Monergism said:
Randolph Sinks Foster wrote a book called Objections to Calvinism As It Is. He has many objections, I suppose, many on the eternal decree. Now, I know that the Confessions say that God decreed all things, yet he is not the author of sin. But Randolph objects towards the eternal decree as found here:
http://www.gospeltruth.net/foster_on_cal/otc_2.htm
I don't know why it's called "Gospel Truth.net," since it's supporting Finneyism. Anyway, the book was written by Randolph Sinks Foster, and there are a number of objections, which he is in hope, discovering the answer. I suppose I come here to show Calvinists, Reformed, Presbyterians, whatever you may be called, to also find an answer. I know in the past I've brought up several questions, and I only do so, because I wish to learn, so that I may be able to defend my faith (I am a poor sinner who does not know how to even defend his own faith). I fall into despair when I cannot find the answer. It plagues my mind, and I hate it. I know that I cannot answer these questions on my own, because that would be foolish and arrogant of me.
If anyone is willing, please help me.
The rest of the objections as a list is here:
http://www.gospeltruth.net/foster_on_cal/otc_index.htm
For me, how God is God while not being the author of sin, is almost a mystery. However, by grace I am able to say with Job "though He slay me, yet will I trust Him"
To maybe help you, the following is one of the best answers I have found on the subject:
From chapter 16 of Hassell's History:
God, by the withdrawal of His sustaining influence, is no more the proper
cause of sin than the sun, by its departure, is the proper cause of darkness
and cold, but God is thus proved to be the fountain of all holiness, as the
sun is proved to be the fountain of light and heat... it would be strange
arguing indeed, because men never commit sin only when God leaves them to
themselves, and always sin when He does so, that therefore their sin is not
from themselves, but from God, and so that God must be a sinful being; as
strange as it would be to argue, because it is always dark when the sun is
gone, and never dark when the sun is present, that therefore all darkness is
from the sun, and that the sun itself is dark and cold, and its beams are
black and frosty... God overrules all the evil that He permits for the
ultimate good of His people and glory of His name.
Furthermore, this is obviously true as well:
Romans 11:
[
33] O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
[
34] For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?
[
35] Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
[
36] For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
The problem with making God the "author" of sin is that it fosters the belief that man is therefore not responsible for his sinful behavior. If God authored sin, one might say, how can I be responsible for my sinful actions?
Pink does a wonderful job in answering this in one of his chapters from the book, "The Sovereignty of God"
Here is an example:
We now turn to consider the question.
2.
How can the sinner be held responsible FOR the doing of what he is UNABLE to do? And how can he be justly condemned for NOT DOING what he COULD NOT do?
As a
creature the natural man is responsible to love, obey, and serve God; as a
sinner he is responsible to repent and believe the Gospel. But at the outset we are confronted with the fact that natural man is
unable to love and serve God, and that the sinner, of himself,
cannot repent and believe. First, let us prove what we have just said. We begin by quoting and considering John 6:44,
"No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him." The heart of the natural man (every man) is so "desperately wicked" that if he is left to himself he will never 'come to Christ.' This statement would not be questioned if the full force of the words "coming to Christ" were properly apprehended. We shall therefore digress a little at this point to define and consider what is implied and involved in the words "No man can
come to Me"-cf.John 5:40, "Ye will not
come to Me,that ye might have life."
For the sinner to come to Christ that he might have life is for him to realize the awful danger of his situation; is for him to see that the sword of Divine justice is suspended over his head; is to awaken to the fact that there is but a step betwixt him and death, and that after death is the "judgment"; and in consequence of this discovery, is for him to be
in real earnest to escape, and in
such earnestness that he shall
flee from the wrath to come,
cry unto God for mercy, and
agonize to enter in at the "strait gate."
To come to Christ for life, is for the sinner to feel and acknowledge that he is utterly destitute of any claim upon God's favor; is to see himself as "without strength," lost and undone; is to admit that he is deserving of nothing but eternal death, thus taking side with God against himself; it is for him to cast himself into the dust before God, and humbly sue for Divine mercy.
To come to Christ for life is for the sinner to abandon his own righteousness and be ready to be made the righteousness of God in Christ; it is to disown his own wisdom and be guided by His; it is to repudiate his own will and be ruled by His; it is to unreservedly receive the Lord Jesus as his Lord and Saviour, as his All in all.
Such, in part and in brief, is what is
implied and involved in "coming to Christ." But is the sinner willing to take
such an attitude before God? No; for in the first place he
does not realize the danger of his situation, and in consequence is not in real earnest after his escape; instead, men are for the most part
at ease, and apart from the operations of the Holy Spirit whenever they
are disturbed by the alarms of conscience or the dispensations of providence they flee to any other refuge but Christ. In the second place, they will not acknowledge that all their righteousnesses are as filthy rags but, like the Pharisee, will thank God they are not as the Publican. And in the third place, they are not ready to receive Christ as their Lord and Saviour for they are
unwilling to part with their
idols;they had rather hazard their soul's eternal welfare than give them up. Hence we say that, left to himself, the natural man is so depraved at heart that he
cannot come to Christ.
