Calvinism and the origin of evil

[quantumfaith]

Luke, you are more than welcome to be done with me. You most certainly, as anyone, hold to the theological position of your choosing (or determination) no problem there, I address you when you swipe over someone with assertions or implications that they or their point of view is worthless, vile, stupid et. al.

 

[Luke2427]

Is the following the post to which you refer:

I watched the video and I cannot believe that a person can say, as Piper says in the video, that all the wife beating, etc., etc. was planned by God before the beginning. This truly makes god a monster. This is heresy of the highest order. If he is right, then any verse saying or indicating the God is love lies. As I have said several times, what kind of father would I be to inflict pain, suffering and agony on my children so they could then see what a wonderful person I am in treating them in their pain and suffering.

Piper is right that Christ died while we were yet sinners. I do not believe anyone would argue with that. But he totally skips the question of why God would preordain such suffering. The only rational explanation is that he loved us, his created, enough to allow us free will!

I truly find it most discouraging to see such a tragic message being preached as Piper preaches it. It is depressing



If so, Crabtown, is OBVIOUSLY referring to the MESSAGE preached by Piper.

It is what MOST of us Calvinists believe.

So he called us heretics of the highest order.

He said we make God out to be a monster.

You do not think that that should be rebuked at least as firmly as any rebuke you have launched from your high horse against Calvinsits on here??

We make God out to be a MONSTER??
W believe heresy of the HIGHEST ORDER?????

 

[DHK]

It is what MOST of us Calvinists believe.

So he called us heretics of the highest order.

He said we make God out to be a monster.

You do not think that that should be rebuked at least as firmly as any rebuke you have launched from your high horse against Calvinsits on here??

We make God out to be a MONSTER??
W believe heresy of the HIGHEST ORDER?????

Do you?
You attribute evil to God.
Does that not make God evil?

 

[quantumfaith]

Do you?
You attribute evil to God.
Does that not make God evil?

I think Luke has on many occasions asserted that God could not possibly be glorified without it, thus as far as I can tell Luke does need to ascribe "evil" to God, but he doesnt want to take that final step. Instead, dance around it with arguments like "proximate" and "remote", thus not decreeing it without "dirtying" his own hands.

 

[Crabtownboy]

It is what MOST of us Calvinists believe.

So he called us heretics of the highest order.

He said we make God out to be a monster.

You do not think that that should be rebuked at least as firmly as any rebuke you have launched from your high horse against Calvinsits on here??

We make God out to be a MONSTER??
W believe heresy of the HIGHEST ORDER?????

I did not believe this three days ago. But posts in this thread have convinced me. I hold ho ill will toward you, Luke, or any other person. But I must be honest when I post what I have come to believe ... primarily through the posts here. By the way, heresy simply means the wrong answer to a right question and I certainly am not advocating anyone be burned at the stake.

If God approved, preordained, predestined ... or whatever you want to call it, all evil before the beginning then I cannot see how it can be said that God is a loving God and wants only the best for us. It is not logical. It is a contradiction and God is not a God of contradiction. This I am left with the belief in free will.

Now, if we do have free will to do good or evil, then evil must be a possibility.
Could God prevent evil. Yes. Why doesn't he? Because he gave us free will and he loves us enough that he will not take back what he has already given us.


ps: you can call me a heretic and I will not be upset. It will only mean you do not agree with me.

 

[quantumfaith]

I did not believe this three days ago. But posts in this thread have convinced me. I hold ho ill will toward you, Luke, or any other person. But I must be honest when I post what I have come to believe ... primarily through the posts here. By the way, heresy simply means the wrong answer to a right question and I certainly am not advocating anyone be burned at the stake.

If God approved, preordained, predestined ... or whatever you want to call it, all evil before the beginning then I cannot see how it can be said that God is a loving God and wants only the best for us. It is not logical. It is a contradiction and God is not a God of contradiction. This I am left with the belief in free will.

Now, if we do have free will to do good or evil, then evil must be a possibility.
Could God prevent evil. Yes. Why doesn't he? Because he gave us free will and he loves us enough that he will not take back what he has already given us.


ps: you can call me a heretic and I will not be upset. It will only mean you do not agree with me.

Thank you for your soft kind and gentle words. Should be a model and inspiration to us all.

 

[Luke2427]

I think Luke has on many occasions asserted that God could not possibly be glorified without it, thus as far as I can tell Luke does need to ascribe "evil" to God, but he doesnt want to take that final step. Instead, dance around it with arguments like "proximate" and "remote", thus not decreeing it without "dirtying" his own hands.

Wrong. God can be glorified without evil. I have never said otherwise.

But the fullest manifestation of his love and holiness requires sin.

There is no Calvary love without sin.

Calvary is where the love of God has shined brightest in this universe.

There is no saving grace apart from sin.

There is no mercy without sin.

There is no redemption without sin.

Do you deny it?

 

[Luke2427]

Thank you for your soft kind and gentle words. Should be a model and inspiration to us all.

You are a mess.

He calls the oldest pProtestant belief system in this world heresy, besmirches one of, if not THE, leading Reformed preachers in our day as making God out to be a monster, and thus accuses ALL OF US who agree of the same thing- and you pet him for it.

