tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7060367830843858667..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Taboo CalvinismRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73974674573387107832017-10-15T19:30:36.959-04:002017-10-15T19:30:36.959-04:00BTW, do you think Scripture teaches occasionalism?...BTW, do you think Scripture teaches occasionalism? Does Scripture deny that rain comes from rainclouds, that trees come from seeds, &c.?<br /><br />Do you deny that the heart is a blood pump? Do you deny that lungs oxygenate blood? Do you deny that the stomach digests food? Are these just stage props? Why have a body at all?<br /><br />If occasionalism is true, what purpose do the five senses serve? Why have sensory organs at all? Occasionalism is a makeshift position. Why not go all the way and say God bypasses the senses feeds information directly into our minds? But then, why have eyes and ears and fingers? stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46464284333400205342017-10-15T19:29:27.251-04:002017-10-15T19:29:27.251-04:00"Tempting someone to sin is an actual "d..."Tempting someone to sin is an actual "doing" of sin. In this regard God tempts no one, since it's people, Satan or demons that do the tempting."<br /><br />Then agents other than God are the immediate cause. But that's the very thing you've denied elsewhere. <br /><br />"If God were to cease to exist right now, would His creation also cease to exist?"<br /><br />Your hypothetical only is useful as an illustration of God being the ultimate cause of all things. It doesn't imply God is the immediate cause of all things. <br /><br />Your conundrum is resolved in the doctrine of providence, which established secondary causes. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88134457801129754262017-10-15T19:25:39.633-04:002017-10-15T19:25:39.633-04:00Compare two statements back to back:
"God im...Compare two statements back to back:<br /><br />"God immediately causes evil"<br /><br />"In this regard God tempts no one, since it's people, Satan or demons that do the tempting."<br /><br />If God immediately causes everything, then Satan or demons tempt no one. That would only be possible if you grant second causes, which you deny. If God immediately causes everything, then God is the only agent of temptation. <br /><br />To say God immediately causes everything by definition eliminates intermediate creaturely agency. This isn't a subtle point.<br /><br />"I don't agree with Steve that metaphysical causation is equal to actually doing evil...that just sounds like a bare assertion." <br /><br />You seem to have difficulty following the implications of your own claim that God immediately causes evil. In this context, "immediate" is a synonym for "direct". The outcome is not facilitated by any intermediaries. You've eliminated creaturely agency. In that event, creatures do nothing and God does everything. <br /><br />"And I don't think AT ALL that because God is the immediate cause that that makes Him evil"<br /><br />That's a separate, but related issue. For now I'm making the point that if you rule out secondary agents, then it's God himself who commits evil deeds. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49452858255496981382017-10-15T19:22:32.044-04:002017-10-15T19:22:32.044-04:00"Simply put I think God has decreed evil, alo..."Simply put I think God has decreed evil, along with everything else, and immediately causes it..." <br /><br />Temptation is an effect that has an immediate cause (or immediate causes). If God tempts no man, then how is God the an *immediate* cause of temptation?Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18352075649565756742017-10-15T17:34:55.243-04:002017-10-15T17:34:55.243-04:00Tom here. I don't know if Cheung has or hasn&#...Tom here. I don't know if Cheung has or hasn't explicitly denied the confession, I haven't read every single thing he's written. I know he attacks it and the Reform often. I did say there is very little, other than this, that I agree with Cheung.<br /><br />Tempting someone to sin is an actual "doing" of sin. In this regard God tempts no one, since it's people, Satan or demons that do the tempting. I think Cheung would say (I would say) that His creatures have no power in and of themselves to cause them to do anything....they can't take their next breath, think a thought, sin or do righteously unless God immediately causes that thought, word or action. If God were to cease to exist right now, would His creation also cease to exist? Is the creation somehow self existent? I don't think so. Why is it that God decreeing evil doesn't make Him evil, but God immediately causing evil does make Him evil? It's not as if anyone can ultimately resist His decree. I don't agree with Steve that metaphysical causation is equal to actually doing evil...that just sounds like a bare assertion. <br /><br />I shouldn't have used the term "explicit", as in some verse of scripture says "God immediately causes evil". But since you brought up Is 45:7, I do have a real problem with the interpretation that it only refers to "natural" evils..earthquakes, storms etc. This interpretation seems very off to me, it seems to me to have been interpreted in light of a philosophical assumption that God can't be too closely connected to evil, rather than let the chip fall where they may.