Is God the cause of evil?

[Saiph]

Are you saying this ?

The material cause is man.
The formal cause being a vessel of wrath or a vessel of mercy.
The efficient cause (bringing the material and formal together) is God.
The final cause is God's glory.

Because the final cause is good, the efiicient cause, being possible evil, issecondary to the final cause and therefore God, in that way, causes evil ?

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
God did not cause the fall, He allowed for it.

So, you would say you disagree with Calvin then?

Institutes, Book I, Chapter 18, Section 3

I have already shown clearly enough that God is the author of all those things which, according to these objectors, happen only by his inactive permission. He testifies that he creates light and darkness, forms good and evil (Isa_45:7); that no evil happens which he has not done (Amo_3:6). Let them tell me whether God exercises his judgements willingly or unwillingly. As Moses teaches that he who is accidentally killed by the blow of an axe, is delivered by God into the hand of him who smites him (Deu_19:5), so the Gospel, by the mouth of Luke, declares, that Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired "œto do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done" (Act_4:28). And, in truth, if Christ was not crucified by the will of God, where is our redemption? Still, however, the will of God is not at variance with itself. It undergoes no change. He makes no pretence of not willing what he wills, but while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because, from the feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing.

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I don't think that compound or divided senses play a part here.

I almost positive that Matt goes into the relation of sin to the decree of God in his book. I'll find the relevent quotes when I get home from work (if indeed there are any).

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Saiph
Are you saying this ?

The material cause is man.
The formal cause being a vessel of wrath or a vessel of mercy.
The efficient cause (bringing the material and formal together) is God.
The final cause is God's glory.

Because the final cause is good, the efiicient cause, being possible evil, issecondary to the final cause and therefore God, in that way, causes evil ?

You're catching on!

 

[Saiph]

He makes no pretence of not willing what he wills, but while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because, from the feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing.

(Calvin quoted from above.)

That is the crux.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Saiph

He makes no pretence of not willing what he wills, but while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because, from the feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing.

(Calvin quoted from above.)

That is the crux.

Exactly what I've been trying to say. This is where Calvin himself distinguishes between the compound sense of God's will and the divided sense of God's will (to use Turretin's termonology).

 

[Saiph]

Yeah, I have never liked the two wills idea, because it seems to deny the unity, aseity, and immutability of God by basic logic. But when we put things into human perspective, I suppose God can even be said to repent.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Saiph
Yeah, I have never liked the two wills idea, because it seems to deny the unity, aseity, and immutability of God by basic logic. But when we put things into human perspective, I suppose God can even be said to repent.

I agree. I REALLY think you would enjoy Matt's book (link above) on the Will of God (one will; compound and divided senses).

 

[Arch2k]

Matthew MacMahon, The Two Wills of God, p. 363 (emphasis mine).

Where does unbelief come from? How do men die in their sins? Calv answers Pighius by saying, "The secret and eternal purpose and counsel of God must be viewed as the original cause of their blindness and unbelief" 38 Calvin was quite orthodox when it came to the eternal council of God. He says, "The unbelief of the world, therefore ought not to astonish us, if even the wisest and most acute of men fait to believe. Hence, unless we would elude the plain and confessed meaning of the Evangelist, that few receive the Gospel, we must fully conclude that the cause is the will of God; and that the outward sound of that Gospel strikes the ear in vain until God is pleased to touch by it the heart within." 39

38 Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism, 22
39 Ibid, 82.

Matthew MacMahon, The Two Wills of God, p. 366 (emphasis mine).

He [Calvin] believed that God was so powerful and so in control of all things that there are statements which he makes that could cause some "reformed" men to shudder. He says "Those things which are vainly or unrighteously done by man are, rightly and righteously, the works of God!" 49 .....

