Compatibilism: Is God the Author of Sin?

[Agent47]

Classical Calvinism theorizes that God's omniscience, especially perfect foreknowledge is founded on God causing everything from the shape of individual snow flakes to the briefest of thoughts to flash through your mind. In other words, everything means everything.

This theory commonly called 'exhaustive/hard theistic determinism' is plagued by innumerable difficulties, chief among them being that God authors sin since sin is included in 'everything.

If God causes sin, why is man culpable for it? Why is God not culpable? Calvin and his adherents have attempted to get around this by;

1. Appealing to mystery so they don't have to explaining it
2. Denying that God causes sin,a hopeless contradiction
3. Claiming that God being God He is FREE to do as He wishes
4. Claiming that all is done for God's glory (I wonder how many would volunteer to burn in hell for God's glory)

None of these lame excuses saves Calvinism from self imposed dilemma. Neo-Calvinists developed another theory called Compatibilism.

From the word 'compatible', the theory seeks to explain how man is culpable for actions(sin) decreed by God while God is not. The theory claims freewill is compatible with determinism.

Compatibilism is also called soft determinism.

The purpose of this thread is simple; to demonstrate that Compatibilism still charges God with authoring Sin, the very problem it was trying to avoid.

I will do this in two posts with the first one examining the basic premises of compatibilism, and the next dealing with objections to this theory. It is my hope that compatibilists here will step in and correct me where I misrepresent them, as well as challenge my objections.

If Compatibilism or soft determinism can't escape the ghosts of hard determinism, then it's no better, nor any improvement over hard determinism, and is therefore equally worthless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Classical Calvinism theorizes that God's omniscience, especially perfect foreknowledge is founded on God causing everything from the shape of individual snow flakes to the briefest of thoughts to flash through your mind. In other words, everything means everything.

This theory commonly called 'exhaustive/hard theistic determinism' is plagued by innumerable difficulties, chief among them being that God authors sin since sin is included in 'everything.

If God causes sin, why is man culpable for it? Why is God not culpable? Calvin and his adherents have attempted to get around this by;

1. Appealing to mystery so they don't have to explaining it
2. Denying that God causes sin,a hopeless contradiction
3. Claiming that God being God He is FREE to do as He wishes
4. Claiming that all is done for God's glory (I wonder how many would volunteer to burn in hell for God's glory)

None of these lame excuses saves Calvinism from self imposed dilemma. Neo-Calvinists developed another theory called Compatibilism.

From the word 'compatible', the theory seeks to explain how man is culpable for actions(sin) decreed by God while God is not. The theory claims freewill is compatible with determinism.

Compatibilism is also called soft determinism.

The purpose of this thread is simple; to demonstrate that Compatibilism still charges God with authoring Sin, the very problem it was trying to avoid.

I will do this in two posts with the first one examining the basic premises of compatibilism, and the next dealing with objections to this theory. It is my hope that compatibilists here will step in and correct me where I misrepresent them, as well as challenge my objections.

If Compatibilism or soft determinism can't escape the ghosts of hard determinism, then it's no better, nor any improvement over hard determinism, and is therefore equally worthless.

Are you describing Hyper Calvinism here, as know of no real calvinist or theologia that would stat that God ahored sin, or causes murder, or ay othr sin contary to His nature!

That God isfully sovereign, and haschoen/set th ,imitations on how much we can act and decide is biblical though!

 

[Agent47]

Are you describing Hyper Calvinism here, as know of no real calvinist or theologia that would stat that God ahored sin, or causes murder, or ay othr sin contary to His nature!

That God isfully sovereign, and haschoen/set th ,imitations on how much we can act and decide is biblical though!

There is nothing like 'hyper-calvinism', we only have consistent and inconsistent Calvinists.

I will educate you on the difference as soon as you demonstrate you possess a teachable spirit.

This thread deals with compatibilism. Restrict yourself to the subject else you will be guilty of trolling and spamming.


PS
These topics are not for everyone. If you have nothing to contribute, please ignore it; you don't have to spam

 

[utilyan]

Are you describing Hyper Calvinism here, as know of no real calvinist or theologia that would stat that God ahored sin, or causes murder, or ay othr sin contary to His nature!

