Secondary Causes

Status
Not open for further replies.

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
What is a clear and easy way to explain how God works through secondary causes?

Thank you.
 
It's the difference between the "ends" and the "means." God uses human means to accomplish his ends. Any example of humans using means to accomplish purposes would be useful as examples of this.
 
Joseph and his brothers is a good, often used example that's easy to see in Scripture.
 
:ditto: to Jeff and Devin. I would suggest taking a close look at the Westminster Confession, 3.1 and 5.2 and the Scriptural proof texts cited by the Divines (ex: Prov 16:33 - The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD). Robert Shaw's Exposition and A.A. Hodge's Commentary elaborate further on what the Confession is saying.

As already noted, Gen. 50.20 is a powerful example of the doctrine of second causes as well: But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. And probably the most powerful examples are found in Acts. 2.23 and 4.27-28.

God raises up men like Pharaoh and Pilate to accomplish his ends. Yet, their actions are free and morally accountable. Their sin does not thwart the eternal decree of God, but rather is encompassed in his divine plan so that he is without sin (Ps. 17.14). He is the potter and we are the clay (Rom. 9). This is also known as the moral government of God over his rational creatures. Likewise, he providentially governs all natural events so that disease, storms and other afflictions and adversities (Amos 3.6) are secondary causes which contribute to the bringing to pass of all that he has decreed (Rom. 8.28). The "laws of nature" are within the natural goverment of God (see Fisher's Catechism, Q. 11, esp. 9 and 35ff. and Fisher's Catechism, Q. 7, esp. 18 and 25). In this way, in accordance with the eternal decree of God, who alone is the first cause, all that comes to pass -- the unfolding of history, as it were -- is encompassed in the sovereign providential government of God, over all creation, rational agents and otherwise, which thereby, as the Confession says, establishes the nature of second causes.
 
I used Gen. 45 - 50 and Acts 4 as well as a few ref's from the WCF with a little commentary, but the problem is, the person I was trying to explain it to was an open theist.

:deadhorse:

Where can I get Fisher's Catechism in print? I hate to admit it, it's the first time I've seen it.

Peace and thank you.

[Edited on 8-9-2006 by JM]
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
It's the difference between the "ends" and the "means." God uses human means to accomplish his ends. Any example of humans using means to accomplish purposes would be useful as examples of this.

Just taking the opportunity to congratulate you on the marriage gig. Nice tux and all, but what you need is a avatar of the "œcouple."

:up:

Good answer too.
 
Originally posted by Magma2
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
It's the difference between the "ends" and the "means." God uses human means to accomplish his ends. Any example of humans using means to accomplish purposes would be useful as examples of this.

Just taking the opportunity to congratulate you on the marriage gig. Nice tux and all, but what you need is a avatar of the "œcouple."

:up:

Good answer too.

Thanks Sean. See this thread for more pics. :)
 
Just keep in mind that God does not "cause" us to do anything. Also keep in mind that God is in control of everything. Then realize that we can't understand this or how it is compatible, but we must because the Bible presents it as such.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Just keep in mind that God does not "cause" us to do anything. Also keep in mind that God is in control of everything. Then realize that we can't understand this or how it is compatible, but we must because the Bible presents it as such.

I disagree. God does indeed cause all things, including the sins of men. The fact that God works out His purposes through secondary causes doesn't diminish one whit from His causality. After all, He does claim to cause whatsoever comes to pass per the Scriptures. Nothing particularly "mysterious" or beyond understanding at all.

:2cents:
 
Originally posted by Magma2
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Just keep in mind that God does not "cause" us to do anything. Also keep in mind that God is in control of everything. Then realize that we can't understand this or how it is compatible, but we must because the Bible presents it as such.

I disagree. God does indeed cause all things, including the sins of men. The fact that God works out His purposes through secondary causes doesn't diminish one whit from His causality. After all, He does claim to cause whatsoever comes to pass per the Scriptures. Nothing particularly "mysterious" or beyond understanding at all.

