Calvinism and the origin of evil

[Luke2427]

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?

If the motive is not guided by obedience to God the motive is evil.

It is that simple.

Please reread and actually respond to the rather lengthy post I sent you along these lines.

 

[Robert Snow]

deleted

a waste of time...

See what I mean?

 

[Winman]

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.

Exactly. I asked Luke about Jer 32:35 several times a week or so ago, and each time he ignores it. That is because he CAN'T explain it in his system.
Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Here the Jews were sacrificing their children, and God said he did not command this, it did not come into his mind, and he did not cause it.
This verse absolutely refutes Luke's view and he knows it, so he simply ignores it. How about that for scholarship?

 

[Skandelon]

If the motive is not guided by obedience to God the motive is evil.

Luke, again, you blur the lines. One can sincerely believe they are acting in obedience to God and be wrong. That is what separates the means from the motive.

You think you are serving God by defending Calvinistic dogma, I think I am serving God by defending my views. We both have the right motive, but we are not both right. The motive may be good, but the means (doctrine) is either right or wrong...truth or error. Scripture is clear that even if a man sins in ignorance it is still sin.

Please reread and actually respond to the rather lengthy post I sent you along these lines.

The fact that you don't think my response did address your post is disheartening and quite aggravating.

God does NOT do the deed (kill his son), as you teach. He permits the deed and even disposes certain events (hardening of Israel), too accomplish his purpose. Some may equate his permitting of something that he could have stopped as his DOing the deed, but that would be contradicting what the confessions and Edwards go to lengths to make very clear...God is not the doer of evil deeds.

 

[DHK]

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them: If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering. (Leviticus 4:2-3)

One may be sincere, but sincerely wrong.
There are many in false religions and false cults just like that--sincere, but sincerely wrong.

 

[Robert Snow]

Exactly. I asked Luke about Jer 32:35 several times a week or so ago, and each time he ignores it. That is because he CAN'T explain it in his system.
Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Here the Jews were sacrificing their children, and God said he did not command this, it did not come into his mind, and he did not cause it.
This verse absolutely refutes Luke's view and he knows it, so he simply ignores it. How about that for scholarship?

Anyone who continues to show Luke the error of Calvinism is ignored by him. Anyone who will not play ball to suit him is labeled as someone who is non responsive. This way he attempts to hide his inability to answer.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Anyone who continues to show Luke the error of Calvinism is ignored by him. Anyone who will not play ball to suit him is labeled as someone who is non responsive. This way he attempts to hide his inability to answer.

Since Calvinism is the true representation of systematic biblical theology, one can't show him the "errors" of it because it is the correct position.

The incorrect position with huge gaping holes in theology is the heretical semi pelagian position that denies the sovereignty of God in election.

So when semi pelagians say the same [offensive language edited] things over and over again, it gets to the point where a bible believer will just ignore them.

 

[DHK]

Since Calvinism is the true representation of systematic biblical theology, one can't show him the "errors" of it because it is the correct position.

This is only an opinion, an opinion that is bound to be wrong. Please find any hint of "Calvinism" among the writings of the Apostles, then I will believe you. You have put the writings of a man over the Scriptures and made him your final authority.

The incorrect position with huge gaping holes in theology is the heretical semi pelagian position that denies the sovereignty of God in election.

Just because one does not believe in Calvinism does not make him "heretical semi pelagian." These are the false assumptions of the Calvinist.

So when semi pelagians say the same [offensive language edited] things over and over again, it gets to the point where a bible believer will just ignore them.

When do Calvinists stop making posts that need to be edited?

 

[Robert Snow]

Since Calvinism is the true representation of systematic biblical theology, one can't show him the "errors" of it because it is the correct position.

The incorrect position with huge gaping holes in theology is the heretical semi pelagian position that denies the sovereignty of God in election.

So when semi pelagians say the same [offensive language edited] things over and over again, it gets to the point where a bible believer will just ignore them.

You know what they say about opinions don't you?

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, again, you blur the lines. One can sincerely believe they are acting in obedience to God and be wrong. That is what separates the means from the motive.

Reread the post. I addressed this very thing in it.

 

[quantumfaith]

Since Calvinism is the true representation of systematic biblical theology, one can't show him the "errors" of it because it is the correct position.

The incorrect position with huge gaping holes in theology is the heretical semi pelagian position that denies the sovereignty of God in election.

So when semi pelagians say the same [offensive language edited] things over and over again, it gets to the point where a bible believer will just ignore them.

You should REALLY be careful there OB, you are making some very Bold assertions and strident allegations.

 

[Luke2427]

You should REALLY be careful there OB, you are making some very Bold assertions and strident allegations.

