tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7337737876748619209..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Calvinism and responsibility, a question for secular compatibilistsVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6608297828316852582015-12-17T12:57:08.896-07:002015-12-17T12:57:08.896-07:00B.Obtuse: "Oh, and by the way. The doctrine o...<b>B.Obtuse:</b> "<i>Oh, and by the way. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in no way, shape, or form violates or contradicts either the doctrine of the fall or that of the Redemption. ... Why is is so incredible to think that God can work retroactively in time? Mary's preservation from original sin was a direct consequence of the Redemption.</i>"<br /><br />As is customary when you <i>need</i> to miss the point, you quite miss the point.<br /><br /><b>self:</b> "<i>And, being me, I cannot help but wonder, if God caused/causes Mary to be conceived without Original Sin, why does he not simply do the same to the rest of us. For, after all, the *very* rationale that provides the need (I mean, for Catholicism, not for Christianity) for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception *also* entails that </i>no one<i> can [voluntarily] submit to the Will of God and cease his innate rebellion by acknowledging Christ as his Lord and Savior unless God </i>causes<i> [him] to do so. Which is to say, in decreeing the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, the Roman Church has committed itself to an </i>esoteric<i> hyper-Calvinism wholly at odds with its </i>exoteric<i> defense of the freedom of the will.</i>"<br /><br />Adam's sin either infected all human beings with sin, and thus death, or it did not. The doctrine of Original Sin is the claim Adam, being the progenitor of all human beings, stands in Headship for all of us, and thus that due to his sin, *all* human beings -- all his lineage -- are infected with sin, and thus death, <i>ab origine</i>, in their (individual) origin. The doctrine of Original Sin means that we *all* are sinners <i>from our conceptions</i> -- even before we commit any specific sin.<br /><br />The doctrine of the Redemption is the claim that Christ Jesus is the Second Adam -- that being not merely a "son of Adam", but also the Creator himself, he is able to stand in Headship for human beings in place of the first Adam, for all who <i>freely</i> repent of their sinful natures inherited as members of the lineage of the first Adam.<br /><br />The distinctive doctrine of Calvinism is that no one even <i>even has</i> the 'free-will' capacity of repenting his sinful nature inherited as a member of the lineage of the first Adam -- unless God first choose that individual as a(n unwilling) recipient of his "irresistable grace" and redeem him from sin against his will (*). Which is to say, according to Calvinism, the truth of the matter is not *merely* that none of us have the capacity to free ourselves of the infection of sin, and of death, but that not one of us even have the capacity *to desire* to be freed of the infection unless God first free us of it ... which, if it were true, rather makes repentance a hollow act. <br /><br />(*) According to Calvinism, a person can will to *not* repent his sin -- which willing may be countermanded and negated by God -- but no person can will to repent his sin. According to Calvinism, the fact of one's membership in the lineage of the first Adam or of the Second Adam has nothing at all to do with how one responds to the wooing of God, but rather with whether God-as-Cosmic-Mind-Rapist has fixed his gimlet eye upon one.<br /><br />As mentioned above, the one of the important rationales for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is the assertion that had Many been subject to Original Sin, as the rest of use are, then she'd not have had the freedom even to <i>acquiesce</i> to God's will that she give birth to the Second Adam.<br /><br />The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is (hyper-)Calvinism-for-one.<br /><br /><b>B.Obtuse:</b> "<i>... Why is is so incredible to think that God can work retroactively in time? Mary's preservation from original sin was a direct consequence of the Redemption.</i>"<br /><br />If God prevented Mary being infected with sin at conception, as the rest of us have been, then she was <i>never in need of redemption</i> as the rest of us are. We need to be brought to Life because we're already dead; according to the d.I.C., Mary never was dead.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74168717945158390862015-12-17T12:55:10.334-07:002015-12-17T12:55:10.334-07:00B.Obtuse: "Oh, and by the way. The doctrine o...<b>B.Obtuse:</b> "<i>Oh, and by the way. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in no way, shape, or form violates or contradicts either the doctrine of the fall or that of the Redemption.