Do Calvinists Yern for a Deeper Understanding of Responsibility?

I recently listened to a lecture by Ronald Nash where he recounts a conversation he had with J.I. Packer. They are both Calvinsts. Nash brings up the subject of Middle Knowledge. Packer says it's Arminian. Nash says, no, this could be used by Reformers to maintain God's total sovereign control and still preserve responsibility. Packer says you may have a point there. Here's a link to the clip. (link) The conversation is about 11 minutes in.

That got me wondering if Calvinists wish for a better explanation of responsibility. Our moral instincts are kinda like animal instincts. They can erode over time; especially for those who experience the opposite from a young age. Thus pigeons may overcome their natural fear of man. (No offence intended by the analogy, I think of Calvinists like Nash and Packer as brilliant rather than birdbrains.) I doubt mature Calvinists feel a pull of their moral intuitions against their doctrine, but I bet more recent Calvinists still do. Still, Packer and Nash's conversation makes me wonder if perhaps even experienced Calvinists have flashbacks from time to time. I have heard Calvinists say they don't trust their moral intuitions due to the fall and subject them to the word of God (which I can admire). Has anyone else (Calvinists or Arminian) come across cases like this or have a explanation on how moral intuitions work for Calvinists?

Comments

The Seeking Disciple said…
I think that Calvinist theologians obviously struggle with how do we ignore our inner feelings versus obeying the Word but the average Calvinist is just as Arminian in their following their flesh. Our free will is intact though the Calvinist theologian doesn't agree with Calvinists such as Dr. Sam Storms saying that free will is a myth. Most average Calvinists acknowledge that free will is real though they might not be able to explain it in reference to their view of God's determinism of all things.
January 2, 2010 at 12:33 PM
A.M. Mallett said…
I believe the thinking Calvinist absolutely struggles with how to maintain man's responsibility for sin while at the same time demanding a dictatorial understanding of God's sovereign control. It is a very untenable position to be in.
January 2, 2010 at 8:03 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Thanks Roy. Good point about a lot of Calvinists actually holding to freewill (inconsistently). You are probably right about neo-Calvinists.

God be with you,
Dan
January 4, 2010 at 8:34 PM
Godismyjudge said…
That's right trav. It seems like it would be an uncomfortable possition to be in.

God be with you,
Dan
January 4, 2010 at 8:35 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,
Read more

John Owen - Death of Death in the Death of Christ

For those who may have suffered through my review of John Owen's classic work the Death of Death in the Death of Christ, I have wonderful news. You get to do it all over again!!! I compiled it into 5 articles available here . I also added a link on the left side of my blog. I also now have a left side of my blog. :-) God be with you, Dan
Read more

The Equivocation of Regeneration

In the order of salvation, which comes first, faith or regeneration? Before we can answer that, don't we first need to understand what regeneration is? In this post I plan on contrasting Hodge's view with Arminius'. Hopefully, in the process we can clarify the issue of monergism vs. synergism. Hodge’s Order of Salvation Common Grace – a “moral suasion” that brings good works, but is insufficient to enable justifying faith Regeneration – God’s supernatural and immediate change of a person’s nature Vocation – same Gospel as the one in common grace, but it’s effectual on the changed man. Conversion – faith and repentance “first conscious exercise of the renewed soul” Justification Two Definitions of Regeneration Hodges provides two alternative definitions of regeneration. Sometimes regeneration means just the imparting of life, other times it means the whole process including the things coming before and after the imparting of life. 1 Hodge says these two difference sense
Read more