Calvinism and the origin of evil

[Skandelon]

1. As requested, could you provide ONE verse which in anyway indicates that Satan or Adam sinned because God stopped holding him up?

2. HERE Sproul, a Reform scholar, argues that Adam was "able to sin" and "able to not sin," yet you seem to argue that Adam (like Satan) didn't have the ability to "not sin" because at some point "God stopped holding him up." Do you disagree then with Sproul's position?

Luke,
You failed yet again to provide any scriptural support for your claims, only speculation and conjecture.

If he had the ability to do right then it was because God gave it to him.

So, you are concluding by this logic, that for him to do wrong had to be a result of God removing that original ability to do right?

Is that what you believe is the same reason that you as a believer sins today? If you lied yesterday at noon, did you do so because God removed the ability for you to do right at that moment? Did God stop holding you up?

Do you see how this view might be inconsistent with Sproul's position and 1 Cor 10:13?

Augustine declared that evil is nothing. It is the absence of good just as darkness is nothing but the absence of light.

1. Augustine is not inspired or our authority as evidenced by his many other teaching errors.

2. Darkness existed before the light. Would light exist if not for darkness? Would freedom exist without law? Would cold exist without heat, or heat without cold? And just because one may argue that cold is merely the absence of heat that doesn't explain the origin of ice, which is a result of cold weather. Just saying, heat was removed doesn't give ample explanation as to the origin of ice. Why? Because there are more components involved. There is H20 and its origin and components that make it freeze at a certain temp. Ice exists and it has an origin, it has a creator. Sin, likewise, exists and must have an origin. Either Satan created his intent to become like God, or God did, period.

If evil is the absence of good and God is the source of all goodness, then in order for evil to exist God must create a void in his goodness in the place where evil is to come to be.

But in that place where God removed himself ("created a void") did God loose control and sovereignty so as to allow a creature (Satan) originate the intent to "become God?" This is the question you avoid and it is clear as to why you avoid it.

 

[Luke2427]

How does my answer not satisfy you? It is the same as Edwards and the Arminian Divines. I provided a definition of decree by which God actively decrees some things and permissively decrees (allows) other things. These questions are reflections of what God has decreed, but if it is SIN or EVIL it is done permissively not through his active agency. Can I be any more clear?

Wrong question. And just for the record your position is not even close to Calvin and Edwards on the matter. I have proven that before.

These are the questions you have yet to personally answer.

Did Joseph's brothers afflict Joseph?
Did God afflict Joseph?

Did Satan afflict Job?
Did God afflict Job?

Did Pilate, Herod, the Jews and the Romans kill Jesus?
Did God kill Jesus?

Yes, it is, which is why his permissive decree to allow evil should not be perceived as evil. It does NOT mean as you have suggested that God actively does evil but that its not evil because it is a pure motive. He "permits, or does not hinder" sin, as Edwards states.

I have never one time ever in my whole life ever said that God DOES EVIL.

For you to keep spouting that lie is evil.

God decreed evil.
God has a purpose for evil.
God arranged the world so that evil would exist.
God empowers it enabling it to come to pass.

Just as God predestined the death of Christ (the greatest evil that has ever or will ever take place), and God had a purpose for it, arranged the universe so that it would come to pass, empowered the hands that nailed him to the cross- BUT GOD DID IT FOR GLORIOUS ENDS.

His part in the crucifixion of Christ WAS NOT EVIL. Therefore he did not DO EVIL. Now, he DID the same thing that the Roman soldier did. But God did not DO EVIL while doing it.

That is CLEARLY taught in the Bible. To deny it is to deny the authority of Scripture. The virgin birth is not taught any clearer.

I don't agree with him about many things, but he, the Arminian divines and I are all on the same page with regard to his quote regarding the origin of sin. You contradict him by NEVER acknowledging the permissive decree of God within your system.

