Compatibilism: Is God the Author of Sin?

[JonC]

By the way, compatabilism departs from determinalism in what it affirms, not what it denies (the argument against compatiblism is identical to the argument against determinalism .... And the argument against compatiblism is identical to the argument against free-will salvation).

 

[JonC]

When Joseph was sold into bondage, was it the will of Joseph's brothers or the will of God?

As a compatabilist, I believe that God planned this event to make Israel the nation it would at the Exodus. But I also believe that the brothers acted freely when they betrayed Joseph.

Determinalism would hold the brothers had no choice. Free-Will theology would deny God's active providence in the event occurring. But Scripture presents the event as both God's plan and the brother's sin.

The "logical conclusion" of determinism is a fatalistic application of doctrine. The "logical conclusion" of a Free-will theology that denies Divine Providence is Open Theism. Compatabilism doesn't seek a middle ground but a biblical ground.

 

[Yeshua1]

Read. The. Statement. By. Calvin. Again.

Have read it, and based upon Calvin theology on God, He was not saying God commanded Satan in sense of directly causing evil act of sin... He used what Satan wanted to do for His plan andpurposes...

 

[InTheLight]

Have read it, and based upon Calvin theology on God, He was not saying God commanded Satan in sense of directly causing evil act of sin... He used what Satan wanted to do for His plan andpurposes...

Look, never mind. You're wrong. There's no wiggle room in his statement. And you are derailing this thread.

 

[Yeshua1]

Look, never mind. You're wrong. There's no wiggle room in his statement. And you are derailing this thread.

He did not believe tha God authored sin and evil, so however we understantht quote, irt will be in tha contex!

 

[JonC]

I didn't see that thread, I was on vacation from BB. But I do know that Calvin ascribed God creating sin, or at least sinful acts:

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)

I believe Calvin correct here. Scripture tells us that man plans his way, makes his decisions, and conceives his plans. Sin comes from the heart of man. But at the same time (and for two of the three statements I made....in the same verse) Scripture says that the actual steps belong to God, that God owns the action.

Now let's look at Calvin's statement. Calvin says that nothing happens apart from God's command. Calvin draws home the notion with the imagery of God holding the bridle, restraining evil so that in effect all things work for the good. Even the plans of men are tempered by the restraining hand of God in such a way what comes to pass does so by God's decree. But notice, no one is saying here (except, perhaps, you and a couple others) that God causes sin.

I do not understand why the imagery escapes you. When we harness the power of a river to produce electricity, we are not producing water but rather controlling what is already there to serve our purpose. Likewise this imagery of God is restraining - the wicked conceive mischief, plan what they have conceived, execute their plans, but only insofar as God permits, only as God commands. Even the Fall, the great example of human sin, will prove to work out for the good - for God's purposes.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I didn't see that thread, I was on vacation from BB. But I do know that Calvin ascribed God creating sin, or at least sinful acts:

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)

Amen! Praise God that He is in charge of the Universe. What's the alternative?
'But as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.....' (Genesis 50:20). To live in a world where Satan was able to run rampant would be too ghastly to contemplate

God could have sent Joseph to Egypt in a chauffeur-driven limo, but for His own high, holy purposes He decreed that Joseph should be brought there as a slave and later thrown into jail.. However, as has been specifically documented, Calvin denied that God was the author of evil.

 

[InTheLight]

. But notice, no one is saying here (except, perhaps, you and a couple others) that God causes sin.

<Sigh> I'm not saying that God causes sin, I'm saying Calvin says that God causes sin.

Likewise this imagery of God is restraining - the wicked conceive mischief, plan what they have conceived, execute their plans, but only insofar as God permits, only as God commands.[/QUOTE]

The statement by Calvin says that man cannot cause any "mischief" unless He commands it. There's the imagery of the bridle restraining sin and then Calvin doubles down on it and says it can happen only if God commands it. His statement is not a hard thing to comprehend.

 

[InTheLight]

However, as has been specifically documented, Calvin denied that God was the author of evil.

LOL! Ok, but just not in this quote.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

LOL! Ok, but just not in this quote.

Well perhaps it might be fair to read a bit more of Calvin's work rather than pulling a quote out of context to try and make him say something that he clearly did not believe.