:2cents:

This view is the complete opposite of what, say, Dabney, Hodge, or Berkhof taught. You could be right, but, as far as I know, this is not what Reformed tradition teaches (outside of hyper-calvinism).
 
The reformed tradition teaches that God is the cause of all things; but there is a difference in the things themselves. God causes actions as actions, not as good or evil. If God causes one man to kill another man, it is the action God causes; the evil belongs solely to the man doing the killing.

This is sometimes distinguished by the terms "natural" and "moral" cause. It only works if the associated idea is also accepted, that morality is itself a product of the divine will.
 
Originally posted by armourbearer
The reformed tradition teaches that God is the cause of all things; but there is a difference in the things themselves. God causes actions as actions, not as good or evil. If God causes one man to kill another man, it is the action God causes; the evil belongs solely to the man doing the killing.

This is sometimes distinguished by the terms "natural" and "moral" cause. It only works if the associated idea is also accepted, that morality is itself a product of the divine will.

God is the CAUSE of ALL things?
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Originally posted by armourbearer
The reformed tradition teaches that God is the cause of all things; but there is a difference in the things themselves. God causes actions as actions, not as good or evil. If God causes one man to kill another man, it is the action God causes; the evil belongs solely to the man doing the killing.

This is sometimes distinguished by the terms "natural" and "moral" cause. It only works if the associated idea is also accepted, that morality is itself a product of the divine will.

God is the CAUSE of ALL things?

In the words of the Catechism, decretively, "ALL things WHATSOEVER come to pass;" providentially, "ALL his creatures and ALL their actions."
 
armourbearer said:

In the words of the Catechism, decretively, "ALL things WHATSOEVER come to pass;" providentially, "ALL his creatures and ALL their actions."

Matt said

In the words of the Catechism, decretively, "ALL things WHATSOEVER come to pass;" providentially, "ALL his creatures and ALL their actions."



David says:

You have to be careful here. The confessional language does not use the word "cause" for this relation, as far as I know. The word cause is ambiguous. Some of the early Reformers objected to its usage for it implied direct efficiency. Bullinger for example says this in his letters to Calvin.

Calvin used it, but with the necessary qualification of indirect causation. God is said to cause sin when he willingly permits it. He directs, govrerns, limits it, but he never wills it directly or efficiently effects or produces it.

So for mainstream Calvinism of all wings (the hypercalvinism of men like Magma, Hoeksema, Clark, accepted) divine causation of sin and salvation are asymmetrical, not symmetrical (as per Hoeksema).

So when one says God causes all things, even sin, one should be prepared to distinguish types of causation. For this causation of all things is not univocal, but equivocal.

Even Clark tried his hand at this when he affirmed the distinction between cause and author. But he blows it entirely when he denies permission of sin. I have a paper on this if anyone is interested (tooting horn, tooting horn) where I examine the hyperist claims of Hoeksema and Clark in their denial of permission, contrasting that with the mainstream position.

WCF IV. 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. 5:4.

WCF I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory. 6:1.

Dort: When these are neglected, they are not only liable to be drawn into great and heinous sins by the flesh, the world, and Satan, but sometimes by the righteous permission of God actually are drawn into these evils. This, the lamentable fall of David, Peter, and other saints described in Holy Scripture, demonstrates. 5:4.

Second Helvetic:
God Is Not the Author of Sin, and How Far He Is Said to Harden. It is expressly written: Thou art not a God who delights in wickedness. Thou hatest all evildoers. Thou destroyest those who speak lies (Psa. 5:4 ff.). And again: When the devil lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). Moreover, there is enough sinfulness and corruption in us that it is not necessary for God to infuse into us a new or still greater perversity. When, therefore, it is said in Scripture that God hardens, blinds and delivers up to a reprobate mind, it is to be understood that God does it by a just judgment as a just Judge and Avenger. Finally, as often as God in Scripture is said or seems to do something evil, it is not thereby said that man does not do evil, but that God permits it and does not prevent it, according to his just judgment, who could prevent it if he wished, or because he turns man's evil into good, as he did in the case of Joseph's brethren, or because he governs sins lest they break out and rage more than is appropriate. St. Augustine writes in his Enchiridion: "What happens contrary to his will occurs, in a wonderful and ineffable way, not apart from his will. For it would not happen if he did not allow it. And yet he does not allow it unwillingly but willingly. But he who is good would not permit evil to be done, unless, being omnipotent, he could bring good out of evil." Thus wrote Augustine. Chapter 8.

