There is no problem with you agreeing with Luke on this. Rahab and Jonathan used their freewill in making their decisions.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Calvinism and the origin of evil
- Thread starter Luke2427
- Start date
- Status
There is no problem with you agreeing with Luke on this. Rahab and Jonathan used their freewill in making their decisions.
Murder is only murder when the motive is evil.
Slaughtering 50 people on a battlefield is not murder. Why? Because the motive is to defend one's country.
Slaughtering 50 people in a neighborhood IS murder.
What is the difference between the two?
The same God who, you are right, gets to tell us what sin is, DID tell us what sin is.
He said, "From the heart evil comes."
Jesus said, "It is that which comes OUT of a man that defiles him."
Saul did not have a good motive, Winman. That is the whole point of the text.
His motive was self-serving proved by his blatant disobedience to God.
None of this proves anything.
I bet you can't get ANYONE even who is debating ME right NOW on this very subject to agree with you that Saul's motive was pure.
That is utterly ridiculous.
This is why I plead with you to go get some training before you speak on matters of this magnitude.
Not everyone needs training. This, and dozens of posts like this that you have made before, proves that you do.
Whoa, that is quite a statement. I suppose you are a strong believer in situational ethics.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, for the tenth time. Anyone who thinks that stopping abortion justifies the unauthorized execution of a human being is either very sick or very evil.
The motive is not pure; it does not matter what you presume.
Motive is about obedience or disobedience to God.
There are three things to consider:
1. Obedience to God is a good motive.
2. Disobedience to God is an evil motive.
3. Where an action is neither obedience or disobedience, there is liberty. (wearing socks is neither obedience or disobedience to God)
Therefore, motive is about answering this question: Is it right to do this to accomplish that?
If you can discover that the answer to that question is, "yes", then you will have the proper motive for what you do.
If you do not discover that the answer is, "yes", then you will NOT have the proper motive for what you do.
The determiner of whether or not the answer is, "yes", is whether or not the motive is obedience to God.
Illustration:
Chewing bubble gum is not disobedience to God. In this we have liberty.
So, if by some heretofore, unknown law of the universe I can chew a certain flavor of bubble gum and thereby stop all abortion from ever taking place then my motive can be pure.
But if the Word of God condemns all unauthorized taking of human life, and it does, and I take a human life without authorization to stop abortion- my motive is EVIL. Period.
Why? Because my motive was guided by a lack of desire to conform my way to his demands.
Any time a man is moved to an action by a spirit of indifference or outright rebellion to the demands of God upon his life, his motive is EVIL. Period.
You may say, "But what if he truly BELIEVES he is conforming to the demands of God upon his life by killing abortionists?"
It is still evil. He had to violate his conscience which, at some point in his life, told him clearly that such an action of this magnitude that involves the taking of human life must not be done until there is full assurance that such an action has the approval of God. That assurance must come by being rightly convinced in Scripture that such an action will not violate the demands of God upon his life.
You may say, "But what if he reads the Bible and interprets it to tell him he SHOULD do such an action?"
Either the man is mad, OR this very question undermines the great doctrine of the Christian Faith known as: The Perspicuity of Scripture.
The Bible is NOT ambiguous on such matters and any sane man will not be led to the conclusion BY THE SCRIPTURES that the unauthorized taking of a human being's life is approved by God.
No, it is not possible.
God can do whatever he pleases whenever he pleases and is not bound by ANY standard at all ever. BUT what always pleases him is to be consistent with himself at all times forever.
God cannot lie. Why? Several reasons- I'll give a couple:
1. Because God has no reason to say that he is going to do something and then not do it. We lie because it helps us get our way. Why would God need to do such a thing to get his way? Since God is immutable and all-wise he cannot be unreasonable. He is the source of reason. If he has no reason behind what he does then he is being unreasonable which is impossible with God.
2. Because to say he was going to do something and NOT do it would be to be inconsistent with Himself. It is never his pleasure at any moment forever to be inconsistent with who he is. He is perfect just as He is. To be inconsistent with himself would be to make himself less than perfect. God cannot be less than perfect and still be God and God cannot ever NOT be God, THEREFORE he cannot be inconsistent with himself which MEANS... he cannot lie.
