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

[Marvin Knox]

I'm not fully following the ideas in the thread...

I'm sure there is a lot of good in the Westminster Confession I'm not a formal subscriber to it in a church sense.

Some of the ideas here have gone pretty far afield from the original intent. They even get a little childish unfortunately. That’s the way these threads tend to go.

I don’t officially subscribe to all in the Westminster myself.

But the Westminster presents a picture of a sovereign God who is working all things according to an exact plan and is not simply reacting to His creation.

The free will actions of the creatures (including bad actions) are what the confession calls the “second causes”.

God’s decision to use these second causes, whether good or bad, to bring about a good end and the overall plan He is working toward that end is what the WCF calls the “first cause” of all things.

His giving of the gift of free choice to His creatures (while knowing in exact detail all of the sin and suffering that would ensue) is the direct "first cause" of all those things that would surely happen.

The word “cause” has given many fits from the start, as you can well imagine. I’m not sure what word could have been used by the Westminster to make all of the points they were making though.

But they did make it a top priority to make sure that no one could think that they were meaning it in any way to say that God was the author of sin. The sin can only come from the creature and not the creator.

My intent here (and in most of my threads) has been to try to establish some very base truths that both sides of the Reformed and non Reformed debates can agree on. If we can agree on some basics first - we can then have a more understanding discussion about things related to salvation.

Unfortunately non Reformed are so much opposed to anything that can be used to show the dreaded “Calvinism” as being in any way accurate – that they won't agree even to some of these truths that should really be neutral and obvious truths to accept by all (things like omnipresence, omniscience, predestination and the providential control of God’s creation by Him) .

Unfortunately that’s the way these things usually go. I haven’t found a way to find that neutral ground yet. But I’ll perhaps keep trying.

Also –because of the all inclusive nature of this forum – a couple have found their way here who do not believe in grace salvation but in a sort of works salvation. They pretty much disagree on things related to salvation with the majority of Reformed and non Reformed alike.

Opposition to those folks is about the only area that both Reformed and non Reformed can agree on.

Things get a little muddy eventually in these discussions as a result of all these things.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Some of the ideas here have gone pretty far afield from the original intent. They even get a little childish unfortunately. That’s the way these threads tend to go.

I don’t officially subscribe to all in the Westminster myself.

But the Westminster presents a picture of a sovereign God who is working all things according to an exact plan and is not simply reacting to His creation.

The free will actions of the creatures (including bad actions) are what the confession calls the “second causes”.

God’s decision to use these second causes, whether good or bad, to bring about a good end and the overall plan He is working toward that end is what the WCF calls the “first cause” of all things.

His giving of the gift of free choice to His creatures (while knowing in exact detail all of the sin and suffering that would ensue) is the direct "first cause" of all those things that would surely happen.

The word “cause” has given many fits from the start, as you can well imagine. I’m not sure what word could have been used by the Westminster to make all of the points they were making though.

But they did make it a top priority to make sure that no one could think that they were meaning it in any way to say that God was the author of sin. The sin can only come from the creature and not the creator.

My intent here (and in most of my threads) has been to try to establish some very base truths that both sides of the Reformed and non Reformed debates can agree on. If we can agree on some basics first - we can then have a more understanding discussion about things related to salvation.

Unfortunately non Reformed are so much opposed to anything that can be used to show the dreaded “Calvinism” as being in any way accurate – that they won't agree even to some of these truths that should really be neutral and obvious truths to accept by all (things like omnipresence, omniscience, predestination and the providential control of God’s creation by Him) .

Unfortunately that’s the way these things usually go. I haven’t found a way to find that neutral ground yet. But I’ll perhaps keep trying.

Also –because of the all inclusive nature of this forum – a couple have found their way here who do not believe in grace salvation but in a sort of works salvation. They pretty much disagree on things related to salvation with the majority of Reformed and non Reformed alike.