Figures.
__________

 

[quantumfaith]

Figures.
__________

OOOOOOH :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Winman]

It comes down to free will. If men and angels have free will and can act independently of God, this makes us the cause of our own sin.
I think Jer 32:35 proves men can act freely, God said he did not command this sin, it did not come into his mind, and he did not cause it. I believe this proves man can have independent wicked imaginations and motives of his own.
If you do not believe man has free will, then you have to believe God is the ultimate cause of sin as Luke believes.
The Calvinist will argue, Cannot God prevent sin? Well, if he truly gives us free will he cannot unless he kills us all before we have a chance to commit sin. Now, what good is that?
As myself and others have said, when we had children we knew they would come into the world and commit sin, the only way to prevent it would be not to have children. But then we would have no one to love, and isn't that the great motivation behind having children, that we have someone who truly loves us, and that we have someone we can truly love?
God could have not created us, or killed us before we could sin, but it would be pretty lonely in heaven. God is self-sufficient, but I believe even God wants to express his love, and also to be loved, just like we do.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

and for the eleventh time im telling you you are blurring the line between means and motive. I know stopping abortion (the motive) doesn't justify murder (means), that is the basis of my point which is one can have a pure motive but choose the wrong means. I know you are wise enough to make that differentiation if you are not overly consumed with 'being right' all the time.

The motive is not pure; it does not matter what you presume

to presume his motive must have been impure because his mean were impure actually undermines your argument because it implies that if Gods chosen means are impure that his motive must also be impure. It begs the question to assume that incorrect means necessitates incorrect motive. It presumes that man could never have a good motive while choosing an incorrect means, a presumption that you have provided NO basis for whatsoever except to say it over and over more emphatically.

Therefore, motive is about answering this question: Is it right to do this to accomplish that?

Translation: 'Are these the right means to accomplish this motive?'

If you can discover that the answer to that question is, "yes", then you will have the proper motive for what you do.

Notice that the affirmative answer to this question ONLY validates the means, but the motive could be completely impure and this question could still be answered 'YES.'

See how you have failed once again to distinguish between means and motive? If you cant make that distinction you fall into pragmatism which says, 'The ends always justifies the means,' and i really dont think you want to go there.

Your question makes it appear the means are never wrong if the motive is right, which once again begs the question and is biblically unfounded.

The determiner of whether or not the answer is, "yes", is whether or not the motive is obedience to God.

No, actually even if you answer that question with the affirmative you could still have impure motives and we both agree that even the right means with impure motives is sin.

So if my motive is to make myself look good to those in the church i could give a big donation. Would that be an effective means to accomplish that motive? Yes, it could make me look good, but it would be wrong because i did it for the wrong reason.

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.

Why not just say, as I did before, that you could vote for pro-life leaders? I think that would work better than 'gum chewing.' There is nothing immoral about voting for a prolife canidate (means) in order to accomplish the motive of stoping abortion. BUt if that same person, believes God wants him to save the babies by force and murders the doctor then his MEANS have changed, his reason for doing it is the same...to stop abortions.

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.

Something is not true just because you say it enough times Luke. You are begging the question. THe motive is evil when the motive is evil. The means are evil when the means are evil. You have to prove that wrong means necessitate wrong motives.

Why? Because my motive was guided by a lack of desire to conform my way to his demands

That presumes that the individual doesnt sincerely believe that God demands him to murder the baby killer. There are many verses which could be interpreted to support this view, which would be wrong, but again incorrect understanding can lead one with good motives to make bad choices.

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 are now presuming you know every mans conscience when he makes a poor choice based upon the magnitude of the mans sin, but this is also true of any 'small sin' not just murder so we could just change the illustration to negate this presumption.

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.

Again, we could change the illustration to discuss a LESS CLEAR rule which would negate this presumption as well. For example, a pastor may desire to get help with serving the people of his congregation (good motive) and his view of scripture is in conflict with others believers about who and who is not qualified for that role of deacon. If he chose a divorced man one might argue he has sinned, even if his motive was good. Is the motive in question? No, the means are being debated... is it RIGHT to appoint a divorced man as a deacon to accomplish the motive of serving the

church?
BUT what always pleases him is to be consistent with himself at all times forever.

and dont you think that doing an evil deed (like killing Jesus) isnt consistent with himself? Dont you think that is why the confession and edwards and the rest are emphatic to say GOd didnt do it, but that he permitted it and disposed events and used SECOND causes, etc? You just say 'HE DID IT and MEN DID IT' which is not what they are saying at all!!!!

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

WHAT? Do you believe that the ends always justify the means? YOu are ok with manipulative preachers?

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?

both are evil, one is a natural calamity[evil] like a earthquake, the second is a moral evil.

Now that Ive gone through the post line by line make sure you still look at the points of my follow up posts and you will see that I addressed all our points of contention in them as well. You are really high maintence!

 

[Luke2427]

and for the eleventh time im telling you you are blurring the line between means and motive.

