Inspector Javert
Active Member
Here, Icon uses the adjective "Real" as opposed to "Biblical" or "True".......
and thus:
"No True Scotsman"
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Calvinism's conumdrum, Is God the Author of sin?
- Thread starter steaver
- Start date
- Status
Here, Icon uses the adjective "Real" as opposed to "Biblical" or "True".......
and thus:
"No True Scotsman"
I see...but I was actually referring to:
And like I said a biblical Calvinist is the only real Calvinist.
BrotherJoseph
Well-Known Member
Brother DHK,
Mainstream Calvinism does not teach that God is the author of sin. This is like claiming that most Evangelical Christians believe you should bomb abortion clinics. I am sure, as you have presented us, you can find people posting on Baptistboard with such beliefs, just as you can also probably find some "Christians" posting on online forums that believe you should bomb abortion clinics or be members of a radical militia of some type, but to extrapolate that out to the mainstream is ridiculous. You need to remember this is the internet.
If you wish to establish your argument, I issue this challenge, site at least one Calvinistic denomination that holds that belief, or a Calvinistic confession of faith that states this, or an article of faith from a Calvinistic church that contains this statement, or even a church historian who asserts this that contains citations to support the historian's claim.
Moreover, not only do mainstream Calvinists not believe this, they have actually gone out of their way to state God is not the author of sin or evil! For example RC Sproul stated,"This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine." (Double Predestination). John Calvin himself wrote “First, it must be observed that the will of God is the cause of all things that happen in the world; [U]and yet God is not the author of evil[/].” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.169, emphasis mine). Westminister Confession of Faith, ". God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."
Last edited by a moderator:
BrotherJoseph
Well-Known Member
Brother DHK,
I just wanted to add to claim that Calvinism teaches that God is the author of sin is like claiming the apostle Paul taught this when he stated God, "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" (Ephesians 1:11b). The problem is you are not distinguishing that Calvinists believe in what is called "secondary causes" and "direct causes."
"Secondary Causes
When people read the Westminster Confession of Faith, they will come across rather strange words and phrases. Second causes is one of those phrases -- what in the world is that? The framers of the Westminster Confession were expressing the idea that the majority of what happens in the world, particularly with people, comes through secondary causes (or natural causes that God established). In other words, God does not cause people's actions, especially people's sinful actions.
I'll revisit the case study of Peter (from Responsibility), when he denied Christ. Jesus told Peter that he would deny him. When Jesus said that, Jesus made a statement that was completely true and that was impossible to be false. Thus Peter, in one sense, was unable to do anything other than do what Jesus predicted. We might ask the question, did Jesus force Peter to deny him? No, not at all. Peter acted based on his complex of dispositions, his competing mix of desires, from what was present in his heart. Peter acted volitionally from who he was. This is what is meant by "secondary causes" or "second causes". Peter was not forced, coerced in his actions. He was free to do what he wanted to do in the situation he faced. Thus Peter acted out of his free agency. Note the definition of freedom: the ability of a person to do what they desire to do without coercision or being forced to do what they do. Notice that freedom, or free will, defined this way is stated independently of God's ordaining, or even God's foreknowledge.
God's ordaining all things works in the same kind of way for all people as this particular case example works with Peter's denial. When God ordained someting, he established the logical necessity that whatever he ordained will come to pass. But just as with Peter, what God ordains in all things, God does not force or coerce anyone in their actions. This is especially true with sin. God ordained the fall of Adam and Eve, and even the sin we commit, but just as Jesus did not make Peter sin with telling Peter he would deny him, so God does not cause us to sin. That comes from within ourselves, our hearts and desires.
It is hard to imagine how this works because all human examples where I ordain that someone will do something -- where it will absolutely happen-- there is something where I manipulate the circumstances that forces the outcome to my will. Not so with God. When it comes to sin, the best words that we can use is something like this: God permits sin, or permits people to sin. In this way, we can say that God ordained sin to happen, but the sin was caused by the people who committed the sin. This is what is meant by the concept of secondary causes in the Westminster Confession." (Earl Flask, Secondary Causes)
I just wanted to add to claim that Calvinism teaches that God is the author of sin is like claiming the apostle Paul taught this when he stated God, "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" (Ephesians 1:11b). The problem is you are not distinguishing that Calvinists believe in what is called "secondary causes" and "direct causes."
"Secondary Causes
When people read the Westminster Confession of Faith, they will come across rather strange words and phrases. Second causes is one of those phrases -- what in the world is that? The framers of the Westminster Confession were expressing the idea that the majority of what happens in the world, particularly with people, comes through secondary causes (or natural causes that God established). In other words, God does not cause people's actions, especially people's sinful actions.
I'll revisit the case study of Peter (from Responsibility), when he denied Christ. Jesus told Peter that he would deny him. When Jesus said that, Jesus made a statement that was completely true and that was impossible to be false. Thus Peter, in one sense, was unable to do anything other than do what Jesus predicted. We might ask the question, did Jesus force Peter to deny him? No, not at all. Peter acted based on his complex of dispositions, his competing mix of desires, from what was present in his heart. Peter acted volitionally from who he was. This is what is meant by "secondary causes" or "second causes". Peter was not forced, coerced in his actions. He was free to do what he wanted to do in the situation he faced. Thus Peter acted out of his free agency. Note the definition of freedom: the ability of a person to do what they desire to do without coercision or being forced to do what they do. Notice that freedom, or free will, defined this way is stated independently of God's ordaining, or even God's foreknowledge.
God's ordaining all things works in the same kind of way for all people as this particular case example works with Peter's denial. When God ordained someting, he established the logical necessity that whatever he ordained will come to pass. But just as with Peter, what God ordains in all things, God does not force or coerce anyone in their actions. This is especially true with sin. God ordained the fall of Adam and Eve, and even the sin we commit, but just as Jesus did not make Peter sin with telling Peter he would deny him, so God does not cause us to sin. That comes from within ourselves, our hearts and desires.
It is hard to imagine how this works because all human examples where I ordain that someone will do something -- where it will absolutely happen-- there is something where I manipulate the circumstances that forces the outcome to my will. Not so with God. When it comes to sin, the best words that we can use is something like this: God permits sin, or permits people to sin. In this way, we can say that God ordained sin to happen, but the sin was caused by the people who committed the sin. This is what is meant by the concept of secondary causes in the Westminster Confession." (Earl Flask, Secondary Causes)
What a perverse joke. Anyone with two eyes reading your vile posts would declare you to be in rebellion alright --with no moderation in your constitution.
That is not true.
You pit God's omniscience against man's will. That is wrong. God's omniscience is not the cause of man's wrong doing. Man has a choice in spite of God knowing what the outcome is. Just because God knew what would happen doesn't mean God forced it to happen. If Peter changed his mind would that make God a liar. No, it would mean that Christ would not have said what he said. But he knew that Peter wouldn't change his mind. This is circular reasoning. It is philosophical. And you are not making sense using it.
I can only give you a limited human example. But because it is human it is limited in scope.
About 15 years ago we had a problem with mice--not many just 2-4 mice got into the house. I went and bought some traditional mouse traps and used some cheese as bait. At that time I sat up late at night studying and would sometimes see a mouse scurrying down the side of a wall. If I could communicate to the mouse I would say: "Mouse, by this time tomorrow you will have tasted that cheese and your neck will be broken. You will be a dead mouse." I am not God. What I said was true. The mouse did have a will not to go to the trap. Or he could have been smart enough to avoid it, or gotten sick some other way, etc. etc. But it happened just as "I told the mouse it would." Now, did my "telling the mouse he would die" in that manner, cause the mouse to die as he did? NO! My foreknowledge of the event does not cause the event. Yet that is what the Calvinist believes. Just because I know what will happen doesn't cause it to happen.
God has infinite knowledge. But his omniscience doesn't cause it to happen. He simply knows it will. Man still has the choice and is responsible for the choice that he makes.
Yes. He still had the choice; independent of the foreknowledge of God.
God simply knew it would happen that way.
If you believe that then you believe that man, within the sovereignty of God must have some free will--that he is able to make a choice. God simply knows what choice he will make.
Thus Peter says: "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God."
