How is it possible for a man to be responsible under Calvinism?

[janxharris]

If desire and will are predetermined by God and we can only choose what we most desire then a man's choice cannot but accord with this. The attempt to maintain man's responsibility by 'offering' the reprobate salvation if he would but 'become' willing is spurious. Why? Because the theoretical case of a man desiring what has not been foreordained is not allowed by the Calvinist. If you ask me to take one toffee from a box containing one-hundred identical toffees, the Calvinist says that only one toffee, the one God preordained me to pick, will be picked. Even though all toffees are equally appealing to me, and I consider that I could pick any one, my desire counts for nothing - if it wasn't preordained, it won't happen. In other words, I will only desire the one that God predetermined I would pick. It's a similar picture when it comes to salvation. If it wasn't preordained it won't happen.

How is it possible for a man to be responsible if one holds to this view? Only if one believes in the eternal decree of God does one reach such an impasse. In the Arminian view, I am free to pick any one of the toffees. God did not predetermine which one I would pick. However, God in his omniscience knew from eternity which one I would pick and thus God's sovereignty and man's responsible remain intact.

 

[Hammster]

Men, by nature, desire sin. That's what they are responsible for. That's what they are punished for in hell. That's what Christ suffered for on the cross for His sheep. I don't know why this is hard to grasp.

 

[janxharris]

Men, by nature, desire sin. That's what they are responsible for. That's what they are punished for in hell. That's what Christ suffered for on the cross for His sheep. I don't know why this is hard to grasp.

That would be the Arminian position.

You only punish someone when a real alternative to their misdeed was actualizable. It seems that now you believe in LFW (Libertarian Free Will)

For those that aren't sure:
Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.

 

[harrisrose77]

If desire and will are predetermined by God and we can only choose what we most desire then a man's choice cannot but accord with this. The attempt to maintain man's responsibility by 'offering' the reprobate salvation if he would but 'become' willing is spurious. Why? Because the theoretical case of a man desiring what has not been foreordained is not allowed by the Calvinist. If you ask me to take one toffee from a box containing one-hundred identical toffees, the Calvinist says that only one toffee, the one God preordained me to pick, will be picked. Even though all toffees are equally appealing to me, and I consider that I could pick any one, my desire counts for nothing - if it wasn't preordained, it won't happen. In other words, I will only desire the one that God predetermined I would pick. It's a similar picture when it comes to salvation. If it wasn't preordained it won't happen.

How is it possible for a man to be responsible if one holds to this view? Only if one believes in the eternal decree of God does one reach such an impasse. In the Arminian view, I am free to pick any one of the toffees. God did not predetermine which one I would pick. However, God in his omniscience knew from eternity which one I would pick and thus God's sovereignty and man's responsible remain intact.

Exactly! God foreknew, and therefore was able to foreordain according to His Sovereign plan.
Take Pontious Pilate; born to become a man with power & authority, but Jesus told him he'd have NO power or authority lest it be given him from above, by the Father in heaven. The same with Pharoah in Egypt, in the OT. God is in control with man's choice, that God knew from before the foundations of His creation.. Romans 9:17 & John 19:11
'DELIGHT YOURSELF in the Lord & He will give you the desires of your heart'. Psalm 37:4

I think Forest Gump had more wisdom than the Calvin doctrine, when he said "Life is like a box of chocolates, you just don't know which on you're gonna get."

 

[harrisrose77]

Men, by nature, desire sin. That's what they are responsible for. That's what they are punished for in hell. That's what Christ suffered for on the cross for His sheep. I don't know why this is hard to grasp.

I don't know you, or what your doctorates, and qualification may be. But you are wrong to suggest that man is totally responsible for his sin. Sin did come through one man's disobedience, in the beginning. However, sin consciousness still needed the Law to make man understand what sin meant to God and His Holy righteousness. Man was not aware what sin would bring, no more than a new born baby knows that they are going to die, because of it. Sin is the condition from man's ORIGINAL fall from God's grace, but he is BORN into it, without ANY other choice. This is why sin consciousness comes through knowing right from wrong. God's Laws have taught man how grievous his sin is to God, who cannot look upon it. This is and always was the reason for a 'covering blood atonement', Of which Jesus was the Last and final Atonement Covering for ALL who would receive, of which God already knew who would accept it.
The Sin debt had to be paid, and God paid it Himself.

