Calvinism and Relativism

[Gavino]

Good Evening All,


I wanted some of your input and discussion on a topic that I’ve been mulling over lately. There are several issues that would need to be resolved in my mind before I could consider Calvinism, the main issue being that Calvinism appears to require elements of both absolutism and relativism in order to function. All of the Calvinists I have spoken with hold absolutism as being true, and believe that there are absolutes of right and wrong determined by one absolute standard (namely, the nature of God Himself). When God created us in His image, He wrote His standard on our hearts in the form of our conscience (Rom. 2:14-15, Micah 6:8). This is why we know what is right or wrong, righteous or sinful, just or unjust, according to God’s standard.


In previous discussions I have witnessed, or in which I have engaged, Non-Calvinists have made the accusation, “If God calls all men to repent, even though they can’t, it is unjust for Him to condemn them to hell when they don’t.” The Calvinist typically gives one of the following replies, or a variant thereof:

1. “It may be unjust to you, but it’s just to God”, or
2. “God is just, but not as we understand it”, or
3. They quote or paraphrase John Calvin, who said, “…it is perverse to measure the divine by the standard of human justice” (Inst. III, XXIV, 17).

All of these responses appear to have a common thread: relativism, the idea that there are no absolutes of right and wrong and morals are subjective/relative to the individual. Calvinists seem to profess absolutism until the issue of God’s justice rears its head, at which point they switch to the relativistic argument that God has one standard and we have another. Unfortunately, absolutism and relativism are exclusive; they cannot both be true. But if we accept absolutism as being true, then Calvinism falls apart. Our conscience---which testifies to God’s standard---tells us that God would not act as Calvinism says he does, because that would be unjust. God is just (Is. 30:18, 61:8, Job 34:12, Deut. 32:4), and He cannot go against His own nature because He is unchanging (Heb. 6:18, Tit. 1:2, James 1:13). On the other hand, if we accept relativism is true, the entire Bible falls apart because morals are subjective and God would have no grounds on which to punish us for supposed “sins”.


Absolutism appears to be the only logical and valid system with which to interpret the Bible, but without the presence of relativism, Calvinism cannot survive. There are other issues connected to this same topic that I would need to resolve before I could consider Calvinism, but this is the crux of the matter. I welcome your comments and discussion.


In the love of Christ,


Gavino

 

[RC1970]

The Calvinist typically gives one of the following replies, or a variant thereof:

1. “It may be unjust to you, but it’s just to God”, or
2. “God is just, but not as we understand it”, or
3. They quote or paraphrase John Calvin, who said, “…it is perverse to measure the divine by the standard of human justice” (Inst. III, XXIV, 17).

I don't see your point. All three of the examples you use point to God. How is this relative?

God's justice is absolute. Human justice, which is tainted by sin, is relative. We suppress our God given consciences and do what we "feel" is just, not what God tells us is just.

It is the non-Calvinist that appeal to relativism, not the Calvinists.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Good Evening All,


I wanted some of your input and discussion on a topic that I’ve been mulling over lately. There are several issues that would need to be resolved in my mind before I could consider Calvinism, the main issue being that Calvinism appears to require elements of both absolutism and relativism in order to function. All of the Calvinists I have spoken with hold absolutism as being true, and believe that there are absolutes of right and wrong determined by one absolute standard (namely, the nature of God Himself). When God created us in His image, He wrote His standard on our hearts in the form of our conscience (Rom. 2:14-15, Micah 6:8). This is why we know what is right or wrong, righteous or sinful, just or unjust, according to God’s standard.


In previous discussions I have witnessed, or in which I have engaged, Non-Calvinists have made the accusation, “If God calls all men to repent, even though they can’t, it is unjust for Him to condemn them to hell when they don’t.” The Calvinist typically gives one of the following replies, or a variant thereof:

1. “It may be unjust to you, but it’s just to God”, or
2. “God is just, but not as we understand it”, or
3. They quote or paraphrase John Calvin, who said, “…it is perverse to measure the divine by the standard of human justice” (Inst. III, XXIV, 17).