</i>"<br /><br />Oh, so it's really, "<i>All -- except Mary -- have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God</i>"?<br /><br />And it's really, "<i>Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone ... and Mary.</i>"?<br /><br />And it's really, "<i>As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one" ... except Mary</i>"?<br /><br />And so on, multiply.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38288675905873372292015-12-17T08:18:19.834-07:002015-12-17T08:18:19.834-07:00B.Joking: "The same goes for the (quite scien...<b>B.Joking:</b> "<i>The same goes for the (quite scientific) doctrine of the Assumption. Mary was assumed (by Christ) body and soul into Heaven, as we will all be at the End of Days. And why was this so? Have you never heard of microchimerism ? There were present in Mary's physical body countless cells that belonged to Christ. Were these to "see corruption" (Acts 2:27) at Mary's death? Certainly not!</i>"<br /><br />Do you ever *think* about this special-pleading stuff before you say it?<br /><br />Was the infant Jesus' <i>meconium</i> also assumed into Heaven, lest his cells in it (which is to say, the bulk of the matter composing the stuff) "see corruption"? <br /><br />During his fetal development and subsequent life between birth and crucifixion, countless trillions of cells of Jesus's body died and were shed (cell-death is, after all, how our bodies grow and develop). Were these cells assumed into Heaven, individually or <i>en masse</i>, thest they "see corruption"? <br /><br />"<i>Have you never heard of microchimerism ?</i>"<br /><br />But of course. I long ago suggested that as part of a line of <i>naturalistic</i> reasoning contra the Christ-haters' strange insistence that the Virgin Birth is "(logically) impossible".Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69037625446299601802015-12-06T20:14:10.752-07:002015-12-06T20:14:10.752-07:00Dave,
You're welcome.
As for your point ab...Dave, <br /><br />You're welcome. <br /><br />As for your point about our ancestors, I'm not sure what you're saying is a guess. Is it that our australopithecines ancestors 4 million years ago were not humans and/or not persons? <br />If that is the case, I would say that for the purposes of my post about linguistic vagueness, there is no need to settle that point. Instead, one can just replace our australopithecines ancestors 4 million years ago with our also primate ancestors 44 million years ago - for example -, which were also the ancestors of, say, present-day mandrills. I would say that they were neither human or people, in the usual sense of the words. The substantive part of the argument remains unchanged. <br />If you meant something else, please let me know.Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69919922042179191782015-12-06T14:56:24.786-07:002015-12-06T14:56:24.786-07:00Angra,
The word "exactly" was meant to ...Angra,<br /><br />The word "exactly" was meant to provoke. Thanks for your reasonable response to my provocation.<br /><br />I do understand the point about linguistic vagueness. I was a math and chemistry guy when I went through college. I wish my theology could be made as clear as those studies.<br /><br />"our australopithecines ancestors 4 million years ago."<br /><br />At this point it's all a guess.David Duffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01222419875209542723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47521102724268432482015-12-02T12:31:11.060-07:002015-12-02T12:31:11.060-07:00Oh, and by the way. The doctrine of the Immaculate...Oh, and by the way. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in no way, shape, or form violates or contradicts either the doctrine of the fall or that of the Redemption. "Nothing is impossible to God" (Luke 1:37). Why is is so incredible to think that God can work retroactively in time? Mary's preservation from original sin was a direct consequence of the Redemption. The fact that it occurred (in our time frame) prior to the Cross and Resurrection is irrelevant to God, who is of course outside of time ("I am who am."). What was granted to her will in the fullness of things be granted to all of us. (We will have no inclination to evil in Heaven.) <br /><br />The same goes for the (quite scientific) doctrine of the Assumption. Mary was assumed (by Christ) body and soul into Heaven, as we will all be at the End of Days. And why was this so? Have you never heard of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchimerism" rel="nofollow">microchimerism</a>? There were present in Mary's physical body countless cells that belonged to Christ. Were these to "see corruption" (Acts 2:27) at Mary's death? Certainly not! <br /><br />How interesting that centuries before doctors ever knew of such things, the Faithful were already aware of their implications.<br /><br />Side note: Observe how carefully the Church distinguishes the Ascension (Christ ascending into Heaven under His own power) from the Assumption (Mary doing pretty much the same, but entirely due to the action of God - not her own). People who ignorantly think that Catholics "worship" Mary seem to always miss these countless precise yet blatantly obvious distinctions.<br /><br /><i>Jezu ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63761138738486709112015-12-02T09:44:25.270-07:002015-12-02T09:44:25.270-07:00Ilion, Ilion, Ilion,
