God's Devil

[webdog]

Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity...

Are you being serious?

 

[webdog]

Luke2427 is a Calvinist. He speaks Calvinism. Those of you who are shocked by his words evidently have never studied or heard the theology. I would be careful about questioning anothers salvation.

I agree that we should not question the salvation of others, but do you think calvinism = automatically saved?

 

[Luke2427]

You are wrong, based on the teaching of brother Luke. God is the cause of all things. God caused sin. God created sin to show that He is all powerful. Without an enemy, God could not show that. God is the cause of sin, please do not forget it.

Ultimate, my apprentice- ultimate.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke2427 is a Calvinist. He speaks Calvinism. Those of you who are shocked by his words evidently have never studied or heard the theology. I would be careful about questioning anothers salvation.

I miss this guy. Good guy and smart!:thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

I think most scholarly Calvinists would disagree with Nicholas' assessment. Luke, like it or not, you hold to a harder deterministic view of Calvinism than most prominent mainstream Calvinistic scholars. You certainly "out-Calvin," John Calvin.

 

[menageriekeeper]

My teacher Luke has taught me that God is the one that caused Satan to rebel in the first place. God knew that He needed an enemy, so He made Satan rebel so that He would have that enemy. It's all for God's Glory, because by seeing how evil Satan is, we can see how much better God is! Thank God that He made the Devil!

While I realize Matt was being sarcastic, Luke has not denied (that I found) that he believes this, so I have a question:

Do you really believe that God needed to make creation look bad so He could make Himself look good???

 

[Skandelon]

Evil didn't create itself. Lucifer nor Adam had the power to create anything ex nihilo. God ultimately "caused" it by withdrawing his goodness.
Just as light "causes" darkness by withdrawing itself from a room, so God "caused" evil to exist by withdrawing his goodness from Lucifer, Adam, etc...

The problem with this explanation is that it doesn't tell us the origin of the evil intent. Darkness is merely the absence of something, but an intent to "become God" is existent. It not just the absence of something else. This intent may come to exist in God's absence, but that still doesn't explain it's origin. It only explains the environment in which that intent came to be.

You still have either God or the creature originating the intent to do evil.

 

[DHK]

The problem with this explanation is that it doesn't tell us the origin of the evil intent. Darkness is merely the absence of something, but an intent to "become God" is existent. It not just the absence of something else. This intent may come to exist in God's absence, but that still doesn't explain it's origin. It only explains the environment in which that intent came to be.

You still have either God or the creature originating the intent to do evil.

We also have Paul's statement in Acts 17 "as though God needed anything."
In other words, God has need of nothing. He did not need Satan or darkness to shine forth his glory. He did not need man to glorify himself. He is all-sufficient. He is glorious in and of Himself. Whether there be darkness or no darkness God is, and God is glorious far beyond our human comprehension. How can a finite mind understand an infinite God!

 

[Luke2427]

I think most scholarly Calvinists would disagree with Nicholas' assessment. Luke, like it or not, you hold to a harder deterministic view of Calvinism than most prominent mainstream Calvinistic scholars. You certainly "out-Calvin," John Calvin.

No way. Prove it.

 

[Winman]

Man IS able to create evil.

Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him: and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

We have our own thoughts and our own ways, they originate from within us. This ability is God-given.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

God made man upright, but men have created or invented their own evil.

Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou was created, till iniquity was found in thee.

God did not make Satan sin, Satan's sin originated within himself. It was his own invention or creation.

 

[Luke2427]

The problem with this explanation is that it doesn't tell us the origin of the evil intent. Darkness is merely the absence of something, but an intent to "become God" is existent. It not just the absence of something else. This intent may come to exist in God's absence, but that still doesn't explain it's origin. It only explains the environment in which that intent came to be.

You still have either God or the creature originating the intent to do evil.

No you don't. It is a mystery how it works. but what we KNOW for sure, even if NONE of us can explain it is

Romans 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, [are] all things: to whom [be] glory for ever. Amen.

and...

