Featured Calvinism's conumdrum, Is God the Author of sin?

It is incredible to me that anything said against Calvin you have the audacity to put on the same level as:
blasphemy,
not having the fear of God,
being unbiblical,
mocking--a sign of unbelief.

Really? Have you idolized Calvin so much so that you have put him on the same level as the Creator of the universe; God Almighty, Jesus Christ, the Lord of lords, and King of kings.
Now Calvin is equal to him??

 

I did not mention Calvin. I spoke of God's truth which you profane. Stop hiding behind Calvins name...or SBM as if he was a Calvinist...he is not.

Your posts speak for themselves and show what is in your heart and mind....that is what all of us react to.

 

I shouldn't have to document Calvin's stand on "he believes that God is not the author of sin," since that is what you all can document for me. You claim that is what he believes.

Divine providence ordains that man falls...that the resulting destruction is because of predestination and is just.
Hence, God is the author of evil.

--God has so decree that they happen--all human events.

Here are some quotes from J.C. Sproul, some one far more contemporary:

God is sovereign over evil??? Clear enough?

The next article is a rather lengthy one by Calvin Beisner:

There is no doubt that he sees God as the author of evil and that to him, that is the only option.

 

Again, the "passage" is Ephesians 1:1-14.

The passage does not speak of reprobation, and it certainly does not speak of "our service before God." You made that one up out of thin air.

It is not hypothetical --it is actual --as much as that upsets your apple cart.

Does God show His wrath?

Does God make His power known?

Does God bear with great patience the objects of His wrath?

Does God prepare those objects of wrath for destruction?

If you answer all four of my questions negatively --you have denied biblical authority. Indeed, if you answer a single one of them with a "No" you have said, in essence that you do not want to believe the testimony of Scripture. You would rather follow your tradition and personal philosophy.

What do you do with Romans 3:3 : What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God's faithfulness?
Is that merely hypothetical?

What do you do with Romans 8:31 : If God is for us, who can be against us?

Is that merely hypothetical?

Yes, written in the same manner --not hypothetical --but actual --real.

The Apostle Paul did, under the breathed-out Word of God. It is no mere Calvinistic supposition --it is biblical truth.

God has spoken. I believe Him --not the words of you --a creature of the dust.

You are delving into nonsense. The Word of God is against you DHK.

Oh, you suddenly do not think Ro. 9:23 is hypothetical? Verse 22 you call hypothetical, but not the very next verse?

So you do believe that there are vessels of mercy?(Known as the elect)

So you do believe that God has made known the riches of His mercy upon them?

So you do believe that these vessels of mercy God had prepared from the beginning for glory?

Election is not blind or at random nor any other wicked thing you may ascribe to God's gracious action on behalf of unworhy creatures.

 

First the term is compatibilist. Second, the issue is that you are ill-equipped to combat compatibilistic Calvinism so you go with the fallacy of dismissing it as form of inconsistent logic then. It's easier for you to defend against a straw man like SBM's brand of Calvinism. You obviously have a trouble taking a loss. :laugh:

 

I guess DHK's motto is if you can't be them, find one you can beat and make him their spokesperson. LOL

 

Does the word "if" have a different meaning in Calvinism than in any other portion of the English language?

I know our resident hyper-Calvinist claims the "if" used in "if our gospel be hid" actually means the gospel is permanently hidden, so I can only reason that Calvinists (at least int he hyper variety) read the word "if" differently than non-Cals read it.

 

What IF....this is yet another passage you do not understand?

What IF.....you did not read Rippons post correctly?

What IF..... you are following the errant example of DHK in opposing Divine truth?

What IF....THESE NON CALS ARE READING WITHOUT COMPREHENSION?


What If.....you repeat your same basic error as you had trouble with romans 5:18, and failing to address it, you now repeat the same kind of error?

:wavey::wavey::wavey:

 

Rippon

Correcting the error of DHK is a full time job:laugh: he is out doing himself in departing from truth:thumbsup:

:laugh:...that is his specialty !

Exactly...yet it does not slow him down:thumbs:

In his world it is.....

The apostle Paul was a Calvinist...this inflames team anti-cal jihad.....

[/QUOTE]

 

From Theopedia:

Soft determinism and compromise with free will is not tolerated with the five point Calvinist. I have already demonstrated that. To the true Calvinist this person is simply a Calvinistic compromiser. How can a true Calvinist claim that God's sovereignty allows determinism and human freedom to be compatible with each other. Now you are getting close to my position which you despise. :laugh:

 

Yes, I quoted from it. But if you are so unfamiliar with the passage that you do not recognize the quote I will give the reference as well:

Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
--It is one of the many references in that passage that demonstrate election is directed to believers, and the blessing that each believer has. It shows us purpose--The believer is to be "to the praise of His glory."
There is no reprobation in that passage.

