Calvinism and Open Theism are strange bedfellows?

Exactly. Libertarian free will (LFW) is totally illogical and cannot solve the problem of moral responsibility.

LFW argues that one can only be responsible for an action if, all things being what they are, he could have done otherwise. Although this seems perfectly reasonable, it is neither complete, nor realistic. Let's see how well that works in several examples:

1. You are tried in a court for murder and the evidence is overwhelming that you are guilty. You pulled the trigger on the gun! The judge is deliberating on a sentence based on your motivation for committing the act. If you pulled the trigger with an intention, then it cannot be said that you could have done "otherwise" in the same situation, because your same motivation could not have resulted in you not pulling the trigger. Your attorney attempts to tell the judge that you were not in your right mind, and therefore, there was no real intent in the act. You were under the influence of something, and therefore your action was essentially "random." In other words, you could have done otherwise. Therefore, he argues that you are not responsible for the action, and he tells you to plead insanity.

2. You are in a game show and you are offered a choice between two doors. You will walk through the door of your choice and receive whatever is beyond that door. You choose door #2 and proceed through it. You unexpectedly fall down a pit and onto a searing hot floor. You shout at the host and say "Hey, that is not fair!" The host says, "Why not? You could have chosen door #1. You are responsible for your choice because you could have chosen otherwise."

This is why neither hard determinism (robotic) nor libertarian free will correctly assign moral responsibility. Divine compatibilism is better because it says that the creature makes choices without coercion from outside, but that these choices must align with the creature's nature and his greatest internal desire. LFW necessarily argues that, although nature and greatest desire can "influence" choices, man can ultimately act contrary to anything internal, which is illogical. Upon what logical basis is such a choice made (the definition of insanity), and exactly how can such a choice be culpable? We are responsible precisely because we act according to our nature and greatest desire, and it is motivation and purpose in any act (the "reason") that makes an act morally subject.

 

Reply to AresMan,

No Calvinism avoids the logical necessity of God being the author of sin if everything is predetermined, caused, by God.

Very true, Hyper-Calvinists do not make apology for God causing each and every murder and rape.

Yes, that is the problem of Closed Theism that is being addressed by saying God is not the author of sin.

First those who reject closed theism are rejecting both views, Calvinism's everything is predestined and Arminianism's view that knowing the future does not predetermine it.

To reject Closed Theism does not require acceptance of the premise God is not trustworthy. But it is true God's statements of coming judgment are tempered with mercy, so God can say "in forty more days, Nineveh will be overturned." But later relent and not bring the calamity. This does not make God untrustworthy or mistaken, but it does put on display His immutable attribute of justice tempered with mercy. Further, it is not necessary to demean God by saying He makes mistakes. His judgments are perfect with or without Him having mercy on those of His choosing.

 

This is simply a rewrite of the meaning of choice to mean non choice. Instead of God predetermining the outcome of a choice, which makes it a non-choice because only one outcome is possible, compatibilism simply replaces God with the past, so we can only choose what our past dictates, and since we were conceived in iniquity, our fallen past dictates that we will always choose death and not life. Scripture, however, says God sets before us life or death and pleads with us to choose life. Therefore the premise that God or compatibilism dictates that we choose death and therefore have no choice, simply rewrites scripture as says God sets life before some, His elect, and death before others, but that is not what scripture actually says.

 

Sure, the fact that we make informed choices with "free moral agency" makes us morally culpable. However, when you try to remove any reasonable basis for the action performed, you are question begging and argue from an "appeal to mystery." Yet, this mystery is the mantra by which people try to argue autonomous libertarian free will.

I lied, first of all, because I am a sinner by nature. However, because I did so willfully with purpose, and without outside coercion (no one put a gun to my head), I am culpable for it. I followed my greatest desire, because, if I did not, I would have been insane, which is the opposite of moral responsibility.

The long answer is by "secondary causation," resting in the ultimate decree of God to bring glory to Himself for reasons that will remain a mystery to the creature.

The short answer is, of course, God. He created all things (Col 1:16-17; 1 John 1:1-3). He is the only One Who created anything ex nihilo. LFW essentially argues that God created a multitude of other creators who can create information ex nihilo. That contradicts the Scriptures that where "all things were made by Him" and "by Him all things consist (or hold together)." He "worketh all things after the counsel of His will."

God made man in His image. If you try to back port God's eternal knowledge from the determination of the creature, you argue that God and man make each other in their own image (a la process theology). According to Ephesians 2:9 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which he hath foreordained that we should walk in them."

When you are forced to argue that man can choose contrary to his greatest desire (because, you know, he has to be freeeeeee!). If man can do that, what is the basis for the action performed?

If you argue that man can act autonomously from the decree of God, you make him a creator of something ex nihilo. Only God creates ex nihilo because He transcends creation. Since man is a part of the creation, he can only do things that utilize the creation (including things visible and invisible).

