God Doesn't Just Try to Save

There are differences of opinion, and there is dishonesty.  When someone (@soteriology101) says he's a former Calvinist and says:

"Calvinist’s [sic] market that concept as God trying and failing to make it seem unbiblical." 

"Calvinists have to paint God is [sic] failing simply because he gives us a choice because it makes their system look more plausible."

Calvinists realize that this does not represent their view, nor their thinking.  Maybe at the time when Sot101 considers himself to have been a "Calvinist" that's really what he held.  I doubt it.  

I don't doubt that he considered himself a Calvinist, I take his word for that.  

What I doubt is that he ever thought about marketing concepts to make things seem unbiblical or that he thought about painting God as failing to make his own system seem more plausible.

If he did think that way, that's messed up.  We shouldn't be trying to make things "seem unbiblical."  Nor should we be trying to make our system "look more plausible."  If he was doing that then, he should repent of having done so.

On the other hand, if he knows very well that he never thought that way as a "Calvinist," then he should stop speaking falsehood.  

But there is a third way.  Maybe he was a Calvinist, but the years of trying to attack Calvinism have just led him to forget what he once believed and thought.  

What I suspect is happening is that Sot101 is trying to simply reverse the charge that it his *misinterpretation* of the texts he mentioned (Matt 23:37; Luke 7:30; Ezk 18:31-32; Rom 10:21; & Matt 11:28-30), which seems to characterize God in an indefensible way.

More simply put, Calvinists affirm that "the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost" and the Son of man *actually does* seek and and does save that which was lost.  All the elect were lost, and all of the elect will be saved.  "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." (John 6:37)

Presumably to try to score some rhetorical point, Sot101  tweeted: "The Bible doesn’t say, 'The Son of Man has come to seek and to irresistibly save some of all sorts of that which is lost.'"  To which I responded: "It doesn’t say the Son of Man has come to *try*."

This is what provoked the irrational outburst from Sot101.  He apparently does not want us to characterize *his position* as being that God tries (and fails).  One can understand that he finds such a characterization uncomfortable, because it is so obviously blasphemous.  It's good that he has discomfort about that.

On the other hand, look at the analogy he offers to try to justify his position: "When I told my four-year-old daughter to eat her vegetables or she would not get dessert and she chose to refuse to eat her vegetables I did not try and fail. I very well could have forced fed her those vegetables if I were that kind of parent. I gave her a choice with consequences. "

This is one of those situations where it depends on how you look at it, I guess.  From where I'm sitting, it looks like he tried and failed to get his daughter to eat her vegetables.   But he says (or so one must infer) that he was not trying to get her to eat her vegetables, just giving her choice with consequences.  Recall, however, that the verse that sparked this discussion was one about Jesus coming not to "give people a choice," but to "save."  Calvinism says that Jesus did exactly what the angel of the Lord told Joseph in a dream "he shall save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21)  

Moreover, let's alter Sot101's scenario.  Suppose instead of going to bed hungry because she wouldn't eat her vegetables, suppose that the consequence of her choice was that she would die. Surely in that case, Sot101 would be on board with force feeding the girl in order to save her life.  I hope - and more than that, I'm confident - that he's "that kind of parent."  The consequences of not trusting on Christ for salvation is not just missing dinner: it's missing the wedding feast of the Lamb.  The consequences are not less dire than physical death, they are more dire (Matthew 10:28).

Moreover, let's alter Sot101's scenario.  Suppose instead of going to bed hungry because she wouldn't eat her vegetables, suppose that the consequence of her choice was that she would die. Surely in that case, Sot101 would be on board with force feeding the girl in order to save her life.  I hope - and more than that, I'm confident - that he's "that kind of parent."  The consequences of not trusting on Christ for salvation is not just missing dinner: it's missing the wedding feast of the Lamb.  The consequences are not less dire than physical death, they are more dire (Matthew 10:28).

But the question remains.  What does Calvinism say about these: "He marvels at their unbelief. (Mark 6:6)  He expresses a willingness despite their unwillingness. (Matt 23:37)  He rebukes them for rejecting the purpose God had for them. (Luke 7:30)  He doesn’t wish that any perish but all to repent and live (Ezk 18:31-32)  He holds out His hands to the weak and the unwilling (Rom 10:21; Matt 11:28-30)"?