I just demonstrated my point. You pulled yours out of thin air with no evidence whatsoever. You keep saying that Calvinistic mantra but can't back it up.

It is a hypothetical.
Let me show you how.
"What if God willing to show his wrath." The "what if" makes it a hypothetical, not the "if" alone.
"The what if God willing" tells us something completely different. This absolutely shows the hypothetical nature of the statement for the will of God cannot be determined from this statement.
The will of God is determined from the rest of the Bible:
The will of God is that: none should perish;
that all should come to repentance;
that all should be saved;
that his propitiation was for the sins of all the world (that all the world would be saved)

He is not "willing" to show his wrath and make his power known...
He doesn't say that is his "will." His will cannot be discerned from that verse.
What if God is willing. But obviously that is not his will.

He may do all of those things, but not from that passage. Why does the Calvinist have to distort scripture to prove a point?

Not at all. I rightly divide the word of truth. I don't take scripture out of its context. If you want to demonstrate those things then you will have to do if from some other passage, not this one.
--Basically, your proof texts here are teaching something other than what you believe. That is the point.

Rom 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
--Yes it is a hypothetical statement. So what if some unbelievers did not believe? Paul had just finished speaking of unbelieving Jews. Does that make your salvation less secure? God forbid! Yea, let God be true and every man a liar.
The unbelief of unbelievers does not affect the status of the salvation of believers nor the status of God. What would make you think that it would?

It is a hypothetical question.

It is not written in the same way. It is not written "What if," but rather as an "If...then" It is conditional statement demanding an outcome.

I have given you the meaning of each of these verses in context and shown you how the grammar speaks against your interpretation.

As I said, you cannot discern "God's will" from a hypothetical. That is not what it is teaching. God's will is that all men be saved, not that many men be destroyed. You are teaching the opposite from this passage then what the Lord intended it to convey.

 

God loves you so much that unless you do something to prove you love Him, He will torture you relentlessly and mercilessly for eternity.

But always remember: God loves you whatever the condition of your condition is.

 

First, you don't know enough about Calvinism to say it isn't tolerated by five point Calvinists. To address your "No true Scotsman" fallacy, you obviously don't know any true Calvinists (I've studied at a reformed seminary with true Calvinists). Secondly, the idea of God's sovereignty and human free will both being true is called a theological antinomy (you've obviously haven't taken any systematic theology courses :laugh. Finally, I'm far from your position...I'm actually a Christian. You on the other hand deny God's sovereignty and absolute omniscience...and apparently omnipotence.

 

Since this thread is soon to be closed, I thought it would be helpful to end it while addressing its title, "Is God the Author of Sin." The author of the thread refers to it as "Calvinism's conundrum". Of course, it is only a conundrum according to the author of the thread. Monergists do not view it that way.

God is not the author of sin. He never was, is not now, nor will He ever be. Sin is not a created thing as we understand creation. God did not create sin. Sin is disobedience to God's law. That is all there is to it. Synergists seeks a disputation on God being the author of sin, and they get upset when Monergists fail to play along.

 

O come now. The minute I suggest that man has a human free will within the bounds of God's sovereignty I am completely shut down almost to the point of being a heretic (in the eyes of some of the Calvinists here).
Yet that is the position that you are suggesting that you take.

I have not denied anyone's salvation.
I merely suggest what happens when a person believes all five points of Calvinism--takes the whole package, (as some insist that to be called a Calvinist you must do), and then follow it through to its logical conclusions.
If such is done, then what do you end up believing?

 

Remember though the Calvinist view on the human will is that summed up rather nicely by Dr Luther in his classic work the Bondage of the human Will, and not as non cals tend to see us as still having full libertine version of freewill!

 

Amen...if I can give a piggy-back verse:
Deuteronomy 32:4:
“The Rock! His work is perfect,
For all His ways are just;
A God of faithfulness and without injustice,
Righteous and upright is He.

Reality shows that sin exists yet Scripture affirms that while God "works all things" he is not the author, (or as Jonathan Edwards puts it) promoter or executor of evil according to evil motives and arising from an evil nature.

 

Do you trust Luther?
In light of what Luther wrote in his own Catechism how is it you can trust what he wrote in "Bondage of the Will"?

In his Small Catechism Luther states that it is through the sacraments that "God offers, gives, and seal unto us the forgiveness of sins which Christ has earned for us."

The Catechism ask the question:
What does Baptism give or profit.
The Catechism declares: "It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare."

Knowing now what Luther believes, how much do you trust "The Bondage of the Will"?