That ought to tell you something about yourself quantum.

 

[DHK]

Wrong. God can be glorified without evil. I have never said otherwise.

But the fullest manifestation of his love and holiness requires sin.

There is no Calvary love without sin.

Calvary is where the love of God has shined brightest in this universe.

There is no saving grace apart from sin.

There is no mercy without sin.

There is no redemption without sin.

Do you deny it?

You bring a red herring into this debate, and that is that Christ is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. We all agree on that. No one here disputes that.

What we do dispute is that God is the author of evil.
Get down to the nitty gritty.
Did God decree honor killings, the rape of innocent women, abortions, child molestations, etc. Is this what God decreed before the foundation of the world?

 

[DHK]

You are a mess.

He calls the oldest pProtestant belief system in this world heresy, besmirches one of, if not THE, leading Reformed preachers in our day as making God out to be a monster, and thus accuses ALL OF US who agree of the same thing- and you pet him for it.

That ought to tell you something about yourself quantum.

You are out of line Luke. If you can't debate without personally attacking others and name-calling, then take a break and leave the board.

 

[Crabtownboy]

You are out of line Luke. If you can't debate without personally attacking others and name-calling, then take a break and leave the board.

Sadly our society has lost the art of discussion and conversation.

I believe the Calvinist view, as explained in this thread is indefensible. The more it has been tried the more convinced that it is playing games and twisting words.

Weren't there Anabaptists around before Calvin? And simply because a belief system is old does not mean it is correct. That smacks of the Catholic argument of tradition. [very gently said] Oh and don't get me started on Calvin's personal life and actions. Did a bit of reading on them yesterday.

Getting late over here. See y'all tomorrow.

 

[quantumfaith]

You are a mess.

He calls the oldest pProtestant belief system in this world heresy, besmirches one of, if not THE, leading Reformed preachers in our day as making God out to be a monster, and thus accuses ALL OF US who agree of the same thing- and you pet him for it.

That ought to tell you something about yourself quantum.

It tells me how happy that I am not like you (regardless of our theological positions).

 

[quantumfaith]

You are out of line Luke. If you can't debate without personally attacking others and name-calling, then take a break and leave the board.

I will "sign off" from commenting for now so as to not allow anything to degenerate further.

 

[Luke2427]

Sadly our society has lost the art of discussion and conversation.

I believe the Calvinist view, as explained in this thread is indefensible. The more it has been tried the more convinced that it is playing games and twisting words.

Weren't there Anabaptists around before Calvin? And simply because a belief system is old does not mean it is correct. That smacks of the Catholic argument of tradition. [very gently said] Oh and don't get me started on Calvin's personal life and actions. Did a bit of reading on them yesterday.

Getting late over here. See y'all tomorrow.

Anabaptists were by and large heretics who denied the Trinity, etc..

And, NO, there is no evidence that they existed before the Reformation.

Calvinism is perfectly defensible.

But no one, will believe it, who wants to deny the exhaustive Sovereignty of God.

The fact is that there IS evil.

The fact is that God has a plan and a purpose for everything that is.

So the fact is that God has a plan and a purpose for evil.


He hates evil but he has a plan and a purpose for it.

The plan seems obvious to many of us.

That by the existence of evil love might shine most brightly.

Without evil there is no suffering Savior, no redemption, no saving grace, no mercy, no Lamb receiving the praises of a multitude which no man can number of the redeemed throughout the endless ages of eternity.

Why ANYONE would want God to NOT want those things is beyond me.

THAT is indefensible.

 

[Skandelon]

No smoke screens and I resent the accusation.

The Arminians have historically agreed that God has a purpose for all things that happen. That is it.

And I've NEVER disagreed with that point Luke, which is why this discussion keeps going in circles. You refuse to deal with our actual points of contention.

He was. It will be both frustrating and tedious to dig through and find the posts to prove it, but if you require it I will do the work of finding them.

It would be faster to pick out a theological dictionary and copy and paste a definition with which you agree. Remember find one for "decree" and "ordain."

Then God's involvement was bare permission, right?

Wrong. There is more involved, but the fact that there is ANY element of permission is the subject I'm attempting to get you to acknowledge and deal with, yet you continue to avoid and sidestep that matter.

Did God want it to happen for any ultimate purpose?

Of course.

Did God empower the hands that did the deeds?

Yes (assuming you mean by "empower" what I believe it to mean)

Did God plan the universe intending for these things to come to pass just as they did?

Yes, (depending on what you mean by "intend.")

Was there in sense in which those events fulfilled the will of God?

Of course.

Now if that's the best you've got- you owe me an apology.

That quote is a heck of a long way from me saying that God DOES EVIL.

You said God did it and Satan did it, equating them as both doing the evil deed but the ONLY difference being their motive, Luke. That is obviously what you argued. You can't have it both ways. Either God did the evil but it wasn't evil because of his motives or he didn't do the evil. Pick one and stick with it.

God is doing the DEEDS.

Which we all (including you) acknowledged are "evil." The ONLY difference is that you dismiss them as being pure due to right motive. It is not that difficult Luke, just own up to what you have said.

