Sin in light of exhaustive determinism

G

guest1

Guest
If God wanted to have a reason to justify damning most of humanity to eternal suffering, why did He need to ordain sin to do it? It seems to me that if Calvinism is true, then God could just as easily have decided to condemn as many humans and angels He wanted without having them become sinners. Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? If that answer works for Calvinism, why wouldn't it work just the same if God were to condemn perfect beings to eternal torment? This seems especially problematic for Calvinism in my view because Christ had to condescend to become one of us and to be crucified by sinners in order to redeem the ones that God ordained to sin, but didn't want to condemn.
Amen
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
So you believe God could reward all the evil people and punish innocent people and He would be just in doing so?

God can do whatever God wants—He OWNS everything, literally.

He is not bound to some "greater than God" moral code, that would be idolatry.

Why is an Arminian telling a Calvinist these things, oh the irony, lol.
 
G

guest1

Guest
If God wanted to have a reason to justify damning most of humanity to eternal suffering, why did He need to ordain sin to do it? It seems to me that if Calvinism is true, then God could just as easily have decided to condemn as many humans and angels He wanted without having them become sinners. Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? If that answer works for Calvinism, why wouldn't it work just the same if God were to condemn perfect beings to eternal torment? This seems especially problematic for Calvinism in my view because Christ had to condescend to become one of us and to be crucified by sinners in order to redeem the ones that God ordained to sin, but didn't want to condemn.
Yes clearly it’s a false systematic theology . It’s an oxymoron.
 
G

guest1

Guest
Because God has revealed his character and nature.

Gid cannot lie for example.
Which Gods nature is the exact opposite of Calvinism . It’s the main reason I rejected and abandoned tulip . It’s an assault on Gods character/nature.

next
 

squirrelyguy

Active member
Because God has revealed his character and nature.

Gid cannot lie for example.
But isn't that the fundamental assumption of Paul's interlocuter in Romans 9? Namely, that God would be acting inconsistently with His nature if He finds fault with people for acting in accordance with His will?

The point I'm getting at in all of this is that the way in which Paul's retort in Romans 9 is used as a clobber-verse to silence all objection to Calvinism could be used as a clobber-verse against objections to any other theological belief that makes claims which are perceived (by the objector) to be inconsistent with God's revealed nature.
 
G

guest1

Guest
But isn't that the fundamental assumption of Paul's interlocuter in Romans 9? Namely, that God would be acting inconsistently with His nature if He finds fault with people for acting in accordance with His will?

The point I'm getting at in all of this is that the way in which Paul's retort in Romans 9 is used as a clobber-verse to silence all objection to Calvinism could be used as a clobber-verse against objections to any other theological belief that makes claims which are perceived (by the objector) to be inconsistent with God's revealed nature.
Amen
 

squirrelyguy

Active member
But isn't that the fundamental assumption of Paul's interlocuter in Romans 9? Namely, that God would be acting inconsistently with His nature if He finds fault with people for acting in accordance with His will?

The point I'm getting at in all of this is that the way in which Paul's retort in Romans 9 is used as a clobber-verse to silence all objection to Calvinism could be used as a clobber-verse against objections to any other theological belief that makes claims which are perceived (by the objector) to be inconsistent with God's revealed nature.
In other words, once you accept Paul's words as a defense of what we call "Calvinism", you really have no principled stopping point to letting that verse be used to silence any other objection. Why can't God condemn perfect beings to eternal torment? Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?

See especially Abraham's intercession on behalf of Sodom in Genesis 18, in which Abraham objects to God's intentions by saying "Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25) Abraham objects to God's declared will by making an argument from God's revealed nature, and God agrees with him and relents. A Calvinist bystander armed with Romans 9:20 might have interrupted on God's behalf and rebuked Abraham.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
But isn't that the fundamental assumption of Paul's interlocuter in Romans 9? Namely, that God would be acting inconsistently with His nature if He finds fault with people for acting in accordance with His will?

The point I'm getting at in all of this is that the way in which Paul's retort in Romans 9 is used as a clobber-verse to silence all objection to Calvinism could be used as a clobber-verse against objections to any other theological belief that makes claims which are perceived (by the objector) to be inconsistent with God's revealed nature.

No, the point is that we use Rom. 9 against Arminians who try to use rationalization to try to reject the teachings of the Bible.
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
In other words, once you accept Paul's words as a defense of what we call "Calvinism", you really have no principled stopping point to letting that verse be used to silence any other objection. Why can't God condemn perfect beings to eternal torment? Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?

See especially Abraham's intercession on behalf of Sodom in Genesis 18, in which Abraham objects to God's intentions by saying "Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25) Abraham objects to God's declared will by making an argument from God's revealed nature, and God agrees with him and relents. A Calvinist bystander armed with Romans 9:20 might have interrupted on God's behalf and rebuked Abraham.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that God doesn't say in romans 9 that He can do absolutely anything.

He specifically is talking about molding the clay as He determines.

He doesnt say he could mold good clay and then condemn it unjustly, Which would go against His character.
 
Last edited:

CookedGoose

Active member
Now we're getting somewhere!

"Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" If that answer works for Calvinism, why doesn't it work for your objection?
Paul doesn't make this statement in a vacuum. He then goes on to state God predetermined one vessel for honor and another for dishonor, which is the big objection to biblical (aka Calvinist) doctrine. If he instead went on to say God is obligated (bound) to save whoever believes using their own free volition your point could stand.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Paul doesn't make this statement in a vacuum. He then goes on to state God predetermined one vessel for honor and another for dishonor, which is the big objection to biblical (aka Calvinist) doctrine. If he instead went on to say God is obligated (bound) to save whoever believes using their own free volition your point could stand.

Do you think God is obligated to reward good vessels somehow?

Even though you think rewarding "free volition" could not possibly be an obligation?

The logical point of Romans 9 is that God is not obligated to do anything at all, as Squirrel has well pointed out.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
So God can lie as well?
Because God has revealed his character and nature.

Gid cannot lie for example.

Yes, God does not do some things because he revealed his nature, I agree.

But that doesn't mean God couldn't do them if he wanted to, it does not mean God is somehow forced to do what he does.

God does things by choice, by the freedom of self-expression of his perfect attributes, not because he is bound to an imposed moral code.

God can do anything he wants to, he is the 900 pound gorilla, metaphorically speaking.
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
Yes, God does not do some things because he revealed his nature, I agree.

But that doesn't mean God couldn't do them if he wanted to, it does not mean God is somehow forced to do what he does.

God does things by choice, by the freedom of self-expression of his perfect attributes, not because he is bound to an imposed moral code.

God can do anything he wants to, he is the 900 pound gorilla, metaphorically speaking.
To say that God will not do X because of his nature, is also to say his nature prevents him from X. Which is equivalent to saying He cannot do X.

Likewise, scripture says it is impossible for God to lie, which is also equivalent to saying He cannot lie.

His nature determines His actions. His "freedom" is to be who He is, and act accordingly and nothing else. Same as us. God is not free to do otherwise, again same as us.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
To say that God will not do X because of his nature, is also to say his nature prevents him from X. Which is equivalent to saying He cannot do X.

This is just a denial of God having (actual) free will.

I understand you are (divine) determinist, and that is to be expected.

Likewise, scripture says it is impossible for God to lie, which is also equivalent to saying He cannot lie.

I cannot do that which I choose not to do.

It does not mean I literally do not have the ability to do otherwise.

His nature determines His actions. His "freedom" is to be who He is, and act accordingly and nothing else. Same as us. God is not free to do otherwise, again same as us.

Well, our theologies are radically different.

If God is forced to do good, he doesn't really win any virtue for doing what is right... he doesn't even have a choice.

"I will be what I will be" is a valid interpretation of YHWH, and it shows God is not forced to be something.
 
Top