 

[janxharris]

God's knowledge of contingent and future events:

1 Samuel 23:9-13
When David learned that Saul was plotting against him, he said to Abiathar the priest, “Bring the ephod.” David said, “Lord, God of Israel, your servant has heard definitely that Saul plans to come to Keilah and destroy the town on account of me. Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me to him? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? Lord, God of Israel, tell your servant.” And the Lord said, “He will.” Again David asked, “Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me and my men to Saul?” And the Lord said, “They will.” So David and his men, about six hundred in number, left Keilah and kept moving from place to place. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he did not go there.

Deuteronomy 31:15.16
Then the Lord appeared at the tent in a pillar of cloud, and the cloud stood over the entrance to the tent. And the Lord said to Moses: “You are going to rest with your ancestors, and these people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the land they are entering. They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them.

Matthew 11:23,24
And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”

So, according to Matthew 11, we will be judged for actual and contingent events.

 

[Hammster]

That would be the Arminian position.

You only punish someone when a real alternative to their misdeed was actualizable. It seems that now you believe in LFW (Libertarian Free Will)

For those that aren't sure:
Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.

You punish someone when they willfully sin. Calvinists and Arminians agree on this. And we also agree that, apart from God working in a person, that person would never turn to God. The difference is that in Arminianism, it's prevenient grace and it brings a man to a point of neutrality. He can choose to believe, or choose to reject. In Calvinism, it's regeneration and he will always choose to believe.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

If desire and will are predetermined by God and we can only choose what we most desire then a man's choice cannot but accord with this. The attempt to maintain man's responsibility by 'offering' the reprobate salvation if he would but 'become' willing is spurious. Why? Because the theoretical case of a man desiring what has not been foreordained is not allowed by the Calvinist. If you ask me to take one toffee from a box containing one-hundred identical toffees, the Calvinist says that only one toffee, the one God preordained me to pick, will be picked. Even though all toffees are equally appealing to me, and I consider that I could pick any one, my desire counts for nothing - if it wasn't preordained, it won't happen. In other words, I will only desire the one that God predetermined I would pick. It's a similar picture when it comes to salvation. If it wasn't preordained it won't happen.

How is it possible for a man to be responsible if one holds to this view? Only if one believes in the eternal decree of God does one reach such an impasse. In the Arminian view, I am free to pick any one of the toffees. God did not predetermine which one I would pick. However, God in his omniscience knew from eternity which one I would pick and thus God's sovereignty and man's responsible remain intact.

Here is your answer:

The permissive decree relates only to moral evil. Sin is the sole and solitary object of this species of decree. It renders the event infallibly certain, But not by immediately acting upon and in the finite will, As in the case of the efficacious decree. God does not work in man or angel “to will and to do," when man or angel wills and acts antagonistically to him. Acts 14: 16," who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways." Acts 17: 30,"The times of this ignorance God overlooked". Psalm 78: 18," He gave them their own desire." Psalm 106: 15," he gave them their own request." As sin constitutes only a small sphere in comparison with the whole universe, the scope of the permissive decree is very limited compared with that of the efficient decree. Sin is an endless evil, but fills only a corner of the universe. Hell is a hole or “pit." It is deep, but not wide; bottomless, but not boundless. The permissive decree is a decree: (a) not to hinder the sinful self-determination of the finite will. (b) to regulate and control the results of the sinful self-determination." God's permissive will is his will to permit whatsoever he thinks it to permit, or, Not to hinder; While what he so wills or determines so to permit he intends also to regulate, and not to behold as an idle unconcerned spectator, but to dispose all those permissa unto wise and great ends of his own." It should be observed in permitting sin, God permits what he forbids. The permissive decree is not indicative of what God approves and is pleasing to him. God decrees what he hates and abhors, when he brings sin within the scope of his universal plan. Calvin: The “good pleasure”, in accordance with which God permits sin, must not be confounded with the pleasure or complacency in accordance with which he promulgates the moral law forbidding sin. The term "good pleasure" has the meaning of "pleasure" in the phrase, "be pleased, or please to do me this favor." What is asked for, Is a decision to do the favor. The performance of the favor may involve pain, not pleasure; it may require a sacrifice of pleasure on the part of the one who is to "Be pleased” to do it. Again, when the permissive decree is denominated the divine will, The term"will" is employed in the narrow sense of volition, not in the wide sense of inclination. The will of God, in this case, is only a particular decision, in order to some ulterior end. This particular decision, considered in itself, may be contrary to the abiding inclination and desire of God as founded in his holy nature; As when a man by a volution decides to perform a particular act which in itself is unpleasant, in order to attain an ulterior end that is agreeable. Again, in saying that sin is in accordance with the divine will, the term"will" implies"control." As when we say of a physician,"The disease is wholly at his will." This does not mean that the physician takes pleasure in willing the disease, But that he can cure it. This brings to notice the principal practical value of the doctrine that God decrees sin. It establishes the divine sovereignty over the entire universe. By reason of his permissive decree, God has absolute control over moral evil, while yet he is not the author of it, and forbids it. Unless he permitted sin, it could not come to pass. Should he decide to preserve the will of the holy angels, or the holy man, from lapsing, the man or the angel would persevere in holiness. Sin is preventable by Almighty God, and therefore he is sovereign over sin and hell, as well as over holiness in heaven. This is the truth which God spoke to Cyrus, to contradict the Persian dualism:" I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things,” Isaiah 45:7. compare Amos 3:6," shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?" Genesis 20:6 "I withheld thee from sinning against me. "to deny this truth, logically leads to the doctrine of the Independence of evil, And the doctrine of the independence of evil is dualism, and irreconcilable with monotheism." - W.G.T. Shedd

