How does God hold men responsible?

[FlimFlamboyant]

Well the debate centers on what it was that brought this "believing" you mention. Why did you believe the Gospel (if you have)?

Like I mentioned before, I really have no idea. It's much easier to pin down things that did not contribute to my belief; things such as superior intellect, honesty, humility, etc. That's easy enough to see because the scriptures tell me that I have no room for boasting.

Why do you dis-believe Spurgeon's view?

Because he's boasting.

This is what we're talking about. You hold to some degee, more or less, that God made you free and let you guide yourself into a decision for Christ.

Hmm, I dunno about that. I hear the word "decision" being tossed about a lot amongst people I know that adere to a "freewill" position, but I guess I'm somewhat of an anomaly in that department. To call it a decision implies the use of intelligence and that implies that some people have made a better decision than others because they are somehow smarter, or what have you. That I don't agree with.

In fact, as I see it, I'm not real keen on the term "freewill", though I don't subscribe to an idividual selection process either. People don't decide to believe things; it's not a matter of a man saying "ok, I'm going to believe this"; he either does, or he does not. That's why "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God", not by some train of higher reasoning. There's power in the gospel message itself, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm clueless as to how that power actually functions. It's a spiritual operation; the mechanics of which I'm not privy to.

But maybe it's me who fails to see the meat of freewillism. I do think one or the other is, if true, a meatier thing of the Word. Things we must move onto. We do need to discover "why me?" Why not my neighbor who just died in unbelief? Why am I a Christian? Who do I owe my decision to?

So why do we need to discover the answer to that question? Personally, I'm happy with simply stating that I heard the gospel and believed it, just leaving it at that. What is there to gain by understanding the actual process? What is there to lose if we do not? How would answering that question better our performance as ambassadors for Christ?

Spurgeon is refering to prevenient grace that supposedly "tries" to bring about faith in every single person on the planet. It doesn't work on everyone.

I see. I don't know that I agree with that.

Has that grace appeared to everyone in Gospel presentation? No. What Paul means is that the Gospel had gone out to all the known world at that time.
...
You're taking "all" to mean every single human.

Well, I didn't mean to suggest that the gospel had been presented to every individual at that time (obviously not). I don't believe that's what the verse intended anyway. Perhaps I should've quoted the ESV instead, as I think it captures the intent more accurately:

(Tit 2:11 ESV) For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,

But you see, if you get your grace and your neighbor get's his and you receive Christ and your neighbor does not. You might say "I improved my grace". IOW, I took the grace I got and made it work, the other guy did not and the difference is something about me!

... And that would be boasting, as far as I'm concerned. The scriptures tell me that I have no room to boast. They tell me that the gospel was designed to confound the wisdom of the wise so that no flesh could glory in his presence. The answer cannot be that I was somehow better than the other guy. The answer has to be.... well.... something else. But I would still like to know why it is important that I know the answer, so long as I understand that I can take no pride in my belief. I can only be thankful.

[GoBahnsen]

Really Gb, that's reformed? Why would God need to blind the totally depraved so that they could not repent?

I don't know, you tell me. I thought your view was that God has no sheep, but that people make themselves sheep by their own will. That there really aren't any name written in the Lambs book of Life from the foundation of the world, but that humans get to decide if they'd like to add their name.

The point of my bringing up that very strange text, was to demonstrate that it is God's will primarily and initially that is in the salvation driver's seat. God even making sure that certain ones could not see and hear.

But then that is also part of God's design in bringing Adam's posterity into the world as only "flesh", needing a new creation by God before they can perceive the Kingdom of God (John 3). This seems quite strange in a freewill world view.
Dead children of Adam bringing new life to themselves through their own will.

Yet again, God keeps some of them in the dark lest they repent and He should forgive them and heal them. Strange indeed, but tis of God. His ways are not ours. His judgments are righteous altogether, yet hard to grasp by our puny minds.