While a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this already-lengthy post, in summary Calvinism affirms a general outward call of the gospel and a willingness of God to receive anyone who responds in faith to the gospel.  However, we distinguish between that and God miraculously working faith in those that previously lacked it.  Does the general offer fail to save everyone who hears it?  Absolutely.  However, that's not the limit of what God can do to save his people from their sins.  So, if someone wants to point that God gives good things like life, liberty, and property to people who are ultimately lost, and even gives them the Gospel, which saves everyone who believes, we just agree.

And surely Sot101 agreed when he was a "Calvinist" (quotations because that's what he considered himself).  If Sot101 didn't agree with that when he was a "Calvinist," then I have to think he had a very wrong concept about Calvinism then.

Responsibility, the Etymological Fallacy, and Soteriology 101

One of the most under-informed tropes of the Soteriology 101 channel has been the line that "Responsible means 'able to respond'."  While it may be a handy mnemonic for an argument, it is quite definitely not the usual meaning of the word. 

Soteriology is not the first to make this error.  I came across an interesting thread at alt.usage.english from 17 years ago, which raises the issue in the context of having heard "new age" groups using this idea (link to thread).  In that thread, Dominic Bojarski provides a cogent and reasonably succinct answer:

The Latin word from which "responsible" comes from was borrowed into English at least three different times in the history of the language. Between each of the borrowings, the meaning of the Latin word evolved, so the meaning of the English words derived from it are not exactly the same.

The Latin word "spondeo" originally meant to make a public declaration of a religious nature, to pray in a formalized way in a public ceremony. It is from this use that the words "respond" and "response" come from. They were originally used in reference to antiphonal prayer. The chief priest said the first part of the formula, and the other priests or the public answered with the second part of the formula. The English word "answer" originally meant "to swear back", where "swear" meant something like "spondeo" in this sense. "Correspond" also comes from this meaning.

Later, "spondeo" came to mean to make a particular type of public religious statement, namely an oath or vow. It is from this sense that the words "responsible" and "sponsor" came from, meaning "able to swear that you give someone money to pay back a loan or support themselves if they cant do so themselves" or "able to swear that you will perform an act that someone else has promised to do if they are unable to do so". The English word "answerable" is the Anglo-Saxon equivalent.

The word "despondent" also comes from this meaning. "Despondeo" originally meant to swear that you will NOT do something, especially in the sense that you will deny yourself pleasures as part of a religious vow, for example, fasting or abstinence. "Despondent" therefore means "acting like someone who has denied himself pleasure."

Even later, "spondeo" became even more specific and came to mean "to public swear that you will marry someone". "Sponsus/sponsa" first meant "fiance/fiancee", and, later still, "husband/wife". This is where the English word "spouse" came from, and ultimately "espouse" as well.

Because "respond" and "responsible" came onto the English language at different stages in the evolution of the Latin word, it would be misleading to say that "responsible" means "able to respond".

The thread doesn't fully antedate Leighton, but it is older than his YouTube channel and was obviously not a response (pun noticed after) to him.

Let me offer a harsher criticism.  Leighton Flowers' misuse of English on this point is equivalent to suggesting that "accountable" means "able to account" and that therefore children reach the age of accountability when they are able to pass the CPA exam (or the equivalent accountancy test in other countries). In fact, "responsible" is synonymous (in the context of moral responsibility) with "accountable." 

Moreover, we can go further than Dominic went in terms of explaining the underlying problem with the catchy error.

The idea of being "responsible" can (in English) take on different senses.  For example, when someone says, "Bubonic Plague was responsible for the deaths of over twenty-five million Europeans" they don't mean, or imply (or connote), that the "Bubonic Plague" could - in any way - "respond" to the pleas of its victims.  Instead, what they mean is that the "Bubonic Plague" was the immediate cause of the deaths.

Thankfully, when we speak of moral responsibility, we mean something more than that.  But before we get to moral responsibility, consider the case of legal responsibility.

