Today, I'll be answering an excerpt from a YouTube video called: “Answering Objections to Calvinism,” by Bro. Jeff Durbin. The video is here: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P11Zj1X_D8).
The relevant segment will be 37:46-39:49, but please, by all means watch the entire
video and hear his points in context - I've simply shortened it for time's sake. If you are interested, I have a more complete rebuttal that covers all
of Bro. Durbin’s points in the video. But for the purposes of this post, I’ll
be dealing with 37:46-39:49. In this segment, he
uses and explains an analogy of two different animals and their diets to answer the question, “Are you [Calvinists] denying that
we’re making choices?”
Bro. Durbin tells us about a
vulture and a rabbit occupying what seem to be separate
but identical rooms. Each room contains a pile
of meat and a pile of carrots. When given the choice, the vulture will, by its nature, freely choose the
meat, and the rabbit will, by its nature, freely choose the carrots. Because the Intelligent Designer is sovereign over
their natures, He is also sovereign over both of each of their free choices, and the choice is still free. Similarly, a sinner will, by his or her nature, freely choose sin over God. Because God is sovereign over the
sinner’s evil nature, He is thus sovereign over the sinner’s choice to
reject God, and the choice is still free. Admittedly, this analogy is
attractive, but it has a fundamental problem.
The analogy leaves us without any cause from blaming the
analogical choosers for their choices. I do
not think that Jeff is trying to say that we ought to punish a vulture for
choosing a meaty meal over a vegetarian option, or chastise
a rabbit for eating vegetables instead of carrion. However,
the strength of an analogy is determined by the extent the two sides are able
to correlate. The analogy is (by its nature, ironically enough) rather distant from the subject it’s describing. Bro.
Durbin rightfully blames a sinner for his or her choice of sin over God, yet
his analogy leaves us without any cause from blaming the analogical choosers
for their choices. When we see vultures eating dead animals, we find no fault –
it is their nature. When we see rabbits eating lettuce or carrots, we don’t
punish them. It is simply their nature. They are doing what they were designed
to do. If the analogy is true, we ought to find no fault with a person whose
decisions are dictated by their nature. The (natural?)
logical inferences from this analogy do not seem
to allow for anything else.
Moreover, if I may stretch the analogy slightly, let us imagine what might be done to these animals if
they were to choose ‘incorrectly.’ Let’s say that
the vulture (whose anatomy demands meat in order to survive) ate all carrots
and no meat. What should be done? Should the vulture be corrected? Of course.
And if the rabbit (whose anatomy demands plant matter in order to survive) ate
all meat and no carrots, should it also be corrected? Yes. For whose sake? This absurd behavior
would be (hypothetically speaking) a defiance against their nature and an
affront to their Designer, the one who gave them their nature. These
animals ought to be corrected, not only for the sake of their own respective
health, but also for the sake of their Designer.
Clearly, we do not punish animals for eating
what they are designed to eat, but we feel obligated to
correct animals for eating things that hurt them – i.e., things that
they aren’t designed to eat. Violating one’s nature is perversion, abomination
(Leviticus 18:22-23; Romans 1:26-27) This is a very interesting (and I think,
hitherto untapped) angle on the analogy.
So, if the
analogy is indeed accurate to reality and we apply the analogy in this
manner, it seems reasonable to deduce that
sinners ought to be blamed for their decisions, not because they have acted in
accordance with their nature, but because their decisions have violated their nature, and insulted the
One who gave them their nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment