The Westminster Confession and the Authorship of Sin
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 09. 2024
- We then listened to Leighton Flowers on his podcast and to an “argument” from Eric Kemp.
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio...
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS!!! I've been searching for an answer for such a long time with no satisfactory results until today.
Just found this. Well argued Dr. White.
Provisionists and most who have a firm objection to Calvinism, use the Argument of Incredulity. This is a logical fallacy that states: because someone doesn't understand how something could be true, therefore it must be false.
And as James White pointed out in this video, scripture must be the source of our conclusions; and not ourselves or our philosophical understandings
Leighton literally cannot enter into any discussion without somekind of analogy.
Analogesis, baby!
Anyways stuffing God into human categories.
Ya Jesus never used analogies. Or Paul. Or God thru the prophets.
@@christopheravery9585 but unlike Leighton, Jesus was the truth and he was good at it. Leighton doesn't like what the text says so it invents analogies to get around it.
What's crazy is that right after this passage in the Westminster Confession of Faith it outright declares God is not the author of sin. It also cites James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5 to support this.
Serious question.
Why is "God being the author of sin" an issue? He chooses whom His creatures are, molded for honor or destruction.
Any issue I have with "God being the author of sin", means my own standard is the basis of judging God.
(Which is wrong.)
God is the ONLY standard to judge God, and His revelation to man is that God decides, we humans don't.
ALL is to the glorification of Himself, as it ALL works towards good. (The ultimate fulfillment of God's kingdom.)
Right?
No. 😊
The reason why such a conclusion is a problem is because Scripture is very clear that God has nothing to do with sin. See Jeremiah 19, James 1:13-15, Matthew 12:25-28 etc.
@@DanielM-kl3bv Eph 1:11 includes all things. Gen 50 Joseph to his brothers you meant this for evil, God meant it for good. Again, as White said, you are not disagreeing with scripture.
@@SugoiEnglish1in Genesis 50. That’s his brother how meditate evil. God turn that evil in good. It s nowhere written that God plan sow the evil to reap the good ….
If God isn't totally sovereign, why do I bother getting up in the morning?
Because God commanded you
Why would one effect the other
@@Loganvabecause if God isn’t God why should I follow him?
Thank you Pastor, this has been the incredibly helpful for stewarding my family through this question
5:43 Good question!
AMEN..."Your philosophy is never any bigger than your cranium." Case closed. I always point out that God's revelation doesn't violate human logic but at times goes beyond it.
God allows sin. His allowance demonstrates His sovereignty over it, without being the author of it. He lets fallen man and fallen nature do what its so inclined.
God doesn't "allow sin". Calvin repudiates that explicitly and White himself uses much more narrow terms ("God decreed all sin").
Leighton is the one that uses the "allow" language to the effect you are mentioning, not JW.
@@jamiejame911 Calvin did NOT "repudiate" the idea of permission on God's part. He refuted the idea of "bare permission" in the sense that, for example, "permitting the fall" was outside of God's foreordaining will.
You should be able to find out what Calvin actually said about the issue of "bare permission" in his, "Institutes," Book 3, ch. 23, sec. 8.
The synergists attempted to explain the fall by simply asserting "God's permission" in the affair.
Calvin is repudiating the notion that it was simply "permission alone".
Later Reformed Theologians would see the value in espousing the permission of God; but that permission can only be predicated of God with respect to actions in time (temporal permission).
Calvin states that God's permission only comes about in time because of His Eternal [Decisional] Decree.
Note Calvin's words:
"Here they (synergistic groups) recur to the distinction between will and permission, the object being to prove that the wicked perish only by the permission, but not by the will of God. But why do we say that he permits, but just because he wills? Nor, indeed, is there any probability in the thing itself-viz. that man brought death upon himself merely by the permission, and not by the ordination of God; as if God had not determined what he wished the condition of the chief of his creatures to be. I will not hesitate, therefore, simply to confess with Augustine that the will of God is necessity, and that every thing is necessary which he has willed..."
