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

[Marvin Knox]

The real question is this: Is there any place where God is not?

Of course that's the real question. And the answer is an very clear NO.

That's the council of the Word of God.

One simply cannot limit God's existence to only some parts of space and not others as you wish.

“Am I a God who is near,” declares the Lord,
“And not a God far off?”

(TRANSCENDENCE AND IMMANENCY)

“Can a man hide himself in hiding places
So I do not see him?” declares the Lord.
“Do I not FILL the heavens and the earth?” declares the Lord.”

(OMNIPRESENCE)


“……. ALL things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things consist (hold together)”

If believing these things be considered heresy in the eyes of anyone – I will still plead guilty to believing them.

 

[Hank77]

You - I suppose - see things from a non Reformed viewpoint. You are in a very large group.

Probably my favorite sermons are those written by Charles Spurgeon. I have studied Calvinism extensively, including much of Calvin's own writings.

 

[Marvin Knox]

If you were of the impression that I was making reference to anything you were saying, then I did not make it clear that i was only addressing Butch. He is wrong, and continues to be wrong, and in so doing, he implied that the Canon of scripture was corrupted in this passage. In essence, he painted himself into a corner.

I was not implying that this passage any sort of a proof text for anything. I was just correcting error in the interpretation of this passage, made by someone who is decidedly anti-Reformed, and was trying to use this passage as a "proof" against Reformed Theology. It just so happens that it weighs more heavily in favor of Reformed Theology, than it does against it.

I understand and I wasn't seeing it any different. I was just addressing your post to make my points and still manage to stay away from talking directly to the other side - which gets really old.

I agree with the other thing you mentioned at the end.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Probably my favorite sermons are those written by Charles Spurgeon. I have studied Calvinism extensively, including much of Calvin's own writings.

Sorry if I jumped to a conclusion as to your overall viewpoints.

I have enjoyed some of Spurgeon's sermons as well.

I have studied Calvinism also.

I try not to call myself a Calvinist - even if I agree with much of what he said.

I don't even like to call myself Reformed for that matter. But one has to generally put himself into some category in order to discuss these things it seems.

 

[Hank77]

Sorry if I jumped to a conclusion as to your overall viewpoints.

I have enjoyed some of Spurgeon's sermons as well.

I have studied Calvinism also.

I try not to call myself a Calvinist - even if I agree with much of what he said.

I don't even like to call myself Reformed for that matter. But one has to generally put himself into some category in order to discuss these things it seems.

Oh don't misunderstand me. I'm not a Calvinist but I have a lot of respect for many that I have known and talked with. In fact, the person who presented the Gospel message to me was a Calvinist; I will always be grateful. Calvinist are wonderful evangelist for the most part.

 

[Butch5]

So you are saying that the Canon is corrupted.

I'm saying there are variant readings. I'm sure you're aware of other places where there are variant readings. I submit that the evidence for the singular reading is stronger.

 

[Butch5]

Thank you for agreeing with me. That is precisely my point. Butch was saying that the passage was about Christ, and His own Birth as a human. Clearly the passage does not lend itself to that interpretation. The whole point is that those who received Him and believe on Him do so by God's will, not their own. Their lineage, their flesh, and their will are not the source of God's birthing of them.

That interpretation doesn't work because, it was buy their will that they received Him.

 

[Butch5]

I do understand what Butch is saying. I disagree that his interpretation of the intent of the verses is correct.

I also understand that there have been some in the early church controversies who saw things the way he does.

But I also see the way that the concept is interpreted by pretty much every reputable Bible translation project member. And they are far and away more expert in these things than any of us are likely to ever become.

I am of the opinion that the reason for seeing things the way Butch does has to do with people's theology concerning the source of our salvation. That seems to me to be far and away the better way to look at their insistence than does the idea that they simply studied Greek in a neutral vein and just happen to see things that way.

I wouldn't insist that these verses are the ultimate "proof text" to use. But it does tend to help the cause of Reformed theology and that is the "rub" for some folks as I see it.

