Calvinism and the problem of evil.

OK so you like then but do they replace scripture, NO. The problem I have found with most calvinists is that they refer to various authors but rarely the bible.

Seems to me they have their priorities mixed up.

 

What I find is that calvinists tend to rely on extra biblical authors way to much and the bible way to little.

 

I have quoted lots of God's Word on this board. The posts on this board that I have made from the writings of the men I have quoted from have also quoted lots of God's Word.

 

When I quote scripture I let scripture speak for itself I do not try to add my own interpretation. As for the calvinists if they agree with Owen, Edwards or Gill and their interpretation is at odds with scripture then why would you expect me to agree with it.

In post # 12 I asked you
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,

You did not answer that question. I do not care what view a person has, if it does not align with scripture then they need to reevaluate their views.

The bible is not the mystery book that many calvinists portray it as being.

 

I think they do when they get into areas of well if that be the case then logically this must be the result and so on. But all sides do that with theology. I mean really, you can't figure out how God can accomplish his will and allow man free will so you end up with God being a better chess player! That's the answer? All sides do it, not just Calvinists.

 

I did not answer the question for two reasons.
1. Those verses have nothing to do with the discussion of this thread.
2. I agree with those verses, as written, 100 percent, and can't think of any Calvinist who does not also agree with them. What did you want me to say? And I almost forgot, just to be clear - I'm not a committed Calvinist. I don't agree with limited atonement, and I think God's grace, though essential or else no one can be saved, is sometimes resisted to the point where God says "enough" and leaves someone to their own free will.

 

What you seem to be missing is I do not care if both sides do it. If what they come up with does not comport with the bible then what they say needs to be thrown out.

The bible is the standard not some man or group of men.

 

Actually free will is something that came up in the video quite early:
0:51 ironically
0:53 I think that Calvinists don't take God's
0:57 sovereignty seriously enough
0:59 why because I think that God is so
1:03 Sovereign that he can get his will done
1:05 through our free will
1:07 and apparently Calvinists don't think
1:09 that
1:10 you know Calvinists think oh if God is
1:12 Sovereign he can't give us free will or
1:15 he at least he can't give us free will
1:16 when it comes to choosing uh whether or
1:19 not we're saved

and that is what I have been saying and what those verses show. Man can read the text of scripture and actually make real choices or those verses need not be in the bible. If everything is determined as the TULIP/DoG would suggest and the LBCF/WCF do state then why bother with evangelism at all.

Glad to hear that you are not a committed calvinist. I'm not a committed arminian so I figure there is hope for us yet.

Like you I will read various authors to see what they say on a subject, I just do not give them as much credit as you seem to do.

 

Yes I know that you have quoted scripture, that is not the question is it? When someone takes the word of God out of context to support a given view then they are in error. That applies to both those that support calvinism or arminianism or however they want to describe their view. The bible is the standard all other views have to agree with it.

 

The WCF doesn't say that if that makes any difference to you. I think it's chapter 3.

The original thread was about the Calvinist explanation of the origin of evil. I just happen to think that in that area they do better than Flowers's, who has to end up either denying core attributes of God or fooling around with Molinism.

 

According to you it is. You wrote, "The problem I have found with most calvinists is that they refer to various authors but rarely the bible." (emphasis mine)

Then, when you get called on it, you tuck tail and run away from your statement.

 

I just listened to that video and I have to ask is "God being a better chess player" a line taken out of context by the way, is that the only thing you got out of that video? Do you think it is better that God plays both sides of the board? That's determinism which is something that you say you do not agree with. So logically if it is not God determining all things then He is working out His plan through man's free will.

Here is the context of your comment, what do you find disagreeable about it?
13:47 ... I think our
13:49 view of sovereignty is much higher than
13:51 that of the determinist determinist
13:53 perspective of the calvinist because
13:55 ultimately God is having to play both
13:57 sides of the chessboard in order to
13:58 ensure his victory versus uh God's just
14:01 better at chess than all of his
14:02 opponents
14:03 um and that's how we know he's going to
14:05 win because he's just better at at chess
14:07 no matter what moves his opponents make
14:09 he's always going to be able to
14:11 accomplish his purpose through uh their
14:14 their free choices

An interesting question was brought up about Lucifer. Who gave him the desire to sin? You can listen to it at the 9:42 mark. How would you answer that question?

 

… is that like “no true Scotsman”?

 

The line is not taken out of context. That is Flowers's solution to the problem. The idea that the alternative is God playing both sides of the board is his idea too. It is not the answer Calvinism gives to the problem of evil. @atpollard posted Gill's explanation and I think it is a good one.

