Answering the major objection against Calvinism

No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the premise of your original challenge is that it is unjust for God to require from people what they are unable to do, and to condemn them for not fulfilling that requirement.

If you admit that it is just for God to require that people keep the law perfectly even though they are unable to do that, and that he condemns them for not keeping the law perfectly--and you seemed to have said you agree with that--then the premise the original challenge was based on is shot.

I understood your original challenge to not be about whether people could believe or not; but whether it was just, if they could not believe, to require them to do so. Why would someone think that's unjust, while admitting that God does the very same thing in regard to the fulfillment of the law? Is there some sort of fundamental difference between condemnation on the grounds of sin and condemnation of the grounds of not believing that I'm not seeing?

 

MT 13:11 He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

2 Cor 4:6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

john.

 

If we tie these two passages together:

Gal 5:17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.

Rom 8:6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

That I see as explicit scripture without a mystery about it but the one that surrounds disbelief and that really is no mystery. Since you do not do what you want why are you are still held responsible for it and suffer whatever. (Not you. )

RO 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

But it is our responsibility. Why does God still blame us for who resists His will comes to mind.



john.

 

A good point...however you fail to take into account a key factor which creates the distinction you seek. That factor is that man is a moral being and a dog is not. A dog does not make moral choices, a man does. To a dog, there is only desire in relation to his instincts. To a man, choices and desires can be in relation to God and His commands. So, to a dog, there is no such things a moral choice - it chooses solely between what it desires based without consideration for wrong or right. Man however, takes into account the moral aspects of a choice and chooses on that basis.

So, when I say that free will is merely choosing what one desires, the fact that desires of a man have a moral element sets his free will totally apart from the 'will' of animals. Thus, because the natures of man and beast are essentially different, the exercise of their wills are essentially different as well.

Thus, the distinction you seek is found in the essential distinction between man and beast and how they relate to God and the cosmos.

Sure...but would natural man be able to act on anything other than a basis lacking in faith? No - natural man hates God and would thus never freely choose to act on the basis of faith in God.

So whether I lied or didn't lie is immaterial - free will exists and man can freely choose whatever they think best fits their goals and desires. The particular action is not what matters but the nature of the reason and basis for the action. What matters is that, at his core, man hates God and truth and will unerringly choose based on a basis of other than faith in God. So whether natural man lied one time, or didn't lie the next time, I can be certain that in both cases, he acted on a basis lacking in faith - that is, he acted on a basis which ultimately founded on a rejection of God as rightful Lord. Do you disagree?

 

So are you merely saying that God has the 'facility' for doing 'anything'? If thats what you mean by 'able', then I don't disagree (excepting the logical absurdities - I would continue to deny that God has the facility for that).

So let me clarify: Is God able to freely choose anything, or is He 'constrained' by His nature such that He absolutely won't do anything against His nature - so absolutely that we can rightly say He "can't" in a real sense (even though He may still have the faculty for doing so in another sense)?

Ok glad to see that we agree on the logical absurdity part.

More specifically, it is the word used when one cannot resolve nor forsee a way to resolve what is still a resolveable dilemma.

Yes, all are bound over to disobedience. This again is not the logical equivalent of "men are condemned for Adam's sin". The logic in Scripture is that men are condemned *as a result of* Adam's sin, but they are still condemned *for* their own sins. Adam's sin makes all other men's condemnation inevitable, but that does not equate to all men being condemned for Adam's sin. See the distinction?

 

God doesn't condem people to hell, all are deserving of hell, have earned hell. God in His grace and mercy chose to rescue some from that condemnation. The bible says we are dead in our tresspasses and in before we have Christ, we are slaves to sin, none seeks God, none does good, thats total depravity.

 

But
a. will the gospel *always* go out with that power? Consider the parable of the hard soil.
b. will/has *everyone* receive(d) the gospel message? If so, on what basis do you make that assertion?

If he could do something to reconcile me then that would mean that I didn't really hate him - I merely hated him to a great, but limited extent. If I truly hated him with the core of my being, then *anything* my father did would be seen in that light. My father could not possibly be merciful and redemptive in my eyes if I viewed all his actions through the eyes of hate. They only way that could change would be if *I* changed somehow.