Saint Louis de Montfort, fam...Ilion, Ilion, Ilion,<br /><br />Saint Louis de Montfort, famous for being perhaps the greatest advocate for devotion to Mary in all of history, wrote in his book <a href="http://www.catholictreasury.info/books/true_devotion/index.php" rel="nofollow"><i>True Devotion to Mary</i></a>:<br /><br />"Jesus, our Saviour, true God and true man must be the ultimate end of all our other devotions; otherwise they would be false and misleading. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and end of everything. "We labour," says St. Paul, "only to make all men perfect in Jesus Christ." For in him alone dwells the entire fullness of the divinity and the complete fullness of grace, virtue and perfection. In him alone we have been blessed with every spiritual blessing; he is the only teacher from whom we must learn; the only Lord on whom we should depend; the only Head to whom we should be united and the only model that we should imitate. He is the only Physician that can heal us; the only Shepherd that can feed us; the only Way that can lead us; the only Truth that we can believe; the only Life that can animate us. He alone is everything to us and he alone can satisfy all our desires.<br /><br />We are given no other name under heaven by which we can be saved. God has laid no other foundation for our salvation, perfection and glory than Jesus. Every edifice which is not built on that firm rock, is founded upon shifting sands and will certainly fall sooner or later. Every one of the faithful who is not united to him is like a branch broken from the stem of the vine. It falls and withers and is fit only to be burnt. If we live in Jesus and Jesus lives in us, we need not fear<br />damnation. Neither angels in heaven nor men on earth, nor devils in hell, no creature whatever can harm us, for no creature can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus. Through him, with him and in him, we can do all things and render all honour and glory to the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit; we can make ourselves perfect and be for our neighbour a fragrance of eternal life."<br />(Part One, Chapter Two, Paragraph 61)<br /><br />Satisfied?<br /><br /><i>Jezuufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88813577493137093182015-12-02T09:40:53.047-07:002015-12-02T09:40:53.047-07:00The thought occurs to me just now that perhaps an ...The thought occurs to me just now that perhaps an important reason why so many Catholics (*) are able to be deal with, which is to say, ignore, the cognitive dissonance of holdng both to a leftist and a Christianish world-view is that they are already highly skilled in dealing with the cognitive dissonance of worshipping Mary while insisting that they don't.<br /><br /><br /><br />(*) specifically, almost all of the ones who think of themselves as being intellectualIlíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44384800819220658782015-12-02T09:14:03.580-07:002015-12-02T09:14:03.580-07:00Riiiight! That's why you (plurally/institutio...Riiiight! That's why you (plurally/institutionally) refer to her as "the Co-Redemptrix" and as "the Mediatrix of all Graces" and "the Advocate for the People of God" ... as though there were any other Redeemer than Christ and any other Mediator than Christ and any other Advocate than Christ, in open opposition to the Bible's clear assertions that there is <i>one name</i> given men by which they might be saved, and there is <i>one</i> advocate and mediator and High Priest.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22686926060770965612015-12-02T08:50:35.565-07:002015-12-02T08:50:35.565-07:00And as for "Mariolatry", do we not all, ...And as for "Mariolatry", do we not all, Catholics and Protestants alike, pray the "Our Father"? Since we are the adopted sons of God, is not His Father our Father as well? And that being so, is not His mother also our mother? Christ Himself declared this from the very Cross. He looked at Mary and said of the beloved disciple (a.k.a., the Church), "Behold your son!" and to the disciple (i.e., each one of us, individually) "Behold your mother!"