Is God the "first cause of everything" (including sin) as the Westminster Confession says?

[Butch5]

You said earlier,

To which I replied,

Here is the passage you explained so wrongly.
John 1:9-13 "There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

I doubt that everyone will have the time to follow this our dialog from start to finish.

But, if they do, they will notice your dishonest post first listed here.

You clearly said that the passage was pointing to the fact that Jesus was born of God and not to the fact than saved men were born of God.

The reason for your trying to twist things that way is to stay away from the idea that regeneration is from God and not from anything men have done.

I called you on it. Your response is now to take the conversation in a different direction.

I'm pointing this out for anyone interested to see.

I don't intend to dialog with you any more on this thread because you are not discussing theology in a straight forward manner.

I will not cast my pearls before swine. This is what the Lord Jesus warned all of us to be careful about doing.

And before some moderator sees this and thinks I am attacking you as a dishonest person - I am not. I am attacking your posts which are very dishonest.

That's a fine line I suppose. But the idea that I would be censored in some way while you and others are allowed to do the kinds of things you do in your posts and not be censored --- speaks, IMO, to one of the flaws in the way the moderators sometimes do these things.

 

[Butch5]

You said earlier,

To which I replied,

Here is the passage you explained so wrongly.
John 1:9-13 "There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

I doubt that everyone will have the time to follow this our dialog from start to finish.

But, if they do, they will notice your dishonest post first listed here.

You clearly said that the passage was pointing to the fact that Jesus was born of God and not to the fact than saved men were born of God.

The reason for your trying to twist things that way is to stay away from the idea that regeneration is from God and not from anything men have done.

I called you on it. Your response is now to take the conversation in a different direction.

I'm pointing this out for anyone interested to see.

I don't intend to dialog with you any more on this thread because you are not discussing theology in a straight forward manner.

I will not cast my pearls before swine. This is what the Lord Jesus warned all of us to be careful about doing.

And before some moderator sees this and thinks I am attacking you as a dishonest person - I am not. I am attacking your posts which are very dishonest.

That's a fine line I suppose. But the idea that I would be censored in some way while you and others are allowed to do the kinds of things you do in your posts and not be censored --- speaks, IMO, to one of the flaws in the way the moderators sometimes do these things.

Before you start calling people posts dishonest maybe you should make sure your'e understanding them. You said,

You clearly said that the passage was pointing to the fact that Jesus was born of God and not to the fact than saved men were born of God.

The reason for your trying to twist things that way is to stay away from the idea that regeneration is from God and not from anything men have done.

Firstly, I said "NOTHING" about saved men. I said verse 13 pertained to Jesus not to "as many as believed". You simply drew an unwarranted conclusion from my statement. My saying the passage is a reference to Christ says nothing about the status of "as many as believed".

Secondly, You suppose to know why I did what you think I did. I twisted nothing, I gave ample "LOGICAL" evidence for what I said. You could easily have rejected the evidence, however, you choose to say I twisted something, another ad hominem.

Thirdly, I said nothing about the whether or not man had anything to do with regeneration.

It seems to me that all you've done is presume an argument you thought I was making. I am used to debating with Calvinists and I've had Calvinists in the past create arguments that they claimed I was making in order to have an excuse to bow out of the debate. If one has a valid argument there is no need to back out of the debate.

So, I'll let the reader decide if anyone is being dishonest.

 

[nobdysfool]

And which of those were not born of the will of the flesh, man, or blood. None! Everyone that believed on His name was born of the will of the flesh, of man, and of blood. The passage on the other hand says not born of the will of man, blood, or flesh. thus the passage excludes those who believed on His name.

I can read and comprehend fairly well, and your interpretation does not make sense, according to the grammar of the passage. I don't know how you came up with the backwards interpretation you did, but the grammar does not bear your view out.

That's convenient. His comments show that verse was tampered with by the Gnostics to fit their theology.

Are you saying that the Gnostic version is what made it into Scripture? That's what it sounds like you're saying. I will let the readers ponder the implications....

 

[Hank77]

It seems that the idea that God is the first cause or "ultimate source" of all things in this world including sin is repugnant to all but we who are Reformed.

It seems to me that it is rather repugnant to God as well.....
Jer 19:4 because that they have forsaken Me, and make known this place, and make perfume in it to other gods, that they knew not, they and their fathers, and the kings of Judah, and they have filled this place with innocent blood,
Jer 19:5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons with fire, burnt-offerings to Baal, that I commanded not, nor spake of, nor did it come up on My heart.
Jer 19:6 `Therefore, lo, days are coming--an affirmation of Jehovah--and this place is not called any more, Tophet, and Valley of the son of Hinnom, but, Valley of slaughter.

