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

[Blank Stair]

First Cause, by definition, is God. You do not have to agree with that fact.
The Greek word kardia, "heart", was the first text in Jeremiah 32:35. "nor did it come into my heart they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin."
Furthermore, this scripture is a recollection of Judah's earlier sin as reported in Jeremiah 7:31.

These scriptures in no way dismiss God's omnipotence. Nor his omniscience.

Jeremiah 32:35
And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

Even when presented scripture that God is not the 'first cause' of everything, some refuse to believe. I have given this passage many times on this forum, and so far, no one has refuted it, nor commented on it. This passage is the death knell to the belief of God as the 'first cause' and 'predestination'.

You asked for scripture support, and here it is. Take it or leave it; use your freedom of choice to believe it or not. God will not interfere with your free-will decision.

 

[Butch5]

That's not true.
You should read the WCF.

It is true, it's called the law of non contradiction. Also, how do they know what God ordained from eternity past. Contradictions and presumptions. This is just the opinions of men.

 

[Blank Stair]

It is true, it's called the law of non contradiction. Also, how do they know what God ordained from eternity past. Contradictions and presumptions. This is just the opinions of men.

It's called the Westminster Confession of Faith. Wherein there are no contradictions and all of its text is arrived at from the scripture in the Bible.
Rather than occupy your time making false challenges it would behoove your position to proceed from this point forward from a place of knowledge concerning the WCF. Until you take the time to read that so as to know what it says, you are wasting your time proving you don't know what you're talking about when you attempt to discredit it.

 

[Butch5]

It's called the Westminster Confession of Faith. Wherein there are no contradictions and all of its text is arrived at from the scripture in the Bible.
Rather than occupy your time making false challenges it would behoove your position to proceed from this point forward from a place of knowledge concerning the WCF. Until you take the time to read that so as to know what it says, you are wasting your time proving you don't know what you're talking about when you attempt to discredit it.

Well, since I used to be a Calvinist I am familiar with the WCF. And, as I said, the statement is a logical contradiction. Anyone with a basic understanding of logic can see that. Someone cannot be the cause of all things and yet there be something that they are not the cause of. That is simply illogical and irrational. So, if you look in to logic and proper reasoning you'd see that your claim is illogical.

 

[EmSw]

First Cause, by definition, is God. You do not have to agree with that fact.
The Greek word kardia, "heart", was the first text in Jeremiah 32:35. "nor did it come into my heart they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin."
Furthermore, this scripture is a recollection of Judah's earlier sin as reported in Jeremiah 7:31.

These scriptures in no way dismiss God's omnipotence. Nor his omniscience.

First off, we are not discussing God's omnipotence, nor omniscience. We are talking about God not causing Judah to sin, which you conveniently chose to ignore.

 

[EmSw]

It's called the Westminster Confession of Faith. Wherein there are no contradictions and all of its text is arrived at from the scripture in the Bible.
Rather than occupy your time making false challenges it would behoove your position to proceed from this point forward from a place of knowledge concerning the WCF. Until you take the time to read that so as to know what it says, you are wasting your time proving you don't know what you're talking about when you attempt to discredit it.

Some of us choose not to put our faith in the WCF. If you choose to do so, then do not try to convince others to follow your lead; we freely choose otherwise.

Besides, you really knows what the WCF is trying to accomplish. When mortal man speaks as though they know the mind and intentions of God from all eternity, I will definitely put it aside. I do not want to know what man thinks of God's heart.

 

[Blank Stair]

Actually, some of us realize what is going on here. And out of respect for all that is holy do not give our consent to participate in that activity.

 

[Hank77]

First Cause, by definition, is God. You do not have to agree with that fact.
The Greek word kardia, "heart", was the first text in Jeremiah 32:35. "nor did it come into my heart they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin."
Furthermore, this scripture is a recollection of Judah's earlier sin as reported in Jeremiah 7:31.

These scriptures in no way dismiss God's omnipotence. Nor his omniscience.

Jer 7:31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.
Jer 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:
Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

Three times God says that He didn't command it, He didn't speak it, He didn't think it, He didn't cause Judah to sin.

So if you don't believe this is contrary to predetermination of all things, as first cause, please explain it.

No one has said that God is not omnipotent or omniscience.

adjective: omnipotent
1.
(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.
synonyms: all-powerful, almighty, supreme, preeminent, most high;
n.
1. One having total knowledge.
2. Omniscient God. Used with the.

God doesn't say He didn't know about it. But He does say, He didn't have anything to do with it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Well how is he active if He is not the first cause and not the first reactor?

Many people are active in a lot of things, yet may not be the first cause of the activity in which they are active.

Yes, God created the heavens and earth. And mankind. And He gifted mankind with various talents and skills and abilities in which to create things themselves.

Did Adam have a car, or cell phone, or airplane in the garden? Of course not. These are creations of man, not God. I see no support or evidence for this so-called "first cause" in Scripture. Only in the WCF as a claim.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Butch5 said: ↑
Actually it is. One can't be the cause of all things, except one thing.

That's not true.
You should read the WCF.

