Dizerner
Well-known member
Is there a reason you didn't answer the second question though?
Making God the author of sin
- Thread starter fltom
- Start date
Is there a reason you didn't answer the second question though?
Predestined
Well-known member
Great OP!
Calvinism does make God the author of sin in the sense that, according to its account of God’s sovereignty, God rendered Adam’s sin certain. So their doctrine most certainly does make God the author of sin in the sense that God rendered it certain that Adam (and all his posterity) would sin.
It's “determinism” a strong view of divine sovereignty avoided by C's because they understand that “determinism” means “external coercion.”
SovereignGrace
Well-known member
All of this coming from someone with the username "Predestined"...
I do not see how they can escape it
or how they cannot see how determinism impacts negatively on the love, justice and the holiness of God
Bottom line your theology makes God the author, the planer and ultimate cause of man's fall and all his sin then holds man responsible for what is not possible for him to avoid
ReverendRV
Well-known member
Yeah. I started to answer you, but realized I was too tired after a hot day at Animal Control. When I'm tired, I can't think well. I'll look at it again if time permits...
ReverendRV
Well-known member
I would use words from the Bible. God Creates Evil. I know we can debate about the Evil/Calamity thing, but for now it looks like y'all want to talk about Evil; not Calamity. If we did switch to discussing Calamity, that's almost as Bad because it's confirmed that God Causes Calamity. We could talk about Jesus asking if those who died in the Tower of Siloam were worse Sinners than those he was talking to. Jesus implied that God Caused that Calamity...
Like I said, I'm not interested in getting into any nuances regarding Evil in Calamity; because y'all are talking God and him Causing 'RA" Evil. So let's suppose the Verse says God Creates Evil; what's wrong with God telling us he Creates Evil? If it's Calamity, how many people we would call Innocent died at the Twin Towers on 911? Toddlers died. That's a Calamity; right? If not, is there a lesser word for it than Evil or Calamity? Probably not; perhaps you would call it an perverse Evil event. Certainly regarding the Terrorists, right? IF God was involved in any way, all that's left is to call it a Calamity he Created. Maybe we could say that God was caught by surprise and left those people to their own devices. Or it didn't catch God by surprise and he 'allowed' it in his Providence; no matter how weak you say his Providence is...
Did God Create the Calamity of the fall of the Tower of Siloam?
Last edited:
Reformedguy
Well-known member
Great podcast 👍
Reformedguy
Well-known member
Determinism means external coercion? LOL Who says????
Josheb
Well-known member
The prevailing concern of this op and its ensuing thread is that only the God side of things was presented from Calvin's writings in this op and then only a snippet of what Calvin wrote. Every single one of these quotes come from a much larger narrative and it would have been very easy to link the readers to the original source. As far as the first snippet goes, HERE is the specific section of The Institutes from which the first quotation is taken. It will be recognized the context is an apologetic of a specific dissent occurring in Calvin's day and not that of an overarching treatise of salvation. It will also be noted there is very little in Chapter 23 on human volition. This chapter, therefore, is not a very good source for Calvin's larger views, nor for Calvinism as a whole, as a soteriology. There are usually some additional concerns whenever using Calvin's "Institutes...." because that particular piece of work was one that was evolving for Calvin. The original version was comparatively short and written specifically as an effort to reform Catholicism. Calvin was Roman Catholic. Most Christians, especially non-Cals may be unaware The Institutes was intended for the RCC, not modern Protestantism. To think The Institutes are the definitive work by Calvin s a mistake. We learn much more about his theology, his soteriology, from his commentaries than we do The Institutes. BUT.... more importantly, when it comes to the monergist versus synergist debate Calvin also wrote quote a lot on the human will. He was not a strict determinist. Therefore, anyone who quotes snippets of Calvin on God's causality and never includes anything about the human will (especially in the sinful state) has not well represented Calvin.
Lastly, monergism has argued and refined the monergist perspectives (of which Calvin is only one) and authoritative doctrinal statements of the monergist soteriology prove to be better sources for understanding the doctrine. The Westminster Confession of Faith is shorter, more succinct, and a much more accessible source for understanding monergism than Calvin. If Calvin is the subject, then study Calvin, but study all of him.
Calvin is good for understanding Calvin, but only if all that he wrote is considered. Later documents of the Church are better sources for understanding contemporary doctrines if salvation is the subject. If monergism is the subject, then study the more modern doctrinal statements and study them in their entirety.
