Owning the Robot/Puppet Analogy? A Response to Leighton Flowers

In this episode of Theopologetics Extra, Chris responds to friend and colleague Leighton Flowers, who has argued in recent months and years that Calvinists like Chris can't consistently object to non-Calvinists when they compare people under Calvinism to puppets and robots, because Calvinists already understand Paul's potter/clay analogy in Romans 9 in a relevantly similar way.

[thomasfryxelius]

Thank you for this thoughtful response!
I have thought about the Tolkien/God analogy and I have some objections to it:
- The main objection to the analogy is that one of the characters involved (Tolkien or Frodo) is not real. And this makes all the moral difference in the world.
Let´s look at this from the perspective of the author. To him, Frodo is a part of his imagination, not a real person that can feel pain and undergo real suffering. If he was, creating him in order to cause him pain and grief would be cruel and we would rightly condemn Tolkien for it. But he´s not; Tolkien is not evil when writing about evil. He´s describing a fantasy, not creating reality.
The other perspective is from Frodo´s perspective. To him, in the story, Tolkien doesn´t exist. A story reflects reality, where we make real choices, face real consequences and real evil. The choice of Frodo to keep the ring is heartbreaking because it´s so true to our nature of being corruptible and failing. The choice feels real, we see a person cracking under great pressure.
But let´s say part of the story was him and Sam finding out that there was an author out there causing them immense suffering in order to make the story exciting and therefore glorifying Tolkien as a great author. If I thought that was what was happening I would consider Tolkien to be a very evil person, wouldn´t you? I don´t think either Frodo or Sam would consider the author of all their misery a friend.

I know all analogies break down at some point, but this analogy breaks down on the only relevant point, the moral difference between describing something (author) and causing something in real life.

[reformedpilgrim]

Good video!

Leighton said he didn’t mean to strawman Calvinists, but that is exactly what he does by using an analogy we don’t use to describe ourselves and insisting we must agree with it, because that is what he thinks our argument actually is. That is exactly what strawmanning is.

[bodester]

I respect your comments here and that this is how you represent Paul's analogy, but potter and clay being used to directly represent determinism and zero free choice by humanity is often used by Calvinists. The only reason I clicked on this yesterday was because that analogy in the way Leighton described it was used to me minutes before I saw this video posted.

And this is the issue I run into talking Calvinism with a Calvinist, it's the claim that all other representations of Calvinism by Calvinists are straw men. If your position can never be properly steelmanned, it's not a consistent position.

[SusanMorales]

Chris I like your approach. No insults and to the point. I think you’re saying Calvinism should be portrayed in a more serious manner, including more of what is taught, and not leaving room for doubt like puppets aren’t able to make choices.
I think what is usually meant on the other side is the idea that people’s real choices are limited if they are not elected. I subscribed. I’d like to learn more about what Calvinists believe :) btw, could you be persuaded to leave Calvinism if one day you were convinced by Scripture?

[CharlieMaples]

there's also another story, one that is true, which illustrates the point of God's sovereignty over man in his decisions. Jonah and the whale. Jonah, he didn't decide to be chosen of God to carry the message to Nineveh, God decided it. Jonah even rebelled against God's, but it didn't matter, because God brought him back and ensured Jonah order carried out the order he was given. Excellent video, nice work, it's always a blessing to hear good rebuttals.

[jeanmariechopin]

I'm sorry if ppl were not nice in the chat with Leighton. I'm a confused Christian when it comes to Romans Chapter 9. Thank you for that debate. It was good to learn more.
Have a blessed day Chris!