No, I am not. If a man is motivated to an action without a spirit of conformity to the demands of his Maker upon his life, his motive is evil every time.

I know stopping abortion (the motive) doesn't justify murder (means), that is the basis of my point which is one can have a pure motive but choose the wrong means. I know you are wise enough to make that differentiation if you are not overly consumed with 'being right' all the time.

The problem with murder IS the motive. The motive is the pursuit of self-will rather than the Maker's demands.

to presume his motive must have been impure because his mean were impure actually undermines your argument because it implies that if Gods chosen means are impure that his motive must also be impure.

Means CANNOT be pure or impure. Means have no moral value. Only PERSONS have moral value.

Chaos is not morally good or evil.

Disaster is not in and of itself morally evil.

Bleeding is not morally evil.

Pain will not be judged at the Great White Throne.

Why? Because chaos, disaster, bleeding and pain are not persons. They are not evil or good morally.

It begs the question to assume that incorrect means

I do not know why you keep going to this.

I have been abundantly clear that MEANS are not morally evil in and of themselves.
To argue that they are seems like madness to me.

Translation: 'Are these the right means to accomplish this motive?'

Wrong. Try: Is what I am considering doing in line with the demands of God upon my life. In other words, am I moved to this action by a desire to conform my way to my Maker's demands? Is my motive to please Him?

That has NOTHING to do with the means and EVERYTHING to do with the motive.

Notice that the affirmative answer to this question ONLY validates the means, but the motive could be completely impure and this question could still be answered 'YES.'

Wrong. See above.

See how you have failed once again to distinguish between means and motive? If you cant make that distinction you fall into pragmatism which says, 'The ends always justifies the means,' and i really dont think you want to go there.

If the ends are always to rightly conform one's self to the demands of God, to surrender completely and humbly to God's rule, then the means WILL be acceptable. If the person got it wrong it is either because he is MAD (in which case his deeds are truly NOT morally evil: he will not be judged for them) or the Word of God is not clear.

Unless you would deny the Perspicuity of Scripture then you'd have to agree.

The only way that you can argue otherwise is say, "But if that man THINKS he IS obeying..." which argues that the Bible is unclear.

Why else would he not be able to find out the demands of God upon him?

You might say, "What if he has not read the Bible?" This wrongly assumes that a man can take up such an action of this magnitude (the taking of another human life) without vigorously pursuing what the Almighty demands of him, and still have a good motive. He cannot.

If a man does something of this magnitude without aggressively pursuing the knowledge of the demands of God on him, his motive is EVIL- every time.

No man can have a good motive for ANYTHING if it does not move him to conform to the demands of his Maker. Period.

Your question makes it appear the means are never wrong if the motive is right, which once again begs the question and is biblically unfounded.

Wrong.

The Lord Jesus said that it is that which comes OUT of a man is that which defiles him.

There was a standard- wash your hands. Jesus disciples did not do it. They accused them of sin. Jesus said, basically, "You are ignorant of the nature of sin. Sin is not about what is DONE, it is about the heart underneath what is done."

Sin is most certainly a transgression of the law, but why? Because of the heart that will not conform itself to the demands (law) of the Maker.

So if my motive is to make myself look good to those in the church i could give a big donation. Would that be an effective means to accomplish that motive? Yes, it could make me look good, but it would be wrong because i did it for the wrong reason.

Yes, not because your donation was evil in and of itself (donation is not itself either good or evil), but because your MOTIVE is self-driven.

Now you are starting to get it.

Why not just say, as I did before, that you could vote for pro-life leaders? I think that would work better than 'gum chewing.' There is nothing immoral about voting for a prolife canidate (means) in order to accomplish the motive of stoping abortion. BUt if that same person, believes God wants him to save the babies by force and murders the doctor then his MEANS have changed, his reason for doing it is the same...to stop abortions.

More importantly, his MOTIVE has changed. He went from a motive which is driven by a desire to conform one's self to the demands of God to one which self-willfully ignores the demands of God.

His motive MUST be driven by submission to his Maker.

Whatsoever is not of faith is SIN according to the Scripture.

Something is not true just because you say it enough times Luke. You are begging the question. The motive is evil when the motive is evil.

That's silly and I have said no such thing. I have given clear REASONS why the motive is evil. Motive is good or evil based on the desire that emanates from it, whether or not that desire is to submit to the demands of God.

Since that is clear enough you ought to withdraw this remark.

The means are evil when the means are evil. You have to prove that wrong means necessitate wrong motives.

This has NOTHING at all to do with anything I am saying.

That presumes that the individual doesnt sincerely believe that God demands him to murder the baby killer.

Wrong again. And I have dealt with this at length.

This statement undermines the great doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture.

There are many verses which could be interpreted to support this view, which would be wrong, but again incorrect understanding can lead one with good motives to make bad choices.

TOTALLY undermines the doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture.