He cannot do this because it would be to be inconsistent with himself. Lying is being inconsistent with one's self.
A means CANNOT be pure or impure. It has no personality. Only persons can have morality. Means are not persons and do not possess morality.
A grizzly bear can rip a man to shreds and eat him while he is alive (please pardon the picture) and it will be neither good nor evil.
A human being can do this and it will be evil.
Tell me what you think the difference is?
Is ripping a man to shreds and eating him while he is alive evil? That is the means. Is the means evil in and of itself? Or does it require a person with a motive to make it evil?
_____________________________
I googled the term and this popped up. I am satisfied with this definition.
In Ephesians 1:5, the Greek verb "pro· o•ree· sas", rendered "foreordained", is formed from a combination of the Greek preposition "pro" meaning "before" prefixed to the word "o· ree· zo", meaning boundary or limits or restrictions. Hence, its etymological meaning conveys the idea of to limit, restrict and mark out beforehand to "in prior time design and determine" or to "ordain before hand", thus to specifically predestinate or predetermine.
Last edited by a moderator:
Motive is about obedience or disobedience to God.
There are three things to consider:
1. Obedience to God is a good motive.
2. Disobedience to God is an evil motive.
3. Where an action is neither there is liberty. (wearing socks is neither obedience or disobedience to God)
Therefore, motive is about answering this question: Is it right to do this to accomplish that?
If you can discover that the answer to that question is, "yes", then you will have the proper motive for what you do.
If you do not discover that the answer is, "yes", then you will NOT have the proper motive for what you do.
The determiner of whether or not the answer is, "yes", is whether or not the motive is obedience to God.
Illustration:
Chewing bubble gum is not disobedience to God. In this we have liberty.
So, if by some heretofore, unknown law of the universe I can chew a certain flavor of bubble gum and thereby stop all abortion from ever taking place then my motive can be pure.
But if the Word of God condemns all unauthorized taking of human life and I do that to stop abortion- my motive is EVIL. Period.
Why? Because my motive was guided by a lack of desire to conform my way to his demands.
Any time a man is moved to an action by a spirit of indifference or outright rebellion to the demands of God upon his life, his motive is EVIL. Period.
You may say, "But what if he truly BELIEVES he is conforming to the demands of God upon his life by killing abortionists?"
It is still evil. He had to violate his conscience which, at some point in his life, told him clearly that such an action of this magnitude that involves the taking of human life must not be done until there is full assurance that such an action has the approval of God. That assurance must come by being rightly convinced in Scripture that such an action will not violate the demands of God upon his life.
You may say, "But what if he reads the Bible and interprets it to tell him he SHOULD do such an action?"
Either the man is mad, OR this very question undermines the great doctrine of the Christian Faith known as: The Perspicuity of Scripture.
The Bible is NOT ambiguous on such matters and any sane man will not be led to the conclusion BY THE SCRIPTURES that the unauthorized taking of a human being's life is approved by God.
To take the life of your suffering neighbor is to disobey the Word of God and this is sin. The Word of God does not sanction the unauthorized taking of human life. Therefore the motive of taking your neighbor's life is moved by a spirit of either indifference to or rebellion against the demands of God upon your life which is EVIL. The motive is EVIL.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why don't you and others debating this start a new thread and get this one back on the topic of the OP? :wavey:
You have just overthrown your own argument. God clearly commanded, "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
So when Rahab and Jonathan lied, it was evil even though their motive was good. A person can never have assurance that lying is good, because it is a direct violation of God's command.
Two things:
1. No I did not. I understand that you think that is the conclusion of those remarks. I did too for years and argued against the DoG for the very same reason you are right now. I can actually appreciate what you are trying to do. You are trying to defend the character of God whom you love. I commend you. But I came to understand that God can will that sin be, and arrange the universe in such a way that without his upholding of it, it will fall- that God can do this and NOT be the proximate cause of evil.
2. Saying, "I don't believe that," neither changes facts nor is an argument.
You do not believe it because you do not like it. But that you do not like it does not mean that it is not so.
What we find palatable has no bearing on what really is.
