The Westminster Confession and the Authorship of Sin

We then listened to Leighton Flowers on his podcast and to an “argument” from Eric Kemp.

[reformed]

Provisionists and most who have a firm objection to Calvinism, use the Argument of Incredulity. This is a logical fallacy that states: because someone doesn't understand how something could be true, therefore it must be false.

And as James White pointed out in this video, scripture must be the source of our conclusions; and not ourselves or our philosophical understandings

[TheSilverSmitih]

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS!!! I've been searching for an answer for such a long time with no satisfactory results until today.

[squirrelandchick]

Just found this. Well argued Dr. White.

[danielomitted]

Leighton literally cannot enter into any discussion without somekind of analogy.

[FabledNarrative]

Serious question.
Why is "God being the author of sin" an issue? He chooses whom His creatures are, molded for honor or destruction.
Any issue I have with "God being the author of sin", means my own standard is the basis of judging God.
(Which is wrong.)
God is the ONLY standard to judge God, and His revelation to man is that God decides, we humans don't.
ALL is to the glorification of Himself, as it ALL works towards good. (The ultimate fulfillment of God's kingdom.)
Right?

[theologian]

If God isn't totally sovereign, why do I bother getting up in the morning?

[Topher]

There are differences between a theological contradiction and a conundrum. A conundrum is an “I don’t know how God designed this circle” and appealing to mystery is appropriate. A contradiction is “God made this square also a circle” when the definition of a circle omits the definition of a square so appealing to mystery is not logical. So when someone points out that saying that God is the ultimate causal agent and author of sin, while also saying that God is all good is a contradiction where it is inappropriate to appeal to mystery. God does not contradict himself. If your theology has logical contradictions in it (that make God ambiguously morally suspect at best and at worst make him the causal agent of evil) you should come up with a better formula that fits scripture better.

[jmwSeattle]

Mankind’s 3, 000 years of recorded history is in reality very short. Man hasn’t been racking up knowledge long enough to think he really knows much if anything meaningful at all. The highest knowledge we have about God is in the Bible. The Bible is our highest source of knowledge about Godliness, which is the last thing people want, and which is the most important thing people need.

[SugoiEnglish]

AMEN..."Your philosophy is never any bigger than your cranium." Case closed. I always point out that God's revelation doesn't violate human logic but at times goes beyond it.

[OGRamrod]

What's crazy is that right after this passage in the Westminster Confession of Faith it outright declares God is not the author of sin. It also cites James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5 to support this.

[rjcsr]

Thank you Pastor, this has been the incredibly helpful for stewarding my family through this question

[jessegandy]

God allows sin. His allowance demonstrates His sovereignty over it, without being the author of it. He lets fallen man and fallen nature do what its so inclined.

[Janice-d-witnessing]

Is it just me, or does Leighton, sitting there with the scowl on his face and rubbing his hands together, look like a plotting villain? lol

[alonzomccloud]

First of all do you believe GOD, and what He said about himself, that he is righteous, and that He is light and there is no darkness in Him not one bit...if you know and believe that is true then GOD will illuminate scriptures and give us the words to articulate the truths above...that HE cannot sin nor is HE the author of it...

[introvertedchristian]

Jonathan Edwards is the only one on either side of this debate who I have seen tackle this issue without obfuscation. What he does that I rarely see anybody else do is first try to define what is meant by "author of evil." The phrase can be used in a multitude of different ways. Edwards outright admits that God is the author of evil in the sense that he decrees that evil happen. But he is not the author of evil in the sense of being the doer of any evil thing. It is not evil for God to decree evil since he does so for good and praiseworthy ends. So, in the case of Joseph's brother selling him into slavery, God meant it for good. Likewise, God meant the crucifixion of Jesus for good. He meant for the Assyrians to punish the Israelites. He meant for Pharaoh to resist letting Israel go. The scriptures are full of examples of God playing a hand in other people sinning, but him doing so for good and praiseworthy ends. I think Calvinists should admit that God is the author of sin IN SOME SENSE, but to be careful in spelling out the sense in which he is the author of sin. And I think Calvinism's critics should be careful to spell out the sense in which they think God would be the author of sin under Calvinism, and make an argument for why they think God is the author of sin in that sense. Otherwise, both sides are talking past each other and using insinuation and obfuscation, but not directly clashing with each other over this issue. Speak plainly and precisely, please. Avoid euphemisms and dysphemisms.

[SAOProductions]

Saying the first part along with saying the second part "DOES MAKE IT SO" simply because that's what the Scriptures teach. Sure there's tension there but the argument stemming from a persons unwillingness to live with the tension so as to explain it away is nothing more than an expression of personal hubris.

[julienstevenson]

He said God is "In" ultimate authority, not "an."

[oracleoftroy]

1:20 What an inane comment! "Could it be that our criticism is that once you say the first part (that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass), just saying the second part (that God is not the author of sin and that he establishes man's free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes by what he ordains) doesn't make it so. Well duh! That's what the debate is about! Let's also agree that you objecting to our position also doesn't make it so! But there is no obvious contradiction in the confession if one merely consider the ordinary definitions of the words used instead of force reading in exhaustive determinism into everything.


I wish Leighton and other anti-Calvinists would actually argue for their redefinition of 'ordain' to mean exhaustive determinism instead of just assuming it.

[bhambh]

Why do all the guys say west MIN-IS-TER? ITS MIN-STER! 😡 LOL

[JacobKuchkov]

This doesn’t answer the question. If God establish second causes and upholds their contingency, in the way the Westminster describes, He is in fact the author of sin. Just saying otherwise doesn’t make it not the case