Featured Non-cals have the same problem

The problem with the OP is that it is built on a faulty premise and trying to force the non Cals to defend a premise that they have never implied.

Claiming that the Calvinist view of God regarding His INTENTION is NOT the biggest problem in Calvinism as the OP has implied in the definition of intention. The OP is viewing intention in terms of what God will DO, and that's not the biggest problem. The difference between Calvinism and Non Calvinist and the biggest issue facing the Calvinist view of God is that Calvinism leads to God WANTING and DESIRING the damnation of sinners based upon an arbitrary premade selection of a list of sinners.

Those who hold to the libertarian view of freedom see that God makes a universal OFFER of salvation (not that He universally SAVES all men) that can actually be accepted, but because a sinner can accept or reject the offer, that those who choose to reject the offer bare the blame for their own damnation.

Those who hold to the compatibilist view of freedom (Calvinists) show that God allegedly makes 2 different kinds of offers-one that is "universally" offered but can not actually be accepted by anyone but the elect, and the effectual calling which only goes to the elect of whom can not resist that call once made. The Westminster Confession holds that some are predestined for heaven and the rest predestined for eternal damnation.

Thus because God COULD HAVE chosen to make all elect, but does not, the logical implication of this view is that God WANTED to create a class of sinners for the sole purpose of condemning them, and that is a HUGE difference between the Calvinist view and Non Calvinist view because in the latter view, God bares the responsibility for the sinner's rejection and damnation based upon God's DESIRE to see them eternally punished.

The Calvinist view of God defies the very nature of the love of God. Although the OP would have us believe that they are merely 2 sides of the same coin, there is a big difference in someone holding your head under water with no intention of ever letting you breathe (Calvinism), and someone holding your head there on the condition that you say "uncle". (Though this is merely for analogy sake, the judgment of the sinner is already in place John 3:18, which can be change by calling upon Jesus.)

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=87257

 

Well said DrJamesAch!

In our system, God is not trying to save everyone and failing, as the OP and others seems to think. In our system, God is wanting men to make a free choice and He intends to save all those who repent and believe.

Now, when someone throws in their finite presumptions about how God's foreknowing something MUST mean he determined it, that too creates a problem, but again that is not a problem for our system because we don't equate foreknowledge with predetermination like they do.

If Calvinists want to find fault with our system they have to start with our premises, not their own.

 

The Calvinist would object to you saying God is holding a lost persons head under water, they would insist that the lost person desires to be lost.

A better analogy might be that all persons have willingly taken a fatal overdose of drugs that will kill them. God makes a great effort to persuade some of them to desire to live and pumps their stomach out. God allows the non-elect to pass out and then makes a very minor effort that does not wake them out of their slumber, and simply allows them to die.

The non-Cal view would be that all men have willingly taken a fatal overdose of drugs that will kill them. God makes a great effort to persuade all of them to live and allow him to pump their stomach out. Those who allow him to pump their stomach out are saved, those who refuse die.

 

No, it doesn't make you weaker. Sitting down is not to be equated with living and eternal damnation. Lets say your five year old is dead set on playing in the street. You see a car coming. You believe your child should make his own decisions, but do you leave him in the road or physically remove him?

Non-Cals talk about the monster Calvinists make of God yet they are totally okay with God choosing not to intervene all for the sake of contra-causal freedom? When parents in the US do what non-Cals claim God does, social services come and take their kids away...them or the coroner.

 

This is why I do not believe in Original Sin. I do not believe God would allow a little child who does not know what he is doing to perish.

Now, once a person has matured and understands exactly what they are doing, God will allow them to play in the street if that is what they choose.

It would be like my own children, if they were young I would forcibly remove them from the street, but once they reach 21 years old and are adults, I cannot lay a hand on them. They make their own decisions now whether I like their decisions or not.

 

As long as I'm able, I'll pull my kid out of the street. I see no magical freedom achieved because the State considers them an adult. And, is the wisdom difference between God and the wisest of men not infinitely greater than the wisdom difference between me and my 5 year old?

 

If your son was over 21 years of age and wanted to be a motorcycle stunt rider attempting a world record jump over 50 cars, would you allow him to do it even though there is a great chance he could be killed?

I would do everything I could to talk my son out of it, but in the end, if that is what he decides to do I have to allow it.

 

You wouldn't have to if you were omnipotent. My kids don't have equal freedoms to mine because I have more wisdom and experience. Our state recognizes this as a rational and good thing. Again, the gap between me and God in the wisdom and experience division is infinitely greater than the gap between me and my kids.

 

I have the power to stop him, I could destroy his bike, or even injure him so that he could not complete the jump if I desired. It is not a matter of power, that is where you Calvinists seem to have a real hangup, it is about respecting another person's right to make their own decisions.

Now I have 8 children, and 6 of them are legal adults. I have to let them do what they choose to do.

Likewise, God in his sovereignty has given every man the right to make his own choices. It is exactly the same thing.

 

You have to. God doesn't. Skan says he chose to. I'm saying that his decision is no less "monstrous" than what the non-Cals claim of the cal understanding.

 

You guys simply will never accept that God has given us choice, even though it is absolutely obvious will you??

Again, it is not about power, it is about God allowing every adult person to make their own choices. We are not robots, God allows us to think for ourselves and make our own decisions.

If we are not making our own decisions, then God is making our decisions for us isn't he?

Please answer that.

And if God is making our decisions for us, then who is responsible when we sin?

 

Why is contra-causal freedom such a great cause? Why is it great enough to send billions to hell? We all agree things could've been set up differently. Don't give my kids freedom when the stakes are high...I intervene. Can the stakes be higher than eternity?

 

When a person is spiritually dead/separated from God, it takes God's initiative to save him, not the person's.

When I pray for the salvation of a loved one, I couldn't care less about their free will. I ask God to save them in spite of their rebellion against Him. I assume some of you pray for God to respect their free will.

 

I agree that this analogy does properly represent a problem for anyone who isn't a Universalist. I can own that analogy but can you really own the same analogy when Calvinism is applied?

Suppose I chained my 5 year old to a pole in the middle of the road because his big brother disobeyed and then pretended to plead with him to get out of the street? And that is very accurate whether you are willing to admit it or not.

Calvinism teaches that God bound all men over to a totally chained existence from birth due to Adam's sin and that His pleas to be reconciled are only effective if He first makes the recipient want to accept it, thus all remained chained unless God chooses to unlock them, yet he still makes an appeal as if he wants them to do something He hasn't allowed for them to do. He chains them in the street as punishment for the fall (Total Inability), He pretends to want them to get out of the street (universal appeal of the gospel), He doesn't unlock them so they could respond (Unconditional Election/irresistible call).

 

I pray for God to continue to be patient and longsuffering with them, because God does respect their free will and at some point will give them up to their own lusts.

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

God respects free will, if a person does not want to retain God in their knowledge, at some point God will give them up to a reprobate mind.

Pro 1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
27 When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
30 They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.
31 Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.

God is patient and longsuffering with all men, and not willing that any should perish, but if a man continues to reject God, at some point God will give that man up to his own desires.

God is simply giving these people what they want.

 

A Problem, but not the SAME one.

They have A problem, yes, but it isn't the SAME problem, to wit:

1.) A non-Cal must explain why it seems morally justifiable to create beings whom he KNOWS will not repent.

2.) A Cal must explain why it seems morally justifiable to create beings whom he DECREES will not repent.

 

The Fundamental difference between God as understood by the the Calvinist and the Arminian is that IF, according to the Arminian, God could irresistibly draw all men to himself, yet in such a way that they come "willingly" as the Westminster Confession states, than he WOULD do it.

According to the Calvinist view, he can do that, but he doesn't want to.

 

The fundamental difference as to why the Non Cal can answer this as not being a conflict is because even though it merely appears that an immoral conundrum exists since God created man anyway knowing he would sin and reject him, is in the libertarian view, not only can God love man because He wants to, man can also love God because he wants to. Calvinist theology can not consistently make that claim in either direction.

 

No doubt God really appreciates you explaining His inner workings to Him.

 

1.) More precisely, he is explaining it to the readers of B.B. (not God).
2.) Also, it is not "inner workings" but God's revelation of himself to mankind
and
3.) No more so than Calvinist Theologians rightly attempt to do.