Excerpt from Apprehending The Truth : (click the attached link to read in full)
Calvinist theologian James White, in a debate with Hank Hannegraaf and George Bryson, was asked, "When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?" To which Mr. White replied... "Yes, because if not then it's meaningless and purposeless and though God knew it was going to happen he created without a purpose…and God is responsible for the creation of despair. If [God] didn't [decree child rape] then that rape is an (sic) element of meaningless evil that has no purpose."
Hence, since ultimately, all moral choices, past, present, and future, are subject to God’s sovereign dictate, all sin can be traced to God Himself. Some Calvinists, usually referred to as "hard determinists", will readily admit this, while others, referred to as "soft determinists", often deny it or use theological and philosophical gymnastics in an attempt to cloak the implications of their theology.
As Vincent Cheung, a popular Calvinist apologist boldly declares… "God controls everything that is and everything that happens. There is not one thing that happens that he has not actively decreed – not even a single thought in the mind of man. Since this is true, it follows that God has decreed the existence of evil, he has not merely permitted it, as if anything can originate and happen apart from his will and power."
Ironically, Calvinists tend to theoretically believe concepts they deny in practice. If a child molester boldly proclaimed God caused him to molest little children, Calvinists would rightfully conclude he was a deluded liar and demon possessed. However, when the theologian essentially declares the same concept, they applaud him as orthodox. Such reasoning is not only inconsistent but absurd. According to Calvinists, God commands men to abstain from what He has decreed that they do, causes them to do, and, in what they have absolutely no choice but to do, and then He utterly condemns them for doing it. This is not the God of the Scriptures…
See also Blog #25
See also Blog #25
---
If the above statements are taken out of context, please let me know, and I will remove them from this blog. Sincerely DTF
Please read the comments to this blog. The first 11 comments
are direct quotes from reliable and notable Calvinist sources on this subject.
"Thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict." –John Calvin (Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, XVII)
ReplyDelete"To our mind, either everything or nothing must be held in subjection to the will and providence of God. Even the wickedness of ungodly men is restricted by predestination..." –Gilbert Beebe
ReplyDeleteJohn Piper, in his book titled "Spectacular Sins and Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ", stretches the scriptures in an attempt to explain that God is the author of evil, Piper explains that God creates and arranges the circumstances that enables man to sin, and claims that God does all this without actually "tempting" mankind. Listed below is an excerpt and example of how Piper and the reformed movement dilutes the Word of God to explain and justify their non-Biblical doctrines.
ReplyDelete________
"I am aware that James 1:13–15 is a text some would use against this point. “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. (14) But each person is tempted when he is lured [exelkomenos] and enticed [deleazomenos] by his own desire. (15) Then desire when it has conceived [syllabousa] gives birth [tiktei] to sin, and sin when is it is fully grown brings forth death.” There is no point in hiding each other’s problem texts. I am not allowed to pick and choose any more than I allow it to others. If I cannot make texts harmonize, I try to let them both stand until someone wiser than I can (even if I must wait for God’s final enlightenment in heaven).
My effort at understanding James 1:13, in view of all the examples of God’s willing that sinful actions come about, is to say that “tempt” is defined in verse 14 as being “dragged away” (exelkomenos) and “lured” (deleazomenos). In other words, James is not thinking of temptation in terms of an object of desire being put in front of someone (note that he does not attribute “temptation” to Satan, the arch-“tempter,” but to our “desire”). For example, temptation is not the pornography on display, in James’s way of thinking here; rather, it is the “dragging” and “luring” experienced in the heart that makes a person look at the pornography. He is thinking of temptation as the engagement of the emotions in strong desires for evil. This he calls the “conceiving” (syllabousa) stage of temptation before the actual “birth” (tiktei) of the act of sin (v. 15).
Thus it seems to me that James is saying that God never experiences this kind of “being dragged away” or “being lured.” And he does not directly (see Chapter Four, note 1) produce that “dragging” and “luring” toward evil in humans. In some way (that we may not be able to fully comprehend), God is able without blameworthy “tempting” to see to it that a person does what God ordains for him to do even if it involves evil.