Exodus 21:28-29 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

Notice that in this case, if a bull gores an adult to death, the bull is to be killed and not eaten.  However, if the bull was known to be aggressive, and the owner let him wander freely, then both the owner and the bull are to be executed.  

In this case, the bull is obviously the one responsible for the death of the adult, in the sense of being the immediate cause. We could debate the nature of a bovine will, but the issue for the bull is not whether it had moral agency or freedom of will, or whether it could have resisted the temptation of goring the passing adult, but whether it was the immediate cause of the person's death.  

Likewise, even if we could say that a passing adult was a tempting target for the aggressive bull, there is no similar temptation for the owner.  After all, this is not a trained attack bull being ordered to gore, it's simply an unruly beast.  Nevertheless, the owner is liable, either to the extent of not being able to use the bull for food (the main value of a dead bull) or even to the extent of being executed.

Legal liability to a criminal offense in the Mosaic law implies moral responsibility.  It cannot be doubted that capital punishment is one of the most significant forms of legal liability.  So, what is the theory of moral responsibility leading to legal liability? 

In this example, the theory of moral responsibility is that the owner had a duty that was triggered by ownership of a potentially lethal beast.  The duty is relatively small in the case of a bull that normally behaved well but suddenly acted out of character.  The duty grew in the case of a bull that was a particular threat to the community.  Failure of the moral duty and actual injury connected to that failure leads to liability.  

With no obvious "response" in this discussion, one might wonder how "responsibility" comes into play.

The answer is less obvious than one might think.  First, the idea of a "response" as a synonym to "answer" or "reply" dates from around 1300 (source).  Second, consider that to be brought before a judge is being called to give an answer.  We see an example of this in Acts 26:2:

Acts 26:2 I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews:

Similarly:

Luke 12:11  And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:

The Greek word behind the English phrase is the word from which we get our word apologetics.  But the point here is the English usage of "giving an answer." A similar sense is given by "give an account" in the context of a trial.  

Thus, we have the phrases "accountable" and "answerable," which are less widely used today, as well as the more widely ujsed "responsible."  In each case, the implication (as it pertains to moral or legal responsibility) is passive, not active.  It is the ability to be required to give an answer, to given an account, or to give a response for what has occurred.  

The answer/account/response could be a full defense (it wasn't me), a justification (he attacked me first), or an excuse (the axe head slipped off the handle).  

Human beings can be called by God to give an answer for everything that they think (Genesis 6:5), say (Proverbs 10:19), or do (Romans 2:6).  That's the sense in which "responsible" is connected to "able to respond."  We are able to be called to give a response for our thoughts, words, and deeds.

(see this thread for further context)

Questions for Dr. Leighton Flowers regarding Original Sin and the Grace of God

The following is a post corresponding to my previously publish video (available here):

Dr. Flowers,

I’ve been asked to debate the question of whether Provisionism is Semipelagian.  This arose because I posted a blog entry in which I went through the first eight canons of the second council of Orange, and then posted a tweet from Soteriology101 that conflicts with that canon (here's a link to this post).

Dr. Kurt Jaros asked if I would debate the question that he believed was raised by my post.

It is a bit of an unusual debate topic, in that Kurt doesn’t claim to be a Provisionist.  Since your site seems to be the focal point of “Provisionism,” as such, I thought I would ask you a few questions to help clarify your position in advance of the debate.

On the question of Original Sin

• I understand that you deny that you and I were born guilty of Adam’s sin.  If I understand you correctly, this is because you deny the idea of guilt being transmitted from Adam to others, except by way of imitation or bad example.
• I understand you also deny that Adam’s sin results in the incapacitation of any person’s free will.  Although you believe that “every person who is capable of moral action will sin,” you do not believe that this has to do with their free will being incapacitated.  Instead, they simply have a “nature and environment inclined toward sin.”

Question chain 1: Are you saying that some people are incapable of moral action?  Do you mean infants?  If so, do you believe that infants have any sin of any kind, either personal or from Adam?  In the sad case where infants die in infancy, do you say that Jesus died for these infants?  If so, why was that necessary?  What sins does Jesus bear or take away for infants who die in infancy?