My theology doesn't determine my understanding, my understanding determines my theology. The evidence for the singular reading is simply stronger than that of the plural. Firstly, the earliest quotes quote the singular reading. There are early texts with the singular reading. Irenaeus, who had a direct connection, via Polycarp, to the apostle John who wrote the passage quotes the singular reading. We have an early Christian church leader refuting a Gnostic reading of the plural. The earliest quote of the plural reading is from Clement of Alexandria. Alexandria was a hotbed of Gnosticism. So, it's no surprise that we see the first quote of the plural reading coming from Alexandria. Additionally, Tertullian's argument make perfect sense. Everyone who has ever believed has been born of the will of the flesh and man.

I base my theology on evidence. I don't accept logical fallacies and I don't build doctrine on inferences. I use evidence. I believe what the evidence will support. I used to be a Calvinist. It was when I began to look at the evidence and reject things that didn't make sense that I left the reformed church.

 

[Butch5]

Butch5 said: ↑
Hi Hank,

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

Does not. v.12 is quite clear about HOW one "receives Him". "Even though who believe on His Name".

iow, one receives when one believes. Period. v.13 tells us who does the new birthing; God. Not man.

Yes, if your're looking at a text that has the plural reading, no if you're looking at one that has the singular reading.

Here is how the singular reading reads.

John 1:12-13 (Our literal translation following the earliest known reading) 12 But [to] as many as received Him He gave authority to become children of God, to those believing in the name of Him 13 who was born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[Marvin Knox]

My theology doesn't determine my understanding, my understanding determines my theology. The evidence for the singular reading is simply stronger than that of the plural. Firstly, the earliest quotes quote the singular reading. There are early texts with the singular reading. Irenaeus, who had a direct connection, via Polycarp, to the apostle John who wrote the passage quotes the singular reading. We have an early Christian church leader refuting a Gnostic reading of the plural. The earliest quote of the plural reading is from Clement of Alexandria. Alexandria was a hotbed of Gnosticism. So, it's no surprise that we see the first quote of the plural reading coming from Alexandria. Additionally, Tertullian's argument make perfect sense. Everyone who has ever believed has been born of the will of the flesh and man.

I base my theology on evidence. I don't accept logical fallacies and I don't build doctrine on inferences. I use evidence. I believe what the evidence will support. I used to be a Calvinist. It was when I began to look at the evidence and reject things that didn't make sense that I left the reformed church.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of Greek scholars and experts in the earliest manuscripts who have worked on various translations in many different languages have seen it the way that shows it referencing the believers themselves.

You may have really gone back to the Greek etc. etc. with an open mind and been one of the few who have found the truth. I haven't the time in my life to become an expert. But I'd bet my house you are wrong in your interpretation.

I also believe that your leaning toward that interpretation is based mostly on your defection from Calvinism and was not one of the causes for that defection.

If I'm wrong I'll buy you a manna dinner on the other side.

Maybe I was a little out of line to come on as strong as I did in my post to you.

But common sense and more than a little insight into the way people think about dogma (especially as observed in this forum) tells me that I am right about this.

 

[EmSw]

Yes, if your're looking at a text that has the plural reading, no if you're looking at one that has the singular reading.

Here is how the singular reading reads.

John 1:12-13 (Our literal translation following the earliest known reading) 12 But [to] as many as received Him He gave authority to become children of God, to those believing in the name of Him 13 who was born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

However Butch, Jesus was born of blood.

 

[Butch5]

Hundreds, if not thousands, of Greek scholars and experts in the earliest manuscripts who have worked on various translations in many different languages have seen it the way that shows it referencing the believers themselves.

You may have really gone back to the Greek etc. etc. with an open mind and been one of the few who have found the truth. I haven't the time in my life to become an expert. But I'd bet my house you are wrong in your interpretation.

I also believe that your leaning toward that interpretation is based mostly on your defection from Calvinism and was not one of the causes for that defection.

If I'm wrong I'll buy you a manna dinner on the other side.

Maybe I was a little out of line to come on as strong as I did in my post to you.

