Calvin: God is the Author of Sin

[Agent47]

Sorry, brother, for not replying sooner as was my intent. The school had called and my son was taken to the hospital by ambulance and I was there for the most part of the morning. He’s fine and at home, so I’ll venture a couple of comments in what may continue to be a worthwhile discussion.

Sorry for that and thank God all is well

think that there may be a couple of points you can address to make your argument stronger.

Thank you, bring them on

First, when we determine that a person is disingenuous in his conclusions (here that Calvin comes to one conclusion but purposes the opposite) then we generate (as Squire’s signature says…or did at one time) more heat than light. As Calvin is not here to defend himself, we have to accept him at his word. We can question his presuppositions, logic, and conclusions, but not that he believed the doctrines he claimed to hold.

Wrong. One does not have to harbor doubts about their arguments or theories to be disingenuous; they may simply be tying 'loose ends', I mean who does not cherish 'neat' theories?

So Calvin appeals to mystery to get around obvious contradictions of his philosophy.

John Calvin did not believe that his view of predestination made God the author of evil, although it does seem he believed that God is the cause of all things.
Here it may be wise to discern between event and motivation.

I'm afraid it's more than 'seem';he says as much. And he is aware of this inevitable charge hence attempts to preempt it by framing reservations and appealing to mystery.

If you think he believed otherwise, is it too hard to ask for evidence? I have faithfully backed my claim with ample citations. Either I quoted them out of context,in which case I humbly request you quote them in their context, or I skipped others indicating his contrary stance which I will request you to share.

Does it matter how vehemently one denies talking about number two when they are talking about the square root of four?

Second, Calvin was indeed guided by Scripture, but this does not mean that he interpreted those passages through which he drew support and conclusions correctly.

I disagree. He started with a deduction before going for a fishing expedition. Or perhaps he lingered too long at the feet of someone who did.

I think that perhaps this is where value can be had – in revisiting passages concerning providence and testing those doctrines we would believe (regardless of where one ends up on the issue).

I was very particular in my OP. Once we sufficiently deal with that, we can always interrogate scriptures on the subject.

 

[Agent47]

We are calvinists who hold with all that the Bible affirms, and some that Calvin himself did!

And that is clear to point out to him that God cannot and did not author sin and evil, for He is light and there dwells no darkness within Him!

Read OP. This is not about Calvinists, bible nor what God can('t) do but what John Calvin said on the subject topic.

 

[Yeshua1]

Read OP. This is not about Calvinists, bible nor what God can('t) do but what John Calvin said on the subject topic.

I know, Calvin wouldnot agree that God ever authored sin!

 

[Agent47]

I know, Calvin wouldnot agree that God ever authored sin!

How do you know?

 

[JonC]

Sorry for that and thank God all is well


Thank you, bring them on


Wrong. One does not have to harbor doubts about their arguments or theories to be disingenuous; they may simply be tying 'loose ends', I mean who does not cherish 'neat' theories?

So Calvin appeals to mystery to get around obvious contradictions of his philosophy.


I'm afraid it's more than 'seems';he says as much. And he is aware of this inevitable charge hence attempts to preempt it by framing reservations and appealing to mystery.

If you think he believed otherwise, is it too hard to ask for evidence? I have faithfully backed my claim with ample citations. Either I quoted them out of context,in which case I humbly request you quote them in their context, or I skipped others indicating his contrary stance which I will request you to share.

Does it matter how vehemently one denies talking about number two when they are talking about the square root of four?


I disagree. He started with a deduction before going for a fishing expedition. Or perhaps he lingered too long at the feet of someone who did.


I was very particular in my OP. Once we sufficiently deal with that, we can always interrogate scriptures on the subject.

Thank you. It is frightening to get such a call, and I do thank God he is well. Parenthood can't be good for our blood pressure.

I lean towards the "less than neat" theories when it comes to man's understanding of how God does things. Sometimes I get the feeling that the neater and more precise our theories, the more inclined they are towards error.

You hit the nail on the head in your first post when you state that the OP is not about what Calvin was directly propagating but what he was effectively communicating. You also note that Calvin avoids the conclusion (that God indeed authors sin itself) by appealing to mystery. My observation was that, regardless of the legitimately of Calvin's appeal, he did in fact avoid the conclusion that God authors sin. That said, what his theology effectively communicates to many is exactly the opposite. Sometimes what is inferred is not implied.

 

[Yeshua1]

How do you know?

