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

[Butch5]

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

I don't see any problem between God's sovereignty and man's free will. They reconcile fine as long as we define Sovereign by it's definition, that is, the ultimate authority. Sovereign doesn't mean, one who controls everything.

 

[Blank Stair]

I think Christians realize Psalm 24:1 and other scriptures define sovereignty of God.

 

[Butch5]

I think Christians realize Psalm 24:1 and other scriptures define sovereignty of God.

Not sure how this addresses sovereignty.

 

[Marvin Knox]

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.

You are right. I have cleaned up that post. There is no excuse for getting nasty.

This person and I go back quite a ways. I have asked him privately to not misrepresent my words and my beliefs here in the forum.

He continues to stalk me and snipe away.

Still - I'll try to be more civil in the future.

Actually I have vowed not to answer him again. But after a dozen or two snipes, I sometimes give in and say something.

This time I was more than a little over the top.

 

[EmSw]

You are right. I have cleaned up that post. There is no excuse for getting nasty.

This person and I go back quite a ways. I have asked him privately to not misrepresent my words and my beliefs here in the forum.

He continues to stalk me and snipe away.

Still - I'll try to be more civil in the future.

Actually I have vowed not to answer him again. But after a dozen or two snipes, I sometimes give in and say something.

This time I was more than a little over the top.

I don't think I've misrepresented you Marvin. Why don't you just accept what I say is predestined by God? If you can't live by your own doctrine, I say you need to look within and see what's wrong. Why call me dim-witted? No need trample me underfoot.

 

[Blank Stair]

Not sure how this addresses sovereignty.

Fine.

 

[Blank Stair]

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.

In order to qualify that actuality you claim there you'd have to show proof to support your allegations against Calvinism by providing the proof of those many people to whom you refer.

Do you have such evidence?

 

[tulipbee]

But it is.. why does one man hearing the gospel , repent and believe ? And another walk away ?

Cause one is regenerated and the other is not

 

[tulipbee]

But it is.. why does one man hearing the gospel , repent and believe ? And another walk away ?

Cause one is regenerated and the other is not

 

[Butch5]

You are right. I have cleaned up that post. There is no excuse for getting nasty.

This person and I go back quite a ways. I have asked him privately to not misrepresent my words and my beliefs here in the forum.

He continues to stalk me and snipe away.

Still - I'll try to be more civil in the future.

Actually I have vowed not to answer him again. But after a dozen or two snipes, I sometimes give in and say something.

This time I was more than a little over the top.

I understand where it comes from, I v'e done it myself. Sometimes the frustration gets to me and it's hard to refrain.

 

[Butch5]

In order to qualify that actuality you claim there you'd have to show proof to support your allegations against Calvinism by providing the proof of those many people to whom you refer.

Do you have such evidence?

I do, however, If I posted that Joe doesn't like that or Tom doesn't like that what would you say? What I said is based on my personal experience and the interactions I've had with Christians. And, Actually, I probably should have said, I think that why so many dislike Calvinism. By stating an opinion I wouldn't need evidence, even though I have evidence.

It's been my experience and others that I've spoken with that discussion on Calvinism typically end in hostility and quite often with ad hominems. I realize that I frustrate Calvinists when I discuss these topics with them. So, Personally, this stuff doesn't really bother me, I actually bring it on myself. The purpose of discussion isn't to frustrate anyone, it's to arrive at the truth.

I think a lot of the frustration would be eliminated if we stopped defending doctrines.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I don't think I've misrepresented you Marvin. Why don't you just accept what I say is predestined by God? If you can't live by your own doctrine, I say you need to look within and see what's wrong. Why call me dim-witted? No need trample me underfoot.

I'm sorry about the dim-witted crack. I should have maintained my cool.

What you say is destined to be said. No doubt about it.

You have thrown in little things like this, and even statements much more shallow, many times, here.

It has been explained many times why these kind of statements are silly representations of what Reformed people think about these things. You hear - but you don't listen. I'll try one more approach to it.

