Calvinism and the origin of evil

[quantumfaith]

Off topic, but being a dog lover, I had to share.

http://www.wimp.com/guiltiestdog

 

[Amy.G]

God removed his help from Satan and that is the ultimate cause of evil.

Luke, can you provide scripture for this? I have never heard of this view. I find nothing in scripture that says God removed his help from Satan resulting in his rebellion.

 

[Amy.G]

Off topic, but being a dog lover, I had to share.

http://www.wimp.com/guiltiestdog

Poor baby! I know just how he feels. :laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

From the link in post2

1. The Scriptures hold men fully responsible for their own sins, which would not and could not be true if God were the author of sin (Acts 2:23; Rom. 1:18–32; 2 Thess. 1:7–9; Jude 14–15; Rev. 20:11–13).
2. If God were to charge men with sins for which he were really responsible, then he would not and could not be just, indeed, he would be less than just—he himself would become a criminal, a sinner! Such would be absolutely unthinkable and unscriptural. Thus, the biblical reality of human culpability would necessarily preclude God from being the author of sin.
3. Although God wills evil, it must not be imagined that he wills it in the same sense and manner that he wills what is righteous, holy and good. He ordains evil to exist and controls it, overruling it to the highest good and his glory (Psa. 145:17; Rom. 11:33–36; Rev. 4:11). He does not take pleasure in evil in a positive sense. Thus, it may be right for God to ordain what is not right for man to do and therefore wrong for God to command man to do under his preceptive will. The Dutch Theologian Herman Bavinck seeks to explain this truth by an illustration:
Because man is a rational, moral being, God does not treat him as if he were a stone or a log but deals with him and addresses him in accordance with his nature. Just as a father forbids his child to touch a sharp knife though he himself uses it without injury or damage, so God forbids us to sin though He himself is able to use and does use sin as a means of self–glorification.17
• God ordains sin, but he does not command it. Sin exists as part of the Divine teleological purpose, but it is not forced upon men by necessity. Men cannot make God culpable for their own sin and breach of God’s preceptive will. They must, as moral, rational, responsible beings, bear the consequences of their own transgressions. God thus controls evil, but not in the sense that he rejoices or takes pleasure in it. To say that God does not control evil is to deny his omnipotence. To say that he wills evil in the same sense as he does what is right and holy is to deny his righteousness and holiness. To say that he controls evil in such a way that men are relieved of their moral responsibility is to deny both their free moral agency and his essential nature. To say, however, that God ordains men to contradict his Law–Word through their own willful actions, and that he controls this for the ultimate good and glory of his eternal purpose, is to assert the absolute sovereignty of God over evil and yet preserve his wisdom, righteousness and holiness. Finite creatures must leave such mystery to the infinite God.
Donald Macleod seeks to put the matters of the fore–ordination of sin and human freedom in simple, yet profound statements, by asserting that God has fore–ordained both sin and human freeedom:
…God is not the author of sin. God has fore–ordained sin. He has fore–ordained whatsoever comes to pass, and sin has come to pass, and God’s purpose controls, limits, preserves and governs the universe even in the
17 Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, p. 240.
Dr. W. R. Downing • Pacific Institute for Religious Studies
Sovereign Grace Baptist Church of Silicon Valley 12
presence of this fact of sin….He does not himself sin. He does not condone sin. He does not constrain to sin. He does not induce to sin. He does not tempt to sin….Fore–ordination is not destructive of freedom; God has ordained freedom…fore–ordination is what establishes freedom…nothing can take away from the human being the liberty essential to moral responsibility, because God has fore–ordained the freedom of men at the point of moral decision–making…God fore–ordains their actions, but he fore–ordains them as free actions: as things they do by their on personal volition….I am free because God fore–ordained my freedom.18
NOTE: The above statement by Macleod must not be interpreted in the Arminian sense that “God created man with a free will and so cannot violate that will,” but in the sense that God created man as a free and responsible moral agent. God would not, yea, could not externally limit his own sovereignty in such a away as to render himself morally incapacitated or even inconsistent. He would then cease to be God.

 

[Luke2427]

I appreciate you reply, but fear it does not satisfy .... :tear:

You want your child to do something positive, get his assignments done. If he doesn't you will give an additional assignment. This is called discipline and I have no problem with discipline.

This oversimplification of the analogy totally misses the point of the analogy.

The point is that without my help Rick will fail.

Without God's help Lucifer will fail.

God must hold something up or it will fall.

Falling is not possible until God stops holding it up.