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

and...

Eccl 7:13-14 Consider the work of God: who can make straight what He has made crooked? In the day of prosperity be joyful, and in the day of adversity consider: God has made the one as well as the other, so that man may not find out anything that will be after him.

and...

Lam 3:37-38 Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?

and...

Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.


We don't have to understand how it all works together. I don't. You don't.

We may never. But we DO have to believe that God "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will"

 

[Skandelon]

No way. Prove it.

Prove that you go beyond where Calvin went on several issues? Is that what you are asking?

You can start with the quote I provided in the other thread in which Calvin does interprets John 3:16 to mean that God loves all mankind and desires all to be saved.

 

[Luke2427]

Prove that you go beyond where Calvin went on several issues? Is that what you are asking?

You can start with the quote I provided in the other thread in which Calvin does interprets John 3:16 to mean that God loves all mankind and desires all to be saved.

Prove it I said. You have yet to even begin to do that.

Let me tell you why you THINK this.

You are used to debating Calvinists who utilize a strategy of debate that I do not utilize.

They try to make Calvinism more acceptable and palatable to people.

So you automatically think that what they are saying in veiled, sugar coated language is what they believe and even what Calvin believed.

It is most certainly not what Calvin believed as I am certain this exchange between us on this subject will reveal as it progresses.

It is not what the Westminster Confession professes.

It is simply not what Calvinism has historically believed.

Like it or not, I represent theologically- historic Calvinism.

Any one who tries to soften these matters does NOT represent historic Calvinism.

 

[Skandelon]

No you don't. It is a mystery how it works. but what we KNOW for sure, even if NONE of us can explain it is

If we can't explain it then how can you be so sure men can't originate evil as James explains when he writes: "When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed."

On the one hand, you argue that it's a mystery and on the other you emphatically deny the possibility of a creature originating anything. How is that?

 

[Skandelon]

Prove it I said. You have yet to even begin to do that.

I just quoted Calvin saying something you disagreed with earlier. That is proof enough to show that you take some issues further than he did. I could show you many more but I think that will suffice until you answer it.

You are used to debating Calvinists who utilize a strategy of debate that I do not utilize.

They try to make Calvinism more acceptable and palatable to people.

Or more biblically accurate, but whatever, don't let that get in the way.

So you automatically think that what they are saying in veiled, sugar coated language is what they believe and even what Calvin believed.

It is most certainly not what Calvin believed as I am certain this exchange between us on this subject will reveal as it progresses.

I can already anticipate where this is going because we've already been down this road. Remember when you butchered Edwards view of the origin of Evil, which was consistent with the "Arminian Divines" to make it fit your hard deterministic views, which are not consistent with the "Arminian Divines?" You have a nak for interpreting things how you want to see them, so I have little doubt Calvin will support your view every step of the way in your own mind.

Like it or not, I represent theologically- historic Calvinism.

No, you don't. You only think you do. Now, don't miss quote me, you get some things right, but as ArchAngel, JesusFan and JHB and many other Calvinists here have noted along way, you take some issues too far to be in the "mainline Calvinistic camp."

Any one who tries to soften these matters does NOT represent historic Calvinism.

Do you mean like by not burning those who disagree at the stake, or just theologically?

 

[Luke2427]

I just quoted Calvin saying something you disagreed with earlier. That is proof enough to show that you take some issues further than he did. I could show you many more but I think that will suffice until you answer it.

It has nothing to do with "further". Many Calvinists interpret John 3:16 to be a general love for all of mankind. Many others see it the way I see it.

"further" has nothing to do with it.

So you'll have to come up with better examples than that, Skan.

Or more biblically accurate, but whatever, don't let that get in the way.

Not according to you. You may attempt to court Calvinists to try to use them in a debate against me, but thinking Calvinists know you undermine everything they believe.