[Calvinist4Him]

If I posted a similar "prayer" of an example of a consistent monergist, not an inconsistent one, I think you would find it an equally absurd representation of your views, and rightly so- though personally I would think it an accurate representation of a calvinist that held consistently to the logical conclusion of their views. As far as there being "too many views", there are really only 3 or 4 major groups of non-calvinist/synergist views, and this prayer is representative of none of them, so that justification is little more than a cop-out.

I recently purchased an interesting book (long out of print until just a few years ago) entitled: "The Bondage and Liberation of the Will", by John Calvin.

John Calvin

"According to these definitions we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, is should be imputed to him and his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, becasue through man's innate wickedness it is of necceity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great differnce whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which it follows that it is self-determined. Now you see how self-determination and necessity can be combined together, a fact which Pighius craftily tries to conceal when he thinks that man's freedom consists of acting (whether well or badly) without necessity." - From pages 69-70 of The Bondage and Liberation of the Will by John Calvin

© source where applicable

Does the quote above, come from the standpoint of hard determinism or fatalism?

Contrary to your denial, the prayer was representative of classic Arminianism...free will (partial depravity), conditional election, universal atonement, resistable grace, and uncertain perseverance.

[micah4]

I recently purchased an interesting book (long out of print until just a few years ago) entitled: "The Bondage and Liberation of the Will", by John Calvin.

Is that where the quote came from? I'd want my money back.

Does the quote above, come from the standpoint of hard determinism or fatalism?

Seems to me that it comes from the standpoint of double-speakism, waffleism, flipflopism, and equivocationism.

John Calvin

"According to these definitions we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, is should be imputed to him and his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, becasue through man's innate wickedness it is of necceity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil.

© source where applicable

... man chooses voluntarily - but of necessity.
... man self-determines- but not freely.

See most people put these terms on opposite sides:

A) Voluntarily, freely, self-determined.
B) not freely, of necessity, slavery

Most thinking people recognize these terms as opposites, contraries, incompatible; not compatible. Yet this whole paragraph he constantly waffles between both forms and asserts both simultaneously. It is a bunch of nonsense.

And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion.

How so? How do I become subject to necessity from something outside of myself without it being coercive?

For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way.

And it was by his own voluntary choice that his will was corrupted? Or through "original sin"? What sort of meaning can one possible ascribe to the term "voluntary" that is compatible with being a slave to necessity? Nothing that wouldn't destroy the entire usefulness of the term "voluntary", in which case his use of terms like "voluntary" and "self-determined" are nothing but deceptive and dishonest. How can I self-determine what has already been determined by necessity? Can I self-determine that I will fall by the power of gravity if I jump off a bridge? Can I self-determine that a triangle has three sides? What is determined by necessity cannot be self-determined. Calvin is speaking with two forked tongues, one out of each side of his mouth.

For where there is bondage, there is necessity.

Right, but bondage and voluntary choice and bondage and self-determinism are compatible attributes.

But it makes a great differnce whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced.

Wow, now we have voluntary bondage. So do you believe that man chose voluntarily to be born with a "totally depraved" nature?

We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will

Which was never in the persons power to self-determine

, from which it follows that it is self-determined.

Even though the person could never self-determine whether their will would be corrupted or not corrupted.

Now you see how self-determination and necessity can be combined together

Indeed! You just have to abandon any sound principles of logic and forgo rational thinking entirely.

a fact which Pighius craftily tries to conceal

Calvin's accusing somebody else of trying to craftily conceal something, after penning that paragraph?? That's like the black hole having it out with the pot and the kettle.

Whatever Calvin thinks he has established about "voluntary" choice and "self-determination" it is leaves his terminology as his assertions have defined them less than powerful enough to distinguish between the "voluntary,self-determined" actions of my computer's processor and the "voluntary,self-determined" actions of a human being. Hardly an impressive accomplishment if one's account of self determination can't distinguish between the choices made by a human being created in God's image and the choices made by a piece of machinery.

Contrary to your denial, the prayer was representative of classic Arminianism...free will (partial depravity), conditional election, universal atonement, resistable grace, and uncertain perseverance.

