A Civil Discussion about the Origin of Sin

[Amy.G]

It is what God does. It is like the stacking of dominoes.

I thump the first and CAUSE the rest to fall but I do not thump the rest.

God disposes of events in such a way that when he starts the process certain events will infallibly follow by design.

So every wicked thought I have can be traced back to God as the first cause?

I don't understand the problem here. The bible says we are drawn away (from God) by our own lusts (desires). I don't know how it could be any more plain.

This business of ascribing sin to God is ridiculous and anti bible.

 

[Luke2427]

Oh, we are debating whether or not the intent to sin (i.e. the first thought to molest a child) is a created thing or not? Weird? If it's not then it doesn't really exist and since it does exist it must have an origin, right? I'm confused. If its not created then how does it exist?

The same way darkness exists without being created. The same way cold exists without being created.

Cold and dark are the result of the removal of warmth and light.

Evil is the removal of good.

Dark is caused not created.

Since God is good and is eternal good has always been. Evil is therefore not eternal and is the result of the removal of good.

Something becomes evil when good is removed from it just as something becomes cold as heat is removed from it.

Ok, I'm really trying to follow you here. Lets say I'm sitting in the room and you turn the light off. And in my mind pops the thought, "I want to be like Luke and take his job and his house." Where did that thought originate? In me, as a result of your turning off the light? OR In you, as a result of you casually determining me to think a thought you originated before time began?

Your mixing analogies. Dark is to light what evil is to good.

You are mixing it: Dark is to good...

I leave you in the dark by turning off the light.

I, if I could, would leave you in evil if I removed from you goodness.

Oh, so the analogy of stacking dominoes is acceptable but the starting of rolling a ball is not?

We are illustrating different aspects of the issue by the two different anecdotes.

You were trying to illustrate my position on the creation of evil via the rolling ball. That did not work because evil is not necessarily a created thing.

But there is another aspect to the fall and evil events that I am illustrating via the falling dominoes anecdote. That is the ordering or events that lead to evil taking place ONCE THE LIGHT IS REMOVED.

The removal of God's goodness is one step towards the coming to be of evil. The other step includes the positioning of factors- Lucifer, the serpent, Eve, Adam, the tree, etc...

You cannot illustrate the creation of evil by the ball rolling or the dominoes falling. But you can illustrate the positioning of factors and the series of necessary events that infallibly follow by those anecdotes.

Aww, right there. See how you said, "he knew would come to pass?" That is different from caused or determined to come to pass. To foreknow something that will come to pass and permit it is DIFFERENT than to determine something to come to pass. You seem to switch back and forth at your convenience between these two distinctions in order to argue your point. This is what is causing confusion and making this discussion go in circles where I agree with you in one post and disagree in the next. My view hasn't changed. Yours has yet to be defined. I say this with respect, so please don't take offense. I'm just telling you what I see happening in our discussion.

No one is arguing otherwise.

What you are still missing is that this whole problem consists of multiple factors.

The existence of evil is absolutely the result of God's permission.
It is absolutely the result of God's foreknowledge.
But that is not all.

Every time I say, in this debate, God permitted, you say, "Ah HA! That is what I am saying..."
I already know that.

We seem to agree that God foreknew and allowed evil to come to pass.

I will continue to recognize that in this debate. But if progress is to be made you must understand that my position is that the origin of evil is not RESTRICTED to those factors.

Not ONLY did God permit it but ultimately he caused it.

Not ONLY did God KNOW it was going to happen, but God also ordained that it would happen.

So, from henceforth in the debate it will not make sense for you to accuse me of waffling back and forth since they are ALL true and recognizing one does not deny the existence of the other.

Are we on the same page now?

When one of those dominos is original (i.e. the first time someone molested a child) then that intent had to originate somewhere. Did God first think that thought (make it into a domino) and then allow it to fall when the other events lead up to that moment? OR Did God merely know that criminal would originate that thought (create that domino himself) and permit it to fall? SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

The best way to think of it is that God holds the domino up (order).
The chaos ensues when he releases the domino.

His power is not directly responsible for the chaos, the domino's inability to stand apart from its Makers assistance is what immediately caused the chaos, but the ultimate cause can be attributed to the Maker for two things:

1. His ordering of the dominoes.
2. His removal of his assistance.

 

[DHK]

I have to say that your lack of respect for the scripture and your sloppy handling of it here is staggering.

You are missing, perhaps purposefully, the inspired words of the "narrator." Certainly God gives Satan permission, certainly God removes His hand of protection from Job, and certainly Satan afflicts Job.