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

Here is your answer:

The permissive decree relates only to moral evil. Sin is the sole and solitary object of this species of decree. It renders the event infallibly certain, But not by immediately acting upon and in the finite will, As in the case of the efficacious decree. God does not work in man or angel “to will and to do," when man or angel wills and acts antagonistically to him. Acts 14: 16," who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways." Acts 17: 30,"The times of this ignorance God overlooked". Psalm 78: 18," He gave them their own desire." Psalm 106: 15," he gave them their own request." As sin constitutes only a small sphere in comparison with the whole universe, the scope of the permissive decree is very limited compared with that of the efficient decree. Sin is an endless evil, but fills only a corner of the universe. Hell is a hole or “pit." It is deep, but not wide; bottomless, but not boundless. The permissive decree is a decree: (a) not to hinder the sinful self-determination of the finite will. (b) to regulate and control the results of the sinful self-determination." God's permissive will is his will to permit whatsoever he thinks it to permit, or, Not to hinder; While what he so wills or determines so to permit he intends also to regulate, and not to behold as an idle unconcerned spectator, but to dispose all those permissa unto wise and great ends of his own." It should be observed in permitting sin, God permits what he forbids. The permissive decree is not indicative of what God approves and is pleasing to him. God decrees what he hates and abhors, when he brings sin within the scope of his universal plan. Calvin: The “good pleasure”, in accordance with which God permits sin, must not be confounded with the pleasure or complacency in accordance with which he promulgates the moral law forbidding sin. The term "good pleasure" has the meaning of "pleasure" in the phrase, "be pleased, or please to do me this favor." What is asked for, Is a decision to do the favor. The performance of the favor may involve pain, not pleasure; it may require a sacrifice of pleasure on the part of the one who is to "Be pleased” to do it. Again, when the permissive decree is denominated the divine will, The term"will" is employed in the narrow sense of volition, not in the wide sense of inclination. The will of God, in this case, is only a particular decision, in order to some ulterior end. This particular decision, considered in itself, may be contrary to the abiding inclination and desire of God as founded in his holy nature; As when a man by a volution decides to perform a particular act which in itself is unpleasant, in order to attain an ulterior end that is agreeable. Again, in saying that sin is in accordance with the divine will, the term"will" implies"control." As when we say of a physician,"The disease is wholly at his will." This does not mean that the physician takes pleasure in willing the disease, But that he can cure it. This brings to notice the principal practical value of the doctrine that God decrees sin. It establishes the divine sovereignty over the entire universe. By reason of his permissive decree, God has absolute control over moral evil, while yet he is not the author of it, and forbids it. Unless he permitted sin, it could not come to pass. Should he decide to preserve the will of the holy angels, or the holy man, from lapsing, the man or the angel would persevere in holiness. Sin is preventable by Almighty God, and therefore he is sovereign over sin and hell, as well as over holiness in heaven. This is the truth which God spoke to Cyrus, to contradict the Persian dualism:" I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things,” Isaiah 45:7. compare Amos 3:6," shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?" Genesis 20:6 "I withheld thee from sinning against me. "to deny this truth, logically leads to the doctrine of the Independence of evil, And the doctrine of the independence of evil is dualism, and irreconcilable with monotheism." - W.G.T. Shedd

I wish Mr. Shedd would have given more Bible passages to confirm what he theorizes.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I wish Mr. Shedd would have given more Bible passages to confirm what he theorizes.

He did mention 7 passages in the quote. Also this is a small excerpt. As you were given opportunity before, maybe you should actually go and familiarize yourself with his work.

It is also true that no matter what position you take on the subject, it will be extremely implicit, not explicit in Scripture. As with a great many doctrines, some which are so very important (Trinity), this is the case and should not be considered a problem.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

He did mention 7 passages in the quote. Also this is a small excerpt. As you were given opportunity before, maybe you should actually go and familiarize yourself with his work.

That is not my desire, but thanks anyway.

It is also true that no matter what position you take on the subject, it will be extremely implicit, not explicit in Scripture. As with a great many doctrines, some which are so very important (Trinity), this is the case and should not be considered a problem.

It's not a problem. If I say the elect of today can lose their salvation by doing the evil the children of Israel (also the elect) did, which would be implicit, most Calvinists would vehemently disagree or want Bible passages to prove it.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

It's not a problem. If I say the elect of today can lose their salvation by doing the evil the children of Israel (also the elect) did, which would be implicit, most Calvinists would vehemently disagree or want Bible passages to prove it.

Please don't understand me to being saying that Scripture has no purpose here. Although a truth may be implicit, it can't remain a truth and be contradictory to another truth. The question is whether you can show the implicit truth is not an actual truth, whether that by Scripture or even some logical construction on top of it.

 

[Skala]

How is it possible for a man to be responsible under Calvinism?

The same way a man is responsible under Janxism.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

Please don't understand me to being saying that Scripture has no purpose here. Although a truth may be implicit, it can't remain a truth and be contradictory to another truth. The question is whether you can show the implicit truth is not an actual truth, whether that by Scripture or even some logical construction on top of it.

I think saying God has this kind of decree or that kind, without any actual passages which specifically say that, is pretty much a guess on man's part. We can't make our guesses into genuine doctrine, for then we make ourselves equal to God in that we think we 'know' what He does.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

The same way a man is responsible under Janxism.

Jan has said man is responsible for sin himself, PERIOD! This excludes any predetermination on God's part. Is this what you believe also?

Or do you believe God has preordained some to heaven and some to hell without taking into account how man will live? Or does God look down the corridor of time and and sees how man will live and then preordain some to heaven and some to hell?

 

[janxharris]

Here is your answer:

The permissive decree relates only to moral evil. Sin is the sole and solitary object of this species of decree. It renders the event infallibly certain, But not by immediately acting upon and in the finite will, As in the case of the efficacious decree. God does not work in man or angel “to will and to do," when man or angel wills and acts antagonistically to him. Acts 14: 16," who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways." Acts 17: 30,"The times of this ignorance God overlooked". Psalm 78: 18," He gave them their own desire." Psalm 106: 15," he gave them their own request."

If God does not work in man when a man acts antagonistically, then, it would seem that the man is able to effect his own will.

As sin constitutes only a small sphere in comparison with the whole universe, the scope of the permissive decree is very limited compared with that of the efficient decree. Sin is an endless evil, but fills only a corner of the universe. Hell is a hole or “pit." It is deep, but not wide; bottomless, but not boundless. The permissive decree is a decree: (a) not to hinder the sinful self-determination of the finite will. (b) to regulate and control the results of the sinful self-determination." God's permissive will is his will to permit whatsoever he thinks it to permit, or, Not to hinder; While what he so wills or determines so to permit he intends also to regulate, and not to behold as an idle unconcerned spectator, but to dispose all those permissa unto wise and great ends of his own."

Same issue. This argument allows man a will that is not subject to God's predetermination. Arminians would agree.