 

[utilyan]

As with the thread recently closed, this thread is erroneous at the start. The problem is that there exists NO Calvinistic doctrine that "charges God with authoring sin" as Calvinism plainly states that God is not the author of sin, nor is Providence worked in such a way as to make God the author of sin.

What you may mean to argue is that Calvinistic doctrine should culminate in such a "logical conclusion", or that there is a lack of consistency within their doctrine, or that they misinterpret such and such...But as it stands you are wrong. None of those you accuse charge God with authoring sin or evil any more than free-will theology credits man as authoring his own salvation.

You seem to bring up good arguments and issues to discuss, if only your topic were not so easily refuted. None of those you accuse believe what you would pretend they believe. You argue not against their doctrine but that they do not really believe what they say they believe. This is nothing but trolling and a fool's errand.

I believe God is sovereign over all, nothing occurs apart from His plan and control. But I do not believe God authors evil. I believe the Fall preordained before God created man. But I do not believe God authors sin. When you get to the level of maturity that you can argue against my belief instead of against the fact I hold that belief, maybe we can have a good conversation. As it stands, you are trolling.

Look you said:

"My argument is when presented with an explanation you (and Agent47) are putting it within a different framework or context and arguing against what was never stated.
As an example, when I said that God's decisions in not saving all was not my business, your response was that Calvinists are not concerned with the lost."


Simply a misdirected claim.....Quote me from that thread where I say you are not concerned over the lost.

All I did was quote you:

" I am not really concerned about why God doesn't save all, as that is not my business." <-- that's in your post, I didn't author that.

And then I said Paul's attitude is different from yours

"Romans 9

2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,

Paul's attitude is a lot different from yours. Willing to be damned and separated from Jesus to save others."

But you are correcting us now right?

You have a great sorrow and unceasing grief in your heart and wished you can be damned to saved reprobates.

After all both the statements "I am not really concerned about why God doesn't save all, as that is not my business" and "you have great sorrow and unceasing grief in your heart" mean the same thing right?

 

[utilyan]

Jesus is God, so think that He has real free will!

I certainly believe so. And your belief that men have no free will is true if you can say Jesus is not 100% human.



The funny thing about these debates is, you are not even debating me since I have no choice in what I say, all was preordained by God, Its just God debating with himself.

 

[JonC]

<Sigh> I'm not saying that God causes sin, I'm saying Calvin says that God causes sin.

Likewise this imagery of God is restraining - the wicked conceive mischief, plan what they have conceived, execute their plans, but only insofar as God permits, only as God commands.

The statement by Calvin says that man cannot cause any "mischief" unless He commands it. There's the imagery of the bridle restraining sin and then Calvin doubles down on it and says it can happen only if God commands it. His statement is not a hard thing to comprehend.[/QUOTE]
I have disagreed with you on occasion, brother, but have always considered you to have a sense of integrity about you. So let’s look at this with a bit of this sense about us. I do not think it is as hard to understand as you may seem to think, but regardless, I think that you will at least be able to say (even if you disagree with Calvin’s doctrine) that Calvin does not mean God is the cause of evil in the quote you provide.

But first, you are wrong on one point at the start (one that would appear to be in your favor). Calvin does not say that men cannot cause mischief apart from God’s command. He says that men cannot even conceive of mischief except so far as God permits, and even commands. What is the context? God restraining, bridling the wickedness of men for his own purposes. God commands the minds of men. So what is the context?

I see two possibilities. Either Calvin is saying God not only commands but is the cause of sin, or Calvin is saying that God commands a sin that originates with men. How do we find out what Calvin meant in this short paragraph? Perhaps we should let Calvin explain:

Calvin says that nothing happens, even sin, apart from God’s decree (God’s command, and God’s plan). But he also states that the “proper and genuine cause of sin is not God’s hidden counsel but the evident will of man”. While Calvin states that Adam’s Fall was “not without God’s knowledge and ordination” he also says “see that you make not God the author sin, by charging his sacred decree with men’s miscarriages, as if that were the cause or occasion of them, which we are sure that it is not, nor can be, any more than the sun can be the cause of darkness.”

