CALVINISM MAKES GOD THE AUTHOR OF SIN

The GOSPEL TRUTH ^

[thePilgrim]

CALVINISM

CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD

AND

MAN'S MORAL NATURE.

by

D. FISK HARRIS.

Copyrighted and Published by the Author

1890

---

In order to have an intelligent discussion of about the topic, which is the title of this thread, one must have at least a cursory knowledge of the work of John Calvin. Merely second sourcing citations will most likely quickly reveal to discerning posters that you are woefully ignorant of Calvinism.

I have provided an online book, of which I have skimmed, but not read every jot and title, for reference of a source which makes the claim that Calvinism does make God the author of Sin. See section 3 of the book.

[thePilgrim]

John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion
Book III, Chapter 23

I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknow what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. For as it belongs to his wisdom to foreknow all future events, so it belongs to his power to rule and govern them by his hand. This question, like others, is skillfully explained by Augustine: "Let us confess with the greatest benefit, what we believe with the greatest truth, that the God and Lord of all things who made all things very good, both foreknow that evil was to arise out of good, and knew that it belonged to his most omnipotent goodness to bring good out of evil, rather than not permit evil to be, and so ordained the life of angels and men as to show in it, first, what free-will could do; and, secondly, what the benefit of his grace and his righteous judgment could do," (August. Enchir. ad Laurent.)

[thePilgrim]

I thought a few of you might be interested in this topic.

BTW, in skimming through the Finney site, where I found this book, I noticed a section that contains terms as Finney defined, or redefined, to suit his pleasure. At least now I know one reason why, when trying to read Finney, he sounded like a complete doctrinal idiot; we weren't even talking the same theological language.

Your brother,
Christian.

[thePilgrim]

Dr. Eckleburg suggested that I ping a few names as the ones I originally pinged are not available. You are the ones I have seen posting or have posted with in the past. My apologies if you have no interest in the topic.

Christian.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You're striking out today, I'm afraid.

RnMom was suspended for three days (something about defending the faith and criticizing the PCUSA which has voted to denounce the President and the war on terror); Gamecock is out of the country for awhile, I think; and Jean seems to be on vacation, too.

Sundays in July can be slow. 8~(

[thePilgrim]

Bummer. Yet, out and out name calling and personal attacks against the Calvinists seem to be in vogue.

I had just looked at the forum this morning and thought about posting a little with some of my more thoughtful Protestant brethren and to my chagrin it looked like the all Catholic channel.

BTW, did you happen to notice this part of the book, which seems to want to pit the Supralapsarian Calvinists & the Infralapsarian (I thought that historically they were Sublapsarian) Calvinists against each other? Do you think that the citations are actually contextually good and do you think that the Infralapsarian Calvinists really do have a legitimate complaint? I suppose that one would have to actually define the terms first to make sure that everyone has the same definition of "author of sin."

I mean, both Calvinists would assert that God actually wrote the book of history because He is the author of it; it unfolds exactly as He desires. Ergo, God is the author of all things, including sin, in this definition. However, they would differ in that the Infralapsarian would have that God has logically purposed man with certain characteristics then observed his fall and permitted it, whereas the Supralapsarian would have that God has logically purposed man with 2 ends and then created the characteristics in man to ensure that end. Obviously, there would be different definitions of "author of sin" with regards to what God created to bring about his purpose in creating man.

Here is the appropriate selection from Part 3, Section 3.

---

Noticing this charge, Dr. John Dick says, "I acknowledge that this horrible inference seems to be naturally deduced from the Supralapsarian scheme, which represents the introduction of sin as the appointed means of executing the purpose of the Almighty respecting the final doom of his creatures;" again, "There is something in this system repugnant to our ideas of the character of God, whom it represents rather as a despot than the Father of the universe."

Venema testifies as follows: "The Supralapsarian system has no foundation to rest upon ..... Their whole system is completely irreconcilable with the justice of God. Nay, it is in direct opposition to that justice which demands that when punishment is exacted, or when any one is destined to destruction, there be a reason founded in equity for adopting such a course ..... But how inconsistent is it with his justice thus arbitrarily to appoint men to such an end, and for the purpose of carrying it into effect to decree their fall."

Isaac Watts says, "The doctrine of reprobation, in the most severe and absolute sense of it, stands in a direct contradiction to all our notions of kindness and love to others, in which the blessed God is set forth as our example, that our reason can not tell how to receive it."

In previous pages the reader has been informed of Dr. Schaff's view: but for emphasis I will here reproduce a few words: he says, "Supralapsarianism....with fearful logical consistency, makes God the author of the fall of Adam, hence of sin."

Dr. Hodge opposes this scheme because "it is not consistent with the Scriptural exhibition of the character of God. He is declared to be a God of mercy and justice. But it is not compatible with these divine attributes that men should be foreordained to misery and eternal death as innocent, that is, before they had apostatized from God."

In concluding this section, the reader's serious consideration is invited to this clearly established fact, viz., that one class of Calvinists is charged by another class with holding views which legitimately make God the author of sin. As we continue our investigation, we shall be reminded of David's exclamation, "Behold. how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." Possibly we shall see that fulfillment of the Saviour's words, "Every kingdom divided against itself, is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself, shall not stand" (Matt. xii. 25).

---

Your brother,
Christian.

[Polycarp IV]

and to my chagrin it looked like the all Catholic channel.

This is not due to the Catholic posts but to the relative lack of non-Catholic posts.

Admittedly, this Forum has been linked by a number of conservative Catholic websites, and lately professional Catholic apologists including Patrick Madrid and Karl Keating have signed on here, if only to post on rare occasions.

