RC Sproul on the Doctrine of God

[Hazelelponi]

For example, hardly any Calvinists think in terms of Sanctification also being monergistic.

Or, the language they employ, that God allows this and that, instead of causing it.

I am, according to my definitions, a hard determinist.

Many speak of a free will, bound only by the sinful flesh, pre-regeneration, as though our decisions, but for that, are not caused to be one way or another.

I am curious because you know I use the word allow, it's softer language..

Do you feel it truly misrepresents God to soften our language?

People jump up and down screaming even using language that's a little softer, use of too much determinist language and I don't think they will listen will they? I kinda figured using softer language was at least a kind push in the right direction.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

For example, hardly any Calvinists think in terms of Sanctification also being monergistic.

Or, the language they employ, that God allows this and that, instead of causing it.

I am, according to my definitions, a hard determinist.

Many speak of a free will, bound only by the sinful flesh, pre-regeneration, as though our decisions, but for that, are not caused to be one way or another.

Agreed here, I do not like the word "allow" and do not use it when speaking of the Lord.

 

[fastfredy0]

I am curious because you know I use the word allow, it's softer language..

Softer, yes. Less accurate, yes.

I'm in agreement with @makesends ... I too am a hard determinist.
The subject is not a pleasant one.

 

[Hazelelponi]

. I too am a hard determinist.
The subject is not a pleasant one.

My husband used hard determinist language always, but it is harsh and they are difficult subjects. In person I can see it better because the Spirit is felt by the hearer.

However perhaps it's my own discomfort, it doesn't come naturally for me as it seems to him.

I will start trying to be conscience about being more accurate though, even in writing.

 

[makesends]

I am curious because you know I use the word allow, it's softer language..

Do you feel it truly misrepresents God to soften our language?

People jump up and down screaming even using language that's a little softer, use of too much determinist language and I don't think they will listen will they? I kinda figured using softer language was at least a kind push in the right direction.

There's a time for everything. But generally, yes, I'd say the hard truth is much better than 'softer'; God even uses the truth to drive away those he hardens. (For example, the fact that I am only what God is using me for, is a much happier and comforting thing than any other self-esteem I may come up with. The 'softer' "truth", that I am fearfully and wonderfully made, and made in God's image, and therefore in and of myself worthy of dignity and respect and value from God, is misleading and dangerous. (At least, I think so.))

In this context, it doesn't usually very much bother me, depending on who is using it. I know your thinking well enough that I don't get upset when you do. Yet I feel compelled to be sure it is understood by your readers, what God is doing here.

Ironically, the self-determinist softens his language the other way, saying "allow" in order to be sure it is understood that God did not cause the sin of anyone, while we do it to make the fact of God's absolute sovereignty a little more palatable to those who would have 'spiritual indigestion' at the notion that absolutely everything "whatsoever cometh to pass" is by God's causation.

So, yeah, it does bothers me that we use the same language those insisting on self-determinism do. But I can't say it is wrong to do so.

Lol, once or twice, and I probably will do it again, from time to time, I feel like I have to add a note to something that @Eleanor says, that 'free will' means that "a person is free to choose according to their inclinations". She even goes so far as to say that she agrees with a dictionary definition that includes, "without constraint...", which I disagree with, unless she does not mean, "independently of any outside influence". (Nothing we do is independent of influences from outside ourselves. With that, even the most animalistic of atheists would have to agree, if they are intellectually honest.)

FWIW, Sister, I know very well, that my point-of-view and my way of expression are not The Correct ones. More than that, I know well that no matter how accurate any of us are, we still miss the mark. Our notions are directed AT the truth, but are not THE TRUTH. And our words, even less so, unless they are the words of Scripture.

 

[fastfredy0]

know very well, that my point-of-view and my way of expression are not The Correct ones. More than that, I know well that no matter how accurate any of us are, we still miss the mark. Our notions are directed AT the truth, but are not THE TRUTH. And our words, even less so, unless they are the words of Scripture.