Question chain 2: In the Provionism doctrinal statement does “inclined toward sin” define “nature” or just “environment”?  If the former, do you agree with Calvinists and Arminians that Jesus was not born with a fallen nature, although the rest of humanity was? In other words, are you saying that Jesus was born with a nature inclined toward sin? If not, would you please correct the error that says that if our nature is fallen, then Jesus’ nature must also have been fallen?

On the question of the Grace of God

• I understand that you reject the Calvinist doctrine of effectual calling.
• I understand that you also reject the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace.
• I understand that your reason for rejecting both the Calvinist and Arminian views on this is that you believe that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, in the sense that anyone can hear the Gospel message and respond by believing.
• I understand that you say it is unfair to describe your position as one in which man is “unaided” or as one in which there is no grace prior to faith, or as in one in which man initiates the process of salvation.
• I understand that you allege that God does graciously aid man prior to faith and God does take the initiative, in the following ways:
• The Holy Spirit inspired Scripture, which is provided so we can read and believe and have eternal life.
• The preaching of the gospel is a human means of sharing the divinely inspired message of the gospel.
• Christ’s death on the cross was itself gracious.
• God’s creation and general supervision of the creation are also gracious.

Question chain 3: What about God working internally in a person prior to faith?  Do you agree that this is necessary? Is the natural man able to humble himself and pray for salvation before God begins to work directly in the person’s heart?

-TurretinFan

1 Clement and Election

The author of 1 Clement would agree that it is Scripture that is to be our rule of faith.  He wrote:

1 Clement 53:1 For ye know, and know well, the sacred scriptures, dearly beloved, and ye have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things therefore to put you in remembrance.

That said, the author of 1 Clement provided numerous verses (I've identified 33 below) that mention God's calling and election, the number of the elect, and related topics.  The following are provided out of Lightfoot's excellent translation (available here)(other translations, notes, etc. available here), and are provided in response to a tweet by Leighton Flowers, which I plan to address another time.

