Calvinism and Relativism

[RC1970]

That's true, but he endured it all the same. He did not cause the sin, and there is no indication that the sinner had no free will.

Perhaps you ought to explain exactly why you believe the pericope in question undermines the principle that "ought" implies "can."

I was addressing the issue of whether it is just for God to allow for ought-ness without allowing for ability (can).

So, I think we agree everyone ought.

However, you seem to disagree with the following:

"vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" = can't
"vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" = can

 

[jimmyjimmy]

"vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" = can't
"vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" = can

It's always a problem of the will, not the ability. The ability follows the will. They cannot because they will not.

"vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" = cannot because they Will not. They don't will it

"vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" = Will. Because they now have different desires.

 

[zippy2006]

I was addressing the issue of whether it is just for God to allow for ought-ness without allowing for ability (can).

Yes, you initially replied to a post where I argued that "ought" implies "can" and that this truth is contrary to Calvinism.

So, I think we agree everyone ought.

Everyone ought what?

However, you seem to disagree with the following:

"vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" = can't

Can't what?

If you think that the damned can't not-sin, then I disagree. I asked what you see in Romans 9 that determines such an issue. Where in Romans 9 does it say that the damned can't not-sin, that they have no free will?

"vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" = can

Can what?

 

[RC1970]

Yes, you initially replied to a post where I argued that "ought" implies "can" and that this truth is contrary to Calvinism.



Everyone ought what?



Can't what?

If you think that the damned can't not-sin, then I disagree. I asked what you see in Romans 9 that determines such an issue. Where in Romans 9 does it say that the damned can't not-sin, that they have no free will?



Can what?

Sorry Zippy, not going to play the game of regress arguments. You know perfectly well what is meant by "ought" and "can".

"The Lord has made everything for its purpose,
even the wicked for the day of trouble." ~ Proverbs 16:4

 

[zippy2006]

Sorry Zippy, not going to play the game of regress arguments. You know perfectly well what is meant by "ought" and "can".

No I don't, and underlying this is the fact that your sentences are not even grammatically correct. "So, I think we agree everyone ought," is not even a complete sentence.

If you think that some part of Scripture denies the principle that "ought" implies "can" then you are welcome to quote the scripture and explain why it denies the principle. If you are not able to provide any explanation, then you obviously provide no reason to believe that Scripture contradicts such a principle.

 

[RisenInJesus]

"You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" ~ Romans 9:19-23

Zippy, What if?

What if...the message concerns, not personal salvation, but God's Sovereign dealings with nations in accomplishing His purposes through history?

When reading this passage in context, along with related passages it is clear that the spiritual salvation of individuals, especially a predestined, unconditional election, is not the subject of Romans 9. While this passage shows that God, as the Potter, has the right to do as He pleases, there is nothing in the passage which relates to or says that God determines the eternal destiny of individuals to heaven or hell. Vindication of God's judgment regarding the nation of Israel is the primary point.

Also, Paul is referring to the Potter and the clay in the Old Testament in Jeremiah 18, where God tells Jeremiah to watch and learn from the potter at the wheel. There we see that when the clay becomes “marred” in God’s hand, He reserves the right to start over so that He can still bring glory to Himself despite the rebellion of the clay. In other words, He has every right to be glorified by our lives, and will be glorified by our lives, whether by our obedience or by our rebellion. God also declares that if a nation or kingdom (the clay) repents, then He also will repent of the evil He is planning to bring on that nation or kingdom. God clearly teaches through Jeremiah 18 that the “clay” has a choice to repent.
As does (2 Tim. 2:20-21)... But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honor, and some to dishonor. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.

 

[Si_monfaith]

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

God created man without the knowledge of good and evil (kge). So man was naked but under law or kge nakedness is a violation. So man was not created to be a moral being.

Without this kge, man cannot accuse God of injustice.

Rom 9: 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

A choice need not be essentially made on the grounds of kge. It could be made based on one's desire.