Sonny Burrell
My Testimony and Stance
From Condemnation to Christ
Hello friends! Sonny here. Here’s a bit about me, starting from when I got saved. The first time the Gospel was definitively preached to me, I was about eight years old. I cannot confidently say that I was regenerated or born-again at that point, but manifestly, the Gospel message had its effect on me and the way that I lived my life. Every once in a while, I would come across different people, in school and elsewhere, that I found out were Christians and, from there, I’d show my respect and honor for them. Nonetheless, one of the things that was distinctively wrong with my life prior to my being converted was that I would get so irritated and remonstrative when others would so proudly and loudly engage in their sins whereas with me, I had my own vices which I never removed from my conduct. Perhaps, I felt that I was, in some sense, excusable largely because I was remorseful about my own sins and felt that I was bound to do away with them eventually. Or perhaps, I was just envious because I couldn’t enjoy the pleasures that others enjoyed without suffering the guilt that went along with them. Whatever the case, what I do know is that I made myself the law and I would penalize those who had shown themselves to be at variance with that law. I basically continued in my own righteousness until I was nineteen. At that point, even though I was a “good” guy, I was tired of having my soul at risk of Hellfire and effectually sensed my need to be saved from the sin to which I was bound and the Hell to which it drew me. I had to make sure that I was saved. But of course, I had to also have a basis to be sure. I had to actually be saved. I began to go to a Calvary Chapel and it was around that time, I believe, that I placed my faith in Jesus and he saved me.
Growing in Grace and Knowledge
For the first year after I first got saved, I unfortunately struggled with reading the Bible along with praying amongst other things. But after seeing what God was doing in the lives of others I knew who got saved at around the same time that I did, I was stirred. I was also rebuked. That was followed by an interesting point in my life in which I began sharing with people at the place where I worked. That was a valuable and particularly constructive season to go through. I did not realize until later how much God was doing in training me on how to talk with people and showing me that even if the greatest orator and debater (by this I don’t suggest that I’m great) should speak the Bible before men, at the end of the day, it is God that must speak if people are to be born again and spiritually nurtured. I became known for talking with people about God. Along with this, there was that much needed fellowship with other Christians that turned out to be most memorable to me. I still like to recall the nights of worship and prayer that would take place with other young adults like myself. To me, those events were like spiritual catalysts and what comes to mind when I’m encouraging others who’ve committed their lives to Chrst to be in fellowship.
A Change in Soteriological Perspective
Roughly about March of 2008, I was challenged to look into and contend with what is called the Doctrines of Grace (A.K.A. T.U.L.I.P. or the Five Points of Calvinism). It was a relatively rigorous expedition that basically ended with my espousal of the very doctrines I was supposed to learn about and refute. Don’t get me wrong, by the time I started studying the Doctrines of Grace, I didn’t think that it was as bad as the tenets of Mormonism or the Watchtower Tract Society. Various deceased and contemporary theologians were instrumental in that. But, of course, I maintain that God was the one who was responsible for the good of their influence. After struggling and resisting and challenging and scrutinizing, the truth of it was increasingly elucidated. Thus Calvinism showed itself, more and more, to be irrefutable.
Change in Eschatological Perspective
In October of 2008, I underwent to study Eschatology and really come to an understanding of the scriptures upon which the various interpretatitive schemes were supposedly based. And through all this, I sought to come to my own conclusion or have my own position on the issue instead of just leaving it up to the “experts”. I ultimately concluded that stage of my studies (to be clear, I am by no means done studying) in Eschatology with espousing what is called Reformed Amillennialism.
Other Perspectives and Conclusion
Concerning spiriual gifts, I call myself a moderate-continuationist; concerning apologetic methodology, a presuppositionalist; and concerning the origin of the universe, a young-earth creationist. While I want people who come across this blog as well as those that I talk with personally to be edified and educated, I am very much a student and fallible. Therefore, I’m open, as I should forever be, to correction. I have my internal struggles and am confronted with outward adversity, but God has given me a faith that overcomes the world, because his Son has overcome the world. May God be justified and glorified in all things. God bless ya!
