Does Calvinism ever really answer the major objection?

You have a false premise which sends your entire line of reasoning off kilter.

You state: "How can God be in complete control of my choices and still hold me responsible?"

You go on to state further examples of the same misunderstanding that is seen here. You are basically saying that God is "deterministic" and, as such, He is in control of us and we have no control of ourselves.

Of course, we Calvinists, for the most part, do not say that God "controls" our actions.

You must remember: The Bible does indeed put forward two truths--1. God is absolutely sovereign and 2. Man is absolutely responsible. These two things go together in a mysterious way.

Your question shows your line of reasoning and your understanding of what our position is to be faulty and this leads you to ask a question that cannot be satisfactorily answered because to answer it would be to answer according to your presupposition and not according to the text. In essence you are trying to create a square circle.

The Archangel

 

....Or he is trying to create controversy :smilewinkgrin:

 

[snipped - resorts to personal and inflammatory attacks rather than discussing the topic of the thread]

 

Seems its a mystery Skandelon.

 

It looks like the basis of this thread starts with, which is commonplace, the ideal that God being Sovereign, yet holding us responsible is "unfair."

We see most of the non-cal varieties of theology holding this presupposition and belief in their deficient understanding, namely; "If that is true then God is unfair." This is quite an unfortunate allegation.

Though the above is true, (that God is Sovereign and holds man responsible) I believe the real question and problem with this thread starts with its title.

It is not "Calvinism" that has to answer this at all here, for "Calvinism" didn't invent this truth, it is directly from the Scriptures themselves. Since the above is true, the one in question for Sovereign control while holding men responsible is the God of Scriptures, not a theology based in this truth, albeit this is not easily answered.

Furthermore, what is being said in the thread title is that one objects to the idea of the truth that: 1) God is in Sovereign control 2) Man is yet responsible.

I don't object to that, nor to this truth concerning God. He's the Potter, I won't reply against Him:

So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Romans 9:18-20

We see that man will object to this act of God. It happens often. I believe the "major objection" to not be with Calvinism at all, but rather with the revelation of truth.

- Peace

 

Excellent answer. :thumbsup:

 

God is in control over all that happens, or else he would not be God!
sometimes I chose as God willed directly, other time as I chose to, both times, He is still in control, working out all things per His will for my life in Christ, as per Romans...

Do you have a problem withthe teaching of Paul regarding Election?

I MUCH rather have God determing events and my life than myself, as I know per Bible that all things WILL and DO work out for the best, as He is the One steering the ship to the shore!

 

that which was created will always be under that which created it...

satan tried to assert 'absolute free will" how did that go for him?
adam tried same, ditto, was he happier after excercising it?

Thing is that Will of God will ALWAYS be the best, so why would any other will want to be done in ultimate sense?

In the Final state, isn't it that the Will of God will be done in aperfect fashion what we all long for?

 

You're still using the word "control," which we would not affirm.

Again, you are making an assumption--calling it "control"--that we do not affirm and scripture does not affirm "control." Compatibilism is not "control." You may have tried to simplify the view by using the word "control" and in using the word "control" you have demonstrated that you do not, in fact, understand the position, no matter how much you've expounded on it or may have held to it at one time.

Frankly, to call what we believe "control" is tantamount to us calling what you believe "Pelagianism."

The answer is neither. God does not "play chess with an...opponent" because there is no such thing as an adequate opponent for God. To theorize an adequate opponent you'd have to delve into the Eastern Religion concept of yin and yang--something the Bible completely rejects.

We don't claim that God plays both sides. We don't claim that there are "free moral authorities" either. God is the only "free moral authority." We humans are not free in the libertarian sense.

What we do claim is that God fore-ordains (which is not the same as causing) the free and sometimes sinful actions of human beings to suit His purposes and display His glory.

