• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

Blank Stair

1 Peter 3:16
Aug 19, 2015
715
596
47
✟26,401.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Sin is not a thing.
Sure it is.
th_critters.gif
(imagine the comb!)

No, sin is not a thing. Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin. Sin is missing the mark, failing in right-ness, contrary to God's instruction as to the right path to take, the right behavior to exemplify.Wrong doing.
It's a behavior not a thing.

Just as righteousness is not a thing but a behavior, a spirit, an outward sign of an inward covenant with the holy spirit.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,454
✟92,138.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
God's creating men with free will - while knowing exactly and in minute detail every single sin that would occur because of the choices they would assuredly make with that free will - is what the WCF calls the "first cause" of sin. Those God known and assured choices by the men with free will are the direct causes of sin, or what the WCF calls the "second causes" of sin.

If you balk at their choice of the word "cause" it is understandable to a point. By all means substitute a different word than "cause" if you find it necessary and if you can come up with one.

But - if you are disagreeing with the straight forward scriptural concepts put forward in the WCF as to how these things work - you are arguing with God about what He has taught us and whether you approve of the way He did things.

Don't keep hiding behind the word cause. Substitute another word and make the same points that the WCF makes while using the word cause - if you do indeed believe God's Word.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,730
USA
✟184,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Sure it is.
graaaaaaa.gif
(imagine the comb!)

No, sin is not a thing. Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin. Sin is missing the mark, failing in right-ness, contrary to God's instruction as to the right path to take, the right behavior to exemplify.Wrong doing.
It's a behavior not a thing.

Just as righteousness is not a thing but a behavior, a spirit, an outward sign of an inward covenant with the holy spirit.
It's either a noun or a verb. A "thing" or an action. But there is the status of sin, which is NOT a verb, but a noun.

Your view has been refuted.

btw, love the laughing hair video.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,642
15,693
✟1,220,484.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
God's creating men with free will - while knowing exactly and in minute detail every single sin that would occur because of the choices they would assuredly make with that free will - is what the WCF calls the "first cause" of sin. Those God known and assured choices by the men with free will are the direct causes of sin, or what the WCF calls the "second causes" of sin.
Ahh....But total depravity says that man, with his God given will, cannot make choices not to sin and cannot choose to seek God or choose God's ways. If that is true, then yes and God is the cause of sin and man cannot be held accountable for what he never had any control over because of the way he was created by God.

But this theology is in violation of Romans 1, which says God has made Himself visible to all men to know that He is God and Creator, and a conscience to discern good and evil,, and that man willingly chose idolatry over God.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,730
USA
✟184,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
God's creating men with free will - while knowing exactly and in minute detail every single sin that would occur because of the choices they would assuredly make with that free will - is what the WCF calls the "first cause" of sin.
Just because God in His omniscience knows exactly WHEN one will sin doesn't lead to this idea of first cause. It doesn't add up.

Those God known and assured choices by the men with free will are the direct causes of sin, or what the WCF calls the "second causes" of sin.
And the WCF is wrong. The one who is the "direct cause" of anything is the first cause of it. Not the second cause.

If someone helps you create something, they would be the second cause. Or secondary cause.

There is simply no such thing as first and second causes. That is just philosophical mumbo jumbo.

The reality is that there are PRIMARY and SECONDARY causes only.

Man is the PRIMARY cause of his sin. And he may have had help as in SECONDARY causes, or others.

If you balk at their choice of the word "cause" it is understandable to a point. By all means substitute a different word than "cause" if you find it necessary and if you can come up with one.
No, "cause" is fine. The problem is with 'first' and 'second'. They simply don't exist. The claim that they do doesn't mean they do.

But - if you are disagreeing with the straight forward scriptural concepts put forward in the WCF as to how these things work - you are arguing with God about what He has taught us and whether you approve of the way He did things.
No, the WCF is incorrrect in the concept of first and second causes. There are only primary and secondary causes. Their own terminology leads to an internal contradiction.

Don't keep hiding behind the word cause. Substitute another word and make the same points that the WCF makes while using the word cause - if you do indeed believe God's Word.
Let's not hide behind the word "first cause". Reality is primary cause.
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,454
✟92,138.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Ahh....But total depravity says that man, with his God given will, cannot make choices not to sin and cannot choose to seek God or choose God's ways. If that is true, then yes and God is the cause of sin and man cannot be held accountable for what he never had any control over because of the way he was created by God.