But, again Job's words in both these cases are instructive: The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord and Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?

Now, you are correct, these are Job's words. But this is not merely "Job's perception" which may or may not be flawed. Job's perception is accurate--it is God (ultimately) who is responsible for these afflictions. The inspired narrator says (in both cases after Job states his perception): In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong and In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

Job clearly says that God is responsible. The narrator clearly states that Job is right. The narrator, further, goes on to say that Job did not sin or charge God with wrong by saying that God is the cause of this.

All right then. Job did not charge God as being the first cause of sin. Job did not charge God as ordaining sin. Can we agree on this?

Your handling of this text is hopelessly flawed because you are not taking the text--all the text--into consideration.

I believe I am. But I am prone to mistakes, and unlike some others on this board, and willing to admit it.

I never said God created evil. I never said He created evil for job. I never attribute evil to God.

my apologies.

Now be careful here Mr. Moderator. You are engaging in "smear" tactics that are absolutely unbecoming of a moderator--but then again you usually only moderate the Calvinists and let the non-Calvinists run wild.

Let's get one thing straight from the get-go. Being a moderator does not limit his ability to post. He takes off his moderator hat and puts on his hat as a poster equal to that of all the other posters. If I get a complaint, I have been known to edit even my own posts. I play fair.
--There are is an alert button that you can use that alerts the moderators to posts that have gone over the bounds of decency. I receive more of those alerts concerning posts from Calvinists than from any other group, and since they are genuine complaints must deal with them. That is how I am notified of rude and uncivil posts.

All I have said is that Job attributes the various calamities he has experienced to God and the inspired narrator has confirmed Job's words. Therefore, God is ultimately responsible for what has befallen Job.

And I believe that conclusion is wrong. What is inspiration? Inspiration is accurately recording those words which God wanted to be recorded. It does not mean that words are God's words. When Satan said: "Thou shalt not surely die," was the statement true or false? It was false. We have here an accurate statement recorded by Job. That doesn't mean it is a true statement. It means it is Job's opinion, his perception of what is happening to him, with the knowledge that he has at that time. Because he attributes these calamities to God does not make it true, it only makes it an accurately recorded statement of Job. It does not make it true.

This is laughable--in one sentence you state "Nothing good comes from a terrorist" and then, later, you quote scripture saying "All things work together for them that love him, for them that are called according to his purpose" (especially because as you've already stated in other places, wrongly I might add, "all means all").

It is all from your point of view. The terrorist sins. Is that God's will? Was blowing up the twin towers God's directive will. NO! But he allowed it. He allows sin to continue in this world. He does not stop it. However, he will use the fall-out, the consequences of such an hideous event to work in the lives of others. Maybe it will drive some to their knees in prayer--as it did. Maybe it will cause some to be saved. Maybe it will have other good consequences.
Maybe the bombing of Hiroshima did the same thing.
Maybe the the slaughter of the Jews by Hitler did the same thing.
Can we honestly say that the Holocaust was the will of God? Do you really believe that? Yet look at the testimony of Corrie Ten Boon. But the event was not the will of God. The suffering of believers is the will of God. See Phil. 1:29. God brings about suffering in different ways. That is up to God. He is sovereign.

This is a clear contradiction and you simply cannot have this both ways. If "all" things work together for good (as you seem to affirm), then it must be the case that evil is one of the "all things" that works together for good--including the attacks on NYC.

Then the ultimate conclusion of your position is anarchy. Like the Romans: "Shall we sin that grace will abound?" Paul had a very strong answer for that. I believe you know what it is. It is not God's will for man to sin. God is not the author of sin. He does not decree sin.

You are clearly denying the principle that we find in Genesis 50--that even the free and sinful actions of human beings ultimately serve God's greater purposes.

God used the outcome for His purposes. God did not ordain the sin of the brothers. Can you not see the difference. The torture of the brothers; shall not God hold them accountable?

Also, again, it is very infantile for you, as a moderator, to even suggest that I was even remotely in favor of the terrorist attacks. I think you are beginning to level false charges against be because you are coming to the end of the well in this discussion and you are resorting to insults and false accusations and directing them at me, rather than dealing with the texts presented in a truly exegetical fashion.

First, I am dealing with the text in an exegetical fashion but coming to a different conclusion than you and you don't like it.
Second, you just leveled some personal attacks against me. I have already explained my position as a moderator.