Calvin also blieved the works of Satan were the works of God in a certain sense, "But what worketh Satan? In a certain sense, the work of God! That is, God by holding Satan fast bound in abedience to His Providence, turns him whithersoever He will, and thus applies the great enemy's devices and attempts to the accomplishment of His own eternal purposes! 53 He believes this to be true because of his maxim, "that God, in wondrous ways and in ways unknown to us, directs all things to the end that He wills, that His eternal WILL might be the FIRST CAUSE of all things." 54 (emphasis his)

49 Ibid., 233.
53 Ibid., 240.
54 Ibid., 241

 

[Arch2k]

John Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism, p. 243, 244. (emphasis mine)

Hence you see that Satan is not only " a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets," at the express command of God, but also that his impostures so ensnare the reprobate, that, being utterly deprived of their reason, they are, of necessity, dragged headlong into error. In this same manner also must we understand the apostle, when he says that those who were ungrateful to God were " delivered over to a reprobate mind," and " given up to vile and foul affections," that they should work " that which is unseemly, and defile their own natural bodies one among another." Upon which Scripture Augustine remarks that these reprobate characters were not given up to the corrupt affections of their hearts by the mere permission of God as an unconcerned spectator, but by His righteous decree, because they had basely profaned His glory. In what manner this was done that same passage of the Scripture (2 Thess. ii. 11) plainly declares: God " sent upon them strong delusion." Whence that which I have just stated is perfectly plain: that the internal affections of men are not less ruled by the hand of God than their external actions are preceded by His eternal decree; and, moreover, that God performs not by the hands of men the things which He has decreed, without first working in their hearts the very will which precedes the acts they are to perform. Wherefore, the sentiments of Augustine on these momentous points are to be fully received and maintained. " When God (says he) willeth that to be done which cannot be effected, in the course of the things of this world, without the wills of men, He at the same time inclines their hearts to will to do it, and also Himself does it, not only by aiding their hearts to desire to do it, but also by decreeing it, that they cannot but do it. Whereas these same persons had in their own minds no such purpose as ' to do that which the hand and the counsel of God had afore decreed to be done.'" Augustine, moreover, most wisely proposes that to be considered concerning the very seeds and principles of nature, upon the consideration of which so many are unwilling to enter; that that great diversity which is seen in the dispositions of men, and which is evidently implanted in them of God, affords a manifest evidence of that His secret operation, by which He moves and rules the hearts of all mankind.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Jeff,
After thinking about this more, I guess God is the cause of sin.

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Jeff,
The C & D senses remove the responsibility of sin from God. In the divided sense God controls and ordains everything; if a man sins, they are held responsible, not God. In the compound, there is no darkness in Him, he is all light.

Yes, but I don't think you are getting it yet (with all due respect).

In the divided sense, people cause sin, and mean it for evil In the compound sense, God causes sin, and he means it for good.

Amo 3:6 If a trumpet is blown in a city, will not the people be afraid? If there is calamity in a city, will not the LORD have done it?

Isa 45:7 forming light, and creating darkness; making peace, and creating evil. I, Jehovah, do all these things.

How do you reconcile these verses if not to say that in a sense, God causes evil.

I've now quoted the WCF, Calvin, and the bible showing how in a sense God causes evil to happen. You haven't dealt with any of the evidence, but have just replied with "God doesn't cause evil."

I mean no disrespect in my words, but I think that I've done all I can do without some real interaction on your part.

I think I'll call it a day.

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]

 

[Scott Bushey]

See above Jeff.

 

[Arch2k]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Jeff,
How about this: here's where I was intermingling to ideas.
1) God is NOT the author of sin (according to the WCF)
2) God IS the cause of evil (Utilizing the divided sense)

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Jeff,
How about this: here's where I was intermingling to ideas.
1) God is NOT the author of sin (according to the WCF)
2) God IS the cause of evil (Utilizing the divided sense)

I think when the WCF uses the term "author", it means "second cause." He does not directly cause sin, but uses means to do so.

Gordon Clark uses an example like this:

God is the first cause of me writing this post, but I am the author of (and the one responsible to God for) it.

 

[Bladestunner316]

I think therefore I post

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Jeff,
How about this: here's where I was intermingling to ideas.
1) God is NOT the author of sin (according to the WCF)
2) God IS the cause of evil (Utilizing the divided sense)

I think when the WCF uses the term "author", it means "second cause." He does not directly cause sin, but uses means to do so.

Gordon Clark uses an example like this:

God is the first cause of me writing this post, but I am the author of (and the one responsible to God for) it.

Amen.

Today I should not have posted. The anesthesia is still in my blood stream. The directives that were given me post operatively were: "You should not make any important decisions for the remainder of the day".


yuk yuk yuk..............

Anyway, thanks for the dialog. See ya tomorrow!

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Bladestunner316]

It ok we still love you scott

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
It ok we still love you scott

 

[Bladestunner316]

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
It ok we still love you scott

Scott...I love you too, so don't operate any heavy machinery until you're off the drugs!