It might also be a matter of simple math...I think there are simply more orthodox Catholics in the USA than orthodox Calvinists.

Therefore, instead of lamenting the Catholic presence, how about you likewise cultivate your Calvinist presence.

[maestro]

CALVINISM MAKES GOD THE AUTHOR OF SIN

Sin Makes Gnosticism the Author of God

/sarcasm

[thePilgrim]

Actually, though I was making a lament in the sense that I put my thought to paper, so to speak, for this is the connotation of lament, my choice of the word "chagrin" should have carried with it a personal guilt. So, I meant no accusation at the Catholics.

As far as cultivating the Calvinist presense, I would suppose that the professing Calvinists here would need to take the reins. And, from my own personal observation, there seems to be 2 or 3 non-Calvinist Protestants who have publically stated that they think the organization that Calvinists have done here should be disbanded.

I do really wish that some of the Calvinists here would come out from their hiding spots and take this topic. I do have some serious questions about a few key things.

However, I do have some strong reservations about the thoughtfullness of the piece I linked at the head of this article. For instance, under Part 3, Section 4, the following citation can be found:

---

I claim it does not, for it is reasonably and Scripturally true that he who tempts--in the sense now under consideration--to sin, he who induces a sinful volition is a party to the transaction, and hence, is so far criminally guilty. He who tempts to evil has previously determined to seek the harm of the tempted, and consequently must bear his share of the blame. Balaam seduced the Israelites into sin: they were guilty for yielding to his solicitations and were punished. Was the prophet innocent? The Scriptures convey the opposite opinion; his doctrine is condemned in Rev. ii. 14; he is said to have loved the wages of unrighteousness (II. Pet. ii. 15); was slain as an enemy of the people of God (Num. xxxi. 8).

---

Yet, do we not read that God specifically asked the "angels" who would go and entice Ahab for the expressed purpose that Ahab would fall at Ramoth Gilead. The LORD specifically gave an "angel" to be a false spirit to his prophets so that they would cause him to go and fall. It does seem to me as in, in this case, the LORD has gone far beyond temptation, into actual ordination that sin should happen. It does seem as if this would fit perfectly the author's analogy of the criminal merely dropping a knife over a sleeping victim, which was a complaint against Toplady's argument.

Anyway, you probably have no dog in this fight, though, it might be interesting to know the Catholic perspective.

Your brother,
Christian.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[bush_4_4more]

At least now I know one reason why, when trying to read Finney, he sounded like a complete doctrinal idiot; we weren't even talking the same theological language.

Very astute observation on Finney. Finney speaks the same "works righteousness" language that Romanists, Mormons, Mohammedans and every other legalistic religious system speaks.

[bush_4_4more]

Bummer. Yet, out and out name calling and personal attacks against the Calvinists seem to be in vogue.

Those in opposition to Calvinists do all they can to get Calvinists banned as soon as they can, which accounts for a lack of numbers.

[P-Marlowe]

Those in opposition to Calvinists do all they can to get Calvinists banned as soon as they can, which accounts for a lack of numbers.

bush_4_4more Since Jul 12, 2004

Now how would a genuine newbie know that or even suspect that? Are you really a new freeper, or just a recycled previously banned freeper?

[nobdysfool]

Who made you the thread cop?

[Alex Murphy]

Who made you the thread cop?

Some clown named Milquetoast Q. Whitebread?

[P-Marlowe]

Milquetoast was not a previously banned freeper. And Milquetoast was not banned for being an abusive poster. He was banned for simply being himself.

You guys seem to be drawing a lot of attention to your new calvinist friend. Or is he an old calvinist friend?

[Alex Murphy]

And Milquetoast was not banned for being an abusive poster. He was banned for simply being himself.

Milquetoast was always two-faced, P-. And as you know, FR only succeeded in half-banning him. I wonder which side?

You guys seem to be drawing a lot of attention to your new calvinist friend. Or is he an old calvinist friend?

Could be he's not a friend at all. There are a few similarities between his dental work and a moose bite found on OP's sister. But this thread isn't about the poster; it's about the posted article. What do you think of it?

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Now how would a genuine newbie know that or even suspect that? Are you really a new freeper, or just a recycled previously banned freeper?

Maybe (s)he just lurked, lots of people do you know? Perhaps, it is experimental, because it seems to me that you are attempting to prove his point, Neener Boy.

[Alex Murphy]

Those are all excellent observations, Polycarp. I wasn't aware that conservative Catholic websites were directing traffic/linking to FR, but that would explain the large percentage of Catholics on the boards here. I'm not aware of any Protestant or Reformed organizations that are doing likewise.

[thePilgrim]

Alex Murphy: But this thread isn't about the poster; it's about the posted article. What do you think of it?

Considering that he already admitted that he hasn't read Calvin's work, I would suspect that he is a bit shy about commenting on something which he only has a second source familiarity. Besides he has told me not to talk to him and it might be considered rude for him to presume to talk on this thread about a topic I started.

Your brother,
Christian.

[thePilgrim]

Calvinist_Dark_Lord: Maybe (s)he just lurked, lots of people do you know? Perhaps, it is experimental, because it seems to me that you are attempting to prove his point, Neener Boy.

Yes, no one really knows how long anyone has watched before posting. And, yes, I'd say that it is proving his point. Almost prophetic.

BTW, perhaps you might wish to comment on the portion of the book I have highlighted. It does seem to me that some of the Calvinist cites are not quite contextually fair, but it will take me a fair amount of time to work through all of the source citations.

It would be the least of the books problems, which is really frustrating. I do have some questions to the Calvinists in this area, but I am finding it nearly impossible to find a well written argument that demonstrates in what way Calvinism makes God the author of sin.

Your brother,
Christian.