Demolishing Triablogue: God forced you to sin, but you still 'deserve' to be punished for it...and other dreck

This is my reply to an article by Steve Hays entitled

Accident of birth

    Stephen J. Graham
    @sjggraham
    Suppose God sent to Hell everyone who was born in South America before 10am. The rest of us go to heaven. Is there any reason on Calvinism to think there is anything wrong with God holding people morally accountable for being born in South America before 10am?
    Secular Outpost Retweeted

    Stephen J. Graham
    @sjggraham
    Can South Americans born before 10am complain to their creator "Why did you make me thus?" Who are they that they should talk back to God? (cf Romans 9:20)

    Stephen J. Graham
    @sjggraham
    I'm asking whether it makes any moral sense for God to hold someone accountable for something beyond their control. I don't think the issue is about divine command ethics.

I wouldn't normally comment on some random tweet by an atheist, by since this was retweeted by Jeff Lowder at the Secular Outpost, I'll bite:

i) God wouldn't be holding folks morally accountable for when and where they are born, but for their sin.

But under Calvinism, God caused them to sin no less than he caused them to be born in certain times and places.  Your attempted distinction is illusory.

For instance, if an arsonist trips a silent alarm, and the police arrest him before he had a chance to get away, he wasn't held accountable for his poor timing. That's an incidental circumstance.

But if the police caused him to commit arson,it wouldn't make sense to hold him accountable.  Yet police causing him to commit arson is more analogous to the Calvinist god who causes people to sin.  Your attempt to justify the way God holds us accountable, fails.

ii) Since many South Americans are Christians, it would be morally wrong for God to damn them.

That is not consistent with the bible.  Jesus did no sin (in your fable), yet God struck the shepherd.  The baby born to David and Bathsheba hadn't don't anything to deserve death, yet God "struck" that child and forced it to endure a miserable sickness for 7 days before it died.   No inerrantist has ever said Apostle Paul's sins were probably the reason God sent a "messenger from Satan" to buffet him as a thorn in the flesh, yet God caused that bit of suffering nonetheless.  And you delude others with sophistry anyway, since your hypothetical isn't even a logical possibility, for under your Calvinism, your divine-command theory makes it impossible for God to be wrong, ever, for any reason.  

For one thing, God would be breaking his promise to save those who trust in Jesus.

Thats' irrelevant, the pot is STILL never justified to say "why did you make me this way", regardless of what is actually true or not true.

ii) In addition, it would be wrong for God to damn those whom Christ redeemed. Since Christ atoned for the sins of Christians (i.e. the elect), there's no judicial basis for damning them.

Have fun trying to convince non-Calvinists that the branches in Christ that end up being heaved into the fire for destruction, were never legitimately growing in him.   Read John 15 without wearing your Calvinist glasses.

Admittedly, some professing Christians are nominal Christians, but I'm referring to the elect.

iii) Hence, Rom 9:20 doesn't apply.

On the contrary, if Paul's analogy in that verse of men to pots and God to potter be fitting, then it would NEVER be morally good for the pot to say "why have you made me this way".  That's the point of the analogy, the pot NEVER talks back to the potter, so to imagine this ever happening is perfectly absurd.  If Paul pushed his analogy too far, which he did, that's your problem.

iv) Sometimes we're responsible for things beyond our control and sometimes not. Depends on the example. If a mother leaves her newborn baby on my doorstep, I'm not responsible for the child in the sense that I'm not its father. And I didn't create that situation. But having been thrust into a situation not of my own choosing, I'm responsible to see to it that the newborn doesn't die on my doorstep from exposure or predation.

Unless, in your Calvinist communication with God, He tells you that he predestined you to neglect the child to the point of death.  If so, then you aren't allowed to use your freewill to overcome God's sovereign degree just so you can made the lemon you are selling look like a Ferrari to the customers.  If God is a piece of shit, say he is a piece of shit.  Don't dress him up in fear that his biblical ways will hurt your marketing prospects.  Call it like it really is.  Include "God ultimately causes all people to sin" when you evangelize, don't just limit yourself to the sugary crap western minds will likely be attracted to.  But perhaps that's too demanding?

And by the way, you didn't provide any examples of how you could be accountable for things beyond your control.  The baby on your doorstep becomes part of what you can control when you discover him or her.  Regardless, on the basis of Romans 9:20, you have no theological warrant to attempt to justify God's ways.  If people complain against god, its because he stirred them up to do this.  Nothing is more funny than a Calvnist who believes like a supralapsarian, but who argues as if he supports the libertarian notion of freewill.  And in your theological view, Paul's answer in Romans 9:20 has more divine inspiration in it than any of your own speculations. Apparently, neither you nor most Calvinist theologians actually believe the scriptures are "sufficient" for faith and practice.