In Calvinism why are the sinners God made responsible for what God has made them?

[Jethro Bodine]

In Calvinism, God purposely determines ahead of time who will be a lost sinner, and who will be a saved saint, apart from any consideration of what that person wants or wills in the matter. It says God pays back the sinner for being what He made them to be, but says the saint has no responsibility for being what He made them to be. That's a horrible inconsistency.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I'm bored so I will play ...
In Arminianism ...
Premise1: God purposely determines ahead of time that everyone is a sinner Psalm 51:5; Psalm 58:3

God purposely determines ahead of time who will be a lost sinner

Premise2: "apart from any consideration of what that person wants or wills in the matter"

apart from any consideration of what that person wants or wills in the matter

Premise3: "God pays back the sinner for what He has made them to be"

God pays back the sinner for being what He made them to be

Premise 4: the saint has no responsibility for being what He [God] made them to be

he saint has no responsibility for being what He made them to be

Premise 5: Above person dies having never even heard of Christ and spends eternity in Hell

Arminian Conclusion:

That's a horrible inconsistency.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm bored so I will play ...
In Arminianism ...
Premise1: God purposely determines ahead of time that everyone is a sinner Psalm 51:5; Psalm 58:3


Premise2: "apart from any consideration of what that person wants or wills in the matter"


Premise3: "God pays back the sinner for what He has made them to be"


Premise 4: the saint has no responsibility for being what He [God] made them to be


Premise 5: Above person dies having never even heard of Christ and spends eternity in Hell

Arminian Conclusion:

Wonderful, now answer the things I brought up! Did you think just because another theology shares similar beliefs that it relieves Calvinism of explaining it's similarly illogical and inconsistent beliefs?

By the way, I'm not Arminianist. Feel free to address it's inconsistencies in another thread. I will participate.

You obviously think, erroneously, that to resist Calvinism is to automatically be Arminian, as if one can only be one or the other. Open your mind up, friend!

 

[Fastfredy0]

OK, you're not Arminian, it doesn't matter .... my point still stands.

Given your premises you conclude:

[God has] a horrible inconsistency.

You're premises are:
Premise1: God purposely determines ahead of time that everyone is a sinner Psalm 51:5 (maybe you don't agree with this scripture
Premise2: Premise 1 is "apart from any consideration of what that person wants or wills in the matter"
Premise3: "God pays back the sinner for what He has made them to be"
Premise 4: the saint has no responsibility for being what He [God] made them to be
Premise 5: Above person dies having never even heard of Christ and spends eternity in Hell (I assumed this premise)
Your conclusion ... God has a horrible inconsistency

Aside: Paul basically dealt with the same issue in Romans 9. Unlike you, his premises did not conclude the "God has horrible inconsistencies"; rather, Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still blame me [for sinning]? For who [including myself] has [ever] resisted His will and purpose?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers [arrogantly] back to God and dares to defy Him? Will the thing which is formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”

Aside: Hey, I don't really think you believe "God has horrible inconsistencies". I think you have a logic problem you can't solve. Good luck.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Premise1: God purposely determines ahead of time that everyone is a sinner Psalm 51:5; Psalm 58:3

Surely, all men are born destined to eventually sin, and by no choice of their own. But they are not held accountable for their sin until God judges them to be accountable for their sin - Romans 7:9. No inconsistency here.

Calvinism says that because of the way God has made them, both lost sinner and saved saint have pre-programmed routes they will take in life, yet the lost sinner is the one who bears responsibility for the way God made them. That's inconsistent.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Premise3: "God pays back the sinner for what He has made them to be"

Only if they reject salvation, not as an automatic consequence of being born to sin.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Premise 4: the saint has no responsibility for being what He [God] made them to be

It is incumbent on the person who wants to be saved that they believe. The believer is indeed responsible for their believing, just as the lost sinner is responsible for his unbelief. No inconsistency in this theology. The inconsistency is in Calvinism where the person predestined to be a lost sinner bears responsibility for his God given fate, not the person predestined to be a saved saint.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Premise 5: Above person dies having never even heard of Christ and spends eternity in Hell (I assumed this premise)

God has provided nature and conscience to justly judge those who lack specific gospel knowledge - Romans 2:14-16.

People who lack gospel knowledge do not go to hell for not hearing the gospel message. They go to hell as the wages for the sin they knew by way of nature and conscience not to do.

 

[Fastfredy0]

It is incumbent on the person who wants to be saved that they believe. The believer is indeed responsible for their believing, just as the lost sinner is responsible for his unbelief.

Agreed. The premise is made to show there is a group of people who never heard of Christ and therefore have no chance to believe. Said group all (without exception) will sin which is determined by God given them a depraved nature.
Therefore, by your definition of responsible they are held responsible for what God determined. They had absolutely no control over their destiny and were sentenced to hell. It is analogous to your original post where you have a group sentenced to hell and they had no control over their destiny. So, by your definition of what God must do you say ...

That's a horrible inconsistency.

You have the same inconsistency that you apply to Calvinism which is: God determined a group will sin and is held responsible for it despite that group never being able to do anything but it.

Aside: I pointed out above that Paul address the issue in Romans 9.

I submit you do not understand what constitutes "responsibility". It is NOT what you consider fair.
The assumed premise is that responsibility presupposes freedom, and this leads to the conclusion that if man is not free, then he is not responsible. However, this premise is false, because by definition, responsibility has nothing to do with freedom, but it has to do with whether one is held accountable. The first dictionary definition for "responsible" is "liable to be called on to answer." Since God has declared his moral laws to humanity, and since he has declared judgment upon those who would disobey, this means that man is responsible, because God will hold him accountable. The issue of freedom does not enter into the discussion.

Definitions of responsible:

1. The state, quality, or fact of being responsible.
2. Something for which one is responsible; a duty, obligation, or burden.
3. The state of being responsible, accountable, or answerable.

You inserting your arbitrary conditions for the definition of responsibility to try to disparage Calvinism is a logical fallacy. One is simply responsible because GOD SAYS SO.

But even if your definition was correct (which it is not), you have the same problem Calvinism because God sends some people to hell (those who never heard of Christ) without giving them any choice in the matter ... they are held responsible for what Adam did and they are given to opportunity for a pardon.

Romans 9:19, and writes, "One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'" He replies, "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" (v. 20). God rules by absolute authority; no one can halt his plans, and no one has the right to question him. This is true because God is the creator of all things, and he has the right to do whatever he wishes with his creation: "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" (v. 21). There's your biblical answer.

Have a good day. Bedtime

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The premise is made to show there is a group of people who never heard of Christ and therefore have no chance to believe. Said group all (without exception) will sin which is determined by God given them a depraved nature.
Therefore, by your definition of responsible they are held responsible for what God determined. They had absolutely no control over their destiny and were sentenced to hell. It is analogous to your original post where you have a group sentenced to hell and they had no control over their destiny.

But they DO have control over their destiny.

God only holds a person accountable for what they know. God has given all men a certain level of knowledge through nature and conscience, and so they become a law unto themselves. A law by which they will be condemned or acquitted on the Day of Christ - Romans 2:13-16...

13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous.

14Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15So they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them 16on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Christ Jesus,b as proclaimed by my gospel.

In this Biblically based theology there is no inconsistency in the assignment of responsibility as there is in Calvinism. The lost CAN do something about the initial fate assigned to them by God. Man shoulders the responsibility equally for, both, believing, and not believing, whichever he chooses despite the fact that his fate, his destiny, had been set beforehand.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You have the same inconsistency that you apply to Calvinism which is: God determined a group will sin and is held responsible for it despite that group never being able to do anything but it.

Hopefully, you can see now that is not the case.
Man IS able to do something about it by reason of the law of nature and conscience given to all men. So the condition that exists in Calvinism that makes it inconsistent does not exist in the theology I'm sharing here.

 

[GodsGrace]

Agreed. The premise is made to show there is a group of people who never heard of Christ and therefore have no chance to believe. Said group all (without exception) will sin which is determined by God given them a depraved nature.
Therefore, by your definition of responsible they are held responsible for what God determined. They had absolutely no control over their destiny and were sentenced to hell. It is analogous to your original post where you have a group sentenced to hell and they had no control over their destiny. So, by your definition of what God must do you say ...

You have the same inconsistency that you apply to Calvinism which is: God determined a group will sin and is held responsible for it despite that group never being able to do anything but it.

Aside: I pointed out above that Paul address the issue in Romans 9.

I submit you do not understand what constitutes "responsibility". It is NOT what you consider fair.
The assumed premise is that responsibility presupposes freedom, and this leads to the conclusion that if man is not free, then he is not responsible. However, this premise is false, because by definition, responsibility has nothing to do with freedom, but it has to do with whether one is held accountable. The first dictionary definition for "responsible" is "liable to be called on to answer." Since God has declared his moral laws to humanity, and since he has declared judgment upon those who would disobey, this means that man is responsible, because God will hold him accountable. The issue of freedom does not enter into the discussion.

Definitions of responsible:

1. The state, quality, or fact of being responsible.
2. Something for which one is responsible; a duty, obligation, or burden.
3. The state of being responsible, accountable, or answerable.

You inserting your arbitrary conditions for the definition of responsibility to try to disparage Calvinism is a logical fallacy. One is simply responsible because GOD SAYS SO.

But even if your definition was correct (which it is not), you have the same problem Calvinism because God sends some people to hell (those who never heard of Christ) without giving them any choice in the matter ... they are held responsible for what Adam did and they are given to opportunity for a pardon.

Romans 9:19, and writes, "One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'" He replies, "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" (v. 20). God rules by absolute authority; no one can halt his plans, and no one has the right to question him. This is true because God is the creator of all things, and he has the right to do whatever he wishes with his creation: "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" (v. 21). There's your biblical answer.

Have a good day. Bedtime

Oh FF,,,, !!
It's so nice to see you back with all your premises!
At least you're an intelligent calvinist.
And one that's not adverse to admitting he's one of the reformed faith.
How refreshing!
Be back soon....

 

[journeymanisnothing]

In Calvinism, God purposely determines ahead of time who will be a lost sinner, and who will be a saved saint, apart from any consideration of what that person wants or wills in the matter. It says God pays back the sinner for being what He made them to be,

God purposely determined beforehand what type of person would be a lost sinner and who would be a saved saint.

but says the saint has no responsibility for being what He made them to be. That's a horrible inconsistency.

From mankinds (our) perspective that God nurtures us in all things, that's true.
From Gods' perspective that mankind has no responsibility to respond to him, is no where taught in scripture.

This idea that people have no responsibility to listen to God, is why people who believe that are headed for disaster.

 

[Fastfredy0]

But they DO have control over their destiny.

God only holds a person accountable for what they know. God has given all men a certain level of knowledge through nature and conscience, and so they become a law unto themselves.

Romans 1 says everyone is without excuse when it comes to going to heaven or hell. That part we are agreed to.

A law by which they will be condemned or acquitted on the Day of Christ - Romans 2:13-16...

No one is acquitted by the law. Romans 3:20 For no person will be justified [freed of guilt and declared righteous] in His sight by [trying to do] the works of the Law.

The bible contradicts your statement which nullifies your conclusion. Romans 3:21-26 goes on to says how one is made righteous and it is through Christ.

Aside: Just for fun, what must a Amazonian in the 1200s do to have his sins forgiven? You say its possible so outline what he must do. Please give scripture verses to back up this new gospel you are submitting. Perhaps your gospel is more efficient than the one thru faith in Christ which would make telling people of Christ a detriment. So, WHAT EXACTLY MUST ONE DO TO BE SAVED WITHOUT CHRIST given no one can keep the law.

In this Biblically based theology there is no inconsistency in the assignment of responsibility as there is in Calvinism. The lost CAN do something about the initial fate assigned to them by God. Man shoulders the responsibility equally for, both, believing, and not believing, whichever he chooses despite the fact that his fate, his destiny, had been set beforehand.

AGAIN, your statement is based on the false premise that one can be saved by obeying the law. (Romans 3:20)

Thanks for addressing my statements directly.

 

[GodsGrace]

Surely, all men are born destined to eventually sin, and by no choice of their own. But they are not held accountable for their sin until God judges them to be accountable for their sin - Romans 7:9. No inconsistency here.

Calvinism says that because of the way God has made them, both lost sinner and saved saint have pre-programmed routes they will take in life, yet the lost sinner is the one who bears responsibility for the way God made them. That's inconsistent.

OK Fastfredy0

Jethro is stating the above which, as you must surely know, is a big problem in the reformed faith.
Of course, you wash it away by invoking God's sovereignty....but that doesn't answer the question.

If we're to believe in a God that is justice itself, then we must believe in a God that is just.