[Bevridge Edition. Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion," Bk. 3, ch. 23, sec. 8...ccel.org].
Notice the phraseology: "ONLY by the permission," "MERELY by the permission"?
Calvin did not repudiate the idea of permission; he repudiated the idea of "permission ALONE," which synergists falsely hold.
Calvin was correct in his argumentation. God permits nothing in time that He has not decisionally decreed to permit before He created all things.
Hope this helps.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
@@jamiejame911 bare permission or simple permission is what we dont confess. Might want to actually pay attention to what your opposition is saying and I have no idea how Leighton can say that but consistency isnt a big part or his thinking
That’s the point of of the criticism - - - Calvinism seems to be saying he that is God instigated and planned and determined it (all things) and then holds man accountable for pre determined choices.
Mankind’s 3,000 years of recorded history is in reality very short. Man hasn’t been racking up knowledge long enough to think he really knows much if anything meaningful at all. The highest knowledge we have about God is in the Bible. The Bible is our highest source of knowledge about Godliness, which is the last thing people want, and which is the most important thing people need.
There are differences between a theological contradiction and a conundrum. A conundrum is an “I don’t know how God designed this circle” and appealing to mystery is appropriate. A contradiction is “God made this square also a circle” when the definition of a circle omits the definition of a square so appealing to mystery is not logical. So when someone points out that saying that God is the ultimate causal agent and author of sin, while also saying that God is all good is a contradiction where it is inappropriate to appeal to mystery. God does not contradict himself. If your theology has logical contradictions in it (that make God ambiguously morally suspect at best and at worst make him the causal agent of evil) you should come up with a better formula that fits scripture better.
Jonathan Edwards is the only one on either side of this debate who I have seen tackle this issue without obfuscation. What he does that I rarely see anybody else do is first try to define what is meant by "author of evil." The phrase can be used in a multitude of different ways. Edwards outright admits that God is the author of evil in the sense that he decrees that evil happen. But he is not the author of evil in the sense of being the doer of any evil thing. It is not evil for God to decree evil since he does so for good and praiseworthy ends. So, in the case of Joseph's brother selling him into slavery, God meant it for good. Likewise, God meant the crucifixion of Jesus for good. He meant for the Assyrians to punish the Israelites. He meant for Pharaoh to resist letting Israel go. The scriptures are full of examples of God playing a hand in other people sinning, but him doing so for good and praiseworthy ends. I think Calvinists should admit that God is the author of sin IN SOME SENSE, but to be careful in spelling out the sense in which he is the author of sin. And I think Calvinism's critics should be careful to spell out the sense in which they think God would be the author of sin under Calvinism, and make an argument for why they think God is the author of sin in that sense. Otherwise, both sides are talking past each other and using insinuation and obfuscation, but not directly clashing with each other over this issue. Speak plainly and precisely, please. Avoid euphemisms and dysphemisms.
If God is in His very essence good…doesn’t that mean evil must “exist” as a necessity of being anything that is “not God?” Ergo the general term used for evil is “ungodliness?”
Excellent! Which book do you recommend by Edwards? "Freedom of the Will"?
Saying the first part along with saying the second part "DOES MAKE IT SO" simply because that's what the Scriptures teach. Sure there's tension there but the argument stemming from a persons unwillingness to live with the tension so as to explain it away is nothing more than an expression of personal hubris.
He said God is "In" ultimate authority, not "an."
First of all do you believe GOD , and what He said about himself, that he is righteous, and that He is light and there is no darkness in Him not one bit...if you know and believe that is true then GOD will illuminate scriptures and give us the words to articulate the truths above...that HE cannot sin nor is HE the author of it...
Is it just me, or does Leighton, sitting there with the scowl on his face and rubbing his hands together, look like a plotting villain? lol
Leighton Flowers reminds me of Count Duku for some reason.
