V. … For since they [Stoics –DHC] are said commonly to place a necessity out of God in the perpetual and eternal connection of things, we place it in God himself and his eternal decree. They subject God to necessity, we subject necessity to God. … [Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.6.II.5]
XVII. The predetermination of God in evil acts is not repugnant to his permission because they are not occupied about the same things. The former regards the substance of the act, the latter, however, its wickedness; the former reaches the material (effecting it), but the latter the formality (leaving it to the free will of man, which alone is the deficient moral cause). For as in an evil act, there is, as it were, a twofold formal relation (one having the relation of effect, the other having the relation of defect), God can move and predetermine to that which has the relation of effect, but can only permit the other which has the relation of defect. [Ibid., 1.6.VI.18]
This blog is my personal blog. All views and articles expressed and written here are solely my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of my church or denomination or anyone else. Most posts are written for my own personal edification, and are not written in response to any external situation, unless otherwise and explicitly stated. Nobody should be reading into them anything other than what is explicitly stated, unless otherwise confirmed by me in writing.
Saturday, July 15, 2017
Turretin: Christianity is not fatalism, and God is not the author of sin
12 comments:
This is my blog, and in order to facilitate an edifying exchange, I have came up with various blog rules. Please do read them before commenting, as failure to abide by them would make your post liable to being unapproved for publication. Violation of any of the rules three or more times, or at the blog owner's judgment, would make one liable to be banned from posting unless the blog owner (me) is satisfied that such behavior would not occur again.
The second statement does not solve the mystery of the relation between the will of God and sinful human actions; Turretin makes this clear elsewhere in his *Institutes.* It does, however, faithful set forth a mystery which Scriptures sets forth for our acceptance.
ReplyDeleteThis is the biblically balanced position which represents the consensus of Reformed scholasticism and Puritanism on this subject. The Synod of Dort and Westminster Assembly alike clearly rejected the idea that the will of God is the efficient cause of the sinfulness of sinful human acts.
The second statement of Francis Turretin is very biblical and balanced. It does not
ReplyDeletesolve any mystery (as Turretin acknowledges elsewhere in his *Institutes*), but faithfully sets forth both sides of a mystery which we are called upon to accept. The statement
accurately reflects an important consensus of Reformed scholasticism and Puritanism
on this topic. It is simply a misrepresentation of history (albeit unintentional) to affirm that either the Synod of Dort or the Westminster Assembly tolerated the idea that God is the efficient cause of the sinfulness of human sinful actions. (Neither they nor their pre-Reformation scholastic predecessors made any distinction between "author of sin" and "cause of sin.")
@KSF,
ReplyDeleteIt is simplistic to assert that God is in no way the ultimate cause of sin. All things are caused. If God is not the ultimate cause, then there would be something that is independent of God. Claiming "mystery" does not resolve the problem. To simultaneously claim that all things are dependent on God and also that God is not the ultimate cause of all things is to violate the law of non-contradiction, and that is not a "mystery" but a contradiction.
Is Righteousness the source, or cause, of the sinfulness of sins?
ReplyDeleteNo. Righteousness is an attribute, attributive to God.
DeleteIs it possible to define the sense in which God is the ultimate cause of sin?
ReplyDeleteIs God the ultimate cause of the sinfulness of sin?
"Ultimate cause" means that metaphysically, God is the one who allows for sin. The simplest example is that creation is necessary for sin. If God did not create, sin cannot ever happen. Therefore, the fact that God creates at all, and then sovereignly governs and rules over the world, means that God is the ultimate cause of sin.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what you mean by "sinfulness of sin." "Sin" is sin, defined as violations of God's holy law.
By "sinfulness of sin" I mean, more clearly, the sinfulness of the sinful *action*, as distinguished from, for example, the intelligence of the action--which is good in a certain sense and thus caused by God. I think that the London Confession of 1689 actually improves a little on the wording of the Westminster Confession in making this distinction: "the sinfulness of their acts proceedeth only from the creatures, and not from God" (5.4).
ReplyDeleteBased on your definition of sin, then God's Law defines the "sinfulness of sin." That is a fact of definition, not "caused" in any efficient sense.
ReplyDeleteIs Righteousness Himself *the source* of the sinfulness of sinful human acts?
ReplyDeleteAgain, there is no efficient causation by God of the sinfulness of sin.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome
ReplyDelete