That God isfully sovereign, and haschoen/set th ,imitations on how much we can act and decide is biblical though!

Jesus Christ would have to adhere to same limitations else he is not 100% human even 0% person since Jesus has no free will.

 

[JonC]

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.

 

[Agent47]

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.

Protesting against charging God authoring Sin hardly counts as evidence against charging God with authoring 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...

There is nothing like "logical conclusion", logic is no respected of theories; it's either logical or illogical.

Calvinism, or at least Consistent Calvinism charges God with authoring Sin. It is irrelevant whether it's adherents believe it, what matters is whether they effectively subscribe to it.

But as it stands you are wrong.

You are wrong in your assessment

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.

Red herring.

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.

Whether they believe it or not is irrelevant, what matters is what they effectively subscribe to.

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.

Or they have not thoroughly interrogated their beliefs. Call it whatever you wish

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.

Adam's disobedience was God's master plan. He not only foresaw it, He decreed it. Warned Adam against exactly what He willed him to do.

When you are honest enough to interrogate your theology, we can have a mature conversation. All else is defensive posturing which is unhelpful.

But I do understand many to have invested all in theories so it's not easy to countenance being wrong let alone abandoning them. Throw in pride and you will be reviled and cursed worse than they reviled Jesus Christ.


Moving on,
I have been rather busy so I'm yet to do the two parts on compatibilism. I will verily do them in due time. Only then can I engage on the subject. I will try as much as possible stick to purpose I bolded in OP so help me God.

 

[JonC]

Protesting against charging God authoring Sin hardly counts as evidence against charging God with authoring Sin.


There is nothing like "logical conclusion", logic is no respected of theories; it's either logical or illogical.

Calvinism, or at least Consistent Calvinism charges God with authoring Sin. It is irrelevant whether it's adherents believe it, what matters is whether they effectively subscribe to it.


You are wrong in your assessment


Red herring.


Whether they believe it or not is irrelevant, what matters is what they effectively subscribe to.

Or they have not thoroughly interrogated their beliefs. Call it whatever you wish


When you are honest enough to interrogate your theology, we can have a mature conversation. All else is defensive posturing which is unhelpful.

But I do understand many to have invested all in theories so it's not easy to countenance being wrong let alone abandoning them. Throw in pride and you will be reviled and cursed worse than they reviled Jesus Christ.

You assume too much. You did not open a thread about why those views are wrong. You opened a thread about those people believing something they in truth reject. It would be the same if I were to assert that you believe men authors their own salvation. It is just plain foolish to define what others believe.

I am open to discussion what I believe, and as always to refine my views. But I do not understand why you bypass legitimate debate in order to tell me I believe something other than I am telling you I believe. This is not debate. It's a child's game. If you want, I will play one time (just to illustrate):

You believe that you, not God, authored your own salvation. You believe Jesus' was God's instrument, his tool, but deny him as Savior. I know this is what you have been taught by your "church", but you need to abandon your theories and traditions. Your theories are blinding you to God's Word. Jesus is the Savior, regardless to your theories.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus Christ would have to adhere to same limitations else he is not 100% human even 0% person since Jesus has no free will.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

There is nothing like 'hyper-calvinism', we only have consistent and inconsistent Calvinists.

I will educate you on the difference as soon as you demonstrate you possess a teachable spirit.

This thread deals with compatibilism. Restrict yourself to the subject else you will be guilty of trolling and spamming.


PS
These topics are not for everyone. If you have nothing to contribute, please ignore it; you don't have to spam

There are real Calvinists and Hyper Cals one, and the topic under discussion refers only to calvinists...

 

[Agent47]

You assume too much. You did not open a thread about why those views are wrong. You opened a thread about those people believing something they in truth reject. It would be the same if I were to assert that you believe men authors their own salvation. It is just plain foolish to define what others believe.

It's even more foolish denying what you plainly subscribe to.

