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.
Noticing this charge, Dr. John Dick says, "I acknowledge that this horrible inference seems to be naturally deduced from the Supralapsarian scheme, which represents the introduction of sin as the appointed means of executing the purpose of the Almighty respecting the final doom of his creatures;" again, "There is something in this system repugnant to our ideas of the character of God, whom it represents rather as a despot than the Father of the universe."
Venema testifies as follows: "The Supralapsarian system has no foundation to rest upon ..... Their whole system is completely irreconcilable with the justice of God. Nay, it is in direct opposition to that justice which demands that when punishment is exacted, or when any one is destined to destruction, there be a reason founded in equity for adopting such a course ..... But how inconsistent is it with his justice thus arbitrarily to appoint men to such an end, and for the purpose of carrying it into effect to decree their fall."
Isaac Watts says, "The doctrine of reprobation, in the most severe and absolute sense of it, stands in a direct contradiction to all our notions of kindness and love to others, in which the blessed God is set forth as our example, that our reason can not tell how to receive it."
In previous pages the reader has been informed of Dr. Schaff's view: but for emphasis I will here reproduce a few words: he says, "Supralapsarianism....with fearful logical consistency, makes God the author of the fall of Adam, hence of sin."
Dr. Hodge opposes this scheme because "it is not consistent with the Scriptural exhibition of the character of God. He is declared to be a God of mercy and justice. But it is not compatible with these divine attributes that men should be foreordained to misery and eternal death as innocent, that is, before they had apostatized from God."
In concluding this section, the reader's serious consideration is invited to this clearly established fact, viz., that one class of Calvinists is charged by another class with holding views which legitimately make God the author of sin. As we continue our investigation, we shall be reminded of David's exclamation, "Behold. how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." Possibly we shall see that fulfillment of the Saviour's words, "Every kingdom divided against itself, is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself, shall not stand" (Matt. xii. 25).
Your brother,
Christian.