<br /><br />As for an example....Dan Ch4. Nebuchadnezzar was judged by God for his pride. The king had his so-called free will removed along with his rationality. Is it sinful for a man to stop acting as a man and now take on the persona of an animal (not some play acting), but really and truly acting and living like a cow? And if it is sinful, who immediately caused it? I might also appeal to Jer 34:18-22, especially verse 22. Was God acting directly on the king and his army....to do evil.....but God meaning it for good?<br /><br />Listen, I want to understand, and try to accept the standard Reformed understanding on these things. I'm not trying to put it to you guys and show you what a smarty pants I am. I'm not beholden to Cheung, it just's that his view seems clear to my mind and compatibilism seems very unclear. And I don't think AT ALL that because God is the immediate cause that that makes Him evil, anymore than because I believe He decreed evil that makes Him evil.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01042881028042412197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47742700988914081272017-10-15T14:49:26.381-04:002017-10-15T14:49:26.381-04:00BTW, it's counterintuitive to say God condemns...BTW, it's counterintuitive to say God condemns people not for anything they did, but for what he alone did. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10503859184084179412017-10-15T14:24:10.067-04:002017-10-15T14:24:10.067-04:00"Simply put I think God has decreed evil, alo..."Simply put I think God has decreed evil, along with everything else, and immediately causes it."<br /><br />Tom,<br /><br />1. It's intersting that guys like Cheung won't admit they deny the Confession. <br /><br />2. Temptation is an effect that has an immediate cause (or immediate causes). If God tempts no man, then how is God the an *immediate* cause of temptation? <br /><br />"I agree with Cheung that the Bible explicitly teaches this"<br /><br />"Explicitly?" You mean you don't think this is a good an necessary inference? Even better. Please produce the explicit teaching. Please tell me you're not going to hang this notion on Is. 45:7. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49041690804810580192017-10-15T13:00:09.264-04:002017-10-15T13:00:09.264-04:00If you say God is the direct cause of every event,...If you say God is the direct cause of every event, then it automatically follows that God is the sole performer. If you reject second causes, then God is the one who commits every evil act. <br /><br />You may say it isn't necessarily evil to commit evil, but that's a different issue. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66833684533490037952017-10-15T12:35:23.825-04:002017-10-15T12:35:23.825-04:00Tom here. Then dualism is true, God isn't actu...Tom here. Then dualism is true, God isn't actually sovereign. Things actually happen that God doesn't actually control. There are powers (Satan, evil persons) that exercise power apart from God's power. And Christ doesn't uphold "all" things by the word of His power....for example a man's evil mind. I disagree that metaphysical causation is actually doing evil, and I haven't seen a coherent argument that shows they are. When you get down to it there is no connection between God actually decreeing a thing and how that thing comes about...it's just a mystery. No wonder guys like Olson write what they write, and the Calvinists answer with compatibilism and second causes and permission. basically non answers to me.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01042881028042412197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41997856907579576592017-10-15T08:34:13.775-04:002017-10-15T08:34:13.775-04:00If God is the "immediate cause" of every...If God is the "immediate cause" of everything, including evil, then God is the agent performing evil acts. Given occasionalism, God is the only cause of whatever happens. <br /><br />You might try to say it's not evil for God to do it, but occasionalism undoubtedly makes God the one who does it. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48206609908051910582017-10-15T01:47:03.649-04:002017-10-15T01:47:03.649-04:00Tom here. After reading Olson's article, some ...Tom here. After reading Olson's article, some of the comments, and the comments here, I as a Calvinist (might be called something else in a minute) see and have seen his point. Most if not all Calvinists I have read are, IMO, incoherent on this subject. It always seems to end in "it's a mystery". Compatibilism seems very weak and really doesn't explain the relationship God has to evil. As much as I don't agree with Vincent Cheung on a whole host of subjects, I think I agree with him on this. Simply put I think God has decreed evil, along with everything else, and immediately causes it. I agree with Cheung that the Bible explicitly teaches this. Metaphysical causation isn't the same as "doing" evil. The idea that God "permits" things to happen eventually leads to "powers" other than God......pagan dualism. To my mind God metaphysically causing evil no more makes Him evil, or a narcissist, than Him knowing every conceivable evil from all eternity through His omniscience make Him evil. Does anyone actually believe that evil originated in "something" outside of God's mind? The Armininian is in even worse shape, with his free-will explanation......God the incompetent. Besides I don't consider free-will to be a category taught anywhere in the Bible. I mean after all, didn't God create the wicked for the day of evil?