And again, notice who God says caused Judah to sin, it wasn't Him.
Jer 32:32 Because of all the evil of the sons of Israel, and of the sons of Judah that they have done, so as to provoke Me--they, their kings, their heads, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
........
Jer 32:35 And they build the high places of Baal, that are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come up on my heart to do this abomination, so as to cause Judah to sin.

Nope, you can't blame evil/sin on God. Man is accountable for his own sin.

 

[EmSw]

It seems to me that it is rather repugnant to God as well.....
Jer 19:4 because that they have forsaken Me, and make known this place, and make perfume in it to other gods, that they knew not, they and their fathers, and the kings of Judah, and they have filled this place with innocent blood,
Jer 19:5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons with fire, burnt-offerings to Baal, that I commanded not, nor spake of, nor did it come up on My heart.
Jer 19:6 `Therefore, lo, days are coming--an affirmation of Jehovah--and this place is not called any more, Tophet, and Valley of the son of Hinnom, but, Valley of slaughter.

And again, notice who God says caused Judah to sin, it wasn't Him.
Jer 32:32 Because of all the evil of the sons of Israel, and of the sons of Judah that they have done, so as to provoke Me--they, their kings, their heads, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
........
Jer 32:35 And they build the high places of Baal, that are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come up on my heart to do this abomination, so as to cause Judah to sin.

Nope, you can't blame evil/sin on God. Man is accountable for his own sin.

Jeremiah 19:5 and 32:35 pretty much put to death, the notion of God's predestination and ordination of all things. I wonder how they will spin this.

Since this abomination did NOT come up on God's heart, nor did He CAUSE Judah to sin, how can anyone put the 'first cause' on God?

When man thinks he knows about God without Biblical support, the truth will defeat his human notions and prevail.

Thank you Hank for these words of truth.

 

[Butch5]

I can read and comprehend fairly well, and your interpretation does not make sense, according to the grammar of the passage. I don't know how you came up with the backwards interpretation you did, but the grammar does not bear your view out.

I deleted the previous post because it contained some misinformation. The translators didn't mistranslate the passage, they translated the texts they had. Apparently the text they used had the plural reading.

Are you saying that the Gnostic version is what made it into Scripture? That's what it sounds like you're saying. I will let the readers ponder the implications....

Is this an appeal to disgust? That's a logical fallacy. We have early texts with the singular reading, it is the earliest reading. The earliest quote of the plural reading is from Clement of Alexandria around the year 200 AD. However, Irenaeus quotes the singular reading as early as about 180 AD.

Tertullian refuted Valentinus for that translating of the text. However, Tertullian isn't the only one who says the passage should read in the singular and pertain to Christ. Irenaeus also says the passage is in the singular and pertains to Christ. Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp who was John's own disciple. So, we would expect John's teaching to be reflected in Irenaeus' statements.

 

[tulipbee]

Non Reformed Christians here in the forum would say that the confession got it all wrong in saying that. They say this because sin exists in the world and God cannot in any way be said to be the cause of sin.

The reasoning goes that God's in any way causing sin would be an act of evil.

It seems that the idea that God is the first cause or "ultimate source" of all things in this world including sin is repugnant to all but we who are Reformed.

The Reformed, on the other hand, say that not only is that concept not repugnant - it is in fact a glorious concept.

What say you and why?

Where is God not? What space or what spot exists where God isnt there? Such questions from the anticalvinists have no clue what god is cause they are unregenerates. The unregenerates saves themselves and preach lies on how salvation works.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You claim to believe in omnipresence when you clearly do not.

Why this persistence? Being everywhere doesn't being IN everything. And you've not proven your case.

You admit it in a very selective presence, when it suits your purpose. You will not admit it where it does not.

Nonsense. Any where I am present, I am NOT IN anything. I am where things are, but I'm not IN any of those things. Where in the world did your definition come from? I've never heard of your views, other than the ideas of pantheism.

I won’t play any games with words.

I don't either.

If words mean anything you do not believe in omnipresence.

Nonsense. Being everywhere does NOT mean being IN everything.

Everyone can see that.

I reject pantheism.

Maybe presence in a great many placed - but not omnipresence.

Look up pantheism.

You obviously don’t know what pantheism is.

Here is what I found on line: Pantheism is the belief the God and the universe are one and the same. There is no dividing line between the two.

From Wikipedia: Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or Nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity,[1] or that everything composes an all-encompassing,immanent God.[2] Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal oranthropomorphic god.[3] Some Asian religions are considered to be pantheistically inclined.

Your view aligns with "everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God". I disagree.