But common sense and more than a little insight into the way people think about dogma (especially as observed in this forum) tells me that I am right about this.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of Greek scholars and experts in the earliest manuscripts who have worked on various translations in many different languages have seen it the way that shows it referencing the believers themselves.

You may have really gone back to the Greek etc. etc. with an open mind and been one of the few who have found the truth. I haven't the time in my life to become an expert. But I'd bet my house you are wrong in your interpretation.

I also believe that your leaning toward that interpretation is based mostly on your defection from Calvinism and was not one of the causes for that defection.

If I'm wrong I'll buy you a manna dinner on the other side.

Maybe I was a little out of line to come on as strong as I did in my post to you.

But common sense and more than a little insight into the way people think about dogma (especially as observed in this forum) tells me that I am right about this.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of Greek scholars and experts in the earliest manuscripts who have worked on various translations in many different languages have seen it the way that shows it referencing the believers themselves.

You may have really gone back to the Greek etc. etc. with an open mind and been one of the few who have found the truth. I haven't the time in my life to become an expert. But I'd bet my house you are wrong in your interpretation.

I also believe that your leaning toward that interpretation is based mostly on your defection from Calvinism and was not one of the causes for that defection.

If I'm wrong I'll buy you a manna dinner on the other side.

Maybe I was a little out of line to come on as strong as I did in my post to you.

But common sense and more than a little insight into the way people think about dogma (especially as observed in this forum) tells me that I am right about this.

It's really just a matter of what text you believe is correct. I gave the reasons why I believe the singular reading is correct.
What reason is there to accept the plural reading as correct? One might say because there are more texts with the plural reading. However, that i just what w would expect. I would expect there to be fewer old texts than more recent ones. So, that really doesn't seem like a reason to accept it.

My leaving the Reformation thinking was simply a search for the truth. I head been taught both Calvinism and Arminianism from the same Scriptures, I was taught opposing doctrines. Since I don't believe the Scriptures teach opposing doctrines I knew at least one side was wrong. That bagan my search for the truth. I put everything I believed on the table and if a doctrine couldn't be found in Scripture it was gone. When I say found I mean expressly stated in Scripture, not by way of inference or the like, I look for clearly stated, logical doctrines

 

[Butch5]

However Butch, Jesus was born of blood.

The Greek text actually says "bloods" plural. I believe that is reference to human birth, not necessarily that He had blood in His body

 

[OzSpen]

Oz,

I appreciate your concern for all of the horrible evil in the world. But the examples you use fall short as examples in that we are dealing with men who can only do so much and comparing them to God who can do anything He desires.

I also appreciate the objection to the unfortunate choice of words used in the WCF as to "cause". I'm not sure what word they could have used in it's place though.

They made it very clear from the jump that they were not using the word cause to teach that God was in any way the source of sin and it's resultant evil. They made it a point, as I have also, to stress that God holds only these "secondary" sources responsible for the actual sins.

Which of course could only be - since by it's very definition sin can not be done by the creator only by the creation.

All that they and I are saying is that God knew exactly and in the most thorough detail all of the evil things that would result from His choice to give free will to men. He did it anyway.

He could have done anything He wanted in the beginning. He also could have done and be doing anything He wants to in the situations leading up to these modern instances of evil. He is active in deciding, limiting, and even orchestrating these modern occurrences.

He is not limited now just as was true in the beginning. His choices were and are literally infinite.

He is the source of all things that exist. He is the one who decides what will be allowed to happen through the free choices of men and angels.

It seems obvious from scripture that He is not just reacting to the sins of men but that he is working from a detailed plan to do His ultimate will for this age. He decreed that plan before He ever started the process as the "first cause".

Those concepts seem abundantly clear from scripture IMO.

If you or anyone else objects to the word "cause" being used in the WCF - or if I do myself - we can use whatever words we want to use. Just so we do not throw out the word "cause" and then not teach the entire council of God.

The entire council teaches that He is in complete charge of every result of sin even a dead sparrow.