God may have predestined the rise of Germany before WWII. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have fought against them.

God may have predestined that I will be hit by a car this Saturday. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't look both ways before I cross the street.

God may have predestined you to believe as you do and say the silly things you say on the internet.

"For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you."

But He also tells me to "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction."

For all I know - you may finally come to understand salvation by grace - accept the Lord's work at Calvary as your only hope for salvation - and end up being one of the finest theologians of our time.

Who knows? It's a stretch. But one never knows.

I don't know how things are predestined to be until they have happened and are a finished part of history.

"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever."

Kapeesh?

 

[Blank Stair]

Then it wouldn't be a proper statement to claim ad hominems are one of the reasons so many people dislike Calvinism.
Ad hominems is not part of the doctrine of Calvinism.

Your observation about doctrine and frustration is sort of self-defeating when on an Internet forum where that's the name of the game. I think people can discuss doctrine as adults readily enough. If one is secure in what they hold in faith, no one can threaten them with a different perspective.

Rather, I think what causes strife is when respect and reason are discarded by those who intend to make the discussion about the individual holding to the doctrine they disagree with. Rather than the doctrine itself.
And of course separate and apart from that are the Troll kind. Those are everywhere and will always live to manufacture strife and upset. Largely I think because the profile they project as one who is obtuse really isn't an act. It's why they're Trolls after all.

 

[Butch5]

Here are some things that people should consider. As much as we may not like it admit it Protestantism has it's roots in Catholicism. The Protestant movement came out of the Catholic Church. The Reformers saw some errors in the Catholic Church with which they disagreed and decided to right the wrongs. That was a good thing. They did fix some of the problems that were in the Church. However, what I don't think many realize is that they only fixed what they understood was wrong. What about things that were wrong that they didn't realize were wrong? What about the doctrines they had been taught that they never questioned? I mean the Catholic Church was almost the sole authority of the Scriptures in the west for a thousand years before the Reformation. How much error could enter the faith in that time? Additionally, the Reformers didn't have the manuscript evidence available to them that we have today. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have the Early Church writings, we have computers that can scan these documents in seconds.Today it is much easier to trace Christian doctrines back through history to their source.

Reformation theology has it's root in Augustine. So, the Reformers went back in time to find a more pure faith. I would submit that they didn't go back far enough. They should have gone back to the Christian faith before there was a state church. When Constantine finally favored Christianity and began to promote Christians to positions of power Christianity change drastically. Before Constantine, Christians were persecuted, after Constantine, Christians were the persecutors. Before Constantine, Christians wouldn't go to war, after him they did. Before Constantine, Christians believe the Trinity as, 'To us there is one God, the Father, after him they didn't. Before Constantine, Christians believed and lived the concept of the two kingdoms after him, the church and the world combined. There were lots of changes in the Faith. Had the Reformers gone back this far to the original faith the Reformation would have been quite different.

The point is that some of the ideas of both Calvinism and Arminianism contain errors. Neither of them represent the faith that was taught in the very beginning. In this thread I've heard the term used of 'another gospel'. Well, if we get right down to brass tacks, what is taught today in general is another gospel.

You see, people look at the Scriptures and think they know what Jesus and the apostles taught. That's how we arrive at all of these doctrines. But, in reality they look at the Scriptures and try to interpret what Jesus and the apostles taught. Here we are today, 2000 years removed from the events. We don't read the texts that they did, we read translations of copies of the texts. We also live in a different culture. Yet somehow we are supposed to know the minds of the writers?

If we want to know what Jesus and the apostles taught we need to look at history, not out modern interpretation of the Bible. When we look at the early Christians we can see what they were taught and how the church understood teachings that it received. But we don't do that, instead we sit here argue whose modern interpretation of the Bible is correct. It's sad because the evidence is sitting right there before us and yet for the most part it gets ignored in favor of our modern interpretations.

