His student
Well-Known Member
- Jan 10, 2019
- 1,235
- 555
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
In Calvinism, the argument of secondary causes is that the FINAL "free agent" is culpable for the offence. (Not the FIRST free agent that decreed the event. In the story presented FROM SCRIPTURE the army of Rabbah killed Uriah the Hittite.
There were however four levels of free agents involved in Uriah's death.
1. The army of Rabbah.
2. The men of the Israelite army under Joab's command that knew this action was wrong, because it was a practice of war at that time to not to get too close to the walls because of hot oil, and or stones being dropped on them.
3. Joab. When Joab sent word to King David, we read the following:
11:20 And if so be that the king's wrath arise, and he say unto thee, Wherefore approached ye so nigh unto the city when ye did fight? knew ye not that they would shoot from the wall?11:21 Who smote Abimelech the son of Jerubbesheth? did not a woman cast a piece of a millstone upon him from the wall, that he died in Thebez? why went ye nigh the wall? then say thou, Thy servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also. 2 Samuel
Joab also knew this act was wrong.
4. David. David orchestrated this entire event, and God held him alone responsible.
But let's take this one step further:
The WCF states, "God unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass" ... this means that there were actually five steps to the above story.
5. God. God ordained each of the above previous steps (according to Calvinism). Now since (according to Calvinism) only the FINAL free agent is culpable, why didn't God hold the army of Rabbah responsible for Uriah's death?
Why did God skip not only the FINAL free agent, but the second, and third to the final free agent. So God skipped three free agents, to pin the responsibility of Uriah's death on David, but stopped short of blaming Himself of what He Himself ordained (according to Calvinism).
Maybe one of our Calvinist here would like to answer that question.
Thank you for the opportunity -- although -- I prefer not to lay claim the title of Calvinist – since that usually indicates a belief in all of the 5 points as expounded by current Calvinists. (John Calvin, by the way would not subscribe to “limited atonement” as usually meant by “so called” Calvinists.)
Right on.In Calvinism, the argument of secondary causes is that the FINAL "free agent" is culpable for the offence. (Not the FIRST free agent that decreed the event..
Substituting my example of the murder of Jesus wherein we are given more concerning the reasons for God’s plan than any example of the holocaust, the fall of the tower at Siloam or any other such examples provide for us:
1. The soldiers of Rome.
2. The men of Israel who knew the action was wrong and who, never the less, chanted Barabbas when given the chance to let Jesus go free.
3. Caiaphas and the other rulers of the Jews.
4. God. God orchestrated this entire event -- and yet God holds the aforementioned alone responsible for their sins.
But let's take this one step further. No – wait – there is no step further according to the WCF since God is the first cause of every created and sustained being and every event that happens in history through the free will of those beings.
The WCF states, "God unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass". God ordained each of the above previous steps (according to Calvinism).
Now since (according to Calvinism) only the FINAL free agent is culpable, why didn't God hold the soldiers of Rome responsible for Jesus’ death?
Because they didn’t realize what they were doing and because Jesus prayed for them to be forgiven.
More importantly though – why doesn’t God hold Himself responsible?
He does – for His altogether good plan to forgive sinners which came to pass through the evil sins of men.
For those sins themselves – He rightly holds the sinners responsible since God is not the author of those sins and the sinners involved were given free will to make choices and (according to the clear witness of the WCF) no violence was done to the will of the sinners, nor was the liberty or contingency of these second causes in God’s plan taken away, but rather established.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
By the way – and as a somewhat related aside – the scriptures are filled with examples of the concurrent actions of God and His creatures where in the actions of God are good and the actions of the creatures are sometimes evil.
God sent Joseph to Egypt ahead of his relatives for a good reason. He brought that plan to pass through the evil choices made by the brothers of Joseph, for which they were responsible since God is not the author of those sins – the brothers being given free will which was not in any way coerced by God nor “violence” done to the brothers, nor was the “liberty” of the brothers taken away, but rather established.
Even more direct – Caiaphas made the following snide remark to his fellows - “You know nothing at all. You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish”. And out of the mouth of a sinner God prophesied an absolute good and grand prophecy.
Along those lines – we have the example of a donkey braying and God speaking His Words to the prophet through that natural action of a donkey.
And further - along the lines of the free choices of men and the plan and actions of God being concurrent - I am constantly amazed by people who supposedly believe in the scriptures as the very Word of God and yet who chafe at the very idea that God should be involved in their free choice..
For example – Luke undertook out of his free will to compile a record of various historical events. They were his words and they were God’s Words. God was the 1st cause of the scriptures being written and Luke, in this case, was the 2nd cause.
Along the line in history - men made free choices which preserved the scriptures for us. At the same time it was God bringing His plan to preserve the scriptures for this generation bringing that plan to pass through those free choices of men.
Look – I’m going to take a break here. Suffice it to say that I am constantly amazed at the shallowness of thought that many anti-Calvinists display while undertaking to refute Reformed theology and Calvinism in particular.
It's so often necessary to return to the basics and lay them out in detail because those who hate Calvinism have just glossed over them or ignored them in their zeal to refute their hated foes - the Calvinists.
I've said many times - and not completely in hyperbole - that it is almost like anti Reformed people are worshiping a different God than the one I worship.
J.B. Phillips wrote a little book in 1955 that became a best seller. I suggest that people either read it or reread it because, as Phillips said in the title, "YOUR GOD IS TOO SMALL".
Upvote
0