I believe in the permissive decree. You simply think that these things happen by BARE PERMISSION which I have proven to you UNEQUIVOCALLY is not at all what Calvin and Edwards believed nor declared nor is it at all what Calvinists have declared in any of their major confessions.

You are wrong- I know it is hard for you to see it and admit it- ... but it is time.

You don't leave any room for His permissive decree. You only leave room for his active determination thus making you at odds with that quote and the Arminian Divines, period. That is not an opinion. That is an established FACT.

Wrong. Utterly, completely, indescribably wrong.

Edwards believed and purported EXACTLY what I have argued.

You take the fact that Edwards recognizes that God permits what he decrees to some weird, crazy, extreme area of interpretation while ignoring the whole of what Edwards has always said his whole ministry and in this very quote on these matters.

Listen, Skandelon. For ANYTHING to come to pass, two things MUST be true.

It must be PREDESTINED and PERMITTED by God.

God must permit by refraining from providential interference what he decrees.

I have decreed that my son will do his homework tonight. I will also permit him to do it. I will not stop him. If I do not permit what I have decreed then what I ahve decreed is IMPOSSIBLE.

If he hadn't claimed to be in agreement with the Arminian divines you might be able to argue regarding his intent, but since he freely admitted his intent was consistent with the Arminians on this point, you have NO ground on which to stand Luke. Sorry.

I bet you are the only person on planet earth in the history of the world who argues that because Edwards said that he agreed with the Arminian divines on one PART of the issue of the origin of sin, that he agrees with the Arminian divines on the WHOLE of the issue of the origin of sin.

NNE thinks that about Edwards but you, Skandelon. Sorry.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke,
You failed yet again to provide any scriptural support for your claims, only speculation and conjecture.

So, you are concluding by this logic, that for him to do wrong had to be a result of God removing that original ability to do right?

Is that what you believe is the same reason that you as a believer sins today? If you lied yesterday at noon, did you do so because God removed the ability for you to do right at that moment? Did God stop holding you up?

Do you see how this view might be inconsistent with Sproul's position and 1 Cor 10:13?


1. Augustine is not inspired or our authority as evidenced by his many other teaching errors.

2. Darkness existed before the light. Would light exist if not for darkness? Would freedom exist without law? Would cold exist without heat, or heat without cold? And just because one may argue that cold is merely the absence of heat that doesn't explain the origin of ice, which is a result of cold weather. Just saying, heat was removed doesn't give ample explanation as to the origin of ice. Why? Because there are more components involved. There is H20 and its origin and components that make it freeze at a certain temp. Ice exists and it has an origin, it has a creator. Sin, likewise, exists and must have an origin. Either Satan created his intent to become like God, or God did, period.



But in that place where God removed himself ("created a void") did God loose control and sovereignty so as to allow a creature (Satan) originate the intent to "become God?" This is the question you avoid and it is clear as to why you avoid it.

I'll deal with some of this later, when you catch up with the several posts I have put to you.

I just want to deal with one part of this.

Darkness did not exist before light.

God is light and in him is no darkness at all.

God, being light, predates darkness which was not in him and did not exist before him.

That there was darkness by the time that Genesis 1 opens is no argument that darkness antedates light.

We know that it does not.

 

[Luke2427]

Now you are backtracking. Initially you said without sin there can be no grace...now you say "if" it existed prior to the fall it pales in comparison to post fall. I completely disagree. God's grace does not need sin to exist. Creation alone is an act of grace.

I noticed you TOTALLY avoided the challenge.

Why don't you explain how there can be mercy without sin?

Why don't you explain how there can be the fullest display of grace like seen at Calvary without sin?

Why don't you explain how there can be a Lamb receiving the praises of multitudes of the redeemed which no man can number forever without sin?

I missed you addressing those challenges.

All I saw you do was attack.

Now actually take a position. Rather than spit on the players on the field from the safety of the sidelines, get on the field and mix it up.

Explain these things. That's what this thread is about.

If you have no intention of doing so, why are you on here???

Do you consider drive-by posting to be a NOBLE endeavor???