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
THE CALVINISM OF CALVIN
FATALISM
AND
GOD AS THE CAUSE OF ALL SINS
(i.e., MORAL EVIL)
According to John Calvin:
…Everything is subject to God and ruled by his will and that when the world has done what it may, nothing happens other than what God decrees. (Acts: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.66)
First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121)
God had no doubt decreed before the foundation of the world what He would do with every one of us and had assigned to everyone by His secret counsel his part in life. (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, p.20)
…The reason why God elects some and rejects others is to be found in His purpose alone…before men are born their lot is assigned to each of them by the secret will of God… the salvation or the destruction of men depends on His free election. (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, p.203)
Everything is controlled by God’s secret purpose, and nothing can happen except by his knowledge and will. (The Institutes of Christian Religion, p.72)
What we must prove is that single events are ordered by God and that every event comes from his intended will. Nothing happens by chance. (The Institutes of Christian Religion, p.73)
For the man who honestly and soberly reflects on these things, there can be no doubt that the will of God is the chief and principal cause of all things. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.177)
When he uses the term permission, he means that the will of God is the supreme and primary cause of everything, because nothing happens without his order of permission. (The Institutes of Christian Religion, p.75)
…The devil and all the ungodly are reined in by God, so that they cannot conceive, plan or carry out any crime, unless God allows it, indeed commands it. They are not only in bondage to him, but are forced to serve him. It is the Lord’s prerogative to enable the enemy’s rage and to control it at will, and it is in his power to decide how far and how long it may last, so that wicked men cannot break free and do exactly what they want…. (The Institutes of Christian Religion, pp.81-82)
Whatever things are done wrongly and unjustly by man, these very things are the right and just works of God. This may seem paradoxical at first sight to some…. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.169)
…What I said before is to be remembered, that since God manifests His power through means and inferior causes, it is not to be separated from them. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.170)
…Of all the things which happen, the first cause is to be understood to be His will, because He so governs the natures created by Him, as to determine all the counsels and the actions of men to the end decreed by Him. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.178)
Thinking that the difficulty here may be resolved by a single word [permit], some are foolish enough serenely to overlook what occasions the greatest ambiguity; namely, how God may be free of guilt in doing the very thing that He condemns in Satan and the reprobate and which is to be condemned by men. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.179)
We learn that nothing happens but what seems good to God. How then is God to be exempted from the blame to which Satan with his instruments is liable? (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.180)
Do Calvinists actually believe this?
*Not every Calvinist will admit (or can even see) the implications of an all encompassing decree relative to the Reformed view of God and sin. Some will admit more than others. While trying to figure out what a particular group of Calvinists actually believed I proposed (to them) the following view of God relative to sin:
“Every murder, every rape, every child molestation, every immoral act, every depraved sin of every kind and every moral evil a man can think of and act out is as much a result of the all encompassing decree of God as is every good deed, every kind act, every loving gesture…
And:
To rob God of His right to do whatever He chooses to do (which is everything that has ever been done or will ever be done) is to deny that God is sovereign over all. It is to reduce the infinite God (in the fallen imagination of a godless man) to the level of wicked men…
And:
Most professing Christians will say that God has the right to do as He pleases. I will go further and say that whatever God does is right. If God does it-that makes it right and the day will come when those who deny that God has the right to do anything and every thing (and He has and always will exercise that right) will learn how wrong they have been!”
I deliberately stated this (God is the author of sin) view as strongly, as clearly, and as unapologetically as I could. I gave those I was talking with an opportunity to deny, modify, or qualify their acceptance or rejection of this view. They unequivocally agreed that what I represented (as stated above) as the most extreme view of Calvinism that I could imagine, was indeed what they believed to be true of authentic Calvinism and by extension of orthodox and biblical Christianity.
For these Calvinists (who consider themselves consistent-supralapsarian- Calvinists) in the mainstream of historic Calvinism, I decided to quote relevant portions of a paper written to explain and defend the God is the author of sin thesis. The author of the paper I quoted (and will include for your careful consideration) not only understands Calvinism in general but the various representations (as well as the arguments put forward and their behalf) of Calvinism as well. While I emphatically disagree with the author’s thesis that Scripturally Speaking God is or even could be the author of sin, I agree with him that this is at least the clear implications of a consistent Reformed theology. Here are some relevant portions of some of what he wrote and I included for the Calvinists I was conversing with:
“When Reformed Christians are questioned on whether God is the “author of sin,” they are too quick to say, “No, God is not the author of sin.” And then they twist and turn and writhe on the floor, trying to give man some power of “self-determination,” and some kind of freedom that in their minds would render man culpable, and yet still leave God with total sovereignty.
On the other hand, when someone alleges that my view of divine sovereignty makes God the author of sin, my first reaction tends to be, “So what?”…I have never come across a half-decent explanation as to what’s wrong with God being the author of sin in any theological or philosophical work written by anybody from any perspective. The truth is…there is no biblical or rational problem with him being the author of sin….if God directly causes you to sin, it does make him the “author” of sin …Some make a distinction between natural and moral evil, but the Bible says that God causes both… (Cheung)
Again, I asked these particular Calvinists if this paper reflected their view and got an enthusiastic “yes” it does.
Those Calvinists the author of this paper refers to as rejecting the God is the author of sin view are generally categorized and or referred to as infralapsarians (such as R. C. Sproul Sr., John MacArthur, John Piper, James Boice etc.,) and the like. It also includes Reformed “statements of faith” such as the Westminster Confession of Faith that expressly deny (albeit inconsistently) that God is the author of sin.