Opposition to those folks is about the only area that both Reformed and non Reformed can agree on.

Things get a little muddy eventually in these discussions as a result of all these things.

Thanks for your explanation.

When it comes to terms like, total depravity, unconditional election, etc., I'm sure there is strong Biblical evidence for them.

What I struggle with is the idea that before even a person has worked out the Scriptures for themselves, creedal subscription somehow binds them to interpreting the Bible from a creed, rather than the other way round.

But I'm from an independent church, so it's maybe inevitable that I would think this way.

Blessings.

 

[Lazy_Proverb]

Well said.
Unfortunately, there have been cases also where God's sovereignty is denied publicly. After any of that it is best I've found to realize we are not speaking with those who would promote the doctrine of Christ rightly.

John 20:30-31 tells us the Logos, Jesus, did many things not recorded in the Bible. This tells us that John 1:1 informs that before we could read what was written the word, the Logos, the alpha and omega, was eternal.

The Word of the LORD will not return to the LORD until He has accomplished everything that He has been sent forth to do.

The Word of God is a person and He is everywhere.

In Him all things consist.

This will probably be my last post on this particular subject.

Merriam-Webster
omni- all : in all ways, places, etc. : without limits

My original claim and my purpose in broaching this subject was to refute your statement earlier in this thread that you have never denied the omnipresence of God.

You not only denied it in the past as I have shown. You have denied it here as well.

You – by your own admission – do not believe that God is omnipresent.

That point has been established for all to see.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The Word of the LORD will not return to the LORD until He has accomplished everything that He has been sent forth to do.

The Word of God is a person and He is everywhere.

I agree.

In Him all things consist.

I agree.

This will probably be my last post on this particular subject.

Finally.

Merriam-Webster
omni- all : in all ways, places, etc. : without limits

My original claim and my purpose in broaching this subject was to refute your statement earlier in this thread that you have never denied the omnipresence of God.

I haven't ever denied His omnipresence. I have denied your understanding of omnipresence.

You not only denied it in the past as I have shown. You have denied it here as well.

Only your misunderstanding of omnipresence.

You – by your own admission – do not believe that God is omnipresent.

I do not believe your misunderstanding of it.

That point has been established for all to see.

All have seen that I deny your misunderstanding of omnipresence.

And I have previously shown that God created "all things", meaning heaven and earth by the word of His mouth. They came into existence from nothing. And you cannot show from Scripture that God exists withIN and among the molecules and atoms of His creation.

He exists everywhere IN His creation, but not withIN all things of His creation. If your view is the majority view among evangelicals, that is just sad.

If God exists withIN all things, then He exists withIN every object of creation. Trees, birds, animals, bugs, water, etc. That would even include humans who don't believe the gospel. But Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit indwells only believers.

If my view is so wrong, why not take my statements one by one and refute them. That's what I normally do with posts I disagree with. I show how each statement does not line up with Scripture.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Thanks for your explanation.

When it comes to terms like, total depravity, unconditional election, etc., I'm sure there is strong Biblical evidence for them.

What I struggle with is the idea that before even a person has worked out the Scriptures for themselves, creedal subscription somehow binds them to interpreting the Bible from a creed, rather than the other way round.

But I'm from an independent church, so it's maybe inevitable that I would think this way.

Blessings.

I came from an agnostic background (darn near atheistic). I had left Christianity long before because of some bad doctrine concerning what it takes to be saved. As a result, I made things related to that subject a top priority early on once I believed again.

I began to see many of the things related to Calvinism as being correct. So I pretty much felt for a while that I had to go for the entire Calvinist package without exception. In time I saw that,although much of the truth was Calvinistic, I didn't have to agree with everything taught by them.

As a result - I now call myself "Reformed" rather than a Calvinist. It leaves me some leeway concerning some points I disagree with them about.

The bottom line is that we don't need to agree with anyone's entire package. We may agree that the truth leans more one way than another. But that doesn't mean that we have to blindly subscribe to everything put out by one group.

