Implications of Calvinism

[NorrinRadd]

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd View Post
So choice is constrained by nature.

Yes. People choose in accordance with their natures.

So their natures limit their abilities.

How does "nature" differ from "ability"?

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

Ok, so we don't choose contrary to our nature because we don't desire to do so.

You seem to be talking in circles, not advancing the discussion.

t 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.

I have not so far suggested that God causes them to sin. Logical regression may lead to that at some point.

At this point, all I'm saying is that it appears God punishes people for doing the only things they are able to do.

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

In what way doesn't it?

It is self-evident that one should not be punished for something he is unable to avoid doing.

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.

It helps as much as calling a circle a 4-sided triangle. It's Orwellian gobbledygook.

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.

In your view, we willingly indulge them because we are unable to will otherwise. We are in "bondage," and are punished for being bound.

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.

I did not say "God."

If they do it "of their own accord," what is the source of that "accord"? Whence came this "accord" that only inclines in one direction?

[seer]

Yes. People choose in accordance with their natures.

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

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

Who created us with this nature to sin?

[Leonhard]

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

I'm not satisfied with your response either. You ignored his questions.

[Scrawly]

I'm not satisfied with your response either. You ignored his questions.

I hesitate to speculate beyond what I have already written, so I elect to leave it at that. I would however like to reiterate that we are all dead in our trespasses and sins, naturally inclined toward self-righteousness and sin. I affirmed that we are all deserving of hell, being by nature children of wrath. I affirmed that God graciously elected some to salvation and sanctification through the Lord Jesus Christ by faith in the gospel of grace and indwelling of the Holy Spirit -- and with that I am satisfied. Your mileage may vary.

[Leonhard]

I hesitate to speculate beyond what I have already written,

I think that would have been the better and humbler response. The rest, that you've repeated multiple times now just comes across as someone reading from a tract. We know this is what Calvinists hold as a creed, the question is whether it makes sense.

[Leonhard]

My point is that judging God is visible active sin.

Rationally examining Calvinism, its assumptions, whether they are in tension, what they imply, whether that makes sense, etc... is not to judge God. We know some things of God by the nature of His being. Such as Him being the source of all goodness. And this has implications. I don't know of any theological worldview without tensions or paradoxes, it seems to many of us that Calvinists want to say at the same time that animals don't sin, because they lack free will, that humans have free will, and yet also at the same time that our 'free wills' are completely ordained by God.

This among other things has the implication, which is inescapable, that God creates some people so that they can go to Hell for His own glory.

That's not something I think that makes sense, given the nature of Goodness itself, or Scripture which clearly teaches that God desires that no one goes to Hell, but that they repent and turn around.

Having a discussion about any of that, does not qualify as actively sinning Jedidiah. To say that sounds more like a preacher who wants to shut down discussion.

[Rushing Jaws]

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

[Jedidiah]

Rationally examining Calvinism, its assumptions, whether they are in tension, what they imply, whether that makes sense, etc... is not to judge God. We know some things of God by the nature of His being. Such as Him being the source of all goodness. And this has implications. I don't know of any theological worldview without tensions or paradoxes, it seems to many of us that Calvinists want to say at the same time that animals don't sin, because they lack free will, that humans have free will, and yet also at the same time that our 'free wills' are completely ordained by God.

This among other things has the implication, which is inescapable, that God creates some people so that they can go to Hell for His own glory.

That's not something I think that makes sense, given the nature of Goodness itself, or Scripture which clearly teaches that God desires that no one goes to Hell, but that they repent and turn around.

Having a discussion about any of that, does not qualify as actively sinning Jedidiah. To say that sounds more like a preacher who wants to shut down discussion.

I agree that a critical examination of Calvinism is quite acceptable. Any theology should be subject to question and examination. I was referring to what appeared to me to be implications that God was wrong if Calvinism is accurate. If no one intended such an implication my post was not worthy of response.

When, by the way, you are responding to a post you should include the link to the post you responded to rather than a separate quote. You took the longer way to respond. Since it was a long time past when I posted, I almost just ignored your response.

[NorrinRadd]

I agree that a critical examination of Calvinism is quite acceptable. Any theology should be subject to question and examination. I was referring to what appeared to me to be implications that God was wrong if Calvinism is accurate. If no one intended such an implication my post was not worthy of response.

...

It's possible I suggested something along those lines. I'm lazy and headachy, and my connection is sluggish, so I'm not going to go back and look.

Instead, I'll just say that I generally agree with Roger Olson here. (And FWIW, I also do not recall whether I already posted that link earlier in the thread. Sorry.)

[Jedidiah]

It's possible I suggested something along those lines. I'm lazy and headachy, and my connection is sluggish, so I'm not going to go back and look.

Instead, I'll just say that I generally agree with Roger Olson here. (And FWIW, I also do not recall whether I already posted that link earlier in the thread. Sorry.)

No ;problem. As long as you do not hold to such a judgement of God I have no disagreement with your post.

[Cerebrum123]

It's possible I suggested something along those lines. I'm lazy and headachy, and my connection is sluggish, so I'm not going to go back and look.

Instead, I'll just say that I generally agree with Roger Olson here. (And FWIW, I also do not recall whether I already posted that link earlier in the thread. Sorry.)

Your link seems to be broken.

[KingsGambit]

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not particularly emotionally bothered by the implications of Calvinism. They don't make a lot of sense to me within the context of Christianity, but it's not something I freak out over like many Arminians seem to. But for those who do want to pursue that line of reasoning, I think it would be perfectly reverent to say something like "Calvinism is inconsistent with the character of God as revealed in the Bible".

[NorrinRadd]

Your link seems to be broken.

It's working fine for me.

Here are a few prime quotes to throw gas on the fire:

"I have openly admitted here that consistent Calvinism turns God into a monster and makes it difficult to tell the difference between God and the devil,..."

"I have said that iffrom my perspective

[KingsGambit]

The Roger Olson link works fine for me.

[Cerebrum123]

It's working fine for me.

Here are a few prime quotes to throw gas on the fire:

"I have openly admitted here that consistent Calvinism turns God into a monster and makes it difficult to tell the difference between God and the devil,..."

"I have said that iffrom my perspective

Weird, it's working now but earlier it just said "This page either doesn't exist or was moved".