Do Calvinists Believe People are like Puppets?

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, addresses an article written by a Calvinistic author regarding "the 12 myths about Calvinism," which can be seen here:

[HosannaInExcelsis]

The answer is in the book of

I am a catholic and of course dispute many believes in protestantism, but I really value Dr. Flowers work. I became aware of the flaws of calvinism by talking to a coworker, and seeing the big contradictions in their theology specially in the topic of free will and of course justification where catholics and protestants have opposite views.

There is something I think is worth mentioning in this debates even though I might offend some. When you look at the original septuagint you will find some books that are not part of the protestant canon of scripture, in other words the catholic bible has 7 more books that were taken out by the reformers with a criteria that I have found to be non biblical.

In one of those books you find an awesome illustration of free will, and that is in the book of Sirach. My contention is that the answer to this discussion and to this dilemma of free will is already in the bible, but in a set of books that were taken out using a criteria that is not stated in the scriptures.

So, in fairness, both Calvinist and non Calvinist should take a look and revisit the criteria that took these books out the bible. Also, it is important to debunk myths like that of the council of Jamnia (which never took place) or the commonly held false belief that the Catholic Church added books to the bible in the Middle Ages. The fact of the matter is that the book that I am quoting below was part of the same bible that the apostles quoted in their letters and they are the word of God.

Below the quote for those who are willing to go deeper and challenge their own tradition:



Writing about two centuries before Jesus, another man named “Jesus, ” son of Eleazar, son of Sirach, provided a classic formulation of the sublime truth concerning the human power of free choice.

 Do not say, “Because of the Lord I left the right way”;
for he will not do what he hates.
 Do not say, “It was he who led me astray”;
for he has no need of a sinful man.
 The Lord hates all abominations,
and they are not loved by those who fear him.
 It was he who created man in the beginning,
and he left him in the power of his own inclination.
 If you will, you can keep the commandments,
and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.
 He has placed before you fire and water:
stretch out your hand for whichever you wish.
 Before a man are life and death,
and whichever he chooses will be given to him.
 For great is the wisdom of the Lord;
he is mighty in power and sees everything;
 his eyes are on those who fear him,
and he knows every deed of man.
 He has not commanded any one to be ungodly,
and he has not given any one permission to sin. (Sir 15.11–20)

[oracleoftroy]

I don't really like reading Jeremiah into Romans, as if Paul is incapable of making his own point. There are similarities in the two analogies, like the use of pottery, but there are also a lot of differences we can't just ignore. I think we should consider Jeremiah's analogy on Jeremiah's terms and Paul's on Paul's terms. Context matters.

Consider how that same approach would make nonsense of other biblical analogies. Leaven is likened to both the kingdom of God and to sin in the Bible. We shouldn't conclude that just because both analogies use leaven as the object of analogy, that they must be talking about the same thing, as if the kingdom of God is sin.

[pizzapocket]

John Calvin was just a man; not a prophet of God. Why do so many follow his beliefs?

[pbuckets]

It's about time for another debate brother.

[bobbyadkins]

They talk out of both sides of their mouth.

[FairfaxDaysforLife]

Do I think Calvinism teaches unsaved men are like robots? No.
Do I think Calvinism teaches unsaved men are like men who have been slipped a love potion that makes them love sin? Yes.

It also seems like Calvinists conflate the concepts of "will" and "desire", so that a person who chooses to do the right thing only does so because "doing the right thing" was his or her strongest desire.

I wonder how they explain the fact that Christians still sin? If our strongest desire is now to serve God, shouldn't we be sinless? Or does God sometimes permit sin to be the strongest desire of a particular Christian? Perhaps they believe in free will AFTER justification? If so, it doesn't seem that free will is the real issue.

[chiamtateng]

Hi Dr Flowers,
please let me give you my interpretation of verse 20 and 21. verse 14: " What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!" need to be explained and Paul is using verse 20-21 to support the claims of verse 14. verse 20-21 is about salvation alone. one clay is use to make pots which will enter into heaven and the other clay is use to make pots for use in hell. verse 13 is where the objection against Paul's argument started. Jacob is a deceitful man (cheated Esau birth right and blessing)but Esau was a forgiving man (he forgave Jacob). Jacob God loved means Jacob was the clay that enter into heaven as a honorable pots shaped by God. Esau who lived a loving life in this world is the clay which ended in hell as a dishonor pot which was shaped by God as well. this is the objection against Paul argument in verse 13. this is why in verse 14 they ask "is God unjust?". from verse 14 on until the end of the chapter Paul is trying to answer this objection. Jacob was a evil man but go to heaven because he trusted God and obey God's command to return to Esau even though Esau had wanted to kill him in the past. Esau was a forgiving man but do not acknowledge God and thus go to hell. the analogy of clay is not about God shaping our dairy life but our final end because of verse 13 "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated".

[Mimu]

I call myself a Calvinist; not because I was taught that way, but as I walk the way of faith, Calvinistic perspective(s) prevailed. On the other hand, do I believe that Calvinism is the truth? No. Calvinism has flaws but I regard Calvinism as the best depiction/description of God's sovereignty and His truth (shown in the Scripture). To be honest, I have been appalled by so many misunderstandings and idiotic comments on Calvinism throughout Youtube; ranging from 'Calvinists worship Calvin' to 'Calvinism is satanic'. Yet so few of those folks ever came up with a proper hermeneutics of the Scripture let alone a decent argument which does not involve slanders based on their own misunderstandings.

That is why, though he and I may be on the different theological stance(s), I appreciate Dr. Leighton Flowers. He makes arguments based on the Scripture and he has a good understanding of Reformed theology. I do not have any issues with him, even though I do not agree with his thoughts. He knows what he is talking about, and I can understand what he is saying.

Then again, I am scratching my head when I hear people simply say Calvinism is wrong for no good reason. I cannot help myself wonder and ask; 'How have you been walking with the Lord?' I have seen things which are consistent with Calvinistic perspectives, and I have been inspired and started to acknowledge the ways of the Lord which seem to be in align with Calvinistic interpretations. Basically, I do not know where those people's thoughts came from.

[july]

Leighton is now explicitly focusing on the logical implications of what Calvinism teaches, not "what Calvinists believe" which is both subjective and not subject to proof.

[JayNohh]

From my understanding, and from being one who used to lean more Calvinist, short answer, yes and no. They realize at least from their own lives, mind, and free-will (whether limited or not), none of us are literally controlled like puppets. But they do believe in God's sovereignty in the sense that some of us are predestined, preordained to be elected to eternity, while the majority of the rest of us are screwed, no matter what. I am not a Calvinist, btw.

[chiamtateng]

Hi Dr Flowers,
Please allow me to explain Acts 2:23 and 4:27-28. God claims all responsibility of all the events in the whole universe because He is the creator of the whole universe. all the ultimate creator of the universe all responsibility stop with Him. However, this is not how we attribute the evilness in Acts 2:23 and 4:27-28 to God. in another word God did not in any way introduce or encourage them to commit these evil deed. but God is their creator and thus God is responsible for their evil actions. He thus seen to have claimed these evil actions as His in these verses. The hardening of heart is a natural process which God had predetermined before the creation of the universe. by the mercy of God, He by His long-suffering continue to reduce the amount of this natural hardening of our heart because of our evil actions. without His long-suffering all of us would had become like the most evil persons who had walked the surface of the earth. we must read the above stated verse with the following understanding. God had release the full effect of the natural law of hardening of their hearts and thus allow them freely to flourish in their evil thoughts until these evil thought eventually produced these hideous fruits. our God is love. He has nothing for all of us but Love. Please do not associate our God in any way with evil.

[Edward-ngoo]

The analogy of the potter and the pots isn't comparable to the analogy of the puppeteer and the puppet, or the robot maker and the robot. The potter analogy only deals with the fact of election by God to save and damn people. It's not implying that people are inanimate objects which don't have minds and wills. Whereas the puppeteer and the robot maker analogies do imply that we don't have minds and wills. So they're not comparable.

[Mcfirefly]

When Jesus said that "Abraham rejoiced to see my day", and "Before Abraham was, I Am, " what He said showed that there is no need to fear this "looking down the corridors of time" nonsense, much less the Delorean version. The Bible says that God knows the end from the beginning, that He knows ALL things.

