-
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 problem of evil.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
I've watched a lot of Flower's videos at this point and this one is the worst one I have seen. It's really beneath him. I could go into the fact that he lumps all of what is called Calvinism into the most extreme end of it, thus trying to force anyone who disagrees with him to defend something which they don't believe and which is rarely taught. Most Calvinistic teaching does not maintain that God desired or wanted or created evil. There are in fact massive discussions on how evil can exist without anyone creating it.
But as far as that goes, the other problem is that Flower's is using the exact same argument against Calvinism that atheists use as their standard argument against God in general. Namely, that it is impossible for a good God, who is all powerful, to allow evil. Either he wanted it, or he can't do anything about it. I don't see where allowing creatures autonomous free will gets God off the hook in that case either. You are still left in a situation where you have to deny God essential attributes that I thought all Christians agreed on. Once again, if you don't want to be a Calvinist to me that is fine. Just realize that this particular argument is not against Calvinism specifically but against God in general.
But as far as that goes, the other problem is that Flower's is using the exact same argument against Calvinism that atheists use as their standard argument against God in general. Namely, that it is impossible for a good God, who is all powerful, to allow evil. Either he wanted it, or he can't do anything about it. I don't see where allowing creatures autonomous free will gets God off the hook in that case either. You are still left in a situation where you have to deny God essential attributes that I thought all Christians agreed on. Once again, if you don't want to be a Calvinist to me that is fine. Just realize that this particular argument is not against Calvinism specifically but against God in general.
37818
Well-Known Member
How? What is the premise where that would need to be so? Genesis 2:9 being the first mention of evil.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Honestly, I can't remember exactly. Basically, it was the idea that if a creature is created that can act, and it can act contrary and on purpose to what God wanted, then that would be evil and in no way did God have to directly create it. The creature could create it themselves by acting contrary to God's known will. I think by Genesis 2:9 Satan had already done that and taken a third of the angels with him.
Some take their Calvinism to such a deterministic extent that they interpret such a scenario as being according to God's will and plan, therefore it can all be directly attributed to God. I admit that some Calvinists do that but many don't, and I don't see why logically, that would have to be the case either.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
@DaveXR650 this is not meant to be putting down calvinist's but it seems that when a point is made re calvinism the response is generally well I'm a calvinist and others may believe XYZ but I don't. There seems to be as many types of calvinist as there are people that say they are calvinist. Calvinist's should get together and figure out what a calvinist has to actually believe before they call themselves a calvinist.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Well sure there are. And the spectrum continues to run through Arminianism, where there is classic Arminianism, modern semi-semi Pelagian Arminianism to semi-Pelagianism to Pelagianism and even to Socinianism.
These are theological systems and I think they all have weaknesses. A classic Arminian or a Wesleyan would have problems with Flowers.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
@37818 . At the 22 minute mark the issue of whether God is actually responsible for evil comes up and unfortunately, White chose to go off in a more complicated "grounding objection". I wish he would have just said immediately that God does not compel individuals to the evil that they do. He gets into it later with the story of Joseph but it comes much later.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
And there in lays the problem with calvinism, arminianism, etc. What ever happened to people just following the bible and just being Christians. To many have let other men tell them what the bible says rather than study it for themselves.
As for pelagianism, Flowers did a video with a bible scholar that looked at pelagianism. She had some interesting insights.
The MYTH of PELAGIANISM with Dr. Ali Bonner
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
No problem with that at all. White, in the Molinism video above says that God has a revealed will in scripture that he clearly wants us to do and we need to do it. Craig does not object to that statement at all either.
But if you just read the Bible by itself you will find scripture saying to just obey the law, no, just to have faith, that God knows everything, no, that God regrets decisions and changes his mind, that God hates some people, no, that God loves everyone and so on. Some of us want to understand all this as much as our small minds can. Theologians are of help in those cases.
Furthermore, your case is faulty on it's face. I'd be willing to bet that if we found 1000 people who were intensely interested in reading theology and you talked to them carefully you would find that they read far more scripture on average than this mythical person of yours who only studies scripture.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Dave what I am saying and have said a number of times before is that to many people seem to think that the bible can only be understood by "scholars". Whatever happened to reading the bible for themselves? I have listened to White and quite frankly I would not trust him to tell me the truth outside of his closed theological echo chamber. The bible has to agree with calvinism or the bible is wrong as he sees it.
Do you not find it odd that the average calvinist has to depend upon other men to tell them what to think as they can not understand it with their own small minds. Come on Dave trust your own mind to actually read scripture and come to a saving knowledge. Do you know what a theologian is Dave: a person that studies matters relating to religious beliefs, practices, and doctrine. But they are also just men or women.
The bible is not some mysterious book that only the elite can understand. As I have said before, I read commentaries but I do not let them determine what I believe. Commentaries can be a help in finding the truth they are not the truth. But even the best commentary or book contains the authors bias.
