John Calvin Discusses Rey’s Errors

Rey, otherwise known as Beowulf2k8, is back on my blog again with more commentary designed to convince us that Calvinism is of the devil. Well, I found out that John Calvin himself is doing YouTube videos, and approached the great theologian to find out if he would do a special video discussing Rey’s errors with compatibilism. Wouldn’t you know, he agreed, and has said that he’ll do a video anytime I need him!

Here’s the first video:

About Cory Tucholski

I'm a born-again Christian, amateur apologist and philosopher, father of 3. Want to know more? Check the "About" page!

Posted on May 1, 2009, in Apologetics. Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.

  1. “Think of it [Compatibilism] like this: If you push a ball down the stairs it will always fall down those stairs because the downward decline of the stairs creates the ball’s strongest desire at that moment.” (Cory’s robot pretending to be John Calvin)

    When you push a ball down the stairs, it falls because you pushed it down the stairs. Balls don’t have wills. Now, push a dog down the stairs. Did the dog choose to go down the stairs? No. In fact, he probably tried to keep from falling, but you pushed him a second time because you are sadistic.

    “So it is with compatibilism. Humans will always follow their strongest desires.” (Robot) This is a corollary of the preceding statement, and hence already disproven. Nevertheless, it is a doubtful statement. One’s greatest desire may be sex and they may forego it none-the-less. “Ah but only for a greater desire.” Perhaps and perhaps not. It doesn’t really matter, as Scripture clearly teaches that desires are not created by God pushing you. James says in James 1:13-14 “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of [i.e. by] God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of [i.e. by] his own lust [i.e. desire], and enticed.” Here James shows that God does not tempt men by stating that it is our own desires that tempt us. If our desires were the products of God pushing us (as in the asinine ball illustration) then this fact would not prove that God does not tempt us but actually the opposite. If it is our desires that tempt us and God pushes us [according to the analogy] to create those desires, then God tempts us. [Note, tempt here is restricted to the sense of entice and not the sense of test as used elsewhere in Scripture.]

    “If we had true libertarian free will then the world would be so random that even God would have a hard time predicting the outcome, and we can see from Scripture that that is not the case.” (Robot)

    This argument is nothing more nor less than imputed limitation to God, i.e. putting God in a box, and saying that God can’t do such and such unless certain conditions are met. You might as well put your argument like this, Unless every action and reaction in the world is totally pre-scripted by God, God will be unable to predict what will happen. God is therefore, according to you, not really wise (certainly not all-wise), because (according to you) he is only able to predict what he pre-scripts. According to you, in fact, God does not have the wisdom to truly predict anything at all! Because predicting what you yourself have pre-scripted is not really predicting. If I write a program to display “Hello World” on the computer screen, and then I “predict” that the program will display “Hello World” on the screen when executed, I have predicted nothing. It can only be a prediction if I arrive at the conclusion that it will happen without causing it. Therefore, if I download a program from the Internet, and before running it, I predict that it will format my hard drive, and then I run it, and sure enough it formats my hard drive, that is a prediction. The other, however, is no prediction at all, nor is there any wisdom involved in such a non-prediction “prediction.”

    The robot masquerading as Calvin then quotes Isaiah 46:9-10 and then pontificates “The reason that God can declare the end from the beginning is because he has an eternal decree.”

    If the reason God can predict the future is that he causes it, it is not a prediction, as we already said. Secondly, it does not make him any different from anyone else! Behold, God says, “I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning…” but if God decares the end from the beginning only because he pre-scripted it, then I am exactly like him in this regard, because if I pre-script something (like writing a computer program) I can then also declare the end from the beginning. In order for God’s predictive power to distinguish him from other sentient beings, he must have the power to predict things that he did not pre-script.

    Now the Westminister Confession is quoted by the Calvin robot as saying that although God pre-scripts everything, we (not He) are responsible for it. That is nothing but an assertion, and a totally idiotic one, for which there can be no proof, for illogical asinine and Satanic assertions are not truth and therefore cannot be proven. The arguments above have already, in fact, disproven this foolishness that the depraved Westminister undivines came up with.