Lastly, monergism has argued and refined the monergist perspectives (of which Calvin is only one) and authoritative doctrinal statements of the monergist soteriology prove to be better sources for understanding the doctrine. The Westminster Confession of Faith is shorter, more succinct, and a much more accessible source for understanding monergism than Calvin. If Calvin is the subject, then study Calvin, but study all of him.
Calvin is good for understanding Calvin, but only if all that he wrote is considered. Later documents of the Church are better sources for understanding contemporary doctrines if salvation is the subject. If monergism is the subject, then study the more modern doctrinal statements and study them in their entirety.
Sketo
Well-known member
God knew the results of creating Lucifer before creating him.
Bottom line God took an action by Creating Lucifer when, where, and how he chose to create him all the while knowing the results of God’s own actions.
God created Adam when, where, and how he did knowing the results of God’s own actions.
God created the forbidden tree when, where, and how he did knowing the results of God’s own actions.
God holds all of them responsible for the results God knew his own actions would cause.
God could have determined any number of different outcomes by taking a different action at many different points but chose to meticulously orchestrate all things exactly as he did knowing the results all along the way.
Neither Lucifer nor Adam could have “possibly avoided” Gods known results of his own actions.
God is the only one who could have determined differently and he chose not to.
Now add in the fact that once you realize that Gods known results cannot even occur apart from the power of God, then you have no argument. To shy away from this is to commit to a form of deism, and the idea that there are other self-sustained powers ultimately at work in the universe.
Lastly, if Heb 1:3 is true and God upholds your existence moment by moment, then he must choose to exert the power necessary for you to continue to exist in the next moment, even while Satan and Adam sin. Therefore God is determining that such things occur by choosing to exert such power.
Hebrews 1:3 “he upholds the universe by the word of his power.”
Colossians 1:17 “he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
Acts 17:28 “In him we live and move and have our being”
You can imagine all sorts of ways around this Truth but without justification it simply remains your imagination!
… CCP
Last edited:
You just proved God is the author of all sin according to your theology
man sins because your God makes him sin
and then punishes him for what he was made to do
Sketo
Well-known member
And I do not shy away from it. As I have stated many times before…
God is the author of All Things including the occurrence of what God himself has defined as sin.
God Planned, Purposed, and Determined all things including those acts that are described as “Sin” by God’s own definition.
“For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners” (Rom 5:19)
God could have chose that you be “made sinner” by your own disobedience but instead determined that “the many” be “made sinners” by one man’s disobedience.
God knew the results of his own actions and chose to act anyway.
Yes just like he punished Pharaoh after God hardened his heart “so that” Pharaoh would disobey…
Even the case of Pharaoh being “made sinner” can be traced back to to the “one man’s disobedience”.
“For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you (who have been made sinner by one man’s disobedience) up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”” (Rom 9:17)
“The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.” (Pro 16:4)
“The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.” (Psa 58:3)
All traced back to God’s known results of his meticulous orchestration of Lucifer, Adam, and Eve and the forbidden tree in the Garden.
God knew the exhaustive results of his own actions…
P.S. At minimum God could have made the forbidden fruit look grotesque to Eves eyes and yet God knew the results of making it a “delight to her eyes” if it was ever pointed out for her to consider eating. Gen 3:6
…
Then own it
In your theology God is not holy, not loving or not just
He is as an arsonist who starts fires so that he may save a few while many are lost
Theo1689
Well-known member
I love how when the Bible teaches "God created evil ("ra")", there's all kinds of nuance in the meaning of the term, that it doesn't have to mean "evil", it could simply mean "calamity". Even "hate" has nuance, it doesn't have to mean "hate", it can mean "loved less".
But when they need it, such as with "draw" or "come", it has ONE meaning and ONE meaning only, and you MUST accept it.
There are not objective standards with Arminianism.
Language is simply molded in whatever way needed to support their false theology.
Theo1689
Well-known member
No, in our theology God is PERFECTLY Holy, loving, and just.
In fact, He is FAR more holy, loving, and just, than in YOUR theology.
Fallacious argumentation.
God is not a man, and you can't compare God's actions to the actions of a man.
God CREATED the Earth, and everyone in it.
Therefore He has the PERFECT RIGHT to do with it as He wishes.
Human arsonists don't.
Predestined
Well-known member
Yup, that's the bottom line.
SovereignGrace
Well-known member
Coming from someone with the username “Predestined”. Brother, you’ve been hoodwinked.
Theo1689
Well-known member
Does a man have a right to demolish his own home, especially if he is the one who built it?
SovereignGrace
Well-known member
No He doesn’t. According to them.