- May 26, 2005
- 321
- 47
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
The debate as to whether homosexuality is a sin often revolves around the question whether or not its a choice. But this assumes that something has to be a choice in order for it to be a sin -- which is implicitly an Arminian assumption. So its interesting that Calvinists, too, argue that homosexuality is a choice. Why can't Calvinists say that homosexuality isn't a choice since everyone was predestined to either go to heaven or hell from birth, so including homosexuality as a part of this predestination-package won't be any more unfair? Thus, it would make logical sense if Arminians were to say homosexuality is a choice while Calvinists were to say that it isn't.
However, despite the fact that Arminians would logically be more likely to agree with the statement "homosexuality is a choice", Calvinists would logically be more likely to agree with the statement "homosexuality is a sin". Here is why. The reason for arguing that homosexuality is not a sin (despite Bible clearly teaching that it is), is the fact that, based on secular evidence, homosexuality doesn't seem to be a choice, while sin is a choice. So, again, the underlying assumption here is Arminian: namely, that sin is a choice. So, logically speaking, Calvinist can argue their way out of it by saying "fine, people are born gay, but homosexuality is still a sin, because according to Calvinism every sin is predestined from birth". An Arminian won't be able to argue that way so thats why the Arminian, if faced with a failure of refuting evidence against homosexuality being a choice, would be forced to try to argue that its not a sin.
Combining the two paragraphs above, here is what would happen. An Arminian would, logically, first take "conservative" position and try to argue that homosexuality is a choice. Then, after he fails to make his case, he would, logically, switch to "liberal" side and argue that homosexuality is not a sin. On the other hand, Calvinist would logically be fine simply maintaining a fixed point of view that partly agrees with liberals and partly with conservatives, namely "homosexuality is not a choice but its still a sin, since those people were predestined to sin".
Now, you might notice that in the above I didn't say they "believe" something; I only said "one would logically expect them to believe it" (with the word logically being key word). Because I don't think the actual opinion survey would confirm what I would logically expect in the above discussion. Why not? One logical explanation is maybe because Calvinists used to be Arminians prior to converting to Calvinism. So, back in their Arminian past, they had to say homosexuality is a choice. And then, after they became Calvinist, they never came back to re-evaluate their perspective. Either that, or a different explanation is that Calvinists want to give people milk before giving them hard meat. Openly admitting to predestination would be hard meat that many people can't bear. So, in order to give them milk (since the discussion in question is the one with either non-believers or not true believers) they have to pretend to be Arminian and then argue from Arminian viewpoint.
However, despite the fact that Arminians would logically be more likely to agree with the statement "homosexuality is a choice", Calvinists would logically be more likely to agree with the statement "homosexuality is a sin". Here is why. The reason for arguing that homosexuality is not a sin (despite Bible clearly teaching that it is), is the fact that, based on secular evidence, homosexuality doesn't seem to be a choice, while sin is a choice. So, again, the underlying assumption here is Arminian: namely, that sin is a choice. So, logically speaking, Calvinist can argue their way out of it by saying "fine, people are born gay, but homosexuality is still a sin, because according to Calvinism every sin is predestined from birth". An Arminian won't be able to argue that way so thats why the Arminian, if faced with a failure of refuting evidence against homosexuality being a choice, would be forced to try to argue that its not a sin.
Combining the two paragraphs above, here is what would happen. An Arminian would, logically, first take "conservative" position and try to argue that homosexuality is a choice. Then, after he fails to make his case, he would, logically, switch to "liberal" side and argue that homosexuality is not a sin. On the other hand, Calvinist would logically be fine simply maintaining a fixed point of view that partly agrees with liberals and partly with conservatives, namely "homosexuality is not a choice but its still a sin, since those people were predestined to sin".
Now, you might notice that in the above I didn't say they "believe" something; I only said "one would logically expect them to believe it" (with the word logically being key word). Because I don't think the actual opinion survey would confirm what I would logically expect in the above discussion. Why not? One logical explanation is maybe because Calvinists used to be Arminians prior to converting to Calvinism. So, back in their Arminian past, they had to say homosexuality is a choice. And then, after they became Calvinist, they never came back to re-evaluate their perspective. Either that, or a different explanation is that Calvinists want to give people milk before giving them hard meat. Openly admitting to predestination would be hard meat that many people can't bear. So, in order to give them milk (since the discussion in question is the one with either non-believers or not true believers) they have to pretend to be Arminian and then argue from Arminian viewpoint.