But when James says that God “cannot be tempted by evil,” he is not saying that God cannot have objective enticements to evil put in front of him (for Jesus certainly was “tempted” in this sense in the wilderness), nor that he himself does not arrange events at times so that such enticements come before us, which may lead us, through the “dragging” of our desires, to sin (which God knew and, therefore, in one sense, willed). In fact, the Bible reveals that God tests (same word as “tempt” in Greek) his people often (cf. Heb. 11:17) by arranging their circumstances so that they are presented with dangerous acts of obedience that they might sinfully fear, or sinful pleasures that they might covet. In the end, what I say is that God is able to order events, if it seems wise and good to do so, such that sin comes about; yet he does so without “tempting” those who sin, as James says.
"Spectacular Sins and Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ" Page 25 (Footnote)
Excerpt from The Author of Sin, by Vincent Chung
ReplyDelete___
When Reformed Christians are questioned on whether God is the "author of sin," they are too quick to say, "No, God is not the author of sin." And then they twist and turn and writhe on the floor, trying to give man some power of "self-determination,"2 and some kind of freedom that in their minds would render man culpable,3 and yet still leave God with total sovereignty. On the other hand, when someone alleges that my view of divine sovereignty makes God the author of sin, my first reaction tends to be, "So what?" Even Christians who disagree with me stupidly chant, "But he makes God the author of sin, he makes God the author of sin…." However, a description does not amount to an argument or objection, and I have never come across a half-decent explanation as to what's wrong with God being the author of sin in any theological or philosophical work written by anybody from any perspective.
The truth is that, whether or not God is the author of sin, there is no biblical or rational problem with him being the author of sin. For it to be a problem, it must make some point of Christianity false, or contradict some passage of Scripture. But if God is the author of sin, how does it make Christianity false? One must construct an argument showing this by citing established premises that necessarily lead to the conclusion that Christianity would be false if God is the author of sin. What is this argument? And what passage of
Scripture does it contradict? You can cite any passage you want, but you have to show that it necessarily applies to the question and makes it impossible for God to be the author of sin. Where is this passage of Scripture?
Among the many fallacious replies is the appeal to James 1:13.4 Using this verse to deny
that God is the author of sin is one of the worst misapplications of Scripture, and because
this error is very popular and influential, it has caused much damage and generated an
unnecessary burden for those who would defend the faith. Consider the context. James is discussing the practical outworking of the Christian's faith in his letter, and so he often stresses the Christian's direct responsibility, and from the Christian's immediate perspective. James is pointing out what the Christian should consider and address in his struggles as a Christian – he is not dealing with metaphysics.
Excerpt from The Author of Sin, by Vincent Chung
pages 5-6.
http://www.rmiweb.org/books/authorsin.pdf
Excerpt from The Author of Sin, by Vincent Chung
ReplyDelete___
To say "create" or "cause" would be just about the same thing in our context, and both
words are applicable, so I think both are fine.
We are not using the word "create" in the same sense as God's original creation out of
nothing, but we are referring to God's control over things that he has already created.
That is, although God must actively cause evil thoughts and inclinations in the creature,
and then he must actively cause the corresponding evil actions, he does not create new material or substance when he does this, since he is controlling what he has already
created.
It is true that a person sins according to his evil nature, but as Luther writes, it is God
who "creates" this evil nature in each newly conceived person after the pattern of fallen
Adam, whose fall God also caused. And then, God must actively cause this evil nature to
function and the person to act according to it. Luther writes that God never allows this
evil nature to be idle in Satan and in ungodly people, but he continuously causes it to
function by his power.11
Luther perceived the biblical and metaphysical absurdities of affirming anything short of
the above; in contrast, the weak view (common to Reformed Christians today) is an
unbiblical, unnecessary, irrational, and sophistical evasion. If our position is hyper-
Calvinism (it is not), then it would simply mean that hyper-Calvinism is the correct and
biblical view. And mislabeling it as fatalism doesn't do anything, either – it is the wimp's
way out.
