God is the Author of sin.

Just a quick note as I'm just passing through.
You might ask to limit this discussion to other Calvinists.
Otherwise this will turn into yet another "Calvinism is wrong" thread and we have plenty of those already.
Just a suggestion.
Won't effect my interaction either way.
Will post my thoughts at a later date.

 

The Bible says:WRONG!

All MODERATORS GO AHEAD AND READ THIS!

This is where I draw the line! This has got to be the most erroneous exegis of Scripture, abuse of logic, and slander aganist the THRICE HOLY GOD!!!
Isaiah 6:3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. 6:4 And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. 6:5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.
God has NO SIN, NOR DOES HE AUTHOR IT! HE DOES NOT AUTHOR THE BREAKING OF HIS OWN NATURE OR ANTAGONISM AGAINST HIMSELF!

How dare you accuse The Father, The Son, OR The Holy Ghost of being the Author of sin, and it DOES NOT MATTER which one you ascribe it too!
II COR 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Just because God permits Satan to do something, doesn't mean HE actually did it! (oh wait, you have limited God's Omnipotence, and OMNISCIENCE and Soverignty: to only being able to control whatever he has priorily planned, since He cannot POSSIBLY FOREKNOW EVERYTHING OR ANYTHING HE DID NOT PLAN!)

Job 2:6And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life. Job 2:7So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.
How insane is it to maintain a pet doctrine, at the expense of the Scripture! You might as well be a Catholic! Augustine is the father of ROMAN CATHOLIC DOCTRINE! Not biblical Christianity! Try looking up the verses where God changes his mind about something, in KJV. It's called repentance.


Forgive me for being so upset, but this is the dumbest thing I have heard, since I got saved.

The only thing just as bad is my "prophet" Charismatic biological father, went to Nigeria, to talk to a man literally "raised from the dead" by Nigerian charismatic prophet buddies of his, and he neglected to ask the formerly dead man..."WERE YOU IN HEAVEN OR HELL!?!?!?!" My dad said "Well, I never got around to asking that".

Isn't that just plain ridiculous? So is this God = sin post!









:BangHead:, and no, the wall is not the "Potter"


Don't wait for my response, becasue I'm not coming back to this thread. This is theologically and biblically just plain "wack"

 

mispost...............

 

I wont even contend this...stuff. But I was just curious, Where are all the other Calvinists who agree that this is incorrect? I find they are quick on the offensive against a non-cal but when another Calvinist comes along and goes completely against historical and established concensis of Calvinistic theology, they are so quite you can hear the crickets.

 

I agree with Christlifter and Allan. Moderators, this is an agregeous blasphemy, and does not deserve a public airing on a Christian site. Although this is the logical conclusion of some extreme views, it is blasphemy nonetheless.

"Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect."

 

I wont even contend this...stuff.

Allan, why would being Calvinist render a different attitude? I'm with you on this one, why bother contending?

The main reason I refrained from commenting was that I neither read Cheung's arguments in the link nor will I ever care to read them. Thus, I had nothing to say to his arguments. I suppose I can comment on what's above.

Earlier in another thread JohnP posted something from Calvin's institutes about inanimate objects and occasionalism that supposedly had to do with this. Now this thread conflates judgment and origin. The dualism line is a red herring as if evil and sin are substances.

There, is that enough to break the sounds of the crickets?

 

The Lord is either the author of sin, or the alternative is that He didn't get his way...sin came into being, he couldn't stop it...and then on top of that He didn't do anything about it!

Pick your poison.

I'll take the former. Stronger God!

Cheers!

 

johnp:
I was looking for what Cheung believes is the role of the sin nature in man's sin.
If you know of something, can you post it?
Thanks.
I can agree with his premise, that God is the ultimate cause behind all things. What I'm not sure about is, does he give credence to the role of our sinful nature?