Shouldn't the Bible be the final say? Not some commentary on the Bible.

The WCF is contradicted when it says that God is the cause of all things yet not the cause of sin. It cannot be both at the same time. Either one or the other. To state that the contradiction isn't a contradiction is only a claim, but not a true one.

 

[Butch5]

Actually, some of us realize what is going on here. And out of respect for all that is holy do not give our consent to participate in that activity.

Well, you could end this by proving that the WCF doesn't contradict itself in that statement.

 

[Blank Stair]

Well, you could end this by proving that the WCF doesn't contradict itself in that statement.

The opponent side in this thread will not end this. Because that it was proposed in the first place provides the adversarial launching point that is bolstered by like kind thus committed to the task.

The Law of Non Contradiction states that two opposing statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.

The introduction of that attachment to certain opponents previous argument concerning WCF contradicting itself with regard to God having created sin dispels any notion that logic is at all an issue for those opponents of the WCF and God's sovereignty.

The contradiction here, and it is odd that a Christian would argue that God isn't sovereign, is in men.

Not in God or his word.
Scripture says those not anointed by the spirit won't understand the word of God. Either one.

The Law of Non Contradiction states that two opposing statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.

One cannot believe God is omniscient, as some have said ,while pushing their belief that Jeremiah contradicts the WCF concerning God not being the author of sin, using the Jeremiah text as proof God doesn't know it all.

That violation of the law of non-contradiction that the opponents introduced into this thread to support the OP negates their arguments entirely.
They lost. They have no valid point when they contradict themselves in making their argument against God's omniscience while saying they believe God is omniscient.
(No, I won't post the members statements to that effect. Those who said it know they said it.)

 

[nobdysfool]

There is nothing that exists unless God has created it. His creation of all there is is the First Cause of that which is. Nothing exists that God has not created.

Sin is not a creation in the same way a tree or a bird, or a rock is. Sin is, in its essence, to fall short, to miss the mark. It is a product of Entropy, and it accelerates Entropy.

No one is saying that God created sin, and those who accuse the Reformed, or more specifically the Calvinists of saying so are, to be blunt about it, lying. Such is the hatred for the Doctrines of Grace that its opponents will use any and all means, including lying, to try to defeat it, which is ludicrous, because an idea cannot be defeated. Why do they hate the Doctrines of Grace? Because they dethrone man as the determinator of his own destiny, and recognize God as the Source, the Sovereign, the Ultimate, the First Cause, and the Final Arbiter.

 

[Blank Stair]

First Cause is followed by effect. Cause and effect. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. (Newton's Third Law)

There is nothing that exists unless God has created it. His creation of all there is is the First Cause of that which is. Nothing exists that God has not created.

Sin is not a creation in the same way a tree or a bird, or a rock is. Sin is, in its essence, to fall short, to miss the mark. No one is saying that God created sin, and those who accuse the Reformed, or more specifically the Calvinists of saying so are, to be blunt about it, lying. Such is the hatred for the Doctrines of Grace that its opponents will use any and all means, including lying, to try to defeat it, which is ludicrous, because an idea cannot be defeated. Why do they hate the Doctrines of Grace? Because they dethrone man as the determinator of his own destiny, and recognize God as the Source, the Sovereign, the Ultimate, the First Cause, and the Final Arbiter.

 

[Butch5]

There is nothing that exists unless God has created it. His creation of all there is is the First Cause of that which is. Nothing exists that God has not created.

Sin is not a creation in the same way a tree or a bird, or a rock is. Sin is, in its essence, to fall short, to miss the mark. It is a product of Entropy, and it accelerates Entropy.

No one is saying that God created sin, and those who accuse the Reformed, or more specifically the Calvinists of saying so are, to be blunt about it, lying. Such is the hatred for the Doctrines of Grace that its opponents will use any and all means, including lying, to try to defeat it, which is ludicrous, because an idea cannot be defeated. Why do they hate the Doctrines of Grace? Because they dethrone man as the determinator of his own destiny, and recognize God as the Source, the Sovereign, the Ultimate, the First Cause, and the Final Arbiter.

It seems I hear this a lot. Do you presume to know the mind of each person who opposes the doctrines of Calvinism? Or, is it an appeal to what you find disgusting? I argue against the doctrines of Calvinism because they are in error. I argue against them just like I argue against any other erroneous doctrine. It's interesting that you spoke of lying, in the same post that you accused all those who oppose Calvinism of denying the dcotrines, "Because they dethrone man as the determinator of his own destiny, and recognize God as the Source, the Sovereign, the Ultimate, the First Cause, and the Final Arbiter".

I would submit that that statement is a red herring. This argument that is put out by Calvinists of a man centered theology is a red herring. I don't and don't know of others on this forum who think that man is on the throne. To say that man plays a role in his salvation doesn't dethrone God. It's my opinion that these kinds of statements are made because the "Doctrines of Grace" don't stand up in the light of Scripture.

You see back in Calvin's day he didn't have to worry about people not agreeing with and challenging his theology. If they didn't agree they were gone. However, in this modern day people can challenge Calvin's doctrines without fear of reprisal.