<br /><br />Despite unfortunate Protestant misunderstandings, Catholics do not "worship" Mary (implied in the word "Mariolatry"). The very idea is abhorrent to us - worship is reserved for God alone. We honor and venerate her as our mother - as we were <i>commanded</i> to do by our Lord Himself.<br /><br /><i>Jezu ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44993261350515375712015-12-02T08:49:42.300-07:002015-12-02T08:49:42.300-07:00"The doctrines of original sin and of free wi..."<i>The doctrines of original sin and of free will are not in the least incompatible.</i>"<br /><br />Of course they are not: it is the (hyper-Calvinist) doctrine of the Immaculate Conception that is incompatible with free will.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34378689880445942072015-12-02T08:40:09.389-07:002015-12-02T08:40:09.389-07:00Ilion,
The doctrines of original sin and of free ...Ilion,<br /><br />The doctrines of original sin and of free will are not in the least incompatible. They are like Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics. The issue here is one of scale and perspective. Matter and energy behave in fundamentally different ways,dependent upon whether you observe them from a "human" perspective, or from a subatomic one. Man is always free at each moment to choose the good (that's the "quantum mechanics" perspective), yet we all too often do not. And that is because in an aggregate sense, we are from birth inclined to evil (and there we have the "Newtonian physics perspective).<br /><br /><b>Please Note:</b> I am <i>not</i> saying there is a connection between will and physics. Iam simply using these as <i>analogies</i> to convey the importance of scale and perspective. When I stand on the seashore, the ocean is infinitely vast. When I look at Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" image of the Earth taken from outside the solar system, our planet's oceans are microscopically small - they share a single pixel along with all the continents. <i>And both perspectives are equally valid.</i><br /><br />The passage from Romans that I cited above illustrates a "macro reality". When Sirach writes "If you will, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice" (Ecclesiasticus 15:15) he is considering our free will from a "micro" perspective (i.e., at the quantum level).<br /><br />Both statements are 100% correct and not in conflict with each other, just as my views of the ocean as being inconceivably vast or vanishingly insignificant were both valid, depending on context.<br /><br /><i>Jezu ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67380060126209131512015-12-02T08:04:24.528-07:002015-12-02T08:04:24.528-07:00oozzielionel: "A bit of a simplification, but...<b>oozzielionel:</b> "<i>A bit of a simplification, but I think we could say that Catholics and Calvinists agree on Federal Headship. It may also be that Catholics are close to Arminians on free will contrary to Calvinists. ... It appears that the flavor of Calvinism you want to use here is supralapsarianism. ... Calvinism (and Catholicism) relies ...</i>"<br /><br />When it needs to (*) Catholicism can, and will, out-Calvin even the most ultra-Calvinists.<br /><br />(*) I have in mind, specifically, the doctrine, and rationale, of the Immaculate Conception: in a nutshell, God caused Mary to be conceived without Original Sin because had she been tainted with Original Sin, as every other Son of Adam and Daughter of Eve is, she would not have <i>free</i> to submit to his will that she be the Mother of God.<br /><br />And, being me, I cannot help but wonder, if God caused/causes Mary to be conceived without Original Sin, why does he not simply do the same to the rest of us. For, after all, the *very* rationale that provides the need (I mean, for Catholicism, not for Christianity) for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception *also* entails that <i>no one</i> can submit to the Will of God and cease his innate rebellion by acknowledging Christ as his Lord and Savior unless God <i>causes</i> it to do so. Which is to say, in decreeing the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, the Roman Church has committed itself to an <i>esoteric</i> hyper-Calvinism wholly at odds with its <i>exoteric</i> defense of the freedom of the will.<br /><br />Thus we see that Catholicism's Mariolatry <i>forces</i> it to be incoherent.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38340870736946352172015-12-02T05:13:11.893-07:002015-12-02T05:13:11.893-07:00Bob, what do you think Paul means by that? It'...Bob, what do you think Paul means by that? It's more than merely bemoaning the law of unintended consequences, presumably?David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77871693014603514712015-12-02T02:10:08.407-07:002015-12-02T02:10:08.407-07:00David,
