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

[DHK]

To mock in this way is a sign of unbelief. Anyone understanding the fear of God which is biblical would not do this ...or even come close to this.

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??

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

 

[DHK]

Document where he has said the former. If you can't, then cease from making that claim.

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.

Calvin, Institutes, III: xxiii, 8
The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should…because he saw that his own glory would thereby by displayed…Man therefore falls, divine providence so ordaining, but he falls by his own fault…I will not hesitate, therefore, simply to confess with Augustine…that the destruction consequent upon predestination is also most just.”

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

Calvin, Institutes, III: xxiii, 1.
If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might room for agitating the question, how far his foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but since…He has decreed that they are so to happen…it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.

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

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

It is for this reason that foundational to the Christian faith is the affirmation that God is sovereign over evil and over all pain.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/problem-pain/

God is sovereign over evil??? Clear enough?

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

Pantheists and Gnostics answer that evil is an illusion; Open Theists answer that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing, even though He is all-good. Neither of those options is compatible with historic Christian faith. Adherents of the free-will defense, mostly Arminians, answer that creating a moral world without evil is impossible, which, as we have seen, is also mistaken. The Reformed answer of Luther, Calvin, the Westminster Divines, and others, answers that while God could have created only moral creatures that would never sin, He instead created a moral world with creatures whose evil He foreordained for His own good purposes — to display His justice in punishing some (Prov. 16:4) and His grace in redeeming and pardoning others (Eph. 1:5–6; 2:7).
If someone objects that this means that God justifies His means by His ends, the Reformed reply that while an end-justifies-the-means ethic is fallacious for finite men (who can neither control nor know all the results of their choices), it is perfectly fitting for the infinite God (who both controls and knows all the results of His choices). And, after all, God being supreme need not justify His choices to anyone: (Rom. 9:15–21).
In short, anti-theists use the problem of evil to argue that Christianity is inherently self-contradictory because while Christianity explicitly affirms the God of the Bible, it implicitly denies Him by affirming both that He would not create a world containing evil and that the God who created this world did create a world containing evil. The Reformed answer is that the God of the Bible would and did create a world containing evil, and therefore the Christian position does not self-contradict.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/potters-freedom/
The Potter’s Freedom
by E. Calvin Beisner

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

 

[Rippon]

I have studied this passage extensively.

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

It is so obvious that "we are to be to the praise of his glory," is not speaking of reprobation, but of our service before God.

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.

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
--What if? The statement is hypothetical. It is not a pronouncement.

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.

Paul uses a number of such statement in 1Cor.13:1-3

1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak with the languages of men and of angels, but don't have love, I have become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but don't have love, I am nothing.
3 If I dole out all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but don't have love, it profits me nothing. (WEB)
--"If I give my body to be burned..."
It is a hypothetical (as all of the above are), but Paul didn't give his body to be burned. He was beheaded as a martyr.

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?

Romans 9:22 is written in exactly the same way.
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

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

--But who said God was willing to show his wrath?
Here is a Calvinist supposition.

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

Furthermore, the real truth here is that no one said that God made any vessels of wrath that were fitted to destruction.

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

The verse doesn't state that. What if...God made those. It doesn''t say that!
What if God made popsicles, toothpicks, etc. It is a hypothetical.

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

Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

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?

The conclusion:
Righteousness was granted according to their faith, not according to blind election.

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.

 

[robustheologian]

In truth Calvinism is divided as it is portrayed on the board.
But if a person is going to logically follow the tenets of Calvinism he cannot be an Amyraldianist or a Combatabilist. They are just Calvinistic compromisers that don't know how to think logically. Take TULIP and carefully think each tenet through one by one. The Calvinist must believe in hard determinism. He must believe in a definite Limited Atonement, etc. He cannot exclude any of the points, for all five come as a package. As SBM well knows accepting all makes God the author of evil. That conclusion cannot be avoided. There is only one kind of Calvinist in the end. Many don't want to accept it. But they don't want to think carefully through the logical consequences of believing all five points either.