I am in "control" over my choices to the extent that my nature defines my choices and leads to my desires. The new nature of the believer still deals with the baggage of the sin nature. As believers in this present age, we are able to sin and able not to sin. Before we become believers, we are unable not to sin--because of our sin nature.

But, your reasoning is faulty precisely because you attribute active control to God when the scripture doesn't.

The life of Joseph is a perfect illustration of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility and how God ordains (remember: ordain is not "cause" or "control") everything.

I'll write about Joseph in a few minutes.

The Archangel

 

No. You're arguing for a libertarian understanding of moral agency and free will. We are not unfettered moral agents; we are bound by our sin nature. To argue that we are unbound by any inkling of sin nature is to argue that Pelagius was right.

The Archangel

 

"Another real problem created by the doctrine of the divine sovereignty has to do with the will of man. If God rules His universe by His sovereign decrees, how is it possible for man to exercise free choice? And if he can not exercise freedom of choice, how can he be held responsible for his conduct? Is he not a mere puppet whose actions are determined by a behind-the-scenes God who pulls the strings as it pleases Him?

The attempt to answer these questions has divided the Christian church neatly into two camps which have borne the names of two distinguished theologians, Jacobus Arminius and John Calvin. Most Christians are content to get into one camp or the other and deny either sovereignty to God or free will to man. It appears possible, however, to reconcile these two positions without doing violence to either, although the effort that follows may prove deficient to partisans of one camp or the other.

Here is my view: God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, “What doest thou?” Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so." - A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy

 

My response is accurate. Follow along.

You're talking about "givens" up above, and of course we know you affirm both, yet struggle with the Sovereign side. I apologize for not clarifying these givens within answering, and instead going on as thinking you held comprehension to this already, which makes me at fault. I apologize for assuming.

When re-reading my last post, you'll find that what I am really addressing is Gods Sovereignty, and the objection towards this Sovereignty. This should suffice to clear this up for you.

It has been noted your premise is inaccurate. One has stated it is "a mystery" (the truths of Sovereignty in Calvinist theology) to which you latched onto as proof you are correct, which is, mind you, an absurd proof and grasping for anything for such an end. It comes across as desperate for validation in retrospect. I mean this is a debate forum, correct, and you're using that statement as proof you're correct? OK. Nothing in this statement proves you are correct. Can we agree here that in so doing, grasping that as proof you are correct is rather untrue, and what we might call tomfoolery?

So, can you use some good argument instead of embracing fallacy? This is what you've done by embracing a quip as proof you're correct, which proves your entire OP is, in fact, begging the question.

Two others in this thread claim that your premise is faulty, and have provided a concise enough answer, although it is agreeable the answers aren't easy. What was easy is showing that the basis of your OP is faulty. See the difference?

What we have shown is that we don't have an objection with Sovereign God in this truth. Another thing that is shown is that we, finite man, don't have to come up with an perfect answer to appease mans conscience and mans objection to this truth. It all boils down to do we yet trust God in all of this, or, do we object. From the OP to now, all I see is an objection against this aspect of Gods Sovereignty and the underlying "it's unfair" assertion.

Begging the question is what your thread is based upon: A question to which you already have an (your) answer to, assuming you are already correct. Then it goes into the "huh, uh...nuh" mode. Keep in mind I am well aware of definitions, and also, keep in mind I considered that you would have understood we are talking here of Sovereignty, something I thought you would have caught onto immediately.

I made my argument. It also contains Scriptures that represent the basis of your objections rather descriptively, and exposes the error of your objection, and that the objection you have is not toward Calvinists whatsoever.

The biggest fallacy that lends itself toward your faulty objection is in your deficient view of Gods Sovereignty. This is really what you are "replying against." Most, if not all non-cal theologies have this chasm like fault within their theology.

I will add that, in addition, not only is your qualm of what we hold to as Biblical Sovereignty questionable, and your theology there somewhat deficient, I might also suggest a study on freewill for your further study and enlightenment.


Thanks.