The words of our Lord quoted above by no means stand alone. Quite a number of Scriptures set forth the moral and spiritual
inability of the natural man. In Joshua 24:19 we read, "And Joshua said unto the people,
Ye cannot serve the Lord:for He is an holy God." To the Pharisees Christ said, "Why do ye not understand My speech? even because
ye cannot hear My word" (John 8:43). And again: "The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God,
neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh
cannot please God" (Rom. 8:7, 8).
But now the question returns, How can God hold the sinner responsible for failing to do what he is
unable to do? This necessitates a careful definition of terms. Just what is meant by "unable" and "cannot"?
Now let it be clearly understood that when we speak of the sinner's
inability, we do not mean that
if men
desired to come to Christ they lack the necessary power to carry out their desire. No; the fact is that the sinner's inability or absence of power is itself
due to lack of willingness to come to Christ, and this lack of willingness is the fruit of a depraved heart. It is of first importance that we distinguish between
natural inability and moral and spiritual inability. For example, we read, "But Ahijah
could not see;for his eyes were set by reason of his age" (1 Kings 14:4); and again, "The men rowed hard to bring it to the land; but
they could not:for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous against them" (Jonah 1:13). In both of these passages the words "could not" refer to
natural inability. But when we read, "And when his brethren saw that their father loved him (Joseph) more than all his brethren, they hated him,
and could not speak peaceably unto him" (Gen. 37:4), it is clearly
moral inability that is in view. They did not lack the
natural ability to "speak peaceably unto him" for they were not
dumb. Why then was it that they "could not speak peaceably unto him"? The answer is given in the same verse: it was because "they
hated him." Again; in 2 Peter 2:14 we read of a certain class of wicked men "having eyes full of adultery, and that
cannot cease from sin."Here again it is
moral inability that is in view. Why is it that these men "cannot cease from sin"? The answer is, Because their eyes were full of adultery. So of Romans 8:8-"They that are in the flesh
cannot please God": here is
spiritual inability. Why is it that the natural man "cannot please God"? Because he is
"alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18). No man can choose that from which his heart is
averse-"O generation of vipers,
how can ye, being evil, speak good things?" (Matt. 12:34). "No man
can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him" (John 6:44). Here again it is
moral and spiritual inability which is before us. Why is it the sinner cannot come to Christ unless he is "drawn"? The answer is, Because his wicked heart
loves sin and
hates Christ.
We trust we have made it clear that the Scriptures distinguish sharply between natural ability and moral and spiritual inability. Surely all can see the difference between the blindness of Bartimaeus, who was ardently desirous of receiving his sight, and the Pharisees, whose eyes were closed "lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted" (Matt. 13:15). But should it be said, "The natural man
could come to Christ if he
wished to do so," we answer, Ah! but in that IF lies the hinge of the whole matter. The inability of the sinner consists of the
want of moral power
to wish and will so as to actually perform.
What we have contended for above is of first importance. Upon the distinction between the sinner's natural Ability, and his moral and spiritual Inability rests his
Responsibility. The depravity of the human heart does not destroy man's accountability to God; so far from this being the case the very moral inability of the sinner only serves to
increase his guilt. This is easily proven by a reference to the Scriptures cited above. We read that Joseph's brethren "could not speak peaceably unto him," and why? It was because they "hated" him. But was this moral inability of theirs any excuse? Surely not: in this very moral inability consisted the greatness of their sin. So of those concerning whom it is said, "They cannot cease from sin" (2 Peter 2:14), and why? Because "their eyes were full of adultery," but that only made their case worse. It was a real fact that they could not cease from sin, yet this did not excuse them-it only made their sin the greater.
Should some sinner here object, I cannot help being born into this world with a depraved heart and therefore I am not responsible for my moral and spiritual inability which accrue from it, the reply would be, Responsibility and Culpability He in the
indulgence of the depraved propensities, the
free indulgence, for God does not force any to
sin. Men might pity me but they certainly would not excuse me if I gave vent to a fiery temper and then sought to extenuate myself on the ground of having
inherited that temper from my parents. Their own common sense is sufficient to guide their judgment in such a case as this. They would argue I was responsible to restrain my temper. Why then cavil against this same principle in the case supposed above? "Out of
thine own mouth will I judge thee thou wicked servant" surely applies here! What would the reader say to a man who had robbed him and who later argued in defense, "I cannot help being a thief, that is my nature"? Surely the reply would be, Then the penitentiary is the proper place for that man. What then shall be said to the one who argues that he cannot help following the bent of his sinful heart? Surely, that the Lake of Fire is where
such an one must go. Did ever a murderer plead that he hated his victim so much that he
could not go near him without slaying him. Would not that only magnify the enormity of his crime! Then what of the one who loves sin so much that he is at "enmity against
God"!