To those who have expressed outrage or discomfort with this topic, I can understand your feelings on one hand. But on the other, all Biblical passages need to be addressed as honestly as possible.
Shouting "blasphemy" when verses are posted is not really effective.
What would be effective is discussing the meaning of the verses.

 

Why do some get banned for posting heretical doctrine, but others can post this garbage freely?

 

Lev. 11:44: "Consecrate yourselves and be holy, for I am holy."
Lev. 11:45: "Be holy, for I am holy."
Lev. 21:8: "I the LORD am holy, I who make you holy."
Josh. 24:19: "He is a holy God."
Ps. 89:14: "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne"
Heb. 1:8: "righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom"
Zeph. 3:5: "The LORD within her is righteous; He does no wrong."

Of course there are hundreds more. Since the Lord does no wrong, and is always holy, then he is not the author of sin and evil. Period. Any belief that God is the author of sin and evil is blasphemy.

Titus 1:2 and Heb. 6:18 say that it is impossible for God to lie. Yet on this board we apparently have those who say that God is the cause of lies. This is a flat out contradiction of the foundations of biblical Christianity, and I again call for the moderators to remove this blasphemy from this board.

 

God is Holy. It is impossible for God to sin. But that doesn't mean it is impossible for God to deliberately create a being that would sin. Indeed, there is no other suspect with the motive and the means.

It is impossible for God to lie. But the Bible clearly has passages where He uses lies to accomplish His purpose.

Do you have a problem with a God who cannot Himself sin creating a being that sins? Do you have a problem with a God who cannot Himself lie using lies to accomplish his purpose? Then you have a problem with the Bible.

 

LoL.

I understand what you mean, however I am mistified when other Cals don't reprove or rebuke one of like "profession" with the quick witted retorts and biblical quotes from the scirptures or even cut and pasted pieces from former theological greats like Pink, Gill, Bunyon, Sproul, Calvin, ext.. as they do to others who are wrong theologically in their opinion.

However, I did notice the crickets hushed as you entered the room. That was pretty cool :laugh:

Enjoy your time in the Lord Brandon.

 

That's not what was said. They said "author of sin." Big difference. You present God creating a creature with responsibility, and enough freedom to sin. The creature then becomes the author of sin. No problem there.

Having God as the direct, primary, efficient cause of all evil is a doctrine from the pit.

 

Using a creature with the natural tendency TO sin (lie) is NOT the same as God making a person sin to do what He wants.

Yes, he can create a creature that would and will sin of its OWN volition not that God MAKES it TO sin as John contends.

He has contended numerous times (and correct me if I'm wrong Johnp) that man only does what God makes each man to do whether for good or evil. God is soveriegn and therefore every sin is detemined and enforced by God upon (or making) the man to whom He ordained to do it fulfill Gods desire of each specific sin. If man can choose to sin then God is not soveriegn... Is that about right Johnp??

I know it is because he and I have discussed this somewhat (even over the same Rom 9:19) but I would not continue our discussion on it, but I just wanted his approval of what I stated he believes in a nut shell.

 

Allan, you must have missed the exchange that Johnp and I had about a month ago or so. Did you miss that? It was in one of those mega-threads on Calvinism. Not all of us have kept quiet.

But on the other hand, I am with you and Brandon - why contend? Our minds are set on this matter, and there is no use to even give it a hearing. And if that is being close-minded, then so be it. There are times to be close-minded - everything is not an open question to me. If a JW came on here and wanted to debate the Trinity, and we don't respond, that doesn't mean we approve. I'm not interested in debating everything. I bet there is an apt verse in Ecclesiastes or Proverbs that could apply here about endless debating, etc.

 

Nicholas, you and Johnp are not saying the same thing.

 

He made the creature "subject to vanity". The creature took it from there.

Now, God has used such creatures for His purpose, such as Judas.

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I didn't say God created a creature with enough freedom to sin, but for the sake of argument, let's suppose that's true. Did that sin catch God by surprise? No? Then God created a creature that WOULD sin, period. So even your way God is the first cause of sin.