[donreed]

Let me paint a brutally honest picture of what a Calvinist must believe if he/she is a determinist, Compatibilist, or affirms the statement from the Calvinistic confessions that "God from eternity past has decreed everything whatsoever that comes to pass."
So let's picture God existing alone before creation ever existed. No humans, no angels, not even Satan. Just God meticulously planning out every detail of every event that would ever take place in creation, down to the exact momentum of every subatomic particle. Let's imagine what went through God's mind when planning out everything and writing it down like a script. God had to plan out every single gruesome detail of everything that would ever come to pass. He could have planned for love to reign supreme from the beginning, but instead, God specifically decreed child rape, murder, torture, gratuitous suffering, cannibalism, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, slavery, genocide, abortion, all natural disasters, slander, lying, deception, etc.
But it gets worse...much much worse. Not only did God decide that these things would happen, but God planned out every gory detail. For instance, let's examine a scenario of child rape. God pre-planned that a grown man would break into a family home, tie up the parents, go get the 7 year old twin brother and sister, and precede to rape them in front of the parents. God decreed every scream, scratch, bite, and claw. God planned out how many times the man would enter the children and in what areas, and how much blood there would be. Before creation even existed, and with no input from anyone else, God supposedly planned out every meticulous detail of every scenario like this that has ever and will ever come to pass. God planned out every single time a doctor would rip a baby into pieces inside their mothers womb. He planned out every torture device that a serial killer would use on his victims and exactly how many pounds of pressure the man would put into slicing the person open with it. He planned out that fathers would sleep with their daughters and mothers with their sons. He planned out that a marriage of 20 years would end in one of the spouses cheating on the other, breaking up a family and devastating the kids. He decided all of these things in advance, and apparently thought that creating this world would be a good thing for Him to do.
Now keep in mind, all of these things were fixed from eternity past on determinism. It would not be possible for the rapist to enter the twins even one less time than he did, let alone to refrain from raping them. The adulterer could not decide to refrain from cheating. The torturer could not have used a different tool or exerted less force on his victim, let alone refrain from torturing. Once God thought these things up, and decreed them, they could not fail to happen. But not only this, God gave these people the desire to do what He decreed them to do, so this somehow makes them responsible for it. Yeah, right.
This is what a determinist is committed to logically speaking. It sounds harsh, and no Calvinist would ever say this as clearly as I have just now, although some have admitted to it, like John Piper, James White, and others. And it seems as though many Calvinists have tried to escape this by appealing to Compatibilism, but they don't seem to realize that Compatibilism entails determinism. It's the view that determinism is true, but free will somehow still exists because people do what they desire(even though God decreed every desire they would ever have). Even Calvinistic scholars have said that Compatibilism is no less deterministic than hard determinism.
Now, please save your objections that "your view has the same problem because God knew all things from eternity past." Well that's not the same problem AT ALL. There is a HUGE difference in God allowing people to freely do evil things and experience the weight of their own evil, and God meticulously planning out every persons evil thoughts, intentions, motives, desires, and actions beforehand such that they could not do otherwise. The difference is between God being the author of sin vs humans being the author of sin. And with that, I'll be looking forward to the usual "strawman" or "you don't understand Calvinism" or "who are you to judge God" or "you're just misrepresenting us". I'm not actually trying to persuade Calvinists here...they have already swallowed the jagged pill and chased it with the koolaid. I just want rational people who are considering the different views to consider what theistic determinism commits them to.

[aidanmcmanus]

I'm not a Calvinist. But in Romans 9 you see a vindication of God, by Paul, against various charges that were possibly being made by the Jew. This helps better understand the potter and clay analogy. In 9:14-18 there is a charge of unrighteousness against God where Paul then vindicates God's right to show mercy to whom He will and to harden whom He will. But is it by some arbitrary decree on God's part, or is it conditional on man's part? Paul simply doesn't raise that question here. You need to go to other passages that do deal with that issue. Passages like Prov. 28:13 and Isaiah 55:7 which show that the will of man IS involved.

Likewise in 9:19 there seems to be a further charge of some kind of injustice on God's part. Paul just simply rebukes the questioner and shows that God as creator has the power of the potter over the clay (9:20-21). Again, Paul does not deal with human responsibility and human will here. He is only concerned with vindicating God's right over the clay. Paul does not deal with how God expresses that right as potter in relation to man's will. But passages like Jeremiah 18:1-2 and 2 Timothy 2:20-21 do deal with that issue showing that it is not arbitrary, but instead, it involves man's will and is conditional on man's part.

[bodester]

If all our actions are predetermined by God, why make a response video responding to the actions/statements of others. Their actions/statements are the will of God.

[danbreeden]

As long as we sin from are fallen sinful natures we are responsible because are made from our natures and our stronges motive at the moment.

