Total Posts:132|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christian/Calvinist/Reformed/FreeWill

stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 5:10:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't want to misrepresent anyone who holds to the Calvinistic view so I will just kind of introduce the topic and see where it leads. I have heard Calvinist on this site say things such as, "There is no free will, just the will to do evil." How would someone who holds this view respond to this statement by William Lane Craig:

"Ought implies can. A person is not morally responsible for an action which he is unable to avoid. For example if somebody shoves you into another person you're not responsible for bumping into him; you had no choice."

I have seen a lot of Calvinist use the passage in psalm 14 which Paul quotes in Romans that says,

"as it is written: 'None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." Romans 3:11-12 ESV

I have heard Calvinist interpret this verse to say that we cannot choose anything good or choose God. How then, in light of Dr. Craigs statement, are humans morally responsible for sin and thus how does the punishment of hell stand moral?

If I have misrepresented anyone's view I am sorry and please feel free to correct me.

Thanks.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 5:16:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 5:10:12 PM, stubs wrote:
I don't want to misrepresent anyone who holds to the Calvinistic view so I will just kind of introduce the topic and see where it leads. I have heard Calvinist on this site say things such as, "There is no free will, just the will to do evil." How would someone who holds this view respond to this statement by William Lane Craig:

"Ought implies can. A person is not morally responsible for an action which he is unable to avoid. For example if somebody shoves you into another person you're not responsible for bumping into him; you had no choice."

Unless I'm missing something, this argument is pure common sense. Anyone who believes in predestination - alongside hell, is aware of this argument...more accurately, problem. They choose to ignore it because they are not rational people. If they are not aware of that problem, then they are not very smart people. And this is all just me overlooking the fact that the initial statement was an incoherent, meaningless contradiction to begin with.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 5:27:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 5:16:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, this argument is pure common sense. Anyone who believes in predestination - alongside hell, is aware of this argument...more accurately, problem. They choose to ignore it because they are not rational people. If they are not aware of that problem, then they are not very smart people. And this is all just me overlooking the fact that the initial statement was an incoherent, meaningless contradiction to begin with.

I was hoping to hear from someone who actually holds to this view, but I appreciate your input on the subject nonetheless.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 7:10:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 5:10:12 PM, stubs wrote:
"Ought implies can. A person is not morally responsible for an action which he is unable to avoid. For example if somebody shoves you into another person you're not responsible for bumping into him; you had no choice."

Jonathan Edwards made a distinction between a natural ability and a moral ability (which I prefer to call a 'psychological ability'). A natural ability is just the raw power it takes to do something. For example, if I have good working legs, then I have a natural ability to walk. If I had no legs, or if I were paralyzed, then I'd have a natural inability to walk.

A psychological ability is just a willingness to do something. If I desire to do something, then I'm psychological able to do it. But if I lack any desire or motive to do something, or if I have a desire or motive to do the opposite thing, then I have a psychological inability to do the something.

Calvinists, and well as everybody else, agree that if you have a natural inability to do something, then you can't be blamed for not doing it. You have an an obligation to do something you are naturally unable to do.

But it's not the same with a psychological inability. Nobody gets let off the hook just because they didn't feel like doing their duty. And nobody is excused for doing exactly what they wanted to do.

Calvinists usually subscribe to compatibilism, which is the view that your actions are determined by your strongest desire or motivation. Libertarians believe our motives and desires can influence your choices, but they can't determine them. That's the difference.

Treating a psychological inability the same way we treat a natural inability is counter-intuitive. Lemme explain why.

If a natural inability fully excuses a person, then a natural difficulty excuses a person in part. The more physically difficult it is to do what you're supposed to, the less you can be blamed for failing to do it.

Now suppose we treat psychological inability the same way we treat natural inability. The stronger you desire to do something, the more difficult it is to resist doing it. If the desire is so strong that you can't help but give in to it, then the desires determines your action. Now, suppose the desire is to harm somebody. It would follow that the stronger your desire to harm somebody, the less blameable you are for harming them. The more hate you have in your heart, the less blameable you are for acting on that hate. And the more love you have in your heart, the less praiseworthy you are for acting on that love.

But that is completely backward. We are praised and blamed because of the motives we act on. Acting out of love is praiseworthy, and acting out of hate is blameworthy. The stronger your desire to harm people, the more blameworthy you are for it, and the stronger your desire to help people, the more praiseworthy you are. It follows that you are the most culpable for your actions when they are completely determined by your motives and desires.

