2nd fallacy of "non-cals"

Skandelon · May 28, 2011

Luke2427 said: ↑

Here is Calvin on the matter:
Click to expand...

I welcome the clarity and care taken by this author in discussing the terms of the debate. It is quite refreshing.

I particularly liked this part of the article:

See that you make not God the author of sin, by charging his sacred decree with men’s miscarriages, as if that were the cause or occasion of them; which we are sure that it is not, nor can be, any more than the sun can be the cause of darkness.3

It is [God] who created, preserves, actuates and directs all things. But it by no means follows, from these premises, that God is therefore the cause of sin, for sin is nothing but anomia, illegality, want of conformity to the divine law (1 John iii. 4), a mere privation of rectitude; consequently, being itself a thing purely negative, it can have no positive or efficient cause, but only a negative or deficient one, as several learned men have observed.4

According to the Canons of Dort, “The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man” (1.5).
Click to expand...

Refreshing indeed to see brethren carefully distinguish their meaning when speaking about God's role in the origin of evil.

Winman · May 28, 2011

Skandelon said: ↑

That is beside the point, Luke. We are talking about the nature of man.

You claim they are born unable to see, hear, understand and turn, but this text clearly indicates that God makes them unable to see, hear, understand lest they turn. So which is it?

Are they born that way or does God make those who are rebellious that way for a reason?

Answer the question and stop dodging by calling my question "silly." You know it's not, and even said so in the other thread. It's a question debated in theological journals and by scholars throughout history. You can't hide behind your patronizing comments and bullying techniques. Deal with the argument or don't, but stop with the immature banter.

Luke, you throw around terms like tomatoes at a food fight. From the first time we got into a discussion you started in with "God caused sin" and "God decrees sin" and "God ordains sin" without so much as a definition of any of these terms. I asked for weeks with no clear answer and even once one was provided you never drew any distinction between God's permissive and active decrees. The part of this article I quoted pointed out the importance of using the right terms and being careful as to what you are communicating. That is something you should really take to heart and work on.
Click to expand...

Words mean whatever he chooses them to mean.

Van · May 28, 2011

It is always the same old beating around the bush, but never owning the view. Calvin says man because of the fall is unable to seek God and therefore always chooses sin. Yet this does not make God the "author of sin." With this perverse logic you could pull the wings off a fly and then punish the fly for not flying. It is simply absurd. A moving the goal post argument and everyone knows it.

2nd fallacy of "non-cals"

Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

Winman Active Member

Van Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Useful Searches

2nd fallacy of "non-cals"

Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

Winman Active Member

Van Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Van Well-Known Member
Site Supporter