So, if man hates God with the core of his being, then any love and mercy God shows could not draw them closer. If hatred of God is at my core, then any action which moves me toward God would be contradictory to that. God might draw me, but hating Him I would resist with my very being. I might want something from God but I would never freely submit and would continue to hate Him. Somehow, the person has to change.

If I truly hated my father, then that message would be filtered in my mind through the lens of hate and would be automatically miscounstrued as an insult, foolishness, a trap, or something else like that. If the message alone changed caused me to want to reconcile, then I never really hated my father to begin with.

You seem to assume that because we are born unreconciled to God that this somehow proves that His acts and messages of reconcilation are insufficient to change that condition.

Its not an assumption, its the *only* logical conclusion if we were truly born hating God by our nature. Now yes, if we didn't truly hate God, but merely were generally opposed to Him, then yes, that would be an assumption and a poor one at that. But if we truly hate God, then the only way around it logically would be if somehow our nature of hatred to God was changed.

If we are truly enemies of God, if we are truly unreconciled to God, then logically there can be no other conclusion than that any attempts by God to reconcile us (without touching on the nature which sets as enemies of God) would be opposed as strongly as possible by ourselves. An enemy which can be reconciled without compulsion is not truly 'at emnity'. If you posit that man can be reconciled without being first somehow changed away from true emnity, then you must logically conclude that the emnity was not total - that other considerations were of more significance than man's emnity with God. If emnity defines our relationship with God though, then no reconciliation is possible regardless of the nature of the offer of reconciliation. The one at emnity must first lose that emnity before considering the offer of reconciliation in its true light. Any of offer of reconciliation while one is still at emnity would be seen through that lens and thus could not be understood or seen in its true light. It would be warped and twisted in one's mind beyond recognition.

 

But one also needs to address the question of 'why faith'. If man is at emnity with God, for what conceivable reason would man, of his own accord, choose to have faith. Aren't faith and emnity mutually exclusive? After all, one who you are willing to have faith wouldn't truly meet the definition of 'enemy' would they?

 

Ok, we will set that aside for now.

So would it be fair to say that your position is 'God acts with power on everyone'?

First of all, let me repeat again a clarifier that I have been arguing from. I am viewing man in and of himself, not in terms of what God's power works in Him. The consideration of the power of the gospel brings in a different element. When I hear you speak of power of the gospel, I think in terms of an active power - a power that acts directly on the hearer, not simply a 'powerfully persuasive message'. Is it fair to say that you view the power of the gospel in the same general manner - as a power which actively acts on the hearer?

If so, then whenever you mention the 'ability to respond to the powerful message of the gospel' you have stepped outside of the constraints in which I have been arguing. If the power of the gospel is active, then when one considers man's response to the gospel, one is no longer considering simply man 'in and of himself'. Do you see the distinction?

I guess that would depend on how you would define hatred, wouldn't it? You just seem to assert these things without any biblical support.

Right now I am working on understanding, I will come back to Scriptural support later - that will me/us avoid any prooftexting.

No, I don't define them that way, I would merely point out that there is no possible impetus for their being changed. IOW, if one hates God, what possible impetus would there be for changing from love to hatred? If there is no impetus which is reasonable, then logically the hatred and emnity would have to be viewed as unchangable.

No presumption, merely logic which is not yet clear to you. Let me see if I can explain.

Premise: Hatred and eminty toward God are integral to fallen man's makeup and nature.
Assertion: Consequently, some change must take place for man to accept the gospel.
Assertion: That change must be a moral change which somehow negates the hatred and emnity toward God such that man can now freely choose God.
Argument: The moral change is either partial or total. If partial, then one must be able to account for why one man would accept while another would reject the gospel...preferably without resorting to some sort of 'causeless choice' argument.
Argument: If the change is total however, then, just as it was true that fallen man hated God such that he, without some inward change, could not bring himself to accept God, it is equally true that man, loving God by nature could not ultimately reject God.
Conclusion: Thus, the 'irrestability' of the power of the gospel is a reflection of the power of the gospel, not a lessening of man's free will.