[arthur]

IOW, there is nothing IN THE STORY forcing Frodo to do one thing or the other with the ring. But, Frodo HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE AUTHOR OF THE STORY (FROM OUTSIDE OF THE STORY) before anyone even opens the book, to do what Tolkien the author decreed (wrote) in his book before the book was published or had been read by anyone, that Frodo would do.

The only things which I would add to Chris' analogy (perhaps he will add them himself later on in the video) are:

(1) In the case of this divinely authored historical novel (i.e., all of history) "God the Author" has written (i.e., decreed before he created anything) himself into his novel AS "God the Character". We know from a story (the Bible) published by "God the Character" within the larger eternally decreed story that "God the Character" is "God the Author" who wrote the decreed story. In the larger decreed story, the vast majority of human characters do not know they are acting out the story in a book. But a certain segment of that population believes that God the Character exists within the story universe and a portion of those know from his work published within the larger work (the Bible) that God the Character who wrote the Bible within the larger story is God the Author who wrote the larger eternally decreed story.

(2) Therefore, (a) it is illegitimate for OTHER characters in God the Author's novel to attempt to relate directly to "God the Author" of the story rather than to his character, God the Character, whom he wrote into THE STORYLINE, and (b) for non-authorial characters to take credit for writing their own parts or all parts in the eternal story (plagiarism/polyauthorism), or to insist that the story has no author at all (a-authorism).

(3) Hyper-Calvinist Determinists and Indeterminists of all Christian varieties alike persist in attempting to relate to God the Author rather than to God the Character, and by so doing, even though this is part of their written part in the story, they are morally responsible for having done so. Other characters in the story are not to interact with God the Author, but with God the Character who is God the Author's Character in the story. Our prayers are to God the Character, whom most of us know is the Author's character, that he the Author would have or has written a different part for himself (and therefore for ourselves) than we suspect he may have written touching something significant to us.

From this understanding:

(1) God has two wills. The will of God the Author of the story, and the will of God the Character in the story (who are in fact the same being), which two wills may be different at the identical point in the story. IOW God the Author wrote (decreed) what God the Character's will would be at every point in the larger decreed story - just like he did for every other character in his story.

(2) There is a Book within the Book, the Bible. God the Character wrote and published the Book within the Book, as written (determined) by God the Author in the larger Book.

(3) Relative to the larger story, God the Author exists OUTSIDE and ABOVE the story while God the Character exists INSIDE the story.

(4) This means that God the Character's will and actions are just as determined as are any other character's in the decreed story. God the Character cannot, or perhaps, will not, might be better, do other than God the Author decreed he would do in the larger story (because through this passage of Scripture,

[1 Corinthians 2:7-8 NKJV] "[7] But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, ***the hidden [wisdom] which God ordained before the ages*** (i.e., God's eternal decree) for our glory, [8] ***which none of the rulers of this age knew*** (because it was unrevealed until fulfilled); for ***had they known***, ***they would not have crucified the Lord of glory***.",

...we know that all that is necessary for characters in the eternal story to overthrow the decreed (determined) storyline of the larger book as related to their own actions in the larger story is advance knowledge of their part at any point in that story (needless to say, God the Character knows God the Author's decree exhaustively) and thereby, do other than what God the Author decreed he would do in the eternal story).

Now, ought it be the case that what is good enough for God the Character is not good enough for we who are not the Author's Character in the story? IDTS.

(5) In stories, moral praiseworthiness and blameworthiness accrue TO THE CHARACTERS IN THE STORY for their thoughts, words, and deeds IN THE STORY - NOT to the author of the story who determined their thoughts, words, and deeds - UNLESS the work was written for a purient purpose (this story wasn't) or as a morality play (which at least in part it was). It is understood by the readers of the story that the actors or characters in the story are morally responsible for their own actions (i.e., no one within OR outside of the story has just cause to blame Tolkien for the evil committed by his villains within his story - such a thing would be absurd), unless SOMETHING THE AUTHOR WROTE INTO THE STORY mitigates against their responsibility. The fact that God the Author has written people into his story who blame him for the evil committed by the villains he wrote into his story, in no way indicates that such people have any moral grounds or any other justification for blaming him. In fact, such people are acting as at least partially villainous themselves when they do so within the story, thereby slandering the Author.