He's clueless
The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life are NOT from the Father but from THE WORLD
Correct but somehow you're going to say if God decrees all things that come to pass that he's the author of sin...
Define "of" ; because the implication, is, if God creates evil, then He must be evil.. However, what makes God, God, is that there's nothing is like Him, not even the evil He creates.. Isa.45.7.. "I CREATE EVIL" ; all the bad things that happen.. Amos.3.6 "Shall there be EVIL in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?".. It doesn't change His Holy Authority one bit..
1:20 What an inane comment! "Could it be that our criticism is that once you say the first part (that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass), just saying the second part (that God is not the author of sin and that he establishes man's free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes by what he ordains) doesn't make it so. Well duh! That's what the debate is about! Let's also agree that you objecting to our position also doesn't make it so! But there is no obvious contradiction in the confession if one merely consider the ordinary definitions of the words used instead of force reading in exhaustive determinism into everything.
I wish Leighton and other anti-Calvinists would actually argue for their redefinition of 'ordain' to mean exhaustive determinism instead of just assuming it.
Being going through some of your comments and you seem pretty intelligent.
Have you considered making blogs about topics in James White's videos?
@@pieismylove5875 I have, but then I start going down the track of writing a blog engine until I get distracted. Plus I was never that great with CSS.
What, use an off the shelf engine? Preposterous! :)
They are responsible because they do what they want to do, but they only want to do those things because God has withheld from them?
Why does romans 1 bother to say their hearts were darkened? They never needed to be darkened apparently.
White's assumption is that the Ephesians' "council of his own will" text includes the PHILOSOPHICAL notion of "theological determinism of all human actions". PROVE IT! He then takes this assumption and imports it into all of his proof texts (Gen, Isa, Acts). The issue is that if you simply have God "theologically determining" men's actions by way of a compatablist freedom, you have God as the "author of sin".There is NO way around it, and White KNOWS; God, before anything was created, DETERMINED to have men sin with no foresight of human actions taken notice of. The easiest and most BIBLICAL way out of this conundrum, is the notion that was shared by the patristics that, instead, God FOREKNEW what men would do in those circumstances (White's proof texts) and then, in the "council of his own will" determined what HE would do in light of that to get to his goal. This means that sin is properly man's and not God's. Since compatablistic freedom is ANOTHER "philosophy of man" and can be done away with as easily as what White says of his opponents philosophies, he may not want to throw stones (hears glass breaking), but of course he is partially blind to this and he is in effect preaching to the choir (those few poor and unfortunate souls who actually take him for an honest actor). Laughable.
This all comes down to a very simple principle: starting with God or starting with man. Much has been said about the authorship of sin, but I think fundamentally so much biblical data does not get properly considered on both the Calvinist and Arminian side of things. The typical mainstream Calvinist denies equal ultimatacy (which I understand to mean that God decides the eternal destinies of all people specifically). I submit to you that Romans 9 teaches equal ultimacy.....in that the salvation or damnation of a person is all God's doing, not the will of man. This isn't simply God knowing what people will do or God merely reacting to what people do, but that God decides who will be a vessel of mercy or vessel of wrath. And therefore since God himself intentionally creates vessels of wrath for example, and the wrath of God is due to sin, this means that God ordained for the vessels of wrath to do all the sins they ever will commit. And likewise for the vessels of mercy. God chose to have salvation mercy on a particular people....and that mercy is in relation to forgiveness of their sin....so in other words, God ordained for sin to be committed (because he chose to have wrath and mercy before anyone was created). So when we talk about who is the author of sin, well, God created all things. Sin is a thing, and it is therefore part of all things. And Isaiah even talks about how God creates evil. Also, sin cannot exist unless there is God's law....because sin is the transgression of the law. Sin exists only because the law of God exists. So I would say that *if* we say God is the author of sin, we need to recognize that would be because he created sin and ordained for people to sin. So despite all this, God himself is NOT a sinner and he cannot possibly commit sin, because he is holy (but none of this means he didn't create sin and ordain for humans to do so.....it's just that it's not sin for God to decree for man to sin).
