The 'OIC Principle' & Evangelism in Calvinism

[Reformed Thomist]

Just something that came to mind this afternoon while walking the dog (probably a extremely basic issue for a lot of you guys)...

A basic rule of moral philosophy, generally accepted without question, is the 'OIC Principle': Ought implies can. To say that someone should (has a moral obligation to) do something only makes sense/is 'valid' if that someone has the ability to perform that task.

Integral to 'basic Christianity' is (a) the Biblical command to evangelize; and (b) the belief that sinners have a moral obligation/responsibility to heed that call, become Christians, etc.

Integral to Reformed theology (which presupposes [a] and ) is (c) the (we say, equally Biblical) tenet that people are totally unable to heed the evangelistic call, become Christians, etc., without having first been regenerated by the Holy Spirit (and, of course, elected by God and saved by Jesus Christ prior to that).

So, whatever else is the case with regard to salvation according to the Reformed, it is a plain truth of the Calvinistic creed that many people (those who have not been regenerated) cannot do what the Christian religion 'insists' they have a moral obligation to do, and which Christians are commanded to promote. And this, seemingly, does violence to the OIC Principle. (This seeming violation is seemingly avoided if we subtract Reformed theology from the equation).

What, would you say, is the proper Reformed answer to this kind of objection (avoiding accepting a more 'Arminian' soteriological position, or a Hyper-Calvinist position with regard to evangelism, in light of the apparent problem)?

 

[rbcbob]

The unregenerate man's moral inability is itself something for which he is culpable. His federal representative, Adam, took himself and his posterity into the spiritual poverty wherein they cannot do right. Just as the crippled man in the wheel chair as a result of his drunk driving is morally culpable for his inability to provide adequately for his family.

 

[Mushroom]

Isn't this addressing the distinction between freedom and ability? I am free to touch my nose to the cieling, but I do not have the ability to do so because my stature prevents it.

All are commanded to believe, and all have the freedom to do so, but not all have the ability. But that inability is not derived from something outside of their own volition... it is their own volition that rejects belief. Different categories, right?

 

[Confessor]

Unregenerates have the ability to repent in that they can do so if they desire [i.e. natural ability], but they are never granted the desire in the first place [i.e. moral inability].

Ought implies natural ability, but not moral ability.

 

[ewenlin]

That's what made Augustine's prayer so controversial wasn't it..

 

[Pergamum]

Grant what You command, and command what You will

Augustine

 

[NRB]

My response is simple: It's not up to me...it's all GOD.

I hope this helps, and by no means am I a theologian.

When it comes to evangelism, I don't think about this stuff.
I promote what the Great Commission commands of me...and that's it. I don't evangelize via Calvinism, I evangelize via the Gospel alone.

I evangelize as a simple disciple of Christ.....God will call whom is predestined, and it's not for me to worry about in the end is it.

When it comes down to me evangelizing others (for lack of a better wording) the OiC concept doesn't matter.
It's just done.



Thankyou for listening.

 

[SolaSaint]

Great reply John.

I've never heard of the OIC principle?

 

[NRB]

Great reply John.

I've never heard of the OIC principle?

From the OP:

'OIC Principle': Ought implies can

I've honestly never heard of it. It somewhat makes sense to me in a christian context but like I stated, I'm an amateur theologian.