Prophecy always involved distant and "local" prophecies, always involving the future. Most of prophecy was God talking to the people through the prophet, not so much foretelling the future. But God did reveal certain things that would happen in the distant future, and He validated the distant prophecy by giving soon-to-be-fulfilled future events. The people were also instructed on how to test the prophecy: if the local events even took place, the prophecy would not have been from God, if it led people away from God to other gods. Then, they were to "not be afraid of" the prophet, whose local prophecy led to idolatry, or did not come true as he said: they weren't to listen to his claims of speaking for God. The foretelling of prophecy served to validate the message from God that the prophet was delivering, because they realized that God alone knew the real future. So knowing the _real_ future (as opposed to divination), was a mark of God's inspiration.

I do not see any objection to God "peering through the corridors of time" in any of the prophets, or even in anything we have of their opposition, and we know that they had enemies, because so many of them were put to death. But anyone mocking God knowing the future isn't recorded in the Bible.

The thing about foretold faith as an explanation, is that it causes everything to work together that formerly (in the hands of theologians) appeared to be contradictory: choose this scripture or that, but you can't believe both. "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God" is just that, and everything else falls into place, too. That it might be the preferred explanation of the less philosophically sophisticated, does not eliminate it from being the truth, since Jesus said that what is hidden from the wise and prudent is revealed to babes.

Among the most important things that work out well with a foreseen faith explanation is that God's protestations of anger and grief over the sin of man can be sincere, all without denying that God knows what's going to happen. It is a stretch to hold the two ideas in your mind, of God knowing and allowing it to happen, yet still being sincerely grieved at what man chooses to do, yet the two are not incompatible, especially to the heart that knows and trusts Jesus Christ. This is the reason for the emphasis on free will. It doesn't come from humanism at all, but is a defense of the heart, intentions and truthfulness of God, as the Bible reveals Him.

[bobfree]

Thing is we are Not clay pots or robots -WE were born with FREE WILL as evidenced with GOD setting a tree in the Garden. Free creatures can respond with yea and nay.GOD made us that way cause HE desired Love which is what its all about.a pot or robot CANNOT Love. of course we are all still under GODS over arching will but in no way does GOD negate our choice. This is where Calvanism fails.That is Why God gets involved with his creation and can plead with men to turn to HIm. jesus while on earth was constantly trying to get as many as possible to turn to him. why do all of that if he already determined. Why does GOD command men everywhere to REPENT if we already were chosen or not. This is contradictory unless we are free!

[JoshHerbel]

Calvinism seemingly still carries with it the view that man could be indefinitely "tweaked" to make different decisions. In this, God maintains complete control. Any decision we make is ultimately engineered by him because he engineered both the human and the circumstances of choice. I think this is a perversion of the view of our reality. If God had created a reality that he dictated would prioritize free-will, then there are some components of reality that CANNOT EVER be changed, Not even by God himself because God himself already decided he would maintain the sanctity and integrity of all free will.

[bobfree]

Paul says man is without excuse as We have the Light of Conscience and Light of Creation.if this is true then we are NOT so depraved that we cannot understand GOD thru Nature - So we can REPENT as GOD asks us to do.

[cluny]

Trigger warning to anyone doing a FB search on Gods Chosen Puppet.

[KISStheSON...]

The ONLY problem I have with Leighton is that the bible never says we have to be respectful to heretics. Quite the contrary, it says to rebuke them sharply and not to even eat with them! Other than that I enjoy his ministry!

[netballa]

1. Interesting and scary how Mr. Flowers regularly states that the confession of a sinner, that he is a sinner equates to the sinner being cleansed. This is certainly not biblical and leads to one of his many flawed understandings.
2. Also interesting how Mr. Flowers always attributes the sinful state of man as this horrific act of God under the Reformed system when we say God, while creating man good, obviously has a good purpose for the sin MAN CHOSE. However, the same sin, when talked about under the Traditionalist heading is always attributed solely to the sinner. Is the Traditionalist God not Omnicient? Did He not know His creation of man would sin and yet choose to create anyway? Stop it. You either agree your God is not Omnicient and therefore not God, or stop acting as if your God had no knowledge of the terrible sins that would come about.