@@ProjectCould _"So when we talk about who is the author of sin, well, God created all things. Sin is a thing, and it is therefore part of all things."_
I would contest that sin is a created thing like, say, a rock or a palm tree is a created thing. Sin does not exist on its own, it is parasitic in nature, twisting the intended operation of good things in God's very good creation. You can't point to sin in isolation, it doesn't exist. Is sex sin? No, God made male and female and commanded them to reproduce, he instituted marriage and calls the marriage bed sacred. Sin twists God's gift of sex into various perverse acts that God did not command. Is owning possessions wrong? No, God establishes work and economic rules to enable buying and selling of goods, and calls money and possessions a blessing, but theft is a perversion of the way God intends us to obtain possessions. Show me where sin exists on it's own independent of something God created good.
_"And Isaiah even talks about how God creates evil."_
Here we are talking about natural evils (like storms and earthquakes) and misfortunes (like a loss of status or possession). This isn't moral evil or sin. Modern translations use 'calamity' or 'disaster'.
_"Also, sin cannot exist unless there is God's law....because sin is the transgression of the law. Sin exists only because the law of God exists."_
I think this highlights the parasitic nature of sin; God's law is good. Sin twists God's law.
_"So I would say that if we say God is the author of sin, we need to recognize that would be because he created sin and ordained for people to sin."_
God can ordain sin without creating it or directly causing it. To 'ordain' is kingly language about empowering another with authority, not about directly bringing something about. A King decrees to have a bridge built and ordains one to oversee the construction. That doesn't mean the King picks up a hammer and starts building; but rather he gives another authority to carry out the king's decree; the king does not need to micromanage every decision of the overseer, that's what he ordained him to handle in the first place. And one can be ordained, yet fail in their duty and so face the king's wrath.
Similar, when we say God ordains sin, it isn't God directly manipulating Adam to reach for the tree and forcing him to eat. God created Adam very good, and he created him with desires for food to sustain himself and hands to reach for food and a mouth to eat, and ears to hear and a brain to understand God's commands. God gave Adam a garden full of food and a command not to eat from one particular tree, and Adam used God's very good gifts to knowingly defy God, reach for the forbidden fruit, and eat. Adam authored his own sin, though God decreed that sin should occur so that he would demonstrate his mercy and justice.
@@oracleoftroy It seems that you just believe in a general ordination of sin. Whereas I see that God determined for Adam and Eve to specifically sin the way they did (which is why Adam and Eve were able to sin to begin with, because God made them sin). And also, there was no possible way that Adam and Eve could have chosen to do other than what God decreed for them to do. At the same time, I recognize that Adam and Eve themselves chose to sin....but not because they had that ability in and of themselves, but rather that their desires in all the moments of their life were chosen by God...and therefore man plays out what God determined before for him to do. If you object and say "but that would be God just creating robots".....well, I'll embrace that criticism because all I'm essentially saying is that God made some *very* complex robots that always do his will....in other words, man doesn't at all seem robotic, yet he can only do what God 'programmed' him to do.
@@ProjectCould I agree that God ordained the fall and that therefore it wasn't a mere possibility, it was part of God's purpose for creating this universe so that he could show his justice and mercy. I disagree that sin isa created thing at all, let alone that God is the author of sin. The language of ordination does not require the hyper-Calvinist understanding.
On a side note, I've long thought the 'robot' objection a bit silly as the entire point of AI is to develop a system that has human-like intelligence and decision making ability. I am an AI skeptic in part because I think only God has the ability to make something like that. AI is only 20 years away, just like it has been for the last 70 years.
