The reason God cannot sin

Actually, The ArchAngel and I came to agreement in that thread on the Origin of Sin. He wrote: "So, we may freely say that God ordains sin, but He doesn't cause it. As one of my seminary professors put it: God stands behind good (ie. is the cause of it) and He stands beside evil (ie. He doesn't cause it, but He chooses not to stop it)."

And glfredrick chimed in on that thread to say something similar: "One easy way to think about the issue of sin is to say that God will never implicate Himself in causing sin or being sinful. He will allow (permissive will) those creatures who are already predisposed to sin to do what it is that they will do according to their nature. This is fairly clearly spelled out in Romans 1, where the implication is that those who sin are allowed to sin all the more. The damnation is on them, not on God.

Of note (critical!) to say that God is the author of sin, or that God has sinned is heretical and blasphemy. I cannot even fathom the idea, even to play "devil's advocate" in debate. This one issue would violate our Lord and King at the highest and deepest level possible, and perhaps step over into the bounds of the unpardonable sin. That so many can so easily toss about their point of view that this or that makes God the author of sin is incomprehensible to me. Does no man fear Holy and Almighty God?"

Both of their statements are in agreement with what Edwards explained and what I also affirmed...along with the "Arminian divines."

Aaron may stand with you, but I don't think many other Calvinists do. And honestly I'm not sure how what you have argued is consistent with the quote from Edwards you have provided:

"If by 'the author of sin,' be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing . . . . it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin." But, he argues, willing that sin exist in the world is not the same as sinning. God does not commit sin in willing that there be sin. God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his "positive agency."

I know his view on the origin of sin is consistent with classical Arminianism and your view is not. What else do I need to know?

Now, clearly Arminians depart from Edwards on other soteriological points, but on this one, even by his own admission, they are CONSISTENT. Your view is inconsistent. Again, just play the game "which one of these is not like the other" and you will see that you are the one who is different on this point.

 

I would say that when Calvinists say (as Luke 2427 is fond of saying -- not picking on you bro!) that God is the author of sin, they are more noting that nothing in this universe happens without God's involvement, not that God especially caused sin per se. With the various expressions of God's will, including permissive, we can find some category of divine will to cover all aspects of sin and righteousness without either making God a liar or without denying God ultimate sovereignty.

Oh, the day when we can stand at the foot of His throne and know all things for sure! Until then, even in the face of antinomy, I'll simply bend my will to my Lord and King and let Him do as He wills... Good, bad, indifferent, or full mirror of His glory, I am His -- and am eternally grateful for His imputed grace to this non-deserving sinner.

 

Then he needs to say that, because then we would be in agreement, as would Edwards. However, as you noted, he doesn't say that. He says much more and then accuses me of not understanding Edwards and other Calvinists, which is completely inaccurate.

Thanks for the input. Maybe he will hear you.

 

Luke2427, I think it is more a matter of degree and in the forcefulness of your argument than the fact that God is not God.

And I agree that this has nothing to do with understanding Edwards, or with the position of those who are far apart from either of our views of God's sovereignty.

You do seem to be soft on the concept of God's permissive will, and from your posts, seem to make God actively in control of sin, which would (as others have suggested) make God a sinner or the author of sin, which we cannot say or do.

That God can sovereignly and simply "allow" or "sidestep" sin in those creatures already rebellious and in sin is one thing. To say that God placed that rebellion in them, and that He is the author of sin is another. God can be sovereign while allowing sin for some purpose of His divine will that brings the greater good without specifically instigating that same sin.

Again, we cannot say that God, somehow, is sin or is the author of sin. It just cannot be! There is no shadow within God. God is light and there is no darkness. He merely allows darkness to exist by His absence.

 

Luke, I'm trying to be patient with you but with your continual accusations of my "not getting" Edwards is growing tiresome and blatantly ridiculous. Every time I provide you quotes and sound arguments showing how other Calvinists and even Edwards himself are consistent with "Arminian divines" and all you keep doing is saying "I don't get it" over and over as if that is a sound and reasoned argument. It isn't. It is just a childish game of "nuh huh" and profits us nothing to move this discussion along.

Can you provide me a quote from Edwards making this argument? Not the one you already provided, but one that says God does evil but its not evil because "him doing it makes it good."

For that matter, could you provide any Calvinistic scholars who make this argument so maybe we can compare them with Edwards and others.

 

I think you are correct... You "get" Edwards, you just don't really take what he says in the way he says it as truth. You have an ax to grind against Calvinism, and Edwards was a Calvinist's Calvinist in his theology. I would find it odd indeed if you actually accepted Edwards for what he said at face value. I would not find it at all odd that you pick and choose a sentence or two from Edwards to make a point here and there so you can say that you agree with him. So far, none of your posts shows you (ultimately) in agreement with Edwards.

On the differences between Luke 2427 and I -- I would say that Luke and I are closer than either of us are to you. We both REJECT that humans have some measure in our own salvation. We both AFFIRM that God is sovereign. We debate about the level of God's permissive will. You wish for God and man to have libertarian free will. That is a canyon apart -- the same canyon that is exemplified in the tracks showing how Christ is the only way of salvation.

 

That may be true with regard to Edward's soteriology, but we aren't talking about soteriology right now. We are discussing the origin of sin and with regard to that discussion Edwards and I are in agreement and Luke can't seem to grasp that concept. I appreciate your help on that matter.

