The reason God cannot sin

[Luke2427]

Skandelon, I refer you to this post that you did not answer.

I have been clear that God is the "cause" of evil only in an ULTIMATE sense. I have distinguished "cause" by the word "ultimate" before it no less than a dozen times.

God is not the "proximate cause" of sin. But that he willed it, decreed that it should come to pass in eternity past, empowers the one who commits it to do so, orders the state of events so that it will inevitably come to be, permits it when the time comes by refusing to restrain the evil passions of the sinner by his Providence, has a purpose for it and himself BRINGS THE DEED TO PASS by these and other factors is clear from both Scripture and logic.

Did Herod, Pilate, the Jews and the Romans kill Christ?
Did God kill Christ?

Did Satan afflict Job?
Did God afflict Job?

Did Joseph's brothers afflict Joseph?
Did God afflict Joseph?

Did the Assyrians come against God's people?
Did God come against God's people?

Does the anti-christ lead men away from the truth?
Does God lead those same people away from the truth?

Did Pharaoh harden his heart?
Did God harden Pharaoh's heart?
(Don't be a coward and only answer this one. Arminians love to try this one while avoiding the others)

The fact of the matter is that God is doing these things and men are doing them. It is sin on men's parts but it is holy on God's part. Men do them for immediate and wicked purposes. God does them for ultimate and righteous purposes.

This is the plain teaching of Scripture, and as I have demonstrated repeatedly, it is what brilliant theologians like Edwards taught.

 

[Luke2427]

And I refer you to this post 70:

Objectively:

Objectively:

The issue historically has been over the meaning of the words "cause" and "author" as they relate to the origin of evil.

I pointed that out to you when I showed that Edwards said "...if by author you mean... then no... but if by 'author' you mean... then yes..."

This is plenty to show that there is a real sense in which Edwards thought that "author" of sin was applicable as it relates to God. But he, like myself, is not comfortable with that terminology because of how it can relate certain improper thoughts. So we choose to avoid that terminology be it ever so accurate in certain narrow senses.

You asked that I show one theologian who believes that God decreed evil. This is proof that you are not reading my posts because I have posted this quote which clearly does just that from the very man in question in multiple posts:

Quote:
Thus it is necessary, that God's awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God's glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.

And even THAT is not enough for you.

When it comes to the word "cause" you are misunderstanding what many theologians are purporting. They mean that God's decrees are not to be BLAMED for evil. Men's choices are.

But that God is the "ultimate" or "remote" cause is what men like Calvin clearly believed.

Here is Piper on Calvin's belief on these matters quoting and expounding Calvin's own words:

Quote:
Remote and Proximate Causes

It is interesting that Calvin does use cause, referring to God’s agency in bringing evil about, when he distinguishes between God as the “remote cause” and human agency as the “proximate cause.” Arguing that God is not the “author of sin,” he says, “the proximate cause is one thing, the remote cause another.”5 Calvin points out that when wicked men steal Job’s goods, Job recognizes that “The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.” The thieves, proximate cause of the evil, are guilty; but Job doesn’t question the motives of the Lord, the remote cause. Calvin does not, however, believe that the proximate/ultimate distinction is sufficient to show us why God is guiltless:

But how it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being implicated as associate in the fault as the author and approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance.6

God is not the "author and approver of transgression." This is because he HATES evil and despises that men choose it. But God is the "remote" or "ultimate" cause of the carrying out of the deed though it is evil from man's part and holy on God's. Motive is the issue.

There is no flip flopping here though you seem to love to claim that I am doing so. It is simply a VERY complex issue in which there is a sense in which terms are fully appropriate and another sense at the same time in which they are terribly inappropriate.

The fact is that God is NOT the author of evil in a certain sense being that he hates evil and cannot do evil.
But an equally true fact is that he IS the remote or ultimate cause of evil in another sense in which he wills, decrees, empowers, purposes and plans and permits it to come to pass. But you only focus on the LAST word in the previous sentence which is NOT sufficient to properly address this issue.

God is in a real sense DOING the deed via the hands and wills of men but his doing it is pure and the deed on his part is NOT evil. The answering of the questions in the above post prove this sufficiently for any objective thinker.
And at the exact same time there is a real sense in which men are doing these deeds but they are absolutely wicked and vile and reprehensible.

I will not speak of Dahmer as you wish because of the uncouth and improper terminology necessary to expound upon the facets of his reprehensible actions. I will only speak of events in Scripture and other events which do not require offensive language to describe them.
To speak of Dahmer will require terms of sexual nature which are inappropriate in such a forum as this. You should, for this reason alone, out of proper gentlemanly etiquette abandon for good this endeavor to expound upon his sins for illustrative purposes. One need look no further than Calvary for sufficient evidences of the remote and proximate cause of sin since it is there that we find the MOST heinous of all sins.