Election based on foreknowledge of choice isn't election at all. The word election means choice. If God chose us based on us choosing him then he didn't elect us, we elected him and in turn ourselves. That is a contradiction to John 15:16. "You did not choose me, but I chose you." Election based on foreknowledge makes God reactionary and less sovereign.
Inspector Javert
Hello inspector,
Have not heard from you in awhile...hope things are going well in your neck of the woods.:wavey:
Well now...it appears as if some do. I am not as familiar with some of these men you quote. I give you credit for backing up your quotes with source material. Not one of the Calvinists on my bookshelf, and not one of the pastors that I know holds to this idea. Thanks for the link....I will look it over in detail with a critical eye. I have heard some men quote from V.Cheung so he is probably of some repute.....I will not dis miss him out of hand until I read through the link you provided.
I am of course going to look with a critical eye as I am certain this is leaning in the wrong direction:laugh:
nevertheless I will concede this point to you and should have said...most Calvinists, or, the overwhelming number of Cals in print.....:thumbs:
Gordan H. Clark:
One problem I have with these kind of examples is many times it is the wording involved. Here the shooting came to pass...therefore it was ordained of God. Did God force the man to pull the trigger? The man did not really want to, but was forced to pull the trigger?
This is incredibly weak...using this logic....God in creating man who would sin...Can now be blamed??? A company who made the gun could be blamed?
If there was no gun it could not have been used to shoot the person....???
God upholds the universe by the word of His power and is control over every particle, but that does not necessitate that He is the author of sin.....again this persons wording is lame.
yes...nothing can exist outside of His control but that does not mean God is the author of sin.
R.C. Sproul Jr.
Reformed Theologian Vincent Cheung even wrote a book defending the idea and insisting that it is not a problem for God to be the author of sin. (from the very beginning of the book)
1. The Author of Sin
When Reformed Christians are questioned on whether God is the "author of sin," they are
too quick to say, "No, God is not the author of sin." And then they twist and turn and writhe
on the floor, trying to give man some power of "self-determination,"1 and some kind of
freedom that in their minds would render man culpable,2 and yet still leave God with total
sovereignty.
On the other hand, when someone alleges that my view of divine sovereignty makes God
the author of sin, my reaction is "So what?" Those who oppose me stupidly chant, "But he
makes God the author of sin, he makes God the author of sin." However, a description does
not amount to an argument or objection, and I have never come across a decent explanation
as to what is wrong with God being the author of sin in any theological or philosophical
work written by anybody from any perspective.
Here's a link to the whole book as a PDF file:
http://www.vincentcheung.com/books/The Author of Sin (2014).pdf
You can read it for yourself.
No....some recent theologians who might be trying to make a name for themselves might offer these ideas but they are not mainstream ideas....to say many say it is without warrant.
Hello inspector,
Have not heard from you in awhile...hope things are going well in your neck of the woods.:wavey:
Well now...it appears as if some do. I am not as familiar with some of these men you quote. I give you credit for backing up your quotes with source material. Not one of the Calvinists on my bookshelf, and not one of the pastors that I know holds to this idea. Thanks for the link....I will look it over in detail with a critical eye. I have heard some men quote from V.Cheung so he is probably of some repute.....I will not dis miss him out of hand until I read through the link you provided.
I am of course going to look with a critical eye as I am certain this is leaning in the wrong direction:laugh:
nevertheless I will concede this point to you and should have said...most Calvinists, or, the overwhelming number of Cals in print.....:thumbs:
Gordan H. Clark:
One problem I have with these kind of examples is many times it is the wording involved. Here the shooting came to pass...therefore it was ordained of God. Did God force the man to pull the trigger? The man did not really want to, but was forced to pull the trigger?
This is incredibly weak...using this logic....God in creating man who would sin...Can now be blamed??? A company who made the gun could be blamed?
If there was no gun it could not have been used to shoot the person....???
.
God upholds the universe by the word of His power and is control over every particle, but that does not necessitate that He is the author of sin.....again this persons wording is lame.
yes...nothing can exist outside of His control but that does not mean God is the author of sin.
R.C. Sproul Jr.
He would have to offer a scriptural support for what he claims to get any traction at all here. This statement is unacceptable and unbiblical...