So given that Calvin says that the “cause of sin is not God’s hidden counsel” and instead attributes the cause of sin to be “the evident will of man”, and that Calvin teaches to be careful that we “make not God the author of sin”, and that God can no more be the cause of sin than “the sun can be the cause of darkness”….are you honestly stating that you believe Calvin, in the exact same document, is also claiming that God authored sin?

You are an intelligent man. What is in question, then, is your integrity in dealing with the topic – NOT that I am calling your integrity into question, but that you are making a statement that may be doing exactly that. I understand why you would question Calvin’s logic, interpretations, reasoning, etc. But I do not understand why you (who seemed so insistent on integrity in politics) could honestly claim that Calvin is saying God authored sin when he in fact says the opposite. If you were to insist on such a thing, how are you any different from those who engage in propaganda to forward their political views? Is that really the stance you want to take?

 

[utilyan]

That depends. I am not sure if you are looking for an honest discussion or if you just want to misrepresent and insult other members.

If you choose to insult others by arguing what they believe then I have no interest. If, however, you want to argue against the doctrine itself, then you have my support. Decide and let me know.

Jon its our hope, mine at least that indeed you are being misrepresented and for you to refine and explain your vocabulary.

For example when I say free will it means the choice actually rests on me.

But if you insist Agent has NO Free Will (which I'm not saying you do or don't say).

According to your logic Agent is incapable of "choosing", he has no free will.

Even the definition of the word "choosing" must be alien to us.

Under my current understanding of the word "choosing" if I were a Calvinist I couldn't blame Agent for anything he does wrong.


If you tied someone up and told them they can't eat unless the press a button and so they press that button without knowledge caused an explosion that killed people. Would you accuse the one who pressed the button of murder? I know I would not accuse him, he had NO FREE WILL. What would you say?

 

[JonC]

Quote me from that thread where I say you are not concerned over the lost.

" I am not really concerned about why God doesn't save all, as that is not my business."
.. If I were Calvinist, my answer to Paul is they will believe when God wills them to and your preaching does nothing. Paul clearly not a Calvinist.

You quoted my statement that God's decision not to save all is beyond my responsibility and responded by presenting Calvinists as having no concern for the lost. You seemed to withdraw only when you realized I was referring to Scripture.

 

[utilyan]

You quoted my statement that God's decision not to save all is beyond my responsibility and responded by presenting Calvinists as having no concern for the lost. You seemed to withdraw only when you realized I was referring to Scripture.

I never said Calvinist as having no concern for the lost. All you have to do is quote where I said so. Your not going to, because I never did.

"I am not really concerned about why God doesn't save all, as that is not my business."

^You never said this, did you? I didn't write that do you know who did?


I quote scripture right here:

Romans 9

2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,


The other statement:

"God's decision not to save all is beyond my responsibility"

Please show me scripture. Particularly interested in Judgment day having passed already. In other words that God has made his decision.

Maybe I have it backwards and Judgment Day was prior to day one.


I am not insisting you believe one way or another, nor am I vilifying you. I believe your a wonderful person, a child of God, and I would do worst if I were in your shoes.

Please really this is for clarification's sake. I'm not going to destroy Calvinism I'm going to do my best to make it work.

 

[JonC]

Jon its our hope, mine at least that indeed you are being misrepresented and for you to refine and explain your vocabulary.

For example when I say free will it means the choice actually rests on me.

But if you insist Agent has NO Free Will (which I'm not saying you do or don't say).

According to your logic Agent is incapable of "choosing", he has no free will.

Even the definition of the word "choosing" must be alien to us.

Under my current understanding of the word "choosing" if I were a Calvinist I couldn't blame Agent for anything he does wrong.


If you tied someone up and told them they can't eat unless the press a button and so they press that button without knowledge caused an explosion that killed people. Would you accuse the one who pressed the button of murder? I know I would not accuse him, he had NO FREE WILL. What would you say?

Ok…Great – we’ve moved from the idea that we do not really believe what we say we believe to “let’s debate what you believe”. I’m willing to do that, as long as we keep it honest.

I agree that definitions are a large part of our disagreement. Even then, we will disagree because of our reasoning, and perhaps interpretation.