All of these responses appear to have a common thread: relativism, the idea that there are no absolutes of right and wrong and morals are subjective/relative to the individual. Calvinists seem to profess absolutism until the issue of God’s justice rears its head, at which point they switch to the relativistic argument that God has one standard and we have another. Unfortunately, absolutism and relativism are exclusive; they cannot both be true. But if we accept absolutism as being true, then Calvinism falls apart. Our conscience---which testifies to God’s standard---tells us that God would not act as Calvinism says he does, because that would be unjust. God is just (Is. 30:18, 61:8, Job 34:12, Deut. 32:4), and He cannot go against His own nature because He is unchanging (Heb. 6:18, Tit. 1:2, James 1:13). On the other hand, if we accept relativism is true, the entire Bible falls apart because morals are subjective and God would have no grounds on which to punish us for supposed “sins”.


Absolutism appears to be the only logical and valid system with which to interpret the Bible, but without the presence of relativism, Calvinism cannot survive. There are other issues connected to this same topic that I would need to resolve before I could consider Calvinism, but this is the crux of the matter. I welcome your comments and discussion.


In the love of Christ,


Gavino

I agree with your critique of Calvinism. God will not be less fair with us than He demands we be with each other. Calvinism rejects free choice in humans, and I don't.

 

[Gavino]

I don't see your point. All three of the examples you use point to God. How is this relative?

God's justice is absolute. Human justice, which is tainted by sin, is relative. We suppress our God given consciences and do what we "feel" is just, not what God tells us is just.

It is the non-Calvinist that appeal to relativism, not the Calvinists.

Hello RC1970,


Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. In your reply, you mention “God’s justice”, and then “human justice”. This is exactly what I'm referring to when I talk about relativism. It’s the idea that God has His standard of justice, and then we as humans have ours. This is opposed to the absolutistic view that there is one standard (God’s), which God wrote on our hearts when He created us in His image. There is no “human standard of justice”, just God’s standard which defines actions as either right or wrong or just or unjust. Mankind doesn’t hold God to “our standard of justice”; God holds us to His. That’s how we can relate to Him, how we can know what He means when He says something is right or that it’s wrong. It’s why God can say, “Come, let us reason together” (Is. 1:18), because He gave us His standard. Phrases in the Bible such as “Do justly, love mercy, walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8), or “Be imitators of God” (Eph. 5:1), or “Be holy, for I am holy” (Lev. 11:44 and 1 Pet. 1:16) are all meaningless if morals are relative and not defined absolutely by God’s nature.


When the Calvinist says that God calls all men to come to Him---even though they can’t---and then condemns them to hell when they don’t, our conscience tells us, “That’s unjust!” Is it a “human standard of justice” that tells us this? No, it’s our conscience bearing witness to the one absolute standard and telling us that ACCORDING TO GOD’S STANDARD, this is unjust and contrary to God’s nature. If it is unjust, will God do it? Absolutely not; God is just, and He cannot go against His own nature because He is unchanging.


Thank you for your time, I look forward to discussing this with you.


In the love of Christ,


Gavino

 

[Gavino]

I agree with your critique of Calvinism. God will not be less fair with us than He demands we be with each other. Calvinism rejects free choice in humans, and I don't.

That's a very good point Paul, I had never thought of it that way before. Thanks for your input!