Really? Then find me one respected Arminian theologian who agrees that this prayer is an accurate representation of their beliefs. Find me one on this board, even. Justify your claims or don't make them; i'm not impressed by argument by assertion. I could write just as ridiculous a characterization of Calvinists and sit here all day saying that it's an accurate representation. I really don't want to, but if you keep pressing the issue like a fool, I might be forced to.

[infide]

Is that where the quote came from? I'd want my money back.

...

Seems to me that it comes from the standpoint of double-speakism, waffleism, flipflopism, and equivocationism.

peace,
jd

[Calvinist4Him]

Is that where the quote came from? I'd want my money back.

Yes, of course that's where the quote came from.

Seems to me that it comes from the standpoint of double-speakism, waffleism, flipflopism, and equivocationism.

What were you saying to GB? Oh, yes, now I remember you said; "It seems to me then that you get your jollys by intentionally misrepresenting the views of those who have different opinions than you rather than seriously considering them. This makes me wonder what the point of dialoguing with you would be."

... man chooses voluntarily - but of necessity.
... man self-determines- but not freely.

See most people put these terms on opposite sides:

A) Voluntarily, freely, self-determined.
B) not freely, of necessity, slavery

Most thinking people recognize these terms as opposites, contraries, incompatible; not compatible. Yet this whole paragraph he constantly waffles between both forms and asserts both simultaneously. It is a bunch of nonsense.

No, it's called compatibilism, it's a view, it's one where determinism and free will are compatible, and one you've obviously not given serious consideration to. John Calvin was one of the greatest thinkers in all of Church history. Can you find another theologian who has written more commentary on the Bible than Calvin? According to the opinons I have read, Jonathan Edwards a revivalist of the "Great Awakening", was one of the greatest thinkers in American history, he was both a Calvinist, and a compatibilst. To say; "Most thinking people recognize these terms as opposites", say's to me that most thinking people are not thinking enough. The terms do not exist in a vaccum, they are used within a CONTEXT, and so far as compatibilism is concerned, they are used within a BIBLICAL context, from which the doctrine of total depravity, or total inability is deduced.

How so? How do I become subject to necessity from something outside of myself without it being coercive?

Not something outside of yourself, something inside yourself, namely SIN.

And it was by his own voluntary choice that his will was corrupted? Or through "original sin"?

Were you born of your own voluntary choice? Did you choose your parents? Did you choose when you would be born? Did you choose where you would be born? Calvin would not argue that his will was corrupted of his own volition (neither would I). Now tell me who is misrepresenting? Let's save the objection "is it fair that all humans are born sinners without a choice" for another thread at another time.

What sort of meaning can one possible ascribe to the term "voluntary" that is compatible with being a slave to necessity?

People voluntarily make the choices a slave to necessity...a slave to sin can make. IOW, the choices of the spiritually dead are spiritually dead choices. IOW, the choices an unregenerate person has are limited by their nature. I'm not a big fan of the term "free will" because everyone is limited in choice. People are not "free" to make any choice, people are limited by time and space and nature. Nobody can flap their arms and fly of their voluntary will because it's not part of human nature.

Nothing that wouldn't destroy the entire usefulness of the term "voluntary", in which case his use of terms like "voluntary" and "self-determined" are nothing but deceptive and dishonest.

You're doing the very thing you accused GB of, perhaps even to a greater extent. If there's one thing I've learned about authors and their writings, it's that different authors sometimes use certain terms differently. Calvin used the term "self-determined" in the sense I have described above. But let me expound. How is "self-determination" incompatible with "voluntary choice"? Is self-determination not autonomous? As I've noted above, voluntary choices are in accordance with a person's NATURE. There is nothing deceptive or dishonest about a compatibilist view, on the contrary, compatibilism is Biblical.

How can I self-determine what has already been determined by necessity? Can I self-determine that I will fall by the power of gravity if I jump off a bridge? Can I self-determine that a triangle has three sides? What is determined by necessity cannot be self-determined. Calvin is speaking with two forked tongues, one out of each side of his mouth.