I'm not sure I understand your point, ...David,<br /><br />I'm not sure I understand your point, but I get the impression you didn't understand mine (unless you did but you're still making another, unrelated point? But that wouldn't explain the "exactly", so please clarify). <br />The point I was trying to make was not about bias but about linguistic vagueness, and would apply to the word "people" as well, and to at least most words we use to describe the world around us. <br />For example, I don't think the word "heap" is precise enough to be used (i.e., to communicate successfully) in the context of arguments that say things like "If there is one grain of sand, there is no heap. If there are 100000, there is a heap. So, there is a first number of grains of sand that make up a heap". <br />That's a common example, but I think this phenomenon is far more common. <br />For instance, I don't think the word "planet" is precise enough (even with the latest definition) to communicate successfully in a context like "let n be the first second when there was a planet orbiting the Sun", even if we fixed a precise reference (i.e., a n=0) to start counting. <br />I think the same applies to words like "cat", "dog", "horse", and also "human", "person", etc. <br />So, we may for instance consider our australopithecines ancestors 4 million years ago. None of them was human. On the other hand, our ancestors 2000 years ago were all human. I don't think the word "human" is precise enough to single out (not even in principle, even if we don't know who he or she is) a first human somewhere between the australopithecines 4 million years ago and the humans 2000 years ago. <br />I also don't think the australopithecines were people in the usual sense of the words "person" and "people". <br />However, perhaps someone uses "person" and "people" differently, and while communication does not break down in real life scenarios because the referent overlaps in all present-day cases, maybe they would apply "person" to the australopithecines, going by their usage. Or maybe not. I don't know. In any case, we can just consider our ancestors not 4 but 400 million years ago, and then they clearly were not persons (by the usage of any competent English speaker), and make the same argument moving forward in time, etc.Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71770519734432827722015-12-01T21:58:00.476-07:002015-12-01T21:58:00.476-07:00"The meaning of words (including "human&..."The meaning of words (including "human") is determined by usage among speakers"<br /><br />Exactly. When people need to, they can determine that some people are not precisely human.David Duffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01222419875209542723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23771694588496053832015-12-01T20:09:34.706-07:002015-12-01T20:09:34.706-07:00I don't agree the word "human" is pr...I don't agree the word "human" is precise enough to be used in such a context. <br />There is no first human (or first cat, dog, or a first second at which there were humans, cats, or dogs, or a first second at which planet Earth existed, and so on). <br />The meaning of words (including "human") is determined by usage among speakers, but that does not result in the sort of precision that would be required in this case.Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20676256075200765552015-12-01T18:50:12.913-07:002015-12-01T18:50:12.913-07:00My thoughts exactly, Victor. "Adam" in H...My thoughts exactly, Victor. "Adam" in Hebrew translates simply as "Man" or even "the man". Not really a proper name at all.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37180544404511493652015-12-01T18:45:15.870-07:002015-12-01T18:45:15.870-07:00Logically, someone had to be the first human. Let ...Logically, someone had to be the first human. Let "Adam" be the technical name for whoever that was. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52656018435203381312015-12-01T14:10:47.935-07:002015-12-01T14:10:47.935-07:00It appears that the flavor of Calvinism you want t...It appears that the flavor of Calvinism you want to use here is supralapsarianism. This version places God's decree (sovereign decision) to elect certain people to salvation before the fall (laps) of Adam. The infralpasarian view places the decree to elect some after the god decree to permit the fall (please note this is a logical order, not a chronology). There is an underlying agreement among Calvinists that I know or have read that his debate lies in the dust of minutiae, is not answered by Scripture, and is relatively of little import. <br /><br />On the other hand, internet theology runs by different rules. You can find all flavors.<br /><br />Your differentiation between moral choices and choice related to salvation is helpful since most biblical references to election, predestination and decrees focus on salvation more than daily life. These ideas are often extended in Reformed Theology creeds to "all" things. I think you are right that there is a version of Calvinism that differentiates between different types of life choices.