 

[RC1970]

Hello RC1970,


Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. In your reply, you mention “God’s justice”, and then “human justice”. This is exactly what I'm referring to when I talk about relativism. It’s the idea that God has His standard of justice, and then we as humans have ours. This is opposed to the absolutistic view that there is one standard (God’s), which God wrote on our hearts when He created us in His image. There is no “human standard of justice”, just God’s standard which defines actions as either right or wrong or just or unjust. Mankind doesn’t hold God to “our standard of justice”; God holds us to His. That’s how we can relate to Him, how we can know what He means when He says something is right or that it’s wrong. It’s why God can say, “Come, let us reason together” (Is. 1:18), because He gave us His standard. Phrases in the Bible such as “Do justly, love mercy, walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8), or “Be imitators of God” (Eph. 5:1), or “Be holy, for I am holy” (Lev. 11:44 and 1 Pet. 1:16) are all meaningless if morals are relative and not defined absolutely by God’s nature.


When the Calvinist says that God calls all men to come to Him---even though they can’t---and then condemns them to hell when they don’t, our conscience tells us, “That’s unjust!” Is it a “human standard of justice” that tells us this? No, it’s our conscience bearing witness to the one absolute standard and telling us that ACCORDING TO GOD’S STANDARD, this is unjust and contrary to God’s nature. If it is unjust, will God do it? Absolutely not; God is just, and He cannot go against His own nature because He is unchanging.


Thank you for your time, I look forward to discussing this with you.


In the love of Christ,


Gavino

The Calvinist is not suggesting that the human standard of justice is in fact just. All that is meant is that humans sinfully create a standard of justice that is not God's standard.

When I discuss Calvinism with non-Calvinists, the discussion almost always comes down to the non-Calvinist making some sort of emotional plea as to why they reject Calvinism. This emotional plea is pure relativism. They are appealing to their own sinful human standard of justice.

If you read Romans chapter 1, you will see that Paul is saying that as sinful humans we suppress the truth of God (our consciences) and replace it with a lie (what we feel is true). This is the foundation of sin.

 

[tstor]

In previous discussions I have witnessed, or in which I have engaged, Non-Calvinists have made the accusation, “If God calls all men to repent, even though they can’t, it is unjust for Him to condemn them to hell when they don’t.” The Calvinist typically gives one of the following replies, or a variant thereof:

1. “It may be unjust to you, but it’s just to God”, or
2. “God is just, but not as we understand it”, or
3. They quote or paraphrase John Calvin, who said, “…it is perverse to measure the divine by the standard of human justice” (Inst. III, XXIV, 17).

I would not use either of the first two. They are vague and lazy. I would also not use the third reply because I do not quote John Calvin in response to non-Calvinists. It would be rather purposeless. I would rather point out the fact that it is not unjust on God's part to condemn unrepentant individuals because they are sinners. Everyone by default is hellbound because of their sinful nature. Therefore, anyone who is condemned to hell is an example of God's justice. Anyone who is not condemned to hell is an example of His mercy. If anything it is unjust that there are people who do not go to hell.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I would not use either of the first two. They are vague and lazy. I would also not use their third reply because I do not quote John Calvin in response to non-Calvinists. It would be rather purposeless. I would rather point out the fact that it is not unjust on God's part to condemn unrepentant individuals because they are sinners. Everyone by default is hellbound because of their sinful nature. Therefore, anyone who is condemned to hell is an example of God's justice. Anyone who is not condemned to hell is an example of His mercy. If anything it is unjust that there are people who do not go to hell.

Nicely put.

 

[Gavino]

The Calvinist is not suggesting that the human standard of justice is in fact just. All that is meant is that humans sinfully create a standard of justice that is not God's standard.

When I discuss Calvinism with non-Calvinists, the discussion almost always comes down to the non-Calvinist making some sort of emotional plea as to why they reject Calvinism. This emotional plea is pure relativism. They are appealing to their own sinful human standard of justice.

If you read Romans chapter 1, you will see that Paul is saying that as sinful humans we suppress the truth of God (our consciences) and replace it with a lie (what we feel is true). This is the foundation of sin.