I find it odd that you would think that reading what other people say about the bible is better then reading the bible itself. It does not matter what 1,000 or 10,000 other people do, it is what you do that matters.
Do you think these verse are to complicated for the average person to understand?
Rom_6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Eph_1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
1Co_15:3-4 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
The following excerpts go a long way toward finding some answers
and there is much more detail on each point at this link, as well as
the very valuable chapters before and after this one.
The Body of Doctrinal Divinity, by John Gill, Book III,
Of the SIN and FALL of Our First Parents.
"The law that was given to our first parents, and the covenant that was made with them, were soon broken by them; "They like men" (or like Adam) "have transgressed the covenant" (Hosea 6:7), they continued not long in their obedience to it, and in that state of integrity in which they were created; but sinning, fell from it, into an estate of sin and misery."
"1. First, I shall consider the persons sinning, the same to whom the law was given, and with whom the covenant was made; the common parents of mankind, Adam and Eve;"
"2. Secondly, How creatures, so wise and knowing, so holy, just, and good; made after the image and likeness of God, came to sin as they did, deserves an inquiry: To what could their sin and fall be owing? Not unto God; he is not the author of sin, nor tempts unto it; nor is he tempted by it: nor to Satan, only as an instrument, enticing and deceiving; but to themselves, to their own will, it was their own act and deed."
"2a. First, Not to God; he forbade it; was displeased with it;
and resented it to the highest degree."
"2a1. What he did not do.
"2a1a. He did not restrain the serpent from tempting;
nor withhold man from sinning."
"2a1b. God did not withdraw any favor from man he had bestowed upon him, nor any power and strength to stand which he had given him; for when God does anything of this kind, it is by way of punishment for a preceding sin or sins; but no such punishment could be inflicted on Adam, because as yet he had not sinned; but God left him in the full possession of all the powers and abilities he had conferred upon him; so that he could have stood if he would;"
"Now these negative acts of God could never make Him chargeable
with being the author of Adam's sin and fall."
"2a2. There are other things which God did do,
or acts which are ascribed unto him, relative to this affair."
"2a2a. He foreknew the sin and fall of Adam; as he foreknows all things that come to pass in this world, which none will deny that own the omniscience and prescience of God; and if God foreknew the most trivial and contingent events that befall any of his creatures; then surely such an event as the fall of Adam, so important in its consequences, could never escape his foreknowledge; now God's foreknowledge of things future flows from the determinations of his will; he foreknows that things will be, because he has determined they shall be."
"Wherefore, 2a2b. God predetermined the fall of Adam; this fell under his decree, as all things do that come to pass in the world; there is nothing comes to pass without his determining will, "Who is he who says, and it comes to pass, when the Lord commands it not?" (Lamentations 3:37), nothing is done, or can be done, God not willing it should be done: that the fall of Adam was by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God is certain;"
"2a2c. God permitted or suffered Adam to sin and fall, which permission was not a bare permission or sufferance; God was not an idle spectator of this affair; the permission was voluntary, wise, holy, powerful, and efficacious, according to the unchangeable counsel of his will: he willed, and he did not will the sin of Adam, in different respects; he did not will it as an evil, but as what he would overrule for good, a great good; he willed it not as sin, but as a mean of glorifying his grace and mercy, justice and holiness: and that this was not a bare and inefficacious permission, but attended with influence, is clear; because,
"2a2d. There was a concourse of divine providence attending this action, and influencing it as an action, without which it could never have been performed; as divine providence supports every wicked man in his being throughout the whole course of his vicious life, and so while he is sinning; the same providence upheld Adam in his being, while he was eating the forbidden fruit;"
"The influences of divine providence concur with every action, be it what it may, as an action, since all live, and move, and have their being in God; every action, as an action, is from God; but the obliquity, irregularity, and sinfulness of the action, is from the creature: wherefore God is not the author of any sin; as he is not the author of sin in any man, notwithstanding the concourse of his providence with every action of his, as an action, so neither of the sin of Adam."
"2a2e. God may be said, by planting a garden, and that particular tree of the knowledge of good and evil in it, and by forbidding him to eat of that fruit, to afford an occasion of sinning to Adam; but had he not a right, as the Lord of the world, to plant a garden; and as a sovereign Lord to plant what tree he pleased in it, and to forbid the eating of it, without being blamed for it? especially when he gave to Adam a power to abstain from it, had he made use of it; and God can no more on this account be chargeable with being the author of Adam's sin, than by giving wealth and riches to a wicked man, which are occasions of his sinning, by consuming them on his lusts", etc., ....
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
These comments regarding THE ORIGIN of EVIL,
by The Evil Angels comes from;
The Body of Doctrinal Divinity, by John Gill, Book III,
"Of the Confirmation of the Elect Angels, and the Fall of the Non-elect."
"2. The next remarkable event respecting angels,
is the sin and fall of the non-elect angels."