 

[Skandelon]

Wrong question. And just for the record your position is not even close to Calvin and Edwards on the matter. I have proven that before.

Sigh*
1. You will need to explain how you deterministic view of the origin of sin is consistent with the Arminian divines if you wish it maintain this ridiculous claim, until then you are putting up smokescreens and I think we can all see that.

2. Calvin wasn't discussed to my recollection on this subject, was he? If so, provide the quote and I'll look at it again...

These are the questions you have yet to personally answer.

SIGHHHHHH*

Ok, I'm going to do this again, but you must now provide a definition of "decree" and "ordain"

Did Joseph's brothers afflict Joseph?
Did God afflict Joseph?

1. Yes
2. God did decree it (see my former definition of decree as reference to what I actually mean when I use this word)

Did Satan afflict Job?
Did God afflict Job?

1. Yes
2. God did decree it (see my former definition of decree as reference to what I actually mean when I use this word)

Did Pilate, Herod, the Jews and the Romans kill Jesus?
Did God kill Jesus?

1. Yes
2. God did decree it (see my former definition of decree as reference to what I actually mean when I use this word)

I have never one time ever in my whole life ever said that God DOES EVIL.

Here are some quotes Luke:

In a thread about the origin of EVIL you wrote:

"Satan did it- but so did God." What is "it," if not evil, Luke?

In the same thread you wrote as just as I stated, "The Scripture is clear. God is DOING these things. But God is not evil in doing them because his motive is pure and right."-Luke

and

"God willed the most horrible sin of all time"- Luke
"God willed for evil" -Luke
"The word "allow" and the IDEA of allowance is not in the text ANYWHERE."-Luke
"God does not just allow these things"-Luke
"God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his "positive agency."-Luke (oh, no wait, misquote, that is Edwards, sorry you two sound so much alike its hard to tell you apart...NOT!)

You have said or implied REPEATEDLY that God DOES evil but that it is NOT evil because of its motive. That is not supported by the confessions you quote, nor by Edwards quote.

God decreed evil.

Which means what? Define the term please.

I believe in the permissive decree. You simply think that these things happen by BARE PERMISSION which I have proven to you UNEQUIVOCALLY is not at all what Calvin and Edwards believed nor declared.

FINALLY! You acknowledge that there is a permissive decree. I agree, it is not "bare permission," that simply means that there is more than just permission. There is also foreknowledge and the purposes of God being fulfilled through that which he permits which will ultimately come to pass through the disposing of events etc...I've never denied as such. I just want to talk about what element of permission there is.

What fall under God's permissive decree as apposed to his active decree? List a few things.

I bet you are the only person on planet earth in the history of the world who argues that because Edwards said that he agreed with the Arminian divines on one PART of the issue of the origin of sin, that he agrees with the Arminian divines on the WHOLE of the issue of the origin of sin.

We are only discussing this particular quote and its intent Luke, if you would like to introduce more of his teaching which is NOT consistent with the Arminian divine feel free, no one is stopping you.

NNE thinks that about Edwards but you, Skandelon. Sorry.

Only Edwards, the Arminian divines, ArchAngel, and Fredrick (who both attempted to reign you in on the other thread)...and any objective reader of these threads...

 

[Luke2427]

What do you mean Lucifer will fail?

It seems that it was with God's help, according to predestination, Lucifer failed by sinning.



I am sorry, but in the context of this thread I do not understand what you are saying.



Wasn't removing his goodness evil in that it set up Satan to fall and introduce evil into the world.



How was evil a greater purpose?



I am sorry, but to me this is extreme double-speak and condemns God to being evil. He causes evil but he is not responsible for evil.



As I said yesterday, what kind of father would harm his child so that he could show how merciful he is in treating the child? To me this makes God a god of duplicity ... and duplicity is evil.

Whenever you catch up on reading these posts, watch this video and see if it helps.

The Problem of Evil

 

[Crabtownboy]

Whenever you catch up on reading these posts, watch this video and see if it helps.

