Calvinism is often accused of categorising humans as robots, computers or puppets. This argument does not correctly engage with the Calvinist position.
Arminians hold dear the doctrine of free will, which states that human choices are not influenced or sovereignly caused by God. Instead, God chooses not to exercise his sovereignty when it comes to human choices, allowing humans to make their own decisions.
Calvinists deny the doctrine of free will, instead believing that God's absolute sovereignty means initially and continually causing all of creation, including human choices. This has led many Arminians to comment that Calvinism denies real human choices, making humans into mere robots or puppets. Dr Estep sums it up: “Calvinism robs the individual of responsibility for his/her own conduct, making a person into a puppet on a string or a robot programmed from birth to death with no will of his/her own." (Estep, "Doctrines Lead to Dunghill Prof Warns," The Baptist Standard, March 97).
The Difference between Will and Free Will
What this argument does not acknowledge is the difference between will, which Calvinists affirm, and libertarian free will (LFW), which they deny. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines will as “desire, choice, willingness, consent” (1) “capability or sufficiency” (4) and “determination, insistence, persistence, or willfulness” (6a).
These definitions are consistent with Calvinist thought: when a man makes a choice, it is based on his actual desires, carried through due to his determination, and made with the consent of his faculties. The fact that God is the ultimate metaphysical cause of man's choices does not impinge upon the fact that man does indeed make volitional choices by the exercise of his will.
Therefore, any argument which declares that Calvinism denies humans make real choices is incorrect, and any argument which seeks to attack Calvinism by proving will is attacking a strawman.
Why Robot, Computer and Puppet Analogies are Incorrect
Simply put, neither robots, computers nor puppets have will. While they correctly analogise Calvinist beliefs insofar as they posit beings whose actions are ultimately caused by a power outside themselves, they do not engage with the actual Calvinist position. Such an analogy would have to include sentient robots, computers or puppets who exercised their will – thus rather negating the point of choosing robots, computers and puppets for the sake of argument in the first place. The positional statement of one Calvinist church declares that the puppet analogy “is abhorrent to any Calvinist throughout history and would be seriously rejected at any level since it grossly misrepresents Calvinism.”
Implications for Calvinist Theology
Belief in will informs key Calvinist doctrines. For example, irresistable grace should be understood in light of the belief that men have will – it is not that God saves men against their will, but that God causes their will to desire him. While the belief in will in no way denies God's ultimate causative power, it affirms that men are conscious, rational creatures who intend the acts they do. This is an important point in the Calvinist doctrine of man's responsibility.
The copyright of the article Calvinism and the Robot or Puppet Analogy in Christian Reformed Church is owned by Sarah Tennant. Permission to republish Calvinism and the Robot or Puppet Analogy in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Thank you very much for this well explained little article. This is
something (the "free" will and robot/pupper issue) that I've been
struggling a great deal with, and this greatly clarified for me the
position held by calvinists and reformed theologians.
God bless
you.
Aug 16, 2009 5:56 AM
Guest :
The definition of free will or predestination is irrelevant without the
Bible. When we study the Scriptures we see that Calvin's predestination
doctrine is false. The Bible does not teach it. God gave man free will
starting with Adam and Eve. Calvin's version of limited atonement is also
incorrect. Jesus died for all men, not just for the "elect."
There are many verses to prove this but space does not allow me to quote
them all.
The predestination that the Bible does teach is that
God foreknew who would accept Jesus and who would reject Him. Using this
foreknowledge, the thing God predestined was the rewards for those
believers in Jesus Christ. They would receive sonship, be made in the
likeness of Christ and receive eternal life.
Aug 16, 2009 4:53 PM
Guest :
"When we study the Scriptures we see that Calvin's predestination
doctrine is false."
This is an assertion in lieu of an
argument. Since you haven't cited any passages to defend your position, let
alone exegeted them, one can merely assert the contrary with the same level
of force.
"The Bible does not teach it."
Romans 8:28-30, as well as Ephesians 1:3-11, plainly teaches
predestination in a way which cannot be honestly understood in anything
other than a Calvinistic sense:
"And we know that for those
who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called
according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to
be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the
firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also
called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he
justified he also glorified."
Notice the order of
events:
1. God foreknows “those who love God”, that is, “those
who are called according to his purpose”. 2. God predestines for (5)
those whom he has foreknown. 3. God calls those whom he has
predestined. 4. God justifies those whom he has called. 5. God
glorifies those whom he has justified.
Now, do “those who love
God” do so prior to being called, or afterward? Obviously afterward, since
before being called they did not know God—or they would not need to have
been called at all. But if they loved God only after being called, it is
evident that what God foreknew (v 29) was not love, but the people
themselves, as the grammar indicates. That is to say, in the sequence our
love comes as a result of God’s calling—but if that calling is based on
God’s predestination, and the predestination is based on foreknowledge,
then the foreknowledge which drives the predestination and calling cannot
be of love, because the love is caused by the foreknowledge. The
foreknowledge is the beginning of the causal chain which brings about that
love in the first place. And indeed, the passage itself states that we are
called “according to his purpose”; not “because we love him”. “We love
because he first loved us” ( 1 John 4:19); or, put another way, “in love he
predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ according to the
purpose of his will” (Ephesians 1:4,5).
God gave man free will
starting with Adam and Eve.
Another assertion in search of an
argument. Where is your scriptural evidence for this? Can you point to a
single place in the Bible where it is stated?
Aug 16, 2009 4:54 PM
Guest :
Re "Calvin's version of limited atonement is also incorrect. Jesus
died for all men, not just for the 'elect.'"
Firstly
Calvin's limited atonement did not preclude Jesus dying for all men. Calvin
held that Jesus died in a special sense for the elect (ie, he died with the
intention of saving them specifically), but that his death was nonetheless
sufficient for all. It was only after John Owen that the view of a strictly
particular atonement gained popularity. Nonetheless, this view is false,
and Calvinism does not select for it specifically. There are many
Calvinists, such as myself, who deny it; see
http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/on-the-atonement-part-1/
Feb 9, 2009