Of course I'm not in ultimate agreement with Edwards, never claimed to be. Hopefully I've made that clear now.

With regard to soteriology, yes, but not with regard to the origin of sin. I agree with what you have said and what Edwards has written, as do historical Arminians.

Well, now that you affirm the truth that God doesn't originate sin can you explain how the thought or intent of the first child rapist/murder originated that thought/intent? If not originating in God, then you must admit that men have the ability of first cause (i.e. the first cause of raping and torturing a child), which is the essence of Libertarian freewill and why Luke is so desperate to stratal the fence on this issue. BTW, it's a question Edwards in all his genius didn't answer either. I guess you can see why.

 

Ever hear about a dude named Satan?

You take libertarian human free will to the point of being heretical, while hiding under the guise of Arminianism. You are so far up the LFW position that you fail to grasp that we have an enemy, who is both the father of lies and the accuser of the brethren -- and the one who instigates evil in this world. Whom else but an (or THE) enemy of God could come up with such a vile concept -- and in a sense, whom else would USE such a vile concept in their debates to score points...

 

Truth

We all have no problem with good and bad that come from God or calamity or disaster.

That is consistent with the Bible.

The problem we have is God sets before us life and death and He wants us to choose life so we may live. He does not want us to sin during the problems in life, but trust in Him.

Our evil desire comes from us not God.

He wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. He wants us to make peace with everyone for this reason.

He gives us the Gospel even with that He wants us to choose life.

I have no problem with good and bad coming down my path, if I choose to do evil because of the bad coming down my path, it isn't because God gave me no choice but to choose it. I chose it because of my own evil desire. Both good and bad comes from not just one of them.

Good and bad comes from God to everyone the rain falls on everyone so He shows no favoritism

God tells us not to sin, but obey His laws, so He doesn't want no man to choose evil. So it is not the will of God for us to choose evil.

Through Adam, not God, because of God word saying we shall surely die and his own evil desire, death has came to the world. Jesus a life given Spirit by His word which is Spirit and life and the word about Him and from Him that our faith comes from. You have no excuse not to choose life when His word comes to us from His Holy temple where the Holy Spirit dwells our body who believe.

 

Again, Luke, you throw out terms without any definitions as if that will solve the point of our contentions. We know what Edwards means when he said "ultimate cause" because he explained it and we have gone over and over it, but you think it means God does it and its ok because he has the right motive, which you have yet to show any scholarly support for.

True, but probably not in the way you mean it, but no one would know that because you refuse to define your terms.

Well, that is what we are attempting to deduce...if you are a sensible theist or not.

You are the one accusing me endlessly of "not getting Edwards" as if I'm just too stupid to understand him when the quote itself acknowledges his view on this subject is consistent with the Arminian divines. I know what the Arminian divines believed and I challenge you to find one of them who taught what you have said.

Who is the other one? glf agreed that I did get Edwards with regard to this subject, but only that we differ in soteriology, which is a given. You have no support so far, but I welcome you to find some quotes that support your views about how when God sins it's not sin because he does it out of good motives. Edwards goes out of his way to say God DOES'NT do it and then goes on to explain how he permits and disposes events. He never uses your terminology which is why even other Calvinists here won't back you up on your views.

To actually do it the first time would be miraculous.

 

Wise and learned

God has hidden the truth from the wise and learned those who trust in their own understanding and not in the Lord who makes our way straight.

This is God's good pleasure to do this. Don't you just want to praise God and glorify Him for doing this.

Those who trust in Jesus who faith is visibible by what they do they will never be deceived.

If I have faith that can move mountains and have not love what good is it?

 

Edwards did not have an Arminian bone in his body, and co-opting his theology for the purpose of winning an argument is disingenuous.

 

You are right, that is silly. You don't think I know that Edwards and I are on complete opposite sides of the spectrum with regard to soteriology? That is OBVIOUS and I've NEVER claimed otherwise.

I've ONLY claimed to be in agreement with Edwards on the question of the origin of sin, PERIOD. What is SILLY is that you would accuse me of saying that Edward agrees with Arminianism on the whole. That is LUDICROUS!

I know what he said Luke, remember I quoted it to you several times. The part that he wasn't comfortable with is the part you are comfortable with...i.e. saying God does sin (but somehow its ok because his motives are good), which Edwards NEVER says. He goes out of his way to say that God is not the one doing the deed and that such a belief would indeed be blasphemous. Remember?

And I would be in that tent right along with you, but you won't stop there will you Luke? You will go on to say as you have said again and again, that God does "sinful deeds" but that its not really sin because he does it for good reasons.

Plus, anything that God only foreknows and permits, doesn't fit your view because you can't have God being informed by something a man originates, so that only leaves God to be the originator, but you can't bring yourself to say that so you appeal to mystery.

. Please find me just one scholar who teaches this view so I can research it.

 

Luke the only real difference between the first option and the second is that the first one includes the word "decree," and as I told you before, I don't have an issue with that because I know what Edward means when he says "decree." He defined his term. And since you said that you are ok with any good theological dictionary, I will supply you a working definition:

The decrees of God are (1) efficacious, as they respect those events he has determined to bring about by his own immediate agency; or (2) permissive, as they respect those events he has determined that free agents shall be permitted by him to effect.

So, you see, once again you haven't really set yourself apart from me, Edwards or the Arminian divines with these two explanations. When you set yourself apart is when you say things like, "Him [God] doing it [Evil] makes it good." or "When God does evil is not evil because His motives are good."