"Now sin is a transgression of the law; where there is no law there is no transgression (2 Peter 2:4; 1 John 3:4; Romans 4:15). These angels, in their original estate of creation, were in a capacity of obeying the law that was given them; their will was inclined to it; and the bias of their mind was towards it; for they were created holy, just, and good; the estate they are now in, is not that in which they were made; it is expressly said of them, that they "kept not their first estate", and "abode not in the truth" (Jude 1:6; John 8:44),"
"...for being left to the freedom of their will, which was mutable, and is that folly and weakness which angels in their original state were chargeable with by God, and in comparison of him; they sinned and fell, to which fall of theirs our Lord has respect, when he says, "I beheld Satan, as lightning fall from Heaven" (Luke 10:18), that is, suddenly, swiftly, and irresistibly, and which proves the existence of Christ before his incarnation; as that not only he was before Abraham, but before Adam; however, before the fall of Adam, for he was before the fall of the angels, he was present at it, and a witness of it."
"...the angels were left to their own free will, which was mutable, and so of themselves, and not through any temptation without them, sinned and fell; this is always spoken of as their own voluntary act and deed, without any force or persuasion used with them; they kept not their first estate, left their habitation, and abode not in the truth.
"It is very probable, that one of them, famous above the rest for his wisdom and strength, ("I beheld Satan..." (Luke 10:18) might begin the apostasy; and being in high esteem for his excellent qualifications, he gave the lead, and others followed his example; hence we read of the prince of devils, and of the prince of the power of the air, or of the posse of devils in it, and of the devil and his angels (Matthew 12:24; 25:41; Eph 2:2)."
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
That is way better than Flower's opening video.
When you really think about that it answers a lot of questions about how things work out from God's point of view, as much as we are able to understand it.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
When you are on a theology site don't be surprised if the people aren't talking - theology. If Owen and Edwards both had sermons stating that Christ has died for you, all is in place, and the only thing lacking is your consent, are they still wrong because they are Calvinists? As to reading scripture, I have never seen more Bible reading and study as in Reformed Baptist churches. I'm not knocking other groups, just that I don't have personal experience with other groups. A lot of these churches even use names that include "Bible Fellowship" and one of their stated tenants is expository preaching, where you go through books of the Bible. Another bogus and false charge, Silverhair.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Why would I be surprised if we talk about theological views on a theology site? What I do find is that most calvinists fall back to X person or persons eg "Owen and Edwards" or in some cases do copy paste of their favorite one like @KenH and Gill.
While you may want to read them and even trust what they are saying they are not scripture. As for bible reading and study, if they add their calvinist slant to the text then it is still the TULIP/DoG that they are teaching. In post # 15 you wrote in agreement that "the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God is certain;" so are you reading your calvinism into scripture. God being omniscient knows all that will happen but God does not have to determine all that happens. That is a calvinist concept as they can not believe that the sovereign God would give man an actual free will even though the bible shows that He did.
That, as I have seen it on this board and others, is the major problem within calvinism. They will believe the bible as long as it agrees with what the TULIP/DoG or their confessions say.
Because I was not exposed to calvinism until about ten years ago the errors stand out like red flags. Quite frankly I am surprised at how many people within that view have not taken the time to look at the history of that philosophy. But for the calvinist it has all been determined and as calvin said this is just to give them a greater since of lose when they are condemned for their false understanding. Although why God would do this to any of His creation is indeed a mystery.
KenH
Well-Known Member
I would not necessarily say that John Gill is my favorite preacher, of relatively recent time, of the salvation of God's elect by the free and sovereign grace of the God through the finished work of Christ Jesus. I do especially like Gill's rather exhaustive commentary on the whole Bible, due to the detail he goes into, and it is the first commentary I usually go to for research on a verse or passage, and I also especially like his book, A Body of Doctrinal Divinity. Overall, I would say that I especially like devotional books by Robert Hawker, J.C. Philpot, and William Mason. And for sermons I especially like Joseph Irons and J.K. Popham. And I especially like Joseph Iron's hymnbook, Zion's Hymns. Among those alive and preaching today, I especially like Richard Warmack, Bill Parker, Gary Shepard, Scott Price, and Sonny Hernandez.
Just thought I would mention these, since I was mentioned in this thread.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
The thread starts out with a video by two anti-Calvinist theologians. Do you ever complain that they are doing the same thing? They're all quoting the same exact scriptures so you are stuck with the endless back and forth or you bring in someone else to bolster your case. You quote scripture and then give your interpretation as if that is good but if a Calvinist quotes scripture and says their interpretation agrees with guys like Owen, Edwards and Gill somehow it is now invalid?
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
I'm not that familiar with Gill but he explains it like Edwards, who I am familiar with. It is the standard reasoning unless you go with an exact determinism which some but not all Calvinists use. Flowers in the above video says his answer is that God is just a better chess player. I don't find that to be a satisfactory answer.