Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Originally posted by JM
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 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."
Good answer too.
Thanks Sean. See this thread for more pics.
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.
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.
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.
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."
In the words of the Catechism, decretively, "ALL things WHATSOEVER come to pass;" providentially, "ALL his creatures and ALL their actions."
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 passa) 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:
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.
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
God does not "cause" "everything." Period.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.
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.
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
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.