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:

 

[robustheologian]

So SBM has become your model. Just disregard 99.9% of all Calvinists from your field of vision and focus on the fringe.

You are out of your element. Your "one kind of a Calvinist" theory cannot be sustained since the vast majority disavow your muddled conclusions.

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

 

[PreachTony]

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
--What if? The statement is hypothetical. It is not a pronouncement.
Paul uses a number of such statement in 1Cor.13:1-3

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

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

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:

 

[Iconoclast]

Rippon

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

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.

:laugh:...that is his specialty !

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.

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

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?

In his world it is.....

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.

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

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.

[/QUOTE]

 

[DHK]

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:

From Theopedia:

Compatibilism, sometimes called soft determinism, is a theological term that deals with the topics of free will and predestination. It seeks to show that God's exhaustive sovereignty is compatible with human freedom, or in other words, it claims that determinism and free will are compatible. Rather than limit the exercise of God's sovereignty in order to preserve man's freedom, compatibilists say that there must be a different way to define what freedom really means.

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:

 

[DHK]

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Inspector Javert
Hello inspector,

Have not heard from you in awhile...hope things are going well in your neck of the woods.:wavey:

Why thank you, that is quite a nice greeting....
God bless you too sir

Well now...it appears as if some do. I am not as familiar with some of these men you quote. I give you credit for backing up your quotes with source material. Not one of the Calvinists on my bookshelf, and not one of the pastors that I know holds to this idea.

Yes, some do....
And I don't doubt that it's not particularly common with the regular Calvinist preachers/Theologians of today....
few express themselves that way....
SOME do...
not all.

Thanks for the link....I will look it over in detail with a critical eye. I have heard some men quote from V.Cheung so he is probably of some repute.....I will not dis miss him out of hand until I read through the link you provided.

You are welcome, and I hope you do....
Here's what I think Cheung and others do:

They accept that (in SOME sort of way) God is the "author" of sin...but that what we think that to mean in English is not what they mean in the Biblical sense...

In other words:
They are concerned with whether or not God is CULPABLE....not the "author".
Some of these Calvies will bite the bullet of "author"....but not "Culpable".
I think they are drawing a distinction.
Of course, NO Calvie will accept that God is "Culpable" in any way or "Impugned"...
but the "Author"????
Maybe.

That's my take on what they are saying.

I am of course going to look with a critical eye as I am certain this is leaning in the wrong direction:laugh:

And those particular men may be...
But, they are very real.
It's one of those issues which a vibrant Calvinist Theology does have to resolve...

DISMISSING it out of hand won't work.
It does need a reasonable explanation.

nevertheless I will concede this point to you and should have said...most Calvinists, or, the overwhelming number of Cals in print.....:thumbs:

I'll not bicker with you about relative terms like "many" or "some"...

I know that the vast bulk of Calvinists deny the proposition so, if I said "many" do.....

I'll downgrade that to something like:
"Some" well-respected Calvinist thinkers do.....
if not "most".
It's not the majority at all.


By the way....

Unlike some.....
I don't think that this argument is actually the "Death-Knell" of Calvinism....

I think Calvinism SURVIVES this argument and isn't proven false...

But, it IS a real tension which has to be resolved.

The key element is that I think those who accept and embrace it (such as the men I quoted) understand "author of sin" somewhat differently than we might mean it in English, and they also insist God is not morally CULPABLE in any case...

That's a tension they are willing to accept and defend.

That's certainly a fair critique I think.

I don't think Calvinism is utterly destroyed by simply admitting that many an educated intelligent Calvinist Theologian Philosopher or thinker over the years has embraced that difficulty...
But, admit that it exists at least.

Thank you for your kind response.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

I am closing this thread sometime after 1700 (5PM) Pacific Time.

 

[Protestant]

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

A child can understand this.

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.

 

[robustheologian]

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:

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.

 

[Reformed]

James 1:13-16 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived by beloved brethren.

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.

 

[DHK]

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.

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?

 

[Yeshua1]

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:

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!

 

[robustheologian]

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.

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.

 

[DHK]

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!

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"?