The Problem of Evil

I watched the video and I cannot believe that a person can say, as Piper says in the video, that all the wife beating, etc., etc. was planned by God before the beginning. This truly makes god a monster. This is heresy of the highest order. If he is right, then any verse saying or indicating the God is love lies. As I have said several times, what kind of father would I be to inflict pain, suffering and agony on my children so they could then see what a wonderful person I am in treating them in their pain and suffering.

Piper is right that Christ died while we were yet sinners. I do not believe anyone would argue with that. But he totally skips the question of why God would preordain such suffering. The only rational explanation is that he loved us, his created, enough to allow us free will!

I truly find it most discouraging to see such a tragic message being preached as Piper preaches it. It is depressing. :tear: :tear: :tear:

 

[DHK]

God must permit by refraining from providential interference what he decrees.

I have decreed that my son will do his homework tonight. I will also permit him to do it. I will not stop him. If I do not permit what I have decreed then what I ahve decreed is IMPOSSIBLE.

Good illustration.
God has given man a free will. If your son, out of his free will chooses to revolt against your decree, and refuse to do his homework, then what will you do? Some people can't be forced. I have children too. They all aren't perfect angels. Some children are exactly as the Bible describes them: deceptive, stubborn, born liars. Yours are no different. In spite of what you decree they may find a way out of doing their homework. Then your decree is meaningless.

 

[Luke2427]

Sigh*
1. You will need to explain how you deterministic view of the origin of sin is consistent with the Arminian divines if you wish it maintain this ridiculous claim, until then you are putting up smokescreens and I think we can all see that.

No smoke screens and I resent the accusation.

The Arminians have historically agreed that God has a purpose for all things that happen. That is it.

2. Calvin wasn't discussed to my recollection on this subject, was he? If so, provide the quote and I'll look at it again...

He was. It will be both frustrating and tedious to dig through and find the posts to prove it, but if you require it I will do the work of finding them.

SIGHHHHHH*

Ok, I'm going to do this again, but you must now provide a definition of "decree" and "ordain"


1. Yes
2. God did decree it (see my former definition of decree as reference to what I actually mean when I use this word)


1. Yes
2. God did decree it (see my former definition of decree as reference to what I actually mean when I use this word)


1. Yes
2. God did decree it (see my former definition of decree as reference to what I actually mean when I use this word)

Then God's involvement was bare permission, right?

Did God want it to happen for any ultimate purpose?

Did God empower the hands that did the deeds?

Did God plan the universe intending for these things to come to pass just as they did?

Was there in sense in which those events fulfilled the will of God?

Here are some quotes Luke:

In a thread about the origin of EVIL you wrote:

"Satan did it- but so did God." What is "it," if not evil, Luke?

The DEED- not the evil.

The destruction of Job's property and family and body- the Bible is clear. GOD DID IT. The LORD has taken away.

But he did it by the vile hands and through the evil motives of Satan.

That does not make Satan any less evil. Satan did it of his own will, and Satan's purposes were evil while God's purposes in the affliction of Job were pure.

Now if that's the best you've got- you owe me an apology.

That quote is a heck of a long way from me saying that God DOES EVIL.

If you can do no better, you owe me an apology.

In the same thread you wrote as just as I stated, "The Scripture is clear. God is DOING these things. But God is not evil in doing them because his motive is pure and right."-Luke

God is doing the DEEDS. He IS doing these things. That does not mean that God is doing EVIL.

A deed is not good or evil in and of itself. Motive is required to make something good or evil.

When a bus driver accidentally wrecks and kills 50 people he is not strapped to the electric chair. Why? Because deeds, even such as the violent slaughter of 50 people, are amoral by themselves. To become evil they require MOTIVE.

A soldier may shoot and kill 50 enemies in a battle. Will he be strapped to the chair? No. He will be given a medal and called a hero.