    “Cory’s commenter Ree [sic] has made two mistakes. 1st he assumes that there is a contradiction between God having an eternal decree and man having free will rather than erring on the side of caution and giving more credit to God.” (Robot)

    There is no contradiction between God’s decree to save those who believe and obey the gospel, and man’s free will. In fact, man’s free will is necessary to the carrying out of the decree, because belief cannot be forced but must be free. God cannot save those who believe if he makes them believe, because then belief is no longer belief.

    And as to “erring on the side of caution and giving more credit to God,” I not only give MORE credit to God, but ALL credit to God. It is John Calvin, Cory, and Calvin’s robot that I give NO credit to. God has revealed that he will save those who believe and obey the gospel, and I give full credit to that. John Calvin, Cory, and Calvin’s robot declare that God has pre-scripted all actions and that only those who are pre-programmed like automotons in a computer to “believe” can “believe.” To this, no credit is given, for it comes from men (and one robot) and not from God.

    “Ree [sic] has decided that man’s free will must reign supreme, therefore refuses to give God his eternal decree.” (Robot)

    Nay, but Ree [rey] has decided that God’s decree to save those who believe and obey the gospel must reign supreme. And as man’s free will is necessary to him having the ability to believe and obey, Ree knows that man has been given freedom of the will by God. Robots do not believe anything, but only follow programming. Robots do not really think, but only follow what a set of zeros and ones makes them do.

    “One must wonder what he would do with passages like Genesis 50:20” (Robot)

    One need not wonder, for if one is anything more than a robot following pre-set programming then one knows that people often state erroneous opions of what God is doing in their lives, based on their best guess, and such a speech is very often recorded in the Bible and is therefore only inspired in the sense of being an accurate historical record of the speaker’s word and not as a divine oracle. (So, for example, the Jews who said Jesus had a demon are not to be relied upon as speaking the word of God!) In Genesis 50:20, Joseph as a mere man gives his mere human opinion of what God is doing, and does not utter this by any prophetic power, when he says “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.” If Joseph means that without pre-scripting them to commit sin God predicted it and turned it around for good, then he is correct. If he means that God caused them to sin that good would come out of it, he is dead wrong. Otherwise, why not assert (as Paul asks in Romans 3:8) “Let us do evil, that good may come?”???

    Now the robot asserts that I am claiming that if God were to pre-script someone to sin that would take away rather than establish contingent or secondary causes. That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that if God decrees evil to take place, if God pre-scripts the end goal to be evil, then despite all the hierarchy of contingent causes you might imagine between God and the final evil, he is found to be the author of the evil. Unless man is the FIRST CAUSE of evil, then God becomes the FIRST CAUSE of evil. God can only be the first cause of good. God is the first cause of creation. God is also the first cause of human freedom of the will. But, because the human will is itself free, that is set apart and out of God’s control (by God’s own choice to do this), and because man’s will is a cause, it becomes the first cause of evil when man does evil. If God only enables a “freedom” of the “will” that is restricted to only producing certain outcomes, then he is the first cause of the evil. I.e. if God decrees that I will committ adultery, and then only gives me freedom inasfar as I can choose who to commit adultery with, then God is the FIRST cause of the evil. I was then forced to commit adultery and only was able to choose who to commit the sin with, in such a Calvinist scenario. But if (and only if) God gives me freedom to do whatever it is possible for my body to do, and I choose on my own with no compulsion or restriction from God to commit adultery, then and only then is God free from being the first cause of the evil and hence free from being the author an finisher of sin.

    “This [that contigent or secondary causes are taken away if God makes a decree] is false according to the Westminster Confession of Faith” (Robot)

    Two things: (1) That was not my argument as I just stated above, so this point is pointless. (2) You might as well say “This is false according to Satan” because I don’t esteem the Westminster Confession as anything more than dung.

    “Once again Ree [sic] is not attacking Calvinism proper but only a strawman.” (Robot)

    I think the preceding responses show who is attacking a strawman, and it is him. But what more can you expect from a robot? Robots can only do what they are programmed to do.

  2. Nah, that’s stupid

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: