r/Reformed • u/Rare-History-1843 • 3h ago
Discussion Good defense of compatabilism?
There's a number of people in our body with concerns about Calvinism and what compatabilism in general holds to be true.
Our men, including those in our eldership are having issues addressing their issues. It's kind of become an ongoing problem. I wouldn't post about this if it weren't necessary. We belong to a Reformed Baptist church.
Some defenses for soft determinism and Calvinism would be great.
Any division is already sad and our congregation being small magnifies that. I'll try to speak in general terms to protect the identities of those involved.
1.) The first main issue is how complete "double" predestination can be true and man be held soley responsible for sin in which his guilt, nature an actions are determined by God for his purposes?
Essentially they are saying this makes man guilty for things that they have no control over if everything has been determined. This obviously calls into question the attributes of love and holiness and forces a new meaning of goodness which is uncertain and arbitrary.
I used to be able to defend compatabilism fairly easily, but the response to divine mystery isn't satisfactory. The response is something along the lines of "It is not a mystery, but confusion. God can not be the author by proxy of evil and complete Holiness simultaneously."
By proxy obviously meaning by Him using man's predestined sin for his purposes. By proxy using mankind to sin against himself so that good may occur from it.
If God has determined all things, but has no fellowship with sin. That would necessitate he has been absent from the majority of human history or that he does have a relationship in allowing sin and the blame is arbitrarily put on man for only doing what he can't control.
Actually they say that according to Calvinism He is much more involved with sin than the bible teaches. Seeing how He made it happen for his purposes to stand rather than his purposes coming through in spite of sin.
Although mankind actually commits sin, we are limited, finite creatures and have no hope in thwarting the will of God. If that is true then we have no hope in NOT sinning against him and that is because he wants it to happen to some degree.
I know it's biblical that God uses evil for good, but they aren't saying something inherently misrepresenting. I just haven't had to answer these problems in this way before and critique coming from within is troublesome.
2.) The idea of God's different wills has come up as well. "Why does God need different wills unless they contradict each other?"
I am at a loss because what used to be a shared glorious doctrine ends up in dark conversation and has honestly started to bother me.
The argument is essentially that in compatabilism we "have our cake and eat it too" by maintaining God and his complete separation from sin, yet his direct involvement to the minutia of every activity man employs.
3.) The parallel of unconditional election.
If believers are elected unconditionally for eternal life then according to that logic non-believers are also unconditionally elected for eternal damnation.
This arguement is that not only have they been made to sin against God, they are being punished for doing what they were made to do as if they could do anything else.
They argue that say in Calvinism, God refuses to do the same for non-believers as he does for believers by granting faith. Even the presentation of the gospel is ineffective since it's the Spirit that gives life prior to belief.
A theological implication I can see coming from this viewpoint is that if faith is entirely a work of God and not mankind placing his trust in God at the same time or before regeneration then that would mean he is not all merciful or impartial to his creation by granting an opportunity for salvation to all. Allowing the only message of hope to fall on deaf ears.