Falling is inevitable when God stops holding it up.

If God knows this, and of course he does, then he knew that Lucifer would fall when he stopped holding him up. But what did god go ahead and do even though he knew this?

He let him go. He removed his power of perfection and holiness inevitably resulting in the ensuing evil.

God did not do evil.

God simply removed his goodness just as darkness is the result of the removal of light.

I knew Rick would fail without my help. Though I did not like that fact, and I did not like him failing to focus and get his work done on time, I predestined it for a greater purpose.

That is what God did.

God did not like evil. But he knew without his upholding power evil would ensue. By removing his upholding power he was the remote cause of evil. But he hates evil. Yet he has a purpose for evil.

That purpose is that love might shine most brightly in the form of grace and mercy and that holiness might shine most brightly in the form of wrath and justice.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon I will gladly answer your questions but you first need to answer these that I put to you about a month ago and have put them to you repeatedly ever since.

Did Joseph's brothers afflict Joseph?
Did God afflict Joseph?

Did Satan afflict Job?
Did God afflict Job?

Did Herod, Pilate, the Jews and the Romans kill Jesus Christ?
Did God kill Jesus Christ?

Answer those questions and I will be glad to answer some of yours.

I did answer those questions. I agreed with Edwards about such things with regard to God's active decrees versus his permissive decrees, you know, that conversation you keep avoiding because it reveals your inconsistency with Reformers you admire?

Now, your turn. Answer the question about the motive of God, you know what, never mind...I think it is obvious to all objective readers why you would want to avoid allowing the conversation go that direction...

 

[Crabtownboy]

Without God's help Lucifer will fail.

What do you mean Lucifer will fail?

It seems that it was with God's help, according to predestination, Lucifer failed by sinning.

God must hold something up or it will fall.

Falling is not possible until God stops holding it up.

Falling is inevitable when God stops holding it up.

I am sorry, but in the context of this thread I do not understand what you are saying.

If God knows this, and of course he does, then he knew that Lucifer would fall when he stopped holding him up. But what did god go ahead and do even though he knew this?

He let him go. He removed his power of perfection and holiness inevitably resulting in the ensuing evil.

God did not do evil.

God simply removed his goodness just as darkness is the result of the removal of light.

Wasn't removing his goodness evil in that it set up Satan to fall and introduce evil into the world.

I knew Rick would fail without my help. Though I did not like that fact, and I did not like him failing to focus and get his work done on time, I predestined it for a greater purpose.

That is what God did.

How was evil a greater purpose?

God did not like evil. But he knew without his upholding power evil would ensue. By removing his upholding power he was the remote cause of evil. But he hates evil. Yet he has a purpose for evil.

I am sorry, but to me this is extreme double-speak and condemns God to being evil. He causes evil but he is not responsible for evil.

That purpose is that love might shine most brightly in the form of grace and mercy and that holiness might shine most brightly in the form of wrath and justice.

As I said yesterday, what kind of father would harm his child so that he could show how merciful he is in treating the child? To me this makes God a god of duplicity ... and duplicity is evil.

 

[Skandelon]

Luke, can you provide scripture for this? I have never heard of this view. I find nothing in scripture that says God removed his help from Satan resulting in his rebellion.

Amy, that is because such teaching doesn't exist except in the mind of people who are desperate to hold together their man-made doctrinal system.

It is like the flat-earthers, who because of what they could see and understand from their own limited view and knowledge, concluded that the earth MUST be flat and condemned any suggestion otherwise. Or those, like Calvin, who insisted the sun rotated around the earth and referred to those who disagreed as demonic.

Likewise, deterministic theologians, in their limited understanding and finite view of an infinite supernatural God make unfounded speculations about what God MUST have done. All the while they use simple, finite, and linear language like "before God created he knew everything, so he MUST have determined it." But just a simple examination of such wording reveals its blatant flaws.

1. We are talking about a timeless God where such words as "before" or "prior" carry no significance and are certainly mysterious and before full understanding for a finite mind. How can any one presume about such things? We MUST only teach what is revealed, not what our finite minds speculate MUST be true based upon our limited view and understanding.

2. This statement, "before God created it, He knew it completely, therefore he must have determined it," negates the very use of the doctrine of "divine foreknowledge" by equating it with "divine determination," but that is NOT the language scripture has selected. If "predetermination" is meant then that word would have been selected, but the scripture uses the term "foreknowledge" for a reason. To blur the lines between those two concepts makes the language scripture chose meaningless. God foreknows somethings and he predetermines other things, period. How do I know? Because that is what scripture says. I don't pretend to understand it all and I won't speculate about things the scripture does not specifically reveal.

