Featured Church Sign Message Has Low Opinion of Christ and High Opinion of Mankind

"All things are decided and caused by God – nothing is free from his control, and he has not chosen to forego his control on anything. The doctrine is repulsive to those who abhor the rule and honor of God, and so they oppose it. But the doctrine is a source of comfort and celebration to those who love him. Why would we want it any other way, than for God to rule over all things? And what better life can we wish for, than to be ruled by God?

The doctrine contradicts the religious tradition that God does not decree evil or that he does not cause evil. Of course God does not make decrees against his other decrees. Since God is not insane, he has only one will, one desire. However, there is no problem for him to issue a decree that causes his creatures to violate his precepts. Whereas decrees are declarations of intentions about things that he would cause to happen, precepts are declarations of definitions, not intentions, and do not overlap with the decrees. It must be true that God decrees and causes events that are contrary to his precepts; otherwise, there could be no evil, but there is indeed evil. Therefore, God must be the metaphysical author of sin and evil.

This does not mean that God himself is evil. To metaphysically cause evil and to morally commit evil are two different things. One is a matter of ability to cause something, while the other is a matter of conformity to a principle. The Bible teaches that God is the one who defines right and wrong, and that sin is a transgression of God's law. Therefore, for God to commit evil by causing evil – for this to be bad or wrong – he must declare a moral law that forbids himself to decree or to cause evil, that is, to decree or to cause his creatures to transgress his law. There is no biblical basis to suppose that God has declared such a law against himself. Indeed, the Bible teaches that all that God says and does are right and good. If he says it, it must be true. If he does it, it must be good. Therefore, since God is sovereign and there is evil, God must be the cause of evil, and since he is the cause of evil, it must be right and good for him to be the cause of evil.

There is no divine law that says God would be wrong if he were to be the cause of evil. Why, then, do men assume that it would be evil for God to be the author of sin? What law would God transgress? He would transgress the law of men, or what men have imposed upon him to define what a righteous God must or must not do. This is the sinister truth behind the religious tradition that says God is not the author of sin, for if he were to be such, it would mean that he has transgressed a law that men has declared against him. The necessary conclusion is that the doctrine that God is not the author of sin, or that it is blasphemy and heresy to say that he is, is itself the real blasphemy and heresy. Unless God is the author of sin and evil, he is not completely sovereign, and he is not God. Therefore, to deny that God is the author of sin and evil is to deny God.

The Bible teaches that God's decrees and actions are always right and good. Since he is completely sovereign, and there is evil in this universe, this means that he is the one who decrees and causes evil in this universe. But since his decrees and actions are always right and good, then this means that it is right and good that he is the one who decrees and causes evil in this universe. The very fact that he decrees and causes evil means that it is right and good for him to do so. There is no authority or standard higher than God by which to condemn him. If he thinks that it is good for him to cause evil, then it is good for him to cause evil.

This does not mean that evil is good, which would be a contradiction. Sin is defined as a transgression of God's moral law, and when we say that God is the author of sin, we are saying that God is the metaphysical cause of a creature's transgression of God's moral law. God transgresses no moral law, since there is no moral law against what he does, but he causes the creature to transgress. Morality relates to moral law. But there is no moral law against sovereign metaphysical power. It is right and good for God to metaphysically cause evil, just because he does it, and because he has not declared himself wrong for doing it. It is wrong for man to morally commit evil, because God has declared man wrong for doing it, although it is God who metaphysically causes man to do it. Therefore, God remains righteous, and the sinner remains evil. The distinctions are clear. There is no paradox or contradiction, and also no biblical or logical basis for objection against the doctrine.

Does this make God a tyrant? If the word simply means, "an absolute ruler," then of course God is a tyrant. And since he is the sole moral authority, the very fact that he is a tyrant means that he ought to be one, that it is good and just for him to be one. The negative connotations of the word apply only to human beings, since no man is worthy of absolute authority or capable to wield it. But God is "an absolute ruler" – that is what it means to be God."

- from Vincent Cheung's Systematic Theology

 

So, just anything passes for "the gospel" in your view, just as long as one "loves Jesus", just forget about all that "doctrine stuff"? I can just imagine you disputing with the apostle Paul over what he wrote about the Judaizers in the book of Galatians. I can imagine you saying, "Come on, Paul, they accept Jesus and what he did at the cross. So what if they add some further requirements. You're being much too harsh with them. Callng them "accursed" - tsk-tsk, Paul, tsk-tsk."

Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 

You are sounding nonsensical.

 

Then what are you bounds for what, in your mind, passes muster as the gospel? Just how wide of a circle do you draw?

 

You know how @JonC is. He tends to run around the edges of debates.

He's a slippery one.

 

The spiritually dead hear after God regenerates them and gives them eyes to see and ears to hear.

 

So, as far as you are concerned, everything else is fine and dandy beyond that? No other standards besides just personal preferences?

Is that your idea of evangelism? Just ask a person, "Do you believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and that He died, was buried, and rose from the dead?" And if they say, "Yes", then you say, "Next!"?

No inquiry about who they believe Jesus to be, nothing about them being a lost sinner who is incapable of producing the perfect righteousness that is needed to stand perfect before God, nothing about looking to Christ as the Lord our Righteousness, none of that?

 

I never learned how to skate - roller or ice.

 

Yeah, like I said, I can imagine you defending the Judaizers against the apostle Paul, as you come across as an "either/or" person when it comes to Biblical doctrine.