God made all things, but God did not make sin
.
Yes, they do. ALL things serve God's purpose - even sin. I haven't been keeping up with the last few posts, but everyone in the early posts all agree: everything serves God's purpose. That does not mean God made sin. It does not mean God forced satan or Adam to disobey Him. Whether or not sin or the fall, satan, sinful man, etc. serve God's purpose is not in dispute.
Oh! Don't be quoting small portions of the WCF and using an abusive quote mine to justify bad thinking and bad doctrine. WCF 3.1 is very detailed, very diverse, very specific AND very limited.
- God ordained all things from eternity.
- God is NOT the author of sin.
- God did not do violence to the human will.
- God did not do violence to the contingencies of secondary causes.
In other words, Calvinist theology asserts God as The Causal Agent
BUT the Calvinism of the WCF also teaches God did NOT author sin when He ordained from eternity whatsoever would come to pass. In other words, the ordaining did not cause sin. The whatsoever coming to pass of sin was not authored by God. Likewise, when God ordained all things from eternity He did not do violence to the choices humans would make, nor the contingencies of secondary causes. The definition of the word, "
contingency" is "
a future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty," or "
a provision for an unforeseen event or circumstance"
. Yet God is omniscient (and omnipotent).
In other words, if you are going to use the WCF then
you must use all of it and not just the parts you like. The WCF asserts God as the sole ordainer of all that comes to pass, but it ALSO plainly states He is not the author of sin. The WCF clearly states something occurred that God did not Himself author: sin. Furthermore, the WCF asserts human volition as a real condition and explicitly states God's eternal ordaining did not do violence to the human will. Yet every act of the human will serve God's purpose. The WCF ALSO asserts secondary causes, and not only does it assert the existence of secondary cause, but it also asserts those secondary causes have "
future possible events or circumstances that cannot be predicted with certainty." God is omniscient. He knows all the possible events and circumstances that cannot be predicted with certainty and whatever they may be... they ALL serve His purpose.
So, any Reformed believer in this thread who subscribes to the WCF had better be true to Reformed Theology or I will call him/her out on it. Strict determinism is not Calvinism. Determinists cannot hide behind Calvinism with me. I'll point them directly to the WCF.
The "fall" (sin) serves God's purpose, but God is not the Author of the fall.
This op is playing feebly with everyone here because he is NOT getting on with his own op. If the WCF is correct, then it has incredible relevance to "
God's plan for the fall of man," but this op is not about Reformed theology.
@GeneZ has been clear: he thinks it imperfect.
I took the time to emphasize and get agreement on the pre-existent nature of God's plan, the fact the plan preceded both falls, not just the human "fall," and how the plan has purpose transcending and irrelevant of sin or the fall of either satan or Adam, and all the other aspects I broached that are still being ignored by this op. Whatever is God's plan for
creation, it cannot be said to make God dependent in any way on sin or any other created condition. The Creator is NOT dependent on what He creates. EVER! More importantly, since this op specifies the "
fall," no explanation of God's plan can in any way make the righteous Creator's plan dependent in any way shape or form on unrighteousness, The Law Maker dependent in any way on lawlessness, the Perfect One dependent upon imperfection.
Any and all explanations making the Creator dependent upon that which is created are self-contradictory.
In that one single simple statement a large swath of this thread is shown to be flawed. Despite all the mind-reading, presumptive posturing about others lacking knowledge everyone needing insight, there's no evidence the flaws in this op, or the potential veracity of any alternative suggested by others, are recognized. EVERYONE here has found some discrepancy and the response is that EVERYONE is always and everywhere and only wrong and only he is correct (hyperbole intentional). Yet one single sentence about the presuppositional dependency concerns undoes six ages of posts defending this op. Whatever the plan is imagined to be, it could and should have been articulated in much less than six pages of twenty-posts-per-page fruitlessness and obfuscation. No one who knows how to use a computer on the internet is that incompetent. There are other reasons why it is taking so long to post what can/should be said in a post or three.
Apologies for the length. I hope that clarifies the matter and clears up any real or perceived disagreement.
and save your energy.
).