God wants us to have that "Berean" attitude of studying things out from the scriptures for ourselves.

I'm now a "charismatic/reformed/Word of Faith" kind of believer -for want of another way to put it.

Wouldn't you know it. I find a bunch of errors in the Pentecostal and faith doctrines as well.

 

[Lazy_Proverb]

If my view is so wrong, why not take my statements one by one and refute them. That's what I normally do with posts I disagree with. I show how each statement does not line up with Scripture.

There is no if about it. Wrong is absolute!

Why would someone bother to refute what is nonsense and not at all scriptural, using scripture yet again? When the record shows you refuse to accept that you are wrong.


The, can't prove a negative, argument is a dodge in this case. Though common in these forums.
You don't agree with scripture that tells us God is sovereign and omnipresent. You think to redefine omnipresence to your satisfaction so as to refute scripture, when you have no scripture that supports your errant teachings that you invoke to denounce the word that is God, Jesus, Logos.

That's not sad, that's that what I have been advised by a brother cannot be stated freely here. But God knows. And that is what matters.

 

[FreeGrace2]

There is no if about it. Wrong is absolute!

And easily shown from Scripture that it is wrong.

Why would someone bother to refute what is nonsense and not at all scriptural, using scripture yet again?

Nonsense. My views are based on what Scripture says directly, or doesn't say at all. i.e.; Christ only died for the elect.

When the record shows you refuse to accept that you are wrong.

What "record" would that be?

The, can't prove a negative, argument is heresy in this case. Though common in these forums.

If one's views are Biblical, then there is Biblical evidence for it. Real simple.

You don't agree with scripture that tells us God is sovereign and omnipresent.

Complete nonsense. I just disagree that God exists withIN things. And no one has shown otherwise. In fact, even dictionary definitions don't include that idea.

You think to redefine omnipresence to your satisfaction so as to refute scripture

I've not redefined anything. I've refuted the notion that God exists withIN things by showing what a number of dictionaries define omnipresence as.

when you have no scripture that supports your errant teachings that you invoke to denounce the word that is God, Jesus, Logos.

That's not sad, that's heresy.

This is quite pathetic. I've done no such thing. If Scripture SAID that God exists withIN things, then I'd obviously believe it. But no Scripture says that. It says that all things are created and exist by Him.

Please show me the verse that says that God exists withIN things.

 

[Lazy_Proverb]

Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.18He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

Luke 17:21

 

[Marvin Knox]

There is no if about it. Wrong is absolute!

Why would someone bother to refute what is nonsense and not at all scriptural, using scripture yet again? When the record shows you refuse to accept that you are wrong.


The, can't prove a negative, argument is a dodge in this case. Though common in these forums.
You don't agree with scripture that tells us God is sovereign and omnipresent. You think to redefine omnipresence to your satisfaction so as to refute scripture, when you have no scripture that supports your errant teachings that you invoke to denounce the word that is God, Jesus, Logos.

That's not sad, that's that what I have been advised by a brother cannot be stated freely here. But God knows. And that is what matters.

One thing that a very strong and conservative stance on omnipresence does is make it abundantly clear just how ridiculous believing that God just "allows" things to happen in His creation really is.

A correct scriptural view of omnipresence makes God's sovereignty in all that happens in His creation an inescapable and necessary doctrine IMO.

 

[Lazy_Proverb]

One thing that a very strong and conservative stance on omnipresence does is make it abundantly clear just how ridiculous believing that God just "allows" things to happen in His creation really is.

A correct scriptural view of omnipresence makes God's sovereignty in all that happens an inescapable and necessary doctrine IMO.

Quite.
omnipraesensi (Latin)= Omnis=every, all+ praesens=present=Omnipresent.