Jonathan Edwards wrote a book on this subject called The Freedom of the Will. It's worth checking out.

http://www.amazon.com...
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 7:12:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 7:10:17 PM, philochristos wrote:
You have an an obligation to do something you are naturally unable to do.

Correction: You can't have an obligation to do something you are naturally unable to do.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 7:19:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 7:12:41 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/19/2012 7:10:17 PM, philochristos wrote:
You have an an obligation to do something you are naturally unable to do.

Correction: You can't have an obligation to do something you are naturally unable to do.

I appreciate your posts. Do you think you could expand on the theological implications of this? Specifically in regards to sin and hell as the punishment. If I happen to have missed it in your post could you just bold it for me?

Thanks.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 7:33:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 7:19:01 PM, stubs wrote:
I appreciate your posts. Do you think you could expand on the theological implications of this? Specifically in regards to sin and hell as the punishment. If I happen to have missed it in your post could you just bold it for me?

Yeah, it follows from what I said that ought implies can only in the natural sense, not the psychological sense. That means we can be held responsible for our sins even if we could not do otherwise provided that our inability to do otherwise was a psychological inability and not a physical or natural inability. For example, if I really want to do my duty, but I'm duct taped to a tree and can't, then I'm not guilty of sin for failing to do my duty. In fact, I can't really even have an obligation if I'm taped to a tree and can't do it. But if I'm physical capable of doing my duty, and the only reason I don't because I just really don't want to, then that doesn't excuse me. I'm still blameable.

We are praised or blamed because of the motives we act on. I shove an old lady because I hate old ladies or because I like to see them suffer, then I'm worthy of blame. But if I shove an old lady to save her from being hit by a car, then I'm worthy of praise.

According to Calvinism, we are all in bondage to sin. Our bondage to sin prevents us from accepting Christ. But that does not excuse us since we sin with full inclination. When we sin, we're doing what we want to do. We aren't physically forced to sin; we sin because of our sinful desires. That's precisely why we're worthy of blame.

The libertarian notion of freedom doesn't make good sense of morality because it treats psychological inability the same way it treats natural inability. If a motive or desire is so strong that you can't resist it, then you're not culpable for giving in to it since you could not have done otherwise. It follows that the stronger your desire to do evil or good, the less culpable you are for it since the stronger it is, the closer it is to determining your choice. And it follows form that that you are most culpable when you act out of perfect indifference since it's only in perfect indifference that desire and motive have no influence over your choices.

But that is contrary to who we usually ascribe blame or praise, which is by the motive or desire that gave rise to the choice.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 7:36:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
geesh, that's a lot of typos. We seriously need an edit feature.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 7:49:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 7:33:40 PM, philochristos wrote:
Yeah, it follows from what I said that ought implies can only in the natural sense, not the psychological sense. That means we can be held responsible for our sins even if we could not do otherwise provided that our inability to do otherwise was a psychological inability and not a physical or natural inability. For example, if I really want to do my duty, but I'm duct taped to a tree and can't, then I'm not guilty of sin for failing to do my duty. In fact, I can't really even have an obligation if I'm taped to a tree and can't do it. But if I'm physical capable of doing my duty, and the only reason I don't because I just really don't want to, then that doesn't excuse me. I'm still blameable.

I see what you are saying. There have been some people on this site that have told me that we, as humans, are unable to actually choose good or choose God by our own will at all. Is that not a typical Calvinistic view?


We are praised or blamed because of the motives we act on. I shove an old lady because I hate old ladies or because I like to see them suffer, then I'm worthy of blame. But if I shove an old lady to save her from being hit by a car, then I'm worthy of praise.


What if I sin because I was born with such a strong desire to do wrong that I was unable to do what was right? Would I be morally responsible?

According to Calvinism, we are all in bondage to sin. Our bondage to sin prevents us from accepting Christ. But that does not excuse us since we sin with full inclination. When we sin, we're doing what we want to do. We aren't physically forced to sin; we sin because of our sinful desires. That's precisely why we're worthy of blame.


This will probably turn out to be about the same question as above. When you said, "When we sin, we're doing what we want to do. We aren't physically forced to sin; we sin because of our sinful desires." Doesn't, on the Calvinistic view, the sinful desires come from total depravity which we are born with? If our sinful desires are of no fault of our own, do you think we should be to blame?

