Fool is also used in the bible
-
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!
Calvin: God is the Author of Sin
- Thread starter Agent47
- Start date
- Status
No. Just like with Calvin you are taking a statement from one thing and applying it to another.God CAUSED the Fall. That was His brainchild. Devised in eternity, flawlessly executed by the First Adam with nil probability of failure or deviation
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.
I quoted you. If your examples are inadequate, withdraw them
He also CAUSED Adam to Fall
Glad you agree
For pride, imagining they succeeded due to their strength. I won't repeat the verse
You need to make up your mind. If God CAUSED Assyria to attack Israel, He CAUSED Adam to Sin.. can't have your cake and eat it.
In comes decretal theology.
However you define Sin, God (according to you) CAUSED Sin
Are there things/events/activities/thoughts/motives/motiob that God never 'predestined' yet they happened? Coz I'm smelling tautology bordering on fatalism.
God is sovereign over his sovereignty. Think about it slooowly
Last edited:
God determines all thingstat happn, yet Healso at the same time alows/permits decisions and choices to b made, but thre is never anything done outside of His control over it...
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).
The best example of how things really work out would be the Coss, as Acts states that God predetermined Jesus death on it, yet He also used the willful sin of sinners to have Jesus get nailed up on it!
How ironic that his real enemy on this is not Calvin but his own theology!
I hope I'm misrepresenting most Calvinist, I'm here to learn. This is my current view of it, its not pretty, I hope plenty of people tell me WHY I am wrong, not just that it is so:
Of course God is author of evil, under Calvinism God does all evil. In fact you have no will for otherwise.
Consider the command of God. God can command a cripple man to stand up and walk, Do you question whether they will?
Well God commands all mankind not to sin, enter a double standard.
In a pool of drowning children he throws a life jacket only to some and lets the others drown so he can be appreciate by those who get a life jacket.
Would you call any human good for doing the same thing? no way.
Calvinist version of God is horrendously evil. Or if I were a Calvinist, I'd sugar coat his evil, we give him a LABEL of Good and the evil he does well He is licensed for it. He has a right to be evil, A right to let everyone drown, a right to watch all burn in hell.
The right to sin has always been the focus.
I really do hope my version of Calvinism is a laughable joke and someone better explains it to me.
Of course God is author of evil, under Calvinism God does all evil. In fact you have no will for otherwise.
Consider the command of God. God can command a cripple man to stand up and walk, Do you question whether they will?
Well God commands all mankind not to sin, enter a double standard.
In a pool of drowning children he throws a life jacket only to some and lets the others drown so he can be appreciate by those who get a life jacket.
Would you call any human good for doing the same thing? no way.
Calvinist version of God is horrendously evil. Or if I were a Calvinist, I'd sugar coat his evil, we give him a LABEL of Good and the evil he does well He is licensed for it. He has a right to be evil, A right to let everyone drown, a right to watch all burn in hell.
The right to sin has always been the focus.
I really do hope my version of Calvinism is a laughable joke and someone better explains it to me.
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.
God's decree is His eternal decisions or will; to put it in business terms, His directives, all of which were made in eternity past.
From the Baptist 1689 Confession:
God has decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things that shall ever come to pass (Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15).
Yet in such a way that God is neither the author of sin nor does He have fellowship [mutual responsibility] with any (James 1:13-15; 1 John 1:5) in the committing of sins, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away but rather established (Acts 4:27-28).
In all this God's wisdom is displayed, disposing all things, and also His power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree (Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5).
Canons of dort 1 doctrine article 17:
Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, God chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery.
"God did all this in order to demonstrate his mercy, to the praise of the riches of God’s glorious grace."
Above is chap1 saying its not offered to all.
Please show me where in chapter 2 it is offered to all mankind.
And fix my life jacket analogy. thanks =)
Controlling what He permits/allows means he determined all things including your horrible spelling. God in eternity invented your spelling mistakes.
God determined Adam must sin
Theological circus.
Was Adam's disobedience decreed regardless of whether God needed to or not?
God creating a world with free agents who can/may sin is different from God determining beforehand that his creatures must sin.
Think of your your constitution. It gives you right to own guns. These guns may kill innocents and licenced arms do kill. But nobody blames constitution for the deaths. In fact you celebrate gun rights. That's Arminianism.
Think of a Calvinistic Constitution. It not only gives you guns but it commands and 'renders certain' using the guns to kill the innocent.
Spot the difference between the two?
A Calvinist who word plays with 'decrees' vs 'permits' is either confusing you intentionally,or is ignorant of his theories, for even permission is efficacious. It is 'rendered certain' or simply CAUSED by God just as the decrees.
Last edited:
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.
Do the decrees cover everything or there some events,actions,thoughts not decreed beforehand?
Like was it from eternity decreed that I would be posting this at this exact time?
Who decreed the willful sin of sinners?
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.
Calvinism is not esoteric and I said as much. I don't claim to know more than Calvinists,just as much as they do. In any case I was one myself. I'm a recovering Calvinist.
This discussion by learned people like yourself just serves to prove that my skepticism is firmly founded in objectivity and not ignorance.
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.
Last edited:
I can assure you What I am leaving is not unique or even fringe Calvinism, it's just plain old Calvinism followed to its logical conclusion.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.
Nobody ever said God authors sin, nobody taught me that. I grappled with Calvinism vocabularies, pushed for definitions, examined these definitions before arriving here.
Currently I'm studying the meaning of decrees outside the confessions. I have Charles Hodge Systematic Theology with me.
http://i.imgur.com/29UUmJh.jpg
Teaching Princeton for half a decade is no mean feat. He was a great man who at His 50th anniversary happily remarked that no new thing had been taught for those 50yrs.
He was true to Calvinism. So I felt like whatever he says on any subject will best represent what 'main' Calvinism stood for.
I will start a new thread on this subject as soon as I am done.
One thing I have discovered with Calvinism is questions don't go away simply because you attain more education or learning. They still abound. Education helps in downplaying or even effectively hiding them away from view.
No theological system is perfect I must admit, but questions Calvinism raises I find more sensible and less convoluted answers elsewhere. I also find Calvinism to be a system of interdependent philosophies. You just don't abandon some propositions and consistently cling to the rest.....unless you are adept at.lying to yourself
Why are you doing that? Why aren't you reading the Bible? You yourself have admitted that you don't know it very well. And if you're determined to read the works of men before the word of God, I think you'd do better with Jonathan Edwards than Charles Hodge.
- Status