But this theology is in violation of Romans 1, which says God has made Himself visible to all men to know that He is God and Creator, and a conscience to discern good and evil,, and that man willingly chose idolatry over God.
No believer in total depravity believes that man was created totally depraved. Where would you get such an idea?

Total depravity doesn't teach that man doesn't have a conscience or that he can't obey his conscience.

It does say that every aspect of fallen man's being is effected by sin.
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,454
✟92,138.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Just because God in His omniscience knows exactly WHEN one will sin doesn't lead to this idea of first cause. It doesn't add up.


And the WCF is wrong. The one who is the "direct cause" of anything is the first cause of it. Not the second cause.

If someone helps you create something, they would be the second cause. Or secondary cause.

There is simply no such thing as first and second causes. That is just philosophical mumbo jumbo.

The reality is that there are PRIMARY and SECONDARY causes only.

Man is the PRIMARY cause of his sin. And he may have had help as in SECONDARY causes, or others.

No, "cause" is fine. The problem is with 'first' and 'second'. They simply don't exist. The claim that they do doesn't mean they do.

No, the WCF is incorrrect in the concept of first and second causes. There are only primary and secondary causes. Their own terminology leads to an internal contradiction.

Let's not hide behind the word "first cause". Reality is primary cause.
Oh look! He's discovered a new word game to play.

You are welcome to reverse the terms first and second causes as they pertain to God and man - no problem with me.

You are welcome to use any terms you want to use instead of first and second causes - no problem with me.
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Site Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,976
780
63
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟336,535.00
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
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.

You said, " 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." Unless you've conversed with everyone who opposes Calvinism, it would seem that you've presumed to know their mind.



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.

If you find it disgusting why do you do it? Why are you on these forums?



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.

But it has been. The reason it still stand is because there are people who don't reason properly. As I pointed out about the WCF. The statement is a flat out contradiction, yet there are people here who are arguing that it is not. The statement violates the Law of Non Contradiction, thus it is not valid. However, instead of saying, oh, well maybe they were wrong on that point, they argue that the men were correct even against what is logical. I've pointed out on this forum before that all 5 points of Calvinism are based on inferences. There is a single passage of Scripture that states plainly any one of the five points. That right there should be a major red flag to anyone. If I have 66 books of Scripture and not a single clear statement but only inferences I gotta question some things.

I also wonder why people believe a doctrinal system that's only 500 years old when Christianity is about 2000 years old.

Is there a problem with speaking plainly?

No, but if you believe others have lied and then state why they oppose Calvinism without actually having conversed with them, what does that say about your statement? You can't know if it's true unless they tell you.



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.

Understood in whose world view? The Calvinist's? I understand their words and I don't see a man centered, God dethroning theology. You see, in the world view of Calvinism it may be horrific to think that man can do anything pleasing to God, but outside of that world view it isn't.


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.

I didn't say Calvin killed anyone. However, doesn't your statement then, about the Catholic Church put you perilously close to violating the rules of this forum on several points?

Calvin did have people banished who disagreed with his theology. He ruled Geneva with an iron fist. It doesn't matter if the Laws were different back then or if the mind set was different. The Laws for the Christian haven't changed since Jesus was here.

The point is that Calvin's theology couldn't be challenged and that is why it gained the foothold that it did. Just like the Roman Catholic Church when Constantine began to put Christians in positions of power. Once they had the power no one was going to challenge them. If they did they were removed.

What so many seem to forget is that the first Reformers were Catholics. They simply rejected some of the teachings of the church and broke away. They did away with some of the errors of the Catholic Church, but not all of them. In addition they added some of their own. And, as it was no one could challenge the additions.

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

I did. There were not red herrings or tangents.
 
Upvote 0

Blank Stair

1 Peter 3:16
Aug 19, 2015
715
596
47
✟26,401.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
No, my view has not been refuted. Dictionaries don't trump Bibles my dear.

It's either a noun or a verb. A "thing" or an action. But there is the status of sin, which is NOT a verb, but a noun.

Your view has been refuted.

btw, love the laughing hair video.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,642
15,693
✟1,220,484.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Even believers cannot choose to not to sin.
We as believers, will never be perfect in righteousness, as the Lord is righteous, that is true. Only in Him are we made righteous unto justification and sanctification.
Total depravity doesn't teach that man doesn't have a conscience or that he can't obey his conscience.
I didn't say that Total Depravity says that man doesn't have a conscience.
It does say that every aspect of fallen man's being is effected by sin.
True, and I agree with that.
No believer in total depravity believes that man was created totally depraved. Where would you get such an idea?
"In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."
http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm
I have read for myself much of writings of John Calvin. Even Charles Spurgeon didn't believe that babies and innocent children would be condemned by God. He did not agree with Calvin.