The libertarian notion of freedom doesn't make good sense of morality because it treats psychological inability the same way it treats natural inability. If a motive or desire is so strong that you can't resist it, then you're not culpable for giving in to it since you could not have done otherwise. It follows that the stronger your desire to do evil or good, the less culpable you are for it since the stronger it is, the closer it is to determining your choice. And it follows form that that you are most culpable when you act out of perfect indifference since it's only in perfect indifference that desire and motive have no influence over your choices.

But that is contrary to who we usually ascribe blame or praise, which is by the motive or desire that gave rise to the choice.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 8:19:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 7:49:52 PM, stubs wrote:
I see what you are saying. There have been some people on this site that have told me that we, as humans, are unable to actually choose good or choose God by our own will at all. Is that not a typical Calvinistic view?

There are five points that define the core of Calvinism. The first one is called "total depravity." That's the idea that our natural inclination is in such a sinful state that we are unable to choose God unless God changes our hearts. Once God changes our hearts, we are then enabled to choose God.

Total depravity doesn't mean we're as bad as it's possible to be, though. And having God change our hearts (which we call 'regeneration') does not mean that we never sin again either. Total depravity just means that our sinfulness causes us to reject Christ, and regeneration enables us to accept Christ.

What if I sin because I was born with such a strong desire to do wrong that I was unable to do what was right? Would I be morally responsible?

Yes. In fact, we're all born with a desire to sin that is so strong that we cannot avoid sinning. Even Arminians like Bill Craig will agree with that. This is just part of the doctrine of original sin, which is held by Catholics, Arminians, and Calvinists, although some of the details of what it entails differ between them.

Doesn't, on the Calvinistic view, the sinful desires come from total depravity which we are born with?

Sinful desires don't come from total depravity; rather, they are what total depravity consists of.

If our sinful desires are of no fault of our own, do you think we should be to blame?

We should be blamed for acting on our sinful desires regardless of how or when they got there. The only way you can be at fault for something is if you do it on purpose. To do something on purpose is to do it out of some motive, desire, intention, or inclination because otherwise it's an accident, and you can't be blamed for accidents. Now, if we must be "at fault" for having our desires before we can be blamed for acting on them, then our desires would have to be the result of choice. But that gets us into an infinite regress because before I could choose to have a desire, I'd first have to have a desire to make that choice. Then that desire would also have to be preceded by a choice that was based on an even earlier desire. Etc. etc. Ultimately, all of our choices are determined by desires that we did not choose. Otherwise, we'd never be able to choose anything.

Jonathan Edwards makes the case in his book that virtue and vice, praise and blame, lie in the nature of our desires, not in their causes, because the causes of our desires lie outside of the will, and since only the will can choose, it follows that only the acts of the will are subject to praise or blame. And the acts of the will are subject to praise and blame according to the desires that gave rise to those acts. If our choices arise out of a desire to do good, then we are praiseworthy. If our choices arise out of a desire to do evil, then we are blameworthy.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 8:36:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Please let me know if this scenario is an accurate representation of Calvinistic beliefs.

Say God told us that we are not to eat chocolate chip cookies. With that in mind, he creates us with such a strong desire to want chocolate chip cookies we can actually not refuse to eat them. So, naturally, we eat them. Do we deserve punishment for that action?
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 8:39:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 5:10:12 PM, stubs wrote:
I don't want to misrepresent anyone who holds to the Calvinistic view so I will just kind of introduce the topic and see where it leads. I have heard Calvinist on this site say things such as, "There is no free will, just the will to do evil." How would someone who holds this view respond to this statement by William Lane Craig:

"Ought implies can. A person is not morally responsible for an action which he is unable to avoid. For example if somebody shoves you into another person you're not responsible for bumping into him; you had no choice."

I have seen a lot of Calvinist use the passage in psalm 14 which Paul quotes in Romans that says,

"as it is written: 'None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." Romans 3:11-12 ESV

I have heard Calvinist interpret this verse to say that we cannot choose anything good or choose God. How then, in light of Dr. Craigs statement, are humans morally responsible for sin and thus how does the punishment of hell stand moral?

If I have misrepresented anyone's view I am sorry and please feel free to correct me.

Thanks.

