But it is beyond simply physical limitations; it is also the fact that our choices are inextricably caused by our desires, and our desires by our (internal) nature, which is caused by the very arrangement of our brains, etc., a status that we did not ourselves choose. But to @klw 's earlier point also, I respectfully think he is misunderstanding: Calvinism does readily acknowledge the reality that our choices are formed by a nature that we didn’t ourselves decide, but neither does it claim that said factors themselves make us puppets, or that we don’t have a genuine free liberty of will wherein we make real choices that are not determined by the stuff we’re made of.
The thoroughly Calvinist Westminster Confession affirms that “God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.”
Perhaps he is confusing the general theological principle that recognizes the impact our innocent, sinful, or glorified natures have/will have. For instance, Calvinists traditionally understand that in glory, we will literally not be able to sin - not because God is actively constraining our freedom or yanking us on some kind of choke chain every time we would go that direction… but because our nature will have been so cleansed and redeemed that sinning simply will not be in our nature - *but we will then have absolute, unrestrained freedom to do anything else that we wish to do according to that nature. Love, laugh, tell stories, make music, or whatever else we will have the unrestrained freedom to do in eternity.
But we will not be “free” to sin - but not because of some restriction on our will, but because our nature will be such that it will simply have no desire whatsoever to so act. And thus we will be free to do anything else whatsoever.
Careful here, it was trying to argue this very point that pushed me into the Calvinism I embrace today…
Point being, you do know that Paul anticipates this very objection, right? Right after he makes a statement that sounds very Calvinist at face value…
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
…Paul anticipates your very objection…
One of you [ @Mervin_Bitikofer ?] will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”
But instead explaining that God didn’t really pre-ordain any of that stuff, and/or agreeing that there is something problematic about being held responsible for something God had pre-planned, or clarifying that he didn’t really mean God had predetermined Pharaoh’s actions, or otherwise clarifying he doesn’t mean all this stuff in the way Calvinists understand it…
No, instead of anything like that, Paul anticipates your very objection, and he doubles down:
But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
He anticipates your very objection, about “how can I be held responsible, if God planned pre-ordained some evil choice I made”, and his response is, essentially, “God has every right to do use you for what purposes he chooses, as a potter his pottery. He made you. Deal with it.”
Well, there are two answers I would give… one would be to point out that nearly every author of the Bible doesn’t seem to have an issue with God orchestrating evil for his purposes.
But secondly, unless you’re going to go the “whole hog” and embrace open theism, with a God who really, really wanted to do everything whatsoever in his power to prevent evil from happening, but it just snuck up on him as he just didn’t see it coming, you have to deal with the fact that God knew all these evils would happen, but has chosen to allow each and every one to happen.
Going back to Star Trek… In “City on the Edge of Forever” Captain Kirk happened to have practically omniscient knowledge that Edith would get killed in that accident. He also had the power to prevent said death from happening (or he could easily have allowed Bones to save her - I still remember Bones’ haunting cry, “You deliberately stopped me, Jim! I could have saved her* !”)
Thus, there’s no way around it. In effect, Kirk chose that Edith should die at that particular moment. He could have prevented it, he had the power to prevent it, he could have allowed Bones to prevent it… but he intentionally chose not to intervene (and prevent Bones from intervening). And by choosing not to intervene, then it means that in some very real sense, he chose for Edith to die at that moment. How does this logic not also apply to a God that knows all things including the future, is omniscient and omnipotent, and who “allows” any evil thing to take place… did he not similarly choose - from the foundation of the world - for said evil thing to occur, for some purpose?
