God is the Author of sin.

[~JM~]

Dave Hunt, Norm Geisler, is that you?

:godisgood:

 

[russell55]

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.

Strangely, I'm more than half a century old, and have been acquainted with too many Calvinists to count over the years, and until this board I have never heard anyone put forward the idea that God is the author of sin. I don't say that to doubt your experience, just to say that I don't think it's the usual one.

 

[johnp.]

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.

I do not see peace Blammo but a lynchmob.

john.

 

[Blammo]

I do not see peace Blammo but a lynchmob.

john.

Buh huh huh huh huh...

Is God the author of confusion?

Who are the spirits of the prophets subject to?

 

[russell55]

Going way back to the beginning of the thread.

JOB 2:7 So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head. 8 Then Job took a piece of broken pottery and scraped himself with it as he sat among the ashes. 9 His wife said to him, "Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die!" 10 He replied, "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?"

In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.

What we are arguing about is not whether Job's trouble came from the Lord, but rather the means by which Job's trouble came from the Lord. In this case, it came from the Lord by way of the Lord removing the hedge of protection he had placed around Job and his household, and giving Satan permission to use his power against everything Job had.

God unrestrained (removed the hedge) and permitted (“All right then, everything he has is in your power. . . ")

This falls short of proving that God is "the active agent in sinful acts in exactly the same way that he's the active agent in righteous acts."

• Different immediate agents—Satan in one, the Holy Spirit in the other.
• Different actions by God—unrestraining and permitting in one, inner urging or influence in the other.

 

[Humblesmith]

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

Good question.

Moderators, I again ask why are you allowing such blatant blasphemy? What could be more contrary to Christianity than to say that God is the author of evil? Why are you allowing this? They're not just saying that God does things that don't feel good to us, they're saying that God causes evil. THIS IS HERESY.

At the very least, if you're going to allow this type of teaching, please move the Calvinism debate back to the public part of the board and out of the way of the Christians.

Please respond. Why is this teaching and these heretics allowed to remain?

 

[npetreley]

To be more specific about where your analogy broke down: God is not like men, who are guilty by association when they order an evil act, since the one who orders the evil act does so with evil motives. It is impossible for man to order an evil act with good motives, even if he thinks he is doing so, because man cannot see the big picture results of his actions. God is not like men, and is able to work everything according to His righteous will, and it is clear that God's motives are always good and righteous.

Buh huh huh huh huh...

Is God the author of confusion?

Who are the spirits of the prophets subject to?

That isn't the point of the passage you quoted. Paul did not question that the revelation came from God, but reprimanded the Corinthians for prophseying in a manner that caused confusion. They didn't take turns speaking, for example.

Was God in control of all that? Yes, certainly.

Let me address the why by asking you this. Can you honestly say God has never put tribulation in your life to teach you a lesson? I think everyone here, if they calmed down a moment, would gladly admit that God used evil to produce good in their lives. If we all agree on that, then why are we so anxious to separate God from the evil He works for good by chalking it up to his permissive will? Is not God's permissive will still His will?

God is sovereign, God is omnipotent, God is love, God [only] is good, only God has the ability to create evil in order to produce good and remain perfectly righteous and Holy in doing so. And who are you or I to say differently? "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"

 

[Blammo]

To be more specific about where your analogy broke down: God is not like men, who are guilty by association when they order an evil act, since the one who orders the evil act does so with evil motives. It is impossible for man to order an evil act with good motives, even if he thinks he is doing so, because man cannot see the big picture results of his actions. God is not like men, and is able to work everything according to His righteous will, and it is clear that God's motives are always good and righteous.



That isn't the point of the passage you quoted. Paul did not question that the revelation came from God, but reprimanded the Corinthians for prophseying in a manner that caused confusion. They didn't take turns speaking, for example.

Was God in control of all that? Yes, certainly.

Let me address the why by asking you this. Can you honestly say God has never put tribulation in your life to teach you a lesson? I think everyone here, if they calmed down a moment, would gladly admit that God used evil to produce good in their lives. If we all agree on that, then why are we so anxious to separate God from the evil He works for good by chalking it up to his permissive will? Is not God's permissive will still His will?

God is sovereign, God is omnipotent, God is love, God [only] is good, only God has the ability to create evil in order to produce good and remain perfectly righteous and Holy in doing so. And who are you or I to say differently? "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"

Is God the author of confusion? (a simple yes or no will do)

 

[npetreley]

Is God the author of confusion? (a simple yes or no will do)

A yes or no will NOT do, because the verse does not use the word author. That was added by an interpreter. More literally, it says God is not a God of disorder. So the correct question would be "Is God a God of disorder"? To which the answer would be "no".

 

[Christlifter]

hello?

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.

Somebody please respond.

 

[webdog]

A yes or no will NOT do, because the verse does not use the word author. That was added by an interpreter. More literally, it says God is not a God of disorder. So the correct question would be "Is God a God of disorder"? To which the answer would be "no".