As for God's purpose for sin and evil, first, in boldly acknowledging the biblical truth that
God is the sovereign and righteous "author of sin," we can note that even if we were
unable to answer the question as to why he caused sin and evil, it would not pose a
problem to Christianity, nor would it undermine what I've said about the "author of sin"
issue. That is, even if we do not have an answer to the question, there is no self contradiction in our view, nor does our view contradict Scripture. It would just be amatter of a lack of information, and rationally speaking, this is all that is at stake.
Excerpt from The Author of Sin, by Vincent Chung
Pages 12-13 (Chapter 3 "Why God Created Evil")
Sovereign Rebrobation by Rev. Gise J. Van Baren
ReplyDeleteThere is something concerning God's eternal decree of predestination, and particularly the decree of reprobation, which seems immediately to arouse the ire of man. Mention election or reprobation, and man closes his ears. Send to him material on such a subject, and he will return it with the acid comment, "I don't want such stuff in my mailbox." Even John Calvin, that noted Reformer and champion of the truth of predestination, is reported to have called reprobation "that horrible decree" (though that is not an accurate translation of his statement). Why is there such opposition to these decrees of God? Is perhaps the reason for opposition to this truth because it particularly exalts the Sovereign God alone and teaches that man is but a mere creature? The truth of predestination puts man in his proper place. Is this why man so strongly objects?
Is there such a thing as reprobation? Usually reprobation is denied. But, will you be willing to make a careful study of Scriptural passages on this point? The teaching of Scripture must stand, for it is the Word of God.
Reprobation is that eternal will, good pleasure, or purpose of God according to which He determined that some of His moral, rational creatures would be cast into hell forever on account of their sins; and that this fact would serve the cause of Christ and redound to God's glory alone.
...Before condemning the idea of reprobation out of hand, let us consider what the Word of God declares...The confessions of the churches of the Reformed faith emphatically teach this truth of reprobation...But, you ask, is God not then unjust? Is it not terribly unfair on God's part to determine that any should perish? What kind of God is He? We may not have such charges, friend. Who do we think that God is? Do we think that God must conform to our puny reasoning? Since when does the Almighty God owe to any man eternal life? Why should the Sovereign of heaven and earth be required to bestow His grace upon all? Must God bring every moral-rational creature into heaven? "Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" (Rom. 9:20). The potter has power over the clay, says Scripture, to make of the same lump one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor (Rom. 9:21). Is God unjust when He does with His own as He sees fit? I confess that I cannot penetrate into the depths of the wisdom of God and explain why such an one would be reprobated, and another elected. All I can say, with Scripture, is that God does all things to His own good pleasure to the glory of His own Name...
There are several Scriptural reasons God reprobates certain creatures to eternal hell.
In the first place, the decree of reprobation must somehow serve to glorify the Name of God... Secondly, one can understand the reason for the existence of reprobate wicked when he begins to see the whole of God's plan...
http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_44.html
"Now since the arrangement of all things is in the Hand of God...He arranges...that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify Him by their destruction..." John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, III:xxiii,6
ReplyDelete"With Augustine I say: the Lord has created those whom he unquestionably foreknew would go to destruction. This has happened because he has willed it. John Calvin Institutes of Christian Religion III:xxiii. 5
ReplyDeleteThose, therefore, whom God passes by He reprobates (one who is predestined to damnation) and that for no other cause but because He is pleased to excuse them from the inheritance that he predestines to His children...". John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion III:xxiii,1
ReplyDelete"God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the fall of his posterity, but also at God's own pleasure arranged it" John Calvin. Institutes of Christian Religion, III: xxiii, 7
ReplyDeleteScripture clearly proves... that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was His pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other- hand, it was His pleasure to doom to destruction". John Calvin,Institutes of Christian Religion III:xxi,7
ReplyDeleteTHE DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY/HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY DEBATE: Part1
ReplyDeleteSee: http://www.equip.org/PDF/DD802-1.pdf
THE DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY/HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY DEBATE: Part Two by James R. White and George Bryson
ReplyDeletehttp://www.equip.org/PDF/DD802-2.pdf
I'm familiar with the Vincent Chung comments. He is some kind of strange critter, but also perfectly consistent with the inevitable logic of determinism. I think that your analogy of the child molester is spot on, and I intend to mention that in a SEA discussion group. I'm also curious as to White's comments about "meaningless evil that has no purpose." Why would he have such a problem with that? So if God orchestrates it, then it's somehow better? I don't get the logic. I wish that he had followed up on it.