It should be observed in permitting sin, God permits what he forbids. The permissive decree is not indicative of what God approves and is pleasing to him. God decrees what he hates and abhors, when he brings sin within the scope of his universal plan. Calvin: The “good pleasure”, in accordance with which God permits sin, must not be confounded with the pleasure or complacency in accordance with which he promulgates the moral law forbidding sin. The term "good pleasure" has the meaning of "pleasure" in the phrase, "be pleased, or please to do me this favor." What is asked for, Is a decision to do the favor. The performance of the favor may involve pain, not pleasure; it may require a sacrifice of pleasure on the part of the one who is to "Be pleased” to do it. Again, when the permissive decree is denominated the divine will, The term"will" is employed in the narrow sense of volition, not in the wide sense of inclination. The will of God, in this case, is only a particular decision, in order to some ulterior end. This particular decision, considered in itself, may be contrary to the abiding inclination and desire of God as founded in his holy nature; As when a man by a volution decides to perform a particular act which in itself is unpleasant, in order to attain an ulterior end that is agreeable. Again, in saying that sin is in accordance with the divine will, the term"will" implies"control." As when we say of a physician,"The disease is wholly at his will." This does not mean that the physician takes pleasure in willing the disease, But that he can cure it. This brings to notice the principal practical value of the doctrine that God decrees sin. It establishes the divine sovereignty over the entire universe. By reason of his permissive decree, God has absolute control over moral evil, while yet he is not the author of it, and forbids it.

If man is permitted to sin and such occurrences of sinning are not God's will, then the man must be acting against that part of himself (the man's self) that God implanted in the man. If that is true then it surely must be the case that the converse is realizable - that a man may act against the fallen nature that he has inherited since the fall. Does this not prove that anyone, despite their tendency to sin, can in fact turn to God?

Unless he permitted sin, it could not come to pass. Should he decide to preserve the will of the holy angels, or the holy man, from lapsing, the man or the angel would persevere in holiness. Sin is preventable by Almighty God, and therefore he is sovereign over sin and hell, as well as over holiness in heaven.

I don't have a problem with this. In attempting to explain the OP, you (in quoting Mr. Shedd) seem to be edging towards the Arminian position.

This is the truth which God spoke to Cyrus, to contradict the Persian dualism:" I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things,” Isaiah 45:7. compare Amos 3:6," shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?" Genesis 20:6 "I withheld thee from sinning against me. "to deny this truth, logically leads to the doctrine of the Independence of evil, And the doctrine of the independence of evil is dualism, and irreconcilable with monotheism." - W.G.T. Shedd

And yet Shedd has already argued that the sin that is permitted is not God's intention. 'God permits what he forbids'. On the one hand God permits a man to sin and on the other hand evil is...'done by the Lord'.

One can be forgiven for being confused.

 

[janxharris]

The same way a man is responsible under Janxism.

So I can choose any one of the toffees then? I won't desire and therefore choose the one that, supposedly, God predetermined I would desire and therefore choose?

If I can but choose the toffee that Calvinists say was foreordained then I am in no way responsible.

 

[harrisrose77]

If God does not work in man when a man acts antagonistically, then, it would seem that the man is able to effect his own will.



Same issue. This argument allows man a will that is not subject to God's predetermination. Arminians would agree.



If man is permitted to sin and such occurrences of sinning are not God's will, then the man must be acting against that part of himself (the man's self) that God implanted in the man. If that is true then it surely must be the case that the converse is realizable - that a man may act against the fallen nature that he has inherited since the fall. Does this not prove that anyone, despite their tendency to sin, can in fact turn to God?



I don't have a problem with this. In attempting to explain the OP, you (in quoting Mr. Shedd) seem to be edging towards the Arminian position.



And yet Shedd has already argued that the sin that is permitted is not God's intention. 'God permits what he forbids'. On the one hand, God permits a man to sin and on the other hand, evil is...'done by the Lord'.

One can be forgiven for being confused.

Ofcourse, God can never be accused of committing evil.
Why is Satan never ever mentioned on here, not to glorify Him, but to explain why confusion abounds on these pages, is a mystery to me. But maybe not such a mystery when I read what God has to say;

2 Corinthians 4:4
In their case the God of this world has blinded the MINDS of unbelievers to keep them from SEEING the light.

 

[harrisrose77]

Ofcourse, God can never be accused of committing evil.
Why is Satan never ever mentioned on here, not to glorify Him, but to explain why confusion abounds on these pages, is a mystery to me. But maybe not such a mystery when I read what God has to say;

2 Corinthians 4:4
In their case the God of this world has blinded the MINDS of unbelievers to keep them from SEEING the light.

Meant to write 'god', but spelling check wouldn't allow. Sorry.

 

[Hammster]

So I can choose any one of the toffees then? I won't desire and therefore choose the one that, supposedly, God predetermined I would desire and therefore choose?

If I can but choose the toffee that Calvinists say was foreordained then I am in no way responsible.

If the choice of any toffee is sinful (allegorically), and God gets you to choose a certain one (however He does it (See Prov 21:1; Gen 50:20)), then you are still responsible.