 

[Luke2427]

What do you mean Lucifer will fail?

It seems that it was with God's help, according to predestination, Lucifer failed by sinning.

I do not know where you get this.

Predestination has never meant any such thing in any movement in history to my knowledge.

I am sorry, but in the context of this thread I do not understand what you are saying.

We are talking about the origin of evil.

Evil is the fall. It began with the fall of Lucifer and continued with the fall of man.

Nothing can stand without God holding it up and nothing can fall while he holds it up.

In order for Satan to fall, God must stop holding him up.

God knew he would fall if God stopped holding him up. Yet God stopped holding him up nonetheless.

What does that tell you about the plan of God as it relates to evil?

Wasn't removing his goodness evil in that it set up Satan to fall and introduce evil into the world.

Nothing is evil if it is done for the right motive.

Without evil there can be no grace and no mercy and no Calvary love and no Lamb receiving the praises of a multitude which no man can number forever.
These are God's motives for decreeing that evil should be.

How was evil a greater purpose?

Evil is NOT the greater purpose. The brightest and fullest display of love and holiness was the great purpose. There could be no grace, no mercy, no justice without sin.

So God decreed sin so that grace and mercy, etc... could be.

I am sorry, but to me this is extreme double-speak and condemns God to being evil. He causes evil but he is not responsible for evil.

No it does not. Planning a universe so that God might display his glory to the fullest does not make God evil.

Denying that God should display his love and holiness to the fullest is evil.

Sin could not exist unless God had a purpose for it. His purpose is made clear in the word of God:

But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 2:4-7)

 

[Luke2427]

Amy, that is because such teaching doesn't exist except in the mind of people who are desperate to hold together their man-made doctrinal system.

It is like the flat-earthers, who because of what they could see and understand from their own limited view and knowledge, concluded that the earth MUST be flat and condemned any suggestion otherwise. Or those, like Calvin, who insisted the sun rotated around the earth and referred to those who disagreed as demonic.

Likewise, deterministic theologians, in their limited understanding and finite view of an infinite supernatural God make unfounded speculations about what God MUST have done. All the while they use simple, finite, and linear language like "before God created he knew everything, so he MUST have determined it." But just a simple examination of such wording reveals its blatant flaws.

1. We are talking about a timeless God where such words as "before" or "prior" carry no significance and are certainly mysterious and before full understanding for a finite mind. How can any one presume about such things? We MUST only teach what is revealed, not what our finite minds speculate MUST be true based upon our limited view and understanding.

2. This statement, "before God created it, He knew it completely, therefore he must have determined it," negates the very use of the doctrine of "divine foreknowledge" by equating it with "divine determination," but that is NOT the language scripture has selected. If "predetermination" is meant then that word would have been selected, but the scripture uses the term "foreknowledge" for a reason. To blur the lines between those two concepts makes the language scripture chose meaningless. God foreknows somethings and he predetermines other things, period. How do I know? Because that is what scripture says. I don't pretend to understand it all and I won't speculate about things the scripture does not specifically reveal.

Are you going to answer those questions or continue to avoid them?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Off topic, but being a dog lover, I had to share.

http://www.wimp.com/guiltiestdog

Dawgs will be dawgs.....Now if it were bulldawgs, they would eat the bag also.....thus, no evidence till they poop.

Just speaking from experience.....Ive got 3 of them.

Blessings

 

[Luke2427]

As I said yesterday, what kind of father would harm his child so that he could show how merciful he is in treating the child? To me this makes God a god of duplicity ... and duplicity is evil.

He does not harm them to show them how merciful he is. That is silly and no one on earth has ever said any such silly thing to my knowledge.

He predestined the existence of sin so that he might save from sin.

Without sin there is no salvation from sin.

Without sin there is no Calvary love.

Without sin there is no grace and mercy.

Without sin there is no Lamb receiving the praises of a multitude which no man can number for dying and rising from the dead to redeem and justify sinners.

Do you think God had no purpose for evil?

 

[Skandelon]

Evil is the fall. It began with the fall of Lucifer and continued with the fall of man.

Nothing can stand without God holding it up and nothing can fall while he holds it up.

In order for Satan to fall, God must stop holding him up.

God knew he would fall if God stopped holding him up. Yet God stopped holding him up nonetheless.