Imagine a sovereign God that is the alpha, the first cause of all that exists and therein all that God made to exist does not have any of those Godly properties within that which God made.
In human terms it would be like me telling you that regardless of your existence, your parents DNA does not exist inside you. Therefore nothing of them is within that which they made together and that is now known as you.

 

[EmSw]

One thing that a very strong and conservative stance on omnipresence does is make it abundantly clear just how ridiculous believing that God just "allows" things to happen in His creation really is.

A correct scriptural view of omnipresence makes God's sovereignty in all that happens in His creation an inescapable and necessary doctrine IMO.

Jeremiah 19:5
(they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),

 

[FreeGrace2]

Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.18He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

Luke 17:21

Uh, where does either verse say that God exists withIN all things? I'm not seeing it. I do see the statement that "in Him all things hold together". But that doesn't mean that He is withIN all things. It means that all things are held together by Him. And since He created all things by the word of His mouth, I have no doubt that He holds all things together by the word of His mouth. Without breaking a sweat, btw.

This verse just doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[FreeGrace2]

One thing that a very strong and conservative stance on omnipresence does is make it abundantly clear just how ridiculous believing that God just "allows" things to happen in His creation really is.

Oh, so God does not allow things to happen, eh? That means clearly that He has to CAUSE all things to happen. As in immediate cause. Congratulations on your admission that God causes all sin and evil.

You've just inadvertently described puppet theology.

A correct scriptural view of omnipresence makes God's sovereignty in all that happens in His creation an inescapable and necessary doctrine IMO.

God's omnipresence and sovereignty are separate attributes. And God's sovereignty isn't at all diminished by His permission to act or think freely. Not in the slightest. We see His permission throughout Scripture, but most clearly in Isa 1:18-20. He encourages people to be reasonable and He gives choices: consent and obey, or, refuse and rebel. And He even gives the consequences of either choice. That is grace.

I do find it interesting that Calvinists think that God's sovereignty is superior to all of His other attributes, when in fact, all of His attributes are co-equal.

 

[Lazy_Proverb]

Uh, where does either verse say that God exists withIN all things? I'm not seeing it. I do see the statement that "in Him all things hold together". But that doesn't mean that He is withIN all things. It means that all things are held together by Him. And since He created all things by the word of His mouth, I have no doubt that He holds all things together by the word of His mouth. Without breaking a sweat, btw.

This verse just doesn't mean what you think it means.

My dear sir or madam, when you deny God's omnipresence you've not a thing to say about anyone elses understanding of scripture in as much as you expect to be taken seriously when you do.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Quite.
omnipraesensi (Latin)= Omnis=every, all+ praesens=present=Omnipresent.

Imagine a sovereign God that is the alpha, the first cause of all that exists and therein all that God made to exist does not have any of those Godly properties within that which God made.

So, you have found God's attributes withIN bugs, dirt, birds, trees, etc??

In human terms it would be like me telling you that regardless of your existence, your parents DNA does not exist inside you.

Well, that would be insane. And what verse says or suggests that God's DNA is withIN all things? There aren't any.

He created all things by speaking.

 

[FreeGrace2]

My dear sir or madam, when you deny God's omnipresence you've not a thing to say about anyone elses understanding of scripture in as much as you expect to be taken seriously when you do.

I'm waiting for someone who can actually cite a verse that says that God exists withIN all things. I have NOT denied God's omnipresence. None of the various sources of definitions includes existing withIN things as being omnipresent.

What I will continue to deny is the view that God exists withIN all things, until such time as a verse is presented that says that He does.

To exist everywhere (omnipresence) does NOT mean to exist withIN all things.

 

[Lazy_Proverb]

I'm waiting for someone who can actually cite a verse that says that God exists withIN all things. I have NOT denied God's omnipresence. None of the various sources of definitions includes existing withIN things as being omnipresent.

What I will continue to deny is the view that God exists withIN all things, until such time as a verse is presented that says that He does.

