Matthew, Thank you for these citations. My feelings on the matter is as follows: God did not create automatons. He doesn't need our worship or service (he already has angels for that purpose). Complete in Himself, God doesn't need to display His power to anyone. What God wants are men and women who freely choose to seek Him out and who want fellowship with Him. He desires our love, and love must be freely given. Without freewill, men and women are simply pawns on a celestial chessboard. As a Catholic, you are well aware I assume, that the consensus of the fathers is that man has freewill to accept or reject God. It is unfortunate that Augustine of Hippo developed a contrary theology which was embraced by men like Calvin and Luther to revise ancient Christian beliefs in this area. Augustine's own Church, the RC, doesn't accept his theories on this issue. Looking at Anglicanism, while Cranmer and many of the early reformers were heavily influenced by Calvinism, fortunately it never succeeded in taking over the English Church entirely (Henry VIII wouldn't allow it), and in the Caroline divines we can see the teaching of the ancient Church preserved. More than any other issue, the struggle between the Calvinist and Arminian factions in the Anglican Church have plagued it since the Elizabethan Settlement. I am convinced that if Edward VI had lived long enough, the Cof E would have become a Calvinist Church like the Presbyterians. Elizabeth put a stop to that and forced a compromise, one that really didn't resolve anything. When the Calvinist's came to power under Cromwell they basically dismantled the Church, but it was saved by the Restoration, which continued Elizabeth's policy of compromise. That in turn led to Latitudinarianism, essentially a policy of do your own thing theologically, and many of the Calvinists in the Church eventually left when toleration of other churches was legalized, as did some of the traditionalists, who returned to Rome. Despite the best efforts of the Tractarians, the catholic party has never succeeded in taking over the Church, and as far as can see it is still essentially Latitudinarian in its theology, something that satisfies neither the low or high Church factions. "As a handful of sand is thrown into the ocean, so are the sins of all flesh as compared with the mind of God. Just as a strongly flowing fountain is not blocked up by a handful of earth, so the compassion of the Creator is not overcome by the sins of His creatures." (St. Isaac the Syrian)
I tend to think that is a very apt point. God already has angels who have no choice of their own. Why would a theologian like Calvin turn men into automatons of a similar fashion?
Just another observation on the subject. If some are damned and some are saved by double predestination, then what is the point of a Final Judgement? Those who are cast into the lake of fire couldn't have done anything to prevent their sentence, and those taken into heaven did nothing to get there. The illogical nature of this line of thought is starkly illustrated by the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” -Matthew 25: 31-46 What is the point of saying these things to those predestined to damnation? “...all the ancient fathers say...when we sin the fault is in our own wills, for we should not have consented, and then no sin would follow; and therefore it is a wicked and a most pernicious opinion that some of our new masters have brought up of late that some men are forced and necessitated to sin, and throw themselves away, whether they will or no.” John Cosin (Works of the Right Reverend Father in God John Cosin, Lord Bishop of Durham p. 66)
Except he didn't. All men make choices according to their own inclinations and desires. The choices of fallen men are evil because their wills are evil and dead in sin. This doesn't mean, however, that they don't choose of their own accord, quite the contrary. They freely choose to sin because it is sin what appeals to them most. Because all men are commanded by God to repent and believe and to observe His commandments. It is morally required of them. The Law proves our inability, not our ability. "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:20) Luther himself could not stress this point enough against the humanistic objections of Erasmus. The fact that you can't pay your debt to the IRS doesn't mean you aren't required to pay it.
In your view God is the author of sin, is he not? I have found that to be the standard position among the Reformed authors whom I studied by which I mean Owen, Beza Turretin and such.
If I can be slightly pernickety, saying 'they have free choice except their will is utterly bound up so they can only make one kind of choice' (in this case that of evil over good) is not a very secure definition of what it means for a choice to be 'free'. The will is constrained by and in evil...therefore so are the choices. And you cannot tell me Calvin believes in human free will, or else his doctrine of predestination becomes nonsensical.
I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. Surely God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, including sin, and nothing in existence can escape His will, but He is not the author of sin, nor the moral agent sinning. Consider, for instance, chap. 3 of the WCF, a standard Reformed confession, Of God's Eternal Decree: "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass (Ephesians 1:11, Romans 11:33, Hebrews 6:17, Romans 9:15); yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin (Jam. 1:13, 1 John 1:5), nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (Acts 2:23, Matthew 17:12, Acts 4:27, John 19:11, Proverbs 16:33)."
All wills are constrained by something: inclinations, desires, ideas, etc. There's no such thing as a will that is neutral. Reformed Christianity, drawing from revelation, posits that man's will is indeed self-determined but depraved. "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Romans 3:9-18)
Here is the equivocation that is used so often to maintain two contradictory opinions. How is it that God can ordain sin, and yet not be the author of it? What is the essential difference? Even more generally, how do you state that God ordains everything that comes to pass, and yet allow for the existence of other moral agents? You may think that there is a way out of this but there isn't. While Calvinists had for centuries wrangled their brains over this pretzel of a quodlibet, their faith shrank to fewer and fewer adherents with each passing century. It is simply a nonsensical position.
The difference is that God is not the moral agent sinning. Rather, man is. But man can only sin, or do whatever he does both good or bad, because God ordained that it should be so from all eternity. He willed that existence itself should be so and not any other way. Could Adam have sinned in the garden if God hadn't willed it? Or permitted it, which is just another faculty of volition? Man's will is self-determined. When he sins, he really wants to sin. When he refrains from sinning, he really wants to refrain from sinning. But he can only sin or not sin because God, who does whatever pleases him in heaven and on earth (Ps. 135:6), has ordained it to be so. Ah, I guess that settles it then.
"God waits for our hearts to open to his grace; he waits for an opportunity to reveal to each of us his truth. Then, when we are ready, he ensures that we hear about Christ and about his gospel; and we find ourselves faced with a choice, which will effect the entire course of life and death—whether to embrace the words of Jesus Christ or to reject them. If we deliberately reject the Gospel, even when we fully understand it, then we condemn ourselves; if we embrace it, we shall ourselves be embraced by God in heaven." —St. John Chrysostom The choice of heaven or hell is up to us, for God is patient, "not wishing that any should perish but for all to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)