embracing a man-made, illogical and unbiblical system. And I will do everything I can to protect others from the same.
Graceadict says:
Affirming contradictory points is illogical and is unbiblical. "The Car is Red" and "The Car is NOT Red." If spoken about the same car and in the same way… is bad logic, and the Bible never does that kind of illogical teaching.
“Man is Free, however God has predetermined his every move before time began, so that there is 0 left over for him to ‘adlib’.” These two statements are what Calvinism tries to prove as both true. But only those people who are drinking the Kool-aid of John Piper, John MacArthur, and John Calvin are going to believe it. A careful study of the Word shows that one of those statements is FALSE.
TS00 you stated: “foreknowledge is an entirely different matter from predetermination. I will never again be bullied, shamed or conned into rejecting common sense and logic and embracing a man-made, illogical and unbiblical system. And I will do everything I can to protect others from the same.”
Agreed! We have been there. And the likes of James White are great examples of what you are talking about… and then they cover it with “mystery” to make people unsuspecting, even while they smuggle error into the church. They have done more to bring in error into the church through their systematic than any other systematic. And it starts with this faulty understanding of Sovereign.
Br.d. says (snippets of his comments):
I don’t think Derek realizes how dangerously close he is to a form of idolatry – when he raises the word of John Calvin up and makes it infallible.
The Catholic church teaches Mary was born without sin and the Catholic takes that as the infallible word of god.
Not much difference between that and holding John Calvin’s word as infallible.
Just because someone claims something doesn’t make it TRUE and doesn’t make it LOGICALLY valid. Therefore just because John Calvin calls something “voluntary” doesn’t make it TRUE.
Everyone who understands compatiblistic freedom knows it is the exact same freedom that robots have. A robot engineer can claim his robots do what they do “voluntarily,” exactly the same as Calvin claims. But using that term to describe compatibilistic freedom is dishonest.
Derek says that “Calvin’s conceptions of human freedom cannot be flattened out into mere robotic determinism.”
Sorry – but that is LOGICALLY fallacious – either something is TRUE or it is FALSE. Christian Philosophers simply understand the LOGICAL consequences of Compatiblisitic freedom.
It is exactly as I have stated:
1. The THEOS does NOT PERMIT the creature to falsify or negate the divine decree
2. The THEOS does NOT PERMIT the creature to be/do otherwise than what the THEOS determines
3. The creature has no say in the matter of what is determined.
All of the above = Compatiblistic freedom. And Compatiblistic freedom is the exact same freedom found with robots.
Again we are not saying in Calvinism people are robots ONTOLOGICALLY – but it LOGICALLY follows that in Calvinism, humans FUNCTION ROBOTICALLY.
Additionally we understand that most Calvinists embrace a form of DOUBLE-THINK in this regard.
(For all the posts in this series, see the "Intro ..." Or look for "'Calvinist Bad Logic' Series" in the labels on the side-bar. Or find the whole series in one post, "When Calvinism's 'Bad Logic' Traps Good Christians.")