Now read Romans 1, is that what God says about Himself and what He has shown every man?
OT scriptures where God is speaking, He says that if a man will seek Him, with all his heart/mind/being, that he will find Him, because He is not far away.
Jesus reinforced this by saying He would draw ALL men unto Himself.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Blank Stair

1 Peter 3:16
Aug 19, 2015
715
596
47
✟26,401.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
The Westminster Confession of Faith is wrong.
The Bible is wrong! Believe this instead....


A wise woman once said, if someone shows you who they are believe them.

Is it our duty to work at changing what God created before the creation of the world? Or is what we witness just further proof of God's predetermining the world and everything in it?
Question. Why would someone be passionately opposed to the scriptures that describe the elect of God?
2 John 1:9
Yes, that's it.

Oh look! He's discovered a new word game to play.

You are welcome to reverse the terms first and second causes as they pertain to God and man - no problem with me.

You are welcome to use any terms you want to use instead of first and second causes - no problem with me.
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,454
✟92,138.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
But it has been. The reason it still stand is because there are people who don't reason properly. As I pointed out about the WCF. The statement is a flat out contradiction, yet there are people here who are arguing that it is not. The statement violates the Law of Non Contradiction, thus it is not valid. However, instead of saying, oh, well maybe they were wrong on that point, they argue that the men were correct even against what is logical.
This just isn't true.

What the WCF is asserting is not a contradiction.

If you fired a bullet at me and the bullet killed me - it is not a contradiction to say that the bullet was the direct cause but that you were the first cause in that you had fired the bullet while knowing full well that the bullet would kill me.

Every court of law on earth and every rule of logic would agree that you and the bullet were both causes of my death.

This is true even though, as the WCF would assert, quite rightly, that the actual death proceeded only from the bullet itself.

Perhaps the WCF would put it something like this:

"Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of Butch, the first Cause, the death of Marvin came to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, Butch ordered it to fall out, according to the nature a second cause, either necessarily, freely, or contingently."

And, "Butch did, from before Marvin's death, by the counsel of His own will, freely ordain Marvin's death- yet so, as thereby neither was Butch the direct cause of Marvin's death nor was the power of the bullet to actually end life taken away but rather established.

While it is perfectly true that it was only the bullet that actually killed Marvin - it is also true that Butch was also a cause – and it is perfectly logical to say so.

Either way, Butch, you'd go to jail because you caused my death.

Don’t strain at the example to exactly by the way. Obviously any example that we could possibly use from the lives of men will fall short in many ways simply because we are dealing with God.

You want to judge God by those exact same standards. The problem is that God is not altogether like men. His ways are not our ways. He makes the laws and He sets the standards.

He says that He gave men free will while knowing exactly what the consequences of that action would be. He says that the choices of those men, being the direct cause of sin, are what He will judge as worthy of Hell.

He says that He Himself is not worthy of Hell.

You can close your law book at this stage and go home. The Supreme Court has spoken.

You cannot long stand in judgment of God without yourself entering into sin.

Just agree as to what He has said that He has done. Just let Him deal with any guilt or innocence.

By the way – I find it interesting that God has poured out of His eternal wrath on Himself for all the sins of the world.

Even if, somehow, He were to be found guilty of sin, there is not a single thing that I could do to Him that He has not already done to Himself.

That’s one of the many, many reasons that I can comfortably tell it like it is concerning what He has done and just let it go at that.

Other people here, apparently, not so much.
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Site Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,976
780
63
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟336,535.00
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
This just isn't true.

What the WCF is asserting is not a contradiction.

If you fired a bullet at me and the bullet killed me - it is not a contradiction to say that the bullet was the direct cause but that you were the first cause in that you had fired the bullet while knowing full well that the bullet would kill me.

Every court of law on earth and every rule of logic would agree that you and the bullet were both causes of my death.

This is true even though, as the WCF would assert, quite rightly, that the actual death proceeded only from the bullet itself.

Perhaps the WCF would put it something like this:

"Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of Butch, the first Cause, the death of Marvin came to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, Butch ordered it to fall out, according to the nature a second cause, either necessarily, freely, or contingently."

And, "Butch did, from before Marvin's death, by the counsel of His own will, freely ordain Marvin's death- yet so, as thereby neither was Butch the direct cause of Marvin's death nor was the power of the bullet to actually end life taken away but rather established.