1. 1 Clement prologue:1 The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth, to them which are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace from Almighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied.
2. 1 Clement 1:1 By reason of the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which are befalling us, brethren, we consider that we have been somewhat tardy in giving heed to the matters of dispute that have arisen among you, dearly beloved, and to the detestable and unholy sedition, so alien and strange to the elect of God, which a few headstrong and self-willed persons have kindled to such a pitch of madness that your name, once revered and renowned and lovely in the sight of all men, hath been greatly reviled.
3. 1 Clement 2:4 Ye had conflict day and night for all the brotherhood, that the number of His elect might be saved with fearfulness and intentness of mind.
4. 1 Clement 6:1 Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the elect, who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims of jealousy, set a brave example among ourselves.
5. 1 Clement 8:6 Seeing then that He desireth all His beloved to be partakers of repentance, He confirmed it by an act of His almighty will.
6. 1 Clement 11:1 For his hospitality and godliness Lot was saved from Sodom, when all the country round about was judged by fire and brimstone; the Master having thus fore shown that He forsaketh not them which set their hope on Him, but appointeth unto punishment and torment them which swerve aside.
7. 1 Clement 11:2 For when his wife had gone forth with him, being otherwise minded and not in accord, she was appointed for a sign hereunto, so that she became a pillar of salt unto this day, that it might be known unto all men that they which are double-minded and they which doubt concerning the power of God are set for a judgment and for a token unto all the generations.
8. 1 Clement 20:3 The sun and the moon and the dancing stars according to His appointment circle in harmony within the bounds assigned to them, without any swerving aside.
9. 1 Clement 27:5 Who shall say unto Him, What hast thou done? or who shall resist the might of His strength? When He listeth, and as He listeth, He will do all things; and nothing shall pass away of those things that He hath decreed.
10. 1 Clement 29:1 Let us therefore approach Him in holiness of soul, lifting up pure and undefiled hands unto Him, with love towards our gentle and compassionate Father who made us an elect portion unto Himself.
11. 1 Clement 29:2 For thus it is written: When the Most High divided the nations, when He dispersed the sons of Adam, He fixed the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. His people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, and Israel the measurement of His inheritance.
12. 1 Clement 32:3 They all therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous doing which they wrought, but through His will.
13. 1 Clement 32:4 And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
14. 1 Clement 33:3 For by His exceeding great might He established the heavens, and in His incomprehensible wisdom He set them in order. And the earth He separated from the water that surroundeth it, and He set it firm on the sure foundation of His own will; and the living creatures which walk upon it He commanded to exist by His ordinance. Having before created the sea and the living creatures therein, He enclosed it by His own power.
15. 1 Clement 35:3 What then, think ye, are the things preparing for them that patiently await Him? The Creator and Father of the ages, the All holy One Himself knoweth their number and their beauty.
16. 1 Clement 35:4 Let us therefore contend, that we may be found in the number of those that patiently await Him, to the end that we may be partakers of His promised gifts.
17. 1Clem 36:1 This is the way, dearly beloved, wherein we found our salvation, even Jesus Christ the High priest of our offerings, the Guardian and Helper of our weakness.
18. 1 Clement 36:2 Through Him let us look steadfastly unto the heights of the heavens; through Him we behold as in a mirror His faultless and most excellent visage; through Him the eyes of our hearts were opened; through Him our foolish and darkened mind springeth up unto the light; through Him the Master willed that we should taste of the immortal knowledge Who being the brightness of His majesty is so much greater than angels, as He hath inherited a more excellent name.
19. 1 Clement 38:1 So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject unto his neighbor, according as also he was appointed with his special grace.
20. 1 Clement 38:3 Let us consider, brethren, of what matter we were made; who and what manner of beings we were, when we came into the world; from what a sepulchre and what darkness He that molded and created us brought us into His world, having prepared His benefits aforehand ere ever we were born.
21. 1 Clement 46:3 And again He saith in another place; With the guiltless man thou shalt be guiltless, and with the elect thou shalt be elect, and with the crooked thou shalt deal crookedly.
22. 1 Clement 46:4 Let us therefore cleave to the guiltless and righteous: and these are the elect of God.
23. 1 Clement 46:6 Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that was shed upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ?
24. 1 Clement 46:8 Remember the words of Jesus our Lord: for He said, Woe unto that man; it were good for him if he had not been born, rather than that at he should offend one of Mine elect. It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about him, and be cast into the sea, than that he should pervert one of Mine elect.
25. 1 Clement 49:5 Love joineth us unto God; love covereth a multitude of sins; love endureth all things, is long-suffering in all things. There is nothing coarse, nothing arrogant in love. Love hath no divisions, love maketh no seditions, love doeth all things in concord. In love were all the elect of God made perfect; without love nothing is well pleasing to God:
26. 1 Clement 50:2 Who is sufficient to be found therein, save those to whom God shall vouchsafe it? Let us therefore entreat and ask of His mercy, that we may be found blameless in love, standing apart from the factiousness of men. All the generations from Adam unto this day have passed away: but they that by God's grace were perfected in love dwell in the abode of the pious; and they shall be made manifest in the visitation of the Kingdom of God.
27. 1 Clement 50:6 This declaration of blessedness was pronounced upon them that have been elected by God through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
28. 1 Clement 52:2 For the elect David saith; I will confess unto the Lord, and it shall please Him more than a young calf that groweth horns and hoofs. Let the poor see it, and rejoice.
29. 1 Clement 58:2 Receive our counsel, and ye shall have no occasion of regret. For as God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect, so surely shall he, who with lowliness of mind and instant in gentleness hath without regretfulness performed the ordinances and commandments that are given by God, be enrolled and have a name among the number of them that are saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is the glory unto Him for ever and ever. Amen.
30. 1 Clement 59:2 but we shall be guiltless of this sin. And we will ask, with instancy of prayer and supplication, that the Creator of the universe may guard intact unto the end the number that hath been numbered of His elect throughout the whole world, through His beloved Son Jesus Christ, through whom He called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to the full knowledge of the glory of His Name.
31. 1 Clement 59:3 [Grant unto us, Lord,] that we may set our hope on Thy Name which is the primal source of all creation, and open the eyes of our hearts, that we may know Thee, who alone abidest Highest in the lofty, Holy in the holy; who layest low in the insolence of the proud, who settest the lowly on high, and bringest the lofty low; who makest rich and makest poor; who killest and makest alive; who alone art the Benefactor of spirits and the God of all flesh; who lookest into the abysses, who scanest the works of man; the Succor of them that are in peril, the Savior of them that are in despair; The Creator and Overseer of every spirit; who multipliest the nations upon earth, and hast chosen out from all men those that love Thee through Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, through whom Thou didst instruct us, didst sanctify us, didst honor us.
32. 1 Clement 64:1 Finally may the All seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ, and us through Him for a peculiar people, grant unto every soul that is called after His excellent and holy Name faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering, temperance, chastity and soberness, that they may be well pleasing unto His Name through our High priest and Guardian Jesus Christ, through whom unto Him be glory and majesty, might and honor, both now and for ever and ever. Amen.
33. 1 Clement 65:2 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all men in all places who have been called by God and through Him, through whom be glory and honor, power and greatness and eternal dominion, unto Him, from the ages past and forever and ever. Amen.