You have a hopelessly wrong idea of the difference between fatalism and the Calvinist position. The greatest thing that absolutely disproves that we, Calvinists, are fatalists is that we pray. A true fatalist would never pray--and Calvinists are known for prayer. We do, in fact, pray for people to be healed from sickness, for very hardened persons to come to Christ, for people (and individuals) in general to come to Christ. So, the charge that we are fatalists is patently false.

You have stated YOUR position here. That is not the position of all who have posted here. There is one here who has never suggested the idea of prayer. Having said that, Muslims also pray. They also cry out to Allah, and yet their religion remains fatalistic. God has decreed it, therefore it is the will of God. That is fatalism. That is the basic tenet of Islam. That is what was expressed on this board, not the position that you just posted.

A further difference in fatalism and Calvinism, as I've explained elsewhere, is that fatalism is generally based on an impersonal force--"fate." We do not hold God to be impersonal. We believe that God ordains both the means and the end so that when we pray for the salvation of "Fred," God has ordained that we pray for Fred so that He can answer that prayer bringing Fred to Christ.

If God has already decreed from the foundation of the earth and determined that Fred will be saved without free choice then there is no need to pray for that to happen. You have taken away his choice to trust Christ. It has been decreed already that he will be saved. Why pray for him? It is his FATE to be saved.

So, again, as a moderator, you need to be careful with your false accusations that you bring to the discussion over and over and over again--especially because it has been explained to you that it is a false accusation on our part. But, like a one-trick-pony, it seems it is all you can think of to say in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

There is no false accusation here. I have given a post which has gone unanswered, because a certain poster refuses to answer it. He seems to be lost in giving an answer. That is the truth of the matter. If he would have given a satisfactory answer then that matter would be settled. But he has not. Perhaps he doesn't understand debate.

So much for the "civil discussion." Who would have thought that it'd be a moderator who is leveling false accusations and ad hominem arguments. Very unfortunate.
The Archangel

What false accusation? I asked, and politely so--tell me the difference between your position and the position of the Muslim concerning the nature of God. For what you have expressed is the position of the Muslim. If that seems to be offensive then so be it. It is not a false accusation. It is a fair question. It is based on the previous posts that were made that attribute all evil to God, that God ordains and decrees evil in this world, that evil and terror are the will of God. Those statements were made. They are not false accusations.

 

[Skandelon]

The same way darkness exists without being created. The same way cold exists without being created.

But that doesn't address the actual things created by agents while in the cold or the dark or in an evil world.

Removing heat may make me get cold, but I still have to make a choice as to whether or not to steal my neighbors jacket. Simply by saying that God removed the heat doesn't make him the cause of my intent to steal.

Your mixing analogies. Dark is to light what evil is to good. You are mixing it: Dark is to good...

No, I didn't. I was left in the dark and I had an evil intent. How is that mixing the analogy?

We are illustrating different aspects of the issue by the two different anecdotes.

To my knowledge we never changed the subject. It has always been about the origin of sin. You were illustrating the same point before as you are now.

You were trying to illustrate my position on the creation of evil via the rolling ball. That did not work because evil is not necessarily a created thing.

Yet, you just illustrated your position on the creation of evil via the stacking of dominos and still in your view evil is not necessarily created. So, what's the difference? You seem to be talking in circles brother???

What you are still missing is that this whole problem consists of multiple factors.

Fine, then please introduce those factors into the discussion and try not to be so vague.

The existence of evil is absolutely the result of God's permission.
It is absolutely the result of God's foreknowledge.
But that is not all.

But you do acknowledge that is all Edwards quote said, right?

We seem to agree that God foreknew and allowed evil to come to pass.

Yes, as Edwards quote said.

I will continue to recognize that in this debate. But if progress is to be made you must understand that my position is that the origin of evil is not RESTRICTED to those factors.

Ok. Now let's see if we can actually define and discuss those factors in a productive way.

Not ONLY did God permit it but ultimately he caused it

By "cause" do you mean (1) foreknew and permitted so that it would certainly come to pass (as Edwards explained), or do you mean (2) that he originated or authored it?

Please answer 1 or 2 and explain why.

Not ONLY did God KNOW it was going to happen, but God also ordained that it would happen.

When you say "ordain" do you mean (1) foreknew and permitted so that it would certainly come to pass (as Edwards explained), or do you mean (2) that he originated or authored it?

Please answer 1 or 2 and explain why.

So, from henceforth in the debate it will not make sense for you to accuse me of waffling back and forth since they are ALL true and recognizing one does not deny the existence of the other.

Are we on the same page now?

We will if you answer those questions, which will finally provide a definition of the terms.

 

[The Archangel]

I guess you missed where the author of the OP asked to take this to PM? I'll address you there.