That illustration has no ties at all to the DoG which I am arguing for. If you think it does, please show the link between the two.
If you want to have a discussion with me, respond to the posts in which I address you. Of course you are more than welcome by me to respond to any post I make, but I request that you do not pop in here and there and never respond to the posts that I address directly to you.
Thanks and God bless!
(I hope everyone will not that I am trying very hard to be sweet this morning.:thumbs
The Lord Jesus Christ said, "It is that which comes OUT of a man that defiles him."
Sin is a matter of the heart. It has ONLY to do with motive.
Obeying God's commands IS the right motive.
Did I not say that very thing in the very post to which you are responding?
Did I not say it repeatedly in that very post??
If you want to have a discussion with me, respond to the posts in which I address you. Of course you are more than welcome by me to respond to any post I make, but I request that you do not pop in here and there and never respond to the posts that I address directly to you.
Thanks and God bless!
(I hope everyone will not that I am trying very hard to be sweet this morning.:thumbs
I am a member here at BB and I can post whenever I like. Who do you think you are?
You have overthrown your own argument, it is not motive that determines whether an act is good or evil, it is God's commands. Telling a lie is always wrong, regardless of your motive. There are no loopholes in the Ten Commandments.
I am somebody who has a right to request that if you want to discuss with me that you actually DISCUSS rather than drive-by post.
Do you think I do not have a right to make requests?????
Let me put it to you this way.
If you want to have a discussion with me (which requires you and I exchanging posts) then you WILL do it that way.
Otherwise, I will NOT acknowledge anything that you say.
Comprender?
Robert Snow
New Member
(I hope everyone will not that I am trying very hard to be sweet this morning.:thumbs
No, you are just being Luke. And,you cherry pick the responses you answer. If something goes against Calvinism for which you don't have a ready answer, you ignore them. I understand though,Hyper-Calvinism cannot be defended biblically.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't care if you respond to me or not, I am a member here, and as long as I abide by the rules I can post anytime I like. If you wish to carry on a personal dialogue with a particular member(s), then use the PM feature here, it was provided for that very purpose.
And trust me, it will not ruin my day if you do not respond to me. You really think you are special don't you?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
ok Luke, time to define some terms again so we can gain some clarity.
motive - the reason someone acts
means - the act, the deed, what is done
You cant or wont draw a distinction between those unless is suits your purpose making this discussion quite unbalanced and nonsensical.
On the one hand you argue Gods deeds are always good because his motive is always good, so even if a deed appears evil (killing his son) it is not evil because his motive was good.
On the other hand you argue for second causes insisting God doesnt push the first domino etc. WHy? If the means dont matter then why not just admit God does it but for the right motive?
The reason Edwards and the confessional statement and fredrick and aangel are at odds with you is because you (at times) have God DOING the MEANS. As you said, GOD is doing the deed, but that is just the opposite point of the confessions and Edwards. They are saying Men do the DEEDS, they are the means that GOd uses to accomplish his motive. God permits the evil deed in order to accomplish the pure motive. He doesnt do the deed himself (active agency) with a good motive making it a good deed. the deed of killing jesus was horrific and God ddidn't do it, men did it. He allowed it, decreed it (permissively), for good reason. See the difference?
motive - the reason someone acts
means - the act, the deed, what is done
You cant or wont draw a distinction between those unless is suits your purpose making this discussion quite unbalanced and nonsensical.
On the one hand you argue Gods deeds are always good because his motive is always good, so even if a deed appears evil (killing his son) it is not evil because his motive was good.
On the other hand you argue for second causes insisting God doesnt push the first domino etc. WHy? If the means dont matter then why not just admit God does it but for the right motive?
The reason Edwards and the confessional statement and fredrick and aangel are at odds with you is because you (at times) have God DOING the MEANS. As you said, GOD is doing the deed, but that is just the opposite point of the confessions and Edwards. They are saying Men do the DEEDS, they are the means that GOd uses to accomplish his motive. God permits the evil deed in order to accomplish the pure motive. He doesnt do the deed himself (active agency) with a good motive making it a good deed. the deed of killing jesus was horrific and God ddidn't do it, men did it. He allowed it, decreed it (permissively), for good reason. See the difference?
- Status