While it is perfectly true that it was only the bullet that actually killed Marvin - it is also true that Butch was also a cause – and it is perfectly logical to say so.

Either way, Butch, you'd go to jail because you caused my death.

Don’t strain at the example to exactly by the way. Obviously any example that we could possibly use from the lives of men will fall short in many ways simply because we are dealing with God.

And you don't see the contradiction there? In one part you say I ordained it to come about and then you say nor was I the direct cause of it. That's a contradiction. If I ordained it then I am the direct cause.

You want to judge God by those exact same standards. The problem is that God is not altogether like men. His ways are not our ways. He makes the laws and He sets the standards.

He says that He gave men free will while knowing exactly what the consequences of that action would be. He says that the choices of those men, being the direct cause of sin, are what He will judge as worthy of Hell.

He says that He Himself is not worthy of Hell.

You can close your law book at this stage and go home. The Supreme Court has spoken.

You cannot long stand in judgment of God without yourself entering into sin.

Just agree as to what He has said that He has done. Just let Him deal with any guilt or innocence.

By the way – I find it interesting that God has poured out of His eternal wrath on Himself for all the sins of the world.

Even if, somehow, He were to be found guilty of sin, there is not a single thing that I could do to Him that He has not already done to Himself.

That’s one of the many, many reasons that I can comfortably tell it like it is concerning what He has done and just let it go at that.

Other people here, apparently, not so much.

Here we go with the mind reading. I said the statement in the WCF was a contradiction. That is in no way Judging God.

You said, "By the way – I find it interesting that God has poured out of His eternal wrath on Himself for all the sins of the world." This goes to my point about reasoning. Where do you find anything at all in Scripture that says God poured out His wrath on Himself?
 
Upvote 0

Blank Stair

1 Peter 3:16
Aug 19, 2015
715
596
47
✟26,401.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
What is apparently missed by those who continually charge the WCF contradicts itself is they don't read in context the entire document.
God created everything, knows all things that operate due to his creating them to do so by the laws he established. And that included the implantation of free will. Free will then is the human hearts elective to obey or disobey God's laws set forth for righteousness. Be that we know them or not. As his laws are written in our heart.
God set the stage. He didn't attach strings to the people so he could occupy infinity as the individuals puppeteer.

That sin exists in the world isn't because God created it so as if it is a thing.

Sin exists in the world because God created a righteous plan and then deposited people into it so they could carry out the plan using the added particle that is free agency of the human mind. Born from the mind of creator. And all the while all transpires with God's human creation working at finding their way back to the source from whence they sprang.Regardless of trajectory. Because when all things are God no thing can not be God.

The first descriptions of Sheol, which became hades, and then Gehenna, and then flaming bottomless pit Hell, was absence from the sight and presence of God. Annihilation. Antimatter. The elect, the non-elect. Everything is designed to give its creator the glory.
What's that mean? God's an egoist? Self-absorbed. No, 'my thoughts are not your thoughts'. Rather, the glory that is given God is God defining God. Eternally and brilliantly forever.


CHAPTER IV.
Of Creation.

II. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness after his own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Besides this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.


CHAPTER III.
Of God's Eternal Decree.


I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.


III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.

V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.

VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

VII. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.
 
Upvote 0

rnmomof7

Legend
Feb 9, 2002
14,503
735
Western NY
✟94,487.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
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.


So they surprised God ??
 
Upvote 0

Blank Stair

1 Peter 3:16
Aug 19, 2015
715
596
47
✟26,401.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
No. It wasn't God's doing that they should cause Judah to sin. If anything that verse is telling us that man has free agency to act as they will. It all transpires in God's creation. God knowing all that will transpire isn't tantamount to God dabbling in every little element to make things happen.
If you are a sink manufacturer you know how a sink works. You created everything about that sink and attached to that sink to work as a sink is suppose to.
When you sell that sink set you know how it's working in that new home. And if something goes wrong you can figure out why. Because you created the sink. And you sold the sink knowing the one who bought it would use it as a sink is suppose to be used.
It doesn't mean you made that buyer use the sink your way. They used it their way. And your knowledge of how that works out is not the same thing as being the one that makes the sink work according to their desires.
 
Upvote 0

rnmomof7

Legend
Feb 9, 2002
14,503
735
Western NY
✟94,487.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
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.

Which could never have been "invented " by man if God did not create the men in the circumstances , with the family, intelligence , creativity and ability and opportunity to do that ....


One more time ..If God is not the first cause not the first responder what is He ? Still waiting for an answer
 
Upvote 0