Nope. I didn't miss it. If you insult me in public, I expect you to be man enough to hash out the discussion in public.

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

Nope. I didn't miss it. If you insult me in public, I expect you to be man enough to hash out the discussion in public.

The Archangel

The picture of immaturity. I have no problem saying to you in private what I say in public, as the PM to you stated. Nothing insulting whatsoever, just more dishonesty on your part.

I tried playing by the rules, Skandelon. Oh well...

 

[The Archangel]

The picture of immaturity. I have no problem saying to you in private what I say in public, as the PM to you stated. Nothing insulting whatsoever, just more dishonesty on your part.

I tried playing by the rules, Skandelon. Oh well...

Hmmm...

"Immature?" Like it is mature to insult me and then run to the private message (while hiding behind "Skandelon's wishes")--and say something far more insulting and far more blatantly false that no one else can see.

You are a piece of work... Since you add nothing to the discussion and you are incapable of any type of civility toward me or any other Calvinist...you simply aren't worth the key strokes.

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

Isn't it true that Calvinists believe God decreed all things that come to pass and nothing comes to pass unless he decreed it?
If so, this would include not only the actions of men, but also those motives that caused them to act as they did.
Saying God is not the author of that motive is a contradiction and therefore false.

 

[Skandelon]

Isn't it true that Calvinists believe God decreed all things that come to pass and nothing comes to pass unless he decreed it?
If so, this would include not only the actions of men, but also those motives that caused them to act as they did.

Correct, which is the fallacy of Calvinism's circular reasoning as they attempt to maintain some semblance of human responsibility and avoid the obvious charges of divine culpability by insisting that man acts according to his greatest desire. But in a system where God is equally as in control of human desires (both good and bad ones) as he is his own desires; what difference does that caveat really make? God's desires are the only desires, God's choices are the only choices and God's will is the only will because God is the only actor in His own Calvinistic play.

 

[webdog]

Hmmm...

"Immature?" Like it is mature to insult me and then run to the private message (while hiding behind "Skandelon's wishes")--and say something far more insulting and far more blatantly false that no one else can see.

You are a piece of work... Since you add nothing to the discussion and you are incapable of any type of civility toward me or any other Calvinist...you simply aren't worth the key strokes.

The Archangel

[edit]
Please keep to the OP.

 

[Rippon]

Grow some thicker skin. There was no insult whatsoever and you know it. Keep playing the martyr.

WD,The Archangel has an easily verifiable record on the BB as being kind,godly and quite respectful to other posters. .

Have a civil disussion about the origin of sin

 

[gb93433]

1 Sam 16:14-23, 14 Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord terrorized him. 15 Saul's servants then said to him, "Behold now, an evil spirit from God is terrorizing you. 16 "Let our lord now command your servants who are before you. Let them seek a man who is a skillful player on the harp; and it shall come about when the evil spirit from God is on you, that he shall play the harp with his hand, and you will be well." 17 So Saul said to his servants, "Provide for me now a man who can play well and bring him to me." 18 Then one of the young men said, "Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite who is a skillful musician, a mighty man of valor, a warrior, one prudent in speech, and a handsome man; and the Lord is with him." 19 So Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, "Send me your son David who is with the flock." 20 Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread and a jug of wine and a young goat, and sent them to Saul by David his son. 21 Then David came to Saul and attended him; and Saul loved him greatly, and he became his armor bearer. 22 Saul sent to Jesse, saying, "Let David now stand before me, for he has found favor in my sight." 23 So it came about whenever the evil spirit from God came to Saul, David would take the harp and play it with his hand; and Saul would be refreshed and be well, and the evil spirit would depart from him.

 

[Amy.G]

15 S1 Sam 16:14-23, 14 Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord terrorized him.

Everything belongs to the Lord, even evil spirits. They have no choice but to obey Him. He uses their evil to accomplish His will, but He does not cause them to be evil.

 

[The Archangel]

Everything belongs to the Lord, even evil spirits. They have no choice but to obey Him. He uses their evil to accomplish His will, but He does not cause them to be evil.

Amy,

I think this is a great way to explain what you are trying to explain. I hope I'm understanding you correctly, and I think I am. But, great words. Thank you!

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

WD,The Archangel has an easily verifiable record on the BB as being kind,godly and quite respectful to other posters.

Have a civil disussion about the origin of sin

So you are casting the first stone I take it?

 

[gb93433]

Everything belongs to the Lord, even evil spirits. They have no choice but to obey Him. He uses their evil to accomplish His will, but He does not cause them to be evil.

Notice where they are from?