Reformed Theologian Vincent Cheung even wrote a book defending the idea and insisting that it is not a problem for God to be the author of sin. (from the very beginning of the book)
1. The Author of Sin
When Reformed Christians are questioned on whether God is the "author of sin," they are
too quick to say, "No, God is not the author of sin." And then they twist and turn and writhe
on the floor, trying to give man some power of "self-determination,"1 and some kind of
freedom that in their minds would render man culpable,2 and yet still leave God with total
sovereignty.
On the other hand, when someone alleges that my view of divine sovereignty makes God
the author of sin, my reaction is "So what?" Those who oppose me stupidly chant, "But he
makes God the author of sin, he makes God the author of sin." However, a description does
not amount to an argument or objection, and I have never come across a decent explanation
as to what is wrong with God being the author of sin in any theological or philosophical
work written by anybody from any perspective.
Here's a link to the whole book as a PDF file:
http://www.vincentcheung.com/books/The Author of Sin (2014).pdf
You can read it for yourself.
No....some recent theologians who might be trying to make a name for themselves might offer these ideas but they are not mainstream ideas....to say many say it is without warrant.
Thanks for acknowledging that I do not say this.....I never will either as it is heresy.:thumbs:
Gordon H. Clark, in his book Religion, Reason and Revelation :
"The sinner, therefore, and not God, is responsible; the sinner alone is the author of evil." (p.241)
Al Mohler, in his article : The Goodness of God and the Reality of Evil from 5/21/2013 :
"This much we know --we cannot speak of God's decree in a way that would imply Him to be the author of evil..."
John MacArthur, in Is God responsible for evil?
"No...He cannot in any way be the author of evil."
"The sinner, therefore, and not God, is responsible; the sinner alone is the author of evil." (p.241)
Al Mohler, in his article : The Goodness of God and the Reality of Evil from 5/21/2013 :
"This much we know --we cannot speak of God's decree in a way that would imply Him to be the author of evil..."
John MacArthur, in Is God responsible for evil?
"No...He cannot in any way be the author of evil."
Keep it up. God will have something for you that you won't like.
savedbymercy
New Member
God is the author of evil in so much that He is the author of them who committed evil!
Page after page of cognitive dissonance. Do they deny God predestines whatsoever comes to pass including our each and every sin? Nope. But then they deny God is the author of sin, according to the logical necessity of the doctrine of exhaustive determinism.
Here are the two views of God's sovereignty:
So simple a child could understand it.
Here are the two views of God's sovereignty:
1. God predestines whatsoever comes to pass and therefore is the author of sin.
2. God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass, and therefore is not the author of sin.
2. God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass, and therefore is not the author of sin.
So simple a child could understand it.
Page after page of cognitive dissonance. Do they deny God predestines whatsoever comes to pass including our each and every sin? Nope. But then they deny God is the author of sin, according to the logical necessity of the doctrine of exhaustive determinism.
Here are the two views of God's sovereignty:1. God predestines whatsoever comes to pass and therefore is the author of sin.
2. God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass, and therefore is not the author of sin.
you stil miss it......:laugh:
So simple a child could understand it.
Then why do you miss it day after day......no one here believes in fatalism as you propose. :laugh:
He obviously doesn't know the difference between fatalism, hard determinism, or compatibilism.
:applause::applause:
There is little difference between hard determinism and fatalism. In fact IMO, I find none.
On the mission field--this happened many years ago--a plane crashed carrying a number of important governmental officials. It was a tragedy. In discussion with my Muslim neighbor he simply said, "It is Allah's will."
IOW, if it happened it was God's will that it happened. That is fatalism.
That is the Calvinist mindset. All is predetermined. You block out free will. If it happens: tornadoes, floods, aircraft accidents, and other tragedies, it was God's will, for it was all predetermined in God's will in the grand scheme of his glorious sovereignty. Is that not what you believe.
That is no different than the Islamic fatalism.
That is not true. Adam is not forcing anyone to do anything. He is dead.
What happens (according to Calvinism) was decided before the foundation of the world), not from the time of Adam's fall. All was pre-determined. And that is the same view that Islam takes.
"Que sera, que sera."
- Status