No, again, I was arguing specifically within the framework of man 'in and of himself'. Consideration of the power of the gospel would change that. Please try to read my argument in light of the qualifications I placed on them.

In the 'real world', hatred of another man is simply a reflection of hatred of God. The difference between 'real life' hatred' and 'hatred of God' is that only in the latter are there true opposites at work. What is true of God-man relationship which is not true of man-man relationship is that God and self are truly and fully opposed. To accept God means total loss of self, and to retain any part of self is to reject God. No other emnity of that sort can exist in the 'real world'. In the real world, any reconciliation never involves such opposites being reconciled.

 

Hello Skandelon.

I've spent hours on your other post and I think I have whittled it down to this.

Total inability can be proved by GE 3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Since God says we must not be allowed to reach out and take from the tree of life then we are totaly unable to. Just in case, a sword is awaiting those who approach too close.

John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

No one can attain the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit must attain us.

How's that? Is that addressing the issue?

john.

 

Hello dw. Post #28.

God does as He pleases and it pleases Him to do as He pleases without regard to any outside influence. He causes all that is and what isn't isn't.

It is no constraint to be Almighty, Holy and Righteous is it? If He could be less then He wouldn't be Almighty so I suppose He isn't Almighty because He can't make Himself less than Amighty. He is certainly not constrained by only being able to do as He pleases. That He can't do as He displeases is meaningless.

JN 5:19 Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
Jesus isn't constrained because He can only do what His Father does. God cannot be less than He. I don't accept that this reduces His Sovereignty.

God is Sovereign and man has free will is a nonsense to my ears. They oppose each other to the same degree justice and mercy oppose each other. It isn't paradoxical it is a contradiction. To prove it paradoxical you will have to resolve it and then you can say it was a paradox but it's all right now. I know an illogical when I hear it, I think. I believe God to be Sovereign in the absolute sense of the word.

Yes it is. God bound Adam over to disobedience and that took us with him. All men were bound over at the same time. We are then conceived in that compulsion.

Twice damned? The reprobate will get what's coming to him for what he has done, or to be more particular on this occassion, the reprobate will get what's coming to him for the things God caused him to do. Where he obeyed the law that will not count against him or for him. If he loved his parents that will not count for him if he did not that will count against him.

That is illogical. If by his actions Adam caused my condemnation, I'm not guilty, but condemnation was on me from conception because of him, guilt was attributed to me because of him, I'm not guilty, I am innocent. I've been fitted up. Guilt by association it is. I do not see a distinction. But we must be otherwise we could not be considered righteous in Christ if we were not considered unrighteous in Adam. As we have nothing to do with being in Christ so we had nothing to do with being in Adam. Symmetry is cool.

How does one know it is resolvable if one cannot resolve it? Paradox sounds like an head ache tablet.

Any use?

john.

 

The objection is natural. It was fully anticipated by Paul:

Romans 9:11-24 (KJV)

PAULS DECLARATION:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

MAN'S PROTEST: 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?

PAUL'S ANSWER: God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Notice that Paul's answer to the objection was not a compromise, but was an expansion of his first declaration. God is not unrighteous, precisely because he is God. God does is not obliged to meet our demands. Neither is He obligated to render anyone "able" to live righteously or believe savingly. GOD IS NOT OBLIGATED TO MAN IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, AND HE REMAINS JUST WITHOUT ANY MERCY TOWARD HIM.

PAUL'S DECLARATION: 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

MAN'S OBJECTION: 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

PAUL'S ANSWER: 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?

ANOTHER OBJECTION BY MAN: Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

AGAIN PAUL ANSWERS: 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

How can we say that God is unjust if He executes His wrath upon the vessels of wrath, which he has fitted to that end? The text is clear, but we don't like the message. He has power over the clay.

The question for those of us that have been saved is this: Why did God save me? I shall never forget the night that verses 23 and 24 above changed my life - how I finally realized that my salvation was totally the work of God. Why he chosen to save any of us in mercy only He knows. And we should be forever grateful.