 

[Hank77]

They lost. They have no valid point when they contradict themselves in making their argument against God's omniscience while saying they believe God is omniscient.

For you these discussions may be about winners and losers. For me that is not what any of it is about. It is stating one's understanding and listening to what others have to say. Hopefully I can learn something in the process.

I am not God, that I can say who is lost or not, if they tell me that they have believed God for His mercy and forgiveness through His Son. Frankly, when someone does that they are declaring themselves the judge in place of God and sitting on His throne.

It is frustrating when someone quotes a post, insists that you or someone else is wrong, but does not give any explanation as to why they think that. It just it's helpful or edifying.

I said that I believe that God is omniscient. He knows all things. I don't think He had to predetermine all things to know the end from the beginning. He is God and omnipotent.

 

[nobdysfool]

It seems I hear this a lot. Do you presume to know the mind of each person who opposes the doctrines of Calvinism?

Did I say that? No I didn't. You presume to know my mind when you clearly do not. And for the record, saying that "it seems i hear this a lot" is not an indictment of my position, or any other Calvinist's position, it is the evidence that I am not the only one who believes as I do, and I assure you, I am not a follower of any man, but Christ alone. So please stop with false accusation which amount to a red herring to try and put me on the defensive, and run us off on a rabbit trail.

Or, is it an appeal to what you find disgusting?

What I find disgusting is professing Christians wasting their time fighting their own brethren, rather than fighting the forces of evil which are threatening to overrun our country and our world. No, it seems that some would rather fight their fellow Christians, because there is less chance of injury.

I argue against the doctrines of Calvinism because they are in error. I argue against them just like I argue against any other erroneous doctrine.

And that is, and remains, your opinion. It has not been established as fact. People have been trying for over 500 years, and it still stands.

It's interesting that you spoke of lying, in the same post that you accused all those who oppose Calvinism of denying the dcotrines, "Because they dethrone man as the determinator of his own destiny, and recognize God as the Source, the Sovereign, the Ultimate, the First Cause, and the Final Arbiter".

Is there a problem with speaking plainly?

I would submit that that statement is a red herring. This argument that is put out by Calvinists of a man centered theology is a red herring. I don't and don't know of others on this forum who think that man is on the throne. To say that man plays a role in his salvation doesn't dethrone God. It's my opinion that these kinds of statements are made because the "Doctrines of Grace" don't stand up in the light of Scripture.

And yet, when the words of the anti-calvinists are examined, and their common meanings understood, man centered theology is what it distills down to. Words mean things.

You see back in Calvin's day he didn't have to worry about people not agreeing with and challenging his theology. If they didn't agree they were gone. However, in this modern day people can challenge Calvin's doctrines without fear of reprisal.

Careful, you're running perilously close to violating the rules of this forum on several points. Calvin didn't go around killing people. The Church of the day (Catholic) did so on a regular basis, and laws were different back in those days. The mindset was different. The church ran the State. Let's leave that out of this, because it will lead to violations, reports and vacations.

How 'bout addressing what I actually said, rather than tossing red herrings into the ring, and going off on tangents?

 

[rjs330]

God didn't create sin. He defined it. There is a difference. He is God. He gets to decide what constitutes sin. God is light and in Him there is no darkness. Let's use the simple analogy of a cake. If I put all the ingredients together properly and bake a cake then I created the cake. But if I tell you if you put all these ingredients together then you will have a cake and you do it, you created the cake. I just told you what constitutes a cake.

 

[FreeGrace2]

There is nothing that exists unless God has created it. His creation of all there is is the First Cause of that which is. Nothing exists that God has not created.

The first and third sentences are correct. The second sentence is a mere claim and without any support from Scripture. Just saying that His creation is the 'first cause' of everything doesn't make it true. Please provide clear evidence.

Sin is not a creation in the same way a tree or a bird, or a rock is. Sin is, in its essence, to fall short, to miss the mark. It is a product of Entropy, and it accelerates Entropy.

And yet, the WCF says that God ordained all things in the sense of causing all things (first cause and all that), yet contradicts itself by claiming in the same breath (sentence) that God is not the author of sin. Well, the idea of "author" means first cause. An author pens a story. He has to be the first cause of that story. He certainly isn't the second or later cause of it.

So the whole idea of first cause is false. There is simply cause. God certainly caused the universe into existence. No question. And God caused mankind to exist, no question. And God created mankind with creative abilities, certainly not equal or even close to God's, but creative abilities nonetheless. And this is in accord with God's purpose of creating man "in His own image". God is a Creator, and He created mankind with creative abiltiies. So that means that man, when creating, is the first cause of what he creates; whether cars, buildings, or sin.

No one is saying that God created sin, and those who accuse the Reformed, or more specifically the Calvinists of saying so are, to be blunt about it, lying.

Nonsense, to be blunt about it. The WCF contradicts itself by the claim that God is the cause of all things, but not the cause of sin. That is a total contradiction. If God is the cause of all things, that has to include sin as well.

 

[nobdysfool]

Sin is not a thing.