Etc etc. just be best to avoid the hyperism of men like Hoeksema and Clark.

Take care,
David

[Edited on 8-11-2006 by Flynn]
 
God is indeed the ultimate cause of all things including sin.

However he is not the author. He is the ultimate cause of this post, but He is not the author.
 
Here is just one thread where this has been discussed at length. The reformed tradition has usually referred to God as the ultimate "cause" of all things, hence the distinction between first causes (God) and second causes (the means).

Also, in reference to God merely "permitting" evil to happen, this has been widely rejected by many reformed, including Calvin. From my post in the thread linked above:

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Classically, God is described as being the first cause of all things, including sin. By first cause, they mean that God has predestined these things to come to pass.

However, the distinction has always been made between first causes and second causes. Second causes are the MEANS by which God accomplishes his purposes. Does God want sin to happen? In a sense, most definately, otherwise he would not have decreed it to be so.

I think this is the most helpful distinction. Even the Westminster Confession uses this termonology:

Chapter III.
Of God's Eternal Decree.

I. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:(a) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,(b) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.(c)

(a) Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:33; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15, 18.
(b) Jam. 1:13, 17; I John 1:5.
(c) Acts 2:23; Matt. 17:12; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33.

Also Calvin (From Calvin's Calvinism (The Secret Providence of God), Sovereign Grace Union, 1927, p. 244) :

From all that has been said, we can at once gather how vain and fluctuating is that flimsy defence of the Divine justice which desires to make it appear that the evil things that are done, are so done, not by the will of god, but by His permission only. As far, indeed, as those evil things which men perpetrate with an evil mind are, in themselves evil, I willingly confess (as I will immediately more fully explain) that they by no means please God. But for men to represent God as sitting unconcerned, and merely permitting those things to be done which the Scripture plainly declares to be done not only by His will, but by His authority, is a mere way of escape from the truth, utterly frivolous and vain.

And Gordon Clark (Gordon Clark, What do Presbyterians Believe?, p. 37.):

Summarizing the Scriptures, the Confession says here that God is not the author of sin; that is, God does nothing sinful. Even those Christians who are not Calvinists must admit that God in some sense is the cause of sin, for he is the sole ultimate cause of everything. But God does not commit the sinful act, nor does he approve of it and reward it. Perhaps this illustration is faulty, as most illustrations are, but consider that God is the cause of my writing this book. Who could deny that God is the first or ultimate cause, since it was he who created mankind? But although God is the cause of this chapter, he is not its author. It would be much better, if he were.

Also, see this thread, this thread,and this thread.


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 Jeff_Bartel
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.

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
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
 
The reformed tradition has usually referred to God as the ultimate "cause" of all things, hence the distinction between first causes (God) and second causes (the means).

Also, in reference to God merely "permitting" evil to happen, this has been widely rejected by many reformed, including Calvin. From my post in the thread linked above:


Hey Jeff,

Whats the difference between a bare (aka mere) permission and a willing permission in classic Reformed theology?

If you scope out Beza or Turretin, or any of the classics, the difference was between an unwilling permission versus a willing permission. Unwilling in that God is forced by external agents such that he cannot act. Willing permission was never a backdoor to teach direct causal efficiency of sin.

The comment from MacMahon:

"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."


David says:

This comment is misleading too. There are two issues here, preterition and predemnation. When it is asked why is this man rejected and not that man? Calvin says because of the will of God alone. But if the question is, why is this man condemned? Calvin says because of his sin alone. God condemns on account of sin. Calvin invokes the distinction between remote and proximate cause. The remote cause is God, why elects or reject. But the proximate cause of condemnation is man's sin.

Take care,
David
 
I should add too, Clark should have known better. With the "causation" of sin there are only two options: direct or indirect causation. Willing Permission of sin exhausts indirect causation. There is no tertius quid here (if we want to avoid unwilling permission that is). So its a case of either A or B. Clark foolishly says not B.

But then he is bound in an irrational conclusion that it must be A. But then he would step back. Likewise, Herman Hoeksema had the same problem. He rejected willing permission because of his hyperist assumptions. For him God either works in "straightline" causation or else God stops being God. But then he is bound with the problem of praise or blame. You blame the efficient direct cause of a crime. Just as you praise the efficient direct cause of a good deed. For example, you praise/blame the author of the essay, not his pencil. Authorship is the necessary precondition for praise or blame, not bare [ambiguous] causality.

Given that theyve denied that God in any way indirectly causes sin, he must directly cause it. But that puts them flat in the face if their denial that God only causes sin, but does not author it.

When I pressed this problem with the Hoeksemians about 10 years ago, particularly to a PRC pastor Bernie Woudenberg, they resorted to "mystery". I thought it was a lot of crock back then; still do. They started out denouncing mystery and paradox, but then they grasp at it when their own internal logic is exposed.

Clark acutely suffered from the same incoherency.

Take care,
David
 
Found this: "The permissive decrees embrace only moral features which are evil. The permissive decrees intimates that God does not actively promote the execution of the decrees that are thus indicated. In contrast to the efficacious, energizing divine purpose which works to the end that all men will and do His good pleasure, He, by way of permission, "in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways." [Acts 14:16] In respect to His permissive will, it is claimed, God determines not to hinder the course of action which His creatures pursue; but He does not determine to regulate and control the bounds and the results of such actions. John Howe has said on this point: 'God's permissive will is his will to permit whatsoever he thinks fit to permit, he intends also to regulate, and not to behold as an idle unconcerned spector, but to dispose all those permissa unto wise and great ends of his own'" Chafer, Systematic Theology vol. 2 pages 236-7
 
Flynn,

You need to take my comments within the context of the earlier clarifications that I made, which is that God causes an action as an action. The moral nature of the action derives from the moral agent which performs it. Consider Charnock:

"God doth not will sin simply, for that were to approve it, but he wills it, in order to that good his wisdom will bring forth from it. He wills not sin for itself, but for the event."

Would you happen to be the David Ponter from the Reformed Theology list? Feel free to call me Matthew, not Matt.
 
[quoteWould you happen to be the David Ponter from the Reformed Theology list? Feel free to call me Matthew, not Matt. [/quote]

He's one and the same and has been playing the same sour deck of cards for years. :deadhorse:
 
Fourthly, it should be clarified and understood very carefully that the divine decree of God to act is not the same thing nor should it be confounded with the effectuation of the actions themselves. In other words, "œthe decree to create is not creation itself, nor is the decree to justify justification itself." God, in His role of executing divine decrees, is not forcing the hand of free creatures to act, nor is He commanding them to do any particular thing. Therefore, Berkhof rightly states, "œA distinction must be made between the decree and its execution." The will of man is under no compulsion to "œcomply" with God´s decree, and his freedom as a free creature is maintained perfectly in harmony with the absolute decree of God in eternity. There is ample Scriptural support for the concept that man´s freedom is compatible with God´s sovereignty. One such example is found in the book of Acts, where Peter states,

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know"” this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

What is most interesting about this passing statement of Peter is not only does he iterate that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and killed by the "œhands of lawless men," finding them to be guilty of a heinous crime and standing as condemned before God, but also he makes the claim that this occurred "œaccording to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God." This is extremely important because it gives a concise and clear example of God´s sovereignty as being compatible with man´s responsibility as a free moral creature. Furthermore, directly pertaining to the aforementioned article in the introduction to this essay, God´s action of predestination is not mere foreknowledge, but is a "œdefinite plan." As stated earlier, God does not predestine that which occurs as a result of gained foreknowledge, but His foreknowledge is based on His divine decree and predestination. R.L. Dabney writes,

The Arminian admits that all such intermediate acts of men were eternally foreseen of God, and thus embraced in His plan as conditions: but not foreordained. We reply: if they were certainly foreseen, their occurrence was certain; if this was certain, then there must have been something to determine that certainty; and that something was either God´s wise foreordination, or a blind physical fate. Let the Arminian choose.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "œI am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
God does not "cause" "everything." Period.