No, you are misrepresenting the Reformer John Calvin. You are doing the very thing you accused GB of. Makes me wonder what the point of dialoging with you might be. On that note, I think I'll cut my response short, this is going to go nowhere, you're convinced and there's no changing your mind, because you don't have the will to be open-minded that you might be changed, you're self-determined to remain a free-willist.

Take Care

[seer]

No, it's called compatibilism, it's a view, it's one where determinism and free will are compatible, and one you've obviously not given serious consideration to. John Calvin was one of the greatest thinkers in all of Church history.

Which brings us back to square one. God harms men for doing what they can't help, irresistibly compelled by a nature they did not choose...

[Calvinist4Him]

Which brings us back to square one.

Maybe you, but not us. ;)

God harms men for doing what they can't help,

Would you have done any different than Adam? If so, what makes you think you could or would?

irresistibly compelled by a nature they did not choose...

Well golly, I didn't have the option to choose wings or gills or other "enhancements" either. ;)

[seer]

Would you have done any different than Adam? If so, what makes you think you could or would?

Are you saying that any man in Adam's place would sin? Then that points to a design flaw... But my point remains: God harms men for doing what they can't help... Where is my logic off?

[Calvinist4Him]

Are you saying that any man in Adam's place would sin? Then that points to a design flaw...

No, that points to the awesome responsibility of the power of choice. The same "design flaw" allows for genuine love and worship.

But my point remains: God harms men for doing what they can't help... Where is my logic off?

That assumes that men do not know better? Hasn't God given all men a sense of right and wrong? Your point doesn't remain because it assumes something John Calvin and I reject, that is force. God does not force men into sinning against Him, disobedience to Him is contrary to His will.

[seer]

No, that points to the awesome responsibility of the power of choice. The same "design flaw" allows for genuine love and worship.

Then C4, you can not assume that any man in Adam's place would do the same. Some men may choose otherwise...

That assumes that men do not know better? Hasn't God given all men a sense of right and wrong? Your point doesn't remain because it assumes something John Calvin and I reject, that is force. God does not force men into sinning against Him, disobedience to Him is contrary to His will.

Are you saying that men, by nature, have the ability to please God? If not - what is your point?

[Calvinist4Him]

Then C4, you can not assume that any man in Adam's place would do the same. Some men may choose otherwise...

How do you know? I don't know, but God does. ;)

Are you saying that men, by nature, have the ability to please God? If not - what is your point?

You're confusing our conversation. I could be wrong, but I think Adam could please God BEFORE the fall. After the fall he lost his innocence in the eyes of his Creator.

[Calvinist4Him]

Are you saying that any man in Adam's place would sin? Then that points to a design flaw... But my point remains: God harms men for doing what they can't help... Where is my logic off?

Maybe a little Scripture will help...

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-- 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

[seer]

How do you know? I don't know, but God does. ;)

Sheesh! You were the one suggesting that any man in Adam's place would do the same!

You're confusing our conversation. I could be wrong, but I think Adam could please God BEFORE the fall. After the fall he lost his innocence in the eyes of his Creator.

That is NOT the point C4. It was - that in Calvinism God harms men for doing what they can't help but to do - by nature - a nature they never chose. You have not refuted that point or it's logic...

[Calvinist4Him]

That is NOT the point C4. It was - that in Calvinism God harms men for doing what they can't help but to do - by nature - a nature they never chose. You have not refuted that point or it's logic...

I don't need to, I've quoted Scripture above which is proof text for the doctrine of original sin. Whether you agree or disagree or like it or not, doesn't change what is written in Scripture. Submit yourself to Scripture, not whatever refutation or point I might have to offer.

I may be able to provide many answers, maybe even to the extent that some people would (jealousy ) dismiss me as a "know it all", but I don't have all the answers, and I've never claimed to either. Being a presuppositionalist does help though. ;)