VERY informative information here!
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Complaints/Charge_Author.html

 

[JonC]

I had a little time to do some reading (I love the Kindle Cloud Reader). Anyway, he affirms that God has predestined everything that occurs, but that since what he has created is "good", the evil arises from the creature and not God. God predestined, for example, that the Fall would occur. But still, man falls on his own accord. Here is Calvin's "appeal to mystery":“Ignorance of things which we are not able, or which it is not lawful to know, is learning, while the desire to know them is a species of madness.” (Calvin, Institutions 3:23:8)

I actually agree with John Calvin here, but at the same time I can see how "mystery" could be misapplied to validate just about anything.

 

[Rippon]

How did Calvin end up with such a construct? I don't think he was guided by scriptures as I lack any supporting him. I think he deduced exhaustive determinism from his fatal misunderstanding of foreknowledge.

He reasoned that the only way God's foreknowledge can be certain/accurate 101% is if God caused it.

Foreknowledge does not mean knowledge gotten in advance. It's His particular love of His elect ones. It is not information --it's Him setting His love on those of His choosing.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I had a little time to do some reading (I love the Kindle Cloud Reader). Anyway, he affirms that God has predestined everything that occurs, but that since what he has created is "good", the evil arises from the creature and not God. God predestined, for example, that the Fall would occur. But still, man falls on his own accord. Here is Calvin's "appeal to mystery":“Ignorance of things which we are not able, or which it is not lawful to know, is learning, while the desire to know them is a species of madness.” (Calvin, Institutions 3:23:8)

I actually agree with John Calvin here, but at the same time I can see how "mystery" could be misapplied to validate just about anything.

It is not only Calvin who 'appeals to mystery.' The Bible does the same thing.
The most obvious example is Romans 11:33-36, but Paul is actually referencing Psalm 145:3, and a whole host of verses in Job (eg. 5:8-9; 9:10; 11:7-9; 26:14; 36:22-23, 26; 41:11).

Imagine the Mayflower approaching the coast of New England. Only a fraction of the vast continent of the USA could be seen; the edge of a land that stretched for thousands of miles. So it is with God; we understand only a fraction of Him. 'Indeed, these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him! But the thunder of His power who can understand?' Job 26:14).

 

[JonC]

It is not only Calvin who "appeals to mystery.' The Bible does the same thing.
The most obvious example is Romans 11:33-36, but Paul is actually referencing Psalm 145:3, and a whole host of verses in Job (eg. 5:8-9; 9:10; 11:7-9; 26:14; 36:22-23, 26; 41:11).

Imagine the Mayflower approaching the coast of New England. Only a fraction of the vast continent of the USA could be seen; the edge of a land that stretched for thousands of miles. So it is with God; we understand only a fraction of Him. 'Indeed, these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him! But the thunder of His power who can understand?' Job 26:14).

My hope is both a firm foundation and an appeal to mystery. I am a child of God, and what I will be remains unknown...But I will be like Christ because I will see him as he is.

I only wish when I was in school that statistics allowed appeals to mystery.

 

[Agent47]

VERY informative information here!
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Complaints/Charge_Author.html

I can also throw a counter link. Please interact with these statement s instead of sending me on a wild goose chase

 

[Agent47]

I had a little time to do some reading (I love the Kindle Cloud Reader). Anyway, he affirms that God has predestined everything that occurs, but that since what he has created is "good", the evil arises from the creature and not God. God predestined, for example, that the Fall would occur. But still, man falls on his own accord. Here is Calvin's "appeal to mystery":“Ignorance of things which we are not able, or which it is not lawful to know, is learning, while the desire to know them is a species of madness.” (Calvin, Institutions 3:23:8)

I actually agree with John Calvin here, but at the same time I can see how "mystery" could be misapplied to validate just about anything.

I'm sorry but predestining 'everything' including thoughts and intents and shirking from their consequences is pure nonsense regardless of how loudly he protested to the contrary.

Anyone who interacts with Calvin even at a distance would immediately appreciate that He was an astute scholar, and his theories are elaborate.

He did attempt to deal with questions that others felt were 'unable or unlawful to learn'. Quite possible he was sincere. Where he erred was in defining the boundaries of his attempts as well as the logical conclusion of the same as mystery.

Anyone criticizing or questioning him was intruding into the unlawful.

 

[annsni]

How do you know?

"For the proper and genuine cause of sin is not God’s hidden counsel but the evident will of man,"

Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (London: James Clarke and Co., 1961), 122.

 

[Agent47]

Foreknowledge does not mean knowledge gotten in advance. It's His particular love of His elect ones. It is not information --it's Him setting His love on those of His choosing.