Well said.
...I may need to save this quote to use against you if we should have a disagreement *giggle*

Premise1: It is better to give than receive
Premise2: God is superior to all things in all ways all the time (and outside of time)
Conclusion: Hard determinism is true as God always gives and never receives

 

[Arial]

Not to denigrate anyone putting it that way, but "allowing" is a word I'm beginning to despise. It only shows part of the story. God takes us through what he does for HIS purposes. It is our disobedience, but it is HIS PLAN. We are here to grow into what HE planned, and whether we see it or not, it involves absolutely every detail that happens, good and bad, obedience and rebellion. We are not the judges of what he is doing.

But when we belong to him, every step shows the difference between his purity and patience, and our sin. That love is amazing. Grace. And the sin hurts.

I think since the subject of @Hazelelponi 's post was not determinism or hard determinism, using the word "allow" as she did was acceptable and not soft. After all--- if God did not allow us room to learn and grow, through our experiences and missteps, we would not learn and grow through them. And if he did not allow us to have experiences and missteps, we would not have them. It does no violence to God being sovereign over all. And it does not turn monergism into synergism. Not in the head of a Calvinist/Reformed.

 

[Eleanor]

There's a time for everything. But generally, yes, I'd say the hard truth is much better than 'softer'; God even uses the truth to drive away those he hardens. (For example, the fact that I am only what God is using me for, is a much happier and comforting thing than any other self-esteem I may come up with. The 'softer' "truth", that I am fearfully and wonderfully made, and made in God's image, and therefore in and of myself worthy of dignity and respect and value from God, is misleading and dangerous. (At least, I think so.))
In this context, it doesn't usually very much bother me, depending on who is using it. I know your thinking well enough that I don't get upset when you do. Yet I feel compelled to be sure it is understood by your readers, what God is doing here.
Ironically, the self-determinist softens his language the other way, saying "allow" in order to be sure it is understood that God did not cause the sin of anyone, while we do it to make the fact of God's absolute sovereignty a little more palatable to those who would have 'spiritual indigestion' at the notion that absolutely everything "whatsoever cometh to pass" is by God's causation.
So, yeah, it does bothers me that we use the same language those insisting on self-determinism do. But I can't say it is wrong to do so.

Lol, once or twice, and I probably will do it again, from time to time, I feel like I have to add a note to something that @Eleanor says, that 'free will' means that "a person is free to choose according to their inclinations". She even goes so far as to say that she agrees with a dictionary definition that includes, "without constraint...", which I disagree with, unless she does not mean, "independently of any outside influence". (Nothing we do is independent of influences from outside ourselves. With that, even the most animalistic of atheists would have to agree, if they are intellectually honest.)

FWIW, Sister, I know very well, that my point-of-view and my way of expression are not The Correct ones. More than that, I know well that no matter how accurate any of us are, we still miss the mark. Our notions are directed AT the truth, but are not THE TRUTH. And our words, even less so, unless they are the words of Scripture.

And she loves you keeping her on track, for she is nowhere as nearly precise as you are.
However, she does not see "influence" and "constraint" as the same, constraint being by force and influence being by persuasion.

She sees actual human free will (that of "slaves to sin," Jn 8:34) as "the power to choose, without external force or constraint, what one prefers" (actually not a "dictionary" definition).
If I am influenced or persuaded, then I am choosing what I prefer (carefully chosen word which avoids complete autonomy).
Not so with force or constraint.

 

[fastfredy0]

If I am influenced or persuaded, then I am choosing what I prefer

...and what/who determined your 'preferences'?

 

[Eleanor]

...and what/who determined your 'preferences'?

Your taste, your nature, your personality, etc.

Irrelevant to fallen nature's actual (limited, not automomous) free will, defined in terms of preference, not autonomy.

 

[makesends]

Well said.
...I may need to save this quote to use against you if we should have a disagreement *giggle*

Ha! Good luck [providence] with that. I'll demand you show me where I said it. (Site, board, forum, thread, post number, quote and link. Might even need you to provide me with internet access!) I KNOW how to lose an argument gracefully!

