How do Calvinists respond when someone asks....

How do Calvinists respond when someone asks, "Why would God still blame us for not doing that which he, our creator, hasn't enabled us to do?"

This is a question almost every person asks when introduced to Calvinism.

Calvinists, what response do you have to this question?

Arminians, what responses have you heard from Calvinists in the past to this question?

 

No one here is blaming God for their sinfulness. I simply asked why would God blame us for not doing that which God has not enabled us to do? God holds us accoutable if we fail to repent yet you believe that not all men have been enable to repent. I'm asking how God can blame someone for not repenting if God has not granted him the ability to do so?

I admit we are all sinners, that's not the issue, the issue is: Can God blame us for not believing in Him and repenting from those sins if He hasn't enabled us to do so?

 

Your argument is: Man cannot because he desires not.

Fine. The fact is that HE CANNOT. The reason he cannot doesn't change the objection. He is totally unable, period. Now, deal with the objection. You think that explaining why man is unable somehow dismisses the validity of my objection. That's as ignorant as an atheist thinking that his scientific explainations of life's beginning somehow dismisses the validity of faith in God' creation of life. Just because you explain the reason something is true doesn't mean the objections to it are invalid.

But if you want me to reword the objection for your benefit, I will:

"Why would God still blame us for not doing that which He, our creator, hasn't enabled us to do by giving us new desires?"

 

Until someone answers it and then sticks around long enough to defend their answer without making lame excuses for why they can't address my objections.

And if you were an honest and objective Calvinist you would recognize the paradoxial explainations that your view must employ to reconcile your teachings about man's responsiblity and God's sovereignty are not simple issues to understand. Don't pretend this is an easy issue Scott, you know better.

You should know that this objection, whether valid or not, is a real honest question that most believers have when confronted with Calvinistic thought. Your apparent belief that everyone should just automatically understand that men have "real choices" and are rightly held "responsible" by God within your system of belief is not realistic. Calvinism naturally causes men to believe they don't have real choices and that God wrongly holds them responsible for choices that He makes. That's an objection you should be willing to deal with honestly and objectively. If you can't, just say so, but don't pretend that it's not a valid objection.


They do and most of us clearly affirm that they do. What we disagree with is that anyone acting of their own free will ever makes the choice to deny themselves and turn to God. God's grace extended to people of His choosing is the only hope. [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

Sinning freely implies we have the ability not to sin. Do you believe that we have the ability not to sin?

Isn't it true that we sin by the compulsion of our sin nature with which we are born? How is that sinning freely?

Doesn't the Bible speak of God binding men over to disobedience? How is that sinning freely?

Plus, Pastor you're still really missing my objection. I'm not objecting to God's condemnation of man for their sin. I'm objecting to God's condemanation of man for their lack of belief and repentance from that sin. You can't seem to understand the difference between those two very distinct concepts.

 

Not really. You believe they cannot because they were born that way. I believe that the only ones who could not were those judicially hardened by the Father as spoken of in John 12. Your system creates the problem by teaching that people cannot believe or repent even when confronted by the Holy Spirit with the gospel message. I believe that everyone can, unless they have continually refused to believe and have been judicially hardened by God.

Where does the desire come from? God. He is the one who sends the good news that birthed the desire within me. You just don't acknowledge that the message of the Cross is enough to birth that desire to those who hear it. I do. I believe the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Why do some receive it and others don't? Some are more enslaved and hardened in their sins than others. Some are not willing to give up the fleshly desires. The cost to follow Christ is too high for them. They'd rather experience the temporary enjoyments of sin. That is their free choice to do so. To teach that everyone would do so unless they were "irresistably called" by God takes the "freedom" out of that choice.

 

If you don't have the "opposite ability" then its not free will. A choice implies that you can do one or the other, if you can only do one and not the other that is the opposite of free.

Our will is not constained to sin, but the elect's will are constained to believe and repent? I thought we are constrained by our nature in your system?

Larry, how can I be any more clear with you? I have never said that I think you believe that man is condemned 'because he is forced to do something.' That is not my objection!!!

Once again, my objection has to do with your belief that God condemns men for not doing that which he is incapable of doing. You quote John 6 and teach that God must 'enable' man before they can come to Christ and then you teach that He only enables the elect which leaves the non-elect unable to do that which God demands of them for salvation, by which they are etenally condemned.

I don't think Calvinism teaches that God forces people to sin as you imply here. That is NOT my objection. My objection has to do with God's enabling of some and not others while holding both to the same standard of responsiblity on judgement day. Can you please address that?

Yes, I know. But Larry you refuse to take it any further because you realize the implications that your system creates. Why, according to Calvinism, are they unwilling. Why do they refuse to submit? Because they were born Totally Depraved, right? They were born incapable of responding in faith and cannot do so unless enabled by God, according to your system.

So, in reality man is not condemned because of his own unwillingness to have faith, but because of God's unwillingness to grant him faith. This is basic cause and effect. God chose not to grant Joe Heathen faith, Joe Heathen was unwilling like the rest of humanity. This might be acceptable if God didn't demand Joe and all of humanity to have faith and plead with them to have faith and even long for them to come as Matt 23:37 suggests.

 

You mean God gave up his sovereignty to allow Adam to make a real free will choice? How can that be, don't Calvinists always make the argument that free will would be infringing upon God's sovereignty, yet here you argue that Adam had a free will. Did God compromise his sovereignty by allowing Adam a choice?

 

Larry,

You created a list of things Calvinists believe on another post which said:

Calvinists do believe in man's responsibility, but deny his ability to repent and believe the gospel. The two terms are not synonymous. Calvinists believe that man's inability to repent and believe are caused by his own sin ... not any positive imposition on God's part.

This is what I'm objecting to. Where in scripture do you find support for this understanding. How can man be held responsible for not believing when he has not been granted the abilty to believe?

How can one be justly held responsible for something he is unable to do? Please provide a scriptural response to this objection.

 

Ditto

Yes, but God provided a means by which man can be clothed in the perfection of Christ, who did obey the whole law. Therefore, God commanded that man be perfect and then provided the means by which that could essestially be accomplished. You want us to believe that God commands the impossible and then only makes it possible for a select few. This is what brings the objection that you have yet to find a scriptural response for.

Two things:
1. Paul anticipates objections to God's fairness in Romans 9 as it relates to God's hardening Israel despite the fact that He seemly had chosen them in OT times. So, if one might object to God's temporarily hardening of a group of people who have continually rebelled against Him, don't you think one would also be expected to object to the teaching that says God imputes the sin nature of Adam which causes Total inablity upon all mankind and then only selects a few to enable to be saved from that state of depravity eventhough he calls and even comands all people to repent and believe. In other words, God's temporary hardening is much less objectionable than Calvinism and Paul anticipates that objection. Why wouldn't he anticipate any objections to Total Depravity, or your dual calling of irresistable grace, not to mention the highly contraversal view of limited atonement. It just seems to me that Paul or the others might have anticipated some of these so called "objections born out of the logic of autonomous man."

2. To suggest that these objections couldn't be "born" from some one with an allegiance to the scripture is absurd!!! Look at men like Billy Graham or Wesley just to name a couple and tell me they don't have an "allegiance to scripture." Even honest Calvinists admit this objection is common for them when first confronted with these doctrines so don't pretend your taking the high road here pastor.

You would like for his ability to be "irrelevant" because you recognize the problem that it causes for your system.
The question is, "Why doesn't he want to believe?"

Your answer is because he is Totally Depraved.

Why is he Totally Depraved?

Because God chose to impute Adam's sin upon all mankind from birth. God bound all men over to disobedience!

You won't go there because you see that it brings God under reproach, which is the very reason we abhore your doctrine.

Careful Pastor, you've got your foot in the stirrups of your high horse again.

This issue has been debated for centuries by much smarter men than us. More churches have been split and more ink has been poured out on this issue than just about any other issue in all of Christian history and you have the audacity to say "this is so simple and elementary."

To quote a friend, "AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!"

You would like to think so because you are not willing to address the weaknesses or obvious objections to your system. When one of your own brings those questions to light you deamen and dodge, which just goes to prove my point in the thead I started titled "Why do Calvinists here react differently?"

I agree. But that doesn't mean He has done everthing you have claimed He has done. Scripture is our standard not Calvinism.

And it mystifies the mind of those who are not willing to acknowledge that Scripture could mean something different than their limited preconceptions have determined.

I didn't over look what he said. I objected to what he said and asked for scripturual support. You overlooked, or should I say avoided, my objection.