I said you would have to undermine that doctrine to argue along these lines and you are doing just that.

You are now presuming you know every mans conscience when he makes a poor choice based upon the magnitude of the mans sin, but this is also true of any 'small sin' not just murder so we could just change the illustration to negate this presumption.

Wrong. Show the link between what I am saying and what you are claiming I am saying. Saying I am saying something doesn't say anything.:thumbs: Prove it.

Again, we could change the illustration to discuss a LESS CLEAR rule which would negate this presumption as well. For example, a pastor may desire to get help with serving the people of his congregation (good motive) and his view of scripture is in conflict with others believers about who and who is not qualified for that role of deacon. If he chose a divorced man one might argue he has sinned, even if his motive was good. Is the motive in question? No, the means are being debated... is it RIGHT to appoint a divorced man as a deacon to accomplish the motive of serving the and dont you think that doing an evil deed (like killing Jesus) isnt consistent with himself? Dont you think that is why the confession and edwards and the rest are emphatic to say GOd didnt do it, but that he permitted it and disposed events and used SECOND causes, etc? You just say 'HE DID IT and MEN DID IT' which is not what they are saying at all!!!!

The confessions nor these men do NOT say that. In fact, Calvin is clear that God DID do it (which I have proven with quotes to you before) and Edwards most certainly believed that God did it.

As to your illustration, "RIGHT" is simply this: submission to the Lordship of God as the all-wise and omni-benevolent ruler.

WHAT? Do you believe that the ends always justify the means? YOu are ok with manipulative preachers?

????!?

both are evil, one is a natural calamity[evil] like a earthquake, the second is a moral evil.

Both are NOT MORALLY evil, are they? Tell me why that is so. Tell me what the difference is.

Now that Ive gone through the post line by line make sure you still look at the points of my follow up posts and you will see that I addressed all our points of contention in them as well.

And I thank you. There is no point of trying to have a discussion if we are just going to talk PAST one another. Ignoring one's arguments while making other arguments of one's own is NOT a discussion. What you did here is necessary if we are to make any progress at all in the goal of iron sharpening iron.

I will not, nor should you, continue meeting requests when my previous arguments have not been addressed. I am certain webdog will like to spit here from the safety of the sidelines, but this is why I would not answer the request for a definition until my PREVIOUS request for answers to those questions were given.

In my next few posts I will address your answers.

 

[Luke2427]

Some did, some did not. From your prespective those who denied the trinity cannot be blamed as they were simply preordained by God to believe as they did.



I don't believe I said that. But they were contemporaries.


So is Communism, but that does not make Communism a good governmental or economic system.



I beg to differ. We simply have a different view of his sovereignty and what that means.



I agree.



I respectfully disagree.



I respectfully disagree.




I do not see how this is possible in the Calvinist view as God authored or preordained evil.



And I respectfully disagree. It may be obvious to you, but it is an error.



So, and you have yet to respond to this ... if you beat your child and injure him it is all right as then you can show how merciful you are.



Yes it would not be needed. But your interpretation of this is an error.



As man has used his free will to sin then yes these are good. If man had never sinned they would not be necessary and we would be in personal contact with God. God is working toward restoring this relationship. God would much rather have this type of relationship than to have to forgive us our shortcomings.



You opinion. I just defended it.

What I find indefensible is the stance saying God is the author of all evil and that is exactly what you have said to me through the posts in this thread.

I will address this later as I can.

 

[Skandelon]

Luke, to simplify our discussion allow me to focus on just this point for now without accusing me of ignoring you post, ok? You said a lot of things but most of it boil down to this one issue:

Unless you would deny the Perspicuity of Scripture then you'd have to agree.

Luke, you do understand that "adherents to the doctrine of perspicuity of scripture accept the Calvinist teaching that man is depraved and needs the illumination of the Holy Spirit in order to see the meaning for what it is," which is why I have accused you of question begging. By presuming this doctrine as fact you are presuming the very point up for debate, which is that two believers might read the same passage and walk away with two different interpretation thus leading them to strive to obey God (good motive) by two different means (one right, and the other wrong).

So two pastors who both really love God and really want their church to be served might interpret the passages about the qualification of deacons differently (something this doctrine presumes isn't possible). BOTH have good motives (serve the church) but only one of them has the correct understanding of what qualifies a deacon...if they are both right because they 'mean well' then what is right or wrong is all relative. There are right motives and wrong motives just there are right ways to do something and wrong ways to do something (right and wrong means). Just because someone has the right motive doesn't mean the way they choose to accomplish that motive is right. NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

I'm not asking for agreement, im asking for understanding. Your responses don't convince me that you understand my point, once i know you at least understand my points then i know you are addressing our actual points of contention.

 

[gb93433]

That we cannot fully understand this issue is clear.

Why would you say that? I doubt that it was so foggy to the Jew because they were in that historical context.