Let's take a look at the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Chapter 5 Of Providence

1. God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

God predestinates EVERYTHING, from the greatest to the least.
He predestines the saved and the lost.
What they think, what they do, every action that is taken by man.

However,

Chapter 5 Of Providence

4...yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be the author or approver of sin.


Could you explain that in simple words?
God predestinates EVERYTHING
but He is NOT the author of sin because He is Holy and righteous.
So, instead, this holy and righteous God blames man for his own sins even though God predestinated these men to do the sinning.


BTW,
Welcome back.

 

[GodsGrace]

Romans 1 says everyone is without excuse when it comes to going to heaven or hell. That part we are agreed to.



No one is acquitted by the law. Romans 3:20 For no person will be justified [freed of guilt and declared righteous] in His sight by [trying to do] the works of the Law.

The bible contradicts your statement which nullifies your conclusion. Romans 3:21-26 goes on to says how one is made righteous and it is through Christ.

Aside: Just for fun, what must a Amazonian in the 1200s do to have his sins forgiven? You say its possible so outline what he must do. Please give scripture verses to back up this new gospel you are submitting. Perhaps your gospel is more efficient than the one thru faith in Christ which would make telling people of Christ a detriment. So, WHAT EXACTLY MUST ONE DO TO BE SAVED WITHOUT CHRIST given no one can keep the law.


AGAIN, your statement is based on the false premise that one can be saved by obeying the law. (Romans 3:20)

Thanks for addressing my statements directly.

I see you really enjoyed my understanding of the amazonian in the 1,200's and are still using the example.

I do believe you use this entire concept to detract from facing your calvinistic ideas.

Could we, like, forget about the amazonian and instead concentrate on the 1,500's and on some persons that offered a belief system that makes no common sense?

Thanks. That would carry the conversation ahead a great deal.
Plus, not everyone agrees that persons were always saved.
Some believe it's necessary to believe in Jesus.
If you want to, you can start a new thread.

 

[Walpole]

I see you really enjoyed my understanding of the amazonian in the 1,200's and are still using the example.

I do believe you use this entire concept to detract from facing your calvinistic ideas.

Could we, like, forget about the amazonian and instead concentrate on the 1,500's and on some persons that offered a belief system that makes no common sense?

Thanks. That would carry the conversation ahead a great deal.
Plus, not everyone agrees that persons were always saved.
Some believe it's necessary to believe in Jesus.
If you want to, you can start a new thread.

---> https://christianforums.net/threads/the-atonement-what-did-it-really-accomplish.86616/post-1625675

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Romans 1 says everyone is without excuse when it comes to going to heaven or hell. That part we are agreed to.

How can you say you agree with everyone being without excuse when it comes to going to heaven or hell?

In Calvinism, the lost sinner does in fact have an excuse: You made me to be this way without remedy and there's nothing I can do about it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No one is acquitted by the law. Romans 3:20 For no person will be justified [freed of guilt and declared righteous] in His sight by [trying to do] the works of the Law.

The bible contradicts your statement which nullifies your conclusion. Romans 3:21-26 goes on to says how one is made righteous and it is through Christ.

Paul is not saying this man, who knows nothing about the gospel, earns justification/salvation by obeying the law written on his heart through nature and conscience. His obedience is his faithful response to the witness of the Spirit at work in him testifying through nature and his conscience to the existence of God and his righteousness, his obedience showing him to be righteous by his faith, not made righteous by his obedience. 'Declared righteous' in the passage under examination means to be pronounced righteous by the evidence of obeying God's law written on his heart, not made righteous by obeying the law written on his heart.

13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous.

14Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15So they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them 16on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Christ Jesus,b as proclaimed by my gospel.

Romans 2:13-16

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Aside: Just for fun, what must a Amazonian in the 1200s do to have his sins forgiven?

He is forgiven by responding in faith to the law written on his heart by the Spirit through nature and conscience. We see this truth in the example of the Israelites who responded to the revelation of God through the law in an attitude of works rather than faith:

31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because their pursuit was not by faith, but as if it were by works.
Romans 9:31-32

What this is getting at is there is a faithful response to the revelation of God and his righteousness through law, and there is the erroneous mentality of works response to the revelation of God through law, the response the Israelites had to the law. Not all of them, for the Bible speaks of notable righteous Israelites during the time of the law. Made righteous by their faithful response to the revelation of God in the law, not their works.