Donations for the month of July


We have received a total of "$0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Meta4
Meta4
Canada
Posts: 95
Joined: May 2016
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,532
Posts53,976
Members970
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,224
Tom 4,222
chestnutmare 3,211
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,838
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 15
Tom 11
jta 9
John_C 3
Meta4 3
Recent Posts
Dispensational Description
by NetChaplain - Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:58 PM
Coach Wins Case
by jta - Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:16 AM
There is a Fountain ~ William Cowper
by Rick Bates - Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:35 PM
First Work, Sins—Second Work, Sin!
by NetChaplain - Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:09 AM
Nicene Creed Question
by jta - Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:28 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
#52017 Fri Apr 15, 2016 1:08 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,222
Likes: 4
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,222
Likes: 4
How would you answer someone who says that logically if God makes everything come to pass, then the Biblical truth that God is not the author of sin would not be true.
Regardless of the claim by Reformed theologians about "second causes."

By the way, one source I looked at to try to wrap my head around this better came from what I think is a hyper-Calvinist. Who said basically, that he doesn't have any problem with God being the author of sin and Calvinists shouldn't either.

My main problem is not that I don't believe the "second causes" arguement isn't true. It is I am having a hard time explaining it. In other words, I need to study the issue, more if I am going to use the arguement.

Tom

Last edited by Tom; Fri Apr 15, 2016 1:10 PM.
Tom #52018 Fri Apr 15, 2016 1:32 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,224
Likes: 43
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,224
Likes: 43
Egad, not this old argument again! rolleyes2 giggle

1. God ORDAINS all things.
2. By His providence He brings all things to pass which He ordained.
3. ALL creatures are fully responsible for ALL that they think, say, and do. None are forced to do that which is contrary to their nature(s).

Thus, the 'secondary causes' is a valid argument and is sufficient to counter the claim that "logically" God is the author of sin. Secondary causes are God's providence. The 'problem' isn't God's absolute sovereignty. nope The 'problem' isn't why Adam sinned when he had no propensity toward evil (corruption of nature), regardless of the external temptation of the serpent (Satan). The biggest problem is how Satan and all the myriad angels sinned (rebelled) against the Almighty when they had neither a propensity to sin nor any external influence to sin.

The answer is... Deuteronomy 29:29 "The secret things belong unto Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." Since the "how" these two truths can and do exist isn't revealed it is sheer lunacy to speculate how these things occurred. What is required is that one believe what IS written; God is absolutely sovereign and has ordained ALL THINGS. And, that man is absolutely and completely responsible for what he things, speaks and does. Truthfully, how can a human being hope to arrogantly comprehend, with his infant wisdom, the infinite wisdom and power of the almighty, thrice holy God? scratchchin

Lastly, there is only one individual that I am aware of that has published a paper and which is readily available online who asserts that God is the author of sin. And that person's views are far beyond hyper-Calvinism. wink

Oh yeh.... as I've told you so many times in the past, There are no "Silver Bullet" answers that are guaranteed to convince someone who is opposed to the truth to embrace the truth. The TRUTH is from God and stands immoveably on its own. We are simply to speak that truth and the Spirit of God is the One who does the convincing, either via regeneration of unbelievers or enlightening the mind of true believers.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #52019 Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:02 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,222
Likes: 4
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,222
Likes: 4
Pilgrim

Thanks for your patience with me. There are doctrines that I believe because I see no alternative if I am to believe Scripture.
For a few years after I embraced the doctrines of grace, I actually didn't like the doctrine of election; because I still had some of my own way of thinking (though I didn't know it) left over. It wasn't until my study of Romans chapter 9 that a light went on and I was able to see the matter clearly.

I mention this example, because with this doctrine although I think it is biblical, as yet I don't understand it enough to explain it in manner that I would like to.
Yes, if I had your explanation before me as I tried to explain it, I could probably do it. However, until I can explain it in my own words without help, I think I will have trouble convincing anyone.
I agree with you that there is no magic bullet when it comes to issues like this.
So I am hoping you understand my queries into the matter.
By the way, your answer makes a lot of sense and I think it is going to help me in the matter. I am also studying a book called ‘A Modern Exposition 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith’ by Samuel E. Waldron’ it not only touches on this issue, but so far I have found it to be excellent. By the way, it speaks very highly of the WCF.
Tom

Tom #52024 Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:19 AM
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 6
Plebeian
Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 6
God does not force people to do things they don't want to do, he restrains people from doing worse.... and their actions fit God's will as he planned to begin with. It is unnecessary to assume that God forces people to do things, God actually takes advantage of their personal wills because humans are evil to begin with.

Genesis 6
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was ONLY evil continually.

Genesis 50:20
As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.


Bible Questions on The Theology.
flowers92 #52026 Mon Apr 18, 2016 11:58 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,224
Likes: 43
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,224
Likes: 43
Originally Posted by flowers92
God does not force people to do things they don't want to do, he restrains people from doing worse....
1. True. God does not and cannot force people do that which is against their nature.

Originally Posted by flowers92
and their actions fit God's will as he planned to begin with.
2. Yes, IF you are saying that all men's actions were foreordained from eternity to accomplish His perfect will. And, that man's thoughts, words, and deeds exhibited in time are not the impetus for God acting. Put another way, God doesn't wait for man to do something first before responding.