A deed is not good or evil in and of itself. Motive is required to make something good or evil.

A person can have a perfect motive but choose unacceptable means and still be held to account. We proved that point with the example of someone with the pure motive of stopping abortions who chooses to kill the doctor.

When a bus driver accidentally wrecks and kills 50 people he is not strapped to the electric chair. Why? Because deeds, even such as the violent slaughter of 50 people, are amoral by themselves. To become evil they require MOTIVE.

So now you are equating an accident with the direct agency of a divine choice? Doesn't follow Luke...

You owe me an apology. Not one of these quotes has me saying that God DOES EVIL.

I've always explained your position the same you have which is that, "God is DOING these things {what things? "EVIL things"}. But God is not evil in doing them because his motive is pure and right."

I've always represented you holding that position, even though it does always appear to shift and dance a bit depending on where the pressure is put on it.

 

[Luke2427]

Some people would correct God concerning his plan for the universe.

Some people think God got it wrong when God planned a world filled with suffering and evil.

These people, if they could go back in time, would inform God of his error. They would say, "No, God, you cannot PLAN for there to be EVIL. That would make you unloving."

And if they could be successfull in persuading God to their way of thinking they would have him build a universe where he could never bestow saving grace, where he could never show the awesome depths of his love by giving his Son on the cross, where his son would never receive so much as a PEEP of praise forever for being willing to die for sinners and redeem them.

Thank God He ignores these people. Thank God.

 

[DHK]

Thank God He ignores these people. Thank God.

Just like you would ignore your son when he revolts against your "decree" for him to do his homework??

 

[Luke2427]

And I've NEVER disagreed with that point Luke, which is why this discussion keeps going in circles. You refuse to deal with our actual points of contention.

It would be faster to pick out a theological dictionary and copy and paste a definition with which you agree. Remember find one for "decree" and "ordain."

Wrong. There is more involved, but the fact that there is ANY element of permission is the subject I'm attempting to get you to acknowledge and deal with, yet you continue to avoid and sidestep that matter.

Of course.

Yes (assuming you mean by "empower" what I believe it to mean)

Yes, (depending on what you mean by "intend.")

Of course.

You said God did it and Satan did it, equating them as both doing the evil deed but the ONLY difference being their motive, Luke. That is obviously what you argued. You can't have it both ways. Either God did the evil but it wasn't evil because of his motives or he didn't do the evil. Pick one and stick with it.

Which we all (including you) acknowledged are "evil." The ONLY difference is that you dismiss them as being pure due to right motive. It is not that difficult Luke, just own up to what you have said.

A person can have a perfect motive but choose unacceptable means and still be held to account. We proved that point with the example of someone with the pure motive of stopping abortions who chooses to kill the doctor.
So now you are equating an accident with the direct agency of a divine choice? Doesn't follow Luke...


I've always explained your position the same you have which is that, "God is DOING these things {what things? "EVIL things"}. But God is not evil in doing them because his motive is pure and right."

I've always represented you holding that position, even though it does always appear to shift and dance a bit depending on where the pressure is put on it.

I am ready right now to give you any number of definitions, but I am NOT going to do this until you recognize that I already have in the form of the confessions.

CONFESSIONS EXIST TO DEFINE BELIEFS ABOUT DOCTRINES SUCH AS GOD'S DECREE.

There is no better source of definition on doctrinal issues than CONFESSIONS.

I'll give you more, but you will recognize this first.

You skipped the soldier anecdote- I bet, on purpose.

 

[Luke2427]

Just like you would ignore your son when he revolts against your "decree" for him to do his homework??

These people, if they could go back in time, would inform God of his error. They would say, "No, God, you cannot PLAN for there to be EVIL. That would make you unloving."

And if they could be successfull in persuading God to their way of thinking they would have him build a universe where he could never bestow saving grace, where he could never show the awesome depths of his love by giving his Son on the cross, where his son would never receive so much as a PEEP of praise forever for being willing to die for sinners and redeem them.

Thank God He ignores these people. Thank God.

 

[Skandelon]

I am ready right now to give you any number of definitions, but I am NOT going to do this until you recognize that I already have in the form of the confessions.

CONFESSIONS EXIST TO DEFINE BELIEFS ABOUT DOCTRINES SUCH AS GOD'S DECREE.

And often confessions come with a page of definitions for terms they use to describe things like 'decrees' such as a definition for the word 'ordain." What is wrong with me asking you to clarify your view Luke? Why are making this SOOO difficult. I would say its like "pulling teeth" but teeth have never been this hard to get out!!!!

Just define the terms bro. I admit whatever you said, you gave confessional statements and I sought further clarity, ok?

You skipped the soldier anecdote- I bet, on purpose.

About solder's killing in war? That is the right motive and right means, so what? My contention was those who have right motive but wrong means, remember?

Killing in battle is not evil by anyone's definition. Killing an innocent man is evil, which you regularly argue that God did, but for right motives making it not evil. My first question was why do you go through the trouble of the domino explanation if motive is all that really matters? Why not just say, God did push the dominos but for a good motive and be consistent?