Pantheism says that the thing being inhabited IS God. Omnipresence simply says that God inhabits that thing.

Well, let's do some easy research on what omnipresence means:
From Wikipedia: Omnipresence or ubiquity is the property of being present everywhere. This property is most commonly used in a religious context as an attribute of a deity orsupreme being. {nothing about being IN everything}

From Merriam-Websters:
Full Definition of OMNIPRESENT
: present in all places at all times {nothing about being IN everything}

The Free Dictionary:
adj.
Present everywhere simultaneously. {nothing about being IN everything}

So, what source says that omnipresence means to be IN everything?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Non Reformed Christians here in the forum would say that the confession got it all wrong in saying that. They say this because sin exists in the world and God cannot in any way be said to be the cause of sin.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Remember in Genesis, when He separated the light from the darkness? Well, evil was apparently included.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Remember in Genesis, when He separated the light from the darkness? Well, evil was apparently included.

The verse does not say that He "created evil" when He created the heavens and earth. And the Hebrew word for "evil" has a wide range of semantic meanings, including: "adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress,evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief(-vous), harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief, (-vous), misery, naught (-ty), noisome, + not please, sad (-ly), sore,sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st)wretchedness, wrong".

We know that God is pure righteousness. Therefore, none of the meanings that indicate sin or evil as we understand evil would apply to God.

He certainly creates calamity, adversity, affliction, distress, grief, harm, hurt, misery, trouble. But sin? No way.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

The verse does not say that He "created evil" when He created the heavens and earth. And the Hebrew word for "evil" has a wide range of semantic meanings, including: "adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress,evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief(-vous), harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief, (-vous), misery, naught (-ty), noisome, + not please, sad (-ly), sore,sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st)wretchedness, wrong".

We know that God is pure righteousness. Therefore, none of the meanings that indicate sin or evil as we understand evil would apply to God.

He certainly creates calamity, adversity, affliction, distress, grief, harm, hurt, misery, trouble. But sin? No way.

The Westminister Confession is first and foremost settled on predestination theology. It is Reformed, and so their perception of Creation was that it was a fixed game from the start. Therefore, God created evil, as the verse in Isaiah clearly reveals- it isn't a coincidence that it uses familiar context from Genesis.

 

[Hank77]

The early English translations were from the Reformation period so it would be likely that they would translate the passage as they understood it. However, as I pointed out that translation doesn't make sense because everyone who has been born has been born of the will of man and the will of the flesh, except Jesus.

I agree with what you are saying but I would also point out that even just the way it reads it can be understood.
Joh 1:12 but as many as did receive him to them he gave authority to become sons of God--to those believing in his name,
Joh 1:13 who--not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but--of God were begotten.

So it is not that they were created/born to be sons of God, but that by His authority, He gives them the authority to become His sons, by receiving His Son. This authority to be a son is not because of natural bloodline, not because of a man's position by inheritance, not because he or anyone can will it to be so. It is only available by the means God has determined.
We see this played out between Esau and Jacob. By blood, by position for inheritance, and by the will of Issac, Esau should have inherited the blessing. But because Rebecca and Jacob believed God, Jacob inherited the blessing.

And so it has been through out time. It is those who believe whatever God has revealed to man during their life time, that have the authority to become the sons of the living God.

 

[Hank77]

The Westminister Confession is first and foremost settled on predestination theology. It is Reformed, and so their perception of Creation was that it was a fixed game from the start. Therefore, God created evil, as the verse in Isaiah clearly reveals- it isn't a coincidence that it uses familiar context from Genesis.

Light vs darkness peace vs calamity

God was speaking to Cyrus, a gentile, who did not know the God of Israel, he only knew pagan idolatry. Good gods vs evil gods. He is declaring that He is the only God and that whatever, whenever He determines something it will be done. There is not any other god who determines these things.

If one studies the Law of Moses we can see what God's justice looks like. The justice that God Himself has determined and yet there are those who will say that God does not work by His own principles of justice. Surely He came in the flesh and lived by these principles.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The Westminister Confession is first and foremost settled on predestination theology.

Calvinists only think the SCF settled the matter.

It is Reformed, and so their perception of Creation was that it was a fixed game from the start.

If "fixed game" means that God caused all the decisions, they would be quite wrong. There is zero evidence that God caused the decisions of Adam or Eve. Or even Lucifer himself in eternity past.

Therefore, God created evil, as the verse in Isaiah clearly reveals- it isn't a coincidence that it uses familiar context from Genesis.

The verse cannot mean that God created evil. I provided all the semantic meanings of the Hebrew word. The Bible indicates very clearly that God cannot sin. I treat sin and evil as the same thing.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I never came close to doing that. I'm only disagreeing with your view.