I have debated Calvinist who have similar lines of thinking as well on this sight, them usually turning to referring to our will's like characters in a book.

to them I don't think when they say 'will' its not something that could ever change from what it was always going to be. and I think a rational Calvinist that's consistent and true to his theology would have to abandon ever defining good and evil as 'ought' and 'ought not'. there can be no 'ought not' without free will. 'will' is an arbitrary term we used to describe what the Almighty Creator wrote as or motive in his grand epic book that has the story to everyone lives recorded. the natural auto pilot bend he put for all our will's is for evil and only by his personal intervention does he ever steer us to good instead.

that's how I interpret the way they look at it anyway. it all boils down though if you get deep into discussion with them in what characteristic they view most central to what God is. Is he Sovereign of all creation first or is he a being of Love first?

to quote Jerry Walls argument:
"The Calvinist asks 'how does a Sovereign God Love?', but i say that's the reverse of how it should be asked. it should be asked 'how does the God of perfect Love express his Sovereignty"

God could have made us as the Calvinist describe if he wanted to and just 'write' our wills to be whatever he wants our wills to be like character in a book he is author of just like Calvinist say he is because he does have sovereign power over all the universe. But because he is the God of perfect Love, and he made us to love and to love him back, he has chosen not to make us like that. the only love worth having us give him is that kind that might not be given if we choose to not give it too him.

If Calvinist want to talk about scripture I personally think there's no sane way for them to get around the verse in the new testament that says 'the lord is long-suffering toward us because it is his will that none should perish' (context is talking about hell) and the old testament verses somewhere in Moses day "I have set before you Israel blessings and curses, choose wisely" or something to that effect and then Joshua stating "as for me and my house, I shall choose the Lord"
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 8:42:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 8:36:10 PM, stubs wrote:
Please let me know if this scenario is an accurate representation of Calvinistic beliefs.

Say God told us that we are not to eat chocolate chip cookies. With that in mind, he creates us with such a strong desire to want chocolate chip cookies we can actually not refuse to eat them. So, naturally, we eat them. Do we deserve punishment for that action?

Yes. Again, our praise and blame lies, not in the causes of our desires and motives, but in their nature--whether they are good or bad. The causes or our desires are not under the control of the will, so the causes of our desires can't be the basis upon which we are blamed or excused. If you know you are not allowed to eat chocolate chip cookies, and you do it anyway, not because you were physically forced to eat them, but because you wanted to and had no inclination to refrain, then you're guilty. It doesn't matter how the desire got there. What matters is that you ate the cookies on purpose, knowing that you weren't supposed to. You intentionally did what was wrong.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 8:44:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 8:42:28 PM, philochristos wrote:
Yes. Again, our praise and blame lies, not in the causes of our desires and motives, but in their nature--whether they are good or bad. The causes or our desires are not under the control of the will, so the causes of our desires can't be the basis upon which we are blamed or excused. If you know you are not allowed to eat chocolate chip cookies, and you do it anyway, not because you were physically forced to eat them, but because you wanted to and had no inclination to refrain, then you're guilty. It doesn't matter how the desire got there. What matters is that you ate the cookies on purpose, knowing that you weren't supposed to. You intentionally did what was wrong.

Even though it was an action I was unable to avoid?
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 8:45:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 8:36:10 PM, stubs wrote:
Please let me know if this scenario is an accurate representation of Calvinistic beliefs.

Say God told us that we are not to eat chocolate chip cookies. With that in mind, he creates us with such a strong desire to want chocolate chip cookies we can actually not refuse to eat them. So, naturally, we eat them. Do we deserve punishment for that action?


Still not accurate unfortunately.

Did God give birth to you, or did your mom? Did God impregnate your mother, or did your father?

You were created from 2 sinners, so you, and I, were sinful by nature from the womb. God didn't create us sinful, our parents did.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 8:49:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 8:39:57 PM, Marauder wrote:
I have debated Calvinist who have similar lines of thinking as well on this sight, them usually turning to referring to our will's like characters in a book.

to them I don't think when they say 'will' its not something that could ever change from what it was always going to be. and I think a rational Calvinist that's consistent and true to his theology would have to abandon ever defining good and evil as 'ought' and 'ought not'. there can be no 'ought not' without free will. 'will' is an arbitrary term we used to describe what the Almighty Creator wrote as or motive in his grand epic book that has the story to everyone lives recorded. the natural auto pilot bend he put for all our will's is for evil and only by his personal intervention does he ever steer us to good instead.

that's how I interpret the way they look at it anyway. it all boils down though if you get deep into discussion with them in what characteristic they view most central to what God is. Is he Sovereign of all creation first or is he a being of Love first?

to quote Jerry Walls argument:
"The Calvinist asks 'how does a Sovereign God Love?', but i say that's the reverse of how it should be asked. it should be asked 'how does the God of perfect Love express his Sovereignty"

God could have made us as the Calvinist describe if he wanted to and just 'write' our wills to be whatever he wants our wills to be like character in a book he is author of just like Calvinist say he is because he does have sovereign power over all the universe. But because he is the God of perfect Love, and he made us to love and to love him back, he has chosen not to make us like that. the only love worth having us give him is that kind that might not be given if we choose to not give it too him.