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01042881028042412197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-297053013507617052017-10-14T20:26:17.209-04:002017-10-14T20:26:17.209-04:00One distinction that I think can pave the way for ...One distinction that I think can pave the way for "permits" in the hands of Calvinist is that God may ordain righteousness for righteousness sake. Yet he never ordains sin just for the sake of sin. That distinction might afford reason to use differing terms, permits or allows as opposed to terms like effects. Just as long as we agree, both are equally efficacious.Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59166127677571992362017-10-14T15:55:43.996-04:002017-10-14T15:55:43.996-04:00Agreed.Agreed.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65600147739544556862017-10-14T15:54:02.552-04:002017-10-14T15:54:02.552-04:00Thanks, good clarification.Thanks, good clarification.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33616163582921016142017-10-14T15:00:31.619-04:002017-10-14T15:00:31.619-04:00There's a sense in which the Calvinist God can...There's a sense in which the Calvinist God can "allow" sin to happen. He permits it by not preventing it.<br /><br />It's a cop-out if that's all a Calvinist says, but by the same token, it's a cop-out if that's all a freewill theist says. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77857562456607608402017-10-14T14:57:55.146-04:002017-10-14T14:57:55.146-04:00"what is SEA ?"
http://evangelicalarmin..."what is SEA ?"<br /><br />http://evangelicalarminians.org/<br /><br />I didn't say Piper and Sproul weren't real theologians. I just said they were popularizers. <br /><br />They're not high-level thinkers like Cunningham, Warfield, John Frame, Greg Welty, James Anderson, Paul Manata, Paul Helm, &c. <br /><br />That's not a criticism. Popularizers are useful and necessary. If, however, someone tries to disprove a theological tradition, he needs to target the most sophisticated exponents of that position. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73961890600511771812017-10-14T14:07:29.357-04:002017-10-14T14:07:29.357-04:00I don't see a contradiction between Calvinism ...I don't see a contradiction between Calvinism and God "allowing sin to happen" - ordaining with respect to sin means God decided that sin was going to enter the world, at the same time not doing the sin because God is pure and holy and cannot sin. (God cannot lie - Titus 1:2 and God cannot sin (1 John 1:5; James 1:13-14; God cannot look upon sin with approval - Hab. 1:13) <br /><br />God "ordaining sin" means God decided to allow sin to happen.<br /><br />The angel who became Satan had free will - Ezekiel 28:13-17 (the spirit behind the king of Tyre)<br />"you were in Eden, the garden of God"<br />"until unrighteousness was found in you"<br />"o covering cherub" (v. 16)<br />"your heart was lifted up because of your beauty;<br />You corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor"<br /><br />Adam and Eve sinned - I like Augustine's comment:<br />"By the evil use of free will, Adam destroyed his own free will"<br />Enchiridion 30<br /><br />The term "allowing" can be used as a cop out, and frequently is used that, by Arminians.<br /><br />But there is a proper use of "allowing", "permitting" from a Calvinist perspective.<br /><br />Louis Berkhof, Summary of Christian Doctrine, page 46:<br />"His decree with respect to sin is a permissive decree." <br /><br />Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, page 103:<br />"There are other things, however, which God included in His decree and thereby rendered certain, but which He did not decide to effectuate Himself, as the sinful acts of His rational creatures. The decree, in so far as it pertains to these acts [of sin] is generally called God's permissive decree. This name does not imply that the fruition of these acts is not certain to God, but simply that He permits them to come to pass by the free agency of His rational creatures. God assumes no responsibility for these sinful acts whatsoever." Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4284004209908806812017-10-14T13:45:54.887-04:002017-10-14T13:45:54.887-04:00What is the difference between a "real theolo...What is the difference between a "real theologian" like Calvin and Edwards vs. "popularizers" like Sproul and Piper?<br /><br />Without Sproul and Piper, I would have never been able to grasp Calvin and Edwards. <br />I consider them top notch theologians of today that have helped many (like me) grasp the older and harder to understand material like Calvin and Edwards. <br /><br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71261335208867479222017-10-14T13:40:44.348-04:002017-10-14T13:40:44.348-04:00what is SEA ?what is SEA ?Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43254799410063044312017-10-14T02:19:29.841-04:002017-10-14T02:19:29.841-04:00Thank you to all the contributors for this blog an...Thank you to all the contributors for this blog and this article; it's a blessing from God. I just wanted to say that it frustrates me when Olsen states the following, "Logic matters—in every theological system and even in the pulpits." It's not that I disagree, but it feels somewhat arrogant of him to state this when he doesn't apply it to his own theological system (and gets angry with others who do wish to apply it to Arminianism). He needs to keep his end of the bargain as well! Thank you Steve for your insights and for doing the logical analysis which Dr Olsen should be doing :)Mark West-Soobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530537327108096500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-29746067351470997492017-10-13T22:16:16.613-04:002017-10-13T22:16:16.613-04:00Crib link: "If actor was a synonym for auctor...Crib link: "If actor was a synonym for auctor, then to deny that God is the "author" of sin means that God is not the agent, viz, God is not the doer or performer of sin. Rather, it's the human agent (or demonic agent) who commits sin."