ReplyDeleteAuthor of Sin (Copied) PART 1
ReplyDeleteSince the days of John Calvin (or at least just after), there has been a branch of theology called “reformed theology.” It focuses a lot on the sovereignty of God. Reformed theology has always taught that God permits sin, knows it will happen, works it into His plan for greater good, and even decrees that this will be so. Some Christians do not agree with this, but whether or not we agree, it is within the realm of orthodox Christianity. People who teach classic reformed theology are Christians.
It seems rather amazing, but we have Christians now days who have taken the doctrine of the sovereignty of God to an extreme that few ever dared. In an attempt to bring glory to God, and to hold His absolute sovereignty, these men have ventured too far. In attempting to give God as much credit as they can conceive, they give Him control of all things. All well and good, for scripture does tell us that “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things” (Romans 11:36).
But these men tell us that “all things” includes sin. People are now running around the countryside telling us that God is the originator and first cause of sin. One fellow on an online message board recently wrote “When Adam contracted the arm that brought the forbidden fruit to his own mouth, God contracted that arm. God powered the biceps that brought the forbidden fruit to the mouth of Adam. When Adam bit into that fruit, God flexed the jaw muscles. . . There is no action that is not empowered by Him.”
Author of Sin (Copied) PART 1
ReplyDeleteIn response, I provide the following quotes from several historical creeds. These creeds do not replace scripture, and the writers of them would quickly agree. But these explain what has been taught in Christian circles for centuries. These are all highly-regarded reformed statements of the nature of God:
The Belgic Confession (1561): “. . . nothing happens in this world without [God's] appointment; nevertheless, God neither is the author of, nor can be charged with, the sins which are committed.” (Article 13)
The Canons of the Synod of Dort: “The cause or guilt of this unbelief, as well as of all other sins, is nowise in God, but in man himself“(Article 5)
Westminster Confession of Faith (1647): “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.” (Chapter 3)
Westminster Confession of Faith (1647): “The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in his providence that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” (Chapter 5)
Further, a more modern quote from John Piper, speaking of Jonathan Edwards: “Is God the Author of Sin? Edwards answers, “If by ‘the author of sin,’ be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing . . . . it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin.” But, he argues, willing that sin exist in the world is not the same as sinning. God does not commit sin in willing that there be sin. God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God’s permission, but not by his “positive agency.” (see here)
Thus we must all agree in this point with Edwards, that those who make God the author of sin are a reproach and a blasphemy. They have extended beyond the bounds of Christianity to some other religion.
Copied: http://humblesmith.wordpress.com
Copied:
ReplyDeleteThe most atrocious and reprehensible aspect of Calvinism’s deterministic philosophy is that, if God, by His will and not by foresight of free will decisions and choices, decrees or creates sin, then God Himself is a sinner. In the above illustration, I would be convicted of manslaughter for pushing the woman into heavy traffic, were she to die. I brought about her death by causing her to do as I pleased, even though the impact of the car is what actually killed her. I would still be responsible for causing her death, and I — theologically at least — would have sinned and be deemed a sinner. Yet, in Calvinism, God can decree or bring about (or even create) sin and not be thought of as doing anything wrong (i.e., being a sinner — culpable or responsible for that which He decrees or brings about). Jesus says, “Woe [a pronouncement of judgment] to the world because of stumbling blocks! Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling block comes!” (Matt. 18:7 NRSV). If Calvinism is true, then Jesus is wrong — unless Jesus is admitting that God is the One by whom stumbling blocks originat.
Copied: thearminian.net/author/williamwbirch/