I'm not much of a Calvinist but the problem of why is there evil is a question we all face if we talk to anyone who is a skeptic and I just think that in this case the Calvinist explanation is the best one I know of. Flowers and Turek are arguing against an extreme determinist view that is not the way Gill or Edwards would explain it. According to their argument a Calvinist says that God must directly cause evil or an evil bent of mind in humans or even in Lucifer.

Read Gill's explanation. It is difficult in some of the concepts but it does make sense. Maybe he's wrong but I would like to see someone post something that refutes that view at the level it is presented, not by simplifying it and then refuting the resulting position. Frankly, I don't mind if in the end one throws up their hands and appeals to mystery. But if you won't accept that and you reject the view of Gill you are left with 2 choices. Either God directly causes all things, even evil, or God does not know what his free will creatures are going to do next because the "decision" does not exist yet because, as you say, they could always decide differently.

 

Actually I do not think Flowers and Turek were arguing against extreme calvinist determinism. That is the view that many calvinists have put forward. God to be sovereign has to determine all things or He is not sovereign. How they put it is God is "absolutely totally sovereign". AKA divine determinism.

You say you like Gill's explanation but I prefer the biblical one. God is sovereign and man has a God given free will. God is omniscient so He knows all the free will choices that man will make. If man does not have an actual free will but rather that determined free will of calvinism then how logically can man be responsible for those determined choices. It is not a mystery except in the minds of those that can not accept man's God given free will.

Dave you are trying to setup a false dilemma. You want an either or choice but the options you present are not what we see in scripture. Under calvinism God has to determine all things. "God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass;" LBCF 1689 CHAPTER 3; OF GOD’S DECREE
Of course they then have to add the contradictory statement that they really did not mean all things just some things. "yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein;2 nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established;3 in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree."

So what we see in the LBCF is God causes all evil but He does not cause all evil and why is that? Because of second causes which so happen to be decreed by the calvinist God. So even when they try to avoid the decree of God it is still the decree of God that determines all things.

But the bible is thankfully not dependent upon calvinism. God is omniscient so He knows all things that man will freely choose to do. He does not cause them to do them and is not waiting until the free agent exercises his free will to know what the agent has done.

So yes the agent could have chosen A or B but whatever the choice would turn out to be that is what God in His omniscience would have know the agent would in fact choose.

If determinism is true and God wants all to come to a saving knowledge of the truth then if we do not have free will with which to reject that offer way are not all people saved? Now I know that you reject the idea of determinism but that is a main tenet of calvinism so needs to be dealt with..

 

And this would at least give God time to plan his next move on the chess board of life. Sounds good to me.

It is dealt with. The video of White debating Craig they both claim the story of Joseph and his brothers for their own side. Listen to it yourself and decide but I think White has it right. And part of God's sovereign plan was to get Joseph to Egypt and he used the free will choices of his brothers to accomplish his will. In fact, rather than causing them to do evil, White points out that God actually changed their wills for the better because they initially wanted to kill Joseph. (God reserves the right to control us if he needs to.)
When a Calvinist says that God's decreed will was that Joseph's brothers would get Joseph into Egypt by their nasty plan that started out as a murder plot that morphed into selling him into slavery they believe that this was truly God's plan - yet the brothers were really acting according to their free will. God was not saying "Oh no, now they threw him in a pit. I know. I'll have a caravan of slave traders go by so maybe they will just sell him rather than kill him." That's what the free willers are left with and I just think the Calvinists have it right in this case. Flowers at least is smart enough to realize the chess match is over, he's in check, and the only way out it to accuse God of directly causing the evil if it results in God's will being accomplished. Thus you have the constantly raised false argument that for God to accomplish his will he has to be the direct cause of everything, even evil and so it goes. And thus you will repeat.

 

Dave I do not have to accuse God of being the cause of all the evil in the world I leave that to the calvinists. It is your WCF/LBCF or do you deny those also. Dave you can dance around all you want but the bare facts are that calvinism is a deterministic philosophy. Joseph's brother saw the chance to make some money and not have his blood on their hands so their sold him, that's free will. Genesis 37:25-27

The calvinist version of man's free will is that man can freely sin but it is impossible for him to do anything regarding his salvation. The bible disagrees with your view but the average calvinist, it seems, does not let that bother them. This seems to be the calvinist mantra "we do have free will except when it comes to choosing whether or not we're Christians" Perhaps you can explain to God how He got it wrong.

 

Exactly.

15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Ro 4

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Ro 5

 

Not running away from my statement @KenH. Look at the average calvinist response.

Saying you quote scripture does not say you do not use various authors. Most calvinists will just quote an author as if that is supposed to prove their point.

If you use scripture then good on you but you should take more time reading a post before you respond.

 

Evil isnt a problem with God, it exists to serve His Purpose ! Isa 45:6-7

6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Rev 4:10-11

10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,

11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created