Piper notes:

Quote:
[Calvin] uses the proximate/remote distinction merely to distinguish between the causality of God and that of creatures, and therefore to state that the former is always righteous.

It is pure stubbornness for you to further deny that Calvin and Edwards disagree with my position on this matter.

For you to do so any further is for you to manifest that you have other motives than iron sharpening iron.

That Calvin believed that God was the ultimate or "remote" cause of the existence of evil and that there was a real sense in which Edwards could see the use of the terminology "author of sin" as being accurate in relation to God's decrees, though not the best terminology to describe it, is abundantly clear.

I request that you answer the questions in the above posts before you address this one.

 

[Winman]

Luke, I showed Jer 32:35 where God himself said he was not the cause of sin, but you ignored it.

Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech, which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to CAUSE Judah to sin.

This verse refutes your view. God himself said he never commanded this sin, it did not come into his mind, and he did not CAUSE it.

Your view is error.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, I showed Jer 32:35 where God himself said he was not the cause of sin, but you ignored it.

Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech, which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to CAUSE Judah to sin.

This verse refutes your view. God himself said he never commanded this sin, it did not come into his mind, and he did not CAUSE it.

Your view is error.

No. Your poor interpretive skills are the only contradiction. They contradict the whole of Scripture and reason and logic.

I have been clear that God is the "cause" of evil only in an ULTIMATE sense. I have distinguished "cause" by the word "ultimate" before it no less than a dozen times.

God is not the "proximate cause" of sin. But that he willed it, decreed that it should come to pass in eternity past, empowers the one who commits it to do so, orders the state of events so that it will inevitably come to be, permits it when the time comes by refusing to restrain the evil passions of the sinner by his Providence, has a purpose for it and himself BRINGS THE DEED TO PASS by these and other factors is clear from both Scripture and logic.

Did Herod, Pilate, the Jews and the Romans kill Christ?
Did God kill Christ?

Did Satan afflict Job?
Did God afflict Job?

Did Joseph's brothers afflict Joseph?
Did God afflict Joseph?

Did the Assyrians come against God's people?
Did God come against God's people?

Does the anti-christ lead men away from the truth?
Does God lead those same people away from the truth?

Did Pharaoh harden his heart?
Did God harden Pharaoh's heart?
(Don't be a coward and only answer this one. Arminians love to try this one while avoiding the others)

 

[Winman]

Luke, what can I say, God said he did not cause this sin, and that it never came into his mind. Is God's secret will a secret from himself?
And in James 1:13 it says God does not tempt any man to sin. What is the cause of sin? Isn't temptation the cause of sin? Therefore, if God never tempts a man, he cannot be the cause of sin.
This might be a poor analogy, but I believe it is similar to a game of chess. In chess, your opponent can freely move wherever they wish. Can you influence their moves? Yes, you could threaten your opponents Queen with your Bishop. Your opponent is influenced to move that Queen. But does your opponent HAVE to make that move? No, they can choose to leave the Queen where she is, and you could take her on your next move.
What I am trying to say is that God can allow us freedom, but maintain complete control and bring about his purposes regardless of what we do.
An example is Jonah. God did not force Jonah to go to Ninevah. Jonah ran away. So, God made his move and caused a great storm, knowing the mariners would throw him overboard. He did not make the sailors do this, but he KNEW they would. And he had a whale waiting to swallow Jonah. Being in that whale's belly certainly influenced Jonah, but that whale did not take him to Ninevah. No, Jonah had to make that walk himself.

 

[Skandelon]

You were wrong about the origin of sin because you lack the capacity to get Edwards and you are wrong about this because you are not reading this discussion thoroughly.

I guess, I and all the scholars who read that quote which correctly concluded that Edwards was consistent with historical Arminians on this particular point also lack the capacity to "get Edwards" too? Or maybe Arminians actually did affirm that God does deeds in which would be sinful but they are not because he has a good motive? Can we find any scholars making that argument in either camp Luke?

Once again, lets play the game, which one of these is not like the other.

We have proven to you very clearly that you do not get Edwards and Calvin

I agree with the brother who said,

"Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and always have been. There is Supralapsarianism vs. Sublapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism. “The Supralapsarians hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians, that he permitted it” (McClintock & Strong). The Calvinists at the Synod of Dort were divided on many issues, including lapsarianism. The Swiss Calvinists who wrote the Helvetic Consensus Formula in 1675 were in conflict with the French Calvinists of the School of Saumur. There are Strict Calvinists and Moderate Calvinists, Hyper and non-Hyper (differing especially on reprobation and the extent of the atonement and whether God loves all men), 5 pointers, 4 pointers, 3 pointers, 2 pointers. In America Calvinists were divided into Old School and the New School. As we have seen, the Calvinists of England were divided in the 19th century."

Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and then refute it, there are Calvinists who will argue with you that you are misrepresenting Calvinism. It is not so much that you are misrepresenting Calvinism, though. You might be quoting directly from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. The problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism! There are Calvin Calvinists and Thomas Fuller Calvinists and Arthur W. Pink Calvinists and Presbyterian Calvinists and Baptist Calvinists and many other sorts of Calvinists. Many Calvinists have never read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion for themselves. They are merely following someone who follows someone who allegedly follows Calvin (who, by his own admission, followed Augustine).

Calvinists believe that they have the right to reject or modify some parts of or conclusions of Calvin. I agree with them 100%, and I say, further, that we also have the right to reject the entire thing if we are convinced that it is not supported by Scripture!

I proved to you in no uncertain terms that they DO most certainly believe that God is the "ultimate" or "remote" cause of evil.

We never disagreed on that particular point, but you know what, never mind. It ain't worth it going back over the terms of the debate and the actual point of our contention again.

With regard to all those passages. Just look at my definition of the "decree" of God (along with Edwards explanation of the origin of sin) an it will explain how God decreed evil without being the originator/creator/author of it. It happens to be the same thing historical Arminians have been teaching for years, which is certainly not what you have been saying.

 

[Luke2427]

I guess, I and all the scholars who read that quote which correctly concluded that Edwards was consistent with historical Arminians on this particular point also lack the capacity to "get Edwards" too? Or maybe Arminians actually did affirm that God does deeds in which would be sinful but they are not because he has a good motive? Can we find any scholars making that argument in either camp Luke?

Once again, lets play the game, which one of these is not like the other.

I agree with the brother who said,

"Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and always have been. There is Supralapsarianism vs. Sublapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism. “The Supralapsarians hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians, that he permitted it” (McClintock & Strong). The Calvinists at the Synod of Dort were divided on many issues, including lapsarianism. The Swiss Calvinists who wrote the Helvetic Consensus Formula in 1675 were in conflict with the French Calvinists of the School of Saumur. There are Strict Calvinists and Moderate Calvinists, Hyper and non-Hyper (differing especially on reprobation and the extent of the atonement and whether God loves all men), 5 pointers, 4 pointers, 3 pointers, 2 pointers. In America Calvinists were divided into Old School and the New School. As we have seen, the Calvinists of England were divided in the 19th century."

Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and then refute it, there are Calvinists who will argue with you that you are misrepresenting Calvinism. It is not so much that you are misrepresenting Calvinism, though. You might be quoting directly from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. The problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism! There are Calvin Calvinists and Thomas Fuller Calvinists and Arthur W. Pink Calvinists and Presbyterian Calvinists and Baptist Calvinists and many other sorts of Calvinists. Many Calvinists have never read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion for themselves. They are merely following someone who follows someone who allegedly follows Calvin (who, by his own admission, followed Augustine).

Calvinists believe that they have the right to reject or modify some parts of or conclusions of Calvin. I agree with them 100%, and I say, further, that we also have the right to reject the entire thing if we are convinced that it is not supported by Scripture!

We never disagreed on that particular point, but you know what, never mind. It ain't worth it going back over the terms of the debate and the actual point of our contention again.

With regard to all those passages. Just look at my definition of the "decree" of God (along with Edwards explanation of the origin of sin) an it will explain how God decreed evil without being the originator/creator/author of it. It happens to be the same thing historical Arminians have been teaching for years, which is certainly not what you have been saying.

So you still avoid the questions and avoid the facts concerning what Calvin and Edwards says.

Everything else you have said in this post is meaningless unless you can deal with those things.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, what can I say, God said he did not cause this sin, and that it never came into his mind. Is God's secret will a secret from himself?
And in James 1:13 it says God does not tempt any man to sin. What is the cause of sin? Isn't temptation the cause of sin? Therefore, if God never tempts a man, he cannot be the cause of sin.
This might be a poor analogy, but I believe it is similar to a game of chess. In chess, your opponent can freely move wherever they wish. Can you influence their moves? Yes, you could threaten your opponents Queen with your Bishop. Your opponent is influenced to move that Queen. But does your opponent HAVE to make that move? No, they can choose to leave the Queen where she is, and you could take her on your next move.
What I am trying to say is that God can allow us freedom, but maintain complete control and bring about his purposes regardless of what we do.
An example is Jonah. God did not force Jonah to go to Ninevah. Jonah ran away. So, God made his move and caused a great storm, knowing the mariners would throw him overboard. He did not make the sailors do this, but he KNEW they would. And he had a whale waiting to swallow Jonah. Being in that whale's belly certainly influenced Jonah, but that whale did not take him to Ninevah. No, Jonah had to make that walk himself.