Hi RC1970,


Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post, I really appreciate your input and point of view. Unfortunately, I feel like I am still missing the answer to my question. The question at hand is whether or not it is morally right to call someone to come to you, even when they can’t, and then punish them when they don’t. Morals are absolute, not relative. This action is either morally right or it’s morally wrong, just or unjust. If it is morally right and just, then please explain to me why humans universally would tell you that their conscience (which was given to them by God, and testifies to His standard) defines this action as morally wrong and unjust. If it’s morally wrong and unjust---and therefore contrary to God’s nature and in violation of His standard of justice---then please explain to me why God would do this, and how he could do it since it is contrary to who He is.


In reading over your post, there appears to be the assumption that there is something outside of our God-given conscience that tells us what is morally right or wrong. But we only have one conscience. We don’t have a “God-given conscience” and then a “man-made conscience”. I can see how we might decide that we know better than God and rebel against him, but we still know deep down that what we are doing is wrong because our God-given conscience tells us so. I agree with you that Romans 1 says that mankind rejects/suppresses God’s truth (our conscience) and replaces it with a lie when we choose to act in rebellion against God, but even when we do that it’s our God-given conscience that tells us that what we are doing is wrong. That’s why we are liable for the sins we commit. It’s also how we can relate to God. We use analogies of court cases and payments of debts when witnessing to the unsaved to illustrate the concepts that our sin must be punished, that our good deeds don’t outweigh our bad and how Christ substituted himself for us. That’s because we can look at an analogy like that using our God-given conscience and say, “Yes, I see how God is being just in punishing my sin. I see how it is just that I receive the penalty for sin even if I only sinned once. I see why Christ needed to die for me in order for justice to be served and how I can be set free if I accept that sacrifice.” The universal concepts of what is morally right or morally wrong, of what is just or unjust, come from God because He gave them to us in our conscience.


Thank you again for your time, I look forward to discussing this with you further.


In the love of Christ,


Gavino

 

[Gavino]

I would not use either of the first two. They are vague and lazy. I would also not use the third reply because I do not quote John Calvin in response to non-Calvinists. It would be rather purposeless. I would rather point out the fact that it is not unjust on God's part to condemn unrepentant individuals because they are sinners. Everyone by default is hellbound because of their sinful nature. Therefore, anyone who is condemned to hell is an example of God's justice. Anyone who is not condemned to hell is an example of His mercy. If anything it is unjust that there are people who do not go to hell.

Hi tstor,


Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. I would agree with you that God is just to condemn our willful sin. The question at hand, however, is the fact that according to Calvinism, God calls men to repent---even though they can’t---and then condemns them when they don’t. Our conscience, which testifies to God’s standard, tells us that this is unjust. If it is unjust according to God’s standard, is it something He would do? No, because God is just and He cannot go against His own nature. As such, at this point in time I cannot accept Calvinism as true because it ascribes actions to God that are unjust and contrary to His nature.


Thank you for your time, I look forward to discussing this with you further.


In the love of Christ,


Gavino

 

[Hammster]

I think the issue is that's it's not that the reprobate cannot come to Christ, but that he will not.

So then the question would be, is God morally obligated to save those who want nothing to do with Him?

 

[RC1970]

Hi RC1970,


Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post, I really appreciate your input and point of view. Unfortunately, I feel like I am still missing the answer to my question. The question at hand is whether or not it is morally right to call someone to come to you, even when they can’t, and then punish them when they don’t. Morals are absolute, not relative. This action is either morally right or it’s morally wrong, just or unjust. If it is morally right and just, then please explain to me why humans universally would tell you that their conscience (which was given to them by God, and testifies to His standard) defines this action as morally wrong and unjust. If it’s morally wrong and unjust---and therefore contrary to God’s nature and in violation of His standard of justice---then please explain to me why God would do this, and how he could do it since it is contrary to who He is.


