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

[Blank Stair]

I believe you are correct.

You are still a long way from proving predestination with this story.

 

[^j^RaspberryAngel]

I believe you are correct.

I see what you did there.

 

[Butch5]

Those that were predestined, holy and blameless, were Jews and Gentiles. Because God sent Paul to bring the good news to the Gentiles.

If you look closely at the passage you'll see that verses 3-12 are a Hebrew praise to God for what He's done for the Jewish people. The Gentiles are not in view in these verses.

You excerpted one verse from chapter 33 to make your point. Your point was not correct because it was using that single verse to support itself. The entire chapter 33 puts the verse you excerpted into full context of the message delivered in total. A message that necessarily included the single verse you excerpted and in order to deliver a complete message that is contrary to what you think a single verse says of it all.

That's what you said. However, it is still arbitrary. Unless you can show how the entire chapter counters what I posted you're simply giving us your opinion.

I appreciate your understanding. Thank you.

you're welcome!

 

[Blank Stair]

If you look closely at the passage you'll see that verses 3-12 are a Hebrew praise to God for what He's done for the Jewish people. The Gentiles are not in view in these verses.

OK.

That's what you said. However, it is still arbitrary. Unless you can show how the entire chapter counters what I posted you're simply giving us your opinion.

OK.

you're welcome!

 

[nobdysfool]

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.

Perhaps your care in reading English has become a little rusty. Let me make one small change that might make my intent and point clear, and show that you completely misread what i wrote.

I wrote: "Why do they hate the Doctrines of Grace? Because they (the Doctrines of Grace) 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."

Better?

 

[EmSw]

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.

Let's see what the courts would actually do. If a man is determined to kill someone, and used a gun to accomplish this determination, I can guarantee, no court would look to the bullet and accuse it of murder. The guilty party would be the first cause, the man. The gun and bullet were only the means used to accomplish the man's (first cause) evil intentions. Man (first cause) would be guilty of this crime, and suffer the punishment, not the bullet.

The bullet had no intention of killing anyone, but was used by an intelligent being, who's intent from evil thoughts was the source, author, originator, instigator, and creator of this crime.

So, in the example presented above, God (first cause) would be guilty of this evil, being the intelligent source behind this crime. Man, as the direct cause, did not originate this crime, but was only used as the means to accomplish God's evil intentions.

Perhaps, someone else will give an example how first cause and direct cause are effected in real world situations.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I wrote: "Why do they hate the Doctrines of Grace? Because they (the Doctrines of Grace) 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."

This is a red herring. Rejecting Calvinism isn't based on this fantasy idea of "dethroning man as determinator of anything". Nonsense. It is rejected on the basis of NOT having any Biblical support for its claims. Period.

The free grace movement clearly puts God on the throne and man no where near it. I don't speak for any Arminian, but if their view does put man on the throne, then they are quite wrong.

If one thinks the free grace movement does put man on the throne, please explain very clearly how he does so. I'd love to refute the explanation.

 

[nobdysfool]

This is a red herring. Rejecting Calvinism isn't based on this fantasy idea of "dethroning man as determinator of anything". Nonsense. It is rejected on the basis of NOT having any Biblical support for its claims. Period.

Which is first and foremost, your opinion, and not an established fact, except maybe in your own mind. Calvinism does have scriptural support, whether or not you accept it.

The free grace movement clearly puts God on the throne and man no where near it. I don't speak for any Arminian, but if their view does put man on the throne, then they are quite wrong.

I didn't say a word about the free grace movement. Talk about red herrings!

If one thinks the free grace movement does put man on the throne, please explain very clearly how he does so. I'd love to refute the explanation.

As I said, I didn't say anything about the free grace movement. So why all the chest-beating and braggadocio?

 

[Blank Stair]

I think you might consider their screen name lets one infer they are a member of the Free Grace movement.
And something said here not at all related to that movement triggered their reaction to veer off topic and interject that red herring.
I'd suggest that we're not following where the opponents lead is causing some to resort to strange things in order to stoke a rise they can continue to pursue.
This thread hasn't progressed but for page count as far as reasoning with those whose one constant is to steadfastly refuse to acknowledge scripture as written.

What are we doing here?

 

[Blank Stair]

How Can the Bible Affirm Both Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom?

God is the sovereign ruler over the universe and all human affairs, and human beings are responsible before God for the moral choices and actions they make. Yes, the Bible teaches both divine sovereignty and human freedom, and both are true.

What does the Bible teach about God’s sovereign rulership?

