Featured Calvin: God is the Author of Sin

No. Just like with Calvin you are taking a statement from one thing and applying it to another.

God caused an army to arise against Israel. Did God have to make them aggressive? No, this is how they were. But God did cause them to go against Israel (at least Scripture indicates he did). And God punished nations for going against Israel.

There is no wiggle room here. Your theory that God merely used what people were doing or going to do anyway falls in light of Scripture.

But that still doesn't remedy the issue of God authoring evil. My suggestion is that since it is clear God predestined these things (the captivity of Israel, the crucifixion of Christ, Judas' betrayal of Jesus, ect.) the answer may be in your definition of sin. You seem to think the idea God cannot sin to be limiting or defining God rather than illuminating the nature of God's acts.

 

Oh, do the get me wrong. I do believe that the Fall was decreed before Creation itself. When God placed man in the Garden man's fall was not only a possibility, it was a certainty.

But that doesn't mean I believe God forced an unwilling Adam to sin. The Fall itself, the event, was not sin. Adams disobedience was. God did not need to cause Adam to disobey. Adam was willing.

You have no logical choice but to see God as the author of sin. God created man, and God made man as man exists. By your logic, this is no different from what you would make of Calvin's position (except you hold it and not Calvin).

 

For my part, I’ll try. I won’t be here to follow up (youth trip this weekend), but I doubt any will be needed anyhow – it’s easy enough for me to understand so I’m sure you’ll pick it up quickly.

You’ve misrepresented Calvinism here. Calvinism does not believe that God authors evil. The reason is that they specifically state that God is not the author of evil.

Again, while I can see how you could arrive here it is also a misrepresentation of Calvinism. The reason is that Calvinism presents God as “throwing the life jacket” to all mankind, not just some. (The Canons of Dort clarify this in the second chapter).

It is not, as I suspect you are beginning to realize, the view Calvinism has of God but the view you have of Calvinism. Calvinists do not believe that God has a “right to be evil”, but that it is impossible for God to do evil. Here, they do not mean “evil” in terms of man (Scripture even has God doing “evil” from man’s view) but evil in terms of the opposite of “good” or “righteous” with God (not man) as the Standard. The reason is that Calvinistic doctrine specifically states that God is righteous, and not the author of evil.

Your version is, obviously and thankfully, wrong. Calvinism comes none of the ideas that you had supposed they taught, and in fact denies those conclusions in the same sources referenced to come up with the errors you’ve listed.

It is not logical to read, for example, the doctrines of Calvinism and claim that Calvinists believe God authored evil when the same doctrines you use to draw those conclusions deny that God authored evil. One may question their interpretation or their logic, but not their beliefs.


I hope this helped.

 

Your quote from chapter 1 speaks of election, not salvation offered. Chapter 2 deals with the reason some are not saved. The reason is not in the sufficiency of the Sacrifice (Christ's death was sufficient even for those who don't believe, they could have been saved through that sacrifice had they believed).

To correct your lifejacket analogy:

The Captain told us not to push that button. Now, swimming ahead (always ahead) into the dark, I think that we can all sense the approaching shore. We swim in small groups, always striving forward for a time and then resting moments by linking arms and remaining close for warmth. Earlier one group had found a piece of floating debris, perhaps a table top or a small bench. They made a makeshift raft and continued ahead, but drifted either to the left or right so they are no longer visible. They are probably on the shore as we speak, warming themselves by a fire and awaiting our arrival.

The pain of our circumstance is not the constant work to push forward, always forward. The agony is that we are all keenly aware of this voice beckoning us to turn back. The sea plays tricks like that. Voices in the distance seems to carry a familiar tone. Perhaps they are the hauntings of tradition long past, the last vestige of things inherited from our seafaring fathers. Maybe they are just our hopes and fears. In the end they are but noise in the wind. So, apart from a few fools who turn back to illusion and death, we press forward to land.

The Captain told us not to push that button. So we swam. We swam in a group, always ahead into the dark, looking for a shore in the distance. But that voice was always present, calling out to us to turn back. We’ve gone too far now for that. So we continued swimming forward. But then, something happened. The voice changed. He called my name. The voice knew me, knew me and called me by name. And it was the voice of my Captain telling me to stop swimming. So I did.

 

I understand exactly what you are saying. Ultimately it is a disagreement of reasoning (unless you are suggesting you know what Calvinists believe better than they...which would be silly). I believe your conclusion logical, but I correct.

 

I am not sure complete objectivity is possible here (from either side). And I grant that your conclusions are logical. I don't think you are arguing from ignorance at all, but I do find it interesting that you once held the doctrine you describe here as Calvinism.

As you noted earlier, Calvinism can be a diverse group, and I certainly don't want to appear to agree with some of them. I never held a soterilogy that fits your view of Calvinism, but I agree with many Calvinists insofar as the "doctrines of grace").

Just goes to show - we can share our words, not our understanding.