I can already anticipate where this is going because we've already been down this road. Remember when you butchered Edwards view of the origin of Evil, which was consistent with the "Arminian Divines" to make it fit your hard deterministic views, which are not consistent with the "Arminian Divines?" You have a nak for interpreting things how you want to see them, so I have little doubt Calvin will support your view every step of the way in your own mind.

We need to dig that up because you retreated int aht conversation after I'd unequivocally proved that Edwards did not believe what you were trying to make it sound like he believed.

I agree with Arminian divines on MANY things. That has nothing to do with where I stand as a historic Calvinist.

No, you don't. You only think you do. Now, don't miss quote me, you get some things right, but as ArchAngel, JesusFan and JHB and many other Calvinists here have noted along way, you take some issues too far to be in the "mainline Calvinistic camp."

I am not running for office. Are you?

 

[Skandelon]

It has nothing to do with "further". Many Calvinists interpret John 3:16 to be a general love for all of mankind. Many others see it the way I see it.

"further" has nothing to do with it.

So you'll have to come up with better examples than that, Skan.

I was only asked to prove that you "out-Calvin, John Calvin," and I have by showing how you take some things "further" (more deterministically) than did John Calvin.

Not according to you.

I meant they are more biblically accurate than you, not me. :tongue3:

We need to dig that up because you retreated int aht conversation after I'd unequivocally proved that Edwards did not believe what you were trying to make it sound like he believed.

:laugh: If you mean by "retreated," that I continually pursued you requesting that you finally provide a definition of terms and when you did finally admitted that you believe in a "permissive decree" you refused to give any examples of what God permissively decrees, then I guess so.

Dig it up, I dare you. :tongue3:

I agree with Arminian divines on MANY things. That has nothing to do with where I stand as a historic Calvinist.

That's beside the point. You don't agree with them in regard to your views on the origin of Evil, but Edwards did.

Tell me, what has God permissively decreed, Luke? Just give me one example. Just one...

Waiting....

Crickets....

Hmmmm....

 

[Luke2427]

I was only asked to prove that you "out-Calvin, John Calvin," and I have by showing how you take some things "further" (more deterministically) than did John Calvin.

Nope. You've done no such thing. You have only shown that Callvin interpreted John 3:16 diffeently.

That proves nothing at all. It is worthless waste of time to even point out such a thing. WHO DOESN'T disagree with ANYONE ELSE on the PLANET about SOME things- even those who we are MOST like in this WORLD.

What a worthless waste of an argument.

"You don't agree with Calvin on John 3:16- HA!!!! SEE!!!! You're hypercalvinist!"

How silly.

:laugh: If you mean by "retreated," that I continually pursued you requesting that you finally provide a definition of terms and when you did finally admitted that you believe in a "permissive decree" you refused to give any examples of what God permissively decrees, then I guess so.

You have Alzheimer's Skandelon. Or you're dishonest.

I did not define those terms for you for some time because only a moron sits around and answers questions on an opponent in a debate when his opponent will not answer any himself.

Listen. There is no intelligent person on earth with ANY church history training who thinks that Jonathan Edwards agrees with Arminians on the origin of evil.

I have proven this to you before.

Dig it up, I dare you. :tongue3:

You brought it up. You dig it up. I would be thrilled for you to do so. but dig up the whole thing. It spanned several threads.

That's beside the point. You don't agree with them in regard to your views on the origin of Evil, but Edwards did.

Nope. You are still wrong about this. And I believe you finally admitted it. If I recall you admitted that Edwards may indeed have believed differently than the AD's on this issue but his remark made it sound to you like he agreed.

Tell me, what has God permissively decreed, Luke? Just give me one example. Just one...

I have done this before.

BILLIONS of things. LIKE posting this post, for example.

NOTHING can happen unless God empowers it to happen.

Gravity is God's gravity.

Wind is God's wind.

The sun is God's sun.

There is no energy in the universe that is not God's.

In order for ANYTHING to EVER happen God has to bring it to pass.