I've made the argument in this thread about forming doctrines from inference. That this is a bad idea is easily seen in the multitude of Protestant denominations. The Scriptures don't teach opposing doctrines yet Christians have opposing doctrines. That mean's a least one side is wrong. Someone is misunderstanding the Scriptures and often this is due to drawing incorrect inferences. The 'not of works' argument is a good example of this. Some have argued that baptism plays no role in salvation because it is something one does, a work, and therefore cannot be necessary because it violates the faith alone doctrine. Is this argument valid? It seems that some have taken Paul's argument that a man is justified by faith and added "alone" to it. It seems they have inferred this idea. What does the word "works" mean in the context of Paul's teaching on the subject? Some say a work is anything one does, thus anything one does cannot play a role in salvation. Is "anything on does" the definition that Paul had in mind, or is it what they have inferred? If we study Paul's argument it is quite clear that, "anything on does" has been inferred and is not the idea that Paul had in his argument. We see two inferences made here in this argument. So, are these inferences correct or incorrect? If we look at the historical evidence we find that it was universally accepted that baptism was necessary in the Ante-Nicene period and as far as I know up until the Reformation. That's 1400 years of historical evidence for the role of baptism in salvation. There is Scriptural evidence for the role of baptism in salvation also. The evidence shows that the inferences that were drawn in the argument are clearly wrong. Yet in spite of all of this evidence many Protestants will reject the evidence in favor of a flawed argument based on incorrect inferences.

 

[Butch5]

Then it wouldn't be a proper statement to claim ad hominems are one of the reasons so many people dislike Calvinism.
Ad hominems is not part of the doctrine of Calvinism.

In my experience it would be.

Your observation about doctrine and frustration is sort of self-defeating when on an Internet forum where that's the name of the game. I think people can discuss doctrine as adults readily enough. If one is secure in what they hold in faith, no one can threaten them with a different perspective.

Why is a different perspective threatening? This suggests to me an adversarial position. How is discussion fostered in this atmosphere? I'm not saying you're being adversarial, what I mean is that this doesn't seem to be receptive to another's position.

Rather, I think what causes strife is when respect and reason are discarded by those who intend to make the discussion about the individual holding to the doctrine they disagree with. Rather than the doctrine itself.
And of course separate and apart from that are the Troll kind. Those are everywhere and will always live to manufacture strife and upset. Largely I think because the profile they project as one who is obtuse really isn't an act. It's why they're Trolls after all.

I agree. Once reason is gone there is no need for further discussion.

 

[nobdysfool]

I do, however, If I posted that Joe doesn't like that or Tom doesn't like that what would you say? What I said is based on my personal experience and the interactions I've had with Christians. And, Actually, I probably should have said, I think that why so many dislike Calvinism. By stating an opinion I wouldn't need evidence, even though I have evidence.

It's been my experience and others that I've spoken with that discussion on Calvinism typically end in hostility and quite often with ad hominems. I realize that I frustrate Calvinists when I discuss these topics with them. So, Personally, this stuff doesn't really bother me, I actually bring it on myself. The purpose of discussion isn't to frustrate anyone, it's to arrive at the truth.

I think a lot of the frustration would be eliminated if we stopped defending doctrines.

A lot of the frustration would be eliminated if we would just accept that another person sees things differently, and endeavor to ask "why?". I am willing to listen to another viewpoint, provided that the presentation isn't one of trying to force it down my throat, convert me to that way of thinking, or be told that if i don't believe as they do, that I am somehow less of a Christian. The truth is, that over the years since my conversion in 1971, I have witnessed things, in churches that would curl your hair, and I have experienced things that many would consider to not be possible, or "not for today". I have experienced instantaneous healing, I have seen demons cast out, I have even witnessed a person rise from the dead (my wife, who is now my ex-wife by her own decision). That runs contrary to much contemporary theology, so contemporary theology is not something I pay much attention to. I have seen it proven wrong.

There have been, over the years, several who try to dominate the forum, and push their view as the only possible correct view, and do so in a disruptive, off-putting manner. I do not respond well to condescension. I am a reasonable person, I enjoy good, stimulating conversation, but I have the courage of my convictions, and I will not be moved by anything other that the Truth of the Scriptures, and the witness of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Blank Stair]

In my experience it would be.

