moral accountability

[Helen]

This is not about something I may or may not believe, Joseph. I am asking you about Calvinist beliefs, and you are of that pursuasion, are you not? And so I ask you if what I have read from other Calvinist apologists holds true for the Calvinists of this board -- does the sovereignty of God mean that everything you do and say and think and are is by HIS determination?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Helen,

I am not playing 20 questions with you, especially when you are not willing to answer one simple question from me about the soveriengty of God. I wonder why not? Are you embarrassed by your beliefs? Talk to you later. Let me know when you would like to engage in a two way conversation instead of an interogation.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Helen]

This is a Calvinist board. I am asking about some Calvinist beliefs I have read about. They do not make sense to me in terms of moral accountability. If you cannot answer my questions, then don't get mad and snippy with me. Let someone more versed in your beliefs than you are answer if you cannot.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Helen:
This is a Calvinist board.

That is not true. This is a Baptist Board. There are Baptists here from every stripe. Helen, you are a Baptist, aren't you? I would assume you are and understand that not all Baptists=Calvinists.

I am asking about some Calvinist beliefs I have read about. They do not make sense to me in terms of moral accountability.[/QUOTE]

You mean the Bible doesn't make sense to you? Because the doctrines of the Soveriegnty of God, Total depravity, Once saved always saved are taught in the Bible. Read your Bible and it will make more sense to you. OK?

If you cannot answer my questions, then don't get mad and snippy with me. Let someone more versed in your beliefs than you are answer if you cannot. [/QUOTE]

I have answered you questions. You refuse to answer one question. Again, I wonder why? Can you not answer my question, Helen? What are you afraid of?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Helen]

I'm sorry. This is a Calvinist FORUM. I am asking about Calvinist beliefs and you are unwilling to answer, trying to turn the thing around and quiz me about what I believe.

Please, let me ask again, does the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty, at least among the Calvinists here on this board, mean that God is in control of everything you do and say and think and are? Is this a correct understanding of Calvinist theology?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Actually, you are wrong again, Helen. This is not a Calvinists Forum. Read the title of the forum. Then go back and read some previous threads and I think you will find that there are probably and equal amount of Arminians as there are Calvinists on this forum. One simple question makes a quiz? Why not answer a simple question? What are you afraid of? Are you embarrassed that your beliefs do not line up with the Bible? If you are so sure in your beliefs, then answer the question annd go on. Have an honest, open conversation, not a hostile, dishonest interogation.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Helen]

I'm not being hostile. I am asking a question about Calvinist theology. If you cannot answer, please leave and let someone else who knows more about Calvinism answer me.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Let's back off this rhetoric ... No need to pursue that line of discussion.

As for Helen's question, as a general rule, yes Calvinists tend to believe that. We base it on, among other things, the truth of Eph 1:11 that God is working (action verb, not a reaction verb) all thing (how much can you leave out and still have all things) after the counsel of his own will (not someone else's).

While we might think the falling of a leaf is trivial, remember God is infinite. REmember also that "working" does not imply direct causation; God does work his will through secondary causation, preventing the charge that God is the author of sin.

Remember that God's decreed will (even evil such as the crucifixion of Christ) does not absolve man of moral responsiblity. This is an area where I believe we set our own logical needs aside in favor of the declared expression of God's will. Man is morally responsible because he willfully chooses to engage in certain acts. Remember, CAlvinists do not believe that God is forcing man to do anything. They are doing exaclty what they want to do because of their moral makeup of sin.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

 

[russell55]

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?

I agree with Pastor Larry. Yes, God controls everything.

That's what I see recorded in scripture, and it also seems to be the only logical conclusion, if one accepts that God is all-knowing and all-powerful.

 

[Helen]

Thank you, Larry. OK, in line with your response, I have some questions.

First of all, when I asked if God is in control of all we do and say and think and are, you responded, "As for Helen's question, as a general rule, yes Calvinists tend to believe that.".

The 'tend to believe' interested me, but that aside for a moment, I assume that those who tend to believe that, believe it because they think it is true. The problem I have with this view of sovereignty is that it invlaidates our entire legal system as well as the concept of moral accountability. If God is in control of what I do, then what I do is right, no matter what I do! That invalidates anyone's judgment of anything I do. This seems to be the logical consequence of that view of sovereignty.

You then said that you base it on Ephesians 1:11, which is an incomplete sentence in and of itselfand must be included with verse 12.

NIV: In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be fore the praise of his glory.

KJV: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the consel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

You emphasized the verb 'worketh' or 'works'. So I looked it up.
It is #1754 in Strongs, energeo and, in the Greek, is an active verb, as you said, meaning 'put energy into' which we translate as 'act' or 'work'. Thus the meaning seems to be not that God controls everything that happens, but that he puts energy into, or acts within all things in order to cause them to conform to His will. This would be in accord, of course, with Romans 8:28, and other similar verses.

You next emphasized (put in bold) the 'all things.' All things means all things. You sort of made a point of that. And, as was stated earlier by someone else, if God does it, then it is good. This means God is determining the actions of sadists, murderers, rapists, and all manner of evil doers. This is evidently in accordance with His good will.

So 1. How dare we judge them? and 2. Why the Ten Commandments? and 3. Why does God cause rebellion against Himself? If He is Good, and Jesus stated that only God is good (the words used there mean intrinsically good, not just 'looking good'), then rebellion against Him is bad by definition. But if He is in control of all we do and say and think and are, then that rebellion is from Him directed towards Himself and that really does not make any sense to me.


This is not a matter of secondary causation unless a man can choose to do good or evil in his own heart. If there is only one choice, then there is no choice at all, for the meaning of the word 'choice' means there are at least two alternatives. One cannot 'choose' when there are no alternatives. So the concept of 'secondary causation' means there is another will at work somewhere, does it not? A will not of God?

But if He is in control of what that person thinks, then He is also in control of what that person wills...

You stated in the last paragraph that we needed to set our own logic aside. I know that God's ways are higher than ours, but I wonder, then, to whom was it He was speaking in Isaiah 1 when He said, "Come, let us reason together.."

Doesn't reasoning mean we are to use our logic?

 

[Helen]

I typed to fast, pushed the wrong key and accidently posted the above before I was finished.

The last point Larry made was that the unregenerate sinner sins because that is his makeup and he WANTS to sin.

I need you to please explain the following, then:

1. If he wants to sin, and wants only to sin (or can he ever want what is good?) then why do so many unregenerate sinners go about helping others?

2. What was Paul talking about in Romans 7 when he said the good he wanted to do he did not do?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Helen:
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.

I cannot change the color of my skin or the brain I have been given. But within the realm of how he has created me he has given me the choice to eat corn flakes or eggs for breakfast. He has given me the choice to sin or not to sin. He has given me the choice to walk with him or do my own thing. If that were not the case then why would men ever need to be persuaded? Why would Jesus ever made any appeals to come follow him? If God creates perfect robots then it would seem that he has erred by creating everyone who at times does not bring glory to him. Why would God create something that does not bring glory to him especially if he never gives any choice? It is his choice for us to bring glory to him. But it is our choice to bring glory or not to God.

It is God's choice to give us the consequences of our sin and that without partiality. God does not tempt anyone. He does not tempt me to sin. So if he does not tempt me to sin then why is their sin if were God choice of what I do, to sin or not sin.

I amalways reminded of Mt. 22:1-12, "Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. "And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. "Again he sent out other slaves saying, `Tell those who have been invited, "Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast." '"But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them. "But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. "Then he said to his slaves, `The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. `Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.' "Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. "But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, and he said to him, `Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And the man was speechless. "Then the king said to the servants, `Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' "For many are called , but few are chosen."

Who are the called and who are the chosen? How many are called?

 

[russell55]

Helen,

While you were posting your big response to Larry, I posted as well right before you.

What I'm asking you is this: How can an all-powerful, all-knowing God NOT be in control of everything?

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by russell55:
Helen,

While you were posting your big response to Larry, I posted as well right before you.

What I'm asking you is this: How can an all-powerful, all-knowing God NOT be in control of everything?

I'm sorry I forgot about you, Russell. I understand your question, but I would like to ask it another way, and there is a reason for that:

Is anything ever out of God's control?

I think we would both agree that no, it isn't.

But then the matter becomes, what does 'control' mean where God is concerned?

I know it is irritating to some here when I resort to my own experiences, but let me plead Jesus did the same thing when He told parables regarding wheat and lost coins and sheep and such -- He was referring to experiences the people could relate to.

In my own home, raising my children, was I out of control when I gave them choices? No, I was not. Those choices were within my sphere of being able to deal with the consequences. (As a human mother, of course there were times I was out of control! But not when I offered choices; those were direct results of my control, actually.)

So I would ask you, would God be out of control if HE gave US choices?

 

[Helen]

gb93433, that is what I was thinking you meant, but I wanted to make sure. I think your response is biblically accurate and consistent. I am wondering what the Calvinists would say to the contrary and why, and what biblical evidence they would give to back up any disagreements they had with what you said.

I am also curious about the Calvinist responses to your last questions there.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Helen:
The problem I have with this view of sovereignty is that it invlaidates our entire legal system as well as the concept of moral accountability. If God is in control of what I do, then what I do is right, no matter what I do! That invalidates anyone's judgment of anything I do. This seems to be the logical consequence of that view of sovereignty.

I would disagree on two points. First, the reason I said "tend to believe" is because I can't speak for every single person who claims to be a Calvinist. Now on to your point ...

A fair legal system is based on what people actually do. God judges people based on what they actually do. We also come back to the point about coercion. They are not being coerced to do something. They are doing it freely and the knowledge that they should not be doing such is known to them.

Your last statement is address by a statement in teh previous post: This is an area where I said: "I believe we set our own logical needs aside in favor of the declared expression of God's will."