 

[Saiph]

God is the first cause of me writing this post, but I am the author of (and the one responsible to God for) it.

So God is the final cause (telos) and formal cause, but man is the material and efficiant cause then ?

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Saiph

God is the first cause of me writing this post, but I am the author of (and the one responsible to God for) it.

So God is the final cause (telos) and formal cause, but man is the material and efficiant cause then ?

Yes.

 

[Saiph]

Also, you asked for where I support the idea of the Holy Spirit dwelling even among unbelievers ? ?

Theologians differentiate between two types of God's grace. There is efficacious or special grace, resulting in salvation, and there is common grace or what we may call the general influence of the Holy Spirit, which to a greater or lesser degree is shared by all men. God causes the sun to shine on the good and evil; he sends rain upon the just and unjust alike (Matt. 5:43-38, Acts 14:17); He gives many things that result in the happiness and well being of society (Rom. 13:4, 1 Tim. 2:1-2), despite that society's unbelief. Lorraine Boettner's classic definition is extremely helpful:

Common grace is the source of all the order, refinement, culture, common virtue, etc., which we find in the world, and through it the moral power of truth upon the heart and conscience, is increased and the evil passions of men are restrained.

Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination , (Philadelphia: P&R Publishing, 1974), p. 179.

 

[Arch2k]

Mark, I don't hold to common grace. Matt deals extensively with that subject in the Two Wills of God. I believe it can be backed up biblically, and historically that God only grants grace to the elect.

I would be happy to discuss the subject, but a new thread should probably be started for that one.

 

[JWJ]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Jeff,
How about this: here's where I was intermingling to ideas.
1) God is NOT the author of sin (according to the WCF)
2) God IS the cause of evil (Utilizing the divided sense)

I think when the WCF uses the term "author", it means "second cause." He does not directly cause sin, but uses means to do so.

Gordon Clark uses an example like this:

God is the first cause of me writing this post, but I am the author of (and the one responsible to God for) it.

They key to solve this so called "God is not the author of sin" agrument is to define what one is getting at by saying "author". I don't think the WCF divines meant "second cause". As a matter of fact, though secondary causes are important to keep in mind they ultimately have no barring in a biblical theodicy. The reason is that ultimately sin and evil is tractable to God. This is why Clark's example (BTW, for those who read his work, he did not have to add this extra "theodicy" because his first theodicy was sufficient) or any who who try to add in a "second cause" theodicy is really irrelevant .

Rather like most people, "author of sin" means chargeable with sin or doing sin. Hence, the Bible is consistent that God is the cause of sin and evil, yet He is not the sinner, i.e., cannot be charged with doing sin because He alone is absolutely sovereign (i.e., not responsible or accountable) and that all that he does his good.

Jim

 

[Scott Bushey]

Jim. This is where the confusion lies.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by JWJ

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Jeff,
How about this: here's where I was intermingling to ideas.
1) God is NOT the author of sin (according to the WCF)
2) God IS the cause of evil (Utilizing the divided sense)

I think when the WCF uses the term "author", it means "second cause." He does not directly cause sin, but uses means to do so.

Gordon Clark uses an example like this:

God is the first cause of me writing this post, but I am the author of (and the one responsible to God for) it.

They key to solve this so called "God is not the author of sin" agrument is to define what one is getting at by saying "author". I don't think the WCF divines meant "second cause". As a matter of fact, though secondary causes are important to keep in mind they ultimately have no barring in a biblical theodicy. The reason is that ultimately sin and evil is tractable to God. This is why Clark's example (BTW, for those who read his work, he did not have to add this extra "theodicy" because his first theodicy was sufficient) or any who who try to add in a "second cause" theodicy is really irrelevant .

Rather like most people, "author of sin" means chargeable with sin or doing sin. Hence, the Bible is consistent that God is the cause of sin and evil, yet He is not the sinner, i.e., cannot be charged with doing sin because He alone is absolutely sovereign (i.e., not responsible or accountable) and that all that he does his good.

Jim

 

[Larry Hughes]

Gabriel,

I recommend thoroughly reading & studying Luther's HD cocerning this very issue & suffering. His 95 T gets alot of air play mainly due to the politics cosequent to it, but his HD IS the heart of the reformation.

Luther had the diagnosis right on the money.

Later,

Ldh

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

HD?