I started a thread on these terms and I wish to deal with them there.

But how does God 'set his love on those of His choosing'?

In other words, it is a question of causal determination. Can God with absolute infallibility know the future unless he causally determines acts of men?

Philosophers (or is it theologians) are still at it and they arrive at different conclusions.

Calvinism and open theism share a common view that it is impossible for God to know the future except he causally determines it. God only knows what He causes. This as I said is in line with Lincoln's famous quote.

 

[Agent47]

"For the proper and genuine cause of sin is not God’s hidden counsel but the evident will of man,"

Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (London: James Clarke and Co., 1961), 122.

Oh, 'secondary' causes?
But is that will itself not subject to God ad Calvin himself readily acknowledges in the statements I quoted?

 

[Agent47]

It is not only Calvin who 'appeals to mystery.' The Bible does the same thing.

And as I said, there is a special place for mystery in theology. I gave a few examples too.

But mystery does not redeem hopeless contradictions. So Calvin may no more appeal to mystery merely because the inspired Paul appealed to it than he may pen an epistle just because Paul did.

If I developed a system of beliefs/theories that
1. Christ resurrected bodily from the grave, and
2. Christ's body is still in the grave
3. Appeal to mystery to 'cover' the logical contradiction of proposition #1 & #2

What would you make of my brazen lunacy?

 

[JonC]

I'm sorry but predestining 'everything' including thoughts and intents and shirking from their consequences is pure nonsense regardless of how loudly he protested to the contrary.

Anyone who interacts with Calvin even at a distance would immediately appreciate that He was an astute scholar, and his theories are elaborate.

He did attempt to deal with questions that others felt were 'unable or unlawful to learn'. Quite possible he was sincere. Where he erred was in defining the boundaries of his attempts as well as the logical conclusion of the same as mystery.

Anyone criticizing or questioning him was intruding into the unlawful.

I'm not sure if Calvin means God predestined things like thoughts and intents. I recall a passage saying God caused a people to war when it wasn't their intent...And there's a passage that says man plans his way but God directs his steps..But I'm not sure what Calvin considered a thing to be predestined.

Also, Calvin was often criticised and denied what he would have implemented. His influence was never absolute or unchallenged.

 

[Agent47]

I'm not sure if Calvin means God predestined things like thoughts and intents.

I was equally agnostic on the same till I ran into these quotes of his. Have you taken time to read them? If you did, all your doubts would dissipate. Permit me not to quote them again for if you,or anyone else, can't or won't read them, what confidence do I have that they will read them now after I repost?

I recall a passage saying God caused a people to war when it wasn't their intent...And there's a passage that says man plans his way but God directs his steps..But I'm not sure what Calvin considered a thing to be predestined.

You mean you are not conversant with his understanding of predestination?

Also, Calvin was often criticised and denied what he would have implemented. His influence was never absolute or unchallenged.

Terrible consequences befell Servetus but that's a story for another day

 

[JonC]

I was equally agnostic on the same till I ran into these quotes of his. Have you taken time to read them? If you did, all your doubts would dissipate. Permit me not to quote them again for if you,or anyone else, can't or won't read them, what confidence do I have that they will read them now after I repost?

Of course I read them. I wouldn’t have shown you the disrespect of commenting without considering what you wrote. My disagreement about the reference from Book 1 was regarding the topic. Calvin does not seem (my understanding) to be referring to God predestining the thoughts of men but rather the events. I say this because of how he deals with “fear” and what he considers the error of “fortune”. What I understand Calvin to be arguing (to put it in a contemporary setting) is that God is in control, and things (our recent election, the 9/11 attacks) are not a matter of happenstance or Satan overriding God’s design.

You mean you are not conversant with his understanding of predestination?

I see what he means on predestination. But at the same time he insists that God does not predestine men to do evil, or to will evil, or to think evil. He places that….intent?....as originating with man. So I am not sure exactly how it should be articulated. I don’t think that it is correct to say Calvin believed God predestined men’s thoughts as much as it is to say that he believed God predestined man’s actions.

Terrible consequences befell Servetus but that's a story for another day

Yes, Calvin (like the rest of the Reformers…and us) could not completely escape the ideologies of his past

My point was that Calvin’s authority was restricted to the church and the most severe punishment he could invoke was excommunication. But his influence may be another matter. With your example of Servetus, Calvin is responsible for his arrest, and his words were used to convict as a witness against the man, but even with this example it was not John Calvin who convicted or sentenced Servetus (although he determined Servetus worthy of death and supported the decision of the Counsel…except for mode of execution).