I really like this analogy, Chris! It seems to have quite a few features in common with that which it analogizes, and it also seems that it can [be] extended to quite some distance before it breaks down as all analogies eventually do. [If an analogy perfectly and completely corresponded to that which it analogizes - it WOULD BE what it analogizes, and therefore not an analogy at all.]

TLDR <><

[michaelyiannett]

So Chris you say humans are responsible because even though God determined the sin or action, man wants to sin or do the action, then that makes man responsible. But does God also decree the "want"? Of course you would have to say He does. So how do you get around that? Your view makes zero sense. You LOTR analogy makes no see sense because Tolkien not only determines the actions of the characters but also their wants. The author determines EVERYTHING. Why you can't see that boggles the mind.

[Jamie-Russell-CME]

Looking Good man. It is quite amazing in fact. A+

[TimBarr-ep]

Date is Great...On Hell but as a Calvinist Chris does a "Thelma and Lousie" to Christianity...I have NOT decided whether he is Thelma or Louise...

[HigherInfluence]

Leighton’s propensity for analojesus strikes again.

In the Tolstoy novel War and Peace, the battle scenes provide a similar sense of God’s sovereignty through man’s freedoms. As a reader you are hoisted into a position of watching the utter chaos and hellish destruction of man on man while simultaneously experiencing a real sense of something higher guiding the characters in the scene to a certain and known end.

When the author focused down to individual characters they were all making real choices and decisions (secondary causes) and for them the end was far from a known quantity.

There is real mystery of how God goes about all this, I think there are verses that speak to this.

[thelordshousechurch]

Thank you for sharing this brother. I commend you sharing Leightons perspective to let him speak for himself and offering resources for others to think for themselves.

Analogies certainly are limited and we can certainly see them as unfair at times. I agree the puppet/robot analogy is limited, and I appreciate your Lord of the Rings (Author/character/story) analogy but find it to be incomplete based on my understanding of EDD and compatibilistic Calvinism. Wouldn’t it also be fair to say (continuing the analogy) that the Author has predetermined that some types of characters would be Ill fated, while others wouldn’t and have prescribed their fixed nature before writing the story? Also allowing them to “choose” so it were but only within the confines of the nature the character was prescribed by the Author. In other words they are only choosing according to the nature they were directed to have? So the author is punishing the prescriptive fixed nature of the character? You might say they only choose according to the nature they have. Well who gave the nature? Would appreciate your out consideration on this and clarification! 🙏

[donreed]

Sir you have been calvinized and totally misunderstood Romans 9

[dw]

*FOR THE SHAPE THAT IT TAKES*
At minute 9:46 - as a representation of the non-Calvinist view - Chris says: "Calvinists understand Paul's use of the potter-&-clay analogy in Romans 9, in such a way that would render human beings incapable of justly being held responsible for *THEIR* sins. And would not make any sense for God to hold human beings responsible for what *THEY* do, any more than it would make sense for a potter to hold the clay pot responsible for the shape that *IT* takes.

DW: Firstly - the language of this statement is problematic - in that it *IMPLIES* IN-Determinism at 3 junctures (see capitalized text). The statement as it stands is therefore equivocal.

Personally I would reword the statement as the following:

Per the Calvinist's reading of scripture which assumes scripture conforms to the notion of Exhaustive Divine Determinism, the Calvinist naturally reads Paul's potter/clay analogy in such a way that resolves to a conception of divine justice - in which the potter holds the objects he *MAKES* responsible for being and doing what he *MAKES* those objects be and do, rather than holding himself responsible for the works of his own hands.

Thus
1) He *MAKES* an object/instrument.
2) He holds that object/instrument responsible for being what he *MADE* it to be.
3) He holds that object/instrument responsible for doing what he *MADE* it do.
4) He condemns the object/instrument for NOT BEING what he did NOT PERMIT it to be.
5) He condemns the object/instrument for NOT DOING what he did NOT PERMIT it to do.

[TheProvisionistPerspective]

*has exhaustively preordained/predetermined