James 1:13 does not speak to the issue of the cause of evil. It only teaches that God does not compel men to do what is evil. Which is ably explained by Thomas Manton (in loc.): "He tempteth not, either be inward solicitation or by such an inward or outward dispensation as may enforce us to sin."

This is perfectly compatible with the idea that God causes sin decretively and providentially. As Dr. Manton proceeds to comment: "It is certain that without God sin would never be... There is no action of ours but needeth the continued concurrence and supportation of his providence; and if he did not uphold us in being and working, we could do nothing."

And a little later he expresses the matter in the same terms as the Stephen Charnock quotation above: "There is a concurrence to the action, though not to the sinfulness of it."

The charge of good or evil is a moral judgment which God makes upon the action as it proceeds from a moral agent. Such a charge is relative to the person committing the action, not to the action itself. God's providence extends to every creature and all their actions, and is always good.
 
:ditto:

It is non-confessional to say that God is not the first cause of all things.

Chapter III.
Of God's Eternal Decree.

I. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: (a) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,(b) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.(c)

(a) Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:33; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15, 18.
(b) Jam. 1:13, 17; I John 1:5.
(c) Acts 2:23; Matt. 17:12; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33.

The first portion of the confession speaks of first causes when it sasy: "ordain whatsoever comes to pass." Later it explains that this is not incompatible with second causes, but rather second causes are established by first causes (God's "ordain[ing] whatsoever comes to pass").
 
Originally posted by JM
Is there any reason why God can't be the arthor of sin? He doesn't make us sin, but the script is written, the cause was set into effect...I just never understood this topic.

http://www.rmiweb.org/books/authorsin.pdf

It depends on what you mean by "author of sin." Obviously, Calvin used the language to describe God's involvement (see quotes above) but the Westminster Confession explicitly denies that God is the author of sin. So who is right? I believe that people equivicate on the term "author." While the Westminster divines used the term "author" to describe one who commits sin, Calvin most likely used the term in a more 1st causal sense (i.e. decreed, predestined) than a responsible 2nd causal sense. I prefer the Westminster language simply because it is confessional and it is semantical to argue against it if one is simply equivicating. :2cents:
 
G'day "Matthew-not-Matt"

Originally posted by armourbearer
Flynn,

You need to take my comments within the context of the earlier clarifications that I made, which is that God causes an action as an action. The moral nature of the action derives from the moral agent which performs it. Consider Charnock:

"God doth not will sin simply, for that were to approve it, but he wills it, in order to that good his wisdom will bring forth from it. He wills not sin for itself, but for the event."

Would you happen to be the David Ponter from the Reformed Theology list? Feel free to call me Matthew, not Matt.

You have to be careful even with that distinction, for in the Reformed doctrine of concurrence, concurrence of sin still involves permission: Get thee to Turretin. God does not cause the action, he sustains the action as to its physically. For: Concurrence is not a creative efficacy, but a sustaining efficacy. The causation in concurrence is not temporally prior, but similtaneously concurrent.

And as I read it again, your comment does not help that much. God does not ""cause" the action," which is ambiguous ), he controls the action. (The Charnock reference you produce does not say God causes the action as to its actionality (ie physicality). He only sustains the physicality of the action (laws of nature etc). He governs the actions. And he permits the sin: but this willingly.

Let me state again: to say God causes sin, or even the sinful action is ambiguous and open to misunderstanding.

Do you know any other David Ponters?

Yes its me.

Where are you at nowadays?

Hope that clarifies.
David
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top