Consider Daniel 4:35, where we are instructed that God “does what He wants with the army of heaven and the inhabitants of earth. There is no one who can hold back His hand or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’” In light of this verse, three observations are needed. First, God’s rulership is the exercise of “His will.” That is, He decides in advance what He wants to happen, so that His will precedes and directs all that occurs. Second, He exercises His will universally-- over those in heaven and all that occurs. Second, He exercises His will universally-- over those in heaven and all the inhabitants of earth. There is no place where His will does not pertain or is not exercised. And third, no creature of God can thwart the fulfillment of God’s will or charge God with wrongdoing. In short, God’s rulership by His will is absolute, universal, and effectual.

Consider further the kinds of reality over which God reigns. The Bible contains a number of “spectrum texts” that display God’s ultimate control for both good and evil, light and darkness, life and death. In Is 45:6-7, God announced, “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make success and create disaster; I the Lord do all these things” (seeEx 4:11; Dt 32:39; 1 Sm 2:6-7; Ec 7:13-14; Lm 3:37-38 ). And, while we gladly affirm that God is good (only!), and that God neither approves evil nor has any evil residing in Himself (Ps 5:4), yet we must affirm with Scripture that He reigns over all of life, both its good and evil, and that in all that occurs “the decision of His will” (Eph 1:11) is fulfilled.

What does Scripture teach about human moral responsibility?

From page 1 of the Bible, all humans are put on notice that God holds us accountable for the moral choices we make and actions we take. The law of God-- whether the simple law not to eat of one tree in the garden (Gn 2:16-17), the law given on Sinai (Ex 20), or the law of Christ (1 Co 9:21; Gl 6:2)-- establishes the moral framework within which human lives are to be lived. God will “repay each one according to his works” (Rm 2:6), and this judgment will be based on whether we persevere in doing good (Rm 2:7), or whether we do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness (Rm 2:8 ). There is no denying that God considers humans as being responsible for the choices and actions we make, and the final judgment day will bear testimony to how we have chosen to live our lives.

So God is the sovereign ruler over all, and human beings are responsible before Him. But just how can both be true?
We cannot understand fully how both are true together, but that they must work together is demanded by Scripture’s clear teaching. Consider one illustration from scripture where both are seen-- namely, a lesson from Joseph’s story (Gn 37-45).

Joseph’s brothers were deeply jealous of him and grew to despise him. When the opportunity presented itself, they sold him into Egypt (Gn 37:25-36), where Joseph was misunderstood and mistreated. Despite this, God’s hand was on Joseph and he was elevated to second in command in Egypt (Gn 41). During a famine, his brothers traveled to Egypt to purchase grain, and there Joseph made himself known to his brothers. What Joseph told them is as incredible as it is instructive. “It was not you who sent me here, but God” (Gn 45:8 ).

“Wait!” we might protest. “Surely they did send Joseph to Egypt!”

So they did, and so Joseph previously acknowledged (Gn 45:4). But to get at the full reason he was sent to Egypt requires looking not just to the brothers but also, and more importantly, to God.

So it is clear: Both God and the brothers were responsible for sending Joseph to Egypt. Both God’s sovereign rulership and the brother’s moral actions were active. As Joseph put it later in speaking to his brothers, “You planned evil against me; God planned it for good” (Gn 50:20). The brothers acted for evil, and God acted in the same events for good.

Not every question is here answered, but we see that we must affirm both the sovereign rulership of God and the genuineness of our moral responsibility. Both are joined together in Scripture, and what Scripture has joined together, let no man separate.

Page 1054, Apologetics Study Bible, by Bruce A. Ware

 

[Marvin Knox]

Let's see what the courts would actually do. If a man is determined to kill someone, and used a gun to accomplish this determination, I can guarantee, no court would look to the bullet and accuse it of murder. The guilty party would be the first cause, the man. The gun and bullet were only the means used to accomplish the man's (first cause) evil intentions. Man (first cause) would be guilty of this crime, and suffer the punishment, not the bullet.

The bullet had no intention of killing anyone, but was used by an intelligent being, who's intent from evil thoughts was the source, author, originator, instigator, and creator of this crime.

So, in the example presented above, God (first cause) would be guilty of this evil, being the intelligent source behind this crime. Man, as the direct cause, did not originate this crime, but was only used as the means to accomplish God's evil intentions.

Perhaps, someone else will give an example how first cause and direct cause are effected in real world situations.

I don't normally respond to you because of the false works oriented gospel that you preach. But this one time I'll make an exception, lest you misrepresent my points to others.

The point you make is exactly my point. God is the first cause.