I am open to discussion what I believe, and as always to refine my views. But I do not understand why you bypass legitimate debate in order to tell me I believe something other than I am telling you I believe. This is not debate. It's a child's game. If you want, I will play one time (just to illustrate):

You believe that you, not God, authored your own salvation. You believe Jesus' was God's instrument, his tool, but deny him as Savior. I know this is what you have been taught by your "church", but you need to abandon your theories and traditions. Your theories are blinding you to God's Word. Jesus is the Savior, regardless to your theories.

There is something I told you about Calvinism being esoteric

 

[Yeshua1]

Protesting against charging God authoring Sin hardly counts as evidence against charging God with authoring Sin.


There is nothing like "logical conclusion", logic is no respected of theories; it's either logical or illogical.

Calvinism, or at least Consistent Calvinism charges God with authoring Sin. It is irrelevant whether it's adherents believe it, what matters is whether they effectively subscribe to it.


You are wrong in your assessment


Red herring.


Whether they believe it or not is irrelevant, what matters is what they effectively subscribe to.

Or they have not thoroughly interrogated their beliefs. Call it whatever you wish


Adam's disobedience was God's master plan. He not only foresaw it, He decreed it. Warned Adam against exactly what He willed him to do.

When you are honest enough to interrogate your theology, we can have a mature conversation. All else is defensive posturing which is unhelpful.

But I do understand many to have invested all in theories so it's not easy to countenance being wrong let alone abandoning them. Throw in pride and you will be reviled and cursed worse than they reviled Jesus Christ.


Moving on,
I have been rather busy so I'm yet to do the two parts on compatibilism. I will verily do them in due time. Only then can I engage on the subject. I will try as much as possible stick to purpose I bolded in OP so help me God.

Did Adam have real freewill to resist the tempation ofSatan? Did Eve?
I am calvinist, and hold that they really could have chosen not to sin, do you?

 

[Agent47]

There are real Calvinists and Hyper Cals one, and the topic under discussion refers only to calvinists...

Stick to your definition, I stick to mine....just ensure you stick to topic or get thee behind me ....

 

[Agent47]

Did Adam have real freewill to resist the tempation ofSatan? Did Eve?
I am calvinist, and hold that they really could have chosen not to sin, do you?

@JonC This is spam

 

[Yeshua1]

@JonC This is spam

No it is not, as I am showing to you how God decreedthe Fall to hapen, , and yet He also used free will in the Planning process.

 

[Yeshua1]

Stick to your definition, I stick to mine....just ensure you stick to topic or get thee behind me ....

Stick to what real calvinism teaches and what we believe...

 

[JonC]

The topic is

It's even more foolish denying what you plainly subscribe to.


There is something I told you about Calvinism being esoteric

Is this a weak attempt at denying the fact that you believe you authored your own salvation? Who are you to tell us what you believe???!!!

Clarify your topic. Are you claiming that compatiblists believe God authors sin or that they are inconsistent because their own theory should lead to that conclusion?

I'm really not trying to be difficult here, but one of those options is honest (the latter) and one is dishonest (the former). Which are you arguing?

 

[Yeshua1]

The topic is
Is this a weak attempt at denying the fact that you believe you authored your own salvation? Who are you to tell us what you believe???!!!

Clarify your topic. Are you claiming that compatiblists believe God authors sin or that they are inconsistent because their own theory should lead to that conclusion?

I'm really not trying to be difficult here, but one of those options is honest (the latter) and one is dishonest (the former). Which are you arguing?

What Baptist Church teaches that God autored sin and created evil?

 

[JonC]

@JonC This is spam

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.

 

[Agent47]

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.

Spam is irrelevant and OFF TOPIC posts. Please warn him/her

 

[Agent47]

The topic is
Is this a weak attempt at denying the fact that you believe you authored your own salvation? Who are you to tell us what you believe???!!!

Clarify your topic. Are you claiming that compatiblists believe God authors sin or that they are inconsistent because their own theory should lead to that conclusion?

I'm really not trying to be difficult here, but one of those options is honest (the latter) and one is dishonest (the former). Which are you arguing?

You make a terrible comedian.

Read the bold part of the OP.

If it's not clear to you, I can't help you. Leave this thread alone