So, damning mankind for the very things God ordained is not disorder?

 

[Blammo]

A yes or no will NOT do, because the verse does not use the word author. That was added by an interpreter. More literally, it says God is not a God of disorder. So the correct question would be "Is God a God of disorder"? To which the answer would be "no".

So, my copy of the Bible is wrong? God IS the author of confusion? He's not the God of disorder, but He is the author of confusion? Where do I get a correct copy of the word of God in English? I no longer wish to be in error.

 

[russell55]

If we all agree on that, then why are we so anxious to separate God from the evil He works for good by chalking it up to his permissive will? Is not God's permissive will still His will?

I, for one, am not anxious to chalk these things up to God's permissive will. Both righteous acts and evil ones come about by his decretive will (or sovereign will)—both have the force of God's decretive will behind them. But God decrees not only the outcomes, but also the means by which those outcomes are accomplished, and the means by which God decrees to accomplish evil acts is different than the means by which he decrees to accomplish righteous ones. The means by which he brings evil acts is his unrestraining and permitting other agents (like Satan, like evil people) to act, and the means by which he accomplishes righteous acts is by the direct influence of his Spirit in the hearts of people.

 

[npetreley]

So, my copy of the Bible is wrong?

Well, yes. It is wrong. Look at the Greek for yourself. There is no word "author" in there. It simply says "God is not of disorder". The expression "the author of" isn't even implied. The sentence is talking about what God is like, not about what God made.

 

[Blammo]

Well, yes. It is wrong. Look at the Greek for yourself. There is no word "author" in there. It simply says "God is not of disorder". The expression "the author of" isn't even implied. The sentence is talking about what God is like, not about what God made.

What about the other two questions, Nathan, have you flown away again?

 

[npetreley]

I, for one, am not anxious to chalk these things up to God's permissive will. Both righteous acts and evil ones come about by his decretive will (or sovereign will)—both have the force of God's decretive will behind them. But God decrees not only the outcomes, but also the means by which those outcomes are accomplished, and the means by which God decrees to accomplish evil acts is different than the means by which he decrees to accomplish righteous ones. The means by which he brings evil acts is his unrestraining and permitting other agents (like Satan, like evil people) to act, and the means by which he accomplishes righteous acts is by the direct influence of his Spirit in the hearts of people.

I agree with you that this is how God works in practice, because God Himself cannot lie, and God cannot sin (He cannot disobey Himself). So God MUST work through other agents to bring about evil acts. But they are still working according to His sovereign will.

Let me put it this way. I dislike the term "permissive will" only because it implies that someone is doing something against God's will, and God just shrugs His shoulders and says, "Oh, alright, I don't really want you to do that, but I'll let you do it, at least this time." That isn't at all what you are describing above, and it's not how I believe it works.

 

[Brother Bob]

shame...............

 

[russell55]

I agree with you that this is how God works in practice, because God Himself cannot lie, and God cannot sin (He cannot disobey Himself). So God MUST work through other agents to bring about evil acts. But they are still working according to His sovereign will.

Yes, exactly. But I think that distinguishes you from johnp in this discussion. Perhaps he will clarify, but I thought I asked whether God works in exactly the same way in the case of good deeds and evil deeds, and he answered yes.

 

[npetreley]

What about the other two questions, Nathan, have you flown away again?

Sorry if I'm missing something, but I only see one other question, or at least only one other question worth answering. "So, damning mankind for the very things God ordained is not disorder?"

No, it is not. It is in perfect accordance with God's will, and He has every right to do so since it is entirely His creation.

The same answer goes for the free-willers, by the way, unless you think it was impossible for God to create a sinless universe, or believe God was caught by surprise. No matter how you slice it, God's creation will end up with creatures in hell, and He created everything with that knowledge, and therefore foreordained it to be so. Even if free will were true, every human in hell would have the right to ask God, "If you knew in advance I would choose wrongly, then why did you allow me to exist?"

Or maybe I misunderstand your question. Are you suggesting God screwed up creation, and did so because He's confused?

 

[Blammo]

Sorry if I'm missing something, but I only see one other question, or at least only one other question worth answering. "So, damning mankind for the very things God ordained is not disorder?"

No, it is not. It is in perfect accordance with God's will, and He has every right to do so since it is entirely His creation.

The same answer goes for the free-willers, by the way, unless you think it was impossible for God to create a sinless universe, or believe God was caught by surprise. No matter how you slice it, God's creation will end up with creatures in hell, and He created everything with that knowledge, and therefore foreordained it to be so. Even if free will were true, every human in hell would have the right to ask God, "If you knew in advance I would choose wrongly, then why did you allow me to exist?"

Or maybe I misunderstand your question. Are you suggesting God screwed up creation, and did so because He's confused?

Are you saying God IS the author of confusion?

If so, where do I get a correct version of the word of God in English?

Those are my questions. (Should only take you about 2-20 key strokes to answer)