Originally Posted by flowers92
It is unnecessary to assume that God forces people to do things, God actually takes advantage of their personal wills because humans are evil to begin with.
Methinks this is saying the same as #1. The way this statement is phrased causes me some small uneasiness, however. grin It could be construed that man has some independence which God did not ordain, i.e., what man does is not 100% known to God until it is done. That isn't what you are wanting to say, right? scratchchin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #57407 Sun Jan 30, 2022 4:00 PM
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 125
Likes: 1
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 125
Likes: 1
[quote=Pilgrim]Egad, not this old argument again! rolleyes2 giggle



"Lastly, there is only one individual that I am aware of that has published a paper and which is readily available online who asserts that God is the author of sin. And that person's views are far beyond hyper-Calvinism"
. wink

Who are you referring to here?

Last edited by ATulipNotADaisy; Sun Jan 30, 2022 4:01 PM.

A Tulip Not a Daisy
ATulipNotADaisy #57408 Sun Jan 30, 2022 4:49 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,211
Likes: 31
Annie Oakley
Offline
Annie Oakley
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,211
Likes: 31
Hi there a TULIP not a daisy,

That would be Vincent Cheung and the article may be found here The Author of Sin


The Chestnut Mare
Tom #57409 Sun Jan 30, 2022 4:54 PM
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 125
Likes: 1
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 125
Likes: 1
Thank you.


A Tulip Not a Daisy
Tom #57412 Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:19 AM
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 91
Likes: 5
jta Offline
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 91
Likes: 5
I tried reading Mr. Cheung's article and a few others on his site, and had a great deal of trouble following his arguments.

How does one even define sin in such a way that God could be its Author? Is not all that He does good, right, and just, by definition?

His other stuff is problematic as well; for instance, far from merely espousing continuationism (borderline heresy already IMO), he anathematizes anyone who disagrees, and berates even Charismatics for being insufficiently continuationist.

I prefer to stand by God's Grace on the complete, final, sufficient, and authoritative Word of God, and to believe all that it says, even if I don't come close to understanding it sufficiently.


Aspiring student of Christ
jta #57413 Tue Feb 01, 2022 11:07 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,211
Likes: 31
Annie Oakley
Offline
Annie Oakley
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,211
Likes: 31
jta,

Note that I simply responded to a question and was in no way advocating Cheung's position.


The Chestnut Mare
Tom #57414 Tue Feb 01, 2022 2:46 PM
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 91
Likes: 5
jta Offline
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 91
Likes: 5
I know. smile

Mr. Leung's views are well outside the bounds of Reformed, Biblical Christianity. I wouldn't expect anyone I've interacted with here to have much common ground with them.

I was just curious to try and find out where he was coming from.

But now that I have, ironically, I find myself even more firmly convinced of several of the historical doctrines that he directly attacks:

* The sufficiency of the Biblical canon (meaning it cannot be added to, whether by "direct personal revelation" or any other means)

* The need for written, shared confessions and creeds. Mr. Leung demonstrates what can happen when people decide to ignore them. His novel readings of Scripture, some of them unique to himself, seem willfully dismissive of the history of the Church and how God's saints in the past applied Scripture to similar questions.

* The Holiness of God, which would seem to preclude His being the direct Author of Sin, without in any way compromising His Sovereignty. (Not to mention His Goodness, His Justice, His Righteousness, or His Love.)


Aspiring student of Christ
jta #57415 Tue Feb 01, 2022 4:36 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,211
Likes: 31
Annie Oakley
Offline
Annie Oakley
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,211
Likes: 31
jta,

There was another man, a pastor named Don Fortner who claimed that Jesus was actually made a sinner.

Quote
Well recently I've heard several messages of Mr. Fortner dealing with IICorinthians 5. Essentially, what Fortner is saying is that Christ became sinful in his being so we would be made righteous in our being. He is saying that imputed righteousness is God's declaration of what already exists in the "justified" person by virtue of the new birth, and that God made Jesus Christ into a guilty being, one "worse" than a person who had committed sin, "sin itself", when he went to the cross. According to Fortner, justice will not allow God to impute guilt to a man who is not guilty with a guilt of his own.

if you go to Sermon Audio you can listen for yourself, for example, to his message of May 6 I refer to below.

As it is, Don Fortner is preaching a blasphemous heresy-- That Christ became a sinner to save sinners-- and people seem to be just eating it up as though it were perfectly fine to believe such a blatant denial of imputed righteousness and such denigration of the Person and blood of Christ.

What follows is a letter I wrote to Mr. Fortner about this. it is an "Open" letter in view of his many public statements about Christ becoming a guilty person on the cross and about imputed righteousness being declarative only and not constitutive. I would appreciate any thoughts or observations anyone would have on this.

June 5, 2012
John Pedersen
Atlanta, Georgia
Open letter to Don Fortner


The Chestnut Mare

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 105 guests, and 15 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Nana Dadzie Jr., Cliniql, John E, ManassehAmerican, jta
970 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
July
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,350,706 Gospel truth