<br /><br />I never knew the Latin to English parallel but that has always been my take.<br /><br />I think there are muddled Calvinists who are a slave to the words "not the author of sin," even so much as to deny that God *is* the author of sin in the sense that he has authored all of history, including sin. I think we should stick with confessional language as much as we can, but a working theology should be able to trade things up a bit in order better define and explain the theology behind the words. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54437392389396126502017-10-13T22:06:44.302-04:002017-10-13T22:06:44.302-04:00In fact, that linked post will be read to the men ...In fact, that linked post will be read to the men in the morning. Very useful. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14654306003793883082017-10-13T22:02:45.000-04:002017-10-13T22:02:45.000-04:00Steve, you're a resource beyond measure. I oft...Steve, you're a resource beyond measure. I often just google triablogue x-topic and a string of useful posts come up. I marvel at God's graces bestowed upon you. :)Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33181302668929185012017-10-13T19:40:44.792-04:002017-10-13T19:40:44.792-04:00In terms of historical theology, I've discusse...In terms of historical theology, I've discussed what it might have meant to deny that God is the "author of sin":<br /><br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/07/does-calvinism-make-god-author-of-sin.htmlstevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63329869227556814342017-10-13T19:11:08.635-04:002017-10-13T19:11:08.635-04:00"3. An obvious problem with a metaphorical qu..."3. An obvious problem with a metaphorical question is that the scope of the metaphor needs to be defined. What do they mean by "author" of sin and evil? Can they offer a literal synonym or explanation?"<br /><br />At men's study tomorrow morning we will be dealving into James 1:13,14 (God doesn't tempt...)<br /><br />I don't use handouts but tomorrow I'm passing out this as a theological context. Note Calvin in particular. He uses "author" but clearly with a different intention.<br /><br />God is often pleased to lead his people into temptation:<br />The Lord Jesus Christ taught us to pray, “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” What does such a petition presuppose? It presupposes “that the most wise, righteous, and gracious God, for divers holy and just ends, may so order things, that we may be assaulted, foiled, and for a time led captive by temptations.” (Westminster Larger Catechism: answer 195)<br /><br />God tempts no man:<br />Certainly the Catechism does not contradict Scripture where it states: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.” James 1:13, 14<br /><br />The biblical balance:<br />We must do justice to both truths. Although God is not a tempter, he nonetheless, according to the counsel of his own will, sovereignly upholds, directs and disposes all creatures, actions and things, to the end that even his people may be assaulted, foiled and even led captive by temptations, precisely as God has determined, for his own glory and our profit. Matthew 4:1 couldn't be more explicit: "Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil." <br /><br />Does God merely "permit" sin?<br />"[Permits] is the preferred term in Arminian theology, in which it amounts to a denial that God causes sin. For the Arminian, God does not cause sin; he only permits it. Reformed theologians have also used the term, but they have insisted that God permission of sin is no less efficacious than his ordination of good." John Frame (p. 177 The Doctrine of God)<br /><br />"But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them." John Calvin (p. 176 Concerning the Eternal Predestination)<br /><br />“By calling it permissive… we mean that they are such acts as He efficiently brings about by simply leaving the spontaneity of other free agents, as upheld by His providence, to work of itself under incitements, occasions, bounds and limitations, which His wisdom and power throw around.” R.L. Dabney (p. 214 Systematic Theology)<br /><br />John Frame dissents from the Arminian view, which is that God does not cause sin and that he only permits it. Rather, Frame acknowledges that God’s ordination of sin is as equally efficacious as his ordination of good. As for Dabney, he is pleased to acknowledge that the incitements of sin (which are no less than the provocations or urgings) come from God’s providential wisdom and power, which he is pleased to “throw around.” <br /><br />Did not the Divines have to in some measure deviate from biblical language in order to exegete biblical meaning? To merely parrot the same words as what is contained in a passage or doctrinal statement conveys no understanding of the meaning of what is under consideration. If I want someone to explain to me the book of Job, the last thing I want is only to be read the book of Job.<br /><br />“And the Lord said to Satan, ‘Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life.’” Job 2:6<br /><br /><br />Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com