If Calvinist want to talk about scripture I personally think there's no sane way for them to get around the verse in the new testament that says 'the lord is long-suffering toward us because it is his will that none should perish' (context is talking about hell) and the old testament verses somewhere in Moses day "I have set before you Israel blessings and curses, choose wisely" or something to that effect and then Joshua stating "as for me and my house, I shall choose the Lord"

I think that quote was pretty insightful. Thanks for your input.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 8:50:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 8:44:46 PM, stubs wrote:
Even though it was an action I was unable to avoid?

Like I explained earlier, whether you are blameworthy or not depends on the reason for your inability to avoid the action. If you have a natural inability to avoid the action, then you are excused. But if you only have a psychological inability to avoid the action (i.e. your inability is due to a lack of inclination to do otherwise), then you are not excused. Nobody ever says, "It was not my fault! I did exactly what I wanted to do!"
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 8:51:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 8:44:46 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/19/2012 8:42:28 PM, philochristos wrote:
Yes. Again, our praise and blame lies, not in the causes of our desires and motives, but in their nature--whether they are good or bad. The causes or our desires are not under the control of the will, so the causes of our desires can't be the basis upon which we are blamed or excused. If you know you are not allowed to eat chocolate chip cookies, and you do it anyway, not because you were physically forced to eat them, but because you wanted to and had no inclination to refrain, then you're guilty. It doesn't matter how the desire got there. What matters is that you ate the cookies on purpose, knowing that you weren't supposed to. You intentionally did what was wrong.

Even though it was an action I was unable to avoid?

your only unable to avoid the action if you think about it terms larger than "i did it because on the inside I'm this way" to ask 'why am I this way" which the question of weather what you did is bad or not, a Calvinist does not find it necessary to go that far out into answering it.

so you are blameworthy in there eyes. the fact that you were ultimately created to be blameworthy is just a curious novel inconsequential fact to Calvinist in this scenario.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 8:59:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 8:49:10 PM, stubs wrote:

I think that quote was pretty insightful. Thanks for your input.

I got it from watching this debate. Jerry Walls is great at debating the topic. for some dumb reason though when I showed a guy at my church though the debate, he said he thought while Jerry Walls was the most passionate debater or charismatic, that the other guy was a better debater which I think is crazy to think.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 9:10:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 8:50:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/19/2012 8:44:46 PM, stubs wrote:
Even though it was an action I was unable to avoid?

Like I explained earlier, whether you are blameworthy or not depends on the reason for your inability to avoid the action. If you have a natural inability to avoid the action, then you are excused. But if you only have a psychological inability to avoid the action (i.e. your inability is due to a lack of inclination to do otherwise), then you are not excused. Nobody ever says, "It was not my fault! I did exactly what I wanted to do!"

what if they said, "It was not my fault! I did exactly what I wanted to do because of how God created me and I was unable to avoid the action!"
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 9:11:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 8:51:14 PM, Marauder wrote:
your only unable to avoid the action if you think about it terms larger than "i did it because on the inside I'm this way" to ask 'why am I this way" which the question of weather what you did is bad or not, a Calvinist does not find it necessary to go that far out into answering it.


It seems pretty crucial, atleast in my eyes, to to look into that haha.

so you are blameworthy in there eyes. the fact that you were ultimately created to be blameworthy is just a curious novel inconsequential fact to Calvinist in this scenario.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 9:16:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 9:10:23 PM, stubs wrote:
what if they said, "It was not my fault! I did exactly what I wanted to do because of how God created me and I was unable to avoid the action!"

Like I said earlier, our fault lies in the nature of our desires, not in their causes, and whether we are blamed or excused depends on the reason for our inability to avoid the action, whether natural or psychological. So if God causes me to have some desire, and I act on that desire, I am not excused from culpability just because God is the one who caused the desire. If it is my desire, and I act on it, then my action was on purpose, which makes me culpable.

