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

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more