God is the Author of sin.

Good one Blammo, how are you?

 

Great, Brother Bob, and you?

(I've become a lurker)

 

I am fine Blammo, just got out of hospital for another heart cath but it turned very well.

What is a lurker?

 

Sorry you had to go through another procedure, however, praise God it turned out well.

This is actually a good thread to tell you about this "lurker" business. It means I tend to read a lot, while posting little. I'm tired of being told I don't know anything about Calvinism by Calvinists who have been teaching me about Calvinism. Compound that with the fact that most of them are coming out of the closet with their "God is the author of sin" business, and I just don't feel like participating much anymore.

 

I have backed off a lot too. I debate a lot with DHK sometimes.

 

Most of them? In my book, most means more than 50%, well more than 50%. I only see 1-3 (1 for sure, with a couple of others who are sympathetic) who are supporting this false doctrine.

 

I said:

johnp said in response:

Then I must strongly disagree with you, johnp.

Righteous acts are all caused by the direct inner influence of the Holy Spirit. Not so with unrighteous acts. The Holy Spirit does not prompt people to sin.

I don't disagree with this, but I don't think that has to mean that he accomplishes everything in exactly the same way. I believe, like Jonathan Edwards, that when it somes to sin, God is

That's active in what comes to pass—God is disposing events, circumstances, etc. so that the evil deed "certainly and infallibly" follows—but in the carrying out of the actual evil deed itself, God permits or doesn't hinder.

 

For info on the increase of Calvinists see, “Young, Restless, Reformed: Calvinism Is Making a Comeback--And Shaking up the Church.” Christianity Today September 2006

I've seen other reports online but feel predestinated not to look'em up.

:sleeping_2:

 

Andy,

You were on the same thread I was on when I discovered this. You were the lone voice for Calvinism against this "God is the author of sin" junk. You know as well as I do most of the Calvinists jumped on the bandwagon.

Of all the Calvinists I have met on this forum, here is a list of the ones who are against the junk:

Andy T
Russell55
Maybe donnA
??? anyone else ???

 

Blammo,

There are others. Just because they don't speak out doesn't mean they agree. No one has time to participate in every thread. I'm sure Pastor Larry is against this. Brandon Jones, too. dwmoeller, too. And I'm sure there are many lurkers out there who disagree.

I only remember two other Calvies who appeared to be sympathetic to Johnp's views. So I guess if you think those two, Johnp and myself are the only Calvies on this board, then you would be right to say "most". But you know that's not the case.

 

Islam and Calvinism

Protestantism = Calvinism = Aurelius Augustinianism = Catholicism

Notice that historical Baptists are not in this chain, and do not recognize either Jacob Arminius or John Calvin as anything.


Why do you think the majority of Baptist board keeps saying " I AM NIETHER!"

People CAME OUT of Protestantism into churches (non-heretical) like the Waldensian (who John Calvin forced into his submission, with his "irresistable grace"), Lollard, Hussite, Donatist, AnaBaptist (who Luther persecuted), etc.

There has always been an outside line of "bible believers" that either CAME OUT of Rome ALL THE WAY, or formed groups that eventually did, and they DID NOT FOLLOW THE PRACTICES OF THE STATE CHURCH!

Augustine was the foundational "saint" for the Roman Catholic Church, after Constantine formed the first church/state union. Do your history on Constantine and his false "conversion".

What Constantine did is against everything Baptists stand for, historically.

Augustine is the one who concreted the doctrines of the Catholic church, in regards to infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, and the forced conversion of people outside of it. He could have cared less for their biblical salvation. He also developed the doctrine of predestination, and states in one of his books, that he recognized that the early church did not hold to this view.

You guys are on the road back to Rome if your not careful.

Augustine persecuted (and that means forced conversion and killing) the first "baptist-type" of outside church, the Donatists, who seperated from the state-church.

Mohammed the false prophet of Islam, was heavily influenced by Judaism and Catholicism, making a fatalistic, all-determinalistic, god -allah. He got it from Augustine.

Tha's where John Calvin got it from too. I'm not juding John Calvins salvation, or Augustine, but I doubt it, based on their burning and persecuting of "heretics" like BAPTISTS, and their Augustinian mind set of STATE CHURCH OR DIE!

I wouldn't swallow their doctrine, even if Calvinists killed me. Brother Bob, if your gonna be a fruit inspector, inspect the fruits of the line of men who held to a very strict or strict predestinarianism, before Baptists took over domination of it. You'll be suprised at what you find.

Augustinian Predestinarianism limits God to being forced to only have omniscience regarding what He has planned, instead of ALL THINGS.
But God's Omniscience is not confined to what he "authors", or uses to His Glory, BUT ALL THINGS!

Here is what Calvinsts have contributed to the Baptist churches:

*The need for Holy Ghost Conviction, in salvation.

*A God-focus, not a man-focus.

*The use of the Law, in preaching the Gospel.

*The Doctrine of Eternal Security.

This is why "Arminian" or non-Calvinist churches are so full of false professions, and liberal heresy, because they have left out these fundamental truths of God, and the Holy Spirit.

If the Arminian church is Laodecia, then the Calvinist Church is Sardis.

That's good stuff, what our Calvinist Baptist brethern have brought to the table, but TULIP is a Thistle.

 

I've been posting on and off here for a long time, and through the years, by far the majority of people who claim to be Calvinists have insisted quite strongly that God is not the author of sin. The Calvinistic confessions, too, insist that God is not the author of sin.

In fact, it's so rare for someone to claim that God is the author of sin, that my first assumption is that it's a semantic thing—they just don't understand what the term means—and usually that's what it turns out to be. In this case, it doesn't appear to be just a semantic thing.

The thing is, this particular viewpoint—that God relationship to evil acts is exactly the same as his relationship to righteous acts—is so rare that it's tempting to just ignore it, especially since it's rarity means you have to work hard for your arguments. You can't just google "author of sin" and come up with articles arguing against this particular view because there aren't many (or maybe there aren't any.). And since you're never argued against it, you haven't already developed your own arguments, which means you are starting from scratch.

BTW, you can add Pastor Larry to your list. He said recently that the idea that God is the author of sin is heresy.

 

I believe it was more than two, however, I will concede the point that "most" may not be accurate. As usual, you present your case quite well.

 

You can add me to that list.

And I would be labelled by most here as a hyper-Calvinist. Go figure.

 

I agree in that not all Cals agree with the issue at hand, but it is my experience personally that, yes, a large number (not particularly on the BB) hold to such non-sense as God being the author of sin, and the very person to make a man do any and all sins by activly do so in and to them.

But in your list of Cal's that don't adhear, I'd bet the farm Reformedbeliever isn't one of them either.

 

Human analogies don't work when it comes to God. Man cannot do as he pleases with other men. God can do whatever He wants with His creation.

 

Thank you, I was about to write the same sort of answer but you said it better than I would have.

 

Then why did Jesus use them?

 

Okay, let me rephrase that. Not all human analogies work...etc.

 

1 Corinthians 14:32-33 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Does this hurt the sovereignty of God? Or, is there no such thing as confusion?

Go ahead and explain this one away, ya'll are becoming quite proficient at it.