Responding to Leighton Flowers' "Choice Beef" Argument

Leighton Flowers (transcription of oral comments):

When we ask about election, we're talking about mainly God having favor - Him choosing somebody over someone else. Matter of fact, when we use the word "choice," a lot of times we're thinking of kind of the verb form of it, like, "I made a choice between these options." But if you go into the grocery store, later today, and you go to the "choice meat" section. The word "choice" there is used more as an adjective. It's describing the type of meat. It's the type of meat that is favorable over the other lesser favorable meat. And so when you talk about something that is choice, you are not always talking about necessarily God choosing something for no apparent reason, but you're choosing that meat because it's a favorable meat. There's a reason to have the choice of that meat.

First, "choice" is usually the noun form of the verb "to choose." It is sometimes used as an adjective, where it typically connotes "the best." As Webster's dictionary explains (source):

choice adjective
choicer; choicest
Definition of choice (Entry 2 of 2)
1 : worthy of being chosen
accepting the choicest candidates
2 : selected with care
prepared his report with choice words
3a : of high quality
served choice wine with the dinner
b : of a grade between prime and good
choice meat

We see that use of the term "choice" in its superlative form ("choicest") in a couple of King James verses:

Isaiah 5:2 And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.

Isaiah 22:7 And it shall come to pass, that thy choicest valleys shall be full of chariots, and the horsemen shall set themselves in array at the gate.

We also see it in its simple form in other verses:

Genesis 49:11 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:

We actually see it in connection with choosing in at least one verse:

2 Samuel 10:9 When Joab saw that the front of the battle was against him before and behind, he chose of all the choice men of Israel, and put them in array against the Syrians:

The thing is, God does not choose the way men choose, but sometimes just the opposite:

1 Corinthians 1:22-29

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence.

Second, God choosing for "no apparent reason" is not the same as God choosing "for no reason." The reason for God's choices may not be apparent to us, but that does not mean that there is no reason.

T-Fan

Defining "Responsibility" for Leighton Flowers

I was listening to Professor Leighton Flowers talk about "responsibility," (mp3 - around 29 minutes into the debate) and he noticed that he tried to define it as "able to respond," as in being able to respond positively to God's commands and exhortations. That definition is just fanciful.

The term "responsible" actually means "answerable" or "accountable" - in other words, it's about the fact that the person is going to have to answer or respond for what he does. It means that the person will have to face the consequences of his actions. When we say that man is "responsible," we're not talking about some hypothetical philosophical ability to do something, but instead we're talking about the fact that man will have to give an account for all his actions before the Judge of All the Earth on judgment day.

Inability to do what is right is consistent with responsibility for doing what is wrong, because "responsibility" doesn't imply some very specific kind of hypothetical philosophical ability to have done otherwise, but rather it implies that the person will be punished for his sins - unless the person has a penal substitute in the person of Jesus Christ.