In reading over your post, there appears to be the assumption that there is something outside of our God-given conscience that tells us what is morally right or wrong. But we only have one conscience. We don’t have a “God-given conscience” and then a “man-made conscience”. I can see how we might decide that we know better than God and rebel against him, but we still know deep down that what we are doing is wrong because our God-given conscience tells us so. I agree with you that Romans 1 says that mankind rejects/suppresses God’s truth (our conscience) and replaces it with a lie when we choose to act in rebellion against God, but even when we do that it’s our God-given conscience that tells us that what we are doing is wrong. That’s why we are liable for the sins we commit. It’s also how we can relate to God. We use analogies of court cases and payments of debts when witnessing to the unsaved to illustrate the concepts that our sin must be punished, that our good deeds don’t outweigh our bad and how Christ substituted himself for us. That’s because we can look at an analogy like that using our God-given conscience and say, “Yes, I see how God is being just in punishing my sin. I see how it is just that I receive the penalty for sin even if I only sinned once. I see why Christ needed to die for me in order for justice to be served and how I can be set free if I accept that sacrifice.” The universal concepts of what is morally right or morally wrong, of what is just or unjust, come from God because He gave them to us in our conscience.


Thank you again for your time, I look forward to discussing this with you further.


In the love of Christ,


Gavino

Since God knows who will chose to come to Christ and who won't, wouldn't it have been better if God had not created those who He knew were not going to be obedient?

Doesn't justice demand that we do everything we can to prevent someone from doing something unjust, especially when we know what they are going to do and it is within our power to stop them?

God knew, before He created them, that they would be rebellious to the end, and because of this, He was going to have to consign them to hell for eternity? Shouldn't He have just not create them in the first place? Wouldn't that be more just?

See Romans chapter 9 for the answer.

 

[Gavino]

I think the issue is that's it's not that the reprobate cannot come to Christ, but that he will not.

So then the question would be, is God morally obligated to save those who want nothing to do with Him?

Hi Hammster,


Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. Unfortunately, I’m afraid other Calvinists would disagree with you; all of the Calvinists with whom I have spoken and all of the Calvinist works I have read appear to emphatically affirm that man cannot come to God. This is because of the doctrine of regeneration before faith. Please see below a few examples I pulled from the web:



“…men are dead in trespasses and sins and totally unable to respond to Christ until He raises them from the dead through regeneration…” – swrb.com


“…a sinner absolutely cannot (notice it is not "will" not) come to Christ until God first does something in that sinner's nature.” – monergism.com (emphasis NOT mine)


“Reformed theology teaches that regeneration precedes faith through the doctrine of Total Depravity. Before regeneration a sinner is dead and until the sinner is regenerated and given a new nature, the sinner cannot believe.” – Wikipedia


“The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man's true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot.” – carm.org


“By total inability Calvin meant that a lost sinner cannot come to Jesus Christ and trust Him as Savior…” – Jesus-is-savior.com


“If we are dead in our sins, as the Bible clearly teaches, then before we can respond to the gospel message and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ we must first be made alive.” – gotquestions.org


“You CANNOT "choose" anything because you are DEAD. Dead men/women CANNOT make a choice. They CANNOT revive themselves. They CANNOT regenerate themselves….you CANNOT choose…” – reformationtheology.com (emphasis NOT mine)



The doctrine of regeneration before faith is a great discussion topic and I would love to delve into that with you at some point, but at the moment that doctrine is moot point if Calvinism cannot survive without relativism. I would ask you the same question I asked of RC1970, is it morally right to call someone to come to you, even when they can’t, and then punish them when they don’t? Morals are absolute, not relative. This action is either morally right or it’s morally wrong, just or unjust. If it is morally right and just, then please explain to me why humans universally would tell you that their conscience (which was given to them by God, and testifies to His standard) defines this action as morally wrong and unjust. If it’s morally wrong and unjust---and therefore contrary to God’s nature and in violation of His standard of justice---then please explain to me why God would do this, and how he could do it since it is contrary to who He is.


Thank you for your time and input, I look forward to discussing this with you further.