Premise1: It is better to give than receive
Premise2: God is superior to all things in all ways all the time (and outside of time)
Conclusion: Hard determinism is true as God always gives and never receives

Well, then, I'd have to say premise 2 implies that our Conclusion should be more like, "Hard determinism seems true..." or "I am left with no better alternative than to reason that Hard Determinism is true."

 

[fastfredy0]

Your taste, your nature, your personality, etc.

... and who/what determined your nature, your personality, etc. which determined your preferences?

 

[Eleanor]

... and who/what determined your nature, your personality, etc. which determined your preferences?

I give up. . .your point?

 

[fastfredy0]

Well, then, I'd have to say premise 2 implies that our Conclusion should be more like, "Hard determinism seems true

Premise 2 simply shows God is best at everything. Premise1 say it's better to give than receive. Since God is the best at everything and since it is better to give than receive it follows that God is the only giver. God being the only giver supports the concept of hard determinism.

 

[makesends]

I think since the subject of @Hazelelponi 's post was not determinism or hard determinism, using the word "allow" as she did was acceptable and not soft. After all--- if God did not allow us room to learn and grow, through our experiences and missteps, we would not learn and grow through them. And if he did not allow us to have experiences and missteps, we would not have them. It does no violence to God being sovereign over all. And it does not turn monergism into synergism. Not in the head of a Calvinist/Reformed.

Aaaugh! See, there you go again with the soft: "Wha'd'ya MEAN, 'allow us room'??? He DRAGS me through all my junk!!!"

Yeah, I know, and I get your point. I'm not saying @Hazelelponi said anything wrong. And you shutup, @fastfredy0 and @ElectedbyHim , LOL —I haven't abandoned the faith!

 

[Hazelelponi]

Aaaugh! See, there you go again with the soft: "Wha'd'ya MEAN, 'allow us room'??? He DRAGS me through all my junk!!!"

Yeah, I know, and I get your point. I'm not saying @Hazelelponi said anything wrong. And you shutup, @fastfredy0 and @ElectedbyHim , LOL —I haven't abandoned the faith!

Well I took it and addressed as mainly generalities, unrelated to the nails on chalkboard moment I may have caused... lol

 

[makesends]

And she loves you keeping her on track, for she is nowhere as nearly precise as you are.
However, she does not see "influence" and "constraint" as the same, constraint being by force and influence being by persuasion.

She sees actual human free will (that of "slaves to sin," Jn 8:34) as "the power to choose, without external force or constraint, what one prefers" (actually not a "dictionary" definition).
If I am influenced or persuaded, then I am choosing what I prefer (carefully chosen word which avoids complete autonomy).
Not so with force or constraint.

SEE??? I TOLD you that we agree!!!

... and who/what determined your nature, your personality, etc. which determined your preferences?

@Eleanor doesn't need to be proven your line of thinking. She knows this is all by God's doing. (She's the one who helps me see that other ways of looking at it —even the way @Josheb puts it— are valid.) It's my job as Unsolicitor General to take Eleanor's side when she agrees with someone else, but they don't know it. (It's a relatively safe fight to butt into.)

 

[Arial]

Aaaugh! See, there you go again with the soft: "Wha'd'ya MEAN, 'allow us room'??? He DRAGS me through all my junk!!!"

Yeah, I know, and I get your point. I'm not saying @Hazelelponi said anything wrong. And you shutup, @fastfredy0 and @ElectedbyHim , LOL —I haven't abandoned the faith!

If he doesn't stop it, he allows it. That is a whole other issue than discussing determinism. And his determining does no violence to the human will. Not every conversation is about first, second, third causes and causal cause.

 

[makesends]

Well I took it and addressed as mainly generalities, unrelated to the nails on chalkboard moment I may have caused... lol

Sadly, even Scriptures speak in terms that sound pretty much like 'allowing', so, don't worry. My hearing is messed up, but what you said was no chalkboard moment even to me. Just an opportunity to screech.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

To my knowledge, the NASB is the only Bible version that uses the word "causes" in in Romans 8:28, and I like it.

I believe it captures God's sovereignty and providence.

The question is, was that word added or translated from the original?

Perhaps I will look into it.

Romans 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose