A calvinistic homosexual

It was a very interesting quote. I'd be interested in talking to him (or her), although not about Calvinism, but about the cognitive dissonance between his theology and sexuality.

 

What makes you think he is a Calvinist ?

 

Hyper-Calvinism maybe, but not "Calvinism." "Calvinism" asserts both sovereignty AND responsibility.

 

I think he needs to study the Bible more.

Ken

 

This is not Calvinism, but fatalism. Calvinism maintains these two things in balance: God's sovereignty and human responsibility.

C. S. Lewis, while not a Calvinist, has a quote that explains it perfectly. I don't have time to look for it, but here is a paraphrase:

No matter what you do, you will fulfill God's will; however, it makes a whole lot of difference to you whether you fulfill it like Paul did, or like Judas. So fulfill God's will like Paul did.

 

Which is exactly the reaction Paul anticipates in Romans 9:

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

And this is what Paul answers:

But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,"Why did you make me like this?"

How can we go beyond the answer Paul gives? All we need to worry about is doing what God commands us.

[ November 21, 2002, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

That is so out of context. Paul is talking about Israelites trying to justify themselves by the Law or inheritance, and disputing why God would find fault if those weren't apart of His will in justification. By citing this passage here, you're actually going along with his claim that God made him homosexual, and he has no choice or possibility to change in the matter.
I guess a person like that should ask "what should I do?" to avoid being acused of "replying back to God".

 

Nope, certainly didn't intend to. But I can see how it might appear that I was, so thank you for pointing that out so I can try to explain myself...

Let's put the verse back in context. The whole passage (Romans 9-11) is dealing with the unbelief of the majority of those in the the nation Israel. Paul's explanation is that this is all part of God's plan to graft the Gentiles into those of Israel who were faithful, and make a people out of faithful Jews and faithful Gentiles.

The particular scripture that I quoted is in response to an objection to this--that someone's sin can fulfill God's plan, and yet God still holds them responsible for it. I quoted it because this seems to be the exact sentiment of the person above.

But Paul is also clear that even though unbelief in a large portion of Israel was part of God's plan, the direct cause of the unbelief in Israel was within their own hearts. They had been forewarned that it was through faith that they needed to pursue righteousness, but instead they arrogantly made the choice to pursue righeousness from works. The source of the sin was the arrogance of their own hearts, and the sin occured by God's purposeful permission (allowing them to do what was already in their hearts), not by His direct action upon their hearts.

If a sin (and I actually believe that this is true of all sin that comes to pass) is part of God's plan for history, that is no excuse, because the source of the sin is always in the sinful heart of man. That a particular sin is part of God's sovereign plan does not mean that God puts up some sort of a barrier to the person not sinning. The choice to not sin was always still there and was always a real option.

The two things go together--God's sovereignty over everything (even the particular sins He allows) and the real choices of human beings. So, to use the example of Judas and Paul from the C. S. Lewis quote above: Judas fulfilled God's will when he betrayed Christ, and Paul fulfilled God's will by his faithfulness to spread the gospel. But Judas, nonetheless, made a real choice to betray Christ, and the option to not betray Him was also a real one, just as Paul made a real choice to be obedient to God's command to take the gospel to the Gentiles.

So, even though whatever he chooses, he will be (in the sense of God's sovereign plan for history--the evil things God chooses to allow along with the good things God directly works) fulfilling God's will, the person in question in the example at the start of this conversation has a real choice to make: to be obedient to God's commands or to continue in sin--to do the good thing God commands, or the evil thing God allows.

 

So God can be sovereign and still allow things? Interesting...

Could God also be sovereign and allow man complete free will in choosing Him?

 

russel, I agree with what you said, but the problem arises when people recast the whole scenario as God decreeing sin (or unbelief, through "blinding" and "hardening") yet still insists God treats them as if they had the ability that was being denied them. (This is being discussed on the "Isaiah 6..." thread now)

 

Hi everyone:
It sounds to me like he is blameing God for all the sin in his life.He feels he is predestine to be what he is.He has taken what he has learned of God in the calvinistic view and turned it around to give him self an excuse to live the way he want's.Why should he care. Everthing is predestine anyway. He believe's he has no choice, it's convient for him after all he thinks he's not to blame.
In my opinion we should all pray that this person will be shown that he does have a choice.That he can choose to live for Christ instead of against Him.that he does have free will and can choose right from wrong...
Romanbear.
Peace