@@oracleoftroy I just don't get why we should say "sin wasn't created". Is that supposed to mean that sin has no beginning, and is therefore eternal?!!! Seems to make a lot more sense to realize that sin was created. That's sounds like the simplicity that is in Christ, versus going with a philosophical reason as to why sin wasn't created. I take the Bible quite literally, so when I read for example about Death in Revelation 6, I see in this particular place that Death is a spirit. And in Genesis 4:7 it says "...and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." So here sin is a "him", which means sin is a person....which would have to mean sin was created, just like Death was.
Why do all the guys say west MIN-IS-TER? ITS MIN-STER! 😡 LOL
I only recently figured out it's "minster" even though I've seen it and heard it for years.
Those silly baptists ammiright? XD
God is the author of sin.
The question is “how is God not the author of sin” Dr White answer is you’re not smart enough to understand. He should just be brave enough to say I believe Gods word teaches two apposing views of God. God ordains Sin and punishes that Sin and redeems that Sins.
This doesn’t answer the question. If God establish second causes and upholds their contingency, in the way the Westminster describes, He is in fact the author of sin. Just saying otherwise doesn’t make it not the case
How though? Just saying so doesn't make it so.
Man is the author of his own sin through second causes. God made man innocent though cabable of falling, per chapter 9. He didn't make them fall.
It seems to me that if you deny God as the one who ordains all that comes to pass, you are introducing another creator beside God. Maybe in a polytheistic way, maybe in a Gnostic way with a demiurge, or something else, but now not everything was created by God in the beginning.
If we accept that all things are created by God as primary cause, you either have to say there are no second causes - everything that happens is solely the actions of God - or you allow for God to determine his creatures to have free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes. Calvinists aren't the only ones who have affirmed the latter option, it's been the position of the church for a long time. Aquinas perhaps most fully developed it, but the basic framework is found early on in church history.
@@oracleoftroy Quite simply, as it happens. The Westminster says God establishes second causes, uphold their contingency, and determines their outcomes. But then it tacks on at the end, yet not so that He is the author of sin. It simply a logical misstep. If God indeed does all those things in a direct, causal manner, then He is in fact made to be the author of sin despite its claim to the contrary.
The Westminster, ironically, basically describes the way in which Calvinism makes God the author of sin and then immediately denies this. It effectively must deny itself to uphold itself, and is therefore absurd on this point.
James White’s response is “who do you think you are?” But that doesn’t change the fact that the Westminster itself is all tied up in knots when dealing with this subject.
@@oracleoftroy In other words, It has to do more than just say “nuh-uh” to show that God is not the author of sin, because its description of His decretal acts already lead to that conclusion.
@@JacobKuchkov _"The Westminster says God establishes second causes, uphold their contingency, and determines their outcomes."_
Err, that's not what contingency means.
Merriam-Webster contingency noun
1: a contingent event or condition: such as
*a:* an event (such as an emergency) that may but is not certain to occur
*b:* something liable to happen as an adjunct to or result of something else
2: the quality or state of being contingent
The confession states 3.1 "...nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."
It also states per 5.2 that in providence "... He ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently."
_"But then it tacks on at the end, yet not so that He is the author of sin. It simply a logical misstep."_
Not at all. Man authors his own sin by their free will within the liberty of second causes. The logical misstep is yours and is seen in the very next sentence:
_"If God indeed does all those things in a direct, causal manner, then He is in fact made to be the author of sin despite its claim to the contrary."_
Yet that is not what the Reformed confess, in fact they quite explicitly allow for contingent action and for providence to play out freely or contingently. You need us to say all things play out necessarily, but we explicitly deny that. You have to tie the confession into knots to get it to say what you need it to say. You have to do more than just say “nuh-uh” to show that God is the author of sin and actually set forward an argument that does justice to the claims being made.
Calvin says that God is the remote cause of sin: Institutes, Book 3, Ch. 23, Section 3.