The problem is that men use the objecting to the word "cause" to get around the fact that everything that happens was predestined by God to happen.

And - the free will of men doesn't negate predestination nor does predestination negate free will. Rather - as the WCF spells out so well - they compliment each other in bringing His ultimate plan for this age to pass.

Marvin,

In all of that are you endorsing God's predestination and cause (as stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith) of the evil pedophile who raped a 14-month-old in Missouri? And the pedophile was invited to do it by the child's mother. And all of that was CAUSED by God, according to the WCF.

What a God!

 

[EmSw]

The Greek text actually says "bloods" plural. I believe that is reference to human birth, not necessarily that He had blood in His body

I can accept that. And Jesus was born of a human birth.

And the text says, "...who was born, not of blood(s)..."

 

[EmSw]

Marvin, I see you have avoided post #142 so far. You say to teach entire counsel of God (except that you do not want to teach).

You accuse FG2 of playing word games, but so far, you are not sure how to handle how WCF uses the word 'cause'. If they didn't mean to use cause, them I am sure they would have come up with another word. Either they meant 'cause' or they didn't. Even you said we can use whatever word we want to use. How convenient. Use whatever word you want to make it mean whatever you want.

You keep stating everything that happens was predestined by to happen. Let me give this counsel from God again -

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.

Judah 'caused' their sons and daughters to pass through to Molech. God did not command this, nor did it come up on His heart to do this abomination. He did not 'cause' Judah to sin. How someone can make the statement you did about predestination when reading this passage is beyond me.

Perhaps some think this passage will just go away. No one has dared to touch this. Maybe some of the non-Reformed will attempt to tell us if this passage refers to God's predestination of everything, that God is the first cause of all that happens.

 

[nobdysfool]

Marvin,

In all of that are you endorsing God's predestination and cause (as stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith) of the evil pedophile who raped a 14-month-old in Missouri? And the pedophile was invited to do it by the child's mother. And all of that was CAUSED by God, according to the WCF.

What a God!

Here we go with the appeal to emotion.

 

[nobdysfool]

If God had not created what He created, none of the resultant events, actions and choices would have, or could have been made, or happen. Claiming that the WCF or Reformed Theology teaches that God causes men to sin (or that He caused Lucifer to sin) is to misunderstand (probably intentionally) what is being taught and affirmed. the opponents of Reformed theology will try to portray what they consider wrong in the worst possible light, thinking that they can win the day by doing so, no matter what the consequences.

In all this they seem to forget (or is it ignore) that they are vilifying and denigrating their own brethren, men and women who confess Christ, are washed by His Blood, children of God. Wouldn't that energy be better spent engaging the real enemy, which is Satan and his demon hordes, the principalities and powers, the rulers of darkness of this world, the wickedness in high places. THAT'S the enemy, not Calvinists, Arminians, or any other denomination or sect.

Maybe it's time for some people to grow up.

 

[EmSw]

If God had not created what He created, none of the resultant events, actions and choices would have, or could have been made, or happen. Claiming that the WCF or Reformed Theology teaches that God causes men to sin (or that He caused Lucifer to sin) is to misunderstand (probably intentionally) what is being taught and affirmed. the opponents of Reformed theology will try to portray what they consider wrong in the worst possible light, thinking that they can win the day by doing so, no matter what the consequences.

In all this they seem to forget (or is it ignore) that they are vilifying and denigrating their own brethren, men and women who confess Christ, are washed by His Blood, children of God. Wouldn't that energy be better spent engaging the real enemy, which is Satan and his demon hordes, the principalities and powers, the rulers of darkness of this world, the wickedness in high places. THAT'S the enemy, not Calvinists, Arminians, or any other denomination or sect.

Maybe it's time for some people to grow up.

Like someone said, "Here we go with the appeal to emotion".

 

[nobdysfool]

Like someone said, "Here we go with the appeal to emotion".

Really? Would you rather beat up on your own brethren, than do battle with Satan and his minions? A legitimate question, not an appeal to emotion.