Implications of Calvinism

[Scrawly]

Calvinists could hold that, but that very holding is in tension with Calvinism. If totally depraved humans are incapable of approaching God, and God's grace is irresistible, there is no room whatsoever for human responsibility. One CANNOT be responsible for what one cannot control.

Calvinists highlight that sinners are incapable of approaching God, because they choose not to. They defiantly reject God's call for them to repent. Their freewill is naturally bent to choose sin over God, thereby incurring guilt and responsibility for their sin. We are all by nature children of wrath. God doesn't owe anyone salvation. He would be perfectly just if he sentenced the entire human race to hell. However, in his great mercy, he chose some to receive salvation through Jesus the Christ by faith.

[lee_merrill]

If totally depraved humans are incapable of approaching God, and God's grace is irresistible, there is no room whatsoever for human responsibility. One CANNOT be responsible for what one cannot control.

Chapter and verse, please?

But let's remember that the ox that gored was to be put to death, and its flesh not eaten (Ex. 21:28). Responsibility, without free will.

"And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal." (Gen. 9:5)

Blessings,
Lee

[NorrinRadd]

Calvinists could hold that, but that very holding is in tension with Calvinism. If totally depraved humans are incapable of approaching God, and God's grace is irresistible, there is no room whatsoever for human responsibility. One CANNOT be responsible for what one cannot control.

Calvinists highlight that sinners are incapable of approaching God, because they choose not to. They defiantly reject God's call for them to repent. Their freewill is naturally bent to choose sin over God, thereby incurring guilt and responsibility for their sin. We are all by nature children of wrath. God doesn't owe anyone salvation. He would be perfectly just if he sentenced the entire human race to hell. However, in his great mercy, he chose some to receive salvation through Jesus the Christ by faith.

Well which is it? Are they "incapable," or is it a matter of what they "choose"? Aren't "ability" and "choice" categorically different?

If their "freewill" is damaged such that they will *always* choose sin and reject God, isn't the term "freewill" rather disingenuous?

[Scrawly]

Well which is it? Are they "incapable," or is it a matter of what they "choose"? Aren't "ability" and "choice" categorically different?

They are choosing based on what their nature desires. Ultimately, the unregenerate will choose alienation from Christ and the gospel.

If their "freewill" is damaged such that they will *always* choose sin and reject God, isn't the term "freewill" rather disingenuous?

Their freewill is in bondage to their desire. God is not actively causing them to sin, they do that of their own volition.

[One Bad Pig]

They are choosing based on what their nature desires. Ultimately, the unregenerate will choose alienation from Christ and the gospel.



Their freewill is in bondage to their desire. God is not actively causing them to sin, they do that of their own volition.

You realize you didn't actually address NorrinRadd's points, yes?

[One Bad Pig]

Chapter and verse, please?

But let's remember that the ox that gored was to be put to death, and its flesh not eaten (Ex. 21:28). Responsibility, without free will.

"And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal." (Gen. 9:5)

Blessings,
Lee

Oxen are people, now?

[Scrawly]

You realize you didn't actually address NorrinRadd's points, yes?

I'm satisfied with what I did provide. I've said my piece, and I'm happy to leave it at that for now.

[lee_merrill]

Oxen are people, now?

Well, no, I'm only pointing out that there is some degree of accountability even where there is no free will.

Blessings,
Lee

[Littlejoe]

Chapter and verse, please?

But let's remember that the ox that gored was to be put to death, and its flesh not eaten (Ex. 21:28). Responsibility, without free will.

"And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal." (Gen. 9:5)

Blessings,
Lee

How does that prove responsibility without free will? The ox that acted out and gored was to be put to death. Unless you think Oxen don't have any free will? You must not be a country boy...

[KingsGambit]

I would say the killing of an ox who gored somebody is a consequence and not responsibility per se as it is a safety measure. Consider how Leviticus mandates the death of an animal involved in bestiality. The animal probably didn't decide to do it on its own. But for ritual purity reasons, the animal still had to go.

[NorrinRadd]

You realize you didn't actually address NorrinRadd's points, yes?

Thanks. I thought maybe I was imagining things when I read the reply.

[lee_merrill]

How does that prove responsibility without free will?

In that oxen don't have free will!

You must not be a country boy...

Do you really think oxen have free will?!

I would say the killing of an ox who gored somebody is a consequence and not responsibility per se as it is a safety measure.

But then its flesh must not be eaten, there is more than just a safety measure here.

"And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal." (Gen. 9:5)

Blessings,
Lee

[Scrawly]

The freewill of an ox is limited by its nature. Likewise, the freewill of a human being is limited by their nature. Can an ox will itself to be anything other than an ox? No. Can human beings will themselves to become anything other than a sinner made in God's image? No. Does that absolve said sinners of their sinful choices? No.

[NorrinRadd]

Well which is it? Are they "incapable," or is it a matter of what they "choose"? Aren't "ability" and "choice" categorically different?

They are choosing based on what their nature desires. Ultimately, the unregenerate will choose alienation from Christ and the gospel.

So choice is constrained by nature. How does "nature" differ from "ability"? It sounds to me as though God punishes people for making choices they are unable to NOT make. In what way does that even remotely resemble "justice"?

If their "freewill" is damaged such that they will *always* choose sin and reject God, isn't the term "freewill" rather disingenuous?

Their freewill is in bondage to their desire. God is not actively causing them to sin, they do that of their own volition.

So "freewill" is indeed disengenuous. For those listeners in Rio Linda, that means "lie."

And as above, their (fake) freewill is in bondage to their desires, which in turn are in bondage to their "natures." So they are slaves being punished for doing what their masters force them to do.

[Scrawly]

So choice is constrained by nature.

Yes. People choose in accordance with their natures.

How does "nature" differ from "ability"?

Nature desires. Are we able to choose contrary to our nature? It appears we don't want to.

It sounds to me as though God punishes people for making choices they are unable to NOT make.

God punishes people for sinning. He doesn't cause them to sin.

In what way does that even remotely resemble "justice"?

In what way doesn't it?

So "freewill" is indeed disengenuous. For those listeners in Rio Linda, that means "lie."

Sinners act in accordance with their will. They freely choose to sin because that is what they desire. They are indeed dead in their trespasses. Let's call it "willing bondage of the freewill" if that helps things.

And as above, their (fake) freewill is in bondage to their desires, which in turn are in bondage to their "natures."

Their willing bondage of the will is what it is. We all have sin natures which we willingly indulge.

So they are slaves being punished for doing what their masters force them to do.

God is not forcing them to sin. They do that of their own accord, being by nature children of wrath.