You are disagreeing with my view by saying that it is the same as pantheism which it is not.

In so far as I am persistent about this - if you would simply acknowledge that my position on omnipresence is not related to pantheism we could leave this alone as I would gladly do.

David wasn't asking in which "thing" can he go to avoid God. He was talking about space, not things.

I don't want to pretend that I understand much about quantum physics because I do not.

But you do realize don't you that almost everything in the universe in general and in an atom in particular is space (where you say God does exist)?

The structure of our body is constantly being penetrated by neutrinos. Most physicists simply say that neutrinos don't have any mass. Others say that they are at most about a billionth of the mass of a proton.

If we just consider the basic atom as simply a nucleus and many electrons, it is said to be made up of an estimated 99.999999999314% empty space.

If we go farther into it, the nucleus is made up of protons and neutrons. The same space principle applies to their makeup.

Then we come to quarks and leptons and the like.

Physicists call these subatomic particles point-like particles to indicate that no size or mass has so far been detected.

Many physicists insist that there probably isn't any "real" matter (as we think of these things) in the universe at all.

Many "theologians" (myself included) think that the only "real" thing that exists is God.

When it comes to this universe things simply appear and act as the Word of God commands them to.

Well that's all I know of physics.

It just seems silly and arbitrary for someone to say that the Spirit of God is somehow excluded from certain parts of space and not from others.

That kind of thinking and teaching just seems to be a contrivance to stay away from thinking about the omnipresence of God and it's implications.

Anyway - I do not believe in pantheism.

I've dealt with you enough to know that you are quite able to understand the difference.

I'm going out on a limb here and insist that you really do know the difference and that you are just playing one of your silly games.

So, what source says that omnipresence means to be IN everything?

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and in him all things consist." Colossians 1:16-17

 

[EmSw]

Jeremiah 19:5 and 32:35 pretty much put to death, the notion of God's predestination and ordination of all things. I wonder how they will spin this.

Since this abomination did NOT come up on God's heart, nor did He CAUSE Judah to sin, how can anyone put the 'first cause' on God?

When man thinks he knows about God without Biblical support, the truth will defeat his human notions and prevail.

Thank you Hank for these words of truth.

Jeremiah 19:5
and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons with fire, burnt-offerings to Baal, that I commanded not, nor spake of, NOR DID IT COME UP ON MY HEART.

Jeremiah 32:35
And they build the high places of Baal, that are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come up on my heart to do this abomination, SO AS TO CAUSE JUDAH TO SIN.

Here are the two passages again, which slice through man's notion of God's predestination and cause of all things. Who will admit God DID NOT CAUSE Judah to sin? What does it take for man to acknowledge God's sovereign truth?

The question asked in the OP was, "Is God the "first cause of everything" (including sin) as the Westminster Confession says?"

We can safely say with confidence - NO! The Westminster Confessions is wrong!

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

The Reformed, on the other hand, say that not only is that concept not repugnant - it is in fact a glorious concept.

And rightly so.

"I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things." [Isaiah 45:7]

 

[Job8]

"I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things." [Isaiah 45:7]

Calamity is NOT sin, evil, iniquity, wickedness. It is calamity, disaster, judgement on sin, evil, and iniquity. God brought calamity upon Sodom and Gomorrah because of their abominations. Had He been even remotely responsible for their wickedness, He could not have righteously judged them.

 

[Butch5]

I agree with what you are saying but I would also point out that even just the way it reads it can be understood.
Joh 1:12 but as many as did receive him to them he gave authority to become sons of God--to those believing in his name,
Joh 1:13 who--not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but--of God were begotten.

So it is not that they were created/born to be sons of God, but that by His authority, He gives them the authority to become His sons, by receiving His Son. This authority to be a son is not because of natural bloodline, not because of a man's position by inheritance, not because he or anyone can will it to be so. It is only available by the means God has determined.
We see this played out between Esau and Jacob. By blood, by position for inheritance, and by the will of Issac, Esau should have inherited the blessing. But because Rebecca and Jacob believed God, Jacob inherited the blessing.

And so it has been through out time. It is those who believe whatever God has revealed to man during their life time, that have the authority to become the sons of the living God.

Hi Hank,

My point is that verse 13 is descibing Jesus not "as many as received Him."

 

[nobdysfool]

Hi Hank,

My point is that verse 13 is descibing Jesus not "as many as received Him."

And we have yet to see one shred of evidence to support this. The way the passage reads, those who received Him did not do so by their own blood, by their own flesh or by their own will, but by God's Will.