A serial killer who kills 50 people may indeed be strapped to an electric chair. His motive is evil. That is the difference.

and

"God willed the most horrible sin of all time"- Luke
"God willed for evil" -Luke
"The word "allow" and the IDEA of allowance is not in the text ANYWHERE."-Luke
"God does not just allow these things"-Luke
"God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his "positive agency."-Luke (oh, no wait, misquote, that is Edwards, sorry you two sound so much alike its hard to tell you apart...NOT!)

You owe me an apology. Not one of these quotes has me saying that God DOES EVIL.

You have spewed that lie all over baptist board, whether because you are too ignorant to understand or because you are dark.

Either way you owe me an apology.

God killed Christ, Skandelon. The Bible is clear- It pleased the Lord to bruise him. Herod killed Christ, Skandelon. The Bible is clear.

God did it.
Herod did it.

BUT THAT IN NO WAY EVEN IMPLIES THAT GOD DID EVIL.

This is not hard to understand.

You have said or implied REPEATEDLY that God DOES evil but that it is NOT evil because of its motive.

That is a bald-faced lie.

Deal with this and we'll move on to the rest of your post.

 

[Luke2427]

I watched the video and I cannot believe that a person can say, as Piper says in the video, that all the wife beating, etc., etc. was planned by God before the beginning. This truly makes god a monster. This is heresy of the highest order. If he is right, then any verse saying or indicating the God is love lies. As I have said several times, what kind of father would I be to inflict pain, suffering and agony on my children so they could then see what a wonderful person I am in treating them in their pain and suffering.

Piper is right that Christ died while we were yet sinners. I do not believe anyone would argue with that. But he totally skips the question of why God would preordain such suffering. The only rational explanation is that he loved us, his created, enough to allow us free will!

I truly find it most discouraging to see such a tragic message being preached as Piper preaches it. It is depressing. :tear: :tear: :tear:

Then you do not know the first thing about real love.

 

[quantumfaith]

Then you do not know the first thing about real love.

OK Crabtown, You may now exit. Luke has spoken, You do not know the first thing about Love. How pathetically arrogant and self aggrandizing.

 

[Luke2427]

OK Crabtown, You may now exit. Luke has spoken, You do not know the first thing about Love. How pathetically arrogant and self aggrandizing.

You failed to lambaste crabtown for calling us heretics.

You are a total mess, quatum. A total mess.

You don't even ATTEMPT to be equitable on your high horse.

A total mess.

Reread his post and if you can say that it does not need to be corrected at least as strongly as you lambaste me here, then tell me so I can be done with you on bb.

 

[DHK]

You failed to lambaste crabtown for calling us heretics.

You are a total mess, quatum. A total mess.

You don't even ATTEMPT to be equitable on your high horse.

A total mess.

Reread his post and if you can say that it does not need to be corrected at least as strongly as you lambaste me here, then tell me so I can be done with you on bb.

With a post like that don't be so quick to cast stones. You have three fingers pointing back at you.

 

[webdog]

I noticed you TOTALLY avoided the challenge.

Why don't you explain how there can be mercy without sin?

You are now substituting different phrases making this a non sequitur. You have now introduced mercy into the equation when we were discussing grace. The challenge should fall on your shoulders to prove your assertions there can be no grace without sin.

Why don't you explain how there can be the fullest display of grace like seen at Calvary without sin?
Why don't you explain how there can be a Lamb receiving the praises of multitudes of the redeemed which no man can number forever without sin?

I missed you addressing those challenges.

No, YOU made the statement, YOU need to back it up. You started with the presupposition sin was needed for grace to exist, it is not up to me to prove the negative which is an impossibility, it is up to you to prove your position is true.

All I saw you do was attack.

Now actually take a position. Rather than spit on the players on the field from the safety of the sidelines, get on the field and mix it up.

Explain these things. That's what this thread is about.

If you have no intention of doing so, why are you on here???