Nobody cares what you have to say on this matter until you can answer the questions.

 

[Amy.G]

Can I play? :laugh:

Did Herod, Pilate, the Jews and the Romans kill Christ?
Did God kill Christ?

Jesus gave Himself to be killed.

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Did Satan afflict Job?
Did God afflict Job?

Satan afflicted Job.

Job 1:11 But put forth your hand now, and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.

God permitted it.

Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he has is in your power; only upon himself put not forth your hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

Did Joseph's brothers afflict Joseph?
Did God afflict Joseph?

Joseph's brothers afflicted him, but God permitted it for a greater purpose.

Genesis 50:20 But as for you, you thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save many people alive.

Did the Assyrians come against God's people?
Did God come against God's people?

God takes His hand away in judgment sometimes.

Does the anti-christ lead men away from the truth?
Does God lead those same people away from the truth?

God is truth and does not lead people astray. However He allows hardened hearts to have their way and hardens them further or blinds them as judgment.

Did Pharaoh harden his heart?
Did God harden Pharaoh's heart?
(Don't be a coward and only answer this one. Arminians love to try this one while avoiding the others)

Yes and yes.


Where you and I differ is that I believe God is able to use man's free will and His sovereignty at the same time to accomplish His will. This is but one of the ways God is so much higher than we are.

I see both the sovereignty of God and man's freedom to choose all through scripture. It cannot possibly be understood by the human mind.

 

[Winman]

Nobody cares what you have to say on this matter until you can answer the questions.

Luke, I showed you Luke 8:55 and Jer 32:35 several days ago, to which you did not respond.

And now you demand I answer your questions?

You answer my questions, and THEN I will answer yours.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, I showed you Luke 8:55 and Jer 32:35 several days ago, to which you did not respond.

And now you demand I answer your questions?

You answer my questions, and THEN I will answer yours.

You will not answer them because you cannot.

 

[Skandelon]

So you still avoid the questions and avoid the facts concerning what Calvin and Edwards says.

Avoiding something would mean that I didn't reply and address the questions and arguments posed, which I did. You may not like my responses but nothing was avoided. It is clear that you are the one doing the avoiding Luke. That is quite obvious.

BTW, in addition to what I've already said, I agree with Amy's answers. :thumbs:

 

[Luke2427]

Can I play? :laugh:



Jesus gave Himself to be killed.

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.




Satan afflicted Job.

Job 1:11 But put forth your hand now, and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.

God permitted it.

Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he has is in your power; only upon himself put not forth your hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.




Joseph's brothers afflicted him, but God permitted it for a greater purpose.

Genesis 50:20 But as for you, you thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save many people alive.


God takes His hand away in judgment sometimes.


God is truth and does not lead people astray. However He allows hardened hearts to have their way and hardens them further or blinds them as judgment.


Yes and yes.


Where you and I differ is that I believe God is able to use man's free will and His sovereignty at the same time to accomplish His will. This is but one of the ways God is so much higher than we are.

I see both the sovereignty of God and man's freedom to choose all through scripture. It cannot possibly be understood by the human mind.

Alright Amy. Do you remember the ladies in that class who said that mess and were wrong because the Bible was clear that God did do what you said he did.

You must watch out that you don't do the same thing that they did concerning this issue.

God's Word is ABUNDANTLY clear that GOD killed Christ. Not just that he permitted it but that he brought it to pass.

Acts 4:27-28 For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place.

Is. 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Men did it and God did it. Let God be true and every man a liar, Amy.

The Bible is ABUNDANTLY clear that GOD afflicted Job:

Job 2 What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

In other words Job was right.

Job 42 Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him:


God afflicted Job. It was permission but it was also MORE according to the Word of God.

The Bible could NOT be CLEARER. Satan did this to Job and God did it to Job.
Do not be like those ladies, Amy. Let the Word of God BE the authority. It says it right there before your eyes. Believe it. Do not try to explain it away.

That's enough for now. I'll prove the other if our conversation continues.

 

[Luke2427]

Avoiding something would mean that I didn't reply and address the questions and arguments posed, which I did. You may not like my responses but nothing was avoided. It is clear that you are the one doing the avoiding Luke. That is quite obvious.

BTW, in addition to what I've already said, I agree with Amy's answers. :thumbs:

I have not at all seen you address the questions.

And you are clearly wrong if you agree with Amy because the Bible says it was MORE than just permission.

The BIBLE says it Skandelon. That does mean something to you, right?

 

[Skandelon]

I have not at all seen you address the questions.

And you are clearly wrong if you agree with Amy because the Bible says it was MORE than just permission.

The BIBLE says it Skandelon. That does mean something to you, right?

I think God decreed sin, but then again I've provided a definition of decreed which makes that statement have meaning, while you still haven't done so.

See my new thread on the subject of God's decrees...