moral accountability

I am curious about something: if a human being is in a position where he is able to save the life of another human being, without endangering his own in any way, and if he is the only one around capable of saving that life, or maybe the only one around period,

and if he refuses to save that life, and instead watches the man drown, or burn to death, or whatever,

is that man morally accountable for his action? Is he guilty of a type of murder?

 

Joseph, let me do this one step at a time.

Humor me.

It will have relevance, OK?

 

There are two main ways this can go. Here is the first:

1. The drowning (or otherwise dying) person was predestined to die at that time and in that way. Is the other person now guilty?

 

You are presuming on me, Joseph. I am not talking about either a man's soul or God. I am talking about moral accountability, man and man. If the drowning man has been predestined to die by drowning on that day and at that time, is the potential rescuer then guilty of some kind of murder in allowing him to die?

Human life in the body -- not talking about the soul and not talking about hell and not talking about God directly (only implied as the author of predestination, but not part of the moral argument here).

 

No, Joseph. For if a man is predestined for something, and that predestination is of God, then that predestination is good. Therefore someone who would even attempt to interfere with that predestined act is attempting to thwart God's will and therefore is doing something wrong and sinning.

And yet you, as all of us probably would have, have claimed that the man who would refuse to rescue was morally accountable as some kind of murderer, and murder is a direct violation of the Ten Commandments.

So what does the Calvinist do with this?

 

I would presume that, as a Calvinist, you would assume complete sovereignty of God. Therefore, in setting up the scenario, I offered a situation which could easily occur and in which we would condemn a man who did not go to the rescue of the other. I then asked a moral question about his decision.

Why should your moral judgment of such a situation differ in any way from a biblically-based moral judgment as you are a Christian?

It is not a matter of whether or not I could save it, Joseph, but a matter of whether or not I would have a moral obligation to try. In your previous answer you stated that yes, the man had a moral obligation to save, or at least try to save, the life of the other. My life is also in God's hands, but I would deeply appreciate it if I were drowning if someone tried to save me! I would even grab onto that saving device and try to save my own life! It's sort of an instinct, you know!


Is your worldly, moral answer in the beginning then different from what God would have you choose? If so, then where did our idea of morality come from?

 

There are some things God has chosen for that person and the rest he leaves up to that person.

Can you elaborate on this a bit? Thanks.

 

Ok, I understand that response; it makes sense to me. Let me ask another question:

A number of Calvinist/Reformed writers have stated that God's sovereignty means He controls everything: every action, every movement of a leaf, everything. Is this what the Calvinists here hold to?

 

Everything you do and say, Joseph? Is it all at HIS determination?