Calvinism/origin of sin 2

[Luke2427]

It has been argued that Calvinists do not believe that God is the ultimate or remote cause of sin. Some Arminians argue that Calvinism teaches that God only permits sin.

Here is Piper and Calvin:

Does God Permit Sin?

Consider now the term permits. This is the preferred term in Arminian theology, in which it amounts to a denial that God causes sin. For the Arminian, God does not cause sin; he only permits it. Reformed theologians, however, have also used the term, referring to God’s relation to sin. The Reformed, however, insist contrary to the Arminians that God’s “permission” of sin is no less efficacious than his ordination of good. Calvin denies that there is any “mere permission” in God:

From this it is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be not by [God’s] will, but merely by his permission. Of course, so far as they are evils, which men perpetrate with their evil mind, as I shall show in greater detail shortly, I admit that they are not pleasing to God. But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely [= idly] permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.

Free-for-all!

 

[Crabtownboy]

Here is Piper and Calvin:

when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.

So Piper admits that God is the author of all sin. That is anathema to God as revealed in the life of Christ ... and the life of Christ is the greatest and fullest revelation we will ever have on God.

 

[Van]

God arranged the Fall. He put the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden, and told Adam and Eve not to eat of it. But God created Adam and Eve with the capacity to choose autonomously. Eve was deceived so her choice was compelled by Satan, but Adam sinned by his choice, he did what he knew was against the will of God. And did not Satan need God's permission to test Adam and Eve.

So the issue is not that God created the capacity to sin, or that He allows people to sin, but the issue is does God compel our individual choices to sin. A Hype-Calvinist would say yes, being advocates of exhaustive determinism, and a lesser Calvinist would say we make the only choice we can make (compatibillism) and because of the Fall, that means sinful choices. A rose by any other name...

 

[Crabtownboy]

God arranged the Fall. He put the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden, and told Adam and Eve not to eat of it. But God created Adam and Eve with the capacity to choose autonomously. Eve was deceived so her choice was compelled by Satan, but Adam sinned by his choice, he did what he knew was against the will of God. And did not Satan need God's permission to test Adam and Eve.

So the issue is not that God created the capacity to sin, or that He allows people to sin, but the issue is does God compel our individual choices to sin. A Hype-Calvinist would say yes, being advocates of exhaustive determinism, and a lesser Calvinist would say we make the only choice we can make (compatibillism) and because of the Fall, that means sinful choices. A rose by any other name...

I agree Adam and Eve sinned through their own choice, their own freewill. But that is not, IMHO, what Piper and staunch Calvinist are saying.

We are permitted to sin because we do have freewill, not because God wants us to sin. Since Adam and Eve brought sin into the world God has been working to restore the close relationship he had with them before they sinned.

 

[Luke2427]

God arranged the Fall. He put the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden, and told Adam and Eve not to eat of it. But God created Adam and Eve with the capacity to choose autonomously. Eve was deceived so her choice was compelled by Satan, but Adam sinned by his choice, he did what he knew was against the will of God. And did not Satan need God's permission to test Adam and Eve.

So the issue is not that God created the capacity to sin, or that He allows people to sin, but the issue is does God compel our individual choices to sin. A Hype-Calvinist would say yes, being advocates of exhaustive determinism, and a lesser Calvinist would say we make the only choice we can make (compatibillism) and because of the Fall, that means sinful choices. A rose by any other name...

The answer is no. God does not compel anyone to sin ever.

All who sin do so by their own choice.

But God intended for the world to be sinful so that he might save and redeem and thereby show his great love.

Without sin there is no Calvary love.

Without sin there is no redemption and no song of the redeemed to sing around the throne of God.

Without sin there is no mercy of God to be displayed and experienced.

Without sin there is no Lamb receiving the praises of a multitude of the redeemed which no man can number through the endless ages of eternity.

God hates sin, but sin was necessary that mercy and redeeming grace might be displayed and bestowed and praised and enjoyed forever.

Who would want God NOT to want these things?

 

[Luke2427]

I agree Adam and Eve sinned through their own choice, their own freewill. But that is not, IMHO, what Piper and staunch Calvinist are saying.

Then you do not know Piper. I can assure you that I do. As a matter of fact I will see him this week in Orlando, Florida.

Piper most certainly believes that men sin by their own choice and are not compelled to do so against there will by God.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Romans 9:11-23 ESV
11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

According to Paul, at least one reason (it doesn't have to be the only reason) God created
the reprobates (that is, to "create sin") is to provide a context through which he can reveal
his wrath – something that the elect will otherwise never witness or experience. In other
words, the reprobates are for the education and edification of the elect. They maintain a
world of struggles and temptations for the elect, and at the end the elect will witness the
outpouring of divine wrath against them. All of this serves to advance the sanctification
of the elect and the declarative glory of God.

Of course, people might not like this explanation, but it is the explicit teaching of
Scripture. All that God does is intrinsically good and righteous, so it is also good and
righteous for him to create the reprobates for the above purpose. Humanistic thinking will
be horrified by this teaching, since it is more concerned about man's dignity and comfort
than God's purpose and glory, but those with the mind of Christ will erupt in gratitude
and reverence, and affirm that God is righteous, and that he does all things well.

And contrary to the typical response, Paul does not say, "Oh, no, you don't understand.
Although God determines all things, he causes all things only by having you freely make
decisions according to your own nature, which came from Adam, whose nature
mysteriously turned from holy to evil, so that God is not the author of sin, but so that you
are responsible for your own decisions and actions."
Instead, Paul says that God's control over both the "noble" and the "common" is as the
potter's control over a lump of clay.8 And just as a lump of clay cannot question the
potter, Paul's response to the objector is not, "But you made yourself evil" or "But you
freely perform evil according to your own nature," but instead he says, "Shall the creature
say to the Creator, 'Why did you make me like this?'"9 And Paul does not say, "But God
is not the author of sin," but instead he says, "God has the right to make one person
righteous and another person evil, to save one and damn another. Of course no one can
resist his will! But who are you to talk back?"
This is the Bible's approach. It rebukes the objector and answers the objection at the same
time. But the answer does not deny that God is the direct cause of sin; instead, it boldly
says that God has a right to make whatever he wants and do whatever he wants. Instead
of stepping backward or sideways, it steps toward the objector and slaps him in the face!
This is God's answer. It is strong, direct, simple, coherent, and irrefutable. It is perfect.

Link: http://www.rmiweb.org/books/authorsin.pdf

 

[Van]

Calvinists play word games to hid their doctrine. When they say men sin by their own choice, they leave out that they believe the only choice a fallen man can make is sinful. So what they call "choice" is in fact "non-choice" or "compatibillistic choice."

 

[Crabtownboy]

Then you do not know Piper. I can assure you that I do. As a matter of fact I will see him this week in Orlando, Florida.

Piper most certainly believes that men sin by their own choice and are not compelled to do so against there will by God.

Your quote from Piper says God is the author of sin. I was only quoting him.

Also, I watched the film clip you posted in the other thread and there Piper says all sins and evil were preordained by God, all wife beatings ... I do not remember the whole list. But it certainly sounded as if he attributes all sin to God in that God preordained the evil.

As I said in other posts, what kind of father would predestine pain and suffering on his children in order to show how loving he is?

You say they have a choice, but at the same time you say they were predestined to select wrongly .. so they really had no choice. That can only be the logical conclusion of predestination and/or pre-ordination.

I can only go by what you quote from him.

 

[webdog]

The answer is no. God does not compel anyone to sin ever.

All who sin do so by their own choice.

If God is holding the domino up, and He lets go of it...how is it the domino's choice not to fall if that is what is going to happen when it is let go?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Luke said :

All who sin do so by their own choice.

Webdog replied:

If God is holding the domino up, and He lets go of
it...how is it the domino's choice not to fall if that is what is going to happen when it is let go?

Web, yes, you are correct ... pretty good analogy. To say we have a choice and then to say that God predestined our choice is to make God very duplicitous and I believe that is a huge error.

Also it seems to me from what I have seen on this board that Luke and Calvinists either do not see the logical conclusion of their belief or are afraid to acknowledge that logical conclusion.

Getting on toward quitting time over here and I'm off tomorrow playing tourist. Have fun.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Evil is going to be destroyed by God. As it exists now it is just an instructive demonstration to the elect so that they will know the goodness of God.

So God has decreed that evil exist for awhile because he is glorified in it's destruction and in the edification of his elect.

The reprobates only exist as tools whose purpose is to maintain an evil world for the training of the elect and to be the objects of God's wrath in his final destruction of evil.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Evil is going to be destroyed by God. As it exists now it is just an instructive demonstration to the elect so that they will know the goodness of God.

Totally illogical. God will make us miserable so he can show how merciful and kind he is by removing our misery.

Do you harm your children so you can show them how wonderful you are in nursing them back to health?

So God has decreed that evil exist for awhile because he is glorified in it's destruction and in the edification of his elect.

So God is egotistical and needs us to praise him, in the misery he caused, so he will feel good?

The reprobates only exist as tools whose purpose is to maintain an evil world for the training of the elect and to be the objects of God's wrath in his final destruction of evil.

I think you need to rework this sentence. Train the elect so they can be objects of God's wrath ... hmmm, did you really mean to say that.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Totally illogical. God will make us miserable so he can show how merciful and kind he is by removing our misery.

Do you harm your children so you can show them how wonderful you are in nursing them back to health?

It's not the same at all. He isn't harming us as our death on earth is only the begining of our sanctified eternity. In contrast he is giving us life. Think of it more as a process through which sanctified eternal life begins.

So God is egotistical and needs us to praise him, in the misery he caused, so he will feel good?

No. That is actually a very blasphemous thing to say. God is true to all of his attributes in his sovereignty.

The meaning of life for an elect person is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. It is right that God be glorified because he deserves it.

I think you need to rework this sentence. Train the elect so they can be objects of God's wrath ... hmmm, did you really mean to say that.

That's not what I said. I said the reprobates purpose is to maintain an evil world through which the elect are shown God's goodness and power. In the end reprobates bear the wrath of God. So God, loves the elect in a special way and hates the reprobates in a special way.