The proximate cause of sin is the individual sinner. The sinner is responsible because God holds him or her accountable. Who will hold God accountable for foreordaining the fall of Adam? God also foreordained all the sins of angels and men.
“3. God may thus quell his enemies by silence. But lest we should allow them with impunity to hold his sacred name in derision, he supplies us with weapons against them from his word. Accordingly, when we are accosted in such terms as these, Why did God from the first predestine some to death, when, as they were not yet in existence, they could not have merited sentence of death? let us by way of reply ask in our turn, What do you imagine that God owes to man, if he is pleased to estimate him by his own nature? As we are all vitiated by sin, we cannot but be hateful to God, and that not from tyrannical cruelty, but the strictest justice. But if all whom the Lord predestines to death are naturally liable to sentence of death, of what injustice, pray, do they complain? Should all the sons of Adam come to dispute and contend with their Creator, because by his eternal providence they were before their birth doomed to perpetual destruction, when God comes to reckon with them, what will they be able to mutter against this defense? If all are taken from a corrupt mass, it is not strange that all are subject to condemnation. Let them not, therefore, charge God with injustice, if by his eternal judgment they are doomed to a death to which they themselves feel that whether they will or not they are drawn spontaneously by their own nature. Hence it appears how perverse is this affectation of murmuring, when of set purpose they suppress the cause of condemnation which they are compelled to recognize in themselves, that they may lay the blame upon God. But though I should confess a hundred times that God is the author (and it is most certain that he is), they do not, however, thereby efface their own guilt, which, engraven on their own consciences, is ever and anon presenting itself to their view.”
ref.ly/o/cicr/2547749 via the Logos Bible Android app.
The problem is that James White is doing the very same thing he is accusing the other side of doing. He is using philosophy to interpret Scripture. None of the Scripture James White uses says that God determined /decreed any sin.
His philosophical objection to predestination suffers the same flaws that the philosophical objection to the Trinity has. You put too much value on the fact that something cannot be three and one at the same time and use that to ignore what Scripture says about the issue and that there are things about God we cannot understand.
Jimmy is frustratingly obtuse. Why not give the answer Calvin gave instead. God is the primary cause of sin and man is the secondary cause of his own willful sins.
Dr. White in his “answer” assume true the very point up for debate. He take verses that can easily be interpreted another way but assumes his way is correct. Doing this he is restating the point of contention as if there is no point of contention. Also saying that something is diamond shaped is just saying it’s a mystery. A mystery that somehow he understands completely.
A critique to the Westminster Confession of Faith: czcams.com/video/Qu6TInBszqo/video.html
Does Scripture interpret Scripture (article IX of the WCF)? No, it does not.
No meaningful answer has been given sir. Keep avoiding the question. Your philosophy shows as well.
This man is insufferable. He can't answer the objection.
The objection is that we can sit in judgement over Ephesians 1:11, which Dr. White did answer. You just seemed to miss the point.
He answered. You missed it.
Which I rebutted in this comment section.
Merely ASSERTING that a reading of Ephesians 1 that assumes Theological Determinism (TD) paired with a Compatablistic Freedom (CF) is Biblical and therefore an answer to the objection is absurd, as Flowers and his guest KNOW White would say that, which is itself the issue with him and the WCF! Both TD and CF are "philosophies of men" that when paired with (overlaid upon) White's proof texts creates the issue at hand (their objection that God is logically and necessarily the author of and only real agent in evil). White of course knows this, but goes on about how his opponents are bound by their philosophy... The IRONY!!
Laughable and obsurd!
@@jamiejame911 If it seems like an assertion to you, is because you're new here. Dr. White has addressed Ephesians 1 before and it makes no sense to always give a full argument every time to make a point. I mean you didn't exegete the passage in your reply, you just assumed his assumption.
Suffice it to say, is evil part of God's plan?
Lol so, still no answer to the question.
Just more of 'what makes you think you can ask us such a question'
👎