Daniel has posted an interesting response to Roger Olson's attempted use of material from Vincent Cheung. On this topic of God being the "author of sin," the one positive point that Cheung has brought to the table is that he makes (or ought to make) folks like Olson stop and try to explain why it is wrong to call God the "author of sin."
For example, if by "author of sin," you mean that God permits sin to happen for some higher reason, then how would that be a wrong view? Of course, that's not the objection. The objection is typically raised against a view that God decrees sin to occur.
But is such a view equivalent to making God the author of sin? Again, it depends how you define that term. If you define it to mean that God has moral culpability for the sin, then no - Calvinists don't believe that, Calvinism doesn't teach that, and Calvinistic views don't imply that.
Or is something else meant? In any event, in these debates we need to force the opponents of Calvinism to explain their objections for the sake of clarity, rather than getting caught up with ambiguous or equivocally understood expressions.
-TurretinFan
Saturday, December 03, 2011
2 comments:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
If I remember correctly, Cheung goes beyond "permission" to "causation." Of course, this causation is via secondary, created means rather than God Himself doing the tempting or sinning.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, the burden of proof is on people like Olson to demonstrate that decreeing sin in this or any other manner is a sin.
*Incoming arguments from incredulity...*
Having not gone to the link already, however being granted being born again, I am spiritual and conjoined to Christ and spiritual men judge all things, I can say something about this:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: But is such a view equivalent to making God the author of sin? Again, it depends how you define that term. If you define it to mean that God has moral culpability for the sin, then no - Calvinists don't believe that, Calvinism doesn't teach that, and Calvinistic views don't imply that.
Seeing John Calvin was also fully born again and his writings bear this out, his writings I have read, it seems to me nearly impossible for one who has not the same Spirit that moved him (John Calvin) to write thinking on paper the spiritual Truths of God revealed to him to understand where God's culpability is demonstrated? Agreed, no, Calvinists do not believe that God is morally reprobate even though in Himself because He is builder of all things, Creator of all breathing creatures, to be found the originator of all those that sin, both angelic and human, this is true. I suppose this gets us to secondary causes?
While God is acting and has acted responsibly for and to sinners, His Elect, the Called, the Chosen, from this pool, all humanity, these are the ones who receive the holy calling that is the course to Eternal Glory in Christ:
The Apostle Paul wrote: 2Ti 1:8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God,
2Ti 1:9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, ..."
Be caution when the argument centers around "our works" having some percentage of our salvation in this life!
As for this that you wrote: Or is something else meant? In any event, in these debates we need to force the opponents of Calvinism to explain their objections for the sake of clarity, rather than getting caught up with ambiguous or equivocally understood expressions.
Again, when one is counted being fortunate to debate an opponent who has the holy calling upon them from before the foundation of this present creation, though, they, as yet do not "hear" because they have not been given the "Spirit of Faith", it may come across that they, the opponent, are deaf to these trues therefore it seems the use of the phrase "...need to force the opponents..." to be too forceful?
It becomes our responsibility then to be patient, immovable, abounding in the same Spirit of Faith as all God's Children so that our labor is not dismissed as vain living His Life in this life:
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
...
1Co 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.
My view then is contrary to Ryan's. The proofs, it seems to me, to fall upon those called to bear the fruits of repentance not upon those who, as yet, have not had their ears opened by the same Spirit of Faith to hear and receive the gift of repentance and forgiveness for their sins, too!
2Co 4:13 Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, "I believed, and so I spoke," we also believe, and so we also speak,
2Co 4:14 knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.