Cheshire Cat
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello Caleb,
I like what you said about God not being the practitioner of sin; however, I do not agree with the sense you used it. I would say God is not the practitioner of sin in the sense that God's actions are never sinful.
Yeah, I guess He doesn't indirectly carry it out *Himself* either.
If this is what you mean by hard determinist, then I am in agreement with you.I’m not sure if you should label yourself a hard determinist though.
In the end, there is not one thing that happens in this world outside of God's first cause ordination. Everything in our second cause existence is determined. In this sense, I am a hard determinist.
Now Supreme Bill brings it about that this occurs in reality. But good is brought out of evil-there is a morally sufficient reason for this event to take place. Plus it is to “Supreme Bill’s” glory. Evil Jack still sins (because his intent was evil), but Supreme Bill is the first cause in that Supreme Bill ordained that such an event take place. Yet, Supreme Bill is not morally responsible in any negative way for the event taking place.
Here is the problem with your senario: you do not deal with the origination of evil Jack's intentions. Evil Jack's intention is ordained by Supreme Bill (SB). SB is the first cause of evil Jack's sinful intentions. Yet, there is no law that is violated by SB in his ordaining the evil intention. Therefore, SB has not sinned when he caused evil Jack to have a sinful intention.
Good point. Agreed.