 

[Skandelon]

It has been argued that Calvinists do not believe that God is the ultimate or remote cause of sin. Some Arminians argue that Calvinism teaches that God only permits sin.

Before we go any further I assume this is directed at me and we need to clarify something: I've NEVER ONCE said that I think Calvinists believe that God ONLY permits sin. I've have addressed the quote you provided from Edwards, and I've not limited it to "bare permission." I've acknowledged the "disposing of events" and the certainty of said events coming to pass. The thing I've pressed you on, which you still have failed to address is:

1. What part does ANY amount of permission play in your view where God is doing the evil act...i.e. "killing his son" ???

2. What point is there in speaking of God permitting that which he is actively doing?

3. And finally how is your view consistent with Edward position and the postion of the Arminian divines? Regardless of what Piper/Calvin have said (which we can discuss too), this doesn't negate the inconsistencies you have with Edwards.

You acknowledged that you affirm the idea of a permissive decree but have yet to tell us one thing that might fall under this decree as apposed to the active decree of God. Can you answer that?

 

[Skandelon]

Calvinists play word games to hid their doctrine. When they say men sin by their own choice, they leave out that they believe the only choice a fallen man can make is sinful. So what they call "choice" is in fact "non-choice" or "compatibillistic choice."

Very true, as I've explained before:

Compatiblists (Calvinists) attempt to maintain that men are free in the since that they are "doing what they desire." It is the indeterminists contention that this is an insufficient explaination to maintain true freedom considering that compatibilists believe that even the desires and thoughts of men are decreed by God.

This is an important circularity in the claim by Calvinists that humans can be considered genuinely free so long as their actions are in accordance with their desires. Given your belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire (the very thing that compatibilists claim allows human choices to be considered free) must itself also be decreed. But if so, then there is nothing outside of or beyond God's decree on which human freedom might be based. Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human really wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from God's desire in the matter (i.e., God's desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the compatibilist scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God's decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices.

This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist's argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When the compatibilist defines freedom in terms of desire (i.e., doing what one wants to do), this formulation initially appears plausible only because it tends to (subtly) evoke a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices. That is, even though the compatibilist insists that God decisively conditions an agent's environment so as to guarantee the outcome of the agent's choices, we can nonetheless envision God's action in doing so as being compatible with human freedom so long as the human agent in question has the opportunity to interact with his conditioned environment as an independent agent, possessing his own desires and thus owning his choices in relation to that environment. But once we recognize (as we must within the larger deterministic framework encompassing compatibilism) that those very desires of the agent are equally part of the environment that God causally determines, then the line between environment and agent becomes blurred if not completely lost. The human agent no longer can be seen as owning his own choices, for the desires determining those choices are in no significant sense independent of God's decree. For this reason, human desire within the compatibilist framework forms an insufficient basis on which to establish the integrity of human freedom (and from this the legitimacy of human culpability for sin).

 

[DHK]

Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.

But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. 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. (Job 2:9-10)

Job didn't sin in the way he answered his wife, but what about his wife's angry words? Did she sin? If so was that sin decreed before the foundation of the world by God? Or did Job's wife have a choice whether to say good (in support of her husband), or to say evil?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.

But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. 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. (Job 2:9-10)

Job didn't sin in the way he answered his wife, but what about his wife's angry words? Did she sin? If so was that sin decreed before the foundation of the world by God? Or did Job's wife have a choice whether to say good (in support of her husband), or to say evil?

It was decreed from the foundation of the world. Like all sins.

Here is a good example of that biblical model:

Acts 4:27-28 NASB
27“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, 28to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur

 

[DHK]

It was decreed from the foundation of the world. Like all sins.

You take away the free will of man which previously was posted by a Calvinist that man had one. What a contradiction!

Here is a good example of that biblical model:

Acts 4:27-28 NASB
27“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, 28to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur

This is the typical argument used by Calvinists. I get weary of it.
We all know (non-Cals and others) that Christ is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Your argument is moot. The sacrifice of Christ, where Christ went willingly to the cross, and, in fact, would let nothing hinder him from going to the cross, has nothing to do with:
1. What Job's wife said.
2. A young virgin getting raped against her will.
3. A young women getting an abortion.
4. The slaughter of innocent people by Ghaddafi and other such dictators.

Sin is the result of sinful choices made by sinful men who have a sinful nature that they were born with as a result of the Fall. Don't attribute those things to a monstrous god.

 

[MB]

It has been argued that Calvinists do not believe that God is the ultimate or remote cause of sin. Some Arminians argue that Calvinism teaches that God only permits sin.

Here is Piper and Calvin:




Free-for-all!

Skating so close to the pit of hell can still get you burned.

What people don't want to admit is that sin comes from with in our flesh. The one who does it, is the sinner. The one who authors it, is the sinner. I believe this is why we are all called sinners. God doesn't allow sin or author it. Which is why He commanded us not to do it. Satan is the ruler of this world for now, but not for long.

To say God authored sin shows the man who said it is a sinner and in danger of hell fire. I believe statements like that are blaspheme.
MB