If you argue that man can do something contrary to what defines him (his nature and greatest desire), he is acting contrary to himself. Yet, your whole premise for moral accountability is an illogical, unsubstantiable appeal to mystery, because you refuse to accept that the answer must lie in the decree of the Creator. If the creation can itself create ex nihilo, then you succumb to the pitfalls of process theology and run afoul of the kalam and transcendental arguments.

Your assertion of LFW and the mystery it requires is question-begging because you require that the creature of the Creator must have the same quality of being to create ex nihilo, AND that the transcendental argument for the existence of God must also be true.
God is the ultimate actor and determiner, and you have provided no logical basis for the creature to be able to determine in the same way as the transcendental One.
I put the "mystery" with God to Whom it properly belongs. You put the "mystery" with man. I then challenge you that you as man must be able to explain the mystery of action because you are man, and you have put the ball in man's court. I have not the duty, the capacity, or the right to explain the mystery of the will of God because God is the Creator and I am the creation. He is also ontologically separate from me.

Animals were not created in the image of God.
Animals do not have moral awareness.
Animals do not have God's commands.
Animals do not have a souls.
Animals do not have an eternal destiny.
God declared to us in His Word that we are morally responsible. He said nothing of animals.

Great analogy to human depravity in sin and the sovereign grace of God that regenerates willfully wicked natures into ones that seek after God.

You have reduced the moral culpability of human agents to equivalent of randomness.

 

Does the past dictate the future. Do we alway do what we want to do? Sure. But do we want to do now what we wanted to do in the past? No.
Say I am a soldier on a battlefield. I want to live. I do not want to get shot and suffer pain, mutilation and death. I am hiding behind a rock as bullets fly. My buddy says, lay down covering fire so I can get to a more protected position. Even though I do not normally take risks, in this instant of time, I pop up fire and then pop back down.
So the problem with capatibilism is not that we always do what we desire at the moment, the problem is its claim our desire of the moment cannot be other that what is dictated by the past. Fiddlesticks.

 

Yet, you argue that the "mystery" of the human will lies with the human. Therefore, it is theoretically possible for the human to understand the rationale of this autonomous nature of contra-causal choice. If ultimate moral execution can result from man understanding this intrinsic mystery so as to control choices for the greatest possible good, I would say that understanding the mystery of the human will by the human is not only good but necessary.

If not, then either of the following is true:
1. No one can answer this because no one knows it. It is a mystery even to God.
2. God can answer it, because as the omniscient Creator of the human, He knows all the components He put into that human. Hmm.

If no form of determinism is necessary, your indeterminism essentially begs the question.
If no form of determinism is possible, then everything is essentially random.

Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Yet, we are responsible for all evil that we do!

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Yet, we are responsible for all evil that we do!

1Jo 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1Jo 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Yet, we are responsible for all evil that we do!

It is clear that we are, by nature, wicked and evil, according to the Bible.
It is clear that we are morally responsible before God for all evil that we do.
It is also clear that we cannot live sinless lives.


Let me turn the tables on your question. If you believe that we have LFW, that the "sin nature" is only an "influence" in our lives, and that moral responsibility requires the real ability to choose otherwise, then why cannot we simply choose to live sinlessly perfect? In fact, if you are going to argue that a command from God requires that we have the autonomous capacity to carry it out, do we have the ability to obey Matthew 5:48? If so, how do you reconcile that view with the Scripture passages I quoted above? If not, how are we morally responsible?

Of course. However, my appeal to mystery is logical because I argue the logical compatibilist solution to the apparent paradox and relegate the "mystery" to the infinite, transcendent Creator, NOT the sinful, finite created. This is where the mystery belongs.
Your appeal to mystery is that of a human vacuum, which puts the burden of proof on you to solve the mystery of man from the standpoint of man for the sake of moral responsibility. Good luck with that.

Gen 45:7 And God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance.
Gen 45:8 So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God: and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt.

Gen 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
Say what?! Joseph credits God with being the One Who "sent" Joseph to Egypt, when we know that his brothers committed the evil of selling him into slavery.

Mar 12:6 Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.
Mar 12:7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.
Mar 12:8 And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.
Mar 12:9 What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.
Mar 12:10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
Mar 12:11 This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Act 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
Act 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

The greatest sin in all history is the willful murder of the Son of God. Yet, this was prophesied. In fact, it is clear from the Scriptures that it was God's predetermined plan to orchestrate the death of Christ. He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world! Yet, without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins! Our very salvation is dependent on God decreeing the death of the atonement.
Compatibilism is necessary to understand that the determination of the evil actions of man is compatible with the righteous intentions of God. The reason that God is not "responsible" for evil is because:
1. He is God and we are not.
2. There is no transcendent standard to which one could justly hold God accountable.
3. We do our evil actions for evil intentions. God decrees that the same actions occur, but for good reasons according to the mystery in the counsel of His will.