When I say that we have “free-will” I mean that we have the freedom to choose. If given the choice between A or B, it is up to me to choose A or B. I am not programmed, the decision is not God’s to make, God does not override my will, and I freely choose. I believe in the “human free agency” of men. This is implied when we are found “guilty”. No choice, no guilt. But men do have a choice. And men have a legitimate choice. And men choose.

If I tied someone up and told them they can't eat unless they press a button and they, unaware that the button would kill people, pressed the button for food, would I accuse them of murder? I wouldn't, no. At the same time I realize that Scripture says that we commit sins of which we are unaware....so I'm not 100% on that answer. It is not that the dude lacked free will, but he lacked knowledge. He did not know the consequences of his actions, or perhaps he would have refrained from pushing the button and opted instead to die of hunger. Insofar as the topic, though, Paul addresses this when he says that all have sinned and are guilty because all have rejected what they have known of God, which has been revealed through the testimony of Creation.

Here's a better illustration - I am guilty of murdering the king's son, but I am not alone. A group of us chose to commit the crime. I stand on trial and see the king pardon my nephew who helped me. But he doesn't pardon me. Am I guilty or innocent? I don't know why the king pardoned my nephew, but was he obligated to pardon me as well? Does the king's decision not to pardon me for a crime that I committed make him unjust?

 

[JonC]

"God's decision not to save all is beyond my responsibility" Please show me scripture. Particularly interested in Judgment day having passed already. In other words that God has made his decision.

Romans 9:19-24 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[utilyan]

Ok…Great – we’ve moved from the idea that we do not really believe what we say we believe to “let’s debate what you believe”. I’m willing to do that, as long as we keep it honest.

I agree that definitions are a large part of our disagreement. Even then, we will disagree because of our reasoning, and perhaps interpretation.

When I say that we have “free-will” I mean that we have the freedom to choose. If given the choice between A or B, it is up to me to choose A or B. I am not programmed, the decision is not God’s to make, God does not override my will, and I freely choose. I believe in the “human free agency” of men. This is implied when we are found “guilty”. No choice, no guilt. But men do have a choice. And men have a legitimate choice. And men choose.

If I tied someone up and told them they can't eat unless they press a button and they, unaware that the button would kill people, pressed the button for food, would I accuse them of murder? I wouldn't, no. At the same time I realize that Scripture says that we commit sins of which we are unaware....so I'm not 100% on that answer. It is not that the dude lacked free will, but he lacked knowledge. He did not know the consequences of his actions, or perhaps he would have refrained from pushing the button and opted instead to die of hunger. Insofar as the topic, though, Paul addresses this when he says that all have sinned and are guilty because all have rejected what they have known of God, which has been revealed through the testimony of Creation.

Here's a better illustration - I am guilty of murdering the king's son, but I am not alone. A group of us chose to commit the crime. I stand on trial and see the king pardon my nephew who helped me. But he doesn't pardon me. Am I guilty or innocent? I don't know why the king pardoned my nephew, but was he obligated to pardon me as well? Does the king's decision not to pardon me for a crime that I committed make him unjust?

Well we can keep fixing the story hope you get the gist.

You without choice are forced in a car blind folded with your foot taped and forced on the gas and your hands tied to the steering wheel. Its a smart car so it wont hit the walls on the side of the road, however it will mow down all the people packed in the road.

Good news though you have free agency up ahead there is a fork in the road so later as your running folks over you get to turn left and run over people with red shirts or turn right and run over people with blue shirts.


Are you a murder for this situation?





Matthew 18

23“For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. 24“When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25“But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. 26“So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’ 27“And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. 28“But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe.’ 29“So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you.’ 30“But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. 31“So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. 32“Then summoning him, his lord said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33‘Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ 34“And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. 35“My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”

The "wicked" slave here had no obligation to have mercy on his fellow slave, he indeed owed him. Can you guess why he is wicked? Why do you suppose his lord was angered by him?

Fun facts. The wicked slave WAS forgiven once. Do you think he would have stayed forgiven had he shown mercy?

 

[Agent47]

By the way, compatabilism departs from determinalism in what it affirms, not what it denies (the argument against compatiblism is identical to the argument against determinalism .... And the argument against compatiblism is identical to the argument against free-will salvation).

Word play.