To exist everywhere (omnipresence) does NOT mean to exist withIN all things.

OK, so that we all may understand you I'll give a synopsis your profile here as you deny God and his characteristics as pertain to his omnipresence. Which when denied by proxy denies all else of God's eternal infinite attributes. When source of all is in your mind not present in that which it creates it is not God.

Omnipresent=everywhere present.
But everywhere does not include within anything. Therefore God is not sovereign, God, which is a spirit, does not permeate his creation because all that exists is born from his spirit that, once created, is devoid of, is not infused with, the spirit of the creator God because God is limited, God is not universal, God is not infinite.

That makes it easier to understand your writing, withIN. Thank you and have a blessed day.

 

[Lazy_Proverb]

So, you have found God's attributes withIN bugs, dirt, birds, trees, etc??


Well, that would be insane. And what verse says or suggests that God's DNA is withIN all things? There aren't any.

He created all things by speaking.

When you say that part there, do you see a man moving his mouth and creating all that is?

When you breathe out of your mouth against the back of your hand is your DNA there on your hand? Left by the expiration of your breath against that flesh?
Yes.
When you lay your hands on your keyboard that transfers what is called, touch DNA. That is the blueprint, the stairway to Heaven because of the double helix of the atomic structure and DNA, that makes you one of a kind. Is that DNA devoid of your parents DNA? Are they not in you? Even though you are you?

Then how is it that you, that lesser creation than what is God almighty, imbued with the source of yourself as a human created by two humans coming together to create one child, then superior in that way to all that God creates. When your entire being is comprised of and due to the content of your parental DNA forming your self. As you argue God himself, unlike you, isn't present in the same way as the parent, source, Father, of all that exists.

 

[Butch5]

WHY

My guess is they want to live forever.

 

[Butch5]

Jesus chided Nicodemus for not understanding something that really should have been a basic doctrine for him.

What do you think that doctrine was if not the fact that fallen men have been spiritually dead since that first sin and all men are now in need of receiving spiritual life and being born again?

Before we discuss that would agree that the idea is an inference? If so then we need to verify whether or not it is a necessary inference.

From your question it seems to me that you're presupposing spiritual life and death. Also, what if anything in the text leads you to the conclusion that this passage is addressing spiritual death. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just pointing out the point I made that we bring presuppositions to the text. We all do it, we just have to be aware of it and not let it interfere with our understanding of the text.

Now, to address your question. No, I don't think the encounter has anything to do with spiritual death. The first thing I see is that Jesus was talking to a Jewish man, a leader of the Jews. Jesus had come to the Jews. Jesus says to Nicodemus, unless he is born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God. So, the issue is entering the kingdom of God.we know that the Jews were God's people and they were the seed of Abraham. God had made certain promises to Abraham. One of those promises was that he would inherit the land as a lasting possession. This promise was made to Abraham and his seed. The Jews were the seed of Abraham by birth and understood that they were the heirs of this promise. We read in Scripture that the Messiah would be the ultimate heir and would rule in his kingdom. So, Nicodemus, being a Jew, understood that he would inherit this kingdom because he was the physical offspring of Abraham. However, Jesus lets Nicodemus know that it isn't his physical birth as the offspring of Abraham that is going to allow him to gain access to the kingdom, he's going to need another birth, this one is going to consist of water and spirit.

Look at the phrase "Born again" this phrase is used in Scripture only of the Jews. The Scriptures don't speak of
gentiles being born again. But why "Born again?" The Jews were born again in the New Covenant through Christ. However, they had a first birth.

22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: (Exod. 4:22 KJV)

Jesus lets Nicodemus know that this first birth isn't sufficient to gain access to the kingdom and that there would be the need of a second birth.

So, I see nothing in this passage about fallen man or spiritual death or the like. I see the statement in context dealing with a misunderstanding that Nicodemus had, that of thinking his physical birth as the seed of Abraham would allow him access to the kingdom.