knoxandcalvin said: God allowed sin to glorified his name. Any comment?<span style="background-color:#FF0000">Your Text</span>
Actually, I would go much further and say that God ordained sin, even each and every sin that would ever be committed by every human to ever walk the face of this earth, for His inexorable glory. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Pilgrim said: ...I would... say that God ordained sin, even each and every sin that would ever be committed by every human to ever walk the face of this earth, for His inexorable glory.
But, would this not make God the author of sin?
to quote John Fletcher,
Quote
If all our actions, and consequently all our sins, compose the seventh link of the chain... ; if the first link is God; the second his will; the third his decree; the fourth creation; the fifth necessity; the sixth providence; and the seventh sin; is it not as easy to trace the pedigree of SIN through providence, necessity, creation, God's decree, and God's will, up to God himself, as it is to trace back the genealogy of the prince of Wales, from George III, by George II, up to George I? And upon this plan is it not clear that SIN is as much the real offspring of God, as the prince of Wales is the real offspring of George the First?
If this is the case, does not Calvinism, or if you please, fatalism or necessitarianism, absolutely make God the author of sin by means of his will, his decree, his creation, his necessitation, his impelling providence? And (horrible to think!) does it not unavoidably follow, that the monster SIN is the offspring of God's providence, of God's necessitation, of God's creation, of God's decree, of God's will, of God himself?
I must clarify that I do, in fact, agree with your profession that God ordains all, and thusly all is ordained by God (including sin). I firmly believe in the sovereignty of God, and the absolute intricacy of that sovereignty; and that all things are through him, and that "in Him we live and move and have our being."
I am just curious as to how a question such as "is God the author of sin?" might be most effectively and pursuasively answered, as I have been asked it on many occasions. My most typical answer would be "yes; God is the author of all things." But this response is met with further prodding, such as: "Supposing sin is against God, and supposing God is the 'author' thereof: How is it that God can be against himself?"
My belief is paradoxical: God does, yet we do; God is fully the author, yet we are fully responsible. God impells all, yet we have 'free choice of the will' if only in a perspective sense. Take, for example, the Exodus: "God hardened Pharaoh's heart"; and yet, "Pharaoh hardened his heart". Those who come to Christ [the elect] have, as is seemingly obvious by our [albeit limited] perceptions, make a 'decision' to do so, as it is plain that all that we do is an outcome of decision; yet the elect are only made able to come to such a decision by the sovereign grace and predestinate calling of the Author of our movements Himself.
As I said, I'm just curious as to how you would handle an inquiry of this nature, and how you believe it might be best answered.
Sproul, in the article "Double Predestination", previously linked to deals with this matter albeit briefly. For an indepth and enlightening discourse on the charge that Predestination makes God the "Author of Sin", see here:
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. (James 1:13)
Actually and honestly, this passage in no way "refutes the claim that God is the author of sin;" it only asserts that God does not tempt man to sin, quite a different implication entirely.
As for the WCF, such is not scripture, and thus such cannot be held to as a scriptural refutation. [Resorting to catechisms and other non-biblical works as infallible defenses {something I have gathered is very much the norm among those of the reformed faith} somehow, mayhap ironically, seems very Catholic indeed, does it not?]
Amalthea said: As for the WCF, such is not scripture, and thus such cannot be held to as a scriptural refutation. [Resorting to catechisms and other non-biblical works as infallible defenses {something I have gathered is very much the norm among those of the reformed faith} somehow, mayhap ironically, seems very Catholic indeed, does it not?]
Amalthea, or is it Kalled2Preach?,
Since you seem to have a penchant to speak against the historic Confessions of the Church as being an inadequate source for determining the truth of God's infallible Word, why would an argument offered by any man be any more veritable? To be honest, this type of attitude smacks of arrogance and definitely qualifies as what is known as "SOLO Scriptura". The Bible is not an encyclopedia where you can simply look up a word or phrase, e.g., "Author of Sin" and find an article which explains all the facets of it. Again, you are not going to find the theological term "Trinity" spelled out in a succinct article in the Bible itself, yet this in no way disproves its truthfulness and that it is a biblical doctrine which cannot be denied.
The Westminster Confession, for example, states clearly that it is NOT Scripture but that the Scriptures are the sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Thus it relegates itself to a subordinate authority to the inspired, infallible and inerrant Word of God. However, the WCF and like Confessions, where they are in agreement with Scripture they are no less truthful in their statements. Truth is truth, whether it is found in a particular Bible verse or in a faithful summary of what that verse, passage or Bible says.
The simple truth is, God is inexorably holy. His wrath is upon all that is contrary to Him as God and/or anything that He has revealed in His Word. To suggest that God is the "Author of sin", i.e., He is responsible for that which opposes Him and all holiness is to accuse God of being the ultimate hypocrite and more, for Him to attest to His impeccable holiness would be a lie.
Sin originated with a created being and not God. That He decreed that sin would come into existence through that which He created does not make Him responsible for it. If you would have taken the time to read through the several articles I supplied for you, the answer you were wanting would have been answered many times over.
So, what is the problem here? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />
FreelyEmerging, Amalthea, Kalled2Preach? How many IDs or user names does one person need? Why all the aliases? Is this another part of the Emerging Church not knowing who you even are or are you the new Trinity of the Emerging Church? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bingo.gif" alt="" />
Amalthea is not me. I already explained that Amalthea belongs to my fiancée. I made the FreelyEmerging one and stopped using it when Pilgrim asked me to pick one or the other. I made my decision. I am using Kalled2Preach. Again, Amalthea belongs to my fiancée, who is staying with us for the holidays.
It sure does seem <font face="Impact">catholic</font> to use creeds and confessions. Whether Presbyterian with the WCF, Reformed with the Three forms of Unity, or Lutheran with the Augsburg Confession/Solid Declaration or Anglican with the 39 Articles - these are churches that would view themselves as catholic, as universal.
These are churches that appreciate and understand the unity of a Christian in 2005AD with a Christian in 1005AD due to the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian creed.
These are churches that, to varying degrees, hold tradition in high esteem understanding it to be a means of teaching, of continuity, and of passing on Biblical truths through practice.
These are churches that understand what it means to preach Christ and Him crucified.
These are churches that understand the point is the dynamic Word of God preached, NOT dynamic people preaching.
These are churches that understand that music is a form of teaching doctrine and the words are the focus, not a means of moving people to "experience" with the focus on the beat and how good I "feel".
So yes, these churches ARE catholic. Praise God for that!
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
