So I think it’s time that I get on the Calvinist’s case for once – don’t you?
There is a phrase that I hear some of them say that bothers me ever-so-slightly, regarding something good that they did: “It wasn’t me, it was God.” (Okay, I’m assuming that the people who say this are Calvinists. Free-willies wouldn’t say this, would they?)
In any case, it’s a statement generally made in response to a congratulation or a compliment at some job done well done – often in a ministry setting.
Okay, you might be thinking – people who say this are just displaying false modesty. If this is the case – they are trying get people to like them by acting humble – then this is an issue (perhaps sinful) that they need to deal with.*
But let us assume that some who say this are sincere – they really are trying to point people away from themselves and towards God – which, we must admit, it is an admirable goal. But I still have a problem (albeit, like I said, slight) with this.
As a hyper-compatibleist, when I hear a Calvinist say this, I want to say – Yes, God did it, but No you did not not do it. You get some credit. God worked through you. Just like you are responsible for the sins you do, you are also responsible for the good that you do.
Give thanks to God that you were effective in your ministry, or did well at your job, or was a decent parent.
Now you might be thinking – Isn’t there biblical warrant for saying this (“Not me, it was God”)?
And I would respond: Ah! You’re thinking about Joseph telling Pharaoh that it wasn’t he but God who could interpret his dream. I would say that in this case, yes, since he was performing what could be called a miracle – predicting the next 14 years of the future – that this was indeed God and not him – so he is justified in saying this. But most of the time the good that was done didn’t require a miracle.
But now you might be thinking – No, I wasn’t refering to Joseph, but the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, where he said – “But it was not I, but the grace of God that is in me.”
Here I think you have a better case, but I think we should keep in mind that just before this he said “I worked harder than any of them.” I think he left that in there for a purpose. He really believes that some of the Good that happened should be accounted to him, at least on a secondary level.
So go ahead, I say. Give God the Glory and the Thanks. But take part of the credit.
* I’m sorry. Dangling Participle, there. It should have read “an issue with which they need to deal with”.
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 5, 2008 at 11:19 am
dlcarrol
Or even “an issue with which they need to deal “
March 5, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Starwind
“It wasn’t me, it was God.” … Free-willies wouldn’t say this, would they?)
a) using perjoratives doesn’t advance anyone’s argument or witness.
b) of course God gets the credit for the good He enables/empowers, just like God gets the credit for His role in allowing/permitting sin, disaster, etc.
Giving me free will under His sovereignty is not to be conflated with giving me ability. I can choose to fly and then plummet, or I can choose to research and then persuade. Free will is not free ability. To borrow a phrase “our vision, God’s provision”, assuming the ‘vision’ was something God would bless or inspired.
I can sense when He guides me to an elegant solution or draws my focus to the crux of an argument or problem. And He provides my education, my research, sustains my life, and provides the opportunities. The contrast of what He does enable/provide with what He withholds (that I can see as giftings in others) is unmistakable.
You get some credit. God worked through you. Just like you are responsible for the sins you do, you are also responsible for the good that you do.
Agreed.
But then what good does a puppet (not a perjorative as you self-deprecatingly apply the term) “do”? What can any puppet itself actually “do”? Clearly, only the puppeteer “does” anything, good or bad. If you’re going to argue some merit to receive credit, you implicitly argue to the same extent the same merit for free volition (vasillating and equivocating on when “strings” are not “strings”, or puppets freely make their own choices which God decided, notwithstanding).
Either you get the credit for your choices and God gets the credit for His, or God gets the credit for both your “choices” and His. There’s really only one way it goes both ways.
March 5, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Starwind
vacillating, not vasillating. (where’s a good puppeteer when you need one).
March 5, 2008 at 4:22 pm
jamsco
Or even “an issue with which they need to deal “
Or even that, yes.
I was hoping that my joke was obvious enough that it didn’t have to be clarified.
March 5, 2008 at 4:30 pm
jamsco
Vox told me once that the correct term was Free Willies, if that is what was bothering you. He may have been half joking, but I have used it since, and I have also seen it in other legitimate situations, so I didn’t mean it to be insulting.
I’ll answer your other comments soon, but I wanted to say, Starwind, that I was in complete agreement with your comments about coarse talk after Vox’s post last week. I got there too late to comment, but you were right on target there.
March 5, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Starwind
Vox told me once that the correct term was Free Willies, … He may have been half joking
or negligent.
Raise the bar, lead by example. Use “indeterminist” if you need a word for someone who believes in free will. The English vocabulary is incredibly rich (amazing things, dictionaries) and there is rarely need for a new word, so much as a need to become aware of, and fluent with, the old ones. As Solomon noted, there is little new under the sun, and we’ve already labeled most of it.
I was in complete agreement with your comments about coarse talk after Vox’s post last week.
Thank you Jamsco. Hopefully he’ll self-correct before God does it for him (Pro 16:18, Psa 138:6… etc)
March 5, 2008 at 10:29 pm
jamsco
Okay, you got me. I’ll try “indeterminist” next time.
March 6, 2008 at 3:39 pm
jamsco
“But then what good does a puppet (not a perjorative as you self-deprecatingly apply the term) “do”? What can any puppet itself actually “do”? Clearly, only the puppeteer “does” anything, good or bad. If you’re going to argue some merit to receive credit, you implicitly argue to the same extent the same merit for free volition (vasillating and equivocating on when “strings” are not “strings”, or puppets freely make their own choices which God decided, notwithstanding).”
Starwind – here’s a question – I assume you can handle the idea of a God who is one God in three persons, or a Christ who is fully human and fully God, even though these ideas are on the face of things paradoxical.
Why can’t you handle the idea of a Responsible Puppet?
March 6, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Starwind
I assume you can handle the idea of a God who is one God in three persons, or a Christ who is fully human and fully God, even though these ideas are on the face of things paradoxical.
Absolutely. Scripture affirms the Trinity, Jesus (via scripture demonstrated the trinity), and your position on the trinity has been scriptural and consistent. But I don’t find them paradoxical. I find the Trinity quite self-consistent. I don’t understand the “how” or the “why” of the Trinity but I don’t see any self-contradictions (paradox).
Why can’t you handle the idea of a Responsible Puppet?
Because it is not affirmed in scripture and your (and others) arguments have been inconsistent, and it conflicts with experience. I do understand cause and effect, choice and accident, etc. The paradox is the vacillation and equivocation I see when (hyper)Calvinists argue “both ways” about having freedom but God controlling, wanting credit but God did the deciding and was the ‘metaphysical primary cause’.