BUT ALSO- in order for anything God brings to pass to come to pass he must PERMIT it- in other words he must not HINDER.

I type these words. I empower my fingers to type them. I also PERMIT my fingers to type them. I could stop what I empower. But if I am going to bring something to pass I must empower it and not prevent it. In other words I must permit it also.

 

[Skandelon]

Nope. You've done no such thing. You have only shown that Callvin interpreted John 3:16 diffeently.
How silly.

*sigh*

Luke, I told you there were other ways you "out-Calvin John Calvin," but there is no need to list them because this one proves my point. And its not just about one verse. It's the basic principle regarding the use of the word "world" and in general the understanding that God does desire for all mankind to be saved.

It is like the article you linked which speaks about the need to be careful with terms, something you really need to take to heart

You have Alzheimer's Skandelon. Or you're dishonest.

This is a personal attack, just in case you didn't know. Stop resorting to such immature tactics please.

I did not define those terms for you for some time because only a moron sits around and answers questions on an opponent in a debate when his opponent will not answer any himself

I answered all of your questions to the best of my ability and you know it. I rarely, if ever, avoid answering someone's question, especially if it is being asked in a kind and respectful manner. You will need to produce proof of my avoidance to answer your questions. Good luck on that.

Listen. There is no intelligent person on earth with ANY church history training who thinks that Jonathan Edwards agrees with Arminians on the origin of evil.

Except maybe Edwards himself who said that his expressed view was "consistent with the Arminian Divines." Remember?

Nope. You are still wrong about this. And I believe you finally admitted it. If I recall you admitted that Edwards may indeed have believed differently than the AD's on this issue but his remark made it sound to you like he agreed.

Find the quote, because I never said that. I said that Edwards disagreed on many other points of contention, after all he was Calvinistic, but on this particular explanation he was consistent with the Arminian Divines. That is not my opinion, that was HIS OPINION. So, either Edwards was incorrect in his explanation of the origin of Evil or he was incorrect about calling his view consistent with the Arminians, which is it Luke? How was Edwards wrong?

BILLIONS of things. LIKE posting this post, for example.

So, are you saying God permissively decreed posting this post? How does that differ from God's active decree, as distinguished by Edwards and the Arminian Divines?

In other words, explain the difference in God's decree for Dahmer to torture and murder children and God's decree to send Jesus to the earth. I'll even go first:

God's Permissive Decree
I would say God permitted, in that that he did not hinder, Dahmer's crime, but that He took no active role. He didn't come up with the idea, or give the intent to Dahmer. He foreknew it would occur and didn't stop it. It didn't please Him. In fact it upset Him. It didn't surprise Him, it just angered him.

God's Active Decree
On the other hand, God actively participated in sending Christ to earth. It was his idea and His intent. He directly caused what needed to happen and sovereignly willed it to occur.

See the difference? I've yet to see you draw the distinction in these two types of decrees. Can you do that? Do you agree with my assessment or not?

 

[Luke2427]

*sigh*

Luke, I told you there were other ways you "out-Calvin John Calvin," but there is no need to list them because this one proves my point. And its not just about one verse. It's the basic principle regarding the use of the word "world" and in general the understanding that God does desire for all mankind to be saved.

I have NEVER said that God does not have a desire for all men to be saved.

You debate against so many Calvinists I suppose that you get your wires crossed.

Where have I said such a thing?

And ALL YOU POINT out is that I disagree with Calvin about John 3:16.

It is an absolutely WORTHLESS point you make here.

NOBODY agrees with ANYBODY about EVERYTHING.

So what?

I answered all of your questions to the best of my ability and you know it. I rarely, if ever, avoid answering someone's question, especially if it is being asked in a kind and respectful manner. You will need to produce proof of my avoidance to answer your questions. Good luck on that.

If I take the time to dredge up those posts where I said repeatedly that I will not answer any more questions until you you respond to a particular point- if I do that you must start a post entitled "I was wrong and I am sorry" in the general baptist section. In that post you must apologize to me.