Do you consider drive-by posting to be a NOBLE endeavor??? __________________

<insert Charlie Brown's teacher talking>

 

[Luke2427]

You are now substituting different phrases making this a non sequitur. You have now introduced mercy into the equation when we were discussing grace. The challenge should fall on your shoulders to prove your assertions there can be no grace without sin.
No, YOU made the statement, YOU need to back it up. You started with the presupposition sin was needed for grace to exist, it is not up to me to prove the negative which is an impossibility, it is up to you to prove your position is true.


<insert Charlie Brown's teacher talking>

Precisely as I thought.

Just keep spitting from the safety of the sidelines there webdog.

Very noble.

 

[webdog]

Precisely as I thought.

Just keep spitting from the safety of the sidelines there webdog.

Very noble.

What exactly...I won't do your homework for you? If you are of such noble genes, back your position or back off of your "decree". It's typical you to do neither, but try to turn it back on the one doing the calling out.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Then you do not know the first thing about real love.

I hope you did not mean that statement in the way it comes across on the cool screen. It appears an insult. Up to this point I have appreciated your patience in discussing calmly and rationally this topic.

I would say just the opposite about my understanding of love. The greatest definition of love, and we are talking about agape here, is the love chapter in
I Corinthians 13 ... especially verses : verses 6 and 7 and this topic.

6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Notice, love never delights in evil. If your position is true then the only conclusion a person can draw is that God loves evil so he can show us how much he loves us. This is a total contradiction.

Do you beat your wife to show her how much you love her?
Do you harm your children to show them show much you love them?

I do not believe your wife and children would feel you very loving if you beat them and harmed them.

I do not believe you beat or harm your spouse and children. I do believe you want what is good for them and I do not believe you believe that evil is good for them.

What you have succeeded in doing for me is to show how much in error Calvin was, if he really believe what has been written in the thread, and how wrong Calvinists are in their beliefs. And I do believe that to say that God approved all evil before the beginning is to call God evil and I do believe that is heresy. I have no doubt you are giving me what you honestly believe and I honestly believe, as you have convinced me so, that you are wrong. I was much more sympathetic before this thread and was looking for explanations that would show me how Calvinists beliefs are correct. The posts in this thread have convinced me of exactly the opposite.

The only explanation that can be accepted as to why there is evil in the world is that we have free choice ... and sadly our choices are all too often the wrong ones. God loved us enough to allow us free will. We do the same with our children as they mature ... with children we really have no choice as they will exert their free will in one way or another as they mature into young adults.

 

[webdog]

""Without sin there can be no grace. - Luke

Prove your position scripturally...or it is just what I called it...garbage.

 

[quantumfaith]

You failed to lambaste crabtown for calling us heretics.

You are a total mess, quatum. A total mess.

You don't even ATTEMPT to be equitable on your high horse.

A total mess.

Reread his post and if you can say that it does not need to be corrected at least as strongly as you lambaste me here, then tell me so I can be done with you on bb.

Is the following the post to which you refer:

I watched the video and I cannot believe that a person can say, as Piper says in the video, that all the wife beating, etc., etc. was planned by God before the beginning. This truly makes god a monster. This is heresy of the highest order. If he is right, then any verse saying or indicating the God is love lies. As I have said several times, what kind of father would I be to inflict pain, suffering and agony on my children so they could then see what a wonderful person I am in treating them in their pain and suffering.

Piper is right that Christ died while we were yet sinners. I do not believe anyone would argue with that. But he totally skips the question of why God would preordain such suffering. The only rational explanation is that he loved us, his created, enough to allow us free will!

I truly find it most discouraging to see such a tragic message being preached as Piper preaches it. It is depressing



If so, Crabtown, is OBVIOUSLY referring to the MESSAGE preached by Piper.

 

[DHK]

""Without sin there can be no grace. - Luke

Prove your position scripturally...or it is just what I called it...garbage.

The consensus of that position, put forth in Romans 5, and rebuked by Paul in Romans 6, is what is called today "antinominianism." Is that what the Calvinist position is?
"Let us do evil that grace may abound."