1. As requested, could you provide ONE verse which in anyway indicates that Satan or Adam sinned because God stopped holding him up?

2. HERE Sproul, a Reform scholar, argues that Adam was "able to sin" and "able to not sin," yet you seem to argue that Adam (like Satan) didn't have the ability to "not sin" because at some point "God stopped holding him up." Do you disagree then with Sproul's position?

 

[Luke2427]

I did answer those questions. I agreed with Edwards about such things with regard to God's active decrees versus his permissive decrees, you know, that conversation you keep avoiding because it reveals your inconsistency with Reformers you admire?

Now, your turn. Answer the question about the motive of God, you know what, never mind...I think it is obvious to all objective readers why you would want to avoid allowing the conversation go that direction...

No you didn't. Prove it.

God's motive is pure.

Without sin there can be no grace.

Would you rob God of the praises he will receive by a multitude of redeemed which no man can number forever?

Because GRACE and the FULL display of God's love BY grace was his motive.

And, why don't you be honest and admit that you do not agree with Edwards about anything or that you lack the ability to understand him?

 

[Luke2427]

1. As requested, could you provide ONE verse which in anyway indicates that Satan or Adam sinned because God stopped holding him up?

2. HERE Sproul, a Reform scholar, argues that Adam was "able to sin" and "able to not sin," yet you seem to argue that Adam (like Satan) didn't have the ability to "not sin" because at some point "God stopped holding him up." Do you disagree then with Sproul's position?

If he had the ability to do right then it was because God gave it to him.

Augustine declared that evil is nothing. It is the absence of good just as darkness is nothing but the absence of light.

If evil is the absence of good and God is the source of all goodness, then in order for evil to exist God must create a void in his goodness in the place where evil is to come to be.

 

[quantumfaith]

Dawgs will be dawgs.....Now if it were bulldawgs, they would eat the bag also.....thus, no evidence till they poop.

Just speaking from experience.....Ive got 3 of them.

Blessings

Yep, Dogs are green.....they are great recyclers.

 

[webdog]

Without sin there can be no grace.

Complete garbage. Are you saying Adam and Eve did not experience God's grace pre-fall?

 

[Skandelon]

No you didn't. Prove it.

How does my answer not satisfy you? It is the same as Edwards and the Arminian Divines. I provided a definition of decree by which God actively decrees some things and permissively decrees (allows) other things. These questions are reflections of what God has decreed, but if it is SIN or EVIL it is done permissively not through his active agency. Can I be any more clear?

God's motive is pure.

Yes, it is, which is why his permissive decree to allow evil should not be perceived as evil. It does NOT mean as you have suggested that God actively does evil but that its not evil because it is a pure motive. He "permits, or does not hinder" sin, as Edwards states.

And, why don't you be honest and admit that you do not agree with Edwards about anything or that you lack the ability to understand him?

I don't agree with him about many things, but he, the Arminian divines and I are all on the same page with regard to his quote regarding the origin of sin. You contradict him by NEVER acknowledging the permissive decree of God within your system. You don't leave any room for His permissive decree. You only leave room for his active determination thus making you at odds with that quote and the Arminian Divines, period. That is not an opinion. That is an established FACT. If he hadn't claimed to be in agreement with the Arminian divines you might be able to argue regarding his intent, but since he freely admitted his intent was consistent with the Arminians on this point, you have NO ground on which to stand Luke. Sorry.

 

[Luke2427]

Complete garbage. Are you saying Adam and Eve did not experience God's grace pre-fall?

Grace is the unmerited favor of God.

God's favor is never more unmerited than when it resides upon a wicked sinner.

If grace did exist before the fall it paled in comparison to the grace displayed at Calvary. Do you deny it?

And explain to me how infinite mercy can exist and be displayed apart from sin.

Explain how redemption from sin can exist apart from sin.

Explain how the Lamb of God receives the songs of the redeemed forever had there never been sin.

 

[webdog]

Grace is the unmerited favor of God.

God's favor is never more unmerited than when it resides upon a wicked sinner.

If grace did exist before the fall it paled in comparison to the grace displayed at Calvary. Do you deny it?

And explain to me how infinite mercy can exist and be displayed apart from sin.

Explain how redemption from sin can exist apart from sin.

Explain how the Lamb of God receives the songs of the redeemed forever had there never been sin.

Now you are backtracking. Initially you said without sin there can be no grace...now you say "if" it existed prior to the fall it pales in comparison to post fall. I completely disagree. God's grace does not need sin to exist. Creation alone is an act of grace.