Stub, I've enjoyed answering your questions, and I don't mind answering more of them, but you're starting to ask me questions I've already answered. This is an interesting topic to me, but I don't want to just keep repeating myself. If you've got anything further to ask me, go ahead, and I'll try to answer you if I can. If not, then I'm going to do something else. Like maybe watch Futurama.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 9:21:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 9:16:36 PM, philochristos wrote:
Like I said earlier, our fault lies in the nature of our desires, not in their causes, and whether we are blamed or excused depends on the reason for our inability to avoid the action, whether natural or psychological. So if God causes me to have some desire, and I act on that desire, I am not excused from culpability just because God is the one who caused the desire. If it is my desire, and I act on it, then my action was on purpose, which makes me culpable.

Stub, I've enjoyed answering your questions, and I don't mind answering more of them, but you're starting to ask me questions I've already answered. This is an interesting topic to me, but I don't want to just keep repeating myself. If you've got anything further to ask me, go ahead, and I'll try to answer you if I can. If not, then I'm going to do something else. Like maybe watch Futurama.

I apologize if my questions are becoming redundant. I am just having a hard time grasping the fact that we could actually be held accountable for something we could not avoid. To be punished for that seems cruel and immoral.

I'm watching the Memphis Milwaukee game right now haha.
elisur
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 9:24:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 9:16:36 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/19/2012 9:10:23 PM, stubs wrote:
what if they said, "It was not my fault! I did exactly what I wanted to do because of how God created me and I was unable to avoid the action!"

Like I said earlier, our fault lies in the nature of our desires, not in their causes, and whether we are blamed or excused depends on the reason for our inability to avoid the action, whether natural or psychological. So if God causes me to have some desire, and I act on that desire, I am not excused from culpability just because God is the one who caused the desire. If it is my desire, and I act on it, then my action was on purpose, which makes me culpable.

Stub, I've enjoyed answering your questions, and I don't mind answering more of them, but you're starting to ask me questions I've already answered. This is an interesting topic to me, but I don't want to just keep repeating myself. If you've got anything further to ask me, go ahead, and I'll try to answer you if I can. If not, then I'm going to do something else. Like maybe watch Futurama.

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live,
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 9:26:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 9:21:25 PM, stubs wrote:

I apologize if my questions are becoming redundant. I am just having a hard time grasping the fact that we could actually be held accountable for something we could not avoid. To be punished for that seems cruel and immoral.

I used to feel the same way until I read Jonathan Edward's book. Maybe should read it and see what you think.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 9:29:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 9:26:45 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/19/2012 9:21:25 PM, stubs wrote:

I apologize if my questions are becoming redundant. I am just having a hard time grasping the fact that we could actually be held accountable for something we could not avoid. To be punished for that seems cruel and immoral.

I used to feel the same way until I read Jonathan Edward's book. Maybe should read it and see what you think.

You can read the whole thing for free on line: http://www.reformedreader.org...
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 9:30:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 9:29:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/19/2012 9:26:45 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/19/2012 9:21:25 PM, stubs wrote:

I apologize if my questions are becoming redundant. I am just having a hard time grasping the fact that we could actually be held accountable for something we could not avoid. To be punished for that seems cruel and immoral.

I used to feel the same way until I read Jonathan Edward's book. Maybe should read it and see what you think.

You can read the whole thing for free on line: http://www.reformedreader.org...

Thanks I really appreciate that
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 9:32:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 9:21:25 PM, stubs wrote:
I am just having a hard time grasping the fact that we could actually be held :accountable for something we could not avoid. To be punished for that seems cruel :and immoral.


Yup, I think this is most peoples' most basic moral objection to that theological position. I simply don't find answers to it compelling. Having the sympathies I do doesn't help either.

*shrug*
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 9:45:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 9:24:26 PM, elisur wrote:

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live,

this right here! i was trying to think of this verse a moment ago, so its Deuteronomy. for some reason i thought I remember someone saying it was in joshua, although there might just be a similar verse there also
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 9:55:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 9:45:25 PM, Marauder wrote:
At 12/19/2012 9:24:26 PM, elisur wrote:

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live,

this right here! i was trying to think of this verse a moment ago, so its Deuteronomy. for some reason i thought I remember someone saying it was in joshua, although there might just be a similar verse there also


What about this one?

Romans 9
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God"s mercy.

...19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?" 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

vv.19 seems like what most of you are asking.. the answer is painfully clear.. why do you ignore it? Maybe because you weren't meant to know the truth, maybe some of you will have revealed to them.. only God knows.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.