I am extremely confused. Calvinists and Arminians both have valid points, so that leads me to side with Reformists. I believe the bible does teach a contradictory doctrine of God's sovereign will AND man being responsible for the will in which God imposes on a man. I can get over the aspect that this seems unjust because Paul beautifully reminds us in Romans 8:19-21, "19You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?"
I am capable of leaving man's "free will" and God's sovereignty in tension because I'm sure he's capable of resolving this. However, what is harder for me to reconcile is the fact that James 1:13, and similar verses, tell us "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone"... What has me so confused is how in the world could God say that he's not ultimately the cause of making me sin when it's very apparent that the bible has no shortage of verses telling us that he is the cause (his sovereign will).
This seems like a grave contradiction. Help me resolve this, please (and thank you)!
Note: I will not elaborate on why I believe the bible speaks of both Calvinist views AND Armenian views because that's a different subject. This is also why I asked specifically for Reformed theologians.
beartheweak, the issues you are speaking of in your OP concern the issues of double predestination. Some dude on Youtube put a video that adequately addresses double predestination here... <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_Sawg2PX2aI?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I hope that link works.
One thing that is an error in your understanding of double predestination is that you seem to think it speaks of active predestination of the non-elect to hell. That is not reformed. Reformed people generally believe in what is called passive double predestination. God is active in salvation, but passive in his hardening of the heart. RC Sproul illustrated it like this.... He said that its like there is a conveyor belt and at the end of the belt is hell. God picks some off the belt, and the rest are carried along to the end of the belt.
The hardening of the heart can be seen in Romans 9:17
"For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
Rom 9:18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and
whom he will be hardeneth. "
The question might be asked of the text, how did God harden Pharaoh's heart? That question is answered right in the text. God hardened his heart by "did I raise thee up." God could have suppressed Pharaoh's evil nature by having him born a slave. God raise him to power and this gave no restraint to how Pharaoh could develop his evil nature. It would be the same as in Romans 1:26 "For this cause God gave them up..." God does not have to magically make men more evil, no, they are already evil enough, but he stops restraining some men's evil natures, and gives them over to their own lusts. To make men evil, God does not have to wave a magic wand and make men evil. No, they are evil already. What God does to harden the heart, is ...... nothing. The text does say he gave Pharaoh power, and we can admit he gave Hitler, Stalin, and other evil rules power, but God did not make them rule in an evil way. He just does not restrain their evil. Does God want Pharaoh to do what is evil? Well, yes, and no. It is not that God loves evil, but he wants it to happen for the motive the text tells us.... "
that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth." God wants it to happen so that he can show his hatred of evil and his judgment of evil. So then it is not that God loves the evil, but he is glorified in showing his righteous anger at evil. For him to show his righteous anger, evil must exist. How could he ever show his righteous anger of he made a creation were evil never exists? But for his grace, it could have, and should have been us.
God is in now way directly responsible for the evil of man or angels. You could say he is indirectly responsible because he created man in untested innocence, and they chose rebellion; and God wanted evil to actually exist so that he could manifest his righteous anger. Men then bear full responsibility for their own evil, and God is the righteous judge.
beartheweak, to make the reformed doctrine of double predestination to be something where God waves a magic wand and helps men do evil is neither scriptural, nor reformed doctrine. You confuse God creating something with the potential for evil, and the potential for righteousness VS God creating something that is already evil in actuality.
One thing that is refreshing, is that while you do not correctly understand the reformed reading of Romans 9, or the Reformed doctrine of passive double predestination, your close. You recognize that Romans 9 is about the election of individuals. The passage starts with Rom 9:3 "
For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:" Paul wishes to take being separated from Christ and going to hell for the sake of unsaved Jewish people. Some are going to say that this is only about Jews, but that is of course error. The text itself directly states that the principles of Romans 9 are also for Gentiles... Rom 9:24 "
even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?"
In the scriptures, nowhere does God make us evil, we do that for ourselves. However, at times God withdraws his restraining hand and does not restrain our evil natures. But he is under no obligation to stop us from sin and rebellion against him.