Obviously Calvinists are not all the same and they do not always agree with one another. Different Calvinists are also of different temperaments. My exposure to Calvinists of the God is the author of sin kind suggests that they take there Calvinism very seriously. They seem ready and waiting to verbally pounce on (and if possible) intimidate those who disagree with them with a vengeance. They typically have little patience for those who cannot accept or see that what they are saying as the unvarnished truth of true biblical Christianity. If you engage them, be prepared to be called just about everything but late for dinner. For example, once I entered into what they considered their turf, it did not take them long to pellet me with their favorite epithet. They were not particularly creative in what they called me, but they were quick to let me know that I was “very ignorant” “very stupid” “as stupid as they come” a “dumb dumb” and a “bonehead”. Besides the many statements suggesting a lack of intelligence on my part, they were even faster to question my motives and character for daring to suggest that their version of Christianity and their interpretation of Scripture might not be the final authority on all matters sacred or pertaining to faith and practice.
Besides whatever entertainment value that may be derived in witnessing Christians experiencing an “emotional breakdown”, a “cerebral meltdown”, or going “theologically postal” at the drop of an uncomfortable question, all the name calling is nothing more than a distraction and an extremely poor substitute for a Scripturally or even rationally based argument. I recognize that many mainstream Evangelicals do not believe it is even necessary to scripturally prove that an absolute perfectly good and holy God could not be the author of sin or responsible for any of the sinful things implied in the assertion that God is the author of sin. They would suggest, and I would agree, that by definition an absolutely good God is no more capable of being the author of sin than an eternal God is capable of ceasing to exist.
To suggest that an infinitely perfect and holy God is the author of sin makes the same kind of sense that is suggested by postulating a square circle or a something that equals nothing. If it is a square, it cannot by definition be a circle. If it is something, it cannot by definition, be nothing. Even so, if God is absolutely good, He cannot, by definition, be the author of sin and all that is implied with such words.
Some Christians (who believe God is both absolutely good and the author of sin) think they have managed to get around this problem is to relativize the absolutes, which is itself logically speaking, definitional non-sense.
Suppose I said that a square became a circle by rounding when someone rounded off the corners. If I rounded off the corners so that there were no more corners I might end up with a circle, but it would not be a square circle but something previously square that is now rounded. In such a case the squareness was not absolute or the square was not eternally square. Suppose I said I had something eternal that ceased to exist. I would only prove the something I was referring to was never eternal in the first place. Even so, if God were the responsible cause of something bad (as in wicked) as all sin is, he could not, by definition by perfectly, infinitely, or absolutely good.
Hope this helps on your travels down the Reformed road.
(Revised: Sep. 10, 2009 @ 7:40 am)
Hello Mr. Bryson and sorry for the late response,
I’d think that what responses I return unto you is not necessarily anything that you haven’t already been confronted with and don’t already have an answer for, but since you have taken the time to even post here, considering the setting, it’s only proper that I respond. But one thing I’d really like to avoid is getting caught up in mere semantics. And for the record, I’m a supralapsarian. Your book, “The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting” got me to analyzing particular excerpts from Loraine Boettner and John Calvin so that in the end, I came to that identification. The little that I’ve read by Martin Luther (Bondage of the Will) and John Byl (The Divine Challenge) contributed to that as well. Of course, it wasn’t until after I became one that I became exposed to the term, ‘supralapsarianism’. Anyway…
From my point of view, there is really no way to disqualify Calvinism without disqualifying also the Bible, and without disqualifying whatever position you have, seeing as it is supposed to be based on the Bible.
Let’s look at a couple of the quotes you made:
Whatever things are done wrongly and unjustly by man, these very things are the right and just works of God. This may seem paradoxical at first sight to some…. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.169)
…What I said before is to be remembered, that since God manifests His power through means and inferior causes, it is not to be separated from them. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.170)
Now consider this scripture:
Ezekiel 14:9 (nasb) – And if the prophet is prevailed upon to speak a word (that is to prophesy falsely), it is I, the LORD, who have prevailed upon that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from among my people Israel.
Ezekiel 14:9 (kjv) – And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
There are a number of scriptures that I could have selected, but the reason I selected this one in particularly is because of the way in whch it is translated in the KJV. However, I’m going to be commenting according to the the way it is translated in the NASB:
Where is the contradiction or variance between the two excerpts you presented above and Ezekiel 14:9, which I’ve interjected?