A bullet as a second cause may be innocent but we are not.

The purpose of Butch would have been evil.

The purpose of God is good.

Are you just saying these things to misrepresent others or are you really not able to follow a thought?

I've said in the past:

"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."

"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."

You've been asked in the past to not quote my posts and snipe at me because, as you know, I have decided not to correspond with you any more.

Perhaps you are simply unable to follow the ideas of others. But when you misrepresent me here I certainly hope that you are not purposefully sinning in that way.

Please stop.

 

[^j^RaspberryAngel]

This might help explain it Marvin.
At least it does for me. I found it in this forum but in a different thread, the robots thread.

"Sounds eerily representative of Poe's Law. Interestingly enough, according to Conservapedia, a term and practice started here at this site in the Ethics forum.

Poe’s Law is an attempt at effective liberal internet satire and declares: “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.” The General Case of Poe's Law is "It is impossible to tell for certain the difference between genuine stupidity and a parody of stupidity." Poe's law was created by Nathan Poe in August of 2005 at the website christianforums.com website in the the section of their forum which focuses on creation vs. evolution debating. [4]"

 

[FreeGrace2]

Which is first and foremost, your opinion, and not an established fact, except maybe in your own mind. Calvinism does have scriptural support, whether or not you accept it.

Let's see. Please quote a verse that tells us that God chooses who will believe.
Please quote a verse that teaches us that Christ did NOT die for everyone, or that He died ONLY for the elect.
Please quote a verse that teaches that unregenerate man is unable to believe the gospel.
Please quote a verse that teaches that regeneration precedes faith.

Notice that I have given a lot of leg room by asking for the verses that teach. I'm not asking for specific words, just specific and clear teaching on the various issues.

As I said, I didn't say anything about the free grace movement. So why all the chest-beating and braggadocio?

Huh? Please point out the exact wording that seems to be "chest-beating" or "braggadocio". And post # please.

 

[rnmomof7]

You just kicked a big hole in predestination.

Is this all you can come up with?

Is it your position that God had no knowledge of these events before they occurred ? That He was blissfuly ignorant of this sin until it occurred ?

Are you an open Theist ?

 

[rnmomof7]

He's God. There is no such thing as "first cause". It's a red herring. There is 'primary cause' and 'secondary causes'.

God is the primary cause of creation. Man is the primary cause of what he creates, being created in the image of Creator God.

Sad , just sad

 

[EmSw]

Is it your position that God had no knowledge of these events before they occurred ? That He was blissfuly ignorant of this sin until it occurred ?

Are you an open Theist ?

Actually, it is my position God had no intention for Judah to commit these abominations. Therefore, He was not the first cause, nor any cause of these horrible abominations. Neither did He predestine them to occur. With these words, He made sure no one could accuse, nor put Him in the position of being the first cause, although man will try anyway.

 

[Butch5]

Perhaps your care in reading English has become a little rusty. Let me make one small change that might make my intent and point clear, and show that you completely misread what i wrote.

I wrote: "Why do they hate the Doctrines of Grace? Because they (the Doctrines of Grace) 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."

Better?

I'm not sure what you think I misunderstood. I understood it as you have it here.

 

[^j^RaspberryAngel]

Then your position on your understanding of your type non-denominational God is that he's not the creator. He's not omnipotent, he's not sovereign, he's not omniscient, and man's will can be exercised so as to overcome what the Bible tells us is a divine plan predestined before the world.

Well, since that about sums it up at this point I think I understand your religion.

Of course it conflicts with others of faith. But that's OK too.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"He's God. There is no such thing as "first cause". It's a red herring. There is 'primary cause' and 'secondary causes'.

God is the primary cause of creation. Man is the primary cause of what he creates, being created in the image of Creator God. "

Sad , just sad

Please help me out here. What's so sad; that God created man in His own image and that man can create, or that your "first cause" ideas are a red herring?

 

[Butch5]

I don't normally respond to you because of the false works oriented gospel that you preach. But this one time I'll make an exception, lest you misrepresent my points to others because of your obvious density.

The point you make is exactly my point. God is the first cause.

A bullet as a second cause may be innocent but we are not.

The purpose of Butch would have been evil.

The purpose of God is good.

Are you really as dense as your posts appear or are you just saying dumb things to misrepresent others?

I've said in the past:

"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."

"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."

You are either dim witted or purposefully sinning - I think it's a little bit of both.

This is how these threads usually end and why they get shut down. There's no need for ad hominems. Actually, this is one of the reasons so many people dislike Calvinism. Jesus said you'll know them by there love, not their hostility.