In the love of Christ,


Gavino

 

[Hammster]

Hi Hammster,


Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. Unfortunately, I’m afraid other Calvinists would disagree with you; all of the Calvinists with whom I have spoken and all of the Calvinist works I have read appear to emphatically affirm that man cannot come to God. This is because of the doctrine of regeneration before faith. Please see below a few examples I pulled from the web:



“…men are dead in trespasses and sins and totally unable to respond to Christ until He raises them from the dead through regeneration…” – swrb.com


“…a sinner absolutely cannot (notice it is not "will" not) come to Christ until God first does something in that sinner's nature.” – monergism.com (emphasis NOT mine)


“Reformed theology teaches that regeneration precedes faith through the doctrine of Total Depravity. Before regeneration a sinner is dead and until the sinner is regenerated and given a new nature, the sinner cannot believe.” – Wikipedia


“The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man's true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot.” – carm.org


“By total inability Calvin meant that a lost sinner cannot come to Jesus Christ and trust Him as Savior…” – Jesus-is-savior.com


“If we are dead in our sins, as the Bible clearly teaches, then before we can respond to the gospel message and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ we must first be made alive.” – gotquestions.org


“You CANNOT "choose" anything because you are DEAD. Dead men/women CANNOT make a choice. They CANNOT revive themselves. They CANNOT regenerate themselves….you CANNOT choose…” – reformationtheology.com (emphasis NOT mine)



The doctrine of regeneration before faith is a great discussion topic and I would love to delve into that with you at some point, but at the moment that doctrine is moot point if Calvinism cannot survive without relativism. I would ask you the same question I asked of RC1970, is it morally right to call someone to come to you, even when they can’t, and then punish them when they don’t? Morals are absolute, not relative. This action is either morally right or it’s morally wrong, just or unjust. If it is morally right and just, then please explain to me why humans universally would tell you that their conscience (which was given to them by God, and testifies to His standard) defines this action as morally wrong and unjust. If it’s morally wrong and unjust---and therefore contrary to God’s nature and in violation of His standard of justice---then please explain to me why God would do this, and how he could do it since it is contrary to who He is.


Thank you for your time and input, I look forward to discussing this with you further.


In the love of Christ,


Gavino

I would agree with "cannot" if it's understood correctly. Pulling sentences out without examining the context probably will not help.

It's not a physical "cannot". It's a moral cannot. It's more in line with, for example, when we sin. There's a moment that we sin that we can decide not to sin. However, we still sin, even when we don't really want to.

There's no person who is reprobate that wants to come to Christ, but is prohibited.

 

[Hammster]

One question to answer is, is God obligated to save anyone? If He is not, then He is free to save whomever He pleases without condition. That's grace.

 

[Gavino]

Since God knows who will chose to come to Christ and who won't, wouldn't it have been better if God had not created those who He knew were not going to be obedient?

Doesn't justice demand that we do everything we can to prevent someone from doing something unjust, especially when we know what they are going to do and it is within our power to stop them?

God knew, before He created them, that they would be rebellious to the end, and because of this, He was going to have to consign them to hell for eternity? Shouldn't He have just not create them in the first place? Wouldn't that be more just?

See Romans chapter 9 for the answer.

Hi RC1970,


Thank you for your reply. The questions you pose (“Wouldn’t it have been better if God hadn’t created them at all?”) certainly fall into the realm of a discussion of God’s love and purpose in His creation, but not His justice. We can certainly have a discussion on God’s love at some point, but at the moment I am still waiting to hear an answer as to whether or not the actions Calvinism ascribes to God are morally right and just according to God’s standard that is on our hearts. I’ve never heard justice defined as “doing everything we can to prevent someone from doing something unjust, especially when we know what they are going to do and it is within our power to stop them”; that’s like a scene out of Minority Report, arresting people for crimes that they were going to commit in the future. Some of the definitions of justice that I found include the following:

1. Just behavior and treatment; the quality of being fair and reasonable
2. The maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments
3. The quality of being just, impartial, or fair
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or reason

Justice has to do with the rewards and/or retributions given for a person’s actions, or in this case whether or not the actions required of someone are fair and just. Commanding someone to do something assumes that they can, in fact, obey. What if your boss asked you to do 10,000 projects in one week, without any help whatsoever, and each project took at minimum 30 minutes? You would only complete 336 by the end of the week, and that’s assuming no sleep. But you would count your boss as being very unjust if he fired you at the end of the week. Why? Because he asked you to do the impossible, and it would be unjust for him to fire you when you didn’t do something that you couldn’t do. Again, our God-given conscience tells us that commanding someone to do something assumes that they can, in fact, obey.


In the end, you still appear to be defending the relativistic idea that morals are subjective and that God has one standard while we have another, as opposed to the absolutistic idea that God gave us the one and only standard so that we can understand, love and obey Him. Romans 9 is a fantastic chapter, and I certainly have an interpretation for it, but as long as you are approaching the chapter from relativism and I am approaching it from absolutism we will never see eye-to-eye on it. The question remains, and I would truly like to hear your answer: is it morally right to call someone to come to you, even when they can’t, and then punish them when they don’t? Morals are absolute, not relative. This action is either morally right or it’s morally wrong, just or unjust. If it is morally right and just, then please explain to me why humans universally would tell you that their conscience (which was given to them by God, and testifies to His standard) defines this action as morally wrong and unjust. If it’s morally wrong and unjust---and therefore contrary to God’s nature and in violation of His standard of justice---then please explain to me why God would do this, and how he could do it since it is contrary to who He is.


Thank you again for the discussion, I appreciate your input!


In the love of Christ,


Gavino

 

[Gavino]

I would agree with "cannot" if it's understood correctly. Pulling sentences out without examining the context probably will not help.

It's not a physical "cannot". It's a moral cannot. It's more in line with, for example, when we sin. There's a moment that we sin that we can decide not to sin. However, we still sin, even when we don't really want to.

There's no person who is reprobate that wants to come to Christ, but is prohibited.

One question to answer is, is God obligated to save anyone? If He is not, then He is free to save whomever He pleases without condition. That's grace.

Hi Hammster,


Thank you for your reply. After reading your post, I’m afraid that the issue appears to remain the same. As far as I can see, “cannot” is still “cannot”. If I were to ask you, “Is it at all possible for an unregenerate man to respond to God in faith?”, I feel certain you would answer, “No.” If it is not possible, then it is impossible; if it is impossible for them to respond in faith, then they can’t do it. And we are back at the question, to which I should truly like to hear an answer: is it morally right to call someone to come to you, even when they can’t, and then punish them when they don’t?


We can certainly talk about what obligation God may or may not have at some point, and I would enjoy discussing that with you in the future, but right now my question has to do with God’s justice and the actions that Calvinism ascribes to God. Calvinism tells me that God calls men to come to Him, even though they can’t, and condemns them when they don’t. My God-given conscience tells me that, according to God’s standard, this is unjust. God is just in His very nature, which means that He is just to all men, at all times, in all situations. Therefore, God would not do this. So again we come back to the question: is it morally right to call someone to come to you, even when they can’t, and then punish them when they don’t? Morals are absolute, not relative. This action is either morally right or it’s morally wrong, just or unjust. If it is morally right and just, then please explain to me why humans universally would tell you that their conscience (which was given to them by God, and testifies to His standard) defines this action as morally wrong and unjust. If it’s morally wrong and unjust---and therefore contrary to God’s nature and in violation of His standard of justice---then please explain to me why God would do this, and how he could do it since it is contrary to who He is.


Thank you for your time and thoughts!