<br /><br />I am not sure that Calvinism is the ideal foil to explore the concept of deserving punishment if our actions are predetermined. Calvinism (and Catholicism) relies heavily on inherited sin as sufficient for deserving punishment sometimes adding that our subsequent actions confirm by our choice the fact that we are guilty. Some of the current discussion is whether these sinful actions are by nature law breaking or evidence of a rebellious heart.<br /><br />There seems to be a trend among secularist to deny libertarian free will. When a person commits an atrocity, there is often a search for the external forces that caused the bad behavior. The murderer must be mentally ill or abused or economically desperate. In this sense there is an agreement with the Calvinist that there are no free choices. There must be a prior disposition of weakness and inability to chose rightly. The difference is the Calvinists applies the weakness universally. The only escape is intervention of God's grace. For the secularist, the intervention is medication or incarceration and the hope that there is a modicum of health for the majority. The other difference is a definition of health. For the secularist, health is avoiding criminal behavior. For the Calvinist, health is a righteous life evidenced by love for God and others.oozzielionelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00326968846352428451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59812340541054698312015-12-01T14:00:20.681-07:002015-12-01T14:00:20.681-07:00Victor,
I think my answer covers what you intend...Victor, <br /><br />I think my answer covers what you intended to ask, but if you think it doesn't, please let me know.Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58809689032836062322015-12-01T12:14:21.344-07:002015-12-01T12:14:21.344-07:00What I wanted to discuss here isn't exactly Ca...What I wanted to discuss here isn't exactly Calvinism, but Calvinist compatibilism. It's possible to say that libertarianism is true for moral choices, but receiving saving grace is only possible through irresistible grace. Nevertheless, there is a strong tradition of compatibilism amongst Calvinists, going back to Jonathan Edwards' Freedom of the Will. I was asking secularists, in particular, if they thought that a person can deserve punishment if they were determined by God to do what they did. <br /><br />As an aside, on the god hates fags website there is an affirmation of a particularly unvarnished version of Calvinism. Apparently for them, God doesn't hate you because you're gay, you're gay because God hates you and intends to damn you. I am sure they would view atheists the same way. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60605506949914403302015-12-01T09:52:56.372-07:002015-12-01T09:52:56.372-07:00"I don't see how it can possibly be demon..."<i>I don't see how it can possibly be demonstrated that we ever "fell" from a state of perfection...</i>"<br /><br />I maintain that if we did not, we would not be aware that such a state was even possible. In any case, the doctrine of the fall is not so much about some historical event in the past (although it does affirm such), but rather is concerned with the present state of affairs, in which we seem helpless by our own efforts to refrain from evil, <i>even when we will to do good</i>. As St. Paul wrote, "I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do." (Romans 7:18-19) And that, we can prove by observation alone.<br /><br /><i>Jezu ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84554051784268981002015-12-01T09:34:23.316-07:002015-12-01T09:34:23.316-07:00"I've long maintained (at least since the...<i>"I've long maintained (at least since the 1970s) that the Fall of Man is the one theological doctrine that can be proven by empirical observation alone."</i><br /><br />I am not sure that I agree with this. On the one hand it is easy to demonstrate that no human being achieves moral perfection (however defined), but I don't see how it can possibly be demonstrated that we ever "fell" from a state of perfection to where we are now. Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80392908460139880062015-12-01T05:25:28.105-07:002015-12-01T05:25:28.105-07:00"Best not to stir up any cognitive dissonance..."<i>Best not to stir up any cognitive dissonance.</i>"<br /><br />No cause to. I've long maintained (at least since the 1970s) that the Fall of Man is the one theological doctrine that can be proven by empirical observation alone. As always, there is absolutely zero conflict between science and faith - there never is.<br /><br /><i>Jezu ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.com