The Counsel that condemned Servetus was presided over by Ami Perrin (the Libertine Party). Most know him, I suppose, for his statement at the arrest of his wife. But it was Perrin who presided over Servetus’ trial. I mention this because some who bring up Calvin and Servetus seem to overlook the fact the decision to execute Servetus was made by a secular court that opposed John Calvin. (Perrin would eventually lead an unsuccessful revolt calling for the massacre of the French in Geneva). My point is that John Calvin did not possess the authority that some would pretend for him to have wielded. Interestingly enough, this was part of Calvin’s own doing (when he conditioned his return on what would become the Ordinances).

I know that you were probably not saying that John Calvin executed Servetus, or had him executed. But some do, and have even on this forum. So I bring it up to keep people honest. As you mentioned earlier, people sometimes don’t take the time to examine the evidence.

 

[Agent47]

Of course I read them. I wouldn’t have shown you the disrespect of commenting without considering what you wrote.

Fair enough.

My disagreement about the reference from Book 1 was regarding the topic. Calvin does not seem (my understanding) to be referring to God predestining the thoughts of men but rather the events. I say this because of how he deals with “fear” and what he considers the error of “fortune”. What I understand Calvin to be arguing (to put it in a contemporary setting) is that God is in control, and things (our recent election, the 9/11 attacks) are not a matter of happenstance or Satan overriding God’s design.

there is no random power, or agency, or motion in the creatures
Like I shared, I'm interested in what Calvin is effectively communicating not his intentions or objectives.

He is reassuring that God is in control because God would have to knowingly and willingly decree every 'random power,agency or motion' of creatures [which may harm them]

I think immediate reference is to sorcery.

You would agree 'random power,agency or motion' are evidently pointing to creatures (whether men or spirits,or both is irrelevant)

I see what he means on predestination. But at the same time he insists that God does not predestine men to do evil, or to will evil, or to think evil. He places that….intent?....as originating with man. So I am not sure exactly how it should be articulated.

As I said, vehemence in denying what you are obviously implying is what.....contradicting yourself.

I don’t think that it is correct to say Calvin believed God predestined men’s thoughts as much as it is to say that he believed God predestined man’s actions.

Look at the excerpt about the Fall
They deny that it is ever said in distinct terms, God decreed that Adam should perish by his revolt... They say that, in accordance with free-will, he was to be the architect of his own fortune, that God had decreed nothing but to treat him according to his desert. If this frigid fiction is received, where will be the omnipotence of God, by which, according to his secret counsel on which every thing depends.

Please put this in plain word...in your own word. Please paraphrase frigid fiction in your words.

Yes, Calvin (like the rest of the Reformers…and us) could not completely escape the ideologies of his past

My point was that Calvin’s authority was restricted to the church and the most severe punishment he could invoke was excommunication. But his influence may be another matter. With your example of Servetus, Calvin is responsible for his arrest, and his words were used to convict as a witness against the man, but even with this example it was not John Calvin who convicted or sentenced Servetus (although he determined Servetus worthy of death and supported the decision of the Counsel…except for mode of execution).

The Counsel that condemned Servetus was presided over by Ami Perrin (the Libertine Party). Most know him, I suppose, for his statement at the arrest of his wife. But it was Perrin who presided over Servetus’ trial. I mention this because some who bring up Calvin and Servetus seem to overlook the fact the decision to execute Servetus was made by a secular court that opposed John Calvin. (Perrin would eventually lead an unsuccessful revolt calling for the massacre of the French in Geneva). My point is that John Calvin did not possess the authority that some would pretend for him to have wielded. Interestingly enough, this was part of Calvin’s own doing (when he conditioned his return on what would become the Ordinances).

I know that you were probably not saying that John Calvin executed Servetus, or had him executed. But some do, and have even on this forum. So I bring it up to keep people honest. As you mentioned earlier, people sometimes don’t take the time to examine the evidence.

Servetus I have read about him.

There was no capital sentence in Geneva
All old laws on religion were in 1535 scrapped save banishment. But these primitive laws are revived coincidentally day after Servetus arrives, and he is charged.

Barely a year before Institutes had need declared to be 'God's Doctrine' meaning nobody could speak against the theories therein.

Calvin had as much hand in Servetus trial and death as humanly possible. If nothing else, focus on the defense he offered for his role all the way to his death.

posterity owes me a debt of gratitude for having purged the Church of so pernicious a monster.
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/8_ch16.htm

What amazes me is the extent to which his descendants go to cover it.

We should pick it up some time on a different thread.