Deal?

Except maybe Edwards himself who said that his expressed view was "consistent with the Arminian Divines." Remember?

So does every Christian on planet earth about SOME THINGS.

As a matter of fact I do not suppose there is a human who draws breath and has clarity of thought who does not agree with the Arminian divines about SOMETHING.

Saying that Edwards agrees with the Arminian divines on something is a meaningless argument.

What Edwards DOES believe is that God willed that evil be and brought it to pass by his own divine decree. I pointed out to you with this quote and OTHER quotes the last time we discussed this that this is what Edwards believed. You must have forgotten this which is why I questioned if you had Alzheimer's.

If the Arminian divines agree with that and so do you, please stop wasting my time.

Find the quote, because I never said that. I said that Edwards disagreed on many other points of contention, after all he was Calvinistic, but on this particular explanation he was consistent with the Arminian Divines. That is not my opinion, that was HIS OPINION. So, either Edwards was incorrect in his explanation of the origin of Evil or he was incorrect about calling his view consistent with the Arminians, which is it Luke? How was Edwards wrong?

You are wrong in your representation of what Edwards believed.

I pointed this out to you last time very clearly.

You apparently have forgotten.

So, are you saying God permissively decreed posting this post? How does that differ from God's active decree, as distinguished by Edwards and the Arminian Divines?

Yes what God brings to pass he permits.

God says (not literally of course) "Luke is going to type this post. I am going to empower him to do so. I am going to order the universe so that it will infallibly come to pass. And when the time comes, I could prevent it, if I so chose (I do prevent things all the time) but I am NOT going to prevent it because it is my will that I am bringing to pass. Instead I will permit it."

In other words, explain the difference in God's decree for Dahmer to torture and murder children and God's decree to send Jesus to the earth. I'll even go first:

God's Permissive Decree
I would say God permitted, in that that he did not hinder, Dahmer's crime, but that He took no active role. He didn't come up with the idea, or give the intent to Dahmer. He foreknew it would occur and didn't stop it. It didn't please Him. In fact it upset Him. It didn't surprise Him, it just angered him.

I'm not doing the Dahmer thing. If your memory works at all you will recall that I explained why I think this is inappropriate the LAST time we had this very conversation.

You cannot discuss this matter without details. Dahmer's crimes do not allow us to discuss details.

I'll use the crucifixion of Christ since that is in the Bible.

Acts 4: 27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

They did what God's hand and God's counsel determined before to be done.

This is what you miss about Edwards. God absolutely PERMITTED Pilate and Herod and the Jews and the Romans to crucify Jesus. Absolutely permitted them to do it.

They had real wills and they made real choices.

BUT God also applied his hand and counsel to the matter. God himself brought it to pass WHILE PERMITTING IT.

He did this by ordering the events of the universe to lead to this act.

He also did this by removing his goodness from the situation because where God's goodness is absent all that is left is evil. In order for evil to exist all God must do is withdraw from the sinner. Sin will infallibly result. Evil is naught but the absence of good just as darkness is naught but the absence of light. God can bring something to pass MORALLY by simply removing his moral goodness which restrains the sinner from the sin.

God did this and disposed of the state of events so that it would INFALLIBLY come to pass and physically empowered the act of crucifying Jesus since nothing can move unless God moves it.

God had a hand in it.

Let me say it again- God had a hand in it.

His hand was- that he ordered the universe so that one event would lead to another (each event taking place by his own power- nothing can move unless God moves it- he is omnipotent- ALL power that is, is His) and event leading to event, generation after generation, led to this event.

God brought it to pass. He also permitted it.

Edwards says, "the permitter . . . of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted . . . will most certainly and infallibly follow."

God's Active Decree
On the other hand, God actively participated in sending Christ to earth. It was his idea and His intent. He directly caused what needed to happen and sovereignly willed it to occur.

So then the intent to murder Christ- that evil that was in the heart of Herod and Pilate- that originated with God??