Please show me then the excerpt from the WCF wherein an Ad Hominem is used. Or one is used in the scriptures that support Calvinism and-or the text of WCF.

Why is a different perspective threatening?

Since you've alluded to those types being your experience I'd think you'd know.

This suggests to me an adversarial position. How is discussion fostered in this atmosphere? I'm not saying you're being adversarial, what I mean is that this doesn't seem to be receptive to another's position.

See above.

I agree. Once reason is gone there is no need for further discussion.

Agreed. Part of the reason I have my signature set just so in matters of reference to logic in such discussions.

 

[Butch5]

A lot of the frustration would be eliminated if we would just accept that another person sees things differently, and endeavor to ask "why?". I am willing to listen to another viewpoint, provided that the presentation isn't one of trying to force it down my throat, convert me to that way of thinking, or be told that if i don't believe as they do, that I am somehow less of a Christian. The truth is, that over the years since my conversion in 1971, I have witnessed things, in churches that would curl your hair, and I have experienced things that many would consider to not be possible, or "not for today". I have experienced instantaneous healing, I have seen demons cast out, I have even witnessed a person rise from the dead (my wife, who is now my ex-wife by her own decision). That runs contrary to much contemporary theology, so contemporary theology is not something I pay much attention to. I have seen it proven wrong.

There have been, over the years, several who try to dominate the forum, and push their view as the only possible correct view, and do so in a disruptive, off-putting manner. I do not respond well to condescension. I am a reasonable person, I enjoy good, stimulating conversation, but I have the courage of my convictions, and I will not be moved by anything other that the Truth of the Scriptures, and the witness of the Holy Spirit.

I too have rejected contemporary theology. I realize people see things differently, however, I would submit that there is only one truth, would you agree? If that's that case then one side or the other is incorrect, would you agree?

 

[Butch5]

Please show me then the excerpt from the WCF wherein an Ad Hominem is used. Or one is used in the scriptures that support Calvinism and-or the text of WCF.

Huh? I was talking about the discussions that take place.

Since you've alluded to those types being your experience I'd think you'd know.

Actually, I don't. I'm not threatened by anyone's theology. If I see error I simply hope to point it out to the individual in order to help them correct it.

See above.

I don't see your point.

Agreed. Part of the reason I have my signature set just so in matters of reference to logic in such discussions.

What I find to be a problem though is that many will abandon that logic when it goes against their doctrines. That in in itself is illogical and irrational.

 

[Marvin Knox]

If we look at the historical evidence we find that it was universally accepted that baptism was necessary in the Ante-Nicene period and as far as I know up until the Reformation. That's 1400 years of historical evidence for the role of baptism in salvation. T

Nonsense!

It was not universally accepted in the days of Christ and it was not universally accepted in the days of Paul.

That - if I'm not mistaken - was considerably before the year 1400 A.D.

Your theology has trumped both accurate historical records and the scriptures themselves.

You are doing exactly the kind of thing that you are railing against.

There is Scriptural evidence for the role of baptism in salvation also. The evidence shows that the inferences that were drawn in the argument are clearly wrong. Yet in spite of all of this evidence many Protestants will reject the evidence in favor of a flawed argument based on incorrect inferences.

The scriptural evidence stands in favor of baptism being only an evidence of prior salvation after salvation by faith. It does not show that it is a part of salvation in the basic sense.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."

"If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God rised Him from the dead - you will be saved"

"Today you will be with me in Paradise."

"I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void."

“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. "

"And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him."

"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days."

I submit that, if you used more the method of inference that you speak so fervently against using, you would not be in error on this doctrine.

Of course baptism playing a part in salvation plays well with a works based salvation philosophy.

I believe that you are letting your theology influence your view of this subject just as you have with some other subjects and passages that you have talked about here in this thread.

A little more inference and a little more allowing scripture to interpret scripture and you'd be much better off in so far as your theology goes IMO.