If I should so venture, I submit to you that the way in which God prevailes upon a prophet so that he speaks falsely is through God’s decree or ordination as Calvinism understands it. Calvinism is the best and only means of (adequately) accounting for scriptures like this, being forthcoming and in line with hard sayings of scripture such as this, and yet maintaining the fact that God does not sin (for he is good and holy) and that man is still responsible for his sin (for it is only sinful men or persons that do sinful things, and as they desire). I will ask you that if Calvinism, or more specifically if the statement, “God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass” entails that God is unjustly responsible for sin, what alternative, then, do you have for accounting for how God can prevail upon a prophet so that he speaks falsely, as scripture, in fact, says he does and while at the same time maintaining, both, that God himself does not sin and that Calvinism is spurious?
And I ask which would you think is worse: Saying that God decrees or foreordains whatsoever comes to pass or even that God is the author of sin as far as Vincent Cheung allows for that to be said (Not to say that I agree with his conclusion) or saying that God could prevail upon the prophets referred to in Ezekiel 14 so that they should speak falsely?
For all I know, you could say that the prophets transgressed so as to deserve to be deceived as a judgment attributed to God, and with that, I agree. However, that still doesn’t take away from the fact that Ezekiel 14 says that in some sense deception, which men are susceptible to, is decreed by God. Indeed, he is using the wicked entities in Ezekiel to fulfill his will, but they alone are the ones in the wrong, as they are not driven by God, but dictated by their wicked nature to speak deceitfully.
Now indeed, there is a problem if God is said to cause one to speak falsely if the one who speaks isn’t a sinner or if the one that is deceived isn’t a sinner who, having a sinful nature, will, and committing sinful deeds, is unduly susceptible to the deception accomplished or that God is by his own nature a deceiver. But that is not what Calvinism explicitly states, nor is that what is implied, though you basically keep insisting that it is. Wicked persons are not coerced or manipulated to sin, but they perform the wickedness that they desire and cause themselves to perform.
And I figured I’d also throw in:
2 Samuel 24:1 – And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
How do you account for the truthfulness of this also, not only as a non-Calvinist, but also as one who seems so relentlessly opposed to Calvinism?
And the fact remains even for the Christian who is a non-Calvinist: God is sovereign, the creator of the cosmos, and has foreknown all things, including the course and end of this world, since eternity past. Yet at some point, sin entered into the world. God did permit it (as I’m sure you agree), but not merely that; It is also that he created the world knowing that sin would enter into it. If it were not for God and his designing, sin would have never been. That is an absolute fact. Yet, he created a world, knowing that those whom he created would sin, knowing that Adam would bring sin into the world, knowing even that people would go to Hell for sin. He created the world the way that he wanted it to be; That is, according to his will. Of course he didn’t have to. But he did anyway. To the non-Calvinist, this is an irremediable problem, but not to the Calvinist, as difficult as it might actually be.
I appreciate your help Mr. Bryson, even though the outcome of your involvement has not been what you would have aimed for.
Y’all must be famous for George Bryson to pay you a visit…
LOL! If that were only the case brother!
I’m waiting for Sonny to respond to him before I put my thoughts… hopefully he’ll come back!
Realizing that it probably means less than nothing to some or most Calvinists, I would like to suggest that there are (generally speaking) several different kinds of Calvinism relative to the question “Is God the author of sin”.
1. Some (perhaps most) sincerely do not believe God is the author of sin because they do not really understand (and therefore do not accept) the explicit and implicit teachings of Calvin on this matter. This could be because they are still new to Calvinism and have not figured it out or they simply do not (for whatever reason or reasons) understand what Calvin taught and implied by what he taught.
2. Some sincerely do not believe God is the author of sin but they just as sincerely believe God is the cause of the sin of which they say He is not the author. This can be explained (or not) via the mystery, or paradox factor so often appealed to by Calvinists when they are confronted with a contradiction between Calvinism and the Bible or what they believe is an apparent contradiction in the Bible.
3. Some sincerely but secretly believe God is the author of the sin which they believe He causes but are are afraid to admit as much for fear that they will be taken to task by others they respect but who do not seem to see the implications of saying God is the cause of everything but not the author of sin.
4. Some sincerely believe and openly confess that they believe God is the cause and author of sin and will vigorously defend this view. While I totally disagree with their theological position, I cannot help but recognize that they must be right if Calvin is true. I also cannot help but respect their willingness to admit what should be obvious to other Calvinists but apparently is not.
Just a couple of thought in the middle of the night from a land far way from where I grew up.
George Bryson said, “Realizing that it probably means less than nothing to some or most Calvinists, I would like to suggest that there are (generally speaking) several different kinds of Calvinism relative to the question “Is God the author of sin”.”
I apologize, but as of now, you’re right; the suggestions you’ve made don’t mean much. You didn’t answer my question: Again, where is the contradiction or variance between two of the quotes you presented above and which I compare with Ezekiel 14:9 (and Acts 4:28 for that matter)? If you are really willing to help me, please do so. Thanks.