Posted on 07/11/2004 7:06:05 AM PDT by thePilgrim
CALVINISM
CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD
AND
MAN'S MORAL NATURE.
by
D. FISK HARRIS.
Copyrighted and Published by the Author
1890
In order to have an intelligent discussion of about the topic, which is the title of this thread, one must have at least a cursory knowledge of the work of John Calvin. Merely second sourcing citations will most likely quickly reveal to discerning posters that you are woefully ignorant of Calvinism.
I have provided an online book, of which I have skimmed, but not read every jot and title, for reference of a source which makes the claim that Calvinism does make God the author of Sin. See section 3 of the book.
(Excerpt) Read more at gospeltruth.net ...
I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknow what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. For as it belongs to his wisdom to foreknow all future events, so it belongs to his power to rule and govern them by his hand. This question, like others, is skillfully explained by Augustine: "Let us confess with the greatest benefit, what we believe with the greatest truth, that the God and Lord of all things who made all things very good, both foreknow that evil was to arise out of good, and knew that it belonged to his most omnipotent goodness to bring good out of evil, rather than not permit evil to be, and so ordained the life of angels and men as to show in it, first, what free-will could do; and, secondly, what the benefit of his grace and his righteous judgment could do," (August. Enchir. ad Laurent.)
I thought a few of you might be interested in this topic.
BTW, in skimming through the Finney site, where I found this book, I noticed a section that contains terms as Finney defined, or redefined, to suit his pleasure. At least now I know one reason why, when trying to read Finney, he sounded like a complete doctrinal idiot; we weren't even talking the same theological language.
Your brother,
Christian.
Dr. Eckleburg suggested that I ping a few names as the ones I originally pinged are not available. You are the ones I have seen posting or have posted with in the past. My apologies if you have no interest in the topic.
Christian.
You're striking out today, I'm afraid.
RnMom was suspended for three days (something about defending the faith and criticizing the PCUSA which has voted to denounce the President and the war on terror); Gamecock is out of the country for awhile, I think; and Jean seems to be on vacation, too.
Sundays in July can be slow. 8~(
Bummer. Yet, out and out name calling and personal attacks against the Calvinists seem to be in vogue.
I had just looked at the forum this morning and thought about posting a little with some of my more thoughtful Protestant brethren and to my chagrin it looked like the all Catholic channel.
BTW, did you happen to notice this part of the book, which seems to want to pit the Supralapsarian Calvinists & the Infralapsarian (I thought that historically they were Sublapsarian) Calvinists against each other? Do you think that the citations are actually contextually good and do you think that the Infralapsarian Calvinists really do have a legitimate complaint? I suppose that one would have to actually define the terms first to make sure that everyone has the same definition of "author of sin."
I mean, both Calvinists would assert that God actually wrote the book of history because He is the author of it; it unfolds exactly as He desires. Ergo, God is the author of all things, including sin, in this definition. However, they would differ in that the Infralapsarian would have that God has logically purposed man with certain characteristics then observed his fall and permitted it, whereas the Supralapsarian would have that God has logically purposed man with 2 ends and then created the characteristics in man to ensure that end. Obviously, there would be different definitions of "author of sin" with regards to what God created to bring about his purpose in creating man.
Here is the appropriate selection from Part 3, Section 3.
This is not due to the Catholic posts but to the relative lack of non-Catholic posts.
Admittedly, this Forum has been linked by a number of conservative Catholic websites, and lately professional Catholic apologists including Patrick Madrid and Karl Keating have signed on here, if only to post on rare occasions.
It might also be a matter of simple math...I think there are simply more orthodox Catholics in the USA than orthodox Calvinists.
Therefore, instead of lamenting the Catholic presence, how about you likewise cultivate your Calvinist presence.
Sin Makes Gnosticism the Author of God
/sarcasm
Actually, though I was making a lament in the sense that I put my thought to paper, so to speak, for this is the connotation of lament, my choice of the word "chagrin" should have carried with it a personal guilt. So, I meant no accusation at the Catholics.
As far as cultivating the Calvinist presense, I would suppose that the professing Calvinists here would need to take the reins. And, from my own personal observation, there seems to be 2 or 3 non-Calvinist Protestants who have publically stated that they think the organization that Calvinists have done here should be disbanded.
I do really wish that some of the Calvinists here would come out from their hiding spots and take this topic. I do have some serious questions about a few key things.
However, I do have some strong reservations about the thoughtfullness of the piece I linked at the head of this article. For instance, under Part 3, Section 4, the following citation can be found:
Thanks for the ping!
Very astute observation on Finney. Finney speaks the same "works righteousness" language that Romanists, Mormons, Mohammedans and every other legalistic religious system speaks.
Those in opposition to Calvinists do all they can to get Calvinists banned as soon as they can, which accounts for a lack of numbers.
bush_4_4more Since Jul 12, 2004
Now how would a genuine newbie know that or even suspect that? Are you really a new freeper, or just a recycled previously banned freeper?
Who made you the thread cop?
Some clown named Milquetoast Q. Whitebread?
You guys seem to be drawing a lot of attention to your new calvinist friend. Or is he an old calvinist friend?
Milquetoast was always two-faced, P-. And as you know, FR only succeeded in half-banning him. I wonder which side?
You guys seem to be drawing a lot of attention to your new calvinist friend. Or is he an old calvinist friend?
Could be he's not a friend at all. There are a few similarities between his dental work and a moose bite found on OP's sister. But this thread isn't about the poster; it's about the posted article. What do you think of it?
Maybe (s)he just lurked, lots of people do you know? Perhaps, it is experimental, because it seems to me that you are attempting to prove his point, Neener Boy.
Those are all excellent observations, Polycarp. I wasn't aware that conservative Catholic websites were directing traffic/linking to FR, but that would explain the large percentage of Catholics on the boards here. I'm not aware of any Protestant or Reformed organizations that are doing likewise.
Considering that he already admitted that he hasn't read Calvin's work, I would suspect that he is a bit shy about commenting on something which he only has a second source familiarity. Besides he has told me not to talk to him and it might be considered rude for him to presume to talk on this thread about a topic I started.
Your brother,
Christian.
Yes, no one really knows how long anyone has watched before posting. And, yes, I'd say that it is proving his point. Almost prophetic.
BTW, perhaps you might wish to comment on the portion of the book I have highlighted. It does seem to me that some of the Calvinist cites are not quite contextually fair, but it will take me a fair amount of time to work through all of the source citations.
It would be the least of the books problems, which is really frustrating. I do have some questions to the Calvinists in this area, but I am finding it nearly impossible to find a well written argument that demonstrates in what way Calvinism makes God the author of sin.
Your brother,
Christian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.