 

Yes, He is amazing in that He can even decree our evil actions for His ultimate good, just like He did the crucifixion of Christ, the selling of Joseph into Egypt, and the actions of the Assyrian king, among others.

If anything can happen outside the ultimate decree of God, and this is part of God's eternal knowledge, then God and man both create each other in their own image. Ridiculous! I reject process theology, and you should too.

Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
James did NOT say that God knows all contingent possibilities for His works. He said that God knows all his works. In other words, He knows all things that He actually will do. Some of these are in response to man's actions. If man's actions are autonomous, then you create an interdependency between God and man as part of God's essence. You turn the creation from a sovereign work of God for His own glory into something that was transcendently necessary for the value of God's own essence and perfection. God does not depend on the back-determinism of His own finite creation for the perfection of His own being. Are you ready to embrace process theology yet?

 

The word in red is error. God knows what will happen. Now it is true, that if God knows what will happen, it must happen, but this is because God's foreknowledge is infallible, not necessarily because it was determined.

There is nothing special or supernatural about knowing what is determined. Let's say that I pick the exact winner in each college basketball game this weekend, and tell the exact score. Now that would be pretty fantastic wouldn't it?

But what if you found out I had fixed all the games? I had bribed each team, coach, player, and referee so that the teams I picked would win by the exact scores I predicted. Would that be fantastic or supernatural? No.

In fact, there are known cases of sports games being fixed like this. Ordinary men can do this.

What I am saying is that God could tell you each team that will win this weekend and the exact scores without fixing the games. That is what is so incredibly fantastic about God. Ordinary men can fix games.

 

If it must happen, how can it be true that you "could have done otherwise"?
If you could not have "done otherwise," according to LFW, how can you be morally responsible
If you accept LFW, how can it be true if EDF is true?

Sure, if you are the determiner and the determined (of course, 100% certainty is not possible with us because there are circumstances outside our control).

If there is nothing supernatural about knowing what is determined, then tell me what I will eat for lunch tomorrow. After all, if it is determined (through EDF), and it is not supernatural, then you can do that for me, right?

We are discussing the philosophy of moral accountability. Your example has no bearing on the discussion.

 

You could have done otherwise, and if you did, God would know otherwise, this is what Calvinism cannot grasp. God did not determine that Judas would betray Jesus, God never tempts any man to sin. But God knew Judas would choose to betray Christ. If Judas had not betrayed Jesus, then God would have known this and could have predicted that. Calvinists cannot grasp this, or at least seem unable to grasp it. I really believe they understand this quite well, but it would disagree with their theology.

You could have done otherwise, therefore you are morally responsible.

I am not into all these types of philosophical arguments, I simply believe men can make choice. I do not deny that God (and others) cannot influence choice, that is obvious.

If you can determine the outcome of any event, there is nothing special about predicting the event. Everybody is a prophet if they predict what they determined, I could predict I will go to work tomorrow. Big deal.

Well, if you determine now to have tuna fish, that is what will happen. Predicting that for you is no big deal. But if you ask me to predict what you will eat, now that would be something special, because I cannot determine what you will choose to eat. You are supporting my argument, God is fantastic because he can correctly predict what you will eat when you are the one who determines what you will eat.

Sure it does, if God determines what you do, and you MUST do it, then you cannot be held accountable. You are merely a robot or puppet under his control.

 

So god cannot dtermine future events, he always sees them happening as bystander?

So God did not send foreign nations to attack Isreal, merely know that they would?

God did NOT cause/predetermine Death of jesus, just saw it would happen?

 

yes, as per the bible, the Lord is able to DO ANY and ALL that He desires to do, and He also allows/permits as to do as "we please", but always has all things working according to His predestined plans and purposes!

 

As we pause, let us consider God causing men to sin. No problem if the sin is not held against the sinner, because it was for God's purpose He predestined and caused it. However, the idea is God punishes the non-elect for the sin they commit. No way around that stumbling block for Calvinists. No answer has been provided. So we still have the strange bedfellows, Arminians pushing paradox and Calvinists pushing paradox, with both saying claiming the incomprehensible is true because God is unknowable. Fiddlesticks.

Shuck and jive # 1, God predestines everything, yet is not the author of sin. A logical impossibility.

Shuck and jive # 2, God predestined the Fall and the consequence of the Fall such that fallen men are unable to choose to seek God and trust in Christ because of the "secondary cause" of compatibilism. An absurdity, like removing the frogs legs, then punishing the frog for not obeying the command to jump.

Do you suppose the Calvinists who push this nonsense do not know they are engaging in circular reasoning?

 

Your error is trying to reason this from the viewpoint of sinful man, while we need to instead see this from the view of God in his inspired scriptures!