In the love of Christ,


Gavino

 

[Hammster]

Hi Hammster,


Thank you for your reply. After reading your post, I’m afraid that the issue appears to remain the same. As far as I can see, “cannot” is still “cannot”. If I were to ask you, “Is it at all possible for an unregenerate man to respond to God in faith?”, I feel certain you would answer, “No.” If it is not possible, then it is impossible; if it is impossible for them to respond in faith, then they can’t do it. And we are back at the question, to which I should truly like to hear an answer: is it morally right to call someone to come to you, even when they can’t, and then punish them when they don’t?


We can certainly talk about what obligation God may or may not have at some point, and I would enjoy discussing that with you in the future, but right now my question has to do with God’s justice and the actions that Calvinism ascribes to God. Calvinism tells me that God calls men to come to Him, even though they can’t, and condemns them when they don’t. My God-given conscience tells me that, according to God’s standard, this is unjust. God is just in His very nature, which means that He is just to all men, at all times, in all situations. Therefore, God would not do this. So again we come back to the question: is it morally right to call someone to come to you, even when they can’t, and then punish them when they don’t? Morals are absolute, not relative. This action is either morally right or it’s morally wrong, just or unjust. If it is morally right and just, then please explain to me why humans universally would tell you that their conscience (which was given to them by God, and testifies to His standard) defines this action as morally wrong and unjust. If it’s morally wrong and unjust---and therefore contrary to God’s nature and in violation of His standard of justice---then please explain to me why God would do this, and how he could do it since it is contrary to who He is.


Thank you for your time and thoughts!


In the love of Christ,


Gavino

Maybe baby steps will help. God does not condemn anyone for not coming. They are condemned for sin.

 

[Gavino]

Maybe baby steps will help. God does not condemn anyone for not coming. They are condemned for sin.

Hi Hammster,


Wow, man…“baby steps”? I have to tell you, acting in a condescending manner and insulting the person engaging in discussion with you merely signals to them that the strength of your argument is weak enough that you feel obliged to attack the person rather than the argument in order to gain better footing. This conclusion is further bolstered by the fact that you have yet to answer my question. Just being honest here, how do you expect to convince me that Calvinism is true if you refuse to answer my original questions and resort to insults when pressed? I have been striving throughout this conversation to be polite, respectful and loving, and all I request is the same in return as we discuss the doctrine of our Lord. If I have said something that offended you or struck you as disrespectful or impolite, please let me know and I will gladly rectify that.


“God does not condemn anyone for not coming”? I say this with all due respect, sir, but I’m afraid that I find that statement rather unbiblical. Not coming could also be referred to as not believing, not believing is also called unbelief, and unbelief is a sin. Jesus said, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). On judgment day people will go to hell for the sins they have committed, the primary sin being the rejection of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (unbelief). According to Calvinism, God calls men to believe, which they cannot do, and then condemns them for not believing (unbelief). Again, the question remains: is it morally right to call someone to come to you, even when they can’t, and then punish them when they don’t? Morals are absolute, not relative. This action is either morally right or it’s morally wrong, just or unjust. If it is morally right and just, then please explain to me why humans universally would tell you that their conscience (which was given to them by God, and testifies to His standard) defines this action as morally wrong and unjust. If it’s morally wrong and unjust---and therefore contrary to God’s nature and in violation of His standard of justice---then please explain to me why God would do this, and how he could do it since it is contrary to who He is.



Thank you for the discussion! Have a great evening!


In the love of Christ,


Gavino

 

[Hammster]

It wasn't an insult, so I'm sorry you took it that way. You just have so much in your posts that it's really not possible to address every point in each post. So I took the one part that was in error and tried to correct it.

I stand by my answer. While unbelief is indeed a sin, it's not the only one that condemns. I used to not believe, and I am not condemned. The wages of sin (not sins) is death. It's not any individual sin that condemns us. We are sinners by nature. So as goats act like goats because they are goats, we sin because we are sinners. That's what condemns. It's only by God's grace that He chooses to save anyone, and if chose not so save anyone, He'd be just.