People on your side are generally fond of declareing Calvinism to be a system driven by logic. Yet Calvinists are willing to let stand what you would consider illogical because of our commitment to the text of Scripture (as we understand it). I don't believe we should check our minds at the door. I think Christianity is a thinking man's religion, so to speak. But we cannot let logic be the determining factor. Truth be told, I believe it is your side that is driven by logic more than ours, though both involve logic to be sure. BTW, being logical is not wrong. But it has its limits.

Thus the meaning seems to be not that God controls everything that happens, but that he puts energy into, or acts within all things in order to cause them to conform to His will. This would be in accord, of course, with Romans 8:28, and other similar verses.

I don't think this is a valid conclusion based on the meaning of hte word and the context of Scripture. The word means to work. The context is God bringing about that which he has predestined from eternity past. I think it corresponds perfectly with Rom 8:28 which is immediately followed by that passage that discusses God's work that ultimately and inevitably ends in glorification of the individual.

This means God is determining the actions of sadists, murderers, rapists, and all manner of evil doers. This is evidently in accordance with His good will.

We already know that he did this. Remember that Christ was crucified after being tortured all night long. That shows your conclusion to be a just one. And it conforms perfectly with Scripture. It does not let those people off the hook. It does not excuse them, just as it didn't excuse those who crucified Christ. But again, we can't let our personal logic determine what God can and cannot do. We must rely on what he said he did and what he determined to be right.

So 1. How dare we judge them?[/uqote]Because God said to when he set up human government. They are responsible for their actions and they are reponsible to answer to men for them. They will ultimately answer to God for them.

and 2. Why the Ten Commandments?

They are the expression of God's will concerning certain things. To break them is to break them, no matter the rationale.

and 3. Why does God cause rebellion against Himself?

For his own unstated purposes. From Scripture, we can determine that God is pursing his own glory and in his wisdom this is a part of it. Again, this illustrates that your ideas are being driven by logic rather than Scripture. We know for a fact that God ordained rebellion against himself. I would caution the use of the word "cause" because of its propensity to be miunsderstood in this discussion. God ordained rebellion for his own purposes.

This is not a matter of secondary causation unless a man can choose to do good or evil in his own heart. If there is only one choice, then there is no choice at all, for the meaning of the word 'choice' means there are at least two alternatives. One cannot 'choose' when there are no alternatives. So the concept of 'secondary causation' means there is another will at work somewhere, does it not? A will not of God?

I disagree. They have a choice. They are not physically unable. They are morally unable. The will is a part of the moral ability. They don't want it. Secondary causation means that God is working indirectly.

Doesn't reasoning mean we are to use our logic?

Yes, but that logic must be driven by Scripture, not by our own conceptions of what must be right based on our own minds. I like logic. I like to think. I like to make arguments and draw conclusions. But I must submit my sinful mind to the dictates of Scripture. By saying that, I don't mean to imply that I think you disagree with that. We obviously see it a different way.

Logic is not wrong. It is a part of the image of God in us. But our logic cannot comprehend the ways of God. We can all look back at some bad things in our life and see that in the long run they turned out great for us in the plan of God. We must remember that God is always working that way. Yes, he brings "bad things" into our lives, but does so for the purpose of his own glory.

 

[massdak]

Originally posted by Helen:
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?

helen go to this site and read this Are There Two Wills in God? i believe it will answer your dillema let me know what you think >> http://www.desiringgod.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/2wills.html


here is an excerpt from the site>>>>It goes almost without saying that God wills obedience to his moral law, and that he wills this in a way that can be rejected by many. This is evident from numerous texts: "Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will (thelema) of my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). "Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother" (Matthew 12:50). "The one who does the will of God abides forever" (1 John 2:17). The "will of God" in these texts is the revealed, moral instruction of the Old and New Testaments, which proscribes sin.

Therefore we know it was not the "will of God" that Judas and Pilate and Herod and the Gentile soldiers and the Jewish crowds disobey the moral law of God by sinning in delivering Jesus up to be crucified. But we also know that it was the will of God that this come to pass. Therefore we know that God in some sense wills what he does not will in another sense. I. Howard Marshall's statement is confirmed by the death of Jesus: "We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen."

 

[Helen]

In other words, God wills what He does not want?

I'm having a hard time with that!

 

[The Archangel]

Originally posted by Helen:
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?

Helen,

There are some things in your post that do not follow.

You write For if a man is predestined for something, and that predestination is of God, then that predestination is good.

This is assuming a way too much! Take the falling-away of Israel for an example. Was Israel predestined to fall? Yes. Was that good? No.

Why do I say that Israel was predestined to fall? Simply because it did. Psalm 115:3 (ESV) says, "Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases."

Therefore Israel sinned. The "WHY" of the whole thing was to create a culture in which Christ would be crucified--A culture hostile to God as He has revealed Himself in the Bible.

You continue 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.

Again, God cannot be thwarted--ever. If He could be, then He would not be sovereign.

I see what you're trying to get at. However it is similar to the "Could God build a rock so big that He could not lift it" arguement. In essence, your arguement is trying to establish the existance of "Round Triangles" and "Three-sided Squares." They are no-things, as C.S.Lewis would say.

Blessings,

Archangel