A Question Calvinists must Answer REVISITED

[Skandelon]

We're both using human logic here to try to explain God and evil. It is a difficult issue for both of us.

I think you'll find that I'm more on the "soft side" or lower end of Calvinism. I don't have a problem with the words permit and allow, because I see Scripture speak in those terms. But I also don't have a problem with the word determine, because I see the Scripture speak in those terms, as well. Maybe I'm not as coherent and consistent as you would like, but that's the way I see it.

I can respect that. Thanks:thumbsup:

 

[Andy T.]

Exactly! We affirm that God did by his active agency determine some events such as the crucifixion of Christ. He did so through the means of temporarily hardening/blinding Israel in their already unbelieving and rebellious state so that they would crucify the Christ and accomplish redemption for the world.

To point to this active work of God in bringing about the redemption of the world as proof that likewise actively determined the evil intent of Jeff Dahmer (for example) to carry out the heinous crimes he committed is unfounded.

So because the crucifixion of Christ (the worst evil in history) brought about good (the salvation of the world), then God was justified to determine that evil, in your view?

But how do you know that God doesn't use all evil to bring about his purposes, and thus determines evil to occur by allowing it to happen through the will of man? When I read Scripture, I see how God works all things according the counsel of his will.

 

[Skandelon]

So because the crucifixion of Christ (the worst evil in history) brought about good (the salvation of the world), then God was justified to determine that evil, in your view?

I don't believe God determined the evil, I believe he determined the redemption. He ensured the crucifixion would be done by simply blinding the Jews in their already rebellious condition so that they would do exactly what they wanted to do, kill a blasphemer.

If a cop hides his presence from the speeder so that the speeder will certainly do what he has already determined in his heart to do, does that make the cop culpable for his speeding? The cop wants to catch speeders in the same way God wanted to redeem the world. How do they accomplish that? Hide the truth and allow the people to do what they want.

Who would object to this? The people being blinded (hardened Israel). This is exactly the objection Paul is addressing in Romans 9 when he says the things Calvinists love to quote as proof texts supporting their soteriological conclusions. What Calvinists misunderstand, in my opinion, is that Paul is telling us why God has temporarily hardened a rebellious Jew, while choosing a select few from Israel for noble purpose (apostles like Paul to carry the message of redemption to the whole world) and while showing mercy to Gentiles by inviting them into covenant with "their God." (grafting in Gentiles/cutting off Jews) It is NOT about God saving a select few and hardening the rest to certain condemnation in hell. I think Paul would roll over in his grave if he knew that is what his comments were being misapplied to mean. He LOVED these Jews who were being hardened and "cut off" from the vine. So much so that he wished himself accursed for their sakes. He expects them to be provoked to envy and saved and in no way intended to say that they were non-elect reprobates destined to a certain eternity in hell.

But how do you know that God doesn't use all evil to bring about his purposes, and thus determines evil to occur by allowing it to happen through the will of man?

Again, you seem to equate the words determine and allow making this a difficult sentence to engage. I do believe God brings about his purposes despite, in and through evil all the time. I just believe he wouldn't even tempt men to do evil, much less determine them to do evil because that is what scripture clearly reveals.

When I read Scripture, I see how God works all things according the counsel of his will.

We agree there :thumbsup:

 

[Andy T.]

I don't believe God determined the evil, I believe he determined the redemption. He ensured the crucifixion would be done by simply blinding the Jews in their already rebellious condition so that they would do exactly what they wanted to do, kill a blasphemer.

If a cop hides his presence from the speeder so that the speeder will certainly do what he has already determined in his heart to do, does that make the cop culpable for his speeding? The cop wants to catch speeders in the same way God wanted to redeem the world. How do they accomplish that? Hide the truth and allow the people to do what they want.

I agree with all this.

I just believe he wouldn't even tempt men to do evil,

And this, too.

much less determine them to do evil because that is what scripture clearly reveals.

I think we have different ideas of what "determine" means. There is more than one definition. You equate determine as actively working evil into the hearts of man. I do not see it that way. I see "determine" as regulating; setting the rules; arranging. I assume you are familiar with the WCF about secondary causes, etc. which keep God from being the author of sin? It's been awhile since I've looked at some of that - maybe you could spend time writing a book about how they were wrong.

 

[webdog]

Bad analogy to compare yourself with the omniscient, omnipotent Creator. His ways are not our ways. .

As expected you completely miss the main point and attack the analogy itself. That's typical when you cannot refute the point the analogy makes.

 

[Andy T.]

As expected you completely miss the main point and attack the analogy itself. That's typical when you cannot refute the point the analogy makes.

I'm sorry, I just don't see the equivalence between two people procreating, and the Almighty God who creates all life and has the power and means to intervene in all things. I suppose you and your wife could have abstained (or used birth control) and never had kids. That would be the equivalent of God never creating the world. But as soon as you and your wife decided to have kids, that's where the analogy fails, because (unlike God) you do not have the power and means to stop your kids from sinning. God does, but he chooses not to. So I guess that's where I see the analogy fall apart.

"That's typical" - nice, BTW.

 

[Andy T.]

I agree with all this.

I have to backtrack a little on this - I agreed with most of it. I still think God determined (in some sense) the evil, too. Mainly because verse 28 says he did.

 

[webdog]

I'm sorry, I just don't see the equivalence between two people procreating, and the Almighty God who creates all life and has the power and means to intervene in all things. I suppose you and your wife could have abstained (or used birth control) and never had kids. That would be the equivalent of God never creating the world. But as soon as you and your wife decided to have kids, that's where the analogy fails, because (unlike God) you do not have the power and means to stop your kids from sinning. God does, but he chooses not to. So I guess that's where I see the analogy fall apart.

"That's typical" - nice, BTW.

If you read what I said, I said it is typical to attack the analogy and NOT the point. You continue to do just that in this response.

You said you cannot see any difference between allowing and determining.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I have to backtrack a little on this - I agreed with most of it. I still think God determined (in some sense) the evil, too. Mainly because verse 28 says he did.

I think it is good that evil exist for awhile because God is glorified in it's destruction and his people benefit from the knowledge of it and witnessing his destruction of it.

The world the way it is is part of God's sovereign plan.

 

[webdog]

I think it is good that evil exist for awhile because God is glorified in it's destruction and his people benefit from the knowledge of it and witnessing his destruction of it.

The world the way it is is part of God's sovereign plan.

Does something have to be good to be part of the sovereign plan? Evil is NEVER good, and God is glorified regardless. He was glorified prior to the existence of sin.

 

[quantumfaith]

Does something have to be good to be part of the sovereign plan? Evil is NEVER good, and God is glorified regardless. He was glorified prior to the existence of sin.

I am in agreement with WD. I don't see the plan of redemption as something NECESSARY to glorify God, (not that is doesnt), but rather I see the plan of redemption to demonstrate God's supreme love for His creation and thus His desire to bring everything back into right and proper relation to Him.

 

[Skandelon]

Does something have to be good to be part of the sovereign plan? Evil is NEVER good, and God is glorified regardless. He was glorified prior to the existence of sin.

:applause::applause::applause:

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Does something have to be good to be part of the sovereign plan? Evil is NEVER good, and God is glorified regardless. He was glorified prior to the existence of sin.

God chose to do things this way and this is the best way they could have been done because that's what he who is perfect chose to do. So what he has chosen his sovereign plan is good. Evil DOES exist. There is a purpose for it. He IS glorified in it's destruction.

It's just reality.