A Question Calvinists must Answer REVISITED

You may not be familiar with the concepts associated with libertarian free will versus compatibilistic free will, which is fine, I wasn't familiar with it either at one time.

You may not realize it, but by merely pointing to the idea we are "different people" you have affirmed libertarian free will, defined as, "A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action." Or the ability to do otherwise than what the agent ends up actually doing.

For example, if you chose to where a red shirt yesterday, if all circumstances were equal to do over again, could you have willingly chose to wear a different shirt? Could you have chosen otherwise? Libertarian freedom says "yes," where as compatiblistism (Calvinists) typically say "no." Why? Because the act was determined by your desire which was determined by you nature which was determined by the creator of that nature, which is God.

In Calvinism: If you lied yesterday at noon, then you could not have resisted that temptation to lie. You could not have done otherwise. If I reject Calvinism then it must be because that is my desire, which was determined by my nature which was determined by God. So, the reason I'm not Calvinistic is because God made me that way...same reason some are saved and others aren't. See the problem?

For a compatibilist a choice is free if it is according to one's desire, but that doesn't mean much in a world where God determines even the desires of men in such a way that they couldn't do otherwise than what they end up doing. Make sense?

 

Two ways I can respond to this:

1. Nothing in that model says that the grace is inward.

2. Even outward means (i.e. the preaching of the gospel) has an inward impact, so my view doesn't deny that God gives inward grace. I just deny that He does so "prior to" or "in addition to" the means clearly revealed...the gospel. Does that make sense?

 

First, I noted that this was taken from an article written by Eric Landstrom.

Second, I do not read any animosity or ill will in the presentations of this model. If you feel it is a misrepresentation then make that case, but please refrain from speculating as to the intent of others who you do not know.

Let's look at the first statement: "As such, when people sin, they sin because God withheld the grace they needed to resist temptation."

Is this true or false? For example, when Frank refused to believe the gospel (which is sin) did he do so because God withheld the grace needed? Yes or no?

What about the sin of Adam and Eve? Could they have resisted the temptation? Why did they sin?

 

How can they believe in what they have not heard? I ask this to show that the grace of sending the gospel appeal must precede a response of faith. Faith comes through hearing.

So, the outward means God has chosen by His gracious kindness and love for us is to send the gospel through Holy Spirit indwelled messengers and inspired scriptures. That message is powerful and effective, but still resistible. In other words, it has the power to introduce the appeal of reconciliation with God to a lost man by which that lost man can respond.

Now, I recognize that some Arminians believe that God does do some extra inward working equally upon all men making their totally depraved and otherwise "unable" wills able to respond to the gospel appeal. Eric, the author of this article, may actually be one of those types of Arminians. But, I don't see the necessity or scriptural backing for such a view. I believe the gospel itself contains that power and there is nothing in my view of scripture that indicates otherwise, but either way the models hold their value equally.

 

It's not THAT nuanced...they choose to reject the gospel because...???

We both know the reason in Calvinism Andy, and its not that difficult to answer. They weren't unconditionally elected and Irresistibly Called. In other words, God withheld from them the needed grace, period. See, not that much nuance.

Why would God stop something he himself has casually determined to happen (through second causes etc) in the way many Calvinists teach?

Yes, I believe God permits sin that he has the power to stop, but that in itself presupposes that God didn't originate or cause the sin to begin, but only foreknows it and allows it, with which many of the Reformed persuasion would take issue with...(see my discussion with Luke in the other thread)

Before I had kids I KNEW beyond any doubt they would sin. Did my choosing to have kids knowing they would sin, even though I could have stopped it by choosing not to reproduce, make me culpable for their sin? Of course not. Mere foreknowledge of sin and the permitting of it to continue does not necessarily mean culpability.

Sure it is, but clearly I also believe our responses to that problem are more biblical and consistent, which is why I present my arguments.

Sounds like your problem is with a forum with the purpose of debating soteriological and theological issues, not with me personally. I can't help you with that except to advise not coming to a debate board if you don't wish to engage with those who have differing views. I strive to be respectful and kind in my views while avoiding personal attacks or speculations about others intent. I would ask that you extend to me that same courtesy by not presuming that my intent must be a negative one. Thanks.

 

Well, it depends on what day and post you are reading. He can sometimes be a bit ambiguous with his choice of terms.

Luke has argued with regard to sin, and I quote verbatim: "Not ONLY did God permit it but ultimately he caused it."

He defends this by saying that for God to commit a deed with a right motive makes that deed non-sinful regardless if that deed would be sinful for anyone else. So, if God deceives for a right motive its not sinful, so in that manner He can be the ultimate cause of sin while not being sinful because He did it for a good motive.

I noticed how you just changed the analogy instead of responding to mine. But if you insist on using this analogy let me change it up to more accurately represent what Calvinists actually believe. If you created a man (or robot) with the nature and desire (programming) to kill another man in such a way that he could not have done otherwise, and you have the power and means to stop it, but you do nothing, are you culpable? Yes, much more so than in the analogy you presented, which is the distinction of our views.

Why would my conscience be less "clear" than yours? We are both representing what we believe is true of scripture and God on a theological debate board. I have done so without speculating